HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 03/26/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda 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.
ADJOURNED MEETING
March 26, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the
Consent Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 7)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 13)
March 26, 2013
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 4 through 5. This Calendar is intended to allow the City
Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinances on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water
Supply Shortage Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and
Amending the Plan.
Based on the uncertainty of how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of
supply, the Poudre River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), which was presented to City
Council as a staff report on February 5, the City Manager will declare Response Level 1 water
restrictions for the City of Fort Collins on March 6 for the water restrictions to be effective on April
1, 2013.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, recommends water rate
adjustments for Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. In preparing for the potential of moving to Response
Level 2 or higher, Fort Collins Utilities staff has determined the amount that water rates need to be
increased for each Response Level. Revising rates to be revenue neutral is consistent with the
intent of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how the rates were developed in 2003.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2013, attempts to maintain
revenues at the 2013 budgeted level for each possible Response Level. The Ordinance also
increases the Excess Water Use Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with Response
Level 1.
At the time the City Council declares that municipal water supply conditions are such that water
restrictions are no longer needed, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the
City Code.
In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming
months, the City Manager has recommended two amendments be made to Ordinance No. 048,
2003. One involves changes to the definition and use of “water fountains” (changed to “water
features”) and the other involves changes to the terms of permits for large acreage and parks and
athletic/playing fields.
5. Resolution 2013-027 Making an Appointment to the Senior Advisory Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Senior Advisory Board due to the resignation of Rebecca
Lindsey. Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Gerry Horak opted to readvertise and
interview new applicants for the vacancy. The interview team is recommending Joann Thomas to
fill the vacancy, with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014.
END CONSENT
-2-
March 26, 2013
6. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the
Consent Calendar.
7. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the
room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will
buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time.
8. Items Relating to an Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins Downtown
Development Authority, and Woodward, Inc. to Provide Business Investment Assistance for the
Relocation and Construction of the Company’s Headquarters and Expanding its Manufacturing
and Office Facilities. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Mike Beckstead; 20
minute staff presentation; 90 minute discussion)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 2013, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and
Delivery by the City of an Agreement with Woodward, Inc. and Related Documents,
Including the Authorization of a Borrowing, in Connection with an Economic Development
Project Relating to Woodward, Inc., and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No 56, 2013, Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Fund
Capital Public Improvements in Connection with a Community Development Business
Assistance Agreement Between the City, Downtown Development Authority, and
Woodward, Inc. Regarding the Link-n-Greens Development.
City Council will consider two items related to providing business investment assistance to
Woodward, Inc. to encourage the relocation and construction of the company’s headquarters and
expanding its manufacturing facilities in Fort Collins. The project will retain or create between
1,400 and 1,700 primary jobs in the community, provide 29 acres of improved open space along
the river (including habitat restoration), and anchor the southeastern edge of the River District with
a major employer. The two items include:
-3-
March 26, 2013
A. An Agreement between the City, Downtown Development Authority, and Woodward, Inc.;
and
B. An appropriation of $2.27 million in General Fund Reserves in connection with the
Agreement with Woodward, Inc.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of Two
Non-Exclusive Permanent Drainage Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement on City-
Owned Property. (staff: Jon Haukaas, Daylan Figgs, Helen Matson; 5 minute staff presentation;
10 minute discussion)
The proposed Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus (“Woodward”) will be a master-planned campus
providing the ability to retain and grow primary jobs for the community. The campus will
accommodate Woodward’s continued growth of its current operations in Fort Collins. It also
includes adjacent commercial services that can be used by Woodward employees and the public
with close access to downtown and the Mulberry corridor. The planned campus will help to
improve the river corridor through the site including restoration of the natural river corridor
landscape, habitat, and appropriate recreation opportunities.
The proposed use is compatible with existing and anticipated development, and supports the
City’s vision for this area. Fort Collins’ City Plan (Plan Fort Collins) identifies this site in its
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map and denotes the Lincoln Avenue Area as one of its
“Catalyst Project Areas”. These Areas are identified as locations in the city having potential to
showcase opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain, and
Connect. They are viewed as potential places for public/private initiatives using a triple bottom
line approach addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced manner.
For this development, Woodward has requested that the City grant Woodward two permanent
drainage easements for stormwater flows, one which would include construction of a buried
drainage pipe and the other for a graded swale. In addition, a temporary construction easement is
needed for grading, landscaping, and associated restoration work on City-owned property
adjacent to the Poudre River.
10. Hearing and Resolution 2013-027 Adopting the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategy, a Strategic Plan for Preserving Affordable Housing, including Mobile Home
Parks and Other Types of Affordable Housing. (staff: Ken Waido; 10 minute staff presentation;
1 hour discussion)
The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on
its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the Strategic Plan was to develop City policies and
requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities,
obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-
income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are
located inside the city limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the
restrictions of the City Charter.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy identifies strategies to
preserve existing affordable housing units. It also clarifies City and property-owner/redeveloper
responsibilities and obligations to residents when redevelopment projects cause the displacement
of low-income people from their homes.
-4-
March 26, 2013
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating to
Development in the Poudre River Floodplain. (staff: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley, Marsha Hilmes-
Robinson, Brian Varrella; 5 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion)
The final component of the Stormwater Repurposing program is to review the level of regulation
protecting life and property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. This Ordinance, adopted
on First Reading on March 18, 2013 by a vote of 5-1 (Nays: Ohlson), revises City Code to
establish a “performance-based” criteria and regulation that places more emphasis on life safety
through advance warning and evacuation. An effective date of July 1, 2013 has been established
so that advance notice can be provided to property owners and applicants for development
submittals.
The Ordinance contains revised Code language to include an additional provision described in the
staff presentation on First Reading at the March 18, 2013 Council meeting. The provision states
that an Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP) will not be required in situations
where structures or portions of structures will be removed from the 100-year floodplain and
dryland access will be provided through the construction of new improvements associated with a
FEMA-approved Conditional Letter of Map Revision in advance of a Letter of Map Revision or
Physical Map Revision pursuant to §10-80(a)(1).
12. Resolution 2013-026 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusion Regarding the Appeal of the
February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve Sign Modifications for the
Foothills Mall Redevelopment Plan. (staff: Peter Barnes, Courtney Levingston; no staff
presentation; 5 minute discussion)
On February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board approved three modification of standards
requests pertaining to two electronic message center ground signs proposed to be located along
the South College Avenue frontage of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment project. On February 21,
2013, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk, appealing the
Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the three modifications.
On March 19, 2013, City Council took the following actions:
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, the Appellant, withdrew his appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Board’s decision to grant a modification to allow two electronic message center signs to
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the sign face (Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(d) of the
Land Use Code).
2. By a vote of 5 - 0, the City Council upheld the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to
grant a modification to allow two electronic message center signs along the South
College Avenue frontage of the development (Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(h) of the Land Use
Code).
3. With regard to the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to grant a modification to allow
two electronic message center signs to display messages in full color, the City Council, by
a vote of 3 – 2 (Nays: Troxell, Kottwitz), determined that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, the
unique hardship standard in particular, and that the Board erred in its determination that
the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. This vote
resulted in the City Council overturning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to
allow full color message displays.
-5-
March 26, 2013
4. The City Council modified the approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of the Foothills
Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan by adding a new condition to that
approval which requires that electronic message center signs must comply with the
manner of display required by Section 3.8.7(M)4)(c).
In order to finalize this appeal process, Council is required to adopt a Resolution making findings
of fact and finalizing its decision on the Appeal.
13. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
14. Other Business.
15. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business
commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City
Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending
at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting
which have not yet been considered by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting
and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting.
-6-
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Donnie Dustin, Lance Smith
Lisa Rostinoski
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water Supply Shortage
Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and Amending the Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the uncertainty of how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of supply, the Poudre
River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), which was presented to City Council as a staff report on February
5, the City Manager will declare Response Level 1 water restrictions for the City of Fort Collins on March 6 for the
water restrictions to be effective on April 1, 2013.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, recommends water rate adjustments for
Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. In preparing for the potential of moving to Response Level 2 or higher, Fort Collins
Utilities staff has determined the amount that water rates need to be increased for each Response Level. Revising
rates to be revenue neutral is consistent with the intent of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how the
rates were developed in 2003. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2013, attempts
to maintain revenues at the 2013 budgeted level for each possible Response Level. The Ordinance also increases
the Excess Water Use Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with Response Level 1.
At the time the City Council declares that municipal water supply conditions are such that water restrictions are no
longer needed, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the City Code.
In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming months, the City
Manager has recommended two amendments be made to Ordinance No. 048, 2003. One involves changes to the
definition and use of “water fountains” (changed to “water features”) and the other involves changes to the terms of
permits for large acreage and parks and athletic/playing fields.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 18, 2013
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Donnie Dustin, Lance Smith
Lisa Rosintoski
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 5
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water Supply Shortage
Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and Amending the Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the uncertainty of how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of supply, the Poudre
River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), which was presented to City Council as a staff report on February
5, the City Manager will declare Response Level 1 water restrictions for the City of Fort Collins on March 6 for the
water restrictions to be effective on April 1, 2013.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, recommends water rate adjustments for
Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. In preparing for the potential of moving to Response Level 2 or higher, Fort Collins
Utilities staff has determined the amount that water rates need to be increased for each Response Level. Revising
rates to be revenue neutral is consistent with the intent of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how the
rates were developed in 2003. The rates being proposed in this Ordinance attempt to maintain revenues at the 2013
budgeted level for each possible Response Level. The Ordinance also increases the Excess Water Use Surcharge
for each Response Level beginning with Response Level 1.
At the time the City Council declares that municipal water supply conditions are such that water restrictions are no
longer needed, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the City Code.
In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming months, the City
Manager has recommended two amendments be made to Ordinance No. 048, 2003. One involves changes to the
definition and use of “water fountains” (changed to “water features”) and the other involves changes to the terms of
permits for large acreage and parks and athletic/playing fields.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Going into 2013, staff is uncertain how much water supply will be available from the two main sources of supply, the
Poudre River and Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT). The 2012 fires in the Poudre Canyon limited the amount
of Poudre River water that was able to be treated for drinking water last year, due to poor water quality as a result of
rain events over the burn area and fluctuations in the River’s flow. In addition, persistent drought conditions continue
that impact the amount of water supply available.
For 2013, it is unknown how much be able to be drawn from the Poudre River because of the fire-related water quality
degradation. Thus, there may be the need to rely heavily on our CBT supplies from Horsetooth Reservoir. However,
the amount of CBT water that will be available will not be clear until Northern Water declares the allocation available
(or quota) to all unit owners in that project on April 12. It is anticipated that the quota may be low due to poor
snowpack conditions. As such, not knowing how much water will be available staff believes it is in the best interest
of the community’s water supply resources to implement Response Level 1 water restrictions, effective April 1, 2013.
On March 6, City Manager Darin Atteberry will declare the restrictions.
In April 2003, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 048, 2003, a Water Supply Shortage Response Plan. The Plan
is a comprehensive document that outlines a series of measures to be enacted, including four water shortage
response level water restrictions. This Plan was effective in responding to the 2003 drought efforts; therefore staff
believes the Plan supports responding to the 2013 water supply conditions. Among other measures, Response Level
1 limits lawn watering to two days per week. Response Level 2 limits watering to one day per week and the adjustment
to rates reflects a 15 percent reduction in water demand. Response Level 3 limits watering to one day per week for
2 hours that day and a 25 percent rate adjustment. No lawn watering is allowed between June 1 and August 31 for
Response Level 4 and a 35 percent rate adjustment.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 5
In case it is necessary to immediately move to a higher Response Level, the Rate Ordinance increases the quantity
rate charges for Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. It also includes an increase to the Excess Water Use Surcharge,
beginning with Response Level 1. The reason this surcharge is increased at Response Level 1 when the quantity
charges are not increased is because this surcharge reflects the use by a customer in excess of the amount of water
the City would expect to be available in a normal year from the water rights, City certificates and cash in-lieu of water
rights assigned to the customer premise.
Water Rate Changes for Water Restrictions
The following water rate increases comply with the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003.
Proposed Water Rates
Monthly water rates will not change for Response Level 1. A fourth tier has been added for single family and duplex
customers. The quantity charges will change, but not the base charges. All charges are for 1,000 gallons of water use.
Single Family
Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1 0-7,000 $2.189 $2.625 $3.074 $3.633
2 7,001-13,000 $2.516 $3.150 $3.689 $4.360
3 13,001-20,000 $2.894 $3.780 $4.427 $5.232
4 >20,000 $2.894 $4.536 $5.312 $6.278
Duplex
Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1 0-9,000 $2.109 $2.549 $2.991 $3.509
2 9,001-13,000 $2.424 $3.059 $3.589 $4.210
3 13,001-20,000 $2.789 $3.670 $4.307 $5.052
4 >20,000 $2.789 $4.404 $5.168 $6.063
Multi-Family – Summer Rate
2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
$2.547 $3.395 $4.212 $5.173
Commercial – Summer Rate
2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
1st Step $2.201 $2.903 $3.599 $4.610
Conservation Step $3.164 $4.173 $5.174 $6.627
Proposed Excess Water Use Surcharge
The Ordinance also increases the Excess Water Use Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with Response
Level 1. An annual water allotment is set based on the amount of raw water rights supplied for the account and is
assessed for any use that exceeds it. The surcharges are per 1,000 gallons, in addition to the base and quantity
charges. Any revenue from this surcharge is assigned to the Water Rights Reserve and not used for operational
expenses.
Below is a table of the proposed increases for this surcharge:
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -3- ITEM 5
Excess Water Use Surcharge
2013 Rate Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
$3.060 $3.366 $4.440 $5.504 $7.050
At the time the City Council declares that municipal water supply conditions are such that water restrictions are no
longer needed, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the City Code.
Proposed Changes to Ordinance No. 048, 2003
In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming months, the City
Manager has recommended two amendments be made to the ordinance. One refers to “water fountains” and the other
to the terms of two permits.
Redefining Water Fountains
Ordinance 048, 2003 does not allow the use of water fountains for public display for any of the Response Levels. The
ordinance defines “water fountain” as follows:
“
“Water fountain shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air, or is
a waterfall or fountain for public display. The term water fountain shall not mean a water feature of
a pond or basin that performs a function essential to the support of fish life in that pond or basin.”
This Ordinance changes the definition of “Water fountain” to a definition of “Water feature,” which is a more
comprehensive term. The definition has been modified to apply to both public and private water features and to
exclude water features that are part of a swimming pool. The proposed restrictions allow the use of both public and
private water features at Level 1 and 2 and prohibit them for Level 3 and 4. With this change, distinguishing between
public and private water features is no longer needed. The exclusion of water features in swimming pools is requested
because the water from these features simply lands back in the pool and very little additional water is used. If we are
under Level 3 or 4 restrictions, pools will be very popular as a refuge from hot, dry weather.
This Ordinance amends the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan to revise the definition of “water fountain” to read
as follows:
“Water feature” shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air, or is
a waterfall or fountain. The term water feature shall not mean a water feature of a pond or basin that
performs a function essential to the support of fish life in that pond or basin, or a water feature in a
swimming pool.
Revising Terms of Two Permits
The Water Shortage Response Plan makes available permits to allow for exceptions to assigned watering days.
Applications must be submitted and approved by Fort Collins Utilities. Adoption of this Ordinance will remove the
current restriction on irrigating parks and public athletic/playing fields Tuesday through Thursday for Level 2 and 3,
and removes the same restriction on irrigating private property of 4 acres or more for Level 2.
Irrigating is still prohibited on Monday and between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The maximum amount of water that can be
applied per week remains unchanged. This modification is needed because of the amount of time it takes to irrigate
these larger properties. In addition, parks and athletic/playing fields are in use well before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. and
they can’t be watered while they are being used. Additionally, tents, displays and infrastructure for park events often
stay up overnight on weekends.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -4- ITEM 5
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rate increases are designed to generate the same revenue for the Water Fund as the original 2013 rate structure.
The financial impact of implementing higher water rates through the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan is
anticipated to be minimal to most residential and commercial customers who respond to the plan by using less water
for irrigation. Those customers that do not reduce their water demand as expected for a given Response Level
because of business processes or other reasons, will see an increase in the water charges on their utility bill.
The increase of the Raw Water Surcharge will also impact those customers who use more water than their annual
allotment. Fort Collins Utilities is reaching out to customers who exceeded their annual allotment in 2012 through a
letter explaining the water shortage situation and encouraging those customers to use less water and/or provide
additional water rights, City certificates or cash in-lieu of water rights to avoid this surcharge in 2013.
Implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan may have a financial impact on the Water Fund.
Attachment 1 shows the estimated revenue loss for each Response Level. The Plan calls for no rate adjustment at
Response Level 1. It is estimated that remaining at Response Level 1 throughout the summer (May through October)
will result in the loss of $850,000 in operating revenue to the Water Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Response Level water rate adjustments promote conservation to sustain the needed water supplies to support
indoor and health and safety uses. The water restrictions target lawn watering as grass is less vulnerable to limited
watering. Depending on the level of restriction, lawns may go dormant and brown lawns will be visible throughout the
community. However, landscape watering for trees, shrubs and vegetable gardens is not limited, but must use a hose
with a shut-off nozzle or low-volume, efficient irrigation. These landscape features are vulnerable to a lack of water
and expensive to replace. Trees are often watered when lawns are watered. During the 2002-2003 restrictions, many
trees were adversely affected. The City will offer landscape survival care information to citizens during the water
restrictions, with a strong emphasis on caring for trees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to support Ordinance No. 047, 2013.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has begun the following public outreach:
• Communicated in the 2012 Year-End Letter to our Customers
• Contact with agricultural CBT renters, no water available for rent
• Numerous media interviews
• Contact with Northern Water staff
A Water Supply Management Action Plan will detail key activities to provide awareness and education to the
community on the water restrictions. Activities include:
• Bill inserts and City News articles, starting in March to customers
• Dedicated restrictions website
• An icon to graphically keep public aware of water supply monitoring
• Articles in City and local newsletters, newspapers and other outlets
• Newspaper and magazine advertising
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -5- ITEM 5
• Outdoor advertising on bus benches and bus shelters
• Displays at events and public locations, such as City buildings, libraries and other venues
• Speakers Bureau that will give presentations to targeted customers, and to other interested organizations
• Coordinate meetings for targeted customers, such as homeowner associations, industry groups, key utility
customer accounts, landscape contractors, restaurants and other
• Participate at events, such as Biz Ed, Residential Environmental Program, Earth Day, Chamber Green in
Action, Water Works open house, ClimateWise events and others
• Offer watershed tours for key accounts, City employees and the general public
• Continue outreach for water rebates, sprinkler system audit program and other help for saving water
Outreach key messages and information about the water restrictions, as well as enforcement procedures, will prepare
the Fort Collins community for the April 1 effective date.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, states, “Upon such determination and
declaration, the City Manager shall cause to be published in the local newspaper of record a notice of the restrictions
and requirements corresponding to the Water Supply Shortage Response Level, as set forth herein, and the effective
date of said restrictions and requirements…” The Public Notice is scheduled to be published in the Coloradoan on
March 17 and March 24, and on the Fort Collins Utilities website.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Estimated Revenue Impacts chart
2. Water Board minutes, February 21, 2013
3. Powerpoint presentation
1
ORDINANCE NO. 047, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ENACTING WATER RATES ADJUSTMENTS
FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE RESPONSE LEVELS
ESTABLISHED IN THE WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN
AND AMENDING THE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as
will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility,
as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, requires that the City
Manager analyze the operating and financial records of the water utility during each calendar year
and recommend to the City Council the user rate fees to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance
No. 113, 2012, which amended Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to establish water
rates for the City water utility for 2013, as provided in Section 26-118; and
WHEREAS, since the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, City staff has
determined, based on conditions in the Poudre watershed and in the City’s water supply generally,
that a water shortage condition is likely to be present in 2013; and
WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 048, 2003, establishing a
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan that designate water supply shortage response levels and
corresponding water restrictions and conservation measures to be implemented administratively
based on a projected water supply shortage; and
WHEREAS, by its terms, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, has remained in effect because there has
been no determination or declaration by the City Council that municipal water supply conditions no
longer justify the continued implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 048 directs the City Manager to present to the Council for
consideration a revised water rate structure to reflect revised consumption and revenue projections
as soon as reasonably practicable after a change in the Water Supply Shortage Response Level; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of the potential for possibly severe water supply shortages during
2013, and in order to establish the water rate structure associated with each corresponding Water
Supply Shortage Response Level, staff has prepared a series of rate structures, as described herein,
to be applied to City water service commensurate with the Water Supply Shortage Response Level
as provided herein; and
2
WHEREAS, in addition, because excess water use surcharges arise when a customer uses
water beyond the applicable annual allotment for the customer, this Ordinance contains an increase
to the excess water use surcharge for each Water Supply Shortage Response Level, including Level
1, to encourage customers to reduce their consumption or provide additional raw water to the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the water rates structures proposed to correspond to
levels of shortage outlined in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan at its February 21, 2013,
meeting and recommended approval of the proposed water rates structures by an unanimous vote;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following
water rates be established, to be implemented as set forth herein to accompany the corresponding
Water Supply Shortage Response Level as set forth Ordinance No. 048, 2003, as amended by this
Ordinance, and as the same may be amended or replaced by further action of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan in the coming months, the City Manager has recommended that the water restrictions be revised
to modify the restriction on use of water fountains so as to allow certain activities in less severe
water shortage conditions, and exempt water features in outdoor swimming pools from the
restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has further recommended that the City Council revise the
restrictions on permits for watering of large turf areas, City parks and public playing/athletic fields
to prohibit watering at Response Levels 2 and 3 only on Monday, rather than Monday through
Thursday, so as to allow more flexibility in managing watering schedules on these properties given
that the limit on total amount of water to be applied will remain applicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
1, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
apply, except that the surcharge for water used in excess of an applicable annual allotment, set forth
in Section 26-129(c)(2) shall be changed as follows:
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
. . .
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
…
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment
3
shall be three dollars and thirty-six and six tenth cents ($3.366) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
Section 2. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
2, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be revised as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and fourteen cents
($14.14).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
two dollars and sixty-two and five tenths cents ($2.625) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
three dollars and fifteen cents ($3.150) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
three dollars and seventy-eight cents ($3.780) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge four dollars and fifty-
three and six tenths cents ($4.536) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents ($16.61).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two
dollars fifty-four and nine tenths cents ($2.549) per one thousand (1,000)
4
gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge of three
dollars and five and nine tenths cents ($3.059) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of three
dollars and sixty-seven cents ($3.670) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge four dollars and forty and
four tenths cents ($4.404) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and three cents
($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents
($4.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and three
and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge three dollars and thirty nine and five tenths cents ($3.395)
per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May
through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the
seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more
than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in
Subsection 26-127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on
meter size as follows:
Meter Size
(inches) Monthly Base Charge
¾ $ 12.66
1 35.31
1½ 96.02
2 144.71
5
3 220.71
4 346.49
6 672.15
8 1,187.42
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity charge of
one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) per one thousand (1,000) gallons
used in the winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge two dollars and ninety and three tenths cents ($2.903) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter
reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no
customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified in the
following table shall be billed at two dollars and fifty-three cents ($2.53) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. Monthly water
use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed four dollars and seventeen and
three tenths cents ($4.173) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season
months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the
seasonal billing excess quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six
(6) full billing cycles at the summer excess quantity charge.
Meter Size
(inches)
Specified Amount
(gallons per
month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
. . .
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
6
(1) For installation of meter: $43.00
(2) For removal of meter: 43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings: 8.60
(4) For water service rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons water
used: 5.02
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per
acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500.).
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment shall
be four dollars and forty-four cents ($4.440) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
Section 3. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
3, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be revised as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall
pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and fourteen cents
($14.14).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of three dollars and seven and four tenths cents ($3.074) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
three dollars and sixty-eight and nine tenths cents ($3.689) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
7
For the next six thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
four dollars and forty-two and seven tenths cents ($4.427) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge five dollars and
thirty-one and two tenths cents ($5.312) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents
($16.61).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars ninety-nine and one tenths cents ($2.991) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of three dollars fifty-eight and nine tenths cents ($3.589) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of four dollars and thirty and seven tenths cents ($4.307) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of five dollars and
sixteen and eight tenths cents ($5.168) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and three cents
($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents
($4.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and three
and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of four dollars and twenty-one and two tenths cents ($4.212)
per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May
8
through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the
seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more
than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in
Subsection 26-127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on
meter size as follows:
Meter Size
(inches) Monthly Base Charge
¾ $ 12.66
1 35.31
1½ 96.02
2 144.71
3 220.71
4 346.49
6 672.15
8 1,187.42
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity
charge of one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They
shall pay a monthly quantity charge three dollars and fifty-nine and nine tenths cents
($3.599) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May
through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal
monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full
billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(2) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified
in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and fifty-three cents ($2.53)
per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November
through April. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall
be billed at five dollars and seventeen and four tenths cents ($5.174) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through
October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal billing
9
excess quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6)
full billing cycles at the summer excess quantity charge.
Meter Size
(inches)
Specified Amount
(gallons per
month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter: $43.00
(2) For removal of meter: 43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings: 8.60
(4) For water service rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons water
used: 5.02
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per
acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500.).
10
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment shall
be five dollars and fifty and four tenth cents ($5.504) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
Section 4. That for all meter readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month
occurring after a City Manager declaration that the City is in Water Supply Shortage Response Level
4, the water rates as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be revised as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall
pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and fourteen cents
($14.14).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of three dollars and sixty-three and three tenths cents ($3.633) per
one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
four dollars and thirty-six cents ($4.360) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
For the next six thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
five dollars and twenty-three and two tenths cents ($5.232) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge six dollars and
twenty-seven and eight tenths cents ($6.278) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents
($16.61).
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
11
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of three dollars and fifty and nine tenths cents ($3.509) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge
four dollars and twenty-one cents ($4.210) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
For the next seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of five dollars and five and two tenths cents ($5.052) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of six dollars and
six and three tenths cents ($6.063) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of fourteen dollars and three cents
($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents
($4.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and three
and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of five dollars and seventeen and three tenths cents ($5.173)
per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May
through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the
seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more
than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in
Subsection 26-127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on
meter size as follows:
Meter Size
(inches) Monthly Base Charge
¾ $ 12.66
1 35.31
12
1½ 96.02
2 144.71
3 220.71
4 346.49
6 672.15
8 1,187.42
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity
charge of one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They
shall pay a monthly quantity charge of four dollars and sixty-one cents ($4.610) per
one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through
October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly
quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing
cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified
in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and fifty-three cents ($2.53) per
one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through
April. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at
six dollars and sixty-two and seven tenths cents ($6.627) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter
reading date shall generally determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge;
however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the
summer excess quantity charge.
Meter Size
(inches)
Specified Amount
(gallons per
month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
13
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter: $43.00
(2) For removal of meter: 43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings: 8.60
(4) For water service rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons water
used: 5.02
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy raw water requirements with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per
acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500.).
(2) The surcharge for water used in excess of applicable annual allotment shall
be seven dollars and five cents ($7.050) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
Section 5. That the water rate structure described in this Ordinance for any Water Supply
Shortage Response Level shall go into effect and become the operative water rate structure for meter
readings on or after the beginning of the calendar month occurring after a City Manager declaration
of said Water Supply Shortage Response Level to be in effect.
Section 6. Except as otherwise modified by this Ordinance, all water rates, fees and
charges as set forth in Article III of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall continue
in full force and effect.
Section 7. That Subsection 3.N of Ordinance No. 048, 2003, deleting the definition of
“Water fountain”, and replacing it with a definition of “Water feature,” to read as follows.
N. “Water feature” shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into
the air, or is a waterfall or fountain. The term water feature shall not mean a water feature of
a pond or basin that performs a function essential to the support of fish life in that pond or
basin, or a water feature in a swimming pool.
Section 8. That item number 2.d, “Lawn & turf watering exceptions by permit, 4 acres or
more,” on page 2 of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan attached to Ordinance No. 048, 2003,
as Exhibit “A,” is hereby amended to read as follows.
14
Response
Level 1
Response
Level 2
Response
Level 3
Response
Level 4
2. Lawn & turf
watering
Exceptions by
permit
(Note: All permits must be displayed so they are visible from the street or sidewalk.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. 4 acres or more Permit required for a
special watering
schedule to
accommodate areas
of 4 acres or more.
Max. of 1.00” per
week. No watering
on Monday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Permit required for a
special watering
schedule to
accommodate areas
of 4 acres or more.
Max. of 0.75” per
week. No watering
on Monday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
No exceptions No exceptions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 9. That item number 2.e, “Lawn & turf watering exceptions by permit, City
parks & public athletic/playing fields,” on page 2 of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
attached to Ordinance No. 048, 2003, as Exhibit “A,” is hereby amended to read as follows.
Response
Level 1
Response
Level 2
Response
Level 3
Response
Level 4
2. Lawn & turf
watering
Exceptions by
permit
(Note: All permits must be displayed so they are visible from the street or sidewalk.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e. City parks &
public
athletic/playing
fields
Permit required for a
special watering
15
Response
Level 1
Response
Level 2
Response
Level 3
Response
Level 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Water features
Unrestricted
Unrestricted
No use allowed
No use allowed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day
of March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 26th day of March A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 5
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-026 Making an Appointment to the Senior Advisory Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A vacancy currently exists on the Senior Advisory Board due to the resignation of Rebecca Lindsey. Mayor Karen
Weitkunat and Councilmember Gerry Horak opted to readvertise and interview new applicants for the vacancy. The
interview team is recommending Joann Thomas to fill the vacancy, with a term to begin immediately and set to expire
on December 31, 2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2013-026
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD
WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Senior Advisory Board due to the resignation
of Rebecca Lindsey; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make an appointment to fill the vacancy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the following named person is hereby appointed to fill the current vacancy on the
Senior Advisory Board, with a term to begin immediately and to expire as set forth after the name:
Senior Advisory Board Expiration of Term
Joann Thomas December 31, 2014
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
26th day of March A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry, Bruce Hendee
Josh Birks, Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Items Relating to an Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority,
and Woodward, Inc. to Provide Business Investment Assistance for the Relocation and Construction of the Company’s
Headquarters and Expanding its Manufacturing and Office Facilities.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 2013, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery by the City
of an Agreement with Woodward, Inc. and Related Documents, Including the Authorization of a Borrowing,
in Connection with an Economic Development Project Relating to Woodward, Inc., and Providing Other
Matters Related Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No 56, 2013, Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Fund Capital Public
Improvements in Connection with a Community Development Business Assistance Agreement Between the
City, Downtown Development Authority, and Woodward, Inc. Regarding the Link-n-Greens Development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council will consider two items related to providing business investment assistance to Woodward, Inc. to
encourage the relocation and construction of the company’s headquarters and expanding its manufacturing facilities
in Fort Collins. The project will retain or create between 1,400 and 1,700 primary jobs in the community, provide 29
acres of improved open space along the river (including habitat restoration), and anchor the southeastern edge of the
River District with a major employer. The two items include:
A. An Agreement between the City, Downtown Development Authority, and Woodward, Inc.; and
B. An appropriation of $2.27 million in General Fund Reserves in connection with the Agreement with Woodward,
Inc.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Project Overview
Location
This area consists of 101.5 acres and is generally located at the southwest corner of East Lincoln and South Lemay
Avenue. The Cache la Poudre River is the southern boundary and the majority of the western boundary of the P.D.P.
The Poudre River Trail is located on the property within an easement. The project is zoned C-C-R Community
Commercial – Poudre River District, and the proposed uses are permitted in this zone district at this location.
History
The land is currently used as the Link-n-Greens golf course which has been in operation since 1986. The property
contains a barn, silos and outbuildings known as the Coy/Hoffman Barn, which were designated on the Colorado State
Register of Historic Properties in 1995. The barn is associated with the earliest development of agriculture in the area,
having been built during the 1860s as part of a homestead. Woodward has expressed an interest in working with the
City in recognizing the historic importance of the downtown river corridor. Although there are no specific plans to date,
they have indicated an interest in participating in some manner in recognizing the Coy Barn and other historic features.
As part of the development the barn will be renovated. A specific use has not been identified, although, in order to
protect the structure, it may not be open to the general public.
March 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 8
Project Description
The proposed Woodward project is being established to accommodate a new campus to accommodate the company’s
continuing growth. Woodward is a global company and has been in Fort Collins since 1955. They have continued
to experience growth in sales and breadth of market of their products. The company serves two major market sectors,
including aerospace and energy. It is Woodward’s intent to expand their facilities to meet the growing demand for their
products and to expand in northern Colorado. Over time, the project will be home to their international headquarters
and for the global headquarters of up to two of their businesses: Industrial Turbomachinery Systems (ITS) and Engine
Systems (ES). As a large base level employer Woodward generates over $2 billion in sales per year.
Woodward has outgrown their Drake facility and need to expand their overall facilities to accommodate continued
growth. Woodward intends to develop a campus of office, manufacturing, and testing facilities on the Link-N-Greens
site. The campus will include a collection of buildings with parking areas served by private drives. In conjunction with
the campus, a retail and commercial center is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the site.
Approximately 70,000 square feet of office and commercial development is planned for this area. The combined
building footprint of the industrial/manufacturing facility is projected to be 600,500 square feet in buildings ranging from
one to three stories. A future phase of construction will contain an unknown amount of commercial development
including service based restaurant, retail and office for the benefit of the general public and Woodward employees.
Development of the industrial campus for Woodward will occur in four phases beginning with a first phase of
approximately 259,300 square feet. Timing of each of the phases will be based on market demand. Unlike the Drake
campus this one will not be fenced. Instead security will be through other measures, primarily at the buildings. This
will allow the campus to have an open street-front landscape appearance. The project plan is divided into Phase One
and Future Phases up to four phases. Phase One includes the core components of the Woodward operations and
would represent over $100 million in investment. Over all four phases construction would be approximately $200
million (including production equipment). The river restoration area would be dedicated to the City and be constructed
with phase one.
The project anticipates four phases as described below
• Phase I – 259,000 square feet of manufacturing and office space including the relocation of the ITS
operations from the Drake/Lemay site. In addition, this phase includes receiving and material space, a
production support building, and a café/multipurpose building. Woodward has committed to start this project
with final approval of this Agreement and their Board of Directors.
• Phase II – 60,000 square feet office building to include the relocation of the Corporate Headquarters from the
Drake/Lemay site. Final decision to proceed on this phase anticipated in early 2014.
• Phase III – 209,000 square feet of manufacturing and office space including the relocation of the ES
operations from Loveland.
• Phase IV – 72,000 square feet Energy Tech Center. In recent discussions this phase may happen
concurrently with Phase II. A decision on this phase is likely in early 2014.
• Drake/Lemay Facility – The facility will remain a productive part of Woodward’s operations. At this time, it
is unclear what aspect of the business will use the facility.
Woodward has been in discussion with the City over the last 6 to 8 months on details of the project layout and
relationship with the community. The project was reviewed and approved unanimously by the Planning & Zoning Board
on February 21st. There was no opposition to the project. Woodward intends to close on sale of the property in April
or May of 2013 with site work for Phase I commencing in August or September of 2013. The estimated time of
completion of construction for Phase I would be late winter of 2015 with delivery of production parts by 2016.
Public Improvements
The project will utilize Tax Increment Financing to make various upgrades to various site features. The first three public
improvements listed below will be completed as part of Phase I. Following is a brief description:
• Transmission Line – Currently there is a significant Platte River Power Authority (“PRPA”) transmission line
that crosses the site diagonally from Northeast to Southwest. The current location of the transmission line
impacts the development potential of the property. The City, working with PRPA, will cause the transmission
line to be relocated along Lemay Avenue extending across Mulberry Street and connecting back to the current
alignment south of the Poudre River. The route of the transmission line will be positioned back from Lemay
March 26, 2013 -3- ITEM 8
far enough to allow for a row of trees. Additionally, the new route will reduce the impact to the City owned
natural areas along the river reducing the number of existing towers in the natural area. The Land
Conservation and Preservation Board supported the proposed alignment on March 13, 2013.
• Right of Way Improvements – The City will design and construct improvements to both Lincoln Avenue and
Lemay Avenue required by the proposed relocation and expansion of Woodward’s corporate headquarters
and production facility. The improvements along Lincoln Avenue will generally include a center turn lane, bike
lanes, and a temporary pedestrian path along the south side of the street. Improvements to Lemay Avenue
will include a parkway, trees, sidewalk, street lighting, and other improvements to comply with the full street
cross section. Some improvements may be on an interim basis until funds are available for the broader
Lincoln Boulevard Improvements.
• Open Space Improvements – Woodward will gift a 31 acre parcel to the City for the purpose of restoring the
property to a natural condition. The restoration will include landscape and habitat improvements based on a
design developed by the City’s natural areas department. The tax increment financing will be used to help
offset the design and construction costs related with these improvements.
• Lincoln Boulevard Improvements – To the extent available, tax increment financing may provide funds to
assist with future enhancements along Lincoln Avenue. The intent of the improvements is to transform the
standard cross section into a boulevard similar to Mountain Avenue west of Old Town. The specific details
of these improvements are not set but may include construction of new or improved street and intersections,
sidewalks and benches, bicycle lanes and racks, trees and other landscaping, gateway features, transit
related infrastructure, storm water improvements, directional signage, public art and other project for a positive
neighborhood image, and interpretive features of culture and history relevant to the area. These improvements
are subject to a successful voter initiative to provide capital funding for the portion of the cost not covered by
tax increment financing and subject to the availability of tax increment depending on the timing of Phase III
construction.
Utility Partnership
There is an opportunity in the future for Woodward to partner with the City and participate in the Fort Collins Solar
Program (FCSP). The intent of the FCSP is to enter into 20 year purchase power agreements with commercial
customers for the purchase of the energy produced from customer photovoltaic systems. The program is currently
funded in the 2013 and 2014 budgets. Timing is a significant issue related to solar installed with this program. Utilities
are allowed to apply a multiplier of 3 towards meeting the State’s Renewable Energy Standard up until July 2015. The
FCSP must use the multiplier to be economically practical. Rooftop space for the installation of solar at Woodward
may or may not be available until 2015. Fort Collins Utilities has expressed an interest in working with Woodward as
a participation in the Program. Note, the one caveat will have to be completion of any solar array whose energy will
be purchased through the FCSP before July of 2015.
Fort Collins Utilities (FCU) is working with Woodward through the Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) and
has committed $75,000 in funds to assist with this energy efficiency design. Through this program, FCU is providing
financial and technical assistance in the design phase and will provide a financial incentive based on facility energy
savings. Utilities staff are participating in an early design charrette attended by multiple stakeholders to promote a
holistic approach to design. A copy of the preliminary IDAP package is attached.
In addition to the work on site, there is also discussion related to a partnership that would utilize Woodward equipment,
which would allow them to demonstrate their equipment, at the Drake Waste processing plant to use the methane
created in the treatment process to make electricity. The electricity created would qualify towards our Renewable
Energy Standard.
PRPA Transmission Line Relocation IGA
The City will enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) with PRPA subject to approval by the City Council.
The IGA provides that the City of Fort Collins will pay for the relocation and installation of the transmission lines that
currently cross the property. Funding for the relocation of the lines will be paid from tax increment financing (“TIF”)
generated by the development of the Woodward Property. The IGA has been presented to and approved by the PRPA
Board of Directors. Relocation of the line will occur starting in 2013 and will result in one new transmission tower
placed in a natural area just south of Mulberry and the removal of three transmission towers northwest of Mulberry
in a natural area. The City, upon approval of the IGA will manage the project including all public outreach.
March 26, 2013 -4- ITEM 8
Public Benefit
Fort Collins provides a high quality of place attributed to the lively historic downtown and the city’s impressive parks,
trails and open space networks. These community assets make Fort Collins an attractive place for both a well-
educated workforce and diverse industries. Woodward’s proposed relocation and expansion represents an opportunity
to strengthen the existing high quality of place. The Project meets numerous City Plan policy objectives, occurs in a
Catalyst Project Area (as defined by City Plan), and presents the opportunity to enhance and expand the Poudre River
Corridor natural area. Thus, the project represents an opportunity to achieve more than economic outcomes but an
opportunity to strengthen the overall community.
City Plan Policy Objectives
The project as proposed by Woodward meets a variety of City Plan objectives, including but not limited to:
Economic Health
• EH 1.1 – Support Job Creation: The project will create between 185 and 400 new primary jobs as well as
transfer between 515 and 600 jobs from within the region.
• EH 1.4 – Target the Use of Incentives to Achieve Community Goals: The project will achieve broader
community goals as described, including natural areas restoration, open space preservation, and
infill/redevelopment.
• EH 2.1 – Support Targeted Industry Clusters: Woodward is a member of the Clean Energy cluster and an
active member of the Colorado Clean Energy Cluster non-profit entity supporting clean energy research and
development.
• EH 4.1 – Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas: The Link-N-Greens site is within an identified targeted
redevelopment areas in City Plan.
Environmental Health
• ENV 1.1 – Protect and Enhance Natural Features: The project as proposed and approved by the Planning
and Zoning board protects and restores approximately 31 acres of open space adjacent to the Cache la
Poudre River.
• ENV 2.1 – Maintain System of Open Lands: The project adds to the open space system surrounding the
Cache la Poudre River. Through habitat restoration it will enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat.
• ENV 2.10 – Maintain Access: The Poudre River Trail currently travels along the boundary of the project.
Subject to available funding, the trail will be moved further from the river’s edge with select developed river
access points. This approach provides access to the natural area while providing for habitat restoration.
• ENV 5.4 – Support Renewable Energy in New Development: The project is actively engaged in the IDAP
program provided by FCU to achieve facility energy savings. In addition, Woodward is looking to partner with
FCU through the Fort Collins Solar Program.
• ENV 7.11 – Participate in Research, Development and Demonstrations: Woodward and FCU are
contemplating a partnership to foster research, development and demonstrations projects in the renewable
energy and energy management sector.
• ENV 24.2 – Conserve Natural Features: The project includes a dedication of 31 acres along the Cache la
Poudre River. This land also includes an area of a historic river oxbow.
• ENV 24.4 – Restore and Enhance: The project includes the restoration of landscaping and habitat on a 31
acre parcel adjacent to the river.
• ENV 26.3 – Ensure Setbacks for Channel Instability and Improve Channel Migration: The 31 acre natural
parcel includes an opportunity to stabilize the river bank and allow for greater lateral migration, potentially in
the location of the historic river oxbow.
Community and Neighborhood Livability
• LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill: The Link-N-Greens site is encompassed by the
identified targeted redevelopment areas within City Plan.
• LIV 21.4 – Provide Access to Transit: The project includes access to bus stops along Lincoln Avenue and
Lemay Avenue. In addition, future enhancements to Lincoln Avenue may include additional transit facilities
intended to provide circulation to and through Old Town.
March 26, 2013 -5- ITEM 8
Transportation
• T 3.3 – Transit Supportive Design: Interim and future enhancements to Lincoln Avenue will seek to integrate
transit and alternative modes of transportation into the immediate improvements and final design.
Catalyst Project Areas
During the Plan Fort Collins process project team members, City Council, and the public identified areas throughout
the city that have the potential to “showcase” opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate,
Sustain, and Connect. Through a combination of public and private actions that complement and build upon one
another, these areas have the potential for lasting, desirable change. The Lincoln Triangle Area was identified as one
of these Catalyst Project Areas.
The Lincoln Triangle Area contains a rich mix of historic and new development as well as substantial vacant and
underdeveloped parcels. The Link-N-Greens site is one such underdeveloped area. The proposed Project meets many
aspects of the Area Vision, including:
• Showcase Heritage: The Coy/Hoffman Barn will be maintained as a part of the project preserving a link to
the history of the area.
• River Links: The dedication of additional open space along the river will provide an opportunity to enhance
and expand the Poudre River corridor.
• Connect: The interim and ultimate improvements along both Lemay and Lincoln Avenue will provide
additional pedestrian and bicycle connective in the area.
Finally, the Lincoln Triangle Catalyst Project Area lists several priority projects; one of these projects is the
improvement of Lincoln Avenue. The City has already begun the planning of these improvements; however, the
project, if all phases are completed, may provide much needed funding for the completion of the project.
Net Benefits to Other Taxing Entities
The Project will generate additional benefits and costs for local taxing districts other than the City and the DDA.
Additional discussion of the City and DDA fiscal impacts occurs below under the Financial Assistance Overview
section. Both Larimer County and the Poudre School District (“PSD”) will see net benefits from the project, primarily
from additional property tax revenue. Despite the site’s location within the DDA, both Larimer County and PSD retain
50 percent of any property tax increment generated in the district. The net benefits to each are summarized below:
• Larimer County: Between $5.5 million and $5.8 million in net benefits with a present value of $3.9 million to
$4.1 million (using a 5 percent discount rate).
• PSD: Between $11.7 million and $12.0 million in net benefits with a present value of $8.1 million to $8.2 million
(using a 5 percent discount rate).
Financial Assistance Overview
The opportunity to retain approximately 700 primary jobs and encourage the expansion of a business to include 700
– 1,000 new primary jobs to Fort Collins (with 185-400 new jobs to Northern Colorado) generates significant positive
economic impacts to the community (See Financial/Economic Impacts). As a result, the City Council will consider a
Business Assistance Agreement (the “Agreement”) providing three primary forms of investment in the proposed
Project. These investments include: (1) tax increment assistance through the DDA; (2) rebate of use tax on eligible
manufacturing equipment and construction materials; and (3) rebate of applicable development review, capital
expansion, street oversizing, and utility plant investment fees (“Capital Expansion/PIF Rebates”).
March 26, 2013 -6- ITEM 8
Table 1
Business Assistance Package Summary
Response
DDA Tax Increment Revenues $16.7 MM
Manufacturing Equipment and Construction Use
Tax Rebates (80%)
$3.8 MM
Development Fee Rebates (100%) $0.3 MM
Capital Expansion/PIF Rebates (50%) $2.7 MM
Total $23.5 MM
Tax Increment Assistance
Woodward has focused on the Link-N-Greens property (see Attachment 1: Project Location Map) for the potential
relocation and expansion of the company’s corporate headquarters and production facilities. On March 5, 2013 City
Council, with unanimous support, considered the amendment of the DDA Plan of Development to include the property
on first reading of Ordinance No. 49, 2103. By amending the Plan of Development, the City Council enables the use
of tax increment financing to support the Project.
Based on a Larimer County Assessor Estimate of Future Value dated January 29, 2013 and the initial phasing
schedule provided by Woodward, the project will generate approximately $16.7 million in tax increment revenue over
the remaining life of the DDA area. These funds will be used to reimburse Woodward and the City for several costs
associated with the Project, including: facades, right of way improvements (Lincoln and Lemay), relocation of a Platte
River Power Authority (“PRPA”) transmission line, open space restoration, and future enhancements to Lincoln
Avenue, as shown in Table 2. In addition, a portion of the tax increment revenue will cover financing cost associated
with the reimbursement amounts.
Table 2
Summary of Public Improvement Costs
Estimated Total
Cost (Millions)
Tax Increment
Pledge (Millions)
Balance*
(Millions)
Building Facades $6.00 $3.80 $2.20
Right of Way
Improvements $1.75 $1.75 $0.00
Transmission Line
Relocation $1.30 $1.30 $0.00
Open Space
Improvements
$3.50 $3.00 $0.50
Lincoln Boulevard $11.00 $2.85 $8.15
Financing $4.00 $4.00 $0.00
Total $27.55 $16.70 $11.15
*Any unfunded balance remaining after the TIF pledge is the responsibility of the recipient listed in
the table.
Woodward has agreed to advance the funds necessary to relocation the Transmission Line and construct the Right
of Way Improvements and Open Space Improvements (described above). The DDA and City have agreed to
reimburse this advance and evidence that commitment with a bond1. Tax Increment revenue will be used to repay the
Bond principal and interest on the bond will be variable and indexed to the 10 year U.S. Treasury Note rate2. This rate
1 The Bond is being issued pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, Article V, Section 19.8
of the City Charter, the Downtown Development Authority Act, the Supplemental Act, and pursuant to the 2006
Election.
2 The actual interest rate will be determined by comparing the 10 year U.S. Treasury Note on the initial advance date
compared to the 10 year U.S. Treasury Note on each subsequent anniversary date and using the difference. At no
time will the interest fall below 0.25 percent per annum.
March 26, 2013 -7- ITEM 8
will likely fall well below the current market based cost of capital. Woodward has agreed to these terms as a way to
demonstrate their commitment to the community and improvement of the Lincoln Triangle Catalyst Project Area.
Due to the variable rate and uncertainty regarding phasing, the City has agreed to appropriate $2.27 million in General
Fund Reserves for the purpose of creating a reimbursement reserve. These reimbursement reserve funds will only
be required if the Tax Increment revenue generated by the project falls short of the amount necessary to reimburse
Woodward’s advanced funds with interest, as described in the Bond. In the event only Phase I is completed, the entire
amount of these funds may be needed to complete the capital projects. However, if only Phases I, II, and IV are
completed; the additional TIF generated by these additional Phases should eliminate the need for the reimbursement
reserve funds (depending on the actual schedule of these phases).
Use Tax Rebate
Woodward plans to invest approximately $169.1 million in new buildings and $50.5 million in new equipment as part
of the proposed Project. As part of the Agreement, City Council will consider rebating 80 percent of the use tax
collected in connection with these investments. The rebate would include approximately $2.6 million of the total $3.3
million due on construction materials and $1.2 million of the total $1.4 million due on eligible equipment see Table 3.
In both cases, the rebates go beyond the general fund portion of the rate. As a result, the general fund must bear the
additional cost of the rebate to avoid impacting revenue associated with the dedicated sales tax rates (e.g., Open
Space, Street Maintenance, Building on Basics, and Keep Fort Collins Great). This additional cost will be backfilled
from the revenue generated by indirect and induced economic impacts to the community. The estimated total backfill
is approximately $800,000 for all phases.
The actual amount of the use tax rebate will be tied to Woodward achieving an employment level of 1,400 by
December 31, 2018. The City will retain 40 percent of any rebate amount until the employment level has been reached
by Woodward. If the target employment level is reached after December 31, 2018 but before December 31, 2020
Woodward will receive the retained 40 percent less $500,000 (combined between use tax and development fee
rebates). Woodward will not be entitled to the remaining 40 percent if the target level is not reached by December 31,
2020.
Table 3
Summary of Use Tax Rebates
Estimated Total
(Millions)
Tax Rebate
(Millions)
Retained
Revenue
(Millions)
Backfill
(Millions)
Construction Materials $3.3 $2.6 $0.7 $0.7
Eligible Equipment $1.4 $1.2 $0.2 $0.1
Total $4.7 $3.8 $0.9 $0.8
Development Fee Rebate
As part of the Agreement, City Council will consider rebating 50 percent of the applicable Capital Expansion, Street
Oversizing and Utility Plant Investment fees due for the Project. In addition, City Council will consider rebating 100
percent of the applicable Development Review Fees (e.g., Plan Check, and Base Building Permit Fee). The rebate
will include approximately $3.0 million of the total $5.7 million due see Table 4. These fees are collected to offset the
cost each new project imposes on the capital infrastructure within the City. As a result, the cost of the rebate must be
backfilled from the revenue generated by indirect and induced economic impacts to the community. The backfilled
revenue will make each capital fund whole. The estimated total backfill is approximately $2.7 million.
The actual amount of the development fee rebate will be tied to Woodward achieving an employment level of 1,400
by December 31, 2018. The City will retain 40 percent of any rebate amount until the employment level has been
reached by Woodward. If the target employment level is reached after December 31, 2018 but before December 31,
2020 Woodward will receive the retained 40 percent less $500,000(combined between use tax and development fee
rebates). Woodward will not be entitled to the remaining 40 percent if the target level is not reached by December 31,
2020.
March 26, 2013 -8- ITEM 8
Table 4
Summary of Development Fees
Total
(Millions)
Rebate
(Millions)
Retained
Revenue
(Millions) Backfill
Wastewater $0.60 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
Water $1.10 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55
Stormwater $0.30 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15
Electric $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Street Oversizing $1.20 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60
Capital Expansion $0.20 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10
Development Review/Other $0.30 $0.30 $0.00 $0.00
Total $5.70 $3.00 $2.70 $2.70
Use Tax and Fee Backfill
As described, the Agreement contemplates rebates of use tax and fees that will require backfill by the General Fund.
Based on the Economic Impact Analysis, there is between $3.8 million and $6.2 million in indirect and induced net
benefits to the City from various sources over the first 16 years (these sources exclude any revenue from utilities as
they cannot be comingled with General Fund revenues to meet these obligations). These indirect and induced impacts
and the resulting revenue will backfill the portions of the rebates over a period of between 10 and 16 years depending
on financing costs.
The total backfill required (including use tax and fees) assuming all phases are constructed on schedule is
approximately $3.5 million. However, the actual Project phasing will impact the contemplated use tax rebates and
development fee rebates. As stated, the nature of the rebate will require backfill for a portion of the total rebate
amount. Therefore, the backfill shifts depending on the construction phasing. Table 5 provides an overview of the total
rebates and the required backfill. Under the Phase I only scenario the City will rebate $1.37 million in use tax and $1.73
million in development fees for a total rebate of $3.11 million. This scenario requires a backfill of $1.93 million.
Furthermore, the hold back of 40 percent of the rebates will influence the actual cash needed in any given year to fund
this backfill. The 40 percent holdback of the rebates will most likely not be due to Woodward until after December
31,2018 but before December 31, 2020. This lowers the backfill amount as initially need for each phase. Staff
continues to evaluate the best method to fund the backfill amount.
Table 5
Overview of Use Tax by Scenario
Phase I Only
(Millions)
Phase I,
II, &
IV(Million
s)
All Phases
(Millions)
Use Tax Rebate $1.37 $2.43 $3.8
Use Tax Backfill $0.29 $0.51 $0.80
Development Fee Rebates $1.73 $2.36 $2.98
Total Rebates $3.11 $4.79 $6.78
Total Backfill Required $1.93 $2.68 $3.50
Initial Backfill (60%) $1.16 $1.61 $2.10
Holdback (40%) $0.77 $1.07 $1.40
NOTE: The proposed project is subject to change. Changes in timing, final construction investment, and final
equipment purchases will affect both the financial assistance offered by the City and the financial/economic impacts
to the City.
March 26, 2013 -9- ITEM 8
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic Impact Analysis Overview
The Project will generate economic impacts during construction and operations. The construction activities, occurring
while Woodward builds its new facilities, will generate one-time impact for construction workers and businesses in the
area. The on-going operations of the firm will create annual economic impacts, employing workers in the community
and supporting additional economic activity throughout the region.
The economic impacts were evaluated based on two scenarios: (1) a total employment level of 1,400, including 700
existing employees, 515 employees transferred from within the region, and 185 new employees; and (2) a total
employment level of 1,700 including 700 existing employees, 600 employees transferred from within the region, and
400 new employees. Both scenarios assume a total investment in the buildings of $169.1 million and $50.5 million
in manufacturing equipment. In addition, both scenarios assume an average annual salary for all jobs of $76,000,
which equates to 170% of the Larimer County average annual income ($44,564 based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employment and Wage data, Fourth Quarter 2011).
The economic impact analyses (See Attachment 8 and 9) estimate the one-time impacts from construction will be the
same for both scenarios with approximately 1,652 jobs supported by the $169.1 million investment at an average
annual salary of $55,106. In addition, the analyses estimate that the facility will support between 1,400 and 2,227 total
jobs see Table 6. These estimates assume a modest manufacturing multiplier for the transferred jobs and a full
manufacturing multiplier of 2.23 for the new jobs. The average salary ranges from $49,794 to $52,393.
Table 6
Summary of Economic Impacts
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Construction (One-Time)
Jobs 1,652 1,652
Earnings $91,034,579 $91,034,579
Average Earnings per Job $55,106 $55,106
Operations (On-going)**
Jobs 1,400 2,227
Earnings $73,349,666 $110,890,650
Average Earnings per Job $52,393 $49,794
**Total change in earning during the first year of full employment.
In addition, the analyses evaluate the fiscal impacts to the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Poudre School District,
and Downtown Development Authority. These impacts include estimates of both revenues and expenses based on
the published 2012 budgets for each jurisdiction. Full details of the calculations can be found in the attached reports.
Furthermore, the analyses net out the costs of the proposed assistance described above before estimating additional
benefits. The net benefits are estimated to range from $8.7 million to $12.0 million (net benefits here includes all
revenue sources, e.g., sales and use tax, utility revenue, etc.); including all revenue sources see Table 7. The net
benefits previously described, between $3.8 million and $6.2 million, exclude the utility net benefits included here
because the rebate backfill cannot rely on utility funds to meet that obligation. Assuming a 5 percent discount rate the
present value of the estimated net benefits today is between $7.0 million and $9.1 million.
Table 7
Summary of Fiscal Impacts
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Additional Benefits $32,541,701 $50,740,478
Additional Costs ($23,861,724) ($38,751,622)
Net Benefits $8,679,877 $11,988,856
Present Value of Net Benefits *** $6,957,716 $9,088,081
*** This analysis uses a 5% discount rate.
March 26, 2013 -10- ITEM 8
This project considers an expansion of an existing manufacturer in Fort Collins. Woodward is considering locations
outside the City for possible relocation and expansion of its manufacturing and headquarters operations. The company
currently employs 700 workers in the City and supports real and personal property of $22.3 million. Woodward’s
current operations represent approximately $850,000 in net revenues to the City annually. The new construction and
expansion would increase the company’s impact on Fort Collins by approximately $8.68 million over the next 16 years.
Therefore, the estimated value to Fort Collins if the manufacturer were to leave the city is a loss of $22.55 million over
the next 16 years or a loss to the city of $1.4 million per year on average or $16.2 million in present value. More than
27 percent ($6.25 million) of the total net revenue is generated in the first two years as shown in the graph below.
NOTE: The proposed project is subject to change. Changes in timing, final construction investment, and final
equipment purchases will affect both the financial assistance offered by the City and the financial/economic impacts
to the City.
General Fund Reserves Appropriation Impact
The proposed Project and the Agreement contemplate a phased approach to construction. Due to this phasing, the
commitments by the City, DDA, and Woodward shift accordingly. In addition, the timing of the phases may significantly
impact the available TIF pledge for the project. There are several potential scenarios that could unfold as Woodward
reacts to market demand. The most likely scenarios have been analyzed further. The impacts of each scenario to the
TIF and Loan are summarized in Table 8.
If Woodward never constructs more than Phase I, then the TIF will not support full repayment of the advanced funds
plus interest. The agreement contemplates the City appropriating up to $2.27 million for the purpose of creating a
reimbursement reserve. The need for these reimbursement reserve funds will change as additional phases are
completed by Woodward. Assuming Phase I, II, and IV are built, on the current proposed schedule, the need for these
additional funds will disappear. Staff recommends this approach because the community receives $4.8 million in public
improvements (Right-of-Way improvements and Open Space improvements) at a $2.27 million discounted cost in the
worst case. Otherwise, the TIF funds these costs exclusively. In addition, the City has agreed to stand behind the full
reimbursement of the advanced funds plus interest regardless of the Tax Increment revenue, interest rate increase,
or other unforeseen economic condition. This commitment is, however, subject to annual appropriation as required
by the Colorado State Constitution.
Table 8
Overview of TIF/Loan by Scenario
Phase I Only
(Millions)
Phase I,
II, & IV
(Millions)
All Phases
(Millions)
Total TIF Available $7.30 $11.10 $16.70
Façade Pledge $1.50 $2.80 $3.80
TIF Balance $5.80 $8.30 $12.90
Bond Principal $6.05 $6.05 $8.90
Estimated Interest $2.02 $2.25 $4.00
Additional Funds Required ($2.27) $0.00 --
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Landscape
Of the 101.5 acre parcel almost one third of the site will be preserved and restored as natural area. A river restoration
area of approximately 28.7 acres is proposed as part of the project, and would be constructed as part of the initial
phase. Additionally, the remainder of the site will be designed incorporating Xeriscape principles.
The project’s Ecological Characterization Study reports that the Link-n-Greens site contains several natural habitats
and features, predominately the Poudre River corridor, several wetlands that have formed along the fringe of the golf
course ponds (0.10 acres), and 464 significant trees. The site’s existing habitat value is largely contained within the
March 26, 2013 -11- ITEM 8
areas immediately adjacent to the Poudre River due to the ornamental nature of the golf course and the lack of habitat
diversity associated with a bluegrass lawn. The site has also been evaluated for Threatened and Endangered species
and the only potentially suitable habitat was for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. However, no populations of
jumping mouse are known to exist in the Poudre River downstream of Watson Lake (north of Bellevue).
To meet the standards associated with the Land Use Code, the project has proposed an overall buffer area of 28.7
acres instead of the 23.4 acres that would be required through the 300' standard. At no point is the proposed buffer
zone less than 210’ and the buffer zone is as large as 600’ along the historical oxbow (a U-shaped area where the
Poudre River was able to meander out of its main channel when it was connected with its floodplain). Staff has worked
extensively with the applicant to develop a river restoration project that would enhance the overall river habitat
substantially beyond conditions existing today. Additionally the Poudre River Trail will be realigned to allow more
distance between the river riparian habitats while still providing an interesting experience.
Noise
Production activities will be conducted within the proposed buildings and the level of noise is not anticipated to exceed
maximum allowable Db(A) levels. Buildings and service areas are located interior to the site to mitigate off site
impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Both City and DDA staff recommend adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Planning and Zoning Board, February 21, 2013
Water Board, January 17, 2013
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, March 13, 2013 (Meeting Minutes Unavailable)
Economic Advisory Commission, March 15, 2013 (Meeting Minutes Unavailable)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Neighborhood Meetings: August 20, 2012(ODP), November 2, 2012 (PDP)
Natural Area/River Concept Neighborhood Meeting: January 30, 2013
In addition, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study conducted by Behavior Research
Center during February 2013. The study measured the attitude of registered Fort Collins voters in regard to various
issues within the community. Of the 301 respondents, most were in agreement on the need to retain existing
employers (88%) to create quality jobs. The study specifically asked respondents on whether Wooward, Inc. should
be a top priority for the City of Fort Collins. A resounding 85 percent agreed that retaining Woodward, Inc. should be
a priority for the City, while 9 percent were not sure and 6 percent did not see this as a priority.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Map
2. Drainage Easement Map
3. River Restoration Exhibit
4. Transmission Line Relocation Map
5. Water Board Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013
6. Economic Impact Analysis, Project Blue Home, March 8, 2013 (Assumes total employment of 1,400)
7. Economic Impact Analysis, Project Blue Home, March 4, 2013 (Assumes total employment of 1,700)
8. Transmission Line Collaboration Letter from Woodward, March 12, 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
UDALL NATURAL AREA
SPRINGER NATURAL AREA
SPRINGER NATURAL AREA
WILLIAMS NATURAL AREA
Platte River Power Authority/Woodward Link-N-Greens Realignment on Springer and Williams NAs
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2013
Project Area
Larimer County
# Existing Poles
# Proposed New Poles
Proposed Alignment
PRPA General Easement Area
Existing PRPA Transmission Line
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas
µ 0 125 250 500 Feet
ATTACHMENT 2
SPRINGER NATURAL AREA
WILLIAMS NATURAL AREA
SPRINGER NATURAL AREA
Inset: Project Site Detail
New Pole on Williams NA
Existing Pole to be moved
10-20' to the west
See Inset
ATTACHMENT 5
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Prepared by:
Impact DataSource, LLC
4709 Cap Rock Drive
Austin, Texas 78735
www.impactdatasource.com
A REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
PROJECT BLUE HOME IN FORT COLLINS, CO
March 8, 2013
ATTACHMENT 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………………………………………………………… 3
Project Summary
Introduction………………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………6
Description of The Project…………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Summary of the Economic Impact of the Project………………………………………………………………6
Analysis of Fiscal Impact
Costs and Benefits for Local Taxing Districts………………………………………………………………………7
City of Fort Collins…………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Larimer County……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
Poudre School District…………………………………………………………………………………………………9
Downtown Development Authority………………………………………………………………………………10
Summary of Incentives
Summary of Possible City Incentives for the Project…………………………………………………………11
Methodology
Conduct of the Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Discussion of Economic Impact Calculations………………………………………………………………………12
Discussion of Fiscal Impact Calculations……………………………………………………………………………12
About Impact DataSource…………………………………………………………………………………………………15
Appendix A
Data & Rates………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Appendix B
Detailed Economic Impact Calculations…………………………………………………………………………… 28
Appendix C
Detailed Cost‐Benefit Calculations for:
City of Fort Collins.............................................................................................................. 36
Larimer County.................................................................................................................. 42
Poudre School District........................................................................................................45
Downtown Development Authority...................................................................................47
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project background
In Project Blue Home, a company is considering building, equipping and operating a new manufacturing facility and
corporate headquarters in Fort Collins. The firm plans to invest $169 million in new buildings and equipment. Upon
completion of the construction, they expect to hire 185 new employees and relocate 515 employees to Fort Collins from
nearby with average salaries of $76,000 per year.
Economic Impact
Project Blue Home will generate economic impacts during construction and operations. The construction activities,
occurring while the firm builds its new facilities, will generate a one‐time impact for construction workers and businesses
in the area. The on‐going operations of the firm will create annual economic impacts, employing workers in the
community and supporting additional economic activity throughout the region.
The one‐time construction activity will support 1,652 workers in the area and support $91 million in new earnings for
these workers. The operations will include a new corporate headquarters office and manufacturing facilities. The
corporate headquarters will be staffed by the firm's current headquarters staff located in Fort Collins. The manufacturing
operations are estimated to support 1,400 total workers and more than $73.3 million in workers' earnings annually.
Economic Impact
Construction (One‐Time): Total
Total Change in Jobs 1,652
Total Change in Earnings $91,034,579
Average Earnings per Job $55,106
Operations (On‐going)* Headquarters Manufacturing Total
Total Change in Jobs 0 1,400 1,400
Total Change in Earnings $0 $73,349,666 $73,349,666
Average Earnings per Job ‐ $52,393 $52,393
* Total change in earnings during the first year of full employment.
Fiscal Impact
Project Blue Home will generate fiscal impacts for the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, the school district and other
local taxing districts. The table below provides a high‐level summary of the fiscal impacts for local taxing districts during
construction and over the first 16 years of operations.
Net Benefits During Construction and Over the First 16 Years for Local Taxing Districts
Present
Additional Additional Net Value of
Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits**
City of Fort Collins $32,541,701 ($23,861,724) $8,679,977 $6,957,716
Larimer County $10,737,544 ($5,238,339) $5,499,205 $3,901,525
Poudre School District $14,693,242 ($2,960,433) $11,732,810 $8,057,743
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791 $12,712,803
Total $81,810,339 ($37,571,556) $44,238,783 $31,629,788
** This analysis uses a 5% discount rate.
Note: The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional costs cannot be
determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Benefits and Costs for City of Fort Collins
The table below provides more detail on the sources of the additional benefits and costs for the city during construction
and over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
City of Fort Collins: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes after rebates $6,530,835 $6,530,835
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $27,911 $27,911
Capital Expansion Fees after rebates $3,194,183 $3,194,183
Building Permits and Fees $283,329 $283,329
Lodging Taxes $5,529 $5,529
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees $5,551,912 $5,551,912
City‐owned Utility Revenue $16,948,002 $16,948,002
Costs:
Costs to provide city services, excl utilities ($8,300,964) ($8,300,964)
Costs to provide city‐owned utilities ($15,560,760) ($15,560,760)
Total $32,541,701 ($23,861,724) $8,679,977
Present Value (5% discount rate) $22,403,516 ($15,445,800) $6,957,716
* Net of 100% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
The graph below depicts the costs, benefits and net benefits to the City of Fort Collins over the first 16 years.
($3,000,000)
($2,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
12345678910111213141516
Year
Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Page 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Value of Project Blue Home
Project Blue Home considers the expansion of an existing manufacturer in Fort Collins. The firm is considering locations
outside of the city for possible relocation and expansion of its manufacturing and headquarters operations. The company
currently employs 700 workers in the city and supports real and personal property of $22.3 million. The firm's
current operations represent approximately $850,000 in net revenues to the City of Fort Collins annually. The new
construction and expansion would increase the company's impact on Fort Collins by approximately $8.68 million
over the next 16 years. In total, the value of Project Blue Home's current operation and expansion represents
approximately $22.55 million in net revenues to the City of Fort Collins over the next 16 years.
Project Blue Home Value to Fort Collins
Net Revenues for Fort Collins
Over 16 Years Average Annual Present Value*
Existing Operations $13,873,386 $867,087 $9,203,326
Construction and Expanded Operations $8,679,977 $542,499 $6,957,716
Total $22,553,363 $1,409,585 $16,161,042
* This analysis uses a 5% discount rate.
Therefore, the estimated value to Fort Collins if the manufacturer were to leave the city is a loss $22.55 million over the
next 16 years or a loss to the city of $1.4 million per year on average or $16.16 million in present value. More than 27%
($6.25 million) of the total net revenue is generated in the first two years as shown in the graph below.
While the above is a summary of the results of this analysis, details are on the following pages.
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
12345678910111213141516
Year
Net Revenues for the City of Fort Collins
Existing Operations Construction & Expansion
Page 5
PROJECT SUMMARY
Introduction
This report presents the results of an economic impact analysis performed by Impact DataSource, an Austin, Texas based
economic consulting, research and analysis firm. The report estimates the impact that a potential project in Fort Collins,
CO will have on the local economy. The report calculates the costs and benefits for specified local taxing districts during
the initial construction and over the first 16 years of operations. The 16‐year analysis coincides with the term of the TIF
arrangement.
City City of Fort Collins
County Larimer County
School District Poudre School District
TIF District Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
Description of the Project
Summary of the Economic Impact of the Project
The project will have the following economic impact on the City of Fort Collins area over the first 16 years:
Economic Impact Over the First 16 Years
Direct
Indirect &
Induced Total
Total number of permanent direct and indirect jobs to be created 700 700 1,400
Salaries to be paid to direct and indirect workers $977,827,961 $337,472,875 $1,315,300,836
Number of direct and indirect workers who will move to the City 28 14 42
Number of new residents in the City 69 35 104
Number of new residential properties to be built in the City 7 3 10
Number of new students expected to attend local school district 26 13 39
Taxable sales and purchases expected in the City $163,964,336 $38,629,530 $202,593,866
$1,670,200 $715,800 $2,386,000
The market value the firm's property in Year 1 $46,934,346 $0 $46,934,346
The year‐by‐year economic impacts can be found in Appendix B.
How this economic activity translates into additional costs and benefits for local taxing districts is summarized
next.
The market value of new residential property to be built for direct and indirect workers
who move to the City by Year 10
Project Blue Home represents a company that is considering locating a manufacturing and corporate headquarters in Fort
Collins, Colorado. The company plans to purchase a piece of land in the city and invest $169 million in new buildings and
equipment. The firm plans to initially purchase $50.5 million in equipment for the facility. It is understood that the
company will employ a total of 1,400 employees in Fort Collins. The company currently employs 700 employees in the city
and, with Project Blue Home, will expand employment in Fort Collins by 700 employees. The company will hire 185 new
positions in the city and relocate 515 workers that work at a different facility in the county. These employees will have
average compensation of $76,000. This analysis assumes that all of the 700 new jobs in Fort Collins will be employed in
the firm's manufacturing operations. The project will be located in the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The
DDA will receive a 50% real property tax shareback from the County, PVH, Library and PSD. One‐hundred percent of the
City’s property tax will be allocated to the DDA.
Page 6
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Costs and Benefits for Local Taxing Districts
The project will generate additional benefits and costs for local taxing districts. A summary of these additional
benefits, costs and net benefits is provided below. The source of specific benefits and costs are provided in
more detail for each taxing district on subsequent pages.
Net Benefits During Construction and Over the First 16 Years for Local Taxing Districts
Present
Additional Additional Net Value of
Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits*
City of Fort Collins $32,541,701 ($23,861,724) $8,679,977 $6,957,716
Larimer County $10,737,544 ($5,238,339) $5,499,205 $3,901,525
Poudre School District $14,693,242 ($2,960,433) $11,732,810 $8,057,743
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791 $12,712,803
Total $81,810,339 ($37,571,556) $44,238,783 $31,629,788
*The Present Value of Net Benefits is a way of expressing in today's dollars, dollars to be paid or received in the future. Today's dollar and a
dollar to be received or paid at differing times in the future are not comparable because of the time value of money. The time value of money
is the interest rate or each taxing entity's discount rate. This analysis uses a discount rate of 5% to make the dollars comparable.
Note: The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional costs cannot be
determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
City of Fort Collins
20%
Larimer County
12%
Poudre School District
27%
Downtown
Development Authority
(DDA)
41%
Distribution of Net Benefits
Page 7
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for City of Fort Collins
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the city during
construction and over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
City of Fort Collins: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes after rebates $6,530,835 $6,530,835
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $27,911 $27,911
Capital Expansion Fees after rebates $3,194,183 $3,194,183
Building Permits and Fees $283,329 $283,329
Lodging Taxes $5,529 $5,529
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees collected from:
New Households $415,352 $415,352
New Businesses $5,136,560 $5,136,560
City‐owned Utility Revenue collected from:
New Households $1,266,677 $1,266,677
New Businesses $15,681,325 $15,681,325
Costs:
Costs to provide city services, excluding utilities, to:
New Households ($620,819) ($620,819)
New Businesses ($7,680,145) ($7,680,145)
Costs to provide city‐owned utilities to:
New Households ($1,163,575) ($1,163,575)
New Businesses ($14,397,185) ($14,397,185)
Total $32,541,701 ($23,861,724) $8,679,977
Present Value (5% discount rate) $22,403,516 ($15,445,800) $6,957,716
* Net of 100% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
The graph below depicts the costs, benefits and net benefits to the City of Fort Collins over the first 16 years.
($3,000,000)
($2,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Year
Net Benefits for the City
Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Page 8
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for Larimer County
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the county during
construction and over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
Larimer County: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes $1,215,563 $1,215,563
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $3,652,888 $3,652,888
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $1,092,900 $1,092,900
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $64,157 $64,157
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees collected from:
New Households $291,630 $291,630
New Businesses $4,420,405 $4,420,405
Costs:
Costs to provide county services to:
New Households ($324,034) ($324,034)
New Businesses ($4,914,305) ($4,914,305)
Total $10,737,544 ($5,238,339) $5,499,205
Present Value (5% discount rate) $7,292,325 ($3,390,800) $3,901,525
Benefits and Costs for Poudre School District
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the school
district over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
Poudre School District: Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $8,870,419 $8,870,419
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $2,653,923 $2,653,923
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $155,794 $155,794
Additional State and Federal Funding $3,013,106 $3,013,106
Costs:
Costs to educate new students ($2,960,433) ($2,960,433)
Total $14,693,242 ($2,960,433) $11,732,810
Present Value (5% discount rate) $9,957,132 ($1,899,389) $8,057,743
* Net of 50% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Page 9
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the Downtown
Development Authority district over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
DDA: Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property $1,622,064 $1,622,064
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property $485,302 $485,302
DDA Real Prop. Tax Increment Shareback Rev. $16,726,584 $16,726,584
DDA BPP Tax Increment Shareback Revenue $5,003,902 $5,003,902
Costs:
DDA Costs ($5,511,061) ($5,511,061)
Total $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791
Present Value (5% discount rate) $16,384,960 ($3,672,156) $12,712,803
* Property tax increment shareback revenue includes 100% of the city's property increment tax revenue
and 50% of the other taxing districts property increment tax revenue
Page 10
SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES
Summary of Possible Incentives for the Project from the City
The city is evaluating the following of incentives for the project:
Use Tax Rebates
Construction Use Tax Rebate
City Proposed*
Construction Estimated Spend $169,100,000
Factor 50.0%
Eligible Amount $84,550,000
Use Tax Due (3.85%) $3,255,175
Rebate Percent 80%
Construction Use Rebate Amount $2,604,140
Equipment Use Tax Rebate
City Proposed*
Equipment Estimated Spend $50,500,000
Factor 95%
Eligible Amount $47,975,000
Use Tax Due (3.00%) $1,439,250
Rebate Percent 80%
Equipment Use Rebate Amount $1,151,400
Capital Expansion Fee Rebate
City Proposed*
Capital Expansion Fees Incurred $6,388,366
Rebate Percent 50%
Capital Expansion Fee Rebate Amount $3,194,183
Total Tax Rebate Amounts
City Proposed*
Construction Use Rebate Amount $2,604,140
Equipment Use Rebate Amount $1,151,400
Capital Expansion Fee Rebate Amount $3,194,183
Total Use and Fee Rebate Amount $6,949,723
* City Proposed Use Tax Rebates assume 100% rebate of the 2.25% General Fund Use Tax Rate.
In total, the city is considering $6.9 million in tax and fee rebates related to the project. The sales tax collections and
capital expansion fees and resulting net benefits for the City of Fort Collins shown earlier in this report reflect the
revenues to be received by the city after rebating the $6.9 million in taxes and fees detailed in the table above.
Page 11
METHODOLOGY
Conduct of the Analysis
This analysis was conducted by Impact DataSource using estimates provided to the City of Fort Collins by the firm, local
rates and information and assumptions by Impact DataSource.
Using this data, the economic impact from the project and the costs and benefits for relevant taxing districts
were calculated for a 16‐year period
Discussion of Economic Impact Calculations
The economic impact as calculated in this report can be categorized into two main types of impacts.
1. Direct economic impacts are the immediate economic activities generated by the firm or project.
These impacts include the employment at the firm and salaries paid to the firm's workers as well
as expenditures made by the firm.
2. Indirect and induced economic impacts represent the additional economic activity that is supported
by the firm or project. Indirect jobs and salaries are created in new or existing area firms, such as
maintenance companies and service firms that may supply goods and services to the firm. In
addition, induced jobs and salaries are created in new or existing local businesses, such as retail
stores, gas stations, banks, restaurants, and service companies that may supply goods and services
to new workers and their families.
Note: This report labels the combined indirect and induced impacts as simply "Indirect".
To estimate the indirect and induced economic impact of the firm and its employees on the area, regional
economic multipliers were used. This economic analysis utilized economic impact multipliers obtained an input/output
model produced by from Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (EMSI). The EMSI multipliers used in this analysis are specific
to Larimer County and the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220) industry, Turbine and
Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing (NAICS 333611) industry and the Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional
Managing Offices (NAICS 551114) industry.
Two types of regional economic multipliers were used in this analysis: an employment multiplier and an
earnings multiplier. An employment multiplier was used to estimate the number of indirect and induced jobs
created and supported in the area. An earnings multiplier was used to estimate the amount of salaries
to be paid to workers in these new indirect and induced jobs. The multipliers show the estimated number of
indirect and induced jobs created for every one direct job at the firm and the amount of salaries paid to
these workers for every dollar paid to a direct worker at the firm. The multipliers used in this analysis are
listed below:
Headquarters Manufacturing
Construction Operations Operations
Earnings multiplier 0.34 0.31 0.77
Employment multiplier 0.64 0.75 2.23
Discussion of Fiscal Impact Calculations
Calculation of Revenues for the City:
The city's revenues from sales, property lodging taxes were calculated directly using data that the firm provided and
assumptions about taxable construction spending and worker spending.
Property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some new direct and indirect workers who
may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to local tax rolls.
Page 12
METHODOLOGY
Lodging taxes were also calculated on lodging sales, in local hotels/motels, to out‐of‐town visitors to the firm.
Sales taxes were calculated on the taxable spending in the area by direct and indirect workers, the spending
of out‐of‐town visitors to the firm, and on the firm's taxable sales and purchases of supplies, materials and
services in the area.
The firm was not asked for nor could reasonably provide some data for calculating some other revenues for the
city. For example, while the city will likely receive revenues from fines paid on speeding tickets given
to new workers at the firm, the firm may not reasonably know the propensity of its workers to speed.
Therefore, some other city revenues were calculated using an average revenue approach. This approach uses
two assumptions:
1 ‐ The city has two general revenue sources ‐‐ revenues from residents and revenues from businesses.
2 ‐ The city will collect (a) about the same amount of other revenues from each household of new workers
that may move to the city as it currently collects from an average household of existing residents, and
(b) about the same amount of other revenues from the new firm (on a per worker basis) will be collected
as the city collects from other businesses in the city.
Using this average revenue approach, revenues likely to be received by the city were calculated from the
households of new workers who may move to the city and from the new firm using average city revenues
per worker calculations.
Utility revenues collected from new residents and new businesses were also calculated using the average revenue
approach as shown in Appendix A.
The total annual city revenues used to make average revenue calculations in this analysis were obtained
from the city's latest comprehensive annual financial report.
Calculation of Costs for the City:
This analysis sought to answer the question, what additional monies will the city have to spend to provide
services to households of new workers who may move to the city and to the firm. A marginal cost approach
was used to calculate additional city costs from the new firm and its workers.
This approach uses two assumptions:
1 ‐ The city spends money on services for two general groups ‐‐ residents and businesses.
2 ‐ The city will spend (a) about the same amount for variable or marginal cost for each household
of new workers that may move to the city as it currently spends for an average household of existing
residents, and (b) about the same amount for variable or marginal costs for the new firm (on a per worker
basis) as it spends for other businesses in the city.
The detailed assumptions to estimate the marginal cost per household and per worker are provided in Appendix A.
The cost to provide city‐owned utility services to new residents and new businesses were calculated using the average
cost approach as shown in Appendix A.
Page 13
METHODOLOGY
Calculation of Net Benefits for the City:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional city revenues over a 16‐year
period and additional city costs to provide services to the new firm and its workers and indirect workers who
may move to the city.
Calculation of Revenues for the County:
The county's revenues from sales and property taxes were calculated directly using data that the firm provided.
Property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some new direct and indirect workers who
may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to local tax rolls.
Sales taxes were calculated on the taxable spending in the area by direct and indirect workers, the spending
of out‐of‐town visitors to the firm, and on the firm's taxable sales and purchases of supplies, materials and
services in the area.
Also, the model estimates other additional revenue to be received by the county from new residents and new
businesses. An average revenue approach is used in the same way additional county revenues were calculated.
Calculation of Costs for the County:
The model estimates additional costs to provide services to new residents and businesses using a parallel
methodology used for the city.
Calculation of Net Benefits for the County:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional county revenues over a 16‐year
period and additional county costs to provide services to the new firm and its workers and indirect workers who
may move to the county.
Calculation of Revenues for Public Schools:
The school district's revenues from property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some
new direct and indirect workers who may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to
local tax rolls.
School district revenues from state and federal funds and other local funding were calculated using an average
revenue approach. This approach used the assumption that the school district will collect about the same amount
of these revenues for each new student in the household of a new worker who may move to the county as it
currently collects for each existing student.
Calculation of Costs for Public Schools:
A marginal cost approach was used to calculate additional school district costs from the new firm and its workers.
This approach uses the assumption that the school district will spend about the same amount for variable or
marginal cost for each new student as it spends for each existing student.
Calculation of Net Benefits for Public Schools:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional school district revenues over a
16‐year period and marginal costs for the school district to provide services to students in the households of
new workers who may move to the county.
The school district's total annual revenues and expenses to make average revenue and marginal costs calculations
in this analysis were obtained from the school district's latest annual budget.
Page 14
METHODOLOGY
Calculation of Revenues for the Downtown Development Authority
Revenues for the Downtown Development Authority are based on the data provided by the organization. In addition, the
costs for the DDA are also based on data provided by the organization.
Special Taxing Districts
The hospital/health district and other local property taxing districts will receive additional property tax revenue as a result
of the project. In addition these special taxing districts may incur additional costs from new residents and from the new
firm. The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional
costs cannot be determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
About Impact DataSource
Impact DataSource is a 19‐year‐old Austin, Texas economic consulting, research and analysis firm. The company has
conducted over 2,500 economic impact analyses of firms, projects and activities in most industry groups throughout
the U.S.
In addition, Impact DataSource has prepared and customized over 50 economic impact models for its clients to
perform their own analyses of economic development projects. These clients include the New Mexico Economic
Development and the Metro Orlando (Florida) Economic Development Commission.
The New Mexico Department of Economic Development uses Impact DataSource's computer model to project the
economic impact of new or expanding firms in the state and costs and benefits for the State of New Mexico and
each local taxing district. The model also calculates the amount of eligible state and local incentives and calculates
a rate of return and payback period for these incentives.
Impact DataSource's team includes the following members:
‐ Jerry Walker, principal/economist, and
‐ Paul Scheuren, principal/economist.
Jerry Walker is an economist and Impact DataSource's Principal. Over the past seventeen years, he has conducted
economic and fiscal impact analyses and cost‐benefit studies of a variety of firms, facilities, projects and activities.
He has also developed several economic impact analysis computer programs for clients to do their own economic
impact analyses of firms, projects, activities and organizations.
He also has a background in government accounting and auditing. Prior to his economic consulting career, he
had a fifteen‐year career as a supervisory auditor with two federal departments – the U.S. Department of
Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He reviewed federal programs operated by
states, local governments, colleges and universities, local education agencies, and nonprofit organizations in a
six state area from Austin, Texas. He performed financial audits and operational reviews. During the operational
reviews, the operations of the federal programs were reviewed for economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The
financial audits included analyzing costs incurred for federal programs and components of indirect cost rates.
He has also served as a part‐time accounting instructor at Austin Community College, Austin, Texas.
Jerry has Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees in accounting and economics from
Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, Louisiana.
Paul Scheuren is an Impact DataSource economist. Over the past three years, he has conducted economic and
fiscal impact analyses and cost‐benefit studies of a variety of firms, facilities, projects and activities. Recently,
Paul analyzed more than 30 renewable energy projects funded by the Iowa Power Fund, Iowa's energy‐related
economic development fund.
Page 15
METHODOLOGY
Prior to joining Impact DataSource, Paul worked as a compensation analyst at the Texas Association of School
Boards where he supported compensation consulting projects and helped streamline data analysis for a
statewide salary survey.
Paul has a Master of Arts in Economics from Clemson University as well as a Bachelor of Business Administration
in actuarial science from Temple University.
Data used in the analysis, along with schedules of the results of calculations, are on the following pages.
Page 16
Appendix A
Data and Rates
Page 17
APPENDIX A
Local Tax Rates:
Sales tax rates:
City of Fort Collins Taxable goods 3.85%
Mfg equipment eligible for use tax rebate 3.00%
Food consumed at home 2.25%
Larimer County 0.60%
Property tax rates, per $1,000 of assessment:
City of Fort Collins 9.797
Larimer County 22.520
Poudre School District 54.686
Hospital/Health Services 2.167
Other (Water, Library, etc) 4.142
Downtown Development Authority 5.000
City lodging tax rate (in addition to sale tax): 3.00%
Relevant City Rates:
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses:
Revenue and Expenditures from Fort Collins 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 28
Primary Government Revenues In Thousands
Charges for services $186,129
Operating grants and contributions $13,843
Capital grants and contributions $26,445
Sales and use taxes $97,589
Property taxes $17,742
Occupational taxes $2,433
Lodging taxes $909
Intergovernmental not restricted to programs $10,274
Investment earnings $5,520
Miscellaneous $2,517
Total Revenues $363,401
Primary Government Revenue Sources Estimated in the Model In Thousands
Sales and use taxes $97,589
Property taxes $17,742
Lodging taxes $909
Total $116,240
Page 18
APPENDIX A
Primary Government Revenues Excluded from Miscellaneous Revenue Calcluation
In Thousands
Charges for Services
Power and Light $100,814
Water $24,308
Wastewater $19,149
Operating grants and contributions (exclude 100%) $13,843
Capital grants and contributions (exclude 100%) $26,445
Intergovernmental not restricted to programs $10,274
Investment earnings $5,520
Total $200,353
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses
In Thousands
Total Revenues $363,401
Less Sources estimated direct in Model ($116,240)
Less Excluded Revenues ($200,353)
Miscellaneous Revenue $46,808
Includes Primary Government Revenues not estimated in the model or excluded from
from Miscellaneous Revenue Calculation
City financial data and Impact DataSource calculations.
Percent of miscellaneous revenues and fees collected from:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Number of households and workers in Fort Collins:
Households 58,111
Workers 67,449
U.S. Census 2011 American Community Survey (Households), U.S. Census OnTheMap 2010 (All Workers)
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from households per new $564
worker household moving to the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from businesses per new $208
worker in the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Page 19
APPENDIX A
Marginal Government Expenses imposed on the city by new households and businesses:
Primary Government Expenses In Thousands Fixed Variable
General Government $33,674 80% 20%
Public Safety $51,313 60% 40%
Cultural parks, recreation and environment $29,755 60% 40%
Planning and development $11,053 60% 40%
Transportation $38,540 60% 40%
Interest on long‐term debt $2,523 100% 0%
Storm drainage $8,407 0% 100%
Golf $2,547 0% 100%
Total Expenses $177,812
Total Marginal Costs $69,953
Impact DataSource calculation based on fixed/variable split for government expenses as determined through work with
similar communities. Local expenditure data used in this analysis according to the city's 2011 CAFR.
Percent of marginal costs attributable to:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated marginal city costs attributable to households per new worker $843
household moving to the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated marginal city costs attributable to businesses per new worker in the city $311
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
City‐owned Utility Revenue Collected from new residents and businesses:
City‐Owned Utility Revenues In Thousands
Power and Light $99,657
Water $24,101
Wastewater $19,020
Total City‐Owned Utility Revenues $142,777
Estimated cost per new household to provide city‐owned $1,720
utilities to new households
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated cost per new worker to provide city‐owned $635
utilities to new businesses
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Page 20
APPENDIX A
Costs to provide City‐owned Utilities to new residents and businesses:
City‐Owned Utility Expenses In Thousands
Power and Light $97,057
Water $19,941
Wastewater $14,163
Total City‐Owned Utility Expenses $131,161
Estimated cost per new household to provide city‐owned $1,580
utilities to new households
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated cost per new worker to provide city‐owned $583
utilities to new businesses
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Rate of annual increase in the above expenditures and other revenue: 2%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Relevant County Rates:
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses:
Revenue and Expenditures from Larimer 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 26
Primary Government Revenues In Millions
Charges for services $43.63
Operating grants and contributions $55.64
Capital grants and contributions $2.13
Property taxes $91.22
Sales and use taxes $31.95
Other Taxes $5.50
Other Revenues $5.36
Total Revenues $235.43
Primary Government Revenue Sources Estimated in the Model In Millions
Property taxes $91.22
Sales and use taxes $31.95
Total $123.17
Page 21
APPENDIX A
Primary Government Revenues Excluded from Miscellaneous Revenue Calcluation
In Millions
Operating grants and contributions (75%) $41.73
Capital grants and contributions (75%) $1.60
Total $43.33
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses
In Millions
Total Revenues $235.43
Less Sources estimated direct in Model ($123.17)
Less Excluded Revenues ($43.33)
Miscellaneous Revenue $68.93
Includes Primary Government Revenues not estimated in the model or excluded from
from Miscellaneous Revenue Calculation
County financial data and Impact DataSource calculations.
Percent of miscellaneous revenues and fees collected from:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Number of households and workers in Larimer County:
Households 121,911
Workers 115,819
U.S. Census 2011 American Community Survey (Households), U.S. Census OnTheMap 2010 (All Workers)
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from households per new $396
worker household moving to the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from businesses per new $179
worker in the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Marginal Government Expenses imposed on the county by new households and businesses:
Primary Government Expenses In Millions Fixed Variable
General Government $33.88 80% 20%
Judicial and Public Safety $63.13 60% 40%
Streets and highways $25.42 60% 40%
Recreation $16.65 60% 40%
Health and Human Services $56.49 60% 40%
Interest on long‐term debt $2.63 100% 0%
Solid Waste $5.25 0% 100%
Total Expenses $203.45
Total Marginal Costs $76.70
Impact DataSource calculation based on fixed/variable split for government expenses as determined through work with
similar communities. Local expenditure data used in this analysis according to the county's 2011 CAFR.
Page 22
APPENDIX A
Percent of marginal costs attributable to:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated marginal county costs attributable to households per new worker $440
household moving to the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Estimated marginal county costs attributable to businesses per new worker $199
in the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Rate of annual increase in the above expenditures and other revenue: 2%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Relevant School District Rates:
The school district’s estimated marginal cost of providing services to each $3,896
new child in the district
Impact DataSource calculation based on values below.
Average annual cost of providing services to each child in the district $7,793
2013 Budget Poudre School District General Fund ‐ Estimated values for 2011‐12
Average annual cost for each new child, as a percent of average annual cost 50%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated annual state, federal and other funding received by the district $3,966
for each child enrolled
2013 Budget Poudre School District General Fund ‐ Estimated values for 2011‐12
Relevant Community Rates:
Expected inflation rate over the first 16 years 3.0%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Discount rate used in analysis to compute discounted cash flows 5.0%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Percent of the gross salaries a typical worker spent on taxable goods and services 27%
Impact DataSource calculation from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Percent of the gross salaries a typical worker spent on taxable food consumed at home 6%
Impact DataSource calculation from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Page 23
APPENDIX A
Property tax asssessment rates:
Nonresidential assessment rate 29.00%
Residential assessment rate 7.96%
Median value of a new residential property constructed in the city $238,600
U.S. Census American Community Survey 2011 Fort Collins, CO
Percent annual increase in the taxable value of residential and commercial 0.0%
real property on local tax rolls over the first 16 years
Impact DataSource assumption.
Depreciation rates:
To estimate the annual taxable or depreciable value of furniture, fixtures and equipment owned by the firm,
this analysis uses the following depreciation schedule. Therefore, property taxes on the firm's furniture, fixtures
and equipment are calculated on the following percentages of the costs of such equipment purchased each year:
Year 1 100%
Year 2 90%
Year 3 80%
Year 4 70%
Year 5 60%
Year 6 50%
Year 7 40%
Year 8 30%
Year 9 20%
Year 10 20%
Impact DataSource assumption.
The Firm's Investments, Assets and Construction:
The market value of investments at the firm's facility each year:
Buildings and Furniture,
Other Real Fixtures,
Property and
Land Improvements Equipment Total
Year 1 $0 $39,978,621 $6,955,725 $46,934,346
Year 2 $0 $31,933,793 $43,544,275 $75,478,068
Year 3 $0$0$0$0
Year 4 $0$0$0$0
Year 5 $0$0$0$0
Year 6 $0$0$0$0
Year 7 $0$0$0$0
Year 8 $0$0$0$0
Year 9 $0$0$0$0
Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $71,912,414 $50,500,000 $122,412,414
Building and Other Real Property Improvement value was deduced based on the Downtown Development Authority's
estimated tax collections. The value of FFE is based $50.5 million in equipment phased in over two years.
Page 24
APPENDIX A
Spending During Construction:
Estimated spending for construction and capital expansion fees (if applicable):
Construction Capital
Spending Expansion Fees
Year 1 $126,825,000 Year 1 $6,388,366
Year 2 $42,275,000 Year 2$0
Year 3$0 Year 3$0
Year 4$0 Year 4$0
Year 5$0 Year 5$0
Year 6$0 Year 6$0
Year 7$0 Year 7$0
Year 8$0 Year 8$0
Year 9$0 Year 9$0
Year 10 $0 Year 10 $0
Percent of construction costs for:
Materials 50%
Labor 50%
Estimated percent of construction materials that will be subject to the city's use tax 100%
Percent of taxable spending by construction workers that will be in the city 0%
Percent of furniture, fixtures and equipment to be subject to 3% use tax rate: 95%
Expected city building permits and plan check fees to be paid during construction, if applicable:
Plan Check Total Permits
Permit Fees Fees and Fees
Year 1 $191,247 $92,082 $283,329
Year 2 $0$0$0
Year 3 $0$0$0
Year 4 $0$0$0
Year 5 $0$0$0
Year 6 $0$0$0
Year 7 $0$0$0
Year 8 $0$0$0
Year 9 $0$0$0
Year 10 $0 $0 $0
The above fees were estimated using the city's Building‐Combination Estimate of Fees web application. The estimate is
based on construction with a $125 million valuation with subcontractors.
http://www.fcgov.com/building/fees.php
Page 25
APPENDIX A
Activities During the Firm's Operations:
The firm's estimated taxable purchases of materials, supplies and services in the community and the
firm's estimated taxable sales that will be subject to sales tax in the city
Taxable Taxable
Purchases Sales
Year 1 $347,786 $0
Year 2 $2,177,214 $0
Year 3$0 $0
Year 4$0 $0
Year 5$0 $0
Year 6$0 $0
Year 7$0 $0
Year 8$0 $0
Year 9$0 $0
Year 10 $0 $0
New employees in Fort Collins each year:
New New Total
Headquarters Manufacturing New Employees
Employees Employees added
added each year each year each year*
Year 1 000
Year 2 0 700 700
Year 3 000
Year 4 000
Year 5 000
Year 6 000
Year 7 000
Year 8 000
Year 9 000
Year 10000
Total 0 700 700
* Of the 700 new jobs to Fort Collins, 515 employees will be relocating
from nearby and 185 will be new hires by the firm.
Number of new workers who will move to the city to take job at the firm:
Estimated percent of the 185 newly hired employees moving to the city 15.0%
Number of new
employees moving
to the city
Year 10
Year 228
Year 30
Year 40
Year 50
Year 60
Year 70
Year 80
Year 90
Year 10 0
Total 28
Page 26
APPENDIX A
Average annual salaries of new employees in the first year $76,000
Percent of expected increase in employee salaries after Year 12.5%
Multipliers for calculating the number of indirect and induced jobs and earnings in the area during operations:
Headquarters Manufacturing
Earnings 0.3100 0.7700
Employment 0.7500 2.2310
This cost‐benefit analysis uses the above multipliers to project the indirect and induced benefits
in the community as a result of the direct economic activity. The employment multiplier shows
the number of spin‐off jobs that will be created from each direct job. Similarly, the earnings
multiplier estimates the salaries and wages to be paid to workers in these spin‐off jobs for
each $1 paid to direct workers.
Percent of workers in new indirect and induced jobs that will move 2%
to the city for the job
Estimated percentage of workers moving to the city that will have new 25%
residential property built for them the first year that they move to the city
Household size of a typical new worker moving to the city: 2.50
Number of school children in a typical worker's household 0.95
Percent of taxable shopping by a typical new worker that will 55%
be in the city
Visitors to the Firm from Out‐of‐Town:
Number of out‐of‐town visitor days resulting from the project:
Includes vendors, customer audits and visiting corporate employees.
Visitors
Year 1 100
Year 2 150
Year 3 200
Year 4 200
Year 5 200
Year 6 200
Percent of annual increase in the number of visitors after year 60%
Average daily taxable visitor spending, excluding lodging in the city $35
Percent of visitor days that will result in a night in a hotel/motel in the city 50%
Average nightly room rate in a local motel $95
Page 27
Appendix B
Economic Impact Calculations
Page 28
APPENDIX B
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Headquarters
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
4 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
5 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
6 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
7 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
8 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
9 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
10000$0$0$0
11000$0$0$0
12000$0$0$0
13000$0$0$0
14000$0$0$0
15000$0$0$0
16000$0$0$0
Total 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Manufacturing
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 700 700 1,400 $54,530,000 $18,819,666 $73,349,666
3 0 0 0 $55,893,250 $19,290,158 $75,183,408
4 0 0 0 $57,290,581 $19,772,412 $77,062,993
5 0 0 0 $58,722,846 $20,266,722 $78,989,568
6 0 0 0 $60,190,917 $20,773,390 $80,964,307
7 0 0 0 $61,695,690 $21,292,725 $82,988,415
8 0 0 0 $63,238,082 $21,825,043 $85,063,125
9 0 0 0 $64,819,034 $22,370,669 $87,189,703
10 0 0 0 $66,439,510 $22,929,936 $89,369,446
11 0 0 0 $68,100,498 $23,503,184 $91,603,682
12 0 0 0 $69,803,010 $24,090,764 $93,893,774
13 0 0 0 $71,548,085 $24,693,033 $96,241,118
14 0 0 0 $73,336,788 $25,310,359 $98,647,146
15 0 0 0 $75,170,207 $25,943,118 $101,113,325
16 0 0 0 $77,049,462 $26,591,696 $103,641,158
Total 700 700 1,400 $977,827,961 $337,472,875 $1,315,300,836
Page 29
APPENDIX B
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Headquarters & Manufacturing
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 700 700 1,400 $54,530,000 $18,819,666 $73,349,666
3 0 0 0 $55,893,250 $19,290,158 $75,183,408
4 0 0 0 $57,290,581 $19,772,412 $77,062,993
5 0 0 0 $58,722,846 $20,266,722 $78,989,568
6 0 0 0 $60,190,917 $20,773,390 $80,964,307
7 0 0 0 $61,695,690 $21,292,725 $82,988,415
8 0 0 0 $63,238,082 $21,825,043 $85,063,125
9 0 0 0 $64,819,034 $22,370,669 $87,189,703
10 0 0 0 $66,439,510 $22,929,936 $89,369,446
11 0 0 0 $68,100,498 $23,503,184 $91,603,682
12 0 0 0 $69,803,010 $24,090,764 $93,893,774
13 0 0 0 $71,548,085 $24,693,033 $96,241,118
14 0 0 0 $73,336,788 $25,310,359 $98,647,146
15 0 0 0 $75,170,207 $25,943,118 $101,113,325
16 0 0 0 $77,049,462 $26,591,696 $103,641,158
Total 700 700 1,400 $977,827,961 $337,472,875 $1,315,300,836
Number of direct and indirect workers and their families who will move
to the area and their children who will attend local public schools:
New Workers Total Total
Moving to New New
Year the Area Residents Students
10 0 0
2 42 104 40
30 0 0
40 0 0
50 0 0
60 0 0
70 0 0
80 0 0
90 0 0
10 0 0 0
11 0 0 0
12 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
15 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
Total 42 104 40
Page 30
APPENDIX B
Number of new residential properties that may be built in the city for direct and indirect workers
who will move to the community:
Total New
Residential
Year Properties
10
210
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
16 0
Total 10
Page 31
APPENDIX B
Local taxable spending on which sales taxes will be collected:
Direct and
Taxable Indirect Taxable Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by
Year Spending Spending* Spending the Firm the Firm Total
1 $63,412,500 $0 $8,250 $0 $347,786 $63,768,536
2 $21,137,500 $6,424,228 $12,746 $0 $2,177,214 $29,751,688
3 $0 $6,584,833 $17,505 $0 $0 $6,602,338
4 $0 $6,749,454 $18,030 $0 $0 $6,767,484
5 $0 $6,918,190 $18,571 $0 $0 $6,936,761
6 $0 $7,091,145 $19,128 $0 $0 $7,110,273
7 $0 $7,268,424 $19,702 $0 $0 $7,288,126
8 $0 $7,450,134 $20,293 $0 $0 $7,470,427
9 $0 $7,636,388 $20,902 $0 $0 $7,657,289
10 $0 $7,827,297 $21,529 $0 $0 $7,848,826
11 $0 $8,022,980 $22,175 $0 $0 $8,045,154
12 $0 $8,223,554 $22,840 $0 $0 $8,246,394
13 $0 $8,429,143 $23,525 $0 $0 $8,452,668
14 $0 $8,639,872 $24,231 $0 $0 $8,664,103
15 $0 $8,855,869 $24,958 $0 $0 $8,880,826
16 $0 $9,077,265 $25,706 $0 $0 $9,102,972
Total $84,550,000 $115,198,776 $320,090 $0 $2,525,000 $202,593,866
* Spending includes only expenditures on items subject to general sales tax.
Manufacturing purchases subject to use tax and local taxable spending by direct and indirect workers
on food consumed at home:
Spending on
Rebateable Food
Manufacturing Manufacturing Consumed
Year Purchases Purchases at home
1 $6,607,939 $6,607,939 $0
2 $41,367,061 $41,367,061 $2,595,647
3 $0 $0 $2,660,539
4 $0 $0 $2,727,052
5 $0 $0 $2,795,228
6 $0 $0 $2,865,109
7 $0 $0 $2,936,737
8 $0 $0 $3,010,155
9 $0 $0 $3,085,409
10 $0 $0 $3,162,544
11 $0 $0 $3,241,608
12 $0 $0 $3,322,648
13 $0 $0 $3,405,714
14 $0 $0 $3,490,857
15 $0 $0 $3,578,129
16 $0 $0 $3,667,582
Total $47,975,000 $47,975,000 $46,544,960
Page 32
APPENDIX B
Local spending by visitors on lodging by out‐of‐town visitors:
Spending
Year on Lodging
1 $4,750
2 $7,339
3 $10,079
4 $10,381
5 $10,692
6 $11,013
7 $11,343
8 $11,684
9 $12,034
10 $12,395
11 $12,767
12 $13,150
13 $13,545
14 $13,951
15 $14,370
16 $14,801
Total $184,294
Page 33
APPENDIX B
Market value of new residential property built for direct and indirect workers who move to the
community and the market value of the firm's property:
Value of Value of Firm's
Firm's Business
New Real Personal Total
Residential Property Property Taxable
Year Property Tax Rolls Tax Rolls Property
1 $0 $39,978,621 $6,955,725 $46,934,346
2 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $49,804,428 $124,102,842
3 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $44,754,428 $119,052,842
4 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $39,704,428 $114,002,842
5 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $34,654,428 $108,952,842
6 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $29,604,428 $103,902,842
7 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $24,554,428 $98,852,842
8 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $19,504,428 $93,802,842
9 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $14,454,428 $88,752,842
10 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
11 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
12 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
13 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
14 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
15 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
16 $2,386,000 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $84,398,414
Assessed value of new residential property built for direct and indirect workers who move to the
community and the assessed value of the firm's property:
Value of Value of Firm's
Firm's Business
New Real Personal Total
Residential Property Property Taxable
Year Property Tax Rolls Tax Rolls Property
1 $0 $11,593,800 $2,017,160 $13,610,960
2 $189,926 $20,854,600 $14,443,284 $35,487,810
3 $189,926 $20,854,600 $12,978,784 $34,023,310
4 $189,926 $20,854,600 $11,514,284 $32,558,810
5 $189,926 $20,854,600 $10,049,784 $31,094,310
6 $189,926 $20,854,600 $8,585,284 $29,629,810
7 $189,926 $20,854,600 $7,120,784 $28,165,310
8 $189,926 $20,854,600 $5,656,284 $26,700,810
9 $189,926 $20,854,600 $4,191,784 $25,236,310
10 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
11 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
12 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
13 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
14 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
15 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
16 $189,926 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $23,973,526
Page 34
Appendix C
Cost and Benefit Calculations
Page 35
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins
Benefits:
Sales and use tax collections:
On
Direct and Rebate
On Taxable Indirect On Taxable Taxable On Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by Construction
Year Spending* Spending Spending the Firm the Firm Spending Total
1 $2,441,381 $0 $318 $0 $13,390 ($1,953,105) $501,984
2 $813,794 $247,333 $491 $0 $83,823 ($651,035) $494,405
3 $0 $253,516 $674 $0 $0 $0 $254,190
4 $0 $259,854 $694 $0 $0 $0 $260,548
5 $0 $266,350 $715 $0 $0 $0 $267,065
6 $0 $273,009 $736 $0 $0 $0 $273,746
7 $0 $279,834 $759 $0 $0 $0 $280,593
8 $0 $286,830 $781 $0 $0 $0 $287,611
9 $0 $294,001 $805 $0 $0 $0 $294,806
10 $0 $301,351 $829 $0 $0 $0 $302,180
11 $0 $308,885 $854 $0 $0 $0 $309,738
12 $0 $316,607 $879 $0 $0 $0 $317,486
13 $0 $324,522 $906 $0 $0 $0 $325,428
14 $0 $332,635 $933 $0 $0 $0 $333,568
15 $0 $340,951 $961 $0 $0 $0 $341,912
16 $0 $349,475 $990 $0 $0 $0 $350,464
Total $3,255,175 $4,435,153 $12,323 $0 $97,213 ($2,604,140) $5,195,724
* Tax collections prior to possible rebates.
Sales and use tax collections:
On Rebate on On Food
Manufacturing Manufacturing Consumed
Year Purchases* Purchases at home Total
1 $198,238 ($158,591) $0 $39,648
2 $1,241,012 ($992,809) $58,402 $306,604
3 $0 $0 $59,862 $59,862
4 $0 $0 $61,359 $61,359
5 $0 $0 $62,893 $62,893
6 $0 $0 $64,465 $64,465
7 $0 $0 $66,077 $66,077
8 $0 $0 $67,728 $67,728
9 $0 $0 $69,422 $69,422
10 $0 $0 $71,157 $71,157
11 $0 $0 $72,936 $72,936
12 $0 $0 $74,760 $74,760
13 $0 $0 $76,629 $76,629
14 $0 $0 $78,544 $78,544
15 $0 $0 $80,508 $80,508
16 $0 $0 $82,521 $82,521
Total $1,439,250 ($1,151,400) $1,047,262 $1,335,112
* Tax collections prior to possible rebates.
Page 36
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Property tax collections on:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
2 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
3 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
4 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
5 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
6 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
7 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
8 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
9 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
10 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
11 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
12 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
13 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
14 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
15 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
16 $1,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,861
Total $27,911 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,911
* Net of 100% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Page 37
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Other city revenues from building permits and fees, lodging taxes, miscellaneous revenue collected
from new households and new businesses:
Rebated Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Building Capital Capital Revenues Revenues
Permits and Expansion Expansion Lodging Collected from Collected from
Year Fees Fees Fees Taxes Households* Businesses** Total
1 $283,329 $6,388,366 ($3,194,183) $143 $0 $0 $3,477,655
2 $0 $0 $0 $220 $24,018 $297,024 $321,262
3 $0 $0 $0 $302 $24,498 $302,964 $327,765
4 $0 $0 $0 $311 $24,988 $309,024 $334,323
5 $0 $0 $0 $321 $25,488 $315,204 $341,013
6 $0 $0 $0 $330 $25,998 $321,508 $347,837
7 $0 $0 $0 $340 $26,518 $327,938 $354,797
8 $0 $0 $0 $351 $27,048 $334,497 $361,896
9 $0 $0 $0 $361 $27,589 $341,187 $369,137
10 $0 $0 $0 $372 $28,141 $348,011 $376,524
11 $0 $0 $0 $383 $28,704 $354,971 $384,058
12 $0 $0 $0 $395 $29,278 $362,071 $391,743
13 $0 $0 $0 $406 $29,863 $369,312 $399,582
14 $0 $0 $0 $419 $30,461 $376,698 $407,577
15 $0 $0 $0 $431 $31,070 $384,232 $415,733
16 $0 $0 $0 $444 $31,691 $391,917 $424,052
Total $283,329 $6,388,366 ($3,194,183) $5,529 $415,352 $5,136,560 $9,034,953
* Miscellaneous revenues collected from households is based on the number of new households moving to the community
and the per household miscellaneous revenue collected from new households as calculated and discussed on page 19.
**Miscellaneous revenues collected from businesses is based on the number of new workers in the community and
the per new worker miscellaneous revenue collected from businesses as calculated and discussed on page 19.
Page 38
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
City‐owned utility revenue collected by the city from new residents and new businesses:
City‐Owned City‐Owned
Utility Utility
Revenues Revenues
Collected from Collected from
Year Households Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $73,246 $906,780 $980,026
3 $74,711 $924,916 $999,627
4 $76,205 $943,414 $1,019,619
5 $77,729 $962,282 $1,040,012
6 $79,284 $981,528 $1,060,812
7 $80,870 $1,001,158 $1,082,028
8 $82,487 $1,021,182 $1,103,669
9 $84,137 $1,041,605 $1,125,742
10 $85,820 $1,062,437 $1,148,257
11 $87,536 $1,083,686 $1,171,222
12 $89,287 $1,105,360 $1,194,646
13 $91,072 $1,127,467 $1,218,539
14 $92,894 $1,150,016 $1,242,910
15 $94,752 $1,173,017 $1,267,768
16 $96,647 $1,196,477 $1,293,124
Total $1,266,677 $15,681,325 $16,948,002
Page 39
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Costs:
The costs of providing municipal services and utility services to new residents:
Cost of City Cost of City Cost of City‐ Cost of City‐
Services to Services to Owned Utility Owned Utility
New New Svcs to New Svcs to New
Year Residents Businesses Residents Businesses Total Costs
1$0$0$0$0$0
2 $35,899 $444,108 $67,284 $832,524 $1,379,815
3 $36,617 $452,990 $68,630 $849,174 $1,407,412
4 $37,349 $462,050 $70,003 $866,158 $1,435,560
5 $38,096 $471,291 $71,403 $883,481 $1,464,271
6 $38,858 $480,717 $72,831 $901,151 $1,493,557
7 $39,636 $490,331 $74,287 $919,174 $1,523,428
8 $40,428 $500,138 $75,773 $937,557 $1,553,896
9 $41,237 $510,140 $77,289 $956,308 $1,584,974
10 $42,062 $520,343 $78,834 $975,435 $1,616,674
11 $42,903 $530,750 $80,411 $994,943 $1,649,007
12 $43,761 $541,365 $82,019 $1,014,842 $1,681,987
13 $44,636 $552,192 $83,660 $1,035,139 $1,715,627
14 $45,529 $563,236 $85,333 $1,055,842 $1,749,940
15 $46,439 $574,501 $87,039 $1,076,959 $1,784,938
16 $47,368 $585,991 $88,780 $1,098,498 $1,820,637
Total $620,819 $7,680,145 $1,163,575 $14,397,185 $23,861,724
Net Benefits for the City:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $4,019,286 $0 $4,019,286 $4,019,286
2 $2,104,158 ($1,379,815) $724,343 $4,743,629
3 $1,643,305 ($1,407,412) $235,893 $4,979,522
4 $1,677,710 ($1,435,560) $242,150 $5,221,672
5 $1,712,843 ($1,464,271) $248,572 $5,470,244
6 $1,748,720 ($1,493,557) $255,163 $5,725,407
7 $1,785,355 ($1,523,428) $261,927 $5,987,334
8 $1,822,765 ($1,553,896) $268,869 $6,256,203
9 $1,860,967 ($1,584,974) $275,993 $6,532,196
10 $1,899,978 ($1,616,674) $283,305 $6,815,501
11 $1,939,815 ($1,649,007) $290,808 $7,106,309
12 $1,980,496 ($1,681,987) $298,508 $7,404,817
13 $2,022,038 ($1,715,627) $306,411 $7,711,228
14 $2,064,460 ($1,749,940) $314,521 $8,025,749
15 $2,107,782 ($1,784,938) $322,843 $8,348,592
16 $2,152,022 ($1,820,637) $331,384 $8,679,977
Total $32,541,701 ($23,861,724) $8,679,977
Page 40
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Additional Detail: Sales Taxes Collected Specifically within the DDA
The tax collections within the DDA shown below represent a subset of the estimated sales taxes collected by Fort Collins shown
above. The break out table below is predicated on the fact that the city estimates 10% of the City's overall sales occur in the
Downtown Development Authority area.
Sales Taxes
Collected in
Year the DDA
1 $32
2 $30,623
3 $31,405
4 $32,191
5 $32,996
6 $33,821
7 $34,667
8 $35,534
9 $36,423
10 $37,334
11 $38,267
12 $39,225
13 $40,206
14 $41,211
15 $42,242
16 $43,299
Total $549,474
Page 41
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County
Benefits:
Sales tax collections:
On
Direct and
On Taxable Indirect On Taxable Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by
Year Spending Spending Spending the Firm the Firm Total
1 $380,475 $0 $50 $0 $2,087 $382,611
2 $126,825 $38,545 $76 $0 $13,063 $178,510
3 $0 $39,509 $105 $0 $0 $39,614
4 $0 $40,497 $108 $0 $0 $40,605
5 $0 $41,509 $111 $0 $0 $41,621
6 $0 $42,547 $115 $0 $0 $42,662
7 $0 $43,611 $118 $0 $0 $43,729
8 $0 $44,701 $122 $0 $0 $44,823
9 $0 $45,818 $125 $0 $0 $45,944
10 $0 $46,964 $129 $0 $0 $47,093
11 $0 $48,138 $133 $0 $0 $48,271
12 $0 $49,341 $137 $0 $0 $49,478
13 $0 $50,575 $141 $0 $0 $50,716
14 $0 $51,839 $145 $0 $0 $51,985
15 $0 $53,135 $150 $0 $0 $53,285
16 $0 $54,464 $154 $0 $0 $54,618
Total $507,300 $691,193 $1,921 $0 $15,150 $1,215,563
Property tax collections:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $130,546 $22,713 $0 $0 $153,259 $153,259
2 $4,277 $234,823 $162,631 $0 $0 $397,454 $401,731
3 $4,277 $234,823 $146,141 $0 $0 $380,964 $385,241
4 $4,277 $234,823 $129,651 $0 $0 $364,474 $368,751
5 $4,277 $234,823 $113,161 $0 $0 $347,983 $352,260
6 $4,277 $234,823 $96,670 $0 $0 $331,493 $335,770
7 $4,277 $234,823 $80,180 $0 $0 $315,003 $319,280
8 $4,277 $234,823 $63,690 $0 $0 $298,513 $302,790
9 $4,277 $234,823 $47,199 $0 $0 $282,022 $286,299
10 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
11 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
12 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
13 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
14 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
15 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
16 $4,277 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $272,080
Total $64,157 $3,652,888 $1,092,900 $0 $0 $4,745,789 $4,809,945
* Net of 50% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Page 42
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County
Other county miscellaneous user fees and taxes collected from new households and new businesses:
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Revenues Revenues
Collected from Collected from
Year Households Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $16,864 $255,612 $272,476
3 $17,201 $260,724 $277,925
4 $17,545 $265,939 $283,484
5 $17,896 $271,257 $289,153
6 $18,254 $276,683 $294,936
7 $18,619 $282,216 $300,835
8 $18,991 $287,861 $306,852
9 $19,371 $293,618 $312,989
10 $19,758 $299,490 $319,249
11 $20,154 $305,480 $325,634
12 $20,557 $311,590 $332,146
13 $20,968 $317,821 $338,789
14 $21,387 $324,178 $345,565
15 $21,815 $330,661 $352,476
16 $22,251 $337,275 $359,526
Total $291,630 $4,420,405 $4,712,035
Costs of providing county services to new residents:
Costs of Costs of
County County
Services: Services:
Year New Residents Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $18,737 $284,172 $302,909
3 $19,112 $289,855 $308,968
4 $19,494 $295,653 $315,147
5 $19,884 $301,566 $321,450
6 $20,282 $307,597 $327,879
7 $20,688 $313,749 $334,436
8 $21,101 $320,024 $341,125
9 $21,523 $326,424 $347,948
10 $21,954 $332,953 $354,907
11 $22,393 $339,612 $362,005
12 $22,841 $346,404 $369,245
13 $23,298 $353,332 $376,630
14 $23,764 $360,399 $384,162
15 $24,239 $367,607 $391,846
16 $24,724 $374,959 $399,683
Total $324,034 $4,914,305 $5,238,339
Page 43
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County ‐ Continued
Net Benefits for the County:
Cumulative
Net Net
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Benefits
1 $535,871 $0 $535,871 $535,871
2 $852,717 ($302,909) $549,808 $1,085,678
3 $702,780 ($308,968) $393,813 $1,479,491
4 $692,839 ($315,147) $377,692 $1,857,183
5 $683,034 ($321,450) $361,585 $2,218,768
6 $673,368 ($327,879) $345,489 $2,564,257
7 $663,844 ($334,436) $329,407 $2,893,665
8 $654,464 ($341,125) $313,339 $3,207,004
9 $645,232 ($347,948) $297,284 $3,504,288
10 $638,422 ($354,907) $283,515 $3,787,803
11 $645,985 ($362,005) $283,980 $4,071,784
12 $653,705 ($369,245) $284,460 $4,356,244
13 $661,586 ($376,630) $284,956 $4,641,200
14 $669,630 ($384,162) $285,468 $4,926,668
15 $677,842 ($391,846) $285,996 $5,212,664
16 $686,224 ($399,683) $286,542 $5,499,205
Total $10,737,544 ($5,238,339) $5,499,205
Page 44
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Poudre School District
Benefits:
Property tax collections:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $317,009 $55,155 $0 $0 $372,164 $372,164
2 $10,386 $570,227 $394,923 $0 $0 $965,150 $975,536
3 $10,386 $570,227 $354,879 $0 $0 $925,106 $935,492
4 $10,386 $570,227 $314,835 $0 $0 $885,062 $895,449
5 $10,386 $570,227 $274,791 $0 $0 $845,019 $855,405
6 $10,386 $570,227 $234,747 $0 $0 $804,975 $815,361
7 $10,386 $570,227 $194,704 $0 $0 $764,931 $775,317
8 $10,386 $570,227 $154,660 $0 $0 $724,887 $735,273
9 $10,386 $570,227 $114,616 $0 $0 $684,843 $695,230
10 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
11 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
12 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
13 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
14 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
15 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
16 $10,386 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $660,701
Total $155,794 $8,870,419 $2,653,923 $0 $0 $11,524,343 $11,680,137
* Net of 50% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Additional State and Federal school funding received:
Additional
State & Federal
School
Year Funding
1$0
2 $162,004
3 $166,865
4 $171,870
5 $177,027
6 $182,337
7 $187,807
8 $193,442
9 $199,245
10 $205,222
11 $211,379
12 $217,720
13 $224,252
14 $230,980
15 $237,909
16 $245,046
Total $3,013,106
Page 45
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Poudre School District
Costs:
Costs of educating children of new workers who move to the district:
Cost of
Educating
New
Year Students
1$0
2 $159,172
3 $163,948
4 $168,866
5 $173,932
6 $179,150
7 $184,524
8 $190,060
9 $195,762
10 $201,635
11 $207,684
12 $213,914
13 $220,332
14 $226,942
15 $233,750
16 $240,762
Total $2,960,433
Net Benefits for the School District:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $372,164 $0 $372,164 $372,164
2 $1,137,541 ($159,172) $978,368 $1,350,533
3 $1,102,357 ($163,948) $938,410 $2,288,942
4 $1,067,319 ($168,866) $898,453 $3,187,396
5 $1,032,431 ($173,932) $858,500 $4,045,895
6 $997,698 ($179,150) $818,549 $4,864,444
7 $963,125 ($184,524) $778,600 $5,643,044
8 $928,715 ($190,060) $738,655 $6,381,699
9 $894,475 ($195,762) $698,713 $7,080,411
10 $865,924 ($201,635) $664,289 $7,744,700
11 $872,080 ($207,684) $664,396 $8,409,097
12 $878,422 ($213,914) $664,507 $9,073,604
13 $884,953 ($220,332) $664,621 $9,738,225
14 $891,681 ($226,942) $664,739 $10,402,965
15 $898,610 ($233,750) $664,860 $11,067,825
16 $905,747 ($240,762) $664,985 $11,732,810
Total $14,693,242 ($2,960,433) $11,732,810
Page 46
APPENDIX C
Benefits for Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
Property tax collections:
Firm Property ‐ DDA Mill Real Prop. Tax BPP Tax
Real Prop. Business Increment Increment
Taxes Prop. Taxes Shareback Shareback
Year Collected Collected Revenue Revenue Total
1 $57,969 $10,086 $597,774 $103,994 $769,822
2 $104,273 $72,216 $1,075,254 $744,616 $1,996,360
3 $104,273 $64,894 $1,075,254 $669,115 $1,913,536
4 $104,273 $57,571 $1,075,254 $593,613 $1,830,712
5 $104,273 $50,249 $1,075,254 $518,112 $1,747,888
6 $104,273 $42,926 $1,075,254 $442,610 $1,665,063
7 $104,273 $35,604 $1,075,254 $367,108 $1,582,239
8 $104,273 $28,281 $1,075,254 $291,607 $1,499,415
9 $104,273 $20,959 $1,075,254 $216,105 $1,416,591
10 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
11 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
12 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
13 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
14 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
15 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
16 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
Total $1,622,064 $485,302 $16,726,584 $5,003,902 $23,837,852
* Property tax increment shareback revenue includes 100% of the city's property increment tax revenue
and 50% of the other taxing districts property increment tax revenue
Costs:
Costs to the Organization:
Costs to the
Downtown
Development
Year Authority
1 $232,636
2 $324,164
3 $324,164
4 $324,164
5 $324,164
6 $361,979
7 $361,979
8 $361,979
9 $361,979
10 $361,979
11 $361,979
12 $361,979
13 $361,979
14 $361,979
15 $361,979
16 $361,979
Total $5,511,061
Page 47
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
Net Benefits for the Downtown Development Authority:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $769,822 ($232,636) $537,186 $537,186
2 $1,996,360 ($324,164) $1,672,196 $2,209,382
3 $1,913,536 ($324,164) $1,589,372 $3,798,754
4 $1,830,712 ($324,164) $1,506,548 $5,305,301
5 $1,747,888 ($324,164) $1,423,724 $6,729,025
6 $1,665,063 ($361,979) $1,303,084 $8,032,109
7 $1,582,239 ($361,979) $1,220,260 $9,252,370
8 $1,499,415 ($361,979) $1,137,436 $10,389,806
9 $1,416,591 ($361,979) $1,054,612 $11,444,418
10 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $12,427,614
11 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $13,410,811
12 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $14,394,007
13 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $15,377,203
14 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $16,360,399
15 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $17,343,595
16 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $18,326,791
Total $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791
Note: The Downtown Development Authority provided the estimate of its costs and benefits.
Page 48
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Prepared by:
Impact DataSource, LLC
4709 Cap Rock Drive
Austin, Texas 78735
www.impactdatasource.com
A REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
PROJECT BLUE HOME IN FORT COLLINS, CO
March 4, 2013
ATTACHMENT 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………………………………………………………… 3
Project Summary
Introduction………………………………………………...……………………………………………………………………6
Description of The Project…………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Summary of the Economic Impact of the Project………………………………………………………………6
Analysis of Fiscal Impact
Costs and Benefits for Local Taxing Districts………………………………………………………………………7
City of Fort Collins…………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Larimer County……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
Poudre School District…………………………………………………………………………………………………9
Downtown Development Authority………………………………………………………………………………10
Summary of Incentives
Summary of Possible City Incentives for the Project…………………………………………………………11
Methodology
Conduct of the Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Discussion of Economic Impact Calculations………………………………………………………………………12
Discussion of Fiscal Impact Calculations……………………………………………………………………………12
About Impact DataSource…………………………………………………………………………………………………15
Appendix A
Data & Rates………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Appendix B
Detailed Economic Impact Calculations…………………………………………………………………………… 28
Appendix C
Detailed Cost‐Benefit Calculations for:
City of Fort Collins.............................................................................................................. 36
Larimer County.................................................................................................................. 42
Poudre School District........................................................................................................45
Downtown Development Authority...................................................................................47
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project background
In Project Blue Home, a company is considering building, equipping and operating a new manufacturing facility and
corporate headquarters in Fort Collins. The firm plans to invest $169 million in new buildings and equipment. Upon
completion of the construction, they expect to hire 400 new employees and relocate 600 employees to Fort Collins from
nearby with average salaries of $76,000 per year.
Economic Impact
Project Blue Home will generate economic impacts during construction and operations. The construction activities,
occurring while the firm builds its new facilities, will generate a one‐time impact for construction workers and businesses
in the area. The on‐going operations of the firm will create annual economic impacts, employing workers in the
community and supporting additional economic activity throughout the region.
The one‐time construction activity will support 1,652 workers in the area and support $91 million in new earnings for
these workers. The operations will include a new corporate headquarters office and manufacturing facilities. The
corporate headquarters will be staffed by the firm's current headquarters staff located in Fort Collins. The manufacturing
operations are estimated to support 2,227 total workers and more than $110.8 million in workers' earnings annually.
Economic Impact
Construction (One‐Time): Total
Total Change in Jobs 1,652
Total Change in Earnings $91,034,579
Average Earnings per Job $55,106
Operations (On‐going)* Headquarters Manufacturing Total
Total Change in Jobs 0 2,227 2,227
Total Change in Earnings $0 $110,890,650 $110,890,650
Average Earnings per Job ‐ $49,794 $49,794
* Total change in earnings during the first year of full employment.
Fiscal Impact
Project Blue Home will generate fiscal impacts for the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, the school district and other
local taxing districts. The table below provides a high‐level summary of the fiscal impacts for local taxing districts during
construction and over the first 16 years of operations.
Net Benefits During Construction and Over the First 16 Years for Local Taxing Districts
Present
Additional Additional Net Value of
Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits**
City of Fort Collins $50,740,478 ($38,751,622) $11,988,856 $9,088,081
Larimer County $14,241,881 ($8,476,964) $5,764,916 $4,072,855
Poudre School District $17,985,977 ($6,027,228) $11,958,749 $8,205,692
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791 $12,712,803
Total $106,806,188 ($58,766,876) $48,039,312 $34,079,431
** This analysis uses a 5% discount rate.
Note: The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional costs cannot be
determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Benefits and Costs for City of Fort Collins
The table below provides more detail on the sources of the additional benefits and costs for the city during construction
and over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
City of Fort Collins: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes after rebates $10,659,028 $10,659,028
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $58,612 $58,612
Capital Expansion Fees after rebates $3,194,183 $3,194,183
Building Permits and Fees $283,329 $283,329
Lodging Taxes $5,529 $5,529
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees $9,016,426 $9,016,426
City‐owned Utility Revenue $27,523,371 $27,523,371
Costs:
Costs to provide city services, excl utilities ($13,480,859) ($13,480,859)
Costs to provide city‐owned utilities ($25,270,763) ($25,270,763)
Total $50,740,478 ($38,751,622) $11,988,856
Present Value (5% discount rate) $34,172,178 ($25,084,097) $9,088,081
* Net of 100% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
The graph below depicts the costs, benefits and net benefits to the City of Fort Collins over the first 16 years.
($4,000,000)
($3,000,000)
($2,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
12345678910111213141516
Year
Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Page 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Value of Project Blue Home
Project Blue Home considers the expansion of an existing manufacturer in Fort Collins. The firm is considering locations
outside of the city for possible relocation and expansion of its manufacturing and headquarters operations. The company
currently employs 700 workers in the city and supports real and personal property of $22.3 million. The firm's
current operations represent approximately $850,000 in net revenues to the City of Fort Collins annually. The new
construction and expansion would increase the company's impact on Fort Collins by approximately $11.9 million
over the next 16 years. In total, the value of Project Blue Home's current operation and expansion represents
approximately $25.8 million in net revenues to the City of Fort Collins over the next 16 years.
Project Blue Home Value to Fort Collins
Net Revenues for Fort Collins
Over 16 Years Average Annual Present Value*
Existing Operations $13,873,386 $867,087 $9,203,326
Construction and Expanded Operations $11,988,856 $749,303 $9,088,081
Total $25,862,242 $1,616,390 $18,291,407
* This analysis uses a 5% discount rate.
Therefore, the estimated value to Fort Collins if the manufacturer were to leave the city is a loss $25.8 million over the
next 16 years or a loss to the city of $1.6 million per year on average or $18.2 million in present value. More than 24%
($6.4 million) of the total net revenue is generated in the first two years as shown in the graph below.
While the above is a summary of the results of this analysis, details are on the following pages.
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
12345678910111213141516
Year
Net Revenues for the City of Fort Collins
Existing Operations Construction & Expansion
Page 5
PROJECT SUMMARY
Introduction
This report presents the results of an economic impact analysis performed by Impact DataSource, an Austin, Texas based
economic consulting, research and analysis firm. The report estimates the impact that a potential project in Fort Collins,
CO will have on the local economy. The report calculates the costs and benefits for specified local taxing districts during
the initial construction and over the first 16 years of operations. The 16‐year analysis coincides with the term of the TIF
arrangement.
City City of Fort Collins
County Larimer County
School District Poudre School District
TIF District Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
Description of the Project
Summary of the Economic Impact of the Project
The project will have the following economic impact on the City of Fort Collins area over the first 16 years:
Economic Impact Over the First 16 Years
Direct
Indirect &
Induced Total
Total number of permanent direct and indirect jobs to be created 1,000 1,227 2,227
Salaries to be paid to direct and indirect workers $1,396,897,087 $591,585,916 $1,988,483,003
Number of direct and indirect workers who will move to the City 60 25 85
Number of new residents in the City 150 63 213
Number of new residential properties to be built in the City 15 6 21
Number of new students expected to attend local school district 57 24 81
Taxable sales and purchases expected in the City $229,942,439 $59,394,729 $289,337,168
$3,579,000 $1,431,600 $5,010,600
The market value the firm's property in Year 1 $46,934,346 $0 $46,934,346
The year‐by‐year economic impacts can be found in Appendix B.
How this economic activity translates into additional costs and benefits for local taxing districts is summarized
next.
The market value of new residential property to be built for direct and indirect workers
who move to the City by Year 10
Project Blue Home represents a company that is considering locating a manufacturing and corporate headquarters in Fort
Collins, Colorado. The company plans to purchase a piece of land in the city and invest $169 million in new buildings and
equipment. The firm plans to initially purchase $50.5 million in equipment for the facility. It is understood that the
company will employ a total of 1,700 employees in Fort Collins. The company currently employs 700 employees in the city
and, with Project Blue Home, will expand employment in Fort Collins by 1,000 employees. The company will hire 400 new
positions in the city and relocate 600 workers that work at a different facility in the county. These employees will have
average compensation of $76,000. This analysis assumes that all of the 1,000 new jobs in Fort Collins will be employed in
the firm's manufacturing operations. The project will be located in the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The
DDA will receive a 50% real property tax shareback from the County, PVH, Library and PSD. One‐hundred percent of the
City’s property tax will be allocated to the DDA.
Page 6
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Costs and Benefits for Local Taxing Districts
The project will generate additional benefits and costs for local taxing districts. A summary of these additional
benefits, costs and net benefits is provided below. The source of specific benefits and costs are provided in
more detail for each taxing district on subsequent pages.
Net Benefits During Construction and Over the First 16 Years for Local Taxing Districts
Present
Additional Additional Net Value of
Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits*
City of Fort Collins $50,740,478 ($38,751,622) $11,988,856 $9,088,081
Larimer County $14,241,881 ($8,476,964) $5,764,916 $4,072,855
Poudre School District $17,985,977 ($6,027,228) $11,958,749 $8,205,692
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791 $12,712,803
Total $106,806,188 ($58,766,876) $48,039,312 $34,079,431
*The Present Value of Net Benefits is a way of expressing in today's dollars, dollars to be paid or received in the future. Today's dollar and a
dollar to be received or paid at differing times in the future are not comparable because of the time value of money. The time value of money
is the interest rate or each taxing entity's discount rate. This analysis uses a discount rate of 5% to make the dollars comparable.
Note: The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional costs cannot be
determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
City of Fort Collins
25%
Larimer County
12%
Poudre School District
25%
Downtown
Development Authority
(DDA)
38%
Distribution of Net Benefits
Page 7
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for City of Fort Collins
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the city during
construction and over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
City of Fort Collins: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes after rebates $10,659,028 $10,659,028
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $0 $0
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $58,612 $58,612
Capital Expansion Fees after rebates $3,194,183 $3,194,183
Building Permits and Fees $283,329 $283,329
Lodging Taxes $5,529 $5,529
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees collected from:
New Households $845,627 $845,627
New Businesses $8,170,799 $8,170,799
City‐owned Utility Revenue collected from:
New Households $2,578,864 $2,578,864
New Businesses $24,944,507 $24,944,507
Costs:
Costs to provide city services, excluding utilities, to:
New Households ($1,263,943) ($1,263,943)
New Businesses ($12,216,916) ($12,216,916)
Costs to provide city‐owned utilities to:
New Households ($2,368,956) ($2,368,956)
New Businesses ($22,901,807) ($22,901,807)
Total $50,740,478 ($38,751,622) $11,988,856
Present Value (5% discount rate) $34,172,178 ($25,084,097) $9,088,081
* Net of 100% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
The graph below depicts the costs, benefits and net benefits to the City of Fort Collins over the first 16 years.
($4,000,000)
($3,000,000)
($2,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Year
Net Benefits for the City
Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Page 8
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for Larimer County
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the county during
construction and over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
Larimer County: Benefits, Costs & Net Benefits During Construction & Over First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Sales and Use Taxes $1,736,023 $1,736,023
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $3,652,888 $3,652,888
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $1,092,900 $1,092,900
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $134,729 $134,729
Miscellaneous taxes and user fees collected from:
New Households $593,738 $593,738
New Businesses $7,031,601 $7,031,601
Costs:
Costs to provide county services to:
New Households ($659,709) ($659,709)
New Businesses ($7,817,255) ($7,817,255)
Total $14,241,881 ($8,476,964) $5,764,916
Present Value (5% discount rate) $9,560,031 ($5,487,176) $4,072,855
Benefits and Costs for Poudre School District
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the school
district over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
Poudre School District: Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property* $8,870,419 $8,870,419
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property* $2,653,923 $2,653,923
Property Taxes on new Residential Property $327,168 $327,168
Additional State and Federal Funding $6,134,467 $6,134,467
Costs:
Costs to educate new students ($6,027,228) ($6,027,228)
Total $17,985,977 ($6,027,228) $11,958,749
Present Value (5% discount rate) $12,072,710 ($3,867,019) $8,205,692
* Net of 50% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Page 9
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACT
Benefits and Costs for Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
The table below displays the estimated additional benefits, costs and net benefits to be received by the Downtown
Development Authority district over the first 16 years of the project. Appendix C contains the year‐by‐year calculations.
DDA: Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits Over the First 16 Years
Additional Additional Net
Benefits Costs Benefits
Benefits:
Property Taxes on the Firm's Real Property $1,622,064 $1,622,064
Property Taxes on the Firm's BP Property $485,302 $485,302
DDA Real Prop. Tax Increment Shareback Rev. $16,726,584 $16,726,584
DDA BPP Tax Increment Shareback Revenue $5,003,902 $5,003,902
Costs:
DDA Costs ($5,511,061) ($5,511,061)
Total $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791
Present Value (5% discount rate) $16,384,960 ($3,672,156) $12,712,803
* Property tax increment shareback revenue includes 100% of the city's property increment tax revenue
and 50% of the other taxing districts property increment tax revenue
Page 10
SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES
Summary of Possible Incentives for the Project from the City
The city is evaluating the following of incentives for the project:
Use Tax Rebates
Construction Use Tax Rebate
City Proposed*
Construction Estimated Spend $169,100,000
Factor 50.0%
Eligible Amount $84,550,000
Use Tax Due (3.85%) $3,255,175
Rebate Percent 80%
Construction Use Rebate Amount $2,604,140
Equipment Use Tax Rebate
City Proposed*
Equipment Estimated Spend $50,500,000
Factor 95%
Eligible Amount $47,975,000
Use Tax Due (3.00%) $1,439,250
Rebate Percent 80%
Equipment Use Rebate Amount $1,151,400
Capital Expansion Fee Rebate
City Proposed*
Capital Expansion Fees Incurred $6,388,366
Rebate Percent 50%
Capital Expansion Fee Rebate Amount $3,194,183
Total Tax Rebate Amounts
City Proposed*
Construction Use Rebate Amount $2,604,140
Equipment Use Rebate Amount $1,151,400
Capital Expansion Fee Rebate Amount $3,194,183
Total Use and Fee Rebate Amount $6,949,723
* City Proposed Use Tax Rebates assume 100% rebate of the 2.25% General Fund Use Tax Rate.
In total, the city is considering $6.9 million in tax and fee rebates related to the project. The sales tax collections and
capital expansion fees and resulting net benefits for the City of Fort Collins shown earlier in this report reflect the
revenues to be received by the city after rebating the $6.9 million in taxes and fees detailed in the table above.
Page 11
METHODOLOGY
Conduct of the Analysis
This analysis was conducted by Impact DataSource using estimates provided to the City of Fort Collins by the firm, local
rates and information and assumptions by Impact DataSource.
Using this data, the economic impact from the project and the costs and benefits for relevant taxing districts
were calculated for a 16‐year period
Discussion of Economic Impact Calculations
The economic impact as calculated in this report can be categorized into two main types of impacts.
1. Direct economic impacts are the immediate economic activities generated by the firm or project.
These impacts include the employment at the firm and salaries paid to the firm's workers as well
as expenditures made by the firm.
2. Indirect and induced economic impacts represent the additional economic activity that is supported
by the firm or project. Indirect jobs and salaries are created in new or existing area firms, such as
maintenance companies and service firms that may supply goods and services to the firm. In
addition, induced jobs and salaries are created in new or existing local businesses, such as retail
stores, gas stations, banks, restaurants, and service companies that may supply goods and services
to new workers and their families.
Note: This report labels the combined indirect and induced impacts as simply "Indirect".
To estimate the indirect and induced economic impact of the firm and its employees on the area, regional
economic multipliers were used. This economic analysis utilized economic impact multipliers obtained an input/output
model produced by from Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (EMSI). The EMSI multipliers used in this analysis are specific
to Larimer County and the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220) industry, Turbine and
Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing (NAICS 333611) industry and the Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional
Managing Offices (NAICS 551114) industry.
Two types of regional economic multipliers were used in this analysis: an employment multiplier and an
earnings multiplier. An employment multiplier was used to estimate the number of indirect and induced jobs
created and supported in the area. An earnings multiplier was used to estimate the amount of salaries
to be paid to workers in these new indirect and induced jobs. The multipliers show the estimated number of
indirect and induced jobs created for every one direct job at the firm and the amount of salaries paid to
these workers for every dollar paid to a direct worker at the firm. The multipliers used in this analysis are
listed below:
Headquarters Manufacturing
Construction Operations Operations
Earnings multiplier 0.34 0.31 0.77
Employment multiplier 0.64 0.75 2.23
Discussion of Fiscal Impact Calculations
Calculation of Revenues for the City:
The city's revenues from sales, property lodging taxes were calculated directly using data that the firm provided and
assumptions about taxable construction spending and worker spending.
Property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some new direct and indirect workers who
may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to local tax rolls.
Page 12
METHODOLOGY
Lodging taxes were also calculated on lodging sales, in local hotels/motels, to out‐of‐town visitors to the firm.
Sales taxes were calculated on the taxable spending in the area by direct and indirect workers, the spending
of out‐of‐town visitors to the firm, and on the firm's taxable sales and purchases of supplies, materials and
services in the area.
The firm was not asked for nor could reasonably provide some data for calculating some other revenues for the
city. For example, while the city will likely receive revenues from fines paid on speeding tickets given
to new workers at the firm, the firm may not reasonably know the propensity of its workers to speed.
Therefore, some other city revenues were calculated using an average revenue approach. This approach uses
two assumptions:
1 ‐ The city has two general revenue sources ‐‐ revenues from residents and revenues from businesses.
2 ‐ The city will collect (a) about the same amount of other revenues from each household of new workers
that may move to the city as it currently collects from an average household of existing residents, and
(b) about the same amount of other revenues from the new firm (on a per worker basis) will be collected
as the city collects from other businesses in the city.
Using this average revenue approach, revenues likely to be received by the city were calculated from the
households of new workers who may move to the city and from the new firm using average city revenues
per worker calculations.
Utility revenues collected from new residents and new businesses were also calculated using the average revenue
approach as shown in Appendix A.
The total annual city revenues used to make average revenue calculations in this analysis were obtained
from the city's latest comprehensive annual financial report.
Calculation of Costs for the City:
This analysis sought to answer the question, what additional monies will the city have to spend to provide
services to households of new workers who may move to the city and to the firm. A marginal cost approach
was used to calculate additional city costs from the new firm and its workers.
This approach uses two assumptions:
1 ‐ The city spends money on services for two general groups ‐‐ residents and businesses.
2 ‐ The city will spend (a) about the same amount for variable or marginal cost for each household
of new workers that may move to the city as it currently spends for an average household of existing
residents, and (b) about the same amount for variable or marginal costs for the new firm (on a per worker
basis) as it spends for other businesses in the city.
The detailed assumptions to estimate the marginal cost per household and per worker are provided in Appendix A.
The cost to provide city‐owned utility services to new residents and new businesses were calculated using the average
cost approach as shown in Appendix A.
Page 13
METHODOLOGY
Calculation of Net Benefits for the City:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional city revenues over a 16‐year
period and additional city costs to provide services to the new firm and its workers and indirect workers who
may move to the city.
Calculation of Revenues for the County:
The county's revenues from sales and property taxes were calculated directly using data that the firm provided.
Property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some new direct and indirect workers who
may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to local tax rolls.
Sales taxes were calculated on the taxable spending in the area by direct and indirect workers, the spending
of out‐of‐town visitors to the firm, and on the firm's taxable sales and purchases of supplies, materials and
services in the area.
Also, the model estimates other additional revenue to be received by the county from new residents and new
businesses. An average revenue approach is used in the same way additional county revenues were calculated.
Calculation of Costs for the County:
The model estimates additional costs to provide services to new residents and businesses using a parallel
methodology used for the city.
Calculation of Net Benefits for the County:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional county revenues over a 16‐year
period and additional county costs to provide services to the new firm and its workers and indirect workers who
may move to the county.
Calculation of Revenues for Public Schools:
The school district's revenues from property taxes were calculated on the new residential property for some
new direct and indirect workers who may move to the county and on the firm's property that will be added to
local tax rolls.
School district revenues from state and federal funds and other local funding were calculated using an average
revenue approach. This approach used the assumption that the school district will collect about the same amount
of these revenues for each new student in the household of a new worker who may move to the county as it
currently collects for each existing student.
Calculation of Costs for Public Schools:
A marginal cost approach was used to calculate additional school district costs from the new firm and its workers.
This approach uses the assumption that the school district will spend about the same amount for variable or
marginal cost for each new student as it spends for each existing student.
Calculation of Net Benefits for Public Schools:
Net benefits calculated in this analysis are the difference between additional school district revenues over a
16‐year period and marginal costs for the school district to provide services to students in the households of
new workers who may move to the county.
The school district's total annual revenues and expenses to make average revenue and marginal costs calculations
in this analysis were obtained from the school district's latest annual budget.
Page 14
METHODOLOGY
Calculation of Revenues for the Downtown Development Authority
Revenues for the Downtown Development Authority are based on the data provided by the organization. In addition, the
costs for the DDA are also based on data provided by the organization.
Special Taxing Districts
The hospital/health district and other local property taxing districts will receive additional property tax revenue as a result
of the project. In addition these special taxing districts may incur additional costs from new residents and from the new
firm. The project will generate revenue for hospital/health, library, water and pest control districts, but because additional
costs cannot be determined, these taxing districts are not included in the analysis.
About Impact DataSource
Impact DataSource is a 19‐year‐old Austin, Texas economic consulting, research and analysis firm. The company has
conducted over 2,500 economic impact analyses of firms, projects and activities in most industry groups throughout
the U.S.
In addition, Impact DataSource has prepared and customized over 50 economic impact models for its clients to
perform their own analyses of economic development projects. These clients include the New Mexico Economic
Development and the Metro Orlando (Florida) Economic Development Commission.
The New Mexico Department of Economic Development uses Impact DataSource's computer model to project the
economic impact of new or expanding firms in the state and costs and benefits for the State of New Mexico and
each local taxing district. The model also calculates the amount of eligible state and local incentives and calculates
a rate of return and payback period for these incentives.
Impact DataSource's team includes the following members:
‐ Jerry Walker, principal/economist, and
‐ Paul Scheuren, principal/economist.
Jerry Walker is an economist and Impact DataSource's Principal. Over the past seventeen years, he has conducted
economic and fiscal impact analyses and cost‐benefit studies of a variety of firms, facilities, projects and activities.
He has also developed several economic impact analysis computer programs for clients to do their own economic
impact analyses of firms, projects, activities and organizations.
He also has a background in government accounting and auditing. Prior to his economic consulting career, he
had a fifteen‐year career as a supervisory auditor with two federal departments – the U.S. Department of
Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He reviewed federal programs operated by
states, local governments, colleges and universities, local education agencies, and nonprofit organizations in a
six state area from Austin, Texas. He performed financial audits and operational reviews. During the operational
reviews, the operations of the federal programs were reviewed for economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The
financial audits included analyzing costs incurred for federal programs and components of indirect cost rates.
He has also served as a part‐time accounting instructor at Austin Community College, Austin, Texas.
Jerry has Bachelor of Science and Master of Business Administration degrees in accounting and economics from
Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, Louisiana.
Paul Scheuren is an Impact DataSource economist. Over the past three years, he has conducted economic and
fiscal impact analyses and cost‐benefit studies of a variety of firms, facilities, projects and activities. Recently,
Paul analyzed more than 30 renewable energy projects funded by the Iowa Power Fund, Iowa's energy‐related
economic development fund.
Page 15
METHODOLOGY
Prior to joining Impact DataSource, Paul worked as a compensation analyst at the Texas Association of School
Boards where he supported compensation consulting projects and helped streamline data analysis for a
statewide salary survey.
Paul has a Master of Arts in Economics from Clemson University as well as a Bachelor of Business Administration
in actuarial science from Temple University.
Data used in the analysis, along with schedules of the results of calculations, are on the following pages.
Page 16
Appendix A
Data and Rates
Page 17
APPENDIX A
Local Tax Rates:
Sales tax rates:
City of Fort Collins Taxable goods 3.85%
Mfg equipment eligible for use tax rebate 3.00%
Food consumed at home 2.25%
Larimer County 0.60%
Property tax rates, per $1,000 of assessment:
City of Fort Collins 9.797
Larimer County 22.520
Poudre School District 54.686
Hospital/Health Services 2.167
Other (Water, Library, etc) 4.142
Downtown Development Authority 5.000
City lodging tax rate (in addition to sale tax): 3.00%
Relevant City Rates:
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses:
Revenue and Expenditures from Fort Collins 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 28
Primary Government Revenues In Thousands
Charges for services $186,129
Operating grants and contributions $13,843
Capital grants and contributions $26,445
Sales and use taxes $97,589
Property taxes $17,742
Occupational taxes $2,433
Lodging taxes $909
Intergovernmental not restricted to programs $10,274
Investment earnings $5,520
Miscellaneous $2,517
Total Revenues $363,401
Primary Government Revenue Sources Estimated in the Model In Thousands
Sales and use taxes $97,589
Property taxes $17,742
Lodging taxes $909
Total $116,240
Page 18
APPENDIX A
Primary Government Revenues Excluded from Miscellaneous Revenue Calcluation
In Thousands
Charges for Services
Power and Light $100,814
Water $24,308
Wastewater $19,149
Operating grants and contributions (exclude 100%) $13,843
Capital grants and contributions (exclude 100%) $26,445
Intergovernmental not restricted to programs $10,274
Investment earnings $5,520
Total $200,353
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses
In Thousands
Total Revenues $363,401
Less Sources estimated direct in Model ($116,240)
Less Excluded Revenues ($200,353)
Miscellaneous Revenue $46,808
Includes Primary Government Revenues not estimated in the model or excluded from
from Miscellaneous Revenue Calculation
City financial data and Impact DataSource calculations.
Percent of miscellaneous revenues and fees collected from:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Number of households and workers in Fort Collins:
Households 58,111
Workers 67,449
U.S. Census 2011 American Community Survey (Households), U.S. Census OnTheMap 2010 (All Workers)
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from households per new $564
worker household moving to the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from businesses per new $208
worker in the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Page 19
APPENDIX A
Marginal Government Expenses imposed on the city by new households and businesses:
Primary Government Expenses In Thousands Fixed Variable
General Government $33,674 80% 20%
Public Safety $51,313 60% 40%
Cultural parks, recreation and environment $29,755 60% 40%
Planning and development $11,053 60% 40%
Transportation $38,540 60% 40%
Interest on long‐term debt $2,523 100% 0%
Storm drainage $8,407 0% 100%
Golf $2,547 0% 100%
Total Expenses $177,812
Total Marginal Costs $69,953
Impact DataSource calculation based on fixed/variable split for government expenses as determined through work with
similar communities. Local expenditure data used in this analysis according to the city's 2011 CAFR.
Percent of marginal costs attributable to:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated marginal city costs attributable to households per new worker $843
household moving to the city
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated marginal city costs attributable to businesses per new worker in the city $311
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
City‐owned Utility Revenue Collected from new residents and businesses:
City‐Owned Utility Revenues In Thousands
Power and Light $99,657
Water $24,101
Wastewater $19,020
Total City‐Owned Utility Revenues $142,777
Estimated cost per new household to provide city‐owned $1,720
utilities to new households
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated cost per new worker to provide city‐owned $635
utilities to new businesses
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Page 20
APPENDIX A
Costs to provide City‐owned Utilities to new residents and businesses:
City‐Owned Utility Expenses In Thousands
Power and Light $97,057
Water $19,941
Wastewater $14,163
Total City‐Owned Utility Expenses $131,161
Estimated cost per new household to provide city‐owned $1,580
utilities to new households
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Estimated cost per new worker to provide city‐owned $583
utilities to new businesses
Impact DataSource calculation based on above city data and assumptions.
Rate of annual increase in the above expenditures and other revenue: 2%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Relevant County Rates:
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses:
Revenue and Expenditures from Larimer 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Page 26
Primary Government Revenues In Millions
Charges for services $43.63
Operating grants and contributions $55.64
Capital grants and contributions $2.13
Property taxes $91.22
Sales and use taxes $31.95
Other Taxes $5.50
Other Revenues $5.36
Total Revenues $235.43
Primary Government Revenue Sources Estimated in the Model In Millions
Property taxes $91.22
Sales and use taxes $31.95
Total $123.17
Page 21
APPENDIX A
Primary Government Revenues Excluded from Miscellaneous Revenue Calcluation
In Millions
Operating grants and contributions (75%) $41.73
Capital grants and contributions (75%) $1.60
Total $43.33
Miscellaneous Primary Government Revenue collected from households and businesses
In Millions
Total Revenues $235.43
Less Sources estimated direct in Model ($123.17)
Less Excluded Revenues ($43.33)
Miscellaneous Revenue $68.93
Includes Primary Government Revenues not estimated in the model or excluded from
from Miscellaneous Revenue Calculation
County financial data and Impact DataSource calculations.
Percent of miscellaneous revenues and fees collected from:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Number of households and workers in Larimer County:
Households 121,911
Workers 115,819
U.S. Census 2011 American Community Survey (Households), U.S. Census OnTheMap 2010 (All Workers)
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from households per new $396
worker household moving to the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Estimated miscellaneous revenues to be received from businesses per new $179
worker in the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Marginal Government Expenses imposed on the county by new households and businesses:
Primary Government Expenses In Millions Fixed Variable
General Government $33.88 80% 20%
Judicial and Public Safety $63.13 60% 40%
Streets and highways $25.42 60% 40%
Recreation $16.65 60% 40%
Health and Human Services $56.49 60% 40%
Interest on long‐term debt $2.63 100% 0%
Solid Waste $5.25 0% 100%
Total Expenses $203.45
Total Marginal Costs $76.70
Impact DataSource calculation based on fixed/variable split for government expenses as determined through work with
similar communities. Local expenditure data used in this analysis according to the county's 2011 CAFR.
Page 22
APPENDIX A
Percent of marginal costs attributable to:
Households 70%
Businesses 30%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated marginal county costs attributable to households per new worker $440
household moving to the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Estimated marginal county costs attributable to businesses per new worker $199
in the county
Impact DataSource calculation based on above county data and assumptions.
Rate of annual increase in the above expenditures and other revenue: 2%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Relevant School District Rates:
The school district’s estimated marginal cost of providing services to each $3,896
new child in the district
Impact DataSource calculation based on values below.
Average annual cost of providing services to each child in the district $7,793
2013 Budget Poudre School District General Fund ‐ Estimated values for 2011‐12
Average annual cost for each new child, as a percent of average annual cost 50%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Estimated annual state, federal and other funding received by the district $3,966
for each child enrolled
2013 Budget Poudre School District General Fund ‐ Estimated values for 2011‐12
Relevant Community Rates:
Expected inflation rate over the first 16 years 3.0%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Discount rate used in analysis to compute discounted cash flows 5.0%
Impact DataSource assumption.
Percent of the gross salaries a typical worker spent on taxable goods and services 27%
Impact DataSource calculation from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Percent of the gross salaries a typical worker spent on taxable food consumed at home 6%
Impact DataSource calculation from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Page 23
APPENDIX A
Property tax asssessment rates:
Nonresidential assessment rate 29.00%
Residential assessment rate 7.96%
Median value of a new residential property constructed in the city $238,600
U.S. Census American Community Survey 2011 Fort Collins, CO
Percent annual increase in the taxable value of residential and commercial 0.0%
real property on local tax rolls over the first 16 years
Impact DataSource assumption.
Depreciation rates:
To estimate the annual taxable or depreciable value of furniture, fixtures and equipment owned by the firm,
this analysis uses the following depreciation schedule. Therefore, property taxes on the firm's furniture, fixtures
and equipment are calculated on the following percentages of the costs of such equipment purchased each year:
Year 1 100%
Year 2 90%
Year 3 80%
Year 4 70%
Year 5 60%
Year 6 50%
Year 7 40%
Year 8 30%
Year 9 20%
Year 10 20%
Impact DataSource assumption.
The Firm's Investments, Assets and Construction:
The market value of investments at the firm's facility each year:
Buildings and Furniture,
Other Real Fixtures,
Property and
Land Improvements Equipment Total
Year 1 $0 $39,978,621 $6,955,725 $46,934,346
Year 2 $0 $31,933,793 $43,544,275 $75,478,068
Year 3 $0$0$0$0
Year 4 $0$0$0$0
Year 5 $0$0$0$0
Year 6 $0$0$0$0
Year 7 $0$0$0$0
Year 8 $0$0$0$0
Year 9 $0$0$0$0
Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $71,912,414 $50,500,000 $122,412,414
Building and Other Real Property Improvement value was deduced based on the Downtown Development Authority's
estimated tax collections. The value of FFE is based $50.5 million in equipment phased in over two years.
Page 24
APPENDIX A
Spending During Construction:
Estimated spending for construction and capital expansion fees (if applicable):
Construction Capital
Spending Expansion Fees
Year 1 $126,825,000 Year 1 $6,388,366
Year 2 $42,275,000 Year 2$0
Year 3$0 Year 3$0
Year 4$0 Year 4$0
Year 5$0 Year 5$0
Year 6$0 Year 6$0
Year 7$0 Year 7$0
Year 8$0 Year 8$0
Year 9$0 Year 9$0
Year 10 $0 Year 10 $0
Percent of construction costs for:
Materials 50%
Labor 50%
Estimated percent of construction materials that will be subject to the city's use tax 100%
Percent of taxable spending by construction workers that will be in the city 0%
Percent of furniture, fixtures and equipment to be subject to 3% use tax rate: 95%
Expected city building permits and plan check fees to be paid during construction, if applicable:
Plan Check Total Permits
Permit Fees Fees and Fees
Year 1 $191,247 $92,082 $283,329
Year 2 $0$0$0
Year 3 $0$0$0
Year 4 $0$0$0
Year 5 $0$0$0
Year 6 $0$0$0
Year 7 $0$0$0
Year 8 $0$0$0
Year 9 $0$0$0
Year 10 $0 $0 $0
The above fees were estimated using the city's Building‐Combination Estimate of Fees web application. The estimate is
based on construction with a $125 million valuation with subcontractors.
http://www.fcgov.com/building/fees.php
Page 25
APPENDIX A
Activities During the Firm's Operations:
The firm's estimated taxable purchases of materials, supplies and services in the community and the
firm's estimated taxable sales that will be subject to sales tax in the city
Taxable Taxable
Purchases Sales
Year 1 $347,786 $0
Year 2 $2,177,214 $0
Year 3$0 $0
Year 4$0 $0
Year 5$0 $0
Year 6$0 $0
Year 7$0 $0
Year 8$0 $0
Year 9$0 $0
Year 10 $0 $0
New employees in Fort Collins each year:
New New Total
Headquarters Manufacturing New Employees
Employees Employees added
added each year each year each year*
Year 1 000
Year 2 0 1,000 1,000
Year 3 000
Year 4 000
Year 5 000
Year 6 000
Year 7 000
Year 8 000
Year 9 000
Year 10000
Total 0 1,000 1,000
* Of the 1,000 new jobs to Fort Collins, 600 employees will be relocating
from nearby and 400 will be new hires by the firm.
Number of new workers who will move to the city to take job at the firm:
Estimated percent of the 400 newly hired employees moving to the city 15.0%
Number of new
employees moving
to the city
Year 10
Year 260
Year 30
Year 40
Year 50
Year 60
Year 70
Year 80
Year 90
Year 10 0
Total 60
Page 26
APPENDIX A
Average annual salaries of new employees in the first year $76,000
Percent of expected increase in employee salaries after Year 12.5%
Multipliers for calculating the number of indirect and induced jobs and earnings in the area during operations:
Headquarters Manufacturing
Earnings 0.3100 0.7700
Employment 0.7500 2.2310
This cost‐benefit analysis uses the above multipliers to project the indirect and induced benefits
in the community as a result of the direct economic activity. The employment multiplier shows
the number of spin‐off jobs that will be created from each direct job. Similarly, the earnings
multiplier estimates the salaries and wages to be paid to workers in these spin‐off jobs for
each $1 paid to direct workers.
Percent of workers in new indirect and induced jobs that will move 2%
to the city for the job
Estimated percentage of workers moving to the city that will have new 25%
residential property built for them the first year that they move to the city
Household size of a typical new worker moving to the city: 2.50
Number of school children in a typical worker's household 0.95
Percent of taxable shopping by a typical new worker that will 55%
be in the city
Visitors to the Firm from Out‐of‐Town:
Number of out‐of‐town visitor days resulting from the project:
Includes vendors, customer audits and visiting corporate employees.
Visitors
Year 1 100
Year 2 150
Year 3 200
Year 4 200
Year 5 200
Year 6 200
Percent of annual increase in the number of visitors after year 60%
Average daily taxable visitor spending, excluding lodging in the city $35
Percent of visitor days that will result in a night in a hotel/motel in the city 50%
Average nightly room rate in a local motel $95
Page 27
Appendix B
Economic Impact Calculations
Page 28
APPENDIX B
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Headquarters
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
4 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
5 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
6 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
7 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
8 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
9 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
10000$0$0$0
11000$0$0$0
12000$0$0$0
13000$0$0$0
14000$0$0$0
15000$0$0$0
16000$0$0$0
Total 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Manufacturing
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 1,000 1,227 2,227 $77,900,000 $32,990,650 $110,890,650
3 0 0 0 $79,847,500 $33,815,416 $113,662,916
4 0 0 0 $81,843,688 $34,660,802 $116,504,489
5 0 0 0 $83,889,780 $35,527,322 $119,417,101
6 0 0 0 $85,987,024 $36,415,505 $122,402,529
7 0 0 0 $88,136,700 $37,325,892 $125,462,592
8 0 0 0 $90,340,117 $38,259,040 $128,599,157
9 0 0 0 $92,598,620 $39,215,516 $131,814,136
10 0 0 0 $94,913,586 $40,195,904 $135,109,489
11 0 0 0 $97,286,425 $41,200,801 $138,487,226
12 0 0 0 $99,718,586 $42,230,821 $141,949,407
13 0 0 0 $102,211,551 $43,286,592 $145,498,142
14 0 0 0 $104,766,839 $44,368,756 $149,135,596
15 0 0 0 $107,386,010 $45,477,975 $152,863,986
16 0 0 0 $110,070,661 $46,614,925 $156,685,585
Total 1,000 1,227 2,227 $1,396,897,087 $591,585,916 $1,988,483,003
Page 29
APPENDIX B
Number of local jobs added each year and worker salaries to be paid: Headquarters & Manufacturing
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year Jobs Jobs Jobs Salaries Salaries Salaries
1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0
2 1,000 1,227 2,227 $77,900,000 $32,990,650 $110,890,650
3 0 0 0 $79,847,500 $33,815,416 $113,662,916
4 0 0 0 $81,843,688 $34,660,802 $116,504,489
5 0 0 0 $83,889,780 $35,527,322 $119,417,101
6 0 0 0 $85,987,024 $36,415,505 $122,402,529
7 0 0 0 $88,136,700 $37,325,892 $125,462,592
8 0 0 0 $90,340,117 $38,259,040 $128,599,157
9 0 0 0 $92,598,620 $39,215,516 $131,814,136
10 0 0 0 $94,913,586 $40,195,904 $135,109,489
11 0 0 0 $97,286,425 $41,200,801 $138,487,226
12 0 0 0 $99,718,586 $42,230,821 $141,949,407
13 0 0 0 $102,211,551 $43,286,592 $145,498,142
14 0 0 0 $104,766,839 $44,368,756 $149,135,596
15 0 0 0 $107,386,010 $45,477,975 $152,863,986
16 0 0 0 $110,070,661 $46,614,925 $156,685,585
Total 1,000 1,227 2,227 $1,396,897,087 $591,585,916 $1,988,483,003
Number of direct and indirect workers and their families who will move
to the area and their children who will attend local public schools:
New Workers Total Total
Moving to New New
Year the Area Residents Students
10 0 0
2 85 213 81
30 0 0
40 0 0
50 0 0
60 0 0
70 0 0
80 0 0
90 0 0
10 0 0 0
11 0 0 0
12 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
15 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
Total 85 213 81
Page 30
APPENDIX B
Number of new residential properties that may be built in the city for direct and indirect workers
who will move to the community:
Total New
Residential
Year Properties
10
221
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
16 0
Total 21
Page 31
APPENDIX B
Local taxable spending on which sales taxes will be collected:
Direct and
Taxable Indirect Taxable Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by
Year Spending Spending* Spending the Firm the Firm Total
1 $63,412,500 $0 $8,250 $0 $347,786 $63,768,536
2 $21,137,500 $11,261,594 $12,746 $0 $2,177,214 $34,589,054
3 $0 $11,543,134 $17,505 $0 $0 $11,560,639
4 $0 $11,831,712 $18,030 $0 $0 $11,849,742
5 $0 $12,127,505 $18,571 $0 $0 $12,146,076
6 $0 $12,430,693 $19,128 $0 $0 $12,449,821
7 $0 $12,741,460 $19,702 $0 $0 $12,761,162
8 $0 $13,059,996 $20,293 $0 $0 $13,080,289
9 $0 $13,386,496 $20,902 $0 $0 $13,407,398
10 $0 $13,721,159 $21,529 $0 $0 $13,742,688
11 $0 $14,064,188 $22,175 $0 $0 $14,086,362
12 $0 $14,415,792 $22,840 $0 $0 $14,438,632
13 $0 $14,776,187 $23,525 $0 $0 $14,799,712
14 $0 $15,145,592 $24,231 $0 $0 $15,169,823
15 $0 $15,524,232 $24,958 $0 $0 $15,549,189
16 $0 $15,912,338 $25,706 $0 $0 $15,938,044
Total $84,550,000 $201,942,078 $320,090 $0 $2,525,000 $289,337,168
* Spending includes only expenditures on items subject to general sales tax.
Manufacturing purchases subject to use tax and local taxable spending by direct and indirect workers
on food consumed at home:
Spending on
Rebateable Food
Manufacturing Manufacturing Consumed
Year Purchases Purchases at home
1 $6,607,939 $6,607,939 $0
2 $41,367,061 $41,367,061 $4,550,139
3 $0 $0 $4,663,892
4 $0 $0 $4,780,490
5 $0 $0 $4,900,002
6 $0 $0 $5,022,502
7 $0 $0 $5,148,065
8 $0 $0 $5,276,766
9 $0 $0 $5,408,685
10 $0 $0 $5,543,903
11 $0 $0 $5,682,500
12 $0 $0 $5,824,563
13 $0 $0 $5,970,177
14 $0 $0 $6,119,431
15 $0 $0 $6,272,417
16 $0 $0 $6,429,227
Total $47,975,000 $47,975,000 $81,592,759
Page 32
APPENDIX B
Local spending by visitors on lodging by out‐of‐town visitors:
Spending
Year on Lodging
1 $4,750
2 $7,339
3 $10,079
4 $10,381
5 $10,692
6 $11,013
7 $11,343
8 $11,684
9 $12,034
10 $12,395
11 $12,767
12 $13,150
13 $13,545
14 $13,951
15 $14,370
16 $14,801
Total $184,294
Page 33
APPENDIX B
Market value of new residential property built for direct and indirect workers who move to the
community and the market value of the firm's property:
Value of Value of Firm's
Firm's Business
New Real Personal Total
Residential Property Property Taxable
Year Property Tax Rolls Tax Rolls Property
1 $0 $39,978,621 $6,955,725 $46,934,346
2 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $49,804,428 $126,727,442
3 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $44,754,428 $121,677,442
4 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $39,704,428 $116,627,442
5 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $34,654,428 $111,577,442
6 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $29,604,428 $106,527,442
7 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $24,554,428 $101,477,442
8 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $19,504,428 $96,427,442
9 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $14,454,428 $91,377,442
10 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
11 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
12 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
13 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
14 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
15 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
16 $5,010,600 $71,912,414 $10,100,000 $87,023,014
Assessed value of new residential property built for direct and indirect workers who move to the
community and the assessed value of the firm's property:
Value of Value of Firm's
Firm's Business
New Real Personal Total
Residential Property Property Taxable
Year Property Tax Rolls Tax Rolls Property
1 $0 $11,593,800 $2,017,160 $13,610,960
2 $398,844 $20,854,600 $14,443,284 $35,696,728
3 $398,844 $20,854,600 $12,978,784 $34,232,228
4 $398,844 $20,854,600 $11,514,284 $32,767,728
5 $398,844 $20,854,600 $10,049,784 $31,303,228
6 $398,844 $20,854,600 $8,585,284 $29,838,728
7 $398,844 $20,854,600 $7,120,784 $28,374,228
8 $398,844 $20,854,600 $5,656,284 $26,909,728
9 $398,844 $20,854,600 $4,191,784 $25,445,228
10 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
11 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
12 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
13 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
14 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
15 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
16 $398,844 $20,854,600 $2,929,000 $24,182,444
Page 34
Appendix C
Cost and Benefit Calculations
Page 35
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins
Benefits:
Sales and use tax collections:
On
Direct and Rebate
On Taxable Indirect On Taxable Taxable On Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by Construction
Year Spending* Spending Spending the Firm the Firm Spending Total
1 $2,441,381 $0 $318 $0 $13,390 ($1,953,105) $501,984
2 $813,794 $433,571 $491 $0 $83,823 ($651,035) $680,644
3 $0 $444,411 $674 $0 $0 $0 $445,085
4 $0 $455,521 $694 $0 $0 $0 $456,215
5 $0 $466,909 $715 $0 $0 $0 $467,624
6 $0 $478,582 $736 $0 $0 $0 $479,318
7 $0 $490,546 $759 $0 $0 $0 $491,305
8 $0 $502,810 $781 $0 $0 $0 $503,591
9 $0 $515,380 $805 $0 $0 $0 $516,185
10 $0 $528,265 $829 $0 $0 $0 $529,093
11 $0 $541,471 $854 $0 $0 $0 $542,325
12 $0 $555,008 $879 $0 $0 $0 $555,887
13 $0 $568,883 $906 $0 $0 $0 $569,789
14 $0 $583,105 $933 $0 $0 $0 $584,038
15 $0 $597,683 $961 $0 $0 $0 $598,644
16 $0 $612,625 $990 $0 $0 $0 $613,615
Total $3,255,175 $7,774,770 $12,323 $0 $97,213 ($2,604,140) $8,535,341
* Tax collections prior to possible rebates.
Sales and use tax collections:
On Rebate on On Food
Manufacturing Manufacturing Consumed
Year Purchases* Purchases at home Total
1 $198,238 ($158,591) $0 $39,648
2 $1,241,012 ($992,809) $102,378 $350,580
3 $0 $0 $104,938 $104,938
4 $0 $0 $107,561 $107,561
5 $0 $0 $110,250 $110,250
6 $0 $0 $113,006 $113,006
7 $0 $0 $115,831 $115,831
8 $0 $0 $118,727 $118,727
9 $0 $0 $121,695 $121,695
10 $0 $0 $124,738 $124,738
11 $0 $0 $127,856 $127,856
12 $0 $0 $131,053 $131,053
13 $0 $0 $134,329 $134,329
14 $0 $0 $137,687 $137,687
15 $0 $0 $141,129 $141,129
16 $0 $0 $144,658 $144,658
Total $1,439,250 ($1,151,400) $1,835,837 $2,123,687
* Tax collections prior to possible rebates.
Page 36
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Property tax collections on:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
2 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
3 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
4 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
5 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
6 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
7 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
8 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
9 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
10 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
11 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
12 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
13 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
14 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
15 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
16 $3,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,907
Total $58,612 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,612
* Net of 100% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Page 37
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Other city revenues from building permits and fees, lodging taxes, miscellaneous revenue collected
from new households and new businesses:
Rebated Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Building Capital Capital Revenues Revenues
Permits and Expansion Expansion Lodging Collected from Collected from
Year Fees Fees Fees Taxes Households* Businesses** Total
1 $283,329 $6,388,366 ($3,194,183) $143 $0 $0 $3,477,655
2 $0 $0 $0 $220 $48,899 $472,480 $521,599
3 $0 $0 $0 $302 $49,877 $481,930 $532,109
4 $0 $0 $0 $311 $50,874 $491,569 $542,754
5 $0 $0 $0 $321 $51,892 $501,400 $553,612
6 $0 $0 $0 $330 $52,930 $511,428 $564,688
7 $0 $0 $0 $340 $53,988 $521,656 $575,985
8 $0 $0 $0 $351 $55,068 $532,090 $587,508
9 $0 $0 $0 $361 $56,169 $542,731 $599,262
10 $0 $0 $0 $372 $57,293 $553,586 $611,251
11 $0 $0 $0 $383 $58,439 $564,658 $623,479
12 $0 $0 $0 $395 $59,607 $575,951 $635,953
13 $0 $0 $0 $406 $60,800 $587,470 $648,676
14 $0 $0 $0 $419 $62,016 $599,219 $661,653
15 $0 $0 $0 $431 $63,256 $611,204 $674,891
16 $0 $0 $0 $444 $64,521 $623,428 $688,393
Total $283,329 $6,388,366 ($3,194,183) $5,529 $845,627 $8,170,799 $12,499,467
* Miscellaneous revenues collected from households is based on the number of new households moving to the community
and the per household miscellaneous revenue collected from new households as calculated and discussed on page 19.
**Miscellaneous revenues collected from businesses is based on the number of new workers in the community and
the per new worker miscellaneous revenue collected from businesses as calculated and discussed on page 19.
Page 38
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
City‐owned utility revenue collected by the city from new residents and new businesses:
City‐Owned City‐Owned
Utility Utility
Revenues Revenues
Collected from Collected from
Year Households Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $149,124 $1,442,428 $1,591,552
3 $152,106 $1,471,276 $1,623,383
4 $155,149 $1,500,702 $1,655,851
5 $158,252 $1,530,716 $1,688,968
6 $161,417 $1,561,330 $1,722,747
7 $164,645 $1,592,557 $1,757,202
8 $167,938 $1,624,408 $1,792,346
9 $171,297 $1,656,896 $1,828,193
10 $174,723 $1,690,034 $1,864,757
11 $178,217 $1,723,835 $1,902,052
12 $181,781 $1,758,312 $1,940,093
13 $185,417 $1,793,478 $1,978,895
14 $189,125 $1,829,347 $2,018,473
15 $192,908 $1,865,934 $2,058,842
16 $196,766 $1,903,253 $2,100,019
Total $2,578,864 $24,944,507 $27,523,371
Page 39
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Costs:
The costs of providing municipal services and utility services to new residents:
Cost of City Cost of City Cost of City‐ Cost of City‐
Services to Services to Owned Utility Owned Utility
New New Svcs to New Svcs to New
Year Residents Businesses Residents Businesses Total Costs
1$0$0$0$0$0
2 $73,088 $706,449 $136,986 $1,324,308 $2,240,831
3 $74,550 $720,578 $139,726 $1,350,794 $2,285,647
4 $76,041 $734,989 $142,520 $1,377,810 $2,331,360
5 $77,562 $749,689 $145,371 $1,405,366 $2,377,988
6 $79,113 $764,683 $148,278 $1,433,473 $2,425,547
7 $80,695 $779,977 $151,244 $1,462,143 $2,474,058
8 $82,309 $795,576 $154,268 $1,491,386 $2,523,540
9 $83,955 $811,488 $157,354 $1,521,213 $2,574,010
10 $85,634 $827,718 $160,501 $1,551,638 $2,625,490
11 $87,347 $844,272 $163,711 $1,582,670 $2,678,000
12 $89,094 $861,157 $166,985 $1,614,324 $2,731,560
13 $90,876 $878,380 $170,325 $1,646,610 $2,786,192
14 $92,693 $895,948 $173,731 $1,679,543 $2,841,915
15 $94,547 $913,867 $177,206 $1,713,133 $2,898,754
16 $96,438 $932,144 $180,750 $1,747,396 $2,956,729
Total $1,263,943 $12,216,916 $2,368,956 $22,901,807 $38,751,622
Net Benefits for the City:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $4,019,286 $0 $4,019,286 $4,019,286
2 $3,148,283 ($2,240,831) $907,452 $4,926,738
3 $2,709,422 ($2,285,647) $423,774 $5,350,512
4 $2,766,288 ($2,331,360) $434,928 $5,785,440
5 $2,824,362 ($2,377,988) $446,374 $6,231,814
6 $2,883,667 ($2,425,547) $458,119 $6,689,933
7 $2,944,231 ($2,474,058) $470,172 $7,160,105
8 $3,006,080 ($2,523,540) $482,540 $7,642,646
9 $3,069,242 ($2,574,010) $495,232 $8,137,878
10 $3,133,746 ($2,625,490) $508,256 $8,646,133
11 $3,199,620 ($2,678,000) $521,620 $9,167,753
12 $3,266,893 ($2,731,560) $535,333 $9,703,086
13 $3,335,596 ($2,786,192) $549,404 $10,252,490
14 $3,405,759 ($2,841,915) $563,843 $10,816,333
15 $3,477,413 ($2,898,754) $578,660 $11,394,993
16 $3,550,591 ($2,956,729) $593,863 $11,988,856
Total $50,740,478 ($38,751,622) $11,988,856
Page 40
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for City of Fort Collins ‐ Continued
Additional Detail: Sales Taxes Collected Specifically within the DDA
The tax collections within the DDA shown below represent a subset of the estimated sales taxes collected by Fort Collins shown
above. The break out table below is predicated on the fact that the city estimates 10% of the City's overall sales occur in the
Downtown Development Authority area.
Sales Taxes
Collected in
Year the DDA
1 $32
2 $53,644
3 $55,002
4 $56,378
5 $57,787
6 $59,232
7 $60,714
8 $62,232
9 $63,788
10 $65,383
11 $67,018
12 $68,694
13 $70,412
14 $72,173
15 $73,977
16 $75,827
Total $962,293
Page 41
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County
Benefits:
Sales tax collections:
On
Direct and
On Taxable Indirect On Taxable Taxable
Construction Workers' Visitors' Sales by Purchases by
Year Spending Spending Spending the Firm the Firm Total
1 $380,475 $0 $50 $0 $2,087 $382,611
2 $126,825 $67,570 $76 $0 $13,063 $207,534
3 $0 $69,259 $105 $0 $0 $69,364
4 $0 $70,990 $108 $0 $0 $71,098
5 $0 $72,765 $111 $0 $0 $72,876
6 $0 $74,584 $115 $0 $0 $74,699
7 $0 $76,449 $118 $0 $0 $76,567
8 $0 $78,360 $122 $0 $0 $78,482
9 $0 $80,319 $125 $0 $0 $80,444
10 $0 $82,327 $129 $0 $0 $82,456
11 $0 $84,385 $133 $0 $0 $84,518
12 $0 $86,495 $137 $0 $0 $86,632
13 $0 $88,657 $141 $0 $0 $88,798
14 $0 $90,874 $145 $0 $0 $91,019
15 $0 $93,145 $150 $0 $0 $93,295
16 $0 $95,474 $154 $0 $0 $95,628
Total $507,300 $1,211,652 $1,921 $0 $15,150 $1,736,023
Property tax collections:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $130,546 $22,713 $0 $0 $153,259 $153,259
2 $8,982 $234,823 $162,631 $0 $0 $397,454 $406,436
3 $8,982 $234,823 $146,141 $0 $0 $380,964 $389,946
4 $8,982 $234,823 $129,651 $0 $0 $364,474 $373,456
5 $8,982 $234,823 $113,161 $0 $0 $347,983 $356,965
6 $8,982 $234,823 $96,670 $0 $0 $331,493 $340,475
7 $8,982 $234,823 $80,180 $0 $0 $315,003 $323,985
8 $8,982 $234,823 $63,690 $0 $0 $298,513 $307,495
9 $8,982 $234,823 $47,199 $0 $0 $282,022 $291,004
10 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
11 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
12 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
13 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
14 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
15 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
16 $8,982 $234,823 $32,981 $0 $0 $267,803 $276,785
Total $134,729 $3,652,888 $1,092,900 $0 $0 $4,745,789 $4,880,518
* Net of 50% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Page 42
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County
Other county miscellaneous user fees and taxes collected from new households and new businesses:
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Revenues Revenues
Collected from Collected from
Year Households Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $34,333 $406,606 $440,939
3 $35,020 $414,738 $449,758
4 $35,720 $423,033 $458,753
5 $36,435 $431,493 $467,928
6 $37,163 $440,123 $477,286
7 $37,907 $448,926 $486,832
8 $38,665 $457,904 $496,569
9 $39,438 $467,062 $506,500
10 $40,227 $476,403 $516,630
11 $41,031 $485,931 $526,963
12 $41,852 $495,650 $537,502
13 $42,689 $505,563 $548,252
14 $43,543 $515,674 $559,217
15 $44,414 $525,988 $570,401
16 $45,302 $536,508 $581,809
Total $593,738 $7,031,601 $7,625,340
Costs of providing county services to new residents:
Costs of Costs of
County County
Services: Services:
Year New Residents Businesses Total
1$0 $0 $0
2 $38,148 $452,036 $490,184
3 $38,911 $461,077 $499,988
4 $39,689 $470,299 $509,988
5 $40,483 $479,705 $520,188
6 $41,293 $489,299 $530,591
7 $42,118 $499,085 $541,203
8 $42,961 $509,066 $552,027
9 $43,820 $519,248 $563,068
10 $44,696 $529,633 $574,329
11 $45,590 $540,225 $585,816
12 $46,502 $551,030 $597,532
13 $47,432 $562,051 $609,483
14 $48,381 $573,292 $621,672
15 $49,349 $584,757 $634,106
16 $50,335 $596,453 $646,788
Total $659,709 $7,817,255 $8,476,964
Page 43
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Larimer County ‐ Continued
Net Benefits for the County:
Cumulative
Net Net
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Benefits
1 $535,871 $0 $535,871 $535,871
2 $1,054,909 ($490,184) $564,725 $1,100,595
3 $909,067 ($499,988) $409,079 $1,509,675
4 $903,307 ($509,988) $393,319 $1,902,994
5 $897,770 ($520,188) $377,582 $2,280,576
6 $892,460 ($530,591) $361,869 $2,642,445
7 $887,384 ($541,203) $346,181 $2,988,625
8 $882,545 ($552,027) $330,518 $3,319,143
9 $877,949 ($563,068) $314,881 $3,634,024
10 $875,872 ($574,329) $301,542 $3,935,566
11 $888,266 ($585,816) $302,450 $4,238,017
12 $900,919 ($597,532) $303,387 $4,541,404
13 $913,836 ($609,483) $304,353 $4,845,756
14 $927,021 ($621,672) $305,349 $5,151,105
15 $940,482 ($634,106) $306,376 $5,457,481
16 $954,223 ($646,788) $307,435 $5,764,916
Total $14,241,881 ($8,476,964) $5,764,916
Page 44
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Poudre School District
Benefits:
Property tax collections:
Firm Property*
New Real Prop. Business Real Prop. Business Total Taxes
Residential Taxes Prop. Taxes Taxes Prop. Taxes After
Year Property Collected Collected Abated Abated Abatement Total
1 $0 $317,009 $55,155 $0 $0 $372,164 $372,164
2 $21,811 $570,227 $394,923 $0 $0 $965,150 $986,961
3 $21,811 $570,227 $354,879 $0 $0 $925,106 $946,917
4 $21,811 $570,227 $314,835 $0 $0 $885,062 $906,874
5 $21,811 $570,227 $274,791 $0 $0 $845,019 $866,830
6 $21,811 $570,227 $234,747 $0 $0 $804,975 $826,786
7 $21,811 $570,227 $194,704 $0 $0 $764,931 $786,742
8 $21,811 $570,227 $154,660 $0 $0 $724,887 $746,698
9 $21,811 $570,227 $114,616 $0 $0 $684,843 $706,654
10 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
11 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
12 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
13 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
14 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
15 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
16 $21,811 $570,227 $80,088 $0 $0 $650,315 $672,126
Total $327,168 $8,870,419 $2,653,923 $0 $0 $11,524,343 $11,851,510
* Net of 50% property tax increment shareback with Downtown Development Authority.
Additional State and Federal school funding received:
Additional
State & Federal
School
Year Funding
1$0
2 $329,829
3 $339,724
4 $349,916
5 $360,413
6 $371,226
7 $382,363
8 $393,833
9 $405,648
10 $417,818
11 $430,352
12 $443,263
13 $456,561
14 $470,258
15 $484,365
16 $498,896
Total $6,134,467
Page 45
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Poudre School District
Costs:
Costs of educating children of new workers who move to the district:
Cost of
Educating
New
Year Students
1$0
2 $324,063
3 $333,785
4 $343,799
5 $354,113
6 $364,736
7 $375,678
8 $386,949
9 $398,557
10 $410,514
11 $422,829
12 $435,514
13 $448,580
14 $462,037
15 $475,898
16 $490,175
Total $6,027,228
Net Benefits for the School District:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $372,164 $0 $372,164 $372,164
2 $1,316,791 ($324,063) $992,727 $1,364,892
3 $1,286,642 ($333,785) $952,856 $2,317,748
4 $1,256,789 ($343,799) $912,991 $3,230,738
5 $1,227,243 ($354,113) $873,130 $4,103,869
6 $1,198,012 ($364,736) $833,275 $4,937,144
7 $1,169,105 ($375,678) $793,426 $5,730,570
8 $1,140,532 ($386,949) $753,583 $6,484,153
9 $1,112,303 ($398,557) $713,746 $7,197,899
10 $1,089,944 ($410,514) $679,430 $7,877,329
11 $1,102,479 ($422,829) $679,649 $8,556,978
12 $1,115,389 ($435,514) $679,875 $9,236,853
13 $1,128,687 ($448,580) $680,107 $9,916,961
14 $1,142,384 ($462,037) $680,347 $10,597,308
15 $1,156,492 ($475,898) $680,593 $11,277,901
16 $1,171,023 ($490,175) $680,848 $11,958,749
Total $17,985,977 ($6,027,228) $11,958,749
Page 46
APPENDIX C
Benefits for Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
Property tax collections:
Firm Property ‐ DDA Mill Real Prop. Tax BPP Tax
Real Prop. Business Increment Increment
Taxes Prop. Taxes Shareback Shareback
Year Collected Collected Revenue Revenue Total
1 $57,969 $10,086 $597,774 $103,994 $769,822
2 $104,273 $72,216 $1,075,254 $744,616 $1,996,360
3 $104,273 $64,894 $1,075,254 $669,115 $1,913,536
4 $104,273 $57,571 $1,075,254 $593,613 $1,830,712
5 $104,273 $50,249 $1,075,254 $518,112 $1,747,888
6 $104,273 $42,926 $1,075,254 $442,610 $1,665,063
7 $104,273 $35,604 $1,075,254 $367,108 $1,582,239
8 $104,273 $28,281 $1,075,254 $291,607 $1,499,415
9 $104,273 $20,959 $1,075,254 $216,105 $1,416,591
10 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
11 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
12 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
13 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
14 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
15 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
16 $104,273 $14,645 $1,075,254 $151,003 $1,345,175
Total $1,622,064 $485,302 $16,726,584 $5,003,902 $23,837,852
* Property tax increment shareback revenue includes 100% of the city's property increment tax revenue
and 50% of the other taxing districts property increment tax revenue
Costs:
Costs to the Organization:
Costs to the
Downtown
Development
Year Authority
1 $232,636
2 $324,164
3 $324,164
4 $324,164
5 $324,164
6 $361,979
7 $361,979
8 $361,979
9 $361,979
10 $361,979
11 $361,979
12 $361,979
13 $361,979
14 $361,979
15 $361,979
16 $361,979
Total $5,511,061
Page 47
APPENDIX C
Costs and Benefits for Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
Net Benefits for the Downtown Development Authority:
Net Cumulative
Year Benefits Costs Benefits Net Benefits
1 $769,822 ($232,636) $537,186 $537,186
2 $1,996,360 ($324,164) $1,672,196 $2,209,382
3 $1,913,536 ($324,164) $1,589,372 $3,798,754
4 $1,830,712 ($324,164) $1,506,548 $5,305,301
5 $1,747,888 ($324,164) $1,423,724 $6,729,025
6 $1,665,063 ($361,979) $1,303,084 $8,032,109
7 $1,582,239 ($361,979) $1,220,260 $9,252,370
8 $1,499,415 ($361,979) $1,137,436 $10,389,806
9 $1,416,591 ($361,979) $1,054,612 $11,444,418
10 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $12,427,614
11 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $13,410,811
12 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $14,394,007
13 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $15,377,203
14 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $16,360,399
15 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $17,343,595
16 $1,345,175 ($361,979) $983,196 $18,326,791
Total $23,837,852 ($5,511,061) $18,326,791
Note: The Downtown Development Authority provided the estimate of its costs and benefits.
Page 48
iTRA Global® | Commercial Real Estate, LLC
Commercial Real Estate, Development and Investment Services
118 North Tejon Street, Suite 205, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Tel: 719.886.6534 Fax: 719.886.6537
www.NLdevelopment.com
www.ITRAcre.com
info@NLDevelopment.com
March 12, 2013
Mr. Bruce Hendee - via e-mail
Chief Sustainability Officer
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Platte River Transmission Relocation on Link-N-Green
Potential Woodward Development Site
Dear Mr. Hendee:
As you know, the Light and Power Operations Department has been working, in conjunction with Platte
River Power Authority (Platte River), and the Woodward development team to relocate the Platte River
transmission power line on North Lemay from Lincoln through the Link-N-Green golf course and across
the Mulberry intersection. The impetus for the relocation is to enable development of the Link-N-Greens
golf course property into a new corporate headquarters and manufacturing campus for Woodward, Inc.
Over the past several months, multiple relocation scenarios have been evaluated considering; cost,
construction schedule, environmental and community impacts. The engineering teams analyzed six
underground and four overhead scenarios with varying cost and schedule impacts to Woodward. The
primary concerns with the undergrounding scenarios were higher cost and visual impact to the
surrounding business owners of locating the riser poles necessary to transition between the overhead and
underground cables.
Of the four overhead alternatives, two have potentially viable characteristics that would meet the cost and
schedule requirements for parcel development. Both options have approximately equal cost and
schedules. Woodward, the City and the Platte River teams prefer the overhead relocation option which
parallels Lemay, because it provides the best overall solution to Woodward and the surrounding
community. The preferred option will be presented to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board on
March 13th. This option will eliminate two existing poles within the Springer Natural Area and a third
pole on a CDOT property east of the Waste Water Treatment Facility which is anticipated to be conveyed
to the City. Also this option will remove approximately 1,500 linear feet of existing overhead
transmission line from the Springer Natural Area beginning just north of the Poudre River on Lemay.
On behalf of Woodward as their development representative, I would like to thank the City of Fort
Collins and the Platte River teams for their collaboration and extensive work done on this project.
Sincerely,
NEXT LEVEL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Wayne M. Timura, P.E.
Principal
ATTACHMENT 8
ORDINANCE NO. 055, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY BY THE CITY OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
WOODWARD, INC., AND RELATED DOCUMENTS,
INCLUDING AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A BOND,
IN CONNECTION WITH AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT RELATING TO WOODWARD, INC.; AND
PROVIDING OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) is a home rule
municipality and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “State”) organized and
existing under a home rule charter (the “Charter”) pursuant to Article XX of the Constitution of
the State; and
WHEREAS, Woodward, Inc. (the “Company”) is a publicly traded industrial
manufacturing company with an approximate market capitalization of $2.7 billion dollars; and
WHEREAS, the Company’s headquarters are currently located in the City at 1000
East Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Company has had a long and successful presence in the City for
nearly 60 years; and
WHEREAS, the Company directly employs approximately 1400 people within
Northern Colorado, many of whom are employed at the Company’s headquarters within the City
and many of whom live within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Company’s operations in the City and Northern Colorado
provide significant economic benefits to the City by employing a large number of high-skilled
employees who live, work, and shop in the City, and by contributing to a vibrant and diverse
local economy; and
WHEREAS, the Company’s operations in the City and Northern Colorado
generate a substantial amount of tax revenue for the City, both directly as a business through
vendors and suppliers, and indirectly through the Company’s labor force and residents; and
WHEREAS, the Company is considering relocating its headquarters and
expanding its manufacturing and office facilities to one of several potential locations, including
locations outside of the City; and
WHEREAS, one of the potential sites is approximately 101.5 acres of real
property located in the City south of East Lincoln Avenue and north of Mulberry Street between
Lemay Avenue and Riverside Avenue (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Plan of Development Area of The Fort
Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority (the “Authority”); and
WHEREAS, in light of certain negotiations with the City and the Authority,
among other considerations, the Company has proposed constructing and installing a new
campus on the Property (the “Project”), as more particularly described in a Project Development
Plan that has been approved by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a valuable urban infill project that furthers the
objectives set forth in the City’s long-range comprehensive plan, including the contribution of
high-skilled employment opportunities, tax revenue, and infrastructure improvements to the
City’s urban core; and
WHEREAS, the retention of existing business and employment in the City is the
top priority of the City’s Economic Health Strategic Plan, which has been adopted by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Economic Health Office has concluded that the Project
will generate a substantial increase in tax revenue for the City; and
WHEREAS, according to the Economic Health Office, the Project will prevent
high-paying primary jobs from leaving the City to other sites in Northern Colorado and
elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, the Company has requested that the City and the Authority enter into
an Agreement with Woodward, Inc. (the “Agreement”) for economic development related to the
Project; and
WHEREAS, in order to encourage the Project, the City Council has determined
and hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the City to enter into the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, subject to the terms and provisions of the Agreement, the Company
has agreed to fund the design, acquisition, construction and installation of the Improvement
Projects (as defined in the Agreement) up to a maximum amount of $6,050,000, and the City has
agreed to reimburse Woodward for such expenditures and the applicable interest thereon (the
“Reimbursement Amount”) with available Pledged Tax Increment Revenues (as defined therein)
generated from the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City will issue a bond (the “Bond”) to evidence the
Reimbursement Amount, and the Bond shall be issued in substantially the form set forth as an
Exhibit to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bond has been authorized by an election held in
the City on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at which a majority of the qualified electors of the area
described in the Plan of Development authorized the City to issue bonds, notes, contracts or
other financial obligations in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000 to finance the costs of
development projects to be undertaken by or on behalf of the Authority, with such debt to be
payable solely from and secured by a pledge of ad valorem property tax increment revenues
levied and collected within the boundaries of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Bond will be a special and limited obligation of the City payable
from the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues, and the Bond will not constitute a general obligation
of the City and the full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged to pay the debt service
requirements of the Bond; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the execution and delivery of the Agreement, the
City will enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Relocation of Platte
River Power Authority Transmission Facilities with Platte River Power Authority (the
“Transmission Line IGA”) in substantially the form attached as an Exhibit to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined and hereby determines that entering
into the Agreement, the Transmission Line IGA and issuing the Bond, will serve the important
public purposes of maintaining and increasing employment in the City, stabilizing and improving
the long term tax base of the City, and providing additional economic health benefits to the City;
and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council and are on file with the
City Clerk the proposed form of the Agreement, including without limitation, the proposed form
of the Bond and the Transmission Line IGA attached as Exhibits thereto; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have
the meanings set forth in the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 11-57-204 of the Supplemental Public Securities Act,
constituting Title 11, Article 57, Part 2, Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Supplemental Act”),
provides that a public entity, including the City, may elect in an act of issuance to apply all or
any of the provisions of the Supplemental Act.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Ratification and Approval of Prior Actions. All action heretofore
taken (not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance) by the City Council or the officers,
agents or employees of the City Council or the City relating to the development of the Project,
the execution and delivery of the Agreement, and the performance of the City’s obligations
under the Agreement and related documents is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 2. Finding of Best Interests and Public Purpose. The City Council
hereby finds and determines, pursuant to the Constitution, the laws of the State, the Charter and
the Code of the City, that entering into the Agreement, the Transmission Line IGA, and issuing
the Bond in connection therewith, are necessary, convenient, and in furtherance of the City’s
purposes and are in the best interests of the inhabitants of the City, and will serve the important
public purposes of maintaining and increasing employment in the City, stabilizing and improving
the long term tax base of the City, and providing additional economic health benefits to the City,
and the City Council hereby authorizes and approves the same.
Section 3. Supplemental Act. The City Council hereby elects to apply all of
the Supplemental Act to the Bond.
Section 4. Approval of Documents. The Agreement, the Bond, and the
Transmission Line IGA (collectively, the “City Documents”), in substantially the forms on file
with the City Clerk, are in all respects approved, authorized and confirmed. The Mayor of the
City is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the City Documents, for and on
behalf of the City, in substantially the forms and with substantially the same contents as on file
with the City Clerk, provided that such documents may be completed, corrected or revised as
deemed necessary by the parties thereto in order to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. The
execution of the City Documents by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of the approval by
the City Council of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof and thereof.
Section 5. Direction to Act. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to attest all signatures and acts of any official of the City in connection with the matters
authorized by this Ordinance and to place the seal of the City on any document authorized and
approved by this Ordinance. The Mayor, the Mayor Pro-Tem of the City, the City Manager, the
Financial Officer, the City Clerk and other appropriate officials or employees of the City are
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the City any and all
additional certificates, documents, instruments and other papers, and to perform all other acts
that they deem necessary or appropriate, in order to implement and carry out the transactions and
other matters authorized by this Ordinance. The approval hereby given to the various documents
referred to above includes an approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and
appropriate for their completion, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be approved
by the City Manager or the Financial Officer prior to the execution of the documents. The
execution of any instrument by the aforementioned officers or members of the City Council shall
be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of such instrument in accordance with the
terms hereof and thereof.
Section 6. No General Obligation Debt. No provision of this Ordinance, the
Agreement or the Bond shall be construed as creating or constituting a general obligation
indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory or Charter provision
and the full faith and credit of the City shall not be pledged to pay the debt service requirements
of the Bond.
Section 7. No Recourse against Officers and Agents. Pursuant to Section 11-
57-209 of the Supplemental Act, if a member of the City Council, or any officer or agent of the
City acts in good faith, no civil recourse shall be available against such member, officer, or agent
for payment of the principal or interest on the Bond. Such recourse shall not be available either
directly or indirectly through the City Council or the City, or otherwise, whether by virtue of any
constitution, statute, rule of law, enforcement of penalty, or otherwise. By the acceptance of the
Bond, and as a part of the City’s consideration for issuing the Bond, the Company specifically
waives any such recourse.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, clause or
provision of this Ordinance or the documents hereby authorized and approved shall for any
reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section,
subsection, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this
Ordinance or such documents, the intent being that the same are severable.
Section 9. Repealer. All orders, resolutions, bylaws, ordinances or
regulations of the City, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to
the extent only of such inconsistency.
Section 10. Charter. Pursuant to Article XX of the State Constitution and the
Charter, all State statutes that might otherwise apply in connection with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby superseded to the extent of any inconsistencies between the provisions of
this Ordinance and such statutes. Any such inconsistency is intended by the City Council and
shall be deemed made pursuant to the Charter.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 26th
day of March, 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of April, A.D. 2013.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTESTED:
City Clerk
PUBFIN/1630821.2
Passed and adopted, without amendment, on final reading this 2nd day of April,
A.D. 2013.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTESTED:
City Clerk
1
AGREEMENT WITH WOODWARD, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT WITH WOODWARD, INC. (this “Agreement”) is entered into this
___ day of _________, 2013, by and among the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule
municipal corporation (the “City”), The Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development
Authority, a duly organized and existing downtown development authority under the
Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, including, particularly, Title 31, Article 25,
Part 8, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Authority”), and Woodward, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Woodward” or the “Company”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality and political subdivision of the State of
Colorado (the “State”) organized and existing under a home rule charter (the “Charter”) pursuant
to Article XX of the Constitution of the State; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 46, 1981, the City has heretofore established the
Authority, a duly organized and existing downtown development authority under the
Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, including, particularly, Title 31, Article 25,
Part 8, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Downtown Development Authority Act”)
and has approved the Plan of Development of the Authority (the “Plan of Development”)
pursuant to Resolution 81-129 of the City, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Plan of Development contains a provision for division of taxes as
authorized by the Downtown Development Authority Act effective for thirty (30) years
beginning September 8, 1981, and pursuant to Ordinance No. 101, 2008, the City approved a
twenty (20) year extension of such period under the authority of the Downtown Development
Authority Act; and
WHEREAS, the Company is a publicly traded industrial manufacturing company with an
approximate market capitalization of $2.7 billion dollars as of the date of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Company’s headquarters are currently located in the City at 1000 East
Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Company has had a long and successful presence in the City for nearly
60 years; and
WHEREAS, the Company directly employs approximately 1400 people within Northern
Colorado, many of whom are employed at the Company’s headquarters within the City and
many of whom live within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Company’s operations in the City and Northern Colorado provide
significant economic benefits to the City by employing a large number of high-skilled employees
EXHIBIT A
2
who live, work, and shop in the City, and by contributing to a vibrant and diverse local
economy; and
WHEREAS, the Company’s operations in the City and Northern Colorado generate a
substantial amount of tax revenue for the City, both directly as a business through vendors and
suppliers, and indirectly through the Company’s labor force and residents; and
WHEREAS, the Company has been, and seeks to remain, a leader of innovation, with a
stated mission of “Always innovating for a better future,” and active participation in the City’s
ClimateWise program, as well as local Clean Energy Cluster efforts; and
WHEREAS, the Company is considering relocating its headquarters and expanding its
manufacturing and office facilities to one of several potential locations, including locations
outside of the City; and
WHEREAS, one of the potential sites is approximately 101.5 acres of real property
located in the City south of East Lincoln Avenue and north of Mulberry Street between Lemay
Avenue and Riverside Avenue, and more particularly described in Exhibit A of this Agreement
(the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Authority’s Plan of Development Area (as
hereinafter defined); and
WHEREAS, in light of certain negotiations with the City and the Authority, among other
considerations, the Company has proposed constructing and installing a new campus on the
Property (the “Project”), as more particularly described in the Project Development Plan
(hereinafter defined) that has been approved by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a valuable urban infill project that furthers the objectives set
forth in the City’s long-range comprehensive plan, including the contribution of high-skilled
employment opportunities, tax revenue, and infrastructure improvements to the City’s urban
core; and
WHEREAS, the retention of existing business and employment in Fort Collins is the top
priority of the City’s Economic Health Strategic Plan, which has been adopted by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Economic Health Office has concluded that the Project will
generate a substantial increase in tax revenue for the City; and
WHEREAS, according to the Economic Health Office, the Project will prevent high-
paying primary jobs from leaving the City to other sites in Northern Colorado and elsewhere;
and
WHEREAS, Woodward has requested that the City enter into this Agreement for
economic development related to the Project; and
3
WHEREAS, in order to encourage the Project, the City Council has determined that it is
in the best interests of the City to enter into this Agreement which provides, among other things,
the following components:
(a) Woodward will fund the design, acquisition, construction and installation of the
Improvement Projects (as hereinafter defined) up to a maximum amount of $6,050,000
(the “Maximum Funding Amount”) in accordance with this Agreement;
(b) Woodward will be reimbursed for such expenditures on the Improvement
Projects, with interest thereon (the “Reimbursement Amount”), from the proceeds of the
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues (as hereinafter defined) generated by the Project, in
accordance with this Agreement, and the City will issue a bond (the “Bond”) to evidence
the Reimbursement Amount;
(c) the City shall rebate or reimburse Woodward for the following fees and revenues
paid by Woodward to the City in connection with the Project:
(i) reimburse or rebate up to 80% of the new City use tax revenues
received for Eligible Equipment (hereinafter defined) and Construction Materials
(hereinafter defined) for the Project (the “Use Tax Rebate”);
(ii) reimburse or rebate up to 100% of the Development Fees
(hereinafter defined) received in connection with the Project (collectively, the
“Development Fee Rebates”); and
(iii) reimburse or rebate up to 50% of the Capital Improvement Fees
(hereinafter defined) received in connection with the Project (collectively, the
“Capital Improvement Fee Rebates”); and
WHEREAS, in order to encourage the Project and to further the Plan of Development,
the Board of Directors of the Authority (the “Board”) has determined that the Authority shall
enter into the Façade Easement Agreement (hereinafter defined) with Woodward whereby the
Authority will agree to purchase easements from Woodward over eligible facades of buildings
within the Project (the “Façade Easements”) from a portion of the Pledged Tax Increment
Revenues and has further determined that a portion of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall
be applied to payment of the Reimbursement Amount, in accordance with the terms and
provisions set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that entering into the Façade Easement
Agreement and this Agreement is consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the
Authority and is consistent with the Downtown Development Authority Act; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the addition of the Property into the
District will provide significant economic benefits to the City and downtown through the
Company's operations in the City and Northern Colorado and thus further the objectives and
purposes of the Authority as contained in the Plan of Development, and pursuant to Resolution
2013-01, the Authority has recommended approval of the inclusion of such Property into the
4
District, which inclusion was unanimously approved by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 049,
2013; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that entering into this Agreement
with Woodward will serve the important public purposes of maintaining and increasing
employment in the City, stabilizing and improving the long term tax base of the City, and
providing additional economic health benefits to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained in this Agreement, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, capitalized terms used herein
and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth below:
“Application for Use Tax Rebate” means the application process for a Use Tax Rebate using
City approved forms consistent with the form attached as Exhibit K hereto and by this reference
made a part hereof.
“Authority” means The Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority, a duly
organized and existing downtown development authority under the Constitution and laws of the
State of Colorado, including, particularly, Title 31, Article 25, Part 8, Colorado Revised Statutes,
as amended.
“Authority’s Unrestricted Available Fund Balance” means that fund balance required in
accordance with the policy adopted by the Board on October 13, 2011, whereby at the beginning
of each fiscal year, an amount equal to the minimum of one-half of each year’s current debt
payments is reserved.
“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority.
“Bond” means the Bond to be issued hereunder duly executed on behalf of City in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit J attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof,
payable to the order of Company in a principal amount of not more than the Maximum Funding
Amount plus any compound interest.
“Bond Year” means the twelve (12) months commencing on the second day of December of any
calendar year and ending on the first day of December of the next succeeding calendar year.
“Capital Improvement Fees” means, collectively, the following fees received by the City in
connection with all or any portion of the Project:
(a) the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees imposed pursuant to
Chapter 7.5, Article V of the City Code, including (i) the Community Parkland
Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, (ii) the Police Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee, (iii) the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, (iv)
the General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, and (v) the Street
Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion Fee;
5
(b) the Water Plant Investment Fee imposed pursuant to Section 26-
120 of the City Code;
(c) the Sewer Plant Investment Fee imposed pursuant to Sections 26-
283 to 284 of the City Code;
(d) the Electric Development Fees imposed pursuant to Sections 26-
473 and 475 of the City Code; and
(e) the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees imposed pursuant to Section
26-512 of the City Code.
“Capital Improvement Fee Rebate” means the rebate of up to 50% of the Capital Improvement
Fees to Woodward in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement.
“Charter” means the Home Rule Charter of the City.
“City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipal corporation.
“City Code” means the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City.
“Completed” means, when used in reference to a Phase of the Project, eligible for a temporary or
final certificate of occupancy under the City Code.
“Construction Materials” means the materials purchased in connection with the construction of
the Project, or any portion of the Project.
“Development Agreement” means that agreement required in connection with the Project or any
portion of the Project, as described in the Project Development Plan and pursuant to the Land
Use Code.
“Development Fees” means, collectively, the building permit fees, development review fees,
transportation development review fees, and planning review fees received by the City in
connection with the Project or any portion of the Project.
“Development Fee Rebates” means the rebate of up to 100% of the Development Fees to
Woodward in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement.
“District” means the area described in the Plan of Development and approved by Ordinance No.
46, 1981, of the City, as amended by Ordinance No. 162, 1981, of the City and Ordinance No. 2,
1983, of the City, and as has heretofore been or as may hereafter be amended by valid legislative
action of the City as may be determined in accordance with the decisions of the appellate courts
of the State.
“Downtown Development Authority Act” means Title 31, Article 25, Part 8, Colorado Revised
Statutes, as amended.
6
“Eligible Equipment” means manufacturing equipment newly acquired by Woodward for
installation in or delivery to the Property and incorporation into the Project, in the maximum
aggregate amount of $50.5 million. All Eligible Equipment must be identified at the time of
purchase as, and be documented as necessary for the Project to the satisfaction of the City, and
must be newly installed and located within the Project.
“Estimate of Value” means the Larimer County Assessor’s Estimate of Value Worksheet dated
January 29, 2013 relating to the Property and attached hereto as Exhibit E and by this reference
made a part hereof.
“Façade Easement Agreement” means the agreement between the Authority and Woodward
relating to the Façade Easements in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto
and by this reference made a part hereof.
“Façade Easements” means those easements purchased by the Authority from Woodward, with a
maximum total purchase price for all such easements of $3.8 million, over eligible facades of
buildings within the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Façade Easement
Agreement.
“Improvement Projects” means, collectively, the Transmission Line Relocation, the Right of
Way Improvements and the Open Space Improvements.
“Land Use Code” means the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
“Line of Credit” means that line of credit described in Ordinance No. 089, 2012 of the City,
approved on September 18, 2012, authorizing the establishment of a line of credit to be funded
solely from available Authority tax increment revenues for a period of six (6) years (and subject
to renewal thereafter) to finance Authority projects.
“Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program or Program” means the program for
generally available limited rebate of use taxes for manufacturing equipment, as described in
Chapter 8 of the City Code.
“Maximum Funding Amount” means the amount of $6,050,000, which shall be the maximum
amount of funding that Woodward provides for the design, construction, acquisition and
installation of the Improvement Projects.
“Open Space Improvements” means the improvements to be made to the Open Space Property,
as more specifically set forth in Section 4.1(b) hereof and Exhibit G attached hereto and by this
reference made a part hereof.
“Open Space Property” means the property to be conveyed by Woodward to the City, as
described in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, which is
approximately 31 acres adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River.
“Phase One” has the meaning set forth on the Phasing Schedule.
7
“Phase Two” has the meaning set forth on the Phasing Schedule.
“Phase Three” has the meaning set forth on the Phasing Schedule.
“Phase Four” has the meaning set forth on the Phasing Schedule.
“Phasing Schedule” means the schedule for the acquisition, construction and installation of the
Project in accordance with the Project Development Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit D and by
this reference made a part hereof.
“Plan of Development” means the Plan of Development for the Authority, as amended from time
to time, approved by the Board and the City Council in accordance with the Downtown
Development Authority Act.
“Plan of Development Area” means an area in the central business district of the City that the
Board and the City Council have designated as appropriate for a development project.
“Pledged Tax Increment Revenues” means 100% of the Authority’s statutory share of the real
property tax increment attributable to construction of buildings and implementation of uses
within the Project capped at the values shown in the Estimate of Value Worksheet and based on
the Phasing Schedule. Exhibit E-1 illustrates how calculations of available Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues will be made based on the Estimate of Value Worksheet and the Phasing
Schedule.
“Project” means the acquisition, construction and installation of the Company’s headquarters,
manufacturing and office facilities on the Property, as more specifically described on Exhibit C
attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The definition of “Project” does not
include the area marked on Exhibit C and designated as “Future Commercial Project.”
“Project Development Plan” means the plan for the development of the Project approved by the
City.
“Property” means the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference
made a part hereof.
“Reimbursement Amount” means the obligation of the City to reimburse Woodward for the
funding of the Improvement Projects, including interest thereon, in accordance with the terms
and provisions of this Agreement. The Reimbursement Amount shall be evidenced by the Bond
to be issued by the City pursuant to the authority conferred at the 2006 Election.
“Right of Way Improvements” means the right of way improvements to Lemay Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue as more specifically set forth in Section 4.1(a) hereof and as set forth in Exhibit
C attached hereto.
“Senior Lien Documents” means, collectively, the documents executed and delivered in
connection with the issuance of the Senior Lien Securities.
8
“Senior Lien Securities” means, collectively, (a) the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown
Development Authority Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A, (b) the City of
Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Tax-Exempt Tax Increment Revenue
Bonds, Series 2010B, (c) the Line of Credit, (d) all other bonds, warrants, notes, securities, leases
or other contracts having a lien on the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues that is senior or superior
to the lien of the Bond, and (e) the Authority’s obligation for the 2007 City of Fort Collins Lease
Certificates of Participation for the Civic Center Facilities Project.
“Subordinate Lien Bonds” means any bond, warrants, notes, securities, leases or other contracts
evidencing borrowings and payoffs from the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues having a lien
thereon subordinate or junior to the lien of the Bond.
“Supplemental Public Securities Act” means Part 2 of Article 57, Title 11, C.R.S.
“Tax Increment Fund” means the special fund created in Ordinance No. 142, 1985, of the City
designated therein as the “City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority
Tax Increment Bonds, Bond Fund.”
“Tax Increment Period” means the period of time during which the Authority is authorized under
State law to collect tax increment revenues from the Property. As of the date of this Agreement,
the Tax Increment Period terminates on December 31, 2031.
“Tax Increment Revenues” means all revenues derived in each Fiscal Year from the levy of ad
valorem taxes at the rate fixed each year by or for each public body having taxing power over the
property upon that portion of the valuation for assessment of the property within the boundaries
of such public body that is in excess of the valuation for assessment on the date that the property
was added to the District by valid legislative action of the City, all in accordance with Section
31-25-807(3) of the Downtown Development Authority Act, less any collection fees lawfully
payable to the City or Larimer County, Colorado, for services rendered in connection with the
collection of such ad valorem taxes.
“Transmission Line IGA” means the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and
Relocation of Platte River Power Authority Transmission Facilities between the City and the
Platte River Power Authority, in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit H attached hereto and
by this reference made a part hereof.
“Transmission Line Relocation” means the relocation of the Transmission Lines in accordance
with the Transmission Line IGA.
“Transmission Lines” means the 230kV/115kV double circuit overhead transmission line that
crosses the Property, specifically the approximately 3600 linear feet of the line segment between
structure TP28 on the north and TR-19 on the south.
“2006 Election” means the election held in the City on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at which a
majority of the qualified electors of the District authorized the City to issue bonds, notes,
contracts or other financial obligations in an amount not to exceed $150,000,000 to finance the
9
costs of development projects to be undertaken by or on behalf of the Authority, with such debt
to be payable solely from and secured by a pledge of the special fund of the City which shall
contain ad valorem property tax increment revenues levied and collected within the boundaries
of the Authority.
“Use Tax Rebate” means the rebate of up to 80% of the Use Taxes to Woodward in accordance
with Section 6 of this Agreement.
“Use Taxes” means the Use Taxes received by the City from Woodward in connection with
Eligible Equipment and Construction Materials for the Project.
SECTION 2. REPRESENTATIONS AND COVENANTS
2.1. The City represents and covenants that:
2.1.1. The City is a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado.
2.1.2. There is no litigation or administrative proceeding pending or, to the knowledge
of the City, threatened in writing, seeking to question the authority of the City to
enter into or perform this Agreement.
2.1.3. The City has the authority to enter into this Agreement, and the City Council has
duly and regularly authorized the City to execute and deliver this Agreement.
This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the City, enforceable
according to its terms, except to the extent limited by bankruptcy, insolvency and
other laws of general application affecting creditors’ rights and by equitable
principles, whether considered at law or in equity.
2.2. The Authority represents and covenants that:
2.2.1. The Authority is a duly organized and existing downtown development authority
under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, including, particularly,
the Downtown Development Authority Act.
2.2.2. There is no litigation or administrative proceeding pending or, to the knowledge
of the Authority, threatened in writing, seeking to question the authority of the
Authority to enter into or perform this Agreement or the Façade Easement
Agreement.
2.2.3. The Authority has the authority to enter into this Agreement, and the Board has
properly and regularly authorized the Authority to enter into this Agreement.
This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Authority,
enforceable according to its terms, except to the extent limited by bankruptcy,
insolvency and other laws of general application affecting creditors’ rights and by
equitable principles, whether considered at law or in equity.
10
2.3. Woodward represents and covenants that:
2.3.1. Woodward is a corporation, duly organized and validly existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, is authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, is not
in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or, to its
knowledge, the laws of the State of Colorado.
2.3.2. Woodward has the power and legal right to enter into the Agreement and has duly
authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper
action, which Agreement shall be enforceable against Woodward in accordance
with its terms, except to the extent limited by bankruptcy, insolvency and other
laws of general application affecting creditors’ rights and by equitable principles,
whether considered at law or in equity.
2.3.3. The consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall not
violate any provision of the governing documents of Woodward or, to its
knowledge, constitute a default or result in the breach of any term or provision of
any contract or agreement to which Woodward is a party or by which it is bound.
2.3.4. To its knowledge, there is no litigation, proceeding, or investigation contesting the
power of authority of Woodward with respect to the Project or this Agreement or
any other agreements contemplated herein, and Woodward is unaware of that any
such litigation, proceeding, or investigation has been threatened.
2.3.5. Woodward has submitted a Project Development Plan to the City which
Woodward reasonably believes to be in accordance with all applicable procedures
set forth in the Land Use Code. Woodward shall develop the Property with
appropriate care and diligence and cause the Project to be constructed in a manner
consistent with the Project Development Plan, as approved in accordance with the
Land Use Code.
2.3.6. In developing the Property, Woodward shall comply with all applicable zoning
and land use requirements and other applicable federal, state, county, and City
statutes, rules, regulations and ordinances. Woodward agrees to comply with all
City codes, ordinances, resolutions and regulations, and to pay all taxes, fees and
expenses due to the City under the City Code, the Land Use Code or this
Agreement, subject to any variances or modifications of standards that may be
granted to Woodward under the City Code or the Land Use Code, and to comply
with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement.
2.3.7. Woodward shall cooperate with the City in taking reasonable actions to defend
against any litigation brought by a third party concerning the Project or this
Agreement or any other agreements contemplated herein.
2.3.8. Woodward shall have the right to seek a reduction in the Project's property tax
assessed valuation and to seek an abatement of property taxes, provided that
Woodward covenants that it will not seek such a reduction or abatement to the
extent that any such reduction or abatement would result in Pledged Tax
11
Increment Revenues being less than those shown on the Estimate of Value
attached hereto as Exhibit E, as adjusted to account for the Phasing Schedule
attached hereto as Exhibit D and assuming completion dates for Phase Two and
Phase Four of no later than 24 months from those shown on the Phasing Schedule.
In the event that Woodward seeks, and successfully obtains, a reduction or
abatement in the Project’s property tax assessed valuation that results in the
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues being less than such amounts, there shall be a
proportionate reduction in the Reimbursement Amount and the maximum
purchase price for the Façade Easements. Woodward shall provide written notice
to the City and to the Authority of any requested reduction in the Project's
property tax assessed valuation or abatement of the Project's property taxes. A
memorandum of this covenant shall be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk
and Recorder's Office.
SECTION 3. COMMITMENT TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT; ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY; CONVEYANCE OF OPEN SPACE PROPERTY
3.1 On or prior to April 30, 2013, Woodward shall submit written evidence to the City and
the Authority that the Company has determined to proceed with the Project as described in the
Project Development Plan and locate its new campus headquarters on the Property. Compliance
with the provisions of this Section 3.1 shall be a condition subsequent to the City and the
Authority’s obligations hereunder.
3.2 On or prior to April 30, 2013, or such later date as may be agreed upon between
Woodward and the current owners of the Property, but in no event later than July 31, 2013,
Woodward shall acquire fee simple title to the Property and shall submit written evidence of
such purchase to the City and the Authority. Compliance with the provisions of this Section 3.2
shall be a condition subsequent to the City and the Authority’s obligations hereunder.
3.3 No later than sixty (60) days after the acquisition of the Property by Woodward, the
Company shall have entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the City to convey the
Open Space Property to the City by bargain and sale deed. The purchase and sale agreement
may establish reasonable conditions and reservations for the conveyance of the Open Space
Property to the extent required for the completion of the Project, including, without limitation,
any responsibilities to be retained by Woodward, conditions or reservations restricting the use of
such property to open space or natural areas uses, reserving to the Company certain temporary
and permanent easements and other rights of access relating to the Project, and certain permanent
rights of access to the Open Space Property for the Company and its employees. The City agrees
to make diligent efforts to complete commercially reasonable due diligence related to the Open
Space Property, and, subject to any associated adjustments, delays or conditions reasonably
required in light of issues identified in the City’s due diligence process, the City agrees to accept
title to the Open Space Property.
12
SECTION 4. CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS; FAÇADE EASEMENTS
4.1 Funding of Improvement Projects. Woodward shall fund the design, acquisition,
construction and installation of the Improvement Projects, up to the Maximum Funding Amount,
in the following order of priorities:
(a) Relocation of Transmission Lines. Woodward agrees to fund the Transmission
Line Relocation in accordance with the Transmission Line IGA. The City shall not modify or
amend the Transmission Line IGA without the prior written consent of the Company. The City
shall use its best efforts to cause the Transmission Lines to be relocated by the Platte River
Power Authority within a time frame that supports the Project development, and, if necessary to
comply with the Project schedule, shall cause the Platte River Power Authority to construct a
temporary transmission line.
(b) Right of Way Improvements. Woodward agrees to fund certain right of way
improvements to Lemay Avenue and Lincoln Avenue as required by the Land Use Code for the
Project, as more particularly described in Exhibit F attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof (collectively, the “Right of Way Improvements”). Unless otherwise agreed by
Woodward, the City shall design, acquire, construct and install the Right of Way Improvements,
and shall agree in good faith on a schedule acceptable to the City and Woodward.
(c) Open Space Improvements. On or prior to June 30, 2013, the City shall propose
and coordinate the design and schedule of the landscaping and habitat improvements to be
constructed on the Open Space Property in accordance with the City’s guidelines, with such
improvements to be substantially in accordance with Exhibit G attached hereto and by this
reference made a part hereof (the “Open Space Improvements”), subject to approval by the
Company, and the parties shall agree on a set of terms and conditions to be included in the deed
between Woodward and the City conveying the Open Space Property. The terms of the deed
conveying the Open Space Property to the City shall supersede any terms to the contrary in this
Section 4.1(c). Woodward shall fund the construction of the Open Space Improvements,
provided that such funding shall not exceed the Maximum Funding Amount available after
funding the Transmission Line Relocation and the Right of Way Improvements. To the extent
that the amount available from the Company to fund the Open Space Improvements is less than
$3.0 million, the City shall provide the additional funding necessary to complete the Open Space
Improvements. Unless otherwise agreed by Woodward, the City shall construct and install the
Open Space Improvements on a schedule mutually agreeable to the parties. The parties
anticipate that the Open Space Improvements will not commence before Woodward conveys the
Open Space Property to the City. The City shall not commence the Open Space Improvements
until: (a) Woodward has completed overlot grading to a 1/10th of a foot tolerance and surveyed
the site; and (b) the City has reviewed and approved the site grading as consistent with the
Conditional Letter of Map Revision approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
for the Open Space Property.
(d) Lincoln Boulevard Improvements. The City is currently considering the
construction of significant improvements to Lincoln Avenue in the area approximately between
the Cache la Poudre River and Lemay Avenue, as generally described in the City’s
13
comprehensive plan (the “Lincoln Boulevard Improvements”). The Lincoln Boulevard
Improvements may include, but are not limited to, the construction of new or improved street
and intersections; sidewalks and benches; bicycle lanes and racks; trees and other landscaping;
gateway features similar to those at the intersection of Harmony Road and College Avenue;
transit-related infrastructure; storm water improvements; directional signage; public art and other
projects for a positive neighborhood image; and interpretive features of culture and history
relevant to the area. In addition, the City is considering long-range plans for transit services in
the Lincoln Avenue area, which may include expanded bus service, a dedicated transit “loop”
servicing the Lincoln Avenue corridor and downtown Fort Collins, or a dedicated trolley service.
The City hereby agrees to use its reasonable best efforts to complete the study of possible
designs for the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements no later than April 30, 2014.
In addition, the City Manager agrees to present a package to the City Council of
improvements to be funded by a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax, including
a portion of the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements valued at approximately $8 million, on a
schedule to allow consideration of that measure by the voters no later than November 2014. If
approved by the voters, and if Phase One, Phase Two and Phase Four have been Completed, and
the completion of Phase Three is either in compliance with the Phasing Schedule, or no more
than 24 months delayed from the Phasing Schedule, (a) the City shall, subject to approval by the
City Council, use its reasonable best efforts to construct approximately $8.0 million of the
Lincoln Boulevard Improvements with the dedicated proceeds of the approved sales tax, and (b)
subject to the availability of Pledged Tax Increment Revenues as reasonably determined by the
City and the Board of the Authority, and subject to the approval by the Board of the Authority,
use its reasonable best efforts to apply no more than $2.85 million of any such available Pledged
Tax Increment Revenues to finance a portion of the construction of the Lincoln Boulevard
Improvements.
4.2 Façade Easements. The Authority and Woodward shall enter into the Façade Easement
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit I.
4.3 Mulberry Corridor. The City shall continue its efforts to effect an annexation of the
properties along Mulberry Street between Lemay Avenue and Interstate 25, subject to the
discretion of the City Council, as applicable.
4.4 Reimbursement From Third Parties. To the extent that Woodward receives payment or
reimbursement from any other parties (but expressly excluding any State of Colorado incentive
payments or grants) to reimburse Woodward for the acquisition, construction and completion of
the Improvement Projects financed by Woodward, Woodward hereby agrees to apply any such
payment or reimbursement to reduce the Reimbursement Amount due from the City.
SECTION 5. REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT; ISSUANCE OF BOND
5.1 Issuance of Bond. The Reimbursement Amount shall be evidenced by a Bond in
substantially the form set forth as Exhibit J attached hereto. The Bond shall not be transferable
by the Company except as set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement (provided that the City
receives evidence satisfactory to it that any such transfer complies with all applicable securities
laws) or otherwise with the prior written consent of the City.
14
(a) The Bond is being issued pursuant to art. XX, §6 of the Colorado Constitution,
Art. V, Section 19.8 of the Charter, the Downtown Development Authority Act, the
Supplemental Act, and pursuant to the 2006 Election.
(b) Section 11-57-204 of the Supplemental Act provides that a public entity,
including the City, may elect in an act of issuance to apply all or any of the provisions of the
Supplemental Act to such issuance. The Council hereby elects to apply all of the Supplemental
Act to the Bond. The Bond is issued under the authority of the Supplemental Act and shall so
recite. Pursuant to Section 11-57-210 C.R.S., such recital conclusively imparts full compliance
with all provisions of said sections, and the bonds issued containing such recital shall be
incontestable for any cause whatsoever after their delivery for value.
(c) Except as expressly provided in this Agreement and in the documents authorizing
the Senior Lien Securities, the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be and hereby are
irrevocably pledged and set aside to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond. The Bond
constitutes an irrevocable lien (but not a first lien nor an exclusive lien) upon the Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues. The creation, perfection, enforcement, and priority of the pledge of
revenues to secure or pay the Bond shall be governed by §11-57-208 of the Supplemental Act.
The Pledged Tax Increment Revenue shall immediately be subject to the lien of such pledge
without any physical delivery, filing, or further act. The lien of such pledge on the Pledged Tax
Increment Revenue shall be subordinate or junior to the Senior Lien Securities. The lien of such
pledge shall be valid, binding, and enforceable as against all persons having claims of any kind
in tort, contract, or otherwise against the City irrespective of whether such persons have notice of
such liens. The Bond shall recite in substance that the Bond is not a general obligation of the
City and that the full faith and credit of the City is not pledged to pay the debt service
requirements of such Bond.
(d) Interest shall begin to accrue on the Bond from the date of the first funding
advance made by the Company to fund an Improvement Project (the “Initial Funding Date”)
until the one year anniversary of the Initial Funding Date at a rate equal to 0.25% per annum.
Thereafter, the interest rate on the Bond shall be reset on each one year anniversary of the Initial
Funding Date (the “Reset Date”) at a rate equal to the difference between the interest rate on the
10 year U.S. Treasury Note on the Initial Funding Date (the “Initial Treasury Rate”) and the
average of the interest rate on the 10 year U.S. Treasury Note during the 30 day period up to and
including the Reset Date, provided that in no event shall the interest rate be less than 0.25% per
annum. The City shall calculate the applicable interest rate on each Reset Date and shall provide
written notice thereof to the Authority and the Company. Absent manifest error, the City’s
determination of the applicable interest rate on each Reset Date shall be conclusive. Unpaid
interest shall compound on each Reset Date.
(e) The unpaid principal balance of the Bond at any time shall be the total amount
paid by the Company to fund the Improvement Projects, plus any compound interest, less the
amount of payments of the principal made on the Bond. The Bond shall mature on
December 31, 2031.
(f) The Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of the
principal of and interest on the Bond as follows:
15
(i) Principal and interest on the Bond shall be payable solely from Pledged
Tax Increment Revenues during the Tax Increment Period to the extent available. By
December 31 in each year, available Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied
first to the payment of interest on the Bond and then to the payment of principal.
(ii) For so long as the Façade Easements have not been paid in full, the
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied as follows:
(A) Upon Completion of Phase One, 20% of the Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of Façade Easements
in accordance with the Façade Easement Agreement and 80% of the
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of the
principal of and interest on the Bond;
(B) Upon Completion of Phase One and Phase Two, 27% of
the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of
Façade Easements in accordance with the Façade Easement Agreement
and 73% of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the
payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond;
(C) Upon Completion of Phase One, Phase Two and either
Phase Three or Phase Four (or both Phases Three and Four), 32% of the
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of
Façade Easements in accordance with the Façade Easement Agreement
and 68% of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the
payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond;
(D) After payment in full of the Façade Easement, 100% of the
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of the
principal of and interest on the Bond.
(E) After payment in full of the Bond, 100% of the Pledged
Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to the payment of the Façade
Easement.
(iii) In the event that the available Pledged Tax Increment Revenues are not
sufficient to repay the principal of and interest on the Bond in full during the Tax
Increment Period, and amounts remain unpaid on the Bond at the expiration of the Tax
Increment Period, this shall not constitute an Event of Default hereunder or under the
Bond. In the event of any such insufficiency, then the City hereby declares its intent to
pay any such unpaid amounts of principal and interest on the Bond from legally available
funds of the City, subject to appropriation by the Council. The City agrees that the City
Manager shall, at such time, present to the City Council for its consideration a resolution
or ordinance authorizing the City to pay such unpaid amounts. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, however, any failure by the Council to appropriate any payments necessary to
pay any unpaid principal of or interest on the Bond on the expiration of the Tax
Increment Period shall not be deemed a Default or an Event of Default hereunder. The
16
Council’s declaration of intent to make such payments shall not be binding upon the
Council or any future Council in any future fiscal year. Any such payments by the City
shall constitute currently appropriated expenditures of the City. Neither this Agreement
nor the issuance of the Bond shall obligate or compel the City to make payments on the
Bond from sources other than the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues beyond those
appropriated in the Council’s sole discretion.
(iv) In connection with the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the
issuance of the Bond, the City shall appropriate $2.2 million of available money of the
City (the “Reserve Amount”) to be applied to the payment of the Bond in the event that
only Phase One of the Project is Completed and there are insufficient Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues to repay the principal of and interest on the Bond in full during the
Tax Increment Period. Pursuant to the Charter, the Reserve Amount shall be subject to
appropriation in each subsequent year. In the event that the Company substantially
completes Phase One and has broken ground on Phase Two and Phase Four of the
Project, the City may, in its discretion, release the $2.2 million Reserve Amount and
apply such amount to any lawful purpose of the City, provided that at the time such
Reserve Amount is released by the City, the amount of Pledged Tax Increment Revenue
estimated to be available to repay the Bond during the Tax Increment Period is not less
than the outstanding principal amount of the Bond, plus the maximum estimated amount
of interest to be paid on the Bond.
(v) Notwithstanding the foregoing, or anything else to the contrary contained
in this Agreement, the Company acknowledges that the terms and provisions of the
Senior Lien Documents govern the application of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues
and that the obligation of the City to apply the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues to the
repayment of the Bond shall be subordinate to the Senior Lien Securities.
(h) The principal of and interest on the Bond are payable in any coin or currency of
the United States of America which on the payment date is legal tender for the payment of
public and private debts. Payments made by the City on the Bond shall be applied first to any
interest payments owing thereunder which are due and unpaid, and shall be applied second to
any outstanding principal thereunder. The principal of and interest on the Bond shall be payable
by wire transfer or as otherwise directed in writing by the Company. The final principal
payment of and final installment of interest on the Bond shall be payable to the Company upon
presentation and surrender of the Bond to the City at maturity or upon prior prepayment in
whole.
(i) The City may prepay the Bond in whole or in part, at any time, without
prepayment premium, upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the Company. Any partial
prepayments received in accordance with this provision will not, unless agreed to by the
Company in writing, relieve the City of its obligation to continue to make payments as set forth
herein or in the Bond; rather, such prepayments will reduce the principal balance due on the
Bond.
(j) The Bond shall be executed by and on behalf of the City with the facsimile or
manual signature of the Mayor, shall bear a facsimile or manual impression of the seal of the
17
City, shall be attested with the facsimile or manual signature of the City Clerk and shall be
countersigned with the manual signature of the Financial Officer of the City. Should any officer
whose facsimile or manual signature appears on the Bond cease to be such officer before
delivery of the Bond to the Company, such facsimile or manual signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes.
(k) When the principal of and interest on the Bond have been paid in full, the pledge
and lien of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues and all obligations hereunder and under the
Bond shall thereby be discharged and the Bond shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding
within the meaning of this Agreement.
(l) The parties acknowledge that any express or implicit tax advice provided in this
Agreement cannot be used by any taxpayer to avoid penalties that may be imposed on any
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
5.2 Disposition of Pledged Tax Increment Revenues. For so long as the Bond shall be
outstanding, except as otherwise provided herein, the Tax Increment Revenues, upon their
receipt from time to time by the City, shall be set aside and credited immediately to the Tax
Increment Fund. For so long as the Bond shall be outstanding, the Pledged Tax Increment
Revenues on deposit in the Tax Increment Fund shall be accumulated and administered, and the
moneys on deposit therein shall be applied, in the following order of priority:
(a) First, to the extent that there are outstanding Senior Lien Securities, the Pledged
Tax Increment Revenues shall be applied to make all payments required by the Senior Lien
Documents, including, without limitation, the payment of the debt service requirements of the
Senior Lien Securities and the accumulation of any reserve funds required in connection with the
Senior Lien Securities, at the times and in the manner specified therein.
(b) Second, after all amounts required to be applied or accumulated in connection
with the Senior Lien Securities have been made or provided for in the current Bond Year, any
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues remaining in the Tax Increment Fund in any Bond Year shall
be used by the City for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond and the
reimbursement for the Façade Easements, as set forth in Section 5.1(f)(ii) hereof; but the lien of
the Bond on the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues and the pledge thereof for the payment of the
Bond shall be subordinate and junior to the lien and pledge for the payment of all outstanding
Senior Lien Securities as herein provided.
(c) Third, after all the amounts required to be applied or accumulated pursuant to
paragraphs 5.2(a) and (b) above have been made or provided for in the current Bond Year, any
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues remaining in the Tax Increment Fund in any Bond Year may
be used to pay the debt service requirements of any Subordinate Lien Bonds, and any required
reserve fund payments or accumulations required in connection therewith.
(d) After the payments required to be made by Sections 5.2(a), (b) and (c) have been
made or provided for in any Bond Year and provided the City shall has made or provided for all
payments required in connection with the Bond in such Bond Year, any remaining Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues may be used for any one or any combination of purposes allowed by State
18
law, including the Downtown Development Authority Act, as the City may from time to time
determine.
(e) The sums required to make the payments specified in this Section 5.2 are hereby
appropriated for the purposes, and the amounts so required to make the payments specified in
this Section in each year shall be included in the budget and the appropriation ordinance or
measures to be adopted or passed by the Council while the Bond is outstanding and unpaid. No
provisions of any constitution, charter, statute, ordinance, resolution, or other order or measure
enacted after the issuance of the Bond shall in any manner be construed as limiting or impairing
the obligation of the City to keep and perform the covenants contained in this Agreement so long
as the Bond remains outstanding and unpaid.
5.3 Issuance of Additional Securities. So long as the Bond remains outstanding, the City may
issue additional securities payable in whole or in part from the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues
only in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) The City may issue additional Senior Lien Securities only to refund, in whole or
in part, outstanding Senior Lien Securities, provided that the debt service requirements payable
in any Bond Year on such Senior Lien Securities after such refunding is not increased above the
debt service requirements payable in such Bond Year on the Senior Lien Securities outstanding
prior to the refunding.
(b) The City may not issue additional securities payable from the Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues having a lien thereon that is on a parity with the lien thereon of the Bond.
(c) The City may issue additional Subordinate Securities for any lawful purpose
payable from the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues having a lien thereon subordinate or junior to
the lien thereon of the Bond.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing or any provisions to the contrary contained herein,
the Authority may continue to renew the Line of Credit without prior approval of the Company.
5.4 City Covenants. The City hereby particularly covenants and agrees with the Company,
as the owner of the Bond, and makes provisions that shall be a part of its contract with the
Company, which covenants and provisions shall be kept by the City continuously until the Bond
has been fully paid and discharged:
(a) Continuance and Collection of Pledged Tax Increment Revenues.
(i) The Plan of Development, as approved and amended as described
in this Agreement, is now in full force and effect. The City will not revoke
its approval or amend the Plan of Development in any manner that would
materially diminish the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues.
(ii) The City shall continue to collect the Tax Increment Revenues in
accordance with the Downtown Development Authority Act and all
applicable City ordinances related thereto.
19
(iii) The City shall maintain the Tax Increment Fund as a fund of the
City separate and distinct from all other funds of the City and shall place
the Tax Increment Revenues therein. The Tax Increment Fund shall be
subject to appropriation only as authorized by the Downtown
Development Authority Act and all applicable City ordinances related
thereto.
(b) Defense of Legality of Pledged Revenues. There is not pending or
threatened in writing any suit, action or proceeding against or affecting the City
before or by any court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other governmental
authority that affects the validity or legality of this Agreement, any ordinance
affecting the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues or any of the City's obligations
under such ordinances. The City shall, to the extent permitted by law, defend the
validity and legality of all ordinances affecting the Pledged Tax Increment
Revenues and all amendments thereto against all claims, suits and proceedings
that would materially diminish or impair the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues.
(c) Further Assurances. At any and all times the City shall, so far as it may be
authorized by law, pass, make, do, execute, acknowledge, deliver, and file or
record all and every such further instruments, acts, deeds, conveyances,
assignments, transfers, other documents, and assurances as may be necessary or
desirable for the better assuring, conveying, granting, assigning and confirming
all and singular the rights, the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues and other funds
and accounts hereby pledged, or intended so to be, or that the City may hereafter
become bound to pledge, or as may be reasonable and required to carry out the
purposes of this Agreement. The City, acting by and through its officers, or
otherwise, shall at all times, to the extent permitted by law, defend, preserve and
protect the pledge of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues and other funds and
accounts pledged hereunder and all the rights of the owner of the Bond against all
claims and demands of all persons whomsoever.
SECTION 6. PAYMENT AND REBATE OF USE TAXES, DEVELOPMENT FEES
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES
6.1 Woodward shall pay to the City all Use Taxes, Development Fees and Capital
Improvement Fees due from Woodward in connection with the Project.
6.2 To the extent permitted by the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado and the
Charter, including but not limited to, applicable prohibitions on multiple fiscal year obligations
and the condition all obligations be contingent upon the appropriation of funds sufficient and
intended therefore by the City Council of the City, in its sole discretion, the City agrees to rebate
the following amounts to Woodward:
(a) 80% of the Use Taxes paid by Woodward for Eligible Equipment and
Construction Materials for the Project under the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 6
(the “Use Tax Rebate”), subject to the contingencies and requirements described in this
Agreement. Woodward shall not be eligible for a Use Tax Rebate for any Use Tax paid on any
20
Eligible Equipment or Construction Material for the Project unless it has accurately designated
and identified the Eligible Equipment or such Construction Materials on a separate schedule as
part of the Use Tax submission for such Eligible Equipment or Construction Materials.
(b) 100% of the Development Fees received by the City under the terms and
conditions set forth in this Section 6 (the “Development Fee Rebate”), subject to the
contingencies and requirements described in this Agreement.
(c) 50% of the Capital Improvement Fees received by the City under the terms and
conditions set forth in this Section 6 (the “Capital Improvement Fee Rebate”), subject to the
contingencies and requirements described in this Agreement.
6.3 The Use Tax Rebates, Development Fee Rebates and Capital Improvement Fee Rebates
(collectively, the “Rebates”) shall be conditioned upon the full payment by Woodward to the
City of all Use Taxes, Development Fee Rebates and Capital Improvement Fee Rebates, as the
case may be, due and owing from Woodward, subject to the following provisions:
(a) If Woodward has not paid any Use Taxes owed to the City due to a good faith
dispute as to whether such Use Tax is due, and such dispute has not been resolved by the time
the Company requests a Use Tax Rebate hereunder, or if Woodward otherwise fails to pay any
Use Taxes owed to the City when due and such Use Taxes remain unpaid at the time the
Company requests a Use Tax Rebate hereunder, then the City may reduce the requested Use Tax
Rebate by the amount in dispute until resolution of the dispute, payment of the Use Tax or
payment under protest of the Use Tax, as the case may be.
(b) If Woodward has not paid any Development Fees owed to the City due to a good
faith dispute as to whether such Development Fee is due, and such dispute has not been resolved
by the time the Company requests a Development Fee Rebate hereunder, or if Woodward
otherwise fails to pay any Development Fee owed to the City when due and such Development
Fees remain unpaid at the time the Company requests a Development Fee Rebate hereunder, then
the City may reduce the requested Development Fee Rebate by the amount in dispute until
resolution of the dispute or payment of the Development Fee, as the case may be.
(c) If Woodward has not paid any Capital Improvement Fees owed to the City due to
a good faith dispute as to whether such Capital Improvement Fee is due, and such dispute has not
been resolved by the time the Company requests a Capital Improvement Fee Rebate hereunder,
or if Woodward otherwise fails to pay any Capital Improvement Fee owed to the City when due
and such Capital Improvement Fees remain unpaid at the time the Company requests a Capital
Improvement Fee Rebate hereunder, then the City may reduce the requested Capital
Improvement Fee Rebate by the amount in dispute until resolution of the dispute or payment of
the Capital Improvement Fee, as the case may be.
6.4 The Company shall apply for the Rebates in accordance with the provisions hereinafter
set forth. The amount of Rebates payable by the City and the time when such Rebates shall be
paid are hereinafter set forth:
21
(a) In order to be eligible for any Use Tax Rebate hereunder,
Woodward shall submit an Application for Use Tax Rebate. Any such
Application (and each such Application for Use Tax Rebate submitted pursuant to
this Section 6.4) must identify each item of Eligible Equipment or Construction
Materials used on the Project in a manner consistent with, and corresponding to,
the manner in which such item of Eligible Equipment or Construction Materials
were designated and identified in connection with the payment of Use Taxes for
said item. Woodward shall be eligible to submit an Application for Use Tax
Rebate to the City in the first quarter of each year for any Use Taxes paid in the
prior year. The Use Tax Rebate to Woodward shall be made by the City within
ninety (90) days of receipt of such request by Woodward, subject to annual
appropriation by the City Council of funds sufficient and intended for such
purpose.
(b) In order to be eligible for any Development Fee Rebate or Capital
Improvement Fee Rebate hereunder, Woodward shall submit a request for
Development Fee Rebate or Capital Improvement Fee Rebate, as the case may be,
in a form or manner reasonably satisfactory to the City. Any such request shall
identify all applicable Development Fees or Capital Improvement Fees, as the
case may be, that have been paid by Woodward in connection with the Project.
Woodward shall be eligible to submit such a request to the City at any time for
any Development Fees or Capital Improvement Fees that have been paid at the
time of such request. The Development Fee Rebate or Capital Improvement Fee
Rebate to Woodward shall be made by the City within one hundred twenty (120)
days of receipt of such request by Woodward, subject to annual appropriation by
the City Council of funds sufficient and intended for such purpose.
(c) Woodward acknowledges that the Rebates are being offered by the
City in part based on certain employment levels being increased and maintained
by Woodward. Specifically, the City and Woodward have agreed that the
minimum target for employment within the City shall be 1400 employees by
December 31, 2018. If the Company applies for a Use Tax Rebate, Development
Fee Rebate or Capital Improvement Fee Rebate prior to December 31, 2018, then
the City may withhold 40% of the requested Rebate until it has verified that
Woodward has achieved this level of employment on or prior to December 31,
2018. If the Company’s employment level reaches or exceeds 1400 employees
within the City on or prior to December 31, 2018, any Use Tax Rebates,
Development Fee Rebates and Capital Improvement Fee Rebates held back by the
City shall be remitted to the Company. If the Company’s employment level has
not reached 1400 employees within the City by December 31, 2018, but has
reached 1400 employees within the City on or prior to December 31, 2020, then
upon reaching such level, the City shall retain $500,000 of the amount held back
for all Rebates and shall remit the remaining amount held back from all Rebates
to the Company. If the Company’s employment level has not reached 1400
employees within the City by December 31, 2020, the City shall be entitled to
thereafter retain all amounts held back by the City on the Rebates. In no event
shall Woodward be required to repay to the City all or any portion of the initial
22
60% of the Rebates paid by the City to Woodward. For purposes of this
provision, an “employee” shall mean a Full-Time Equivalent Employee.
6.5 The City, in its sole discretion, may pre-pay all or any portion of the Rebates, without
penalty.
6.6 It is not the parties’ intent that Woodward be paid or entitled to any interest or penalty on
Use Taxes, Development Fees or Capital Improvement Fees paid by Woodward, or any penalty
or interest on Rebate payments delayed or withheld by the City.
6.7 The parties further acknowledge and agree that the Use Tax Rebate for any Eligible
Equipment or Construction Materials for the Project shall not at any time be allowed to exceed
the amount of City Use Tax actually paid to the City on such Eligible Equipment or such
Construction Materials. Woodward further acknowledges and agrees that the City is in no way
responsible for the amount of City Use Tax actually paid or collected for the Eligible Equipment
or Construction Materials for the Project or any other equipment or corporeal property of
Woodward. The Use Tax Rebate as described herein is intended to be in lieu of, and not a
duplication of, the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. On an annual basis, the
Company may elect to either apply for Use Tax Rebates in accordance with the provisions
hereof, or participate in the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program.
6.8 The parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement do not constitute an indebtedness
of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or Charter provision.
The commitment of the City to pay the Use Tax Rebate, the Development Fee Rebate and the
Capital Improvement Fee Rebate under this Agreement is from year to year only and does not
constitute a mandatory payment obligation of the City in any fiscal year. This Agreement does
not directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment of a Rebate beyond those for
which funds have been appropriated as of the date of this Agreement. The City Manager (or any
other officer or employee at the time charged with the responsibility of formulating budget
proposals) shall make a good faith effort to include in the budget proposals and appropriation
ordinances proposed to the City Council, in each year prior to expiration of this Agreement,
amounts sufficient to meet the City’s commitments hereunder, subject to the conditions and
contingencies set forth herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties expressly
acknowledge that the decision as to whether to appropriate such amounts is in the discretion of
the City Council.
SECTION 7. RECORDS AND AUDITS
7.1 Woodward shall keep true, accurate and complete records of the acquisition and
installation of the Eligible Equipment, which records shall be available for inspection by the City
without unreasonable delay and without City expense. Woodward agrees that the City has the
right, through its duly authorized agents or representatives, to examine all such records upon ten
(10) days notice at all reasonable times, as well as the right to inspect and inventory the Eligible
Equipment in order to confirm that the same is in place and in use as required in connection with
any Use Tax Rebate hereunder. This right of review and inspection terminates upon termination
of the City’s payments of Use Tax Rebates. In the event that the City becomes the custodian of
23
any such records which may contain trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, and
are so marked, the City shall, to the extent permitted by law, protect the confidentiality of such
information and deny any request for inspection of such records.
7.2 The City shall keep, or cause to be kept, true, accurate and complete records of: (a) all
expenditures related to all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Improvement
Projects and the use of all funding provided by the Company to the City hereunder; (b) all
Pledged Tax Increment Revenues received by the City; and (c) all calculations relating to the
Use Tax Rebates, Development Fee Rebates and Capital Improvement Fee Rebates and such
other calculations, allocations and payments required by this Agreement. The City’s obligation
to keep records in accordance with (a) and (b) shall terminate two years after the Bond is paid in
full and the City’s obligation to keep records in accordance with (c) shall terminate one year after
all rebates have been paid or such obligation to pay rebates has terminated. The City shall make
such records available for inspection by Woodward upon ten (10) days notice at all reasonable
times, to the extent permitted by law.
SECTION 8. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT
8.1 The qualifications of Woodward to accomplish the objectives of the City hereunder are of
particular concern to the City and the Authority. Therefore, no voluntary or involuntary
successor in interest of Woodward shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement
except as expressly set forth herein and Woodward shall not assign all or any part of this
Agreement, except either:
(a) with the prior written approval of the City Council and the Board, in their sole
discretion; or
(b) as collateral to a lender in connection with the financing of the Project; or
(c) to a successor by merger, consolidation or by acquisition of all or a substantial
portion of the shares or assets of Woodward.
8.2 Woodward shall notify the City and the Authority within fifteen (15) days of any and all
changes whatsoever in the identity of the parties in control of Woodward, or the degree thereof,
of which it or any of its officers have been notified or otherwise have knowledge or information.
SECTION 9. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; REMEDIES
9.1 Default or an event of default by Woodward shall mean one or more of the following
events:
(a) Determination that any representation or warranty made in this
Agreement by Woodward was materially inaccurate when made or shall prove to be
materially inaccurate;
24
(b) The assignment of, or an attempt to assign, this Agreement by Woodward
in violation of Section 8 of this Agreement; or
(c) The failure by Woodward to substantially observe or perform any other
material covenant, obligation or agreement required under this Agreement.
9.2 In order to exercise any remedy for default hereunder, upon the occurrence of any event
of default, the City or the Authority shall provide written notice to Woodward. Woodward must
immediately proceed to cure or remedy such default, and in any event, such default shall be
cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, or such longer time as the City, the
Authority and Woodward agree in writing. Upon the failure of Woodward to so cure any such
default, the City and the Authority shall have all remedies available to it, in law or in equity,
excluding specific performance.
9.3 Default or an event of default by the City shall mean one or more of the following events:
(a) A determination that any representation or warranty made in this
Agreement by the City was materially inaccurate when made or shall prove to be
materially inaccurate; or
(b) The failure by the City to perform any nonmonetary, material covenant,
obligation or agreement required of it under this Agreement.
9.4 In order to exercise any remedy for default hereunder, upon the occurrence of any event
of default, Woodward shall provide written notice to the City. The City must immediately
proceed to cure or remedy such default, and in any event, such default shall be cured within
thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, or such longer time as the City and Woodward agree
in writing. Upon the failure of the City to so cure any such default, Woodward shall have all
remedies available to it, in law or in equity excluding specific performance.
9.5 Default or an event of default by the Authority shall mean one or more of the following
events:
(a) A determination that any representation or warranty made in this
Agreement by the Authority was materially inaccurate when made or shall prove to be
materially inaccurate; or
(b) The failure by the Authority to perform any nonmonetary, material
covenant, obligation or agreement required of it under this Agreement.
9.6 In order to exercise any remedy for default hereunder, upon the occurrence of any event
of default, Woodward shall provide written notice to the Authority. The Authority must
immediately proceed to cure or remedy such default, and in any event, such default shall be
cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, or such longer time as the Authority and
Woodward agree in writing. Upon the failure of the Authority to so cure any such default,
25
Woodward shall have all remedies available to it, in law or in equity excluding specific
performance.
9.7 Notwithstanding the foregoing or any provision to the contrary contained herein, any
delays in or failure of performance by any party of its obligations under this Agreement shall be
excused if such delays or failure are a result of acts of God; fires; floods; earthquake; strikes;
labor disputes; regulation or order of civil or military authorities; or other causes, similar or
dissimilar, which are beyond the control of such party.
SECTION 10. NOTICES
10.1 All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective upon
mailing, deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the intended
recipient as follows. Any party can change its address by written notice to the other given in
accordance with this Section. Any party can change the method by which it can receive notice
hereunder by written notice to the other parties hereunder.
City of Fort Collins: City of Fort Collins
Attention: City Manager
300 LaPorte Avenue, PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
With a copy to: City of Fort Collins
Attention: City Attorney
300 LaPorte Avenue, PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Authority: The City of Fort Collins,
Downtown Development Authority
Attention: Executive Director
19 Old Town Square, STE 230
Fort Collins, CO 80524
With a copy to: Liley, Rogers & Martell, LLC
Attention: Lucia A. Liley
300 S. Howes Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Woodward: Woodward, Inc.
Attention: Robert K. Scott
1000 East Drake Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
1-970-498-3033
rocky.scott@woodward.com
26
With a copy to: Woodward, Inc.
Attention: Steve Roberti
1000 East Drake Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Steve.Roberti@woodward.com
With a copy to: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP
Attn: Carolynne C. White
410 17th St., Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
303-223-1197
email: cwhite@bhfs.com
SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS
11.1 Future Commercial Project. The Project Development Plan includes an approximately
7.66 acre tract which has, pursuant to such plan, been approved for commercial development
which is more particularly depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. The Authority and the City agree to consider, in good faith, any future proposal for
business assistance/façade easement agreements with the Authority and/or the City in connection
with development of such tract, in accordance with the then existing regulations and policies of
the City and the Authority for such agreements, such consideration may include, but is not
necessarily limited to, purchase of façade easements, rebates of Use Tax, Capital Improvement
Fees and Development Fees, tax increment financing and the other City programs identified in
Section 11.3.
11.2 Future Expansion on Property. In connection with any future expansion by Woodward
on the Property beyond Phases One, Two, Three and Four, as set forth on the Phasing Schedule,
and which is not related to the Future Commercial Project, the Company reserves the right to
request, and the City agrees to consider in good faith, additional rebates of Use Tax, Capital
Improvement Fees and Development Fees, tax increment financing and the other City programs
identified in Section 11.3.
11.3 Participation in Utility Programs. The parties acknowledge and agree that it is their
intent and desire that Woodward partner with the City and participate in the City’s Fort Collins
Solar Program, and the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (with a maximum amount
up to $75,000), both offered through the City’s electric utility, as well as the City’s ClimateWise
Program. In addition, the City has agreed to share the costs of construction of power substation
facilities through the rebate of Electric Development Fees, which are included among the Capital
Improvement Fees to be rebated by the City pursuant to Section 6.
11.4 Drake Road Property. The Company's plans for expansion of its employment and
facilities within the City include possible renovation and expansion of the Company's existing
campus at 1000 Drake Road. The City agrees to consider, in good faith, any future proposal for
business assistance in connection with redevelopment or expansion of all or part of the Drake
Road property, in accordance with the then existing regulations and policies of the City for such
27
agreements, such consideration may include, but is not necessarily limited to, rebates of Use Tax,
Capital Improvement Fees and Development fees and other City programs being made available
for the Project pursuant to this Agreement.
11.5 Appropriation of Funds. Pursuant to the Charter, obligations of the City arising under
this Agreement are contingent upon the appropriation of funds sufficient and intended for the
same by the City Council.
11.6 Binding Effect. This Agreement inures to the benefit of and is binding upon the City, the
Authority and Woodward and Woodward’s assignees which are permitted pursuant to Section 8
of this Agreement.
11.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The City and the Authority are not obligated or liable under
the terms of this Agreement to any person or entity not a party hereto except any assignee
permitted pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement. Further, the City and the Authority are not
bound by any contracts or conditions that Woodward may negotiate with third parties related to
the Project.
11.8 Interpretation, Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement is being executed and delivered
and is intended to be performed in the State of Colorado, and the laws of Colorado govern the
validity, construction, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement. Exclusive jurisdiction
and venue for resolution of any dispute arising hereunder shall be in the Larimer County,
Colorado District Court.
11.9 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by
the parties to this Agreement.
11.10 Additional Documents or Action. The parties to this Agreement agree to execute any
additional documents or take any additional action that is necessary to carry out this Agreement
or is reasonably requested by another party to confirm or clarify the intent of the provisions
hereof and to effectuate the agreements herein contained and the intent hereof. If all or any
portion of this Agreement are asserted or determined to be invalid, illegal or are otherwise
precluded, the parties to this Agreement, within the scope of their powers and duties, shall
cooperate in the joint defense of such documents and, if such defense is unsuccessful, such
parties will use reasonable, diligent good faith efforts to amend, reform or replace such precluded
items to assure, to the extent legally permissible, that each party substantially receives the
benefits that it would have received under this Agreement.
11.11 Good Faith of Parties. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any
requested approval, consent, acceptance, or extension of time, the parties agree that each will act
in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold,
condition, or delay any approval, acceptance, or extension of time required or requested pursuant
to this Agreement.
11.12 Waiver of Breach. Any waiver of any requirement or obligation hereunder must be in
writing to be effective. Any waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term or provision of
28
this Agreement shall be narrowly construed, and shall not operate or be construed as a
subsequent or continuing waiver of said term or provision.
11.13 Article and Section Captions. The captions of the articles and sections of this Agreement
are set forth only for the convenience and reference of the parties and are not intended in any
way to define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement.
11.14 City, Authority and Woodward Not Partners. Notwithstanding any language in this
Agreement, neither the City nor the Authority is a member, partner, or joint venturer of
Woodward, and neither the City nor the Authority shall be responsible for any debt or liability of
Woodward or its contractors or agents. Woodward is not responsible for any debt or liability of
the City, the Authority, or their respective contractors or agents.
11.15 Severability. If any portion or portions of this Agreement are determined to be illegal or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in
full force and effect as if such illegal or unenforceable portion or portions did not exist. If all or
any portion of the payments required by the terms of this Agreement are determined, by a court
of competent jurisdiction in a final non-appealable judgment, to be contrary to public policy or
otherwise precluded, and if the decision of such court clearly indicates how the payments may be
made differently and in a manner that is legal, valid and enforceable, then the Parties shall utilize
their reasonable, best, good faith efforts to promptly restructure and/or amend this Agreement in
accordance with such court decision, or to enter into a new agreement, to assure, to the extent
legally permissible, that all payments are made to Woodward as contemplated by this
Agreement.
11.16 Originals. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed original but all of which constitute one and the same
Agreement.
11.17 Joint Draft. The parties agree they drafted this Agreement jointly with each having the
advice of legal counsel and an equal opportunity to contribute to its content.
[SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
29
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Authority and Woodward have executed this
Agreement as of the date first above written.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a municipal corporation
By:
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
By:
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Attest:
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Stephen J. Roy, City Attorney
THE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
_______________________________________
Wynne Odell, Chairperson
(SEAL)
Attest:
____________________________________
Janet Bramhall, Secretary
WOODWARD, INC., a Delaware corporation
By:
Title:
30
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing Agreement with Woodward, Inc. was executed before me this ______ day of
___________________, 2013, by Karen Weitkunat, as Mayor, by Wanda Nelson, as City Clerk,
and by Darin Atteberry, City Manager, of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a
municipal corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires
Notary Public
31
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing Agreement with Woodward, Inc. was executed before me this ______ day of
___________________, 2013, by Wynne Odell, as Chairperson, and by Janet Bramhall, as
Secretary, of THE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires
Notary Public
32
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
The foregoing Agreement with Woodward, Inc. was executed before me this _____ day of
_____________, 2013, by _______________ as __________________, of WOODWARD,
INC., a Delaware corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires
Notary Public
33
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Description of Open Space Property
Exhibit C Description of the Project
Exhibit D Phasing Schedule for Project
Exhibit E Estimate of Value, including Exhibit E-1, illustration of Pledged Tax Increment
Revenues
Exhibit F Right of Way Improvements
Exhibit G Open Space Improvements
Exhibit H Transmission Line IGA
Exhibit I Façade Easement Agreement
Exhibit J Form of Bond
Exhibit K Application for Use Tax Rebate
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West
and the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly
described as follows:
Considering the North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 12 as bearing North
89°29'04" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the East Quarter corner of said Section 12; thence along the North line of
said Southeast Quarter, North 89°29'04” West, 81.40 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence, South 10°44'56” West, 40.66 feet to the northwest corner of that
tract of land described at Reception No. 94091198, recorded with the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder; thence, along the west and southerly lines of said Reception No.
94091198 the following 3 courses and distances, South 10° 44' 56" West, 314.08 feet;
thence, South 71° 25' 09" East, 198.03 feet; thence, North 87° 59' 46" East, 138.53 feet to
the westerly right-of-way line of North Lemay Avenue; thence along said westerly right-
of-way line the following 6 courses and distances beginning with a curve concave to the
West having a central angle of 25° 27' 37", a radius of 930.93 feet, an arc length of
413.68 feet, and the chord of which bears South 10° 56' 48" East, 410.28 feet; thence,
South 01° 47' 03" West, 1519.07 feet to a point on the west line of that tract of land
described at Reception No. 20050097395, recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder; thence, along said west line the following 4 courses and distances, South 05°
25' 37" West, 59.94 feet; thence, South 02° 03' 31" West, 64.95 feet; thence along a curve
concave to the West having a central angle of 17° 18' 36", a radius of 299.50 feet, an arc
length of 90.48 feet, and the chord of which bears South 10° 42' 48" West, 90.14 feet;
thence, South 19° 22' 04" West, 13.69 feet to the north line of East Mulberry Street;
thence, along said north line the following 2 courses and distances, North 89° 47' 09"
West, 205.09 feet; thence, North 89° 38' 44" West, 127.10 feet to the southeast corner of
Lot 2, Springer Third Subdivision, a plat of record with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder; thence along the easterly line of said Lot 2 the following 4 courses and
distances beginning with a curve concave to the West having a central angle of 30° 50'
23", a radius of 1013.60 feet, an arc length of 545.58 feet, and the chord of which bears
North 19° 18' 37" West, 539.01 feet; thence along a curve concave to the northeast
having a central angle of 04° 42' 22", a radius of 487.50 feet, an arc length of 40.04 feet,
and the chord of which bears North 32° 23' 02" West, 40.03 feet; thence along a curve
concave to the Southwest having a central angle of 13° 56' 38", a radius of 512.50 feet, an
arc length of 124.73 feet, and the chord of which bears North 36° 59' 47" West, 124.42
feet; thence along a curve concave to the Southwest having a central angle of 00° 36' 28",
a radius of 1023.60 feet, an arc length of 10.86 feet, and the chord of which bears North
44° 16' 20" West, 10.86 feet to the north corner of said Lot 2; thence along the
northwesterly line of said Lot 2, South 22° 29' 42" West, 24.98 feet to a point on the
northeasterly line of that tract of land described in Book 883, Page 318, recorded with the
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 2
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said northeasterly line the following 2
courses and distances beginning with a curve concave to the Southwest having a central
angle of 14° 52' 11", a radius of 998.60 feet, an arc length of 259.16 feet, and the chord of
which bears North 51° 43' 42" West, 258.43 feet; thence, North 59° 09' 48" West, 276.50
feet to the northwest corner of said tract of land described in Book 883, Page 318; thence
along the west line of said tract of land, South 00° 20' 12" West, 239.20 feet to a point on
the north line of the Wastewater Treatment Plant No.1, a plat of record with the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder; thence along said north line the following 4 courses and
distances, North 53° 16' 04" West, 5.70 feet; thence, North 79° 09' 04" West, 251.50 feet;
thence, North 88° 17' 04" West, 452.30 feet; thence, South 41° 12' 56" West, 89.29 feet;
thence, North 79° 27' 04" West, 590.41 feet; thence, North 09° 34' 10" East, 985.84 feet
to the southeast corner of Baldwin Minor Subdivision; thence along the east line of said
Baldwin Minor Subdivision, North 09° 34' 10" East, 813.89 feet to a point on the north
line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 12; thence along said north line, South 89°
29' 04" East, 1848.09 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described area contains 4,427,328 square feet or 101.637 acres more or less
and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way (including E. Lincoln Avenue) now
on record or existing.
Also described as follows in the records of the Larimer County Assessor:
Parcel No. 97124-00-062;
Parcel No. 97124-00-071;
Parcel No. 97124-00-006;
Parcel No. 87073-00-096;
Parcel No. 97124-00-005;
Parcel No. 97124-00-017; and
Parcel No. 87073-00-099.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
Description of Open Space Property
(shown as Lot 4)
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT E
Page 9 of 9
53
Public Improvement Areas
EXHIBIT F
Page 1 of 5
56
Utilities – Lemay Ave ROW
EXHIBIT F
Page 2 of 5
57
Landscape Improvements – Lemay Ave ROW
EXHIBIT F
Page 3 of 5
58
Utilities – Lincoln Ave ROW
EXHIBIT F
Page 4 of 5
59
Landscape Improvements – Lincoln Ave ROW
EXHIBIT F
Page 5 of 5
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Relocation of Platte River Power Authority Transmission Facilities
Page 1 of 3
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND RELOCATION OF
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
This Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Relocation of Platte River Power
Authority Transmission Facilities is entered on this __ day of ____________, 2013, between
Platte River Power Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado (Platte River), and
the City of Fort Collins, a Colorado home rule municipality (Fort Collins).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Platte River owns and operates a 230kV/115kV double circuit overhead
transmission line that crosses the Link-N-Greens Golf Course in Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, Woodward, Inc. (Woodward) is considering moving its corporate
headquarters facilities to the property currently occupied by Link-N-Greens Golf Course; and
WHEREAS, in order to make the Link-N-Greens Golf Course property useable as a
Woodward headquarters complex, approximately 3600 linear feet of the overhead transmission
line crossing the Link-N-Green property, specifically the line segment between structures TP-28
on the north and TP-19 on the south (Transmission Facility) will need to be removed and new
transmission facilities of a like configuration relocated to a route that runs parallel to Lemay
Street (Relocated Transmission Facility); and
WHEREAS, construction schedules for Woodward facilities may necessitate the
construction and removal of a Temporary Transmission Facility; and
WHEREAS, Platte River is willing to remove the Transmission Facility, to construct and
remove the Temporary Transmission Facility, and design and construct the Relocated
Transmission Facility to accommodate the requirements of Woodward, provided it is
reimbursed for the costs associated with this effort; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is negotiating with Woodward and the Fort Collins Downtown
Development Authority to develop a plan for funding of public improvements and related
financial incentives and financing arrangements in light of the expected benefits to the Fort
Collins community in the event that Woodward constructs its new headquarters facility as
described herein; and
WHEREAS, subject to the specific terms of this Agreement, Fort Collins is willing to
reimburse Platte River the reasonable costs of removal of the Transmission Facility, the
EXHIBIT H
Page 1 of 6
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Relocation of Platte River Power Authority Transmission Facilities
Page 2 of 3
reasonable costs of construction and removal of the Temporary Transmission Facility, if
necessary, and the reasonable costs of design and construction of the Relocated Transmission
Facility; and
WHEREAS, the parties have the authority under C.R.S. § 29-1-203 to enter into
intergovernmental agreements provided such agreements are approved by the legislative body
of each party.
AGREEMENT
1) Platte River agrees to undertake the removal of the Transmission Facility, the
construction and removal of the Temporary Transmission Facility, if necessary,
and the design and construction of the Relocated Transmission Facility on the
Link-N-Green Golf Course, in accordance with plans and specifications mutually
approved and consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties (the
“Work”). The routes of the Temporary Transmission Facility and the Relocated
Transmission Facility are displayed on Exhibit A. The Temporary Transmission
Facility and the Relocated Transmission Facility will be constructed overhead.
2) Fort Collins agrees to reimburse Platte River for all reasonable costs incurred in
the performance of the Work; provided however that Fort Collins will have no
reimbursement obligation unless and until: 1) Fort Collins provides written
notice to Platte River that Fort Collins has completed the arrangements necessary
for Fort Collins to move forward with the financing or funding of the Work; and
2) Woodward purchases the Link-N-Green property. If the obligation to
reimburse Platte River accrues, Fort Collins acknowledges that some of the
reimbursable costs were incurred by Platte River prior to the date of this
Agreement, but such costs, if reasonable and necessary for the completion of the
Work, will be treated as part of the Work and reimbursable hereunder.
3) Platte River will invoice Fort Collins for the costs of the relocation project on a
quarterly basis, invoices payable within thirty (30) days of receipt. Invoices will
itemize all costs for which reimbursement is sought.
4) Exhibit B contains an estimate of the costs for the removal of the Transmission
Facilities, the construction and removal of the Temporary Transmission Facility,
and costs for the design and construction of the Relocated Transmission Facility.
Fort Collins acknowledges that Exhibit B is an estimate of anticipated costs, and
EXHIBIT H
Page 2 of 6
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Relocation of Platte River Power Authority Transmission Facilities
Page 3 of 3
that actual costs may vary. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, Fort Collins
is responsible for the reimbursement of all reasonable costs incurred by Platte
River to carry out the Work. In the event that Platte River discovers conditions
or circumstances that are expected to lead to costs in excess of the estimates
contained in Exhibit B, Platte River will promptly notify Fort Collins in writing of
such conditions or circumstances and will discuss with Fort Collins such cost
impacts and possible mitigation. If the reimbursable costs of the Work exceed
$2,000,000.00, Platte River will credit Fort Collins all “PRPA Project
Management” expenses, presently estimated to amount to $168,000.00.
5) Financial obligations of Fort Collins payable in future fiscal years shall be subject
to the annual appropriation of funds sufficient and intended for the same. Fort
Collins will notify Platte River in writing as soon as practicable concerning the
appropriation of funds during future fiscal years. Platte River will have no
obligation to perform any activity associated with the Work beyond December
31, 2013, unless and until receipt of notice that funds have been appropriated.
6) This is the entire agreement of the parties on this issue. This Agreement may
only be modified by a writing executed by both parties.
7) Fort Collins agrees to be the lead agency and take responsibility for all public
processes and for obtaining all necessary permits for the work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement, to be executed the
day and year first above written.
PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY ATTEST:
By: By:
General Manager Assistant Secretary
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
EXHIBIT H
Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT H
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT H
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT H
Page 6 of 6
SUMMARY OF DDA/WOODWARD
FAÇADE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
I. Introduction
A. Woodward is proposing to develop its project, the Link-n-Greens Project
Development Plan, #PDP130001 (the “Project”) in four (4) phases.
B. Woodward has requested DDA funding of its eligible building facades, which are
those fronting East Lincoln Avenue, the Poudre River and the Open Space Natural Area between
the Project and the Poudre River, as shown on an attached exhibit (“Eligible Facades”).
C. The DDA has received the Larimer County Assessor’s Estimate of Value
Worksheet dated January 29, 2013, relating to the Project.
D. Based on the Estimate of Value and the Phasing Schedule, the DDA has
calculated the maximum amount of Tax Increment Revenues (same definition as “Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues” in Business Assistance Agreement) available per Phase to reimburse
Woodward for the design and construction costs of its Eligible Facades.
E. Woodward and the DDA desire to enter into an agreement whereby the DDA,
utilizing its Line of Credit, can annually make payments to Woodward to reimburse Façade
Improvement costs in exchange for the grant of Façade Easements to the DDA.
II. Agreement
A. Commitments to Proceed with Project and Acquire the Property by April 30,
2013.
B. Maximum Façade Reimbursements
1. By Phases:
Phase 1: $1,500,000
Phase 2: $ 800,000
Phase 3: $ 900,000
Phase 4: $ 600,000
2. Total Reimbursement: Up to $3,800,000
C. Description of Eligible Façade Improvements by Phase:
Phase 1: The facia, soffits, exterior walls, signage, doors, windows, canopies and
all structural support materials therefor for the south side of the Industrial
Turbomachinery Systems Building, the south side of the Cafeteria/Multi-Purpose
Building and the north side of the Production Support Building;
EXHIBIT I
Page 1 of 3
Phase 2: The facia, soffits, exterior walls, signage, doors, windows, canopies and
all structural support materials therefor for the southwest side of the Headquarters
– Office Facility;
Phase 3: The facia, soffits, exterior walls, signage, doors, windows, canopies and
all structural support materials therefor for the southwest side of the Engine
Systems Facility Building; and
Phase 4: The facia, soffits, exterior walls, signage, doors, windows, canopies and
all structural support materials therefor for the north side of the Energy
Technology (Test) Center Building.
D. Conditions precedent to reimbursement for each set of Eligible Façade
Improvements by Phase:
1. Final designs submitted to and approved by DDA Board; DDA façade
design policies will be attached to the Façade Reimbursement Agreement as an
exhibit (i.e. elements relating to quality materials, pedestrian-friendly street
presentation and timeless design).
2. Construction to be completed in accordance with final designs.
3. Customary documentation provided to DDA regarding such completion
and actual eligible design and construction costs; DDA staff certification of total
DDA façade reimbursement obligation for the Phase based on actual costs up to
the maximum reimbursement amount for the Phase.
4. Execution of a façade easement for each façade funding request in
accordance with façade easement form attached to the Façade Reimbursement
Agreement as an exhibit.
5. Title insurance provided for each closing by Woodward and payment of
closing costs.
E. Reimbursement of Façade Costs
1. By Phase, with DDA reimbursement obligation triggered by closing on
Façade Easements in each Phase.
2. One year from completion of Phase 1 improvements (anticipated to be
2016), payments made annually on December 1
st
, from DDA’s Line of Credit in
accordance with a Payment Schedule using Tax Increment Revenues based on
Assessor’s Estimate of Value and the Phasing Schedule.
EXHIBIT I
Page 2 of 3
3. Reimbursement subject to annual DDA Board resolution recommending
City Council appropriation of a Line of Credit draw equal to annual amount of the
façade reimbursement expenditure and the debt service from Tax Increment
Revenues to service the Line of Credit debt and City Council adoption of an
ordinance appropriating the Line of Credit draw equal to the annual amount of the
façade reimbursement expenditure and the debt service from Tax Increment
Revenues to service the Line of Credit debt.
4. [Discuss Available Tax increment Revenue allocation between Bond
payment and Façade reimbursements; currently 30/70]
5. If Phases 2, 3 and/or 4 are delayed beyond the completion dates shown on
the Phasing Schedule the Façade reimbursement amount will be proportionately
reduced based on reduced Tax Increment Revenues resulting from such delay, in
accordance with an attached exhibit (based on Assessor’s Estimate of Value and
the Phasing Schedule). [Note: Depending on resolution of the interest rate and
allocation of Tax Increment Revenues to payment of the Bond and to the
façade reimbursement, a 24-month delay in the Phasing Schedule could
potentially be accommodated.]
F. Façade Easements
1. 25-year term.
2. Continuing obligations:
• Maintenance of facade improvements.
• Maintaining adequate insurance.
• Prior DDA approval for alterations or additions to façades funded by
DDA (including signage).
G. Covenant not to seek a reduction in the Project’s property tax assessed valuation
or a tax abatement to an amount below that needed to generate sufficient Tax Increment
Revenues to pay the Façade Reimbursement and the Bond based on the Estimate of
Value and the Phasing Schedule. [Note: Depending on resolution of the interest rate
and allocation of Tax Increment Revenues to payment of the Bond and to the façade
reimbursement, a 24-month delay in the Phasing Schedule could potentially be
accommodated.]
H. Representation regarding environmental conditions of the Property.
EXHIBIT I
Page 3 of 3
34
EXHIBIT J
FORM OF THE BOND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF LARIMER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SUBORDINATE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BOND
SERIES 2013A
Date of Bond: ______ __, 2013
The City of Fort Collins, in the County of Larimer and State of Colorado, for value
received, hereby promises to pay to the order of Woodward, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), in accordance with the terms of the Agreement with Woodward, Inc., dated
______ __, 2013, among the City, The Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development
Authority and the Company, as the same may be amended, restated or modified (the
“Agreement’), the principal sum of S i x M i l l i o n F i f t y T h o u s a n d Dollars
($6,050,000) plus any compounded interest, as set forth in the Agreement (the
“Reimbursement Amount”). All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Bond
shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. The unpaid principal
balance of this Bond at any time shall be the total amount funded by the Company to design,
acquire, construct and install the Improvement Projects pursuant to the Agreement, less the
amount of payments of the principal made on this Bond.
Interest shall accrue on this Bond in accordance with the provisions set forth in the
Agreement. Payments on this Bond shall be made in accordance with the provisions set forth
in the Agreement. All such payments of principal and interest shall be made in lawful
currency of the United States in immediately available funds as directed in writing by the
Company.
This Bond is a special and limited obligation of the City payable solely out of and
secured by a pledge (but not necessarily an exclusive pledge) of the Pledged Tax Increment
Revenues, all as more specifically provided in the Agreement. At the time of issuance of this
Bond, certain bonds and other obligations are outstanding that have a lien on the Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues that is superior and senior to the lien thereon of this Bond. Additional
bonds and other types of securities may be issued and made payable from the Pledged Tax
Increment Revenues having a lien thereon superior and senior to the lien of this Bond in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.
This Bond does not constitute a debt or an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of
any constitutional, charter or statutory provision or limitation of the State of Colorado or of the
City. This Bond is not a general obligation of the City, and the full faith and credit of the City is
not pledged for the payment of the principal of or interest on this Bond.
Page 1 of 4
35
Reference is hereby made to the Agreement, and to any and all modifications and
amendments thereof, for a description of the provisions, terms and conditions upon which this
Bond is issued and secured, including, without limitation, the nature and extent of the security
for this Bond, the bonds and other obligations that are currently outstanding and that have a lien
on the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues that is senior to the lien thereon of this Bond, provisions
with respect to the collection and disposition of the Pledged Tax Increment Revenues, and the
nature and extent of the security and pledge afforded thereby for the payment of the principal of
and interest on this Bond.
This Bond is authorized and issued for the purpose of financing certain improvements and
projects pursuant to, by virtue of and in full conformity with the Constitution of the State of
Colorado, the City Charter, the Downtown Development Authority Act, and all other laws of the
State of Colorado thereunto enabling and pursuant to an election held November 7, 2006, and the
ordinance duly adopted prior to the issuance of this Bond. This Bond is also issued pursuant to
Title 11, Article 57, Part 2, C.R.S. (the “Supplemental Act”). Pursuant to Section 11-57-210 of
the Supplemental Act, this recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and the regularity
of the issuance of the Bond after its delivery for value.
Interest on this Bond is not excluded from gross income or alternative minimum taxable
income under federal income tax laws in effect on the date of delivery of this Bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be executed in its name and
on its behalf with the facsimile or manual signature of the Mayor of the City, to be sealed with a
facsimile or manual impression of the seal of the City, to be attested with the facsimile or manual
signature of the City Clerk of the City, and to be countersigned with the manual signature of the
Financial Officer of the City.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
(CITY) By: (Facsimile or Manual Signature)
(SEAL) Mayor
ATTEST:
(Facsimile or Manual Signature)
City Clerk
Countersigned:
(Manual Signature)
Financial Officer
Page 2 of 4
36
FUNDING PROVIDED BY COMPANY
The following amounts have been funded by the Company in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement authorizing the issuance of this Bond.
Date of Funding Amount of Funding
Page 3 of 4
PUBFIN/1630663.8 37
PAYMENT PANEL
The following installments of principal of this Bond have been paid in accordance
with the terms of the Agreement authorizing the issuance of this Bond.
Date of
Payment
Principal
Paid
Signature of
Authorized Representative of
the Company
Page 4 of 4
City of Fort Collins
Economic Development - Use Tax Rebate Application
2013
Company Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Project Information:
Date Project Operations began in Fort Collins
Briefly describe project operations?
2011 property tax valuation
2012 property tax valuation
Employee Information:
Rebate Information:
Signature of Taxpayer Title Date
OTHER INFORMATION
Annual Gas Consumption ______________
Purchase price of Eligible Equipment purchased in 2013: __________________________________
Amount of rebate requested: ____________________________________
I certify that the company requesting this rebate is in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations for the
manufacturing facility located in Fort Collins. I also certify that the company is current with all City of Fort Collins contractual, payment
and sales and use tax obligations.
2012 personal property tax valuation _____________________
Square footage of Project facility _________________________
Who is your natural gas provider? ___________________________
The following information is mandatory for the rebate process.
All financial information contained in this application will be confidential.
Phone Number __________________________
Fort Collins License Number ______________
2011 personal property tax valuation _____________________
Square footage of entire Fort Collins facility _________________________________
A claim by an agent must be accompanied by power of attorney.
Number of full time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2013 ________ Median Annual Wage ______________
Number of temp., seasonal & contract employees as of 12/31/13 ___________ Median Annual Wage ______________
I hereby authorize the City to review and consider sales and use tax records, vendor records, contract and other information available
regarding the company's eligibility for a rebate under this program. I further authorize the City to release to the public information
contained in this application, as well as information regarding any rebates issued to the company under this rebate program.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this claim (including any accompanying schedules and statements) has been examined by me
and to the best of my knowledge and belief is true and made in good faith for the stated purpose. Further, I represent and warrant that I
have the necessary authority to execute this application on behalf of the company, and to make the above certifications, authorizations,
and declaration.
Exhibit K Page 1of 2
You must provide a list of the Eligible Equipment purchased that includes the following:
1. Invoice number
2. Invoice date
3. Vendor name
4. Description of machinery purchased
5. Intended use of the machinery
6. Date the use tax was paid to the City of Fort Collins
7. Purchase price of the equipment
8. Amount of purchase subject to Fort Collins tax
9. Amount of Fort Collins use tax paid
You are not required to submit copies of the invoices for which the rebate is requested. However, in the event
that there are questions regarding the eligibility of certain equipment, supporting documentation, including
invoices, will be required.
Submit applications and list of equipment purchased to:
City of Fort Collins
Financial Services
Attn: Jessica Ping-Small
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
For specific questions regarding the rebate program, call Jessica Ping-Small at (970) 221-6626.
For general sales and use tax questions, call the Sales Tax Office at (970) 221-6780.
Application may be submitted by March 31, 2014
Exhibit K Page 2of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 056, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO FUND
A REIMBURSEMENT RESERVE FUND IN CONNECTION WITH
A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND WOODWARD, INC.,
REGARDING THE LINK-N-GREENS DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Woodward Inc., (“Woodward”) has proposed to relocate and construct its
new headquarters and expand its manufacturing and office facilities on the site commonly
referred to as the Link-N-Greens site (the “Project”) in Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has on this same date approved pursuant to Ordinance No.
055, 2013, authorizing an agreement between the City, the Downtown Development Authority
and Woodward regarding business assistance to be provided to Woodward and other covenants
and agreements related to Woodward’s proposed development of the Project (the “Agreement”),
along with a related advance of funds by Woodward, and other related agreements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the City has committed to construct certain
public improvements, including right of way improvements and open space restoration, as well
as the relocation of a power transmission line (the “Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, in addition, the Agreement provides that Woodward agrees to advance (the
“Advance”) to the City up to $6.05 million, to be repaid from Pledged Tax Increment Revenues,
as defined in the Agreement (the “TIF”), in order to fund the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, while it is hoped and intended by the parties that the TIF will be sufficient
to cover the full cost of the Improvements, along with other costs and contributions as described
in the Agreement, the timing and extent of the Project, could impact whether the full cost of the
same will be satisfied by the TIF generated by the Project, and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the obligation to construct the Improvements is
adequately supported by available funds, staff has proposed that the City appropriate the amount
of $2.272 million for a reimbursement reserve fund, as described in the Agreement, although the
appropriated funds may not ultimately be needed in order to carry out the terms of the
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the General
Fund the sum of TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($2,272,000) for the purpose of funding a reimbursement reserve fund as described
in the Agreement.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of April, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of April, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Daylan Figgs,
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of Two Non-Exclusive
Permanent Drainage Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement on City-Owned Property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus (“Woodward”) will be a master-planned campus providing the ability
to retain and grow primary jobs for the community. The campus will accommodate Woodward’s continued growth of
its current operations in Fort Collins. It also includes adjacent commercial services that can be used by Woodward
employees and the public with close access to downtown and the Mulberry corridor. The planned campus will help
to improve the river corridor through the site including restoration of the natural river corridor landscape, habitat, and
appropriate recreation opportunities.
The proposed use is compatible with existing and anticipated development, and supports the City’s vision for this area.
Fort Collins’ City Plan (Plan Fort Collins) identifies this site in its Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map and
denotes the Lincoln Avenue Area as one of its “Catalyst Project Areas”. These Areas are identified as locations in the
city having potential to showcase opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain,
and Connect. They are viewed as potential places for public/private initiatives using a triple bottom line approach
addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced manner.
For this development, Woodward has requested that the City grant Woodward two permanent drainage easements
for stormwater flows, one which would include construction of a buried drainage pipe and the other for a graded swale.
In addition, a temporary construction easement is needed for grading, landscaping, and associated restoration work
on City-owned property adjacent to the Poudre River.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
River Restoration Plan
The Link-n-Greens PDP site has been developed and used as a golf course since 1986, and is generally characterized
by irrigated turf, man-made lined ponds and trees planted in patterns that line the golf holes. The Cache la Poudre
River is the southerly boundary and the majority of the westerly boundary of the property and the Poudre River trail
is located on the property within an easement.
City staff and the project development team have consulted extensively on habitat restoration of the buffer zone, the
area between the river and office/industrial/commercial development in the project area. Natural Areas staff desires
to use the buffer zone to achieve more natural topographic and river flow conditions within the buffer zone and to
create and expand native wetlands, cottonwood woodlands, and upland shrublands and grasslands within the buffer
zone and the extended riparian restoration area. Project and City planning staff used evaluations of historic aerial
photos, river morphology, and existing topography to guide their development of a native riparian restoration plan for
the proposed buffer zone in the project area. A detailed plan of the resulting restoration (the “River Restoration
Landscape Regimes”) is attached. This plan would include allowing the Poudre River to overflow its banks during high
flow periods into a designed overflow channel that would assist in creating adjacent wetlands and areas of upland
floodplain forest. Early modeling is showing that the floodplain in the downstream Springer and Williams Natural Areas
will be increased by 0.01 feet. The improvements to the floodplain to the northwest benefit the City and the increased
floodplain in the natural areas improve wetlands and upland floodplain forest. A floodplain easement on Springer and
Williams Natural Areas will not be required by the City. Instead the City is proposing to issue a Liability Waiver to
Woodward, Inc. for their Letter of Map Revision (“LOMR”).
The north river bank is partially located on the Link-N-Greens property, but also meanders onto adjacent City-owned
parcels. In order to accomplish a more holistic landscape restoration effort, efforts would extend beyond the Link-N-
Greens property line to allow improvement along the river bank areas regardless of property boundaries. Therefore,
March 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 9
several temporary easement locations have been identified on City property that will allow for grading, landscaping,
and temporary construction access required to complete this work.
The site contains several hundred trees. Many of the trees were “development” trees planted with the golf course.
Many of these trees are ornamental, non-native species and are planted in patterns that define the golf course holes
and tees. Other trees are “pre-development” trees, mostly associated with the river edge, areas near the Coy/Hoffman
Barn, and near the northeast corner of the property. All trees have been assessed for health, species and condition.
Most of the trees associated with the previous golf course development will be removed to accommodate the new
development pattern. Significant pre-development trees within the river buffer area, the northeast corner of the
property, and those associated with Coy/Hoffman Barn will be retained where possible. However, as development
and river restoration occurs it will be necessary to remove manysignificant trees. Reasons for tree removal include:
• Poor health, as determined by the City Forester;
• Hazardous conditions;
• Regrading within the Poudre River buffer zone which will: (1) allow the river to overflow its banks during high
flow periods into a designed overflow channel that would assist in creating adjacent wetlands and areas of
upland floodplain forest; (2) achieve more natural topographic and river flow conditions within the buffer zone
and to create and expand native wetlands, floodplain cottonwood woodlands, and upland shrublands and
grasslands within the buffer zone and the extended riparian restoration area; and (3) Incorporate bank
stabilization measures in areas identified by the City.
These habitat restoration efforts would also enhance the ecological character and function of the river corridor, as well
as enhance the natural ecological character of the site. In addition, planned habitat restoration efforts willenhance the
existing wildlife movement corridor along the river. The habitat restoration and enhancement plans for the buffer area
will meet the buffer area performance standards specified in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Affected City Properties
The City owns several properties adjacent to the Poudre River. The attached Easement Location Map shows the City
properties and the areas where the temporary construction easement is requested. The City parcels are as follows:
• Parcel A: Udall Natural Area – the City acquired this site in 1994 with funds from Stormwater and Natural
Resources for stormwater purposes and for a natural area.
• Parcel B: Old Pickle Plant Site, 500 Riverside Avenue – the City acquired this site in 1995 in part as buffer
for Wastewater Treatment Plant #1 and Wastewater provided funds for the purchase.
• Parcel C: Wastewater Treatment Plant, 920 East Mulberry Street: Site was purchased by the Water Utility.
• Parcel D: City property – this site was acquired by the City in 1990 at the same time as the Springer Natural
Area at Lemay and Mulberry. When this property was acquired, the uses included natural areas and a buffer
for the Waste Water Plant #1.
• Parcel E: Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”): This property is owned by CDOT and the City
has an easement over a portion of the property for the Poudre Trail. Staff is working to obtain this parcel from
CDOT for the City.
Easements Requested by Woodward
Drainage Easements
Woodward is requesting two permanent drainage easements both located in Parcel D.
1. One permanent drainage easement located near Mulberry Street would be for the storm water flows from
Woodward’s property and a portion of storm water drainage from Lemay Avenue. It is Woodward’s intention
to construct a pipe for these flows. The easement area is 30 feet x 100 feet and totals approximately 3,000
square feet. At this point in their design, the easement is planned to be in the location as shown on the
Easement Location Map. The approximate width, length and total area of this easement is not expected to
March 26, 2013 -3- ITEM 9
change during final design; however, the exact location of the easement request may shift a few degrees or
feet, which may slightly change the total square footage of the easement.
2. The second permanent drainage easement is also located in Parcel D adjacent to the boundary of Parcel E
and the Woodward’s property. This easement is for concentrated water flows from the water quality pond for
the Woodward development. The water will pass through a low flow public trail crossing structure and then
will flow through an open channel on the City’s property. This easement area is 60 feet x 120 feet and totals
approximately 7,200 square feet. Again, at this point in their design, this easement is planned to be as shown
on the attached Easement Location Map. As with the other drainage easement, the width, length and total
area of this easement is not expected to change during final design; however, the exact location of the
easement request may shift a few degrees or feet, which may slightly change the total square footage of the
easement.
Any necessary adjustments to the legal descriptions of either easement will be made prior to the signing of the Deed
of Easement.
Temporary Construction Easement
To complete the restoration work described above, Woodward needs a temporary construction easement (“TCE”) in
Parcels A, B, C, D and E. Woodward will be grading and restoring the areas shown on the Easement Location Map
and removing concrete from the River.
City staff is working with CDOT to obtain Parcel E. It is anticipated that this conveyance will be completed by April
2013. Staff is requesting that Council authorize the City to grant the TCE on this parcel to Woodward, Inc. after the
City acquires the parcel. Because the Temporary Construction Easement is partially on Parcel E, it would not be
signed until the City has received and recorded a Deed for Parcel E from CDOT.
Woodward will be responsible for restoration of all affected areas. The restoration will be detailed in the Easement
Agreement.
The two permanent drainage easements and the temporary construction easement will not become effective until
Woodward, Inc. completes their purchase of the Link-n-Greens property.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
All areas affected are valued at $5,000/acre. Staff has established a value of $900 for the two permanent easements
and a value of $3,590 for the temporary easement for the restoration work. It is staff’s recommendation that we do
not charge Woodward for these easements because the benefit the City is receiving of the enhanced riverbank due
to this restoration exceeds the value of the easements. Ecosystem impact fees for the work within Natural Areas have
been estimated at $4,588 and will be further refined at the completion of the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff from Utilities and Natural Areas have reviewed
the request and have not identified any concerns.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its January 17, 2013 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the easements.
At its February 13, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the two non-exclusive permanent drainage easements and the temporary construction easement.
March 26, 2013 -4- ITEM 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Easement Location Map
3. River Restoration Landscape Regimes
a. Example of Cottonwood/Shrubland (Udall Natural Area)
b. Example of Wetland and Upland (Springer Natural Area)
4. Water Board minutes, January 17, 2013
5. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, February 13, 2013
6. Powerpoint presentation
TEMPORARY EASEMENT*
PERMANENT EASEMENT*
*Approximate
Springer Natural Area
LAST UPDATED: 2-20-2013
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, January 17, 2013
Approval of Two Non-Exclusive Drainage Easements with Associated Temporary
Construction Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement for River Restoration
Work on City-Owned Property Adjacent to the Poudre River *
* Please note this title has changed since the agenda was posted on January 11, 2013.
(Attachments available upon request).
Vice Chairperson Malers introduced the item and introduced Real Estate Services Manager
Helen Matson. The original request was for one permanent drainage easement and a temporary
construction easement. Additionally, Woodward will require a permanent drainage easement for
an outflow channel from the water quality pond to the Poudre River.
Ms. Matson presented the easement location map and details for a permanent drainage easement
for stormwater flows, a permanent drainage easement for the outfall channel from the water
quality pond, and a temporary construction easement in four locations. She identified the parcels
that Utilities has ownership in. The exact locations and dimensions of the permanent easements
will be determined with the final site design.
Angela Milewski, Principal Landscape Architect with BHA Design, Inc., presented more details
about the need for the easements as they relate to stormwater and water quality.
Vice Chairperson Malers explained the concept of easements to the new board members. An
easement is a request for permission to disturb City property or construct a permanent structure
on City property.
Ms. Matson stated that river restoration is a part of the Woodward project. The value to the City
of the enhanced river bank exceeds the land value for the easements. Staff recommends no
charge for these easements.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member asked about maintenance of the area. Ms. Milewski stated this is still
being discussed. BHA Design, Inc. is working with Natural Areas on the development.
The areas are designed to be natural systems with low maintenance landscaping.
A board member asked if the easement can be granted on the condition that Natural
Areas approves the plans. Ms. Matson stated the item will be presented to the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board in February for their recommendation. Deputy City
Attorney Carrie Daggett stated Council has to approve the easement by ordinance.
A board member asked for a definition of “non-exclusive.” Ms. Matson stated this means
it can be used by others, not only Woodward.
Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council
consider approval of Two Non-Exclusive Drainage Easements with Associated
Temporary Construction Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement for River
Restoration to Woodward, Inc. Board Member Garner seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 1 of 3
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Woodward Drainage Easements and River Buffer Restoration, Udall Natural Area
(Recommendation to Council)
Daylan Figgs: Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus Project. The Woodward Project is on the old
Link-N-Greens Golf Course on the corner of Lemay and Lincoln and Lemay and Mulberry. The
map shows the boundary and the surrounding properties including Udall Natural Area, the Pickle
Plant, the Waste Water Treatment Plant, part of Springer Natural Area, and the CDOT property.
The goal of the project is to coordinate a comprehensive river restoration with development of
the Woodward Governor Campus. For this to make sense there needs to be an extension of the
restoration ignoring the property boundaries and using the river as a guide. As part of the
development Woodward is requesting two permanent stormwater drainage easements on
Springer Natural Area and temporary construction easements on the following properties Udall
Natural Area, the Pickle Plant Property, the City Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
Springer Natural Area.
K-Lynn Cameron: Why does CDOT own that property?
Daylan Figgs: I don’t know but the idea is that they will convey it to the City and the City will
convey it to Natural Areas.
Trudy Haines: Is that for sure? (Daylan: I think it is pretty certain)
Helen Matson: We are going through the process right now.
Daylan Figgs: We are asking the Board to recommend approval of an easement across the
CDOT property once we receive ownership. The two permanent easements on Springer NA deal
with stormwater leaving the Woodward site – one will be for a buried pipeline and the other will
be for an open channel. We want to focus on the easements but we also want to share what the
overall restoration will look like.
Linda Stanley: Who is paying for all of the restoration?
John Stokes: We haven’t figured it out yet. There will probably be some cross sharing.
Trudy Haines: Is there rough estimate of how much it will cost?
John Stokes: We have a really rough estimate but I’m hesitant because it is a fluid process. This
is a big project and big opportunity for Natural Areas.
Angie Milewski (bha): Want to provide some background on the project and give an overall
update. We’ve been designing project for quite a while, we had an overall development plan
approved in September; neighborhood meetings in August, November, & January; presented to
the Landmark Preservation Commission & the Water Board, and we will go to the Planning and
Zoning Board in the future. [Showed slides to illustrate the project]. The project is really close to
downtown and surrounded by diverse land uses. The aerial shows that it is an open site but not
natural site. Early in the process we met with Parks Staff, Lindsay Ex, NA staff, and consultants
to assess the opportunity and take a comprehensive approach to do some special work along the
river. [Showed a schematic of the Woodward Campus Master Plan]. The Land Use Code has a
general buffer zone standard of 300’ from top of bank but the code also specifies that the buffer
zone can be reduced or enhanced. This allowed us the opportunity to think about the project
comprehensively and not just plan based on an invisible line. We set river restoration goals
including reconnect the river to its floodway, restore the natural characteristics of the site, be
consistent with the NA Management Plan, and enhance the views of historic farm sites.
Highlighting the restoration area – concepts are based on the geometry of the river, on the west
Page 2 of 3
end we are mimicking what is happening at Udall, we are going to drop the grade and create
pockets closer to ground water creating wetland willow conditions, create upland areas, work to
reestablish a cottonwood riparian forest, and a key feature is connecting to the area to Udall and
Springer Natural Areas.
Linda Knowlton: Where is the trail going to be located?
Angie Milewski: Today’s trail hugs the river; we are going to relocate the trail away from the
river and included defined access point to the river. [Showed buffer throughout project area], in
some cases we are closer to the river than the 300ft buffer but in other places we are extending
the buffer further than 300ft.
Trudy Haines: What is the minimum and maximum buffer distance?
Angie Milewski: In no location are we closer than 210 feet and we are greater than 400 feet in
some areas. The restoration requires easements to make it happen successfully and
comprehensively.
Trudy Haines: I appreciate the work, partnership, and opportunity to restore this area. Will the
land inside the red line still be owned by Woodward? (Angie – Correct) How do we know that
50 years from now Woodward will have the same sensitivity? How will we know if it is owned
privately?
Angie Milewski: In our Development Plan we have to show the grading and planting and any
change over time would require a change to the Development Plan.
K-Lynn Cameron: So any change would have to come back to the City. (Angie – yes)
Linda Stanley: In Situ’s, restoration was awful, it didn’t grow and it was close to the river. It
may be better now but nothing was done at the time to make it better.
John Stokes: We have talked to Woodward about the eventual disposition of the property and
Woodward has some interest in potentially conveying it to the City but that has not been
finalized.
Linda Stanley: Will NA be in charge of the restoration, even though most of it is Woodward
Property?
John Stokes: No, it is Woodward’s project, they have to figure out how to get it built, but we are
helping design it and helping develop the plans, there might be some level of collaboration on
installation of material.
Linda Stanley: It could be an in-kind donation.
John Stokes: We haven’t gotten that far yet, we’re still working to develop the right plan.
Linda Knowlton: My fear would be that Woodward’s primary interest is to get their fill dirt out
and that the restoration is the last thing on their agenda.
Mark Sears: In talking with Woodward representatives, if you look at the orientation of office
building, I don’t think they would want to leave the site disturbed.
John Stokes: We want to get plants in the ground as soon as possible to hold soil, haven’t
figured out the sequence but we want to get things in the ground.
Wayne Timura: The site is complex but there are a lot of opportunities for creative design and
creative work. Woodward would like to have the partnership continue and they are exploring
opportunity to have a transfer take place at some point but the details are very complex.
Trudy Haines: From a PR standpoint, this is a very popular trail, when it does get torn up there
will be consternation in the community. If there is a plan to convey the land to NA I would do it
at that time, I think it would help with the PR piece; it could be seen as a gift back to the people
of Fort Collins. Consider that timing to ease the frustration.
K-Lynn Cameron: Will the trail be closed or re-routed?
Mark Sears: I imagine the trail will be closed during construction.
Kent Leier: Any idea how long it will take?
Wayne Timura: Not at this point.
Page 3 of 3
Ed Reifsnyder: What are the regulatory issues around what Woodward has to do?
John Stokes: There are flood plain and flood way issues and there is the 300’ regulatory buffer.
It is a performance standard not a set-in-stone 300’ buffer, trying to achieve a highly performing
attribute instead of sticking to the line.
Ed Reifsnyder: Within the varying 300’ guideline are they required to do restoration work?
John Stokes: They are required to do some work; this is really the Ferrari version.
Angie Milewski: On smaller sites plants are put in to create a wall, the idea here is to keep it a
public space while enhancing the campus.
K-Lynn Cameron: Because the ground is being lowered, how does the Corps of engineers fit
into the project?
John Stokes: Because we are lowering the elevation the permitting process is a lot easier.
Wayne Timura: All of the buildings will be at or above the 500 year flood plain. There are also
no plans to fence the perimeter. The idea is to create spurs off the Poudre River Trail to the
campus and to the historic sites.
Trudy Haines: This is a win for the employee too.
Linda Knowlton moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends
that City Council approve two permanent drainage easements on Springer Natural Area
and temporary construction easements on Udall Natural Area, the Pickle Plant property,
and the City Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant property.
&
That the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City Council
approve a temporary easement on the Colorado Department of Transportation property
once the property is conveyed to the Natural Areas Department.
Kent Leier seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Linda Stanley: I hope you will drive a hard bargain, I know there are negotiations going on
about who is going to pay. I hope that Natural Areas has to put in very little money.
Trudy Haines: Do you know what tax incentive request is?
John Stokes: I don’t know what the package looks like, Bruce Hendee is the staff liaison, some
portion of the increment will come back to the restoration plan but I don’t know the number. We
are still having the conversation. I do think there will be some expected contribution from NAs,
the argument in favor is we have influenced the design of the project substantially. We will
come back to the Board to discuss it and any contribution will come out of the green money pot.
Linda Stanley: I see a lot of good things coming from this, to me there is a price to pay to locate
a company in a high quality community like Fort Collins.
K-Lynn Cameron: I know there are lots of decisions to be made but I’m excited about the
project’s potential.
Trudy Haines: I request that this gets relayed to Woodward. I trust the company and think they
are a company of high integrity; my request is that Woodward gives something back to the
community that is tangible and real, either in a donation for an open space or paying for the
restoration. Either one of those things will go a long way in terms of public perception. I am
supportive, I do know that there is a big request for a financial incentive, I’m hoping that it can
come back to the community in a big way, the last I heard it was a $27 million dollar request, a
big chunk of our tax dollars.
Vote: Motion unanimously approved
1
First Reading of Ordinance No.
044, 2013, Authorizing the
Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of
Two Non-Exclusive Permanent
Drainage Easements and a
Temporary Construction
Easement on City-Owned
Property
March 26, 2013
ATTACHMENT 6
2
Woodward Easements
Woodward is developing the Woodward Link-N-
Greens Campus and has requested the following
easements from the City.
City properties affected: Udall Natural Area, Old
Pickle Plant site, Wastewater Plant #1, Springer
Natural Area
3
Woodward Easements
Two Permanent Drainage Easements
An easement to carry the Development’s
stormwater to the Poudre River in a buried
pipeline across City property.
An easement for a graded swale on City property
that will carry water flows from the Development’s
water quality pond to the Poudre River.
4
Woodward Easements
Temporary Construction Easement for River
Restoration Work in five locations shown on the
Easement Location Map.
5
5
6
Compensations for Easements
Ecosystem impact fees are estimated at $4,588
to be paid by Woodward at project completion.
Easement value for the two drainage easements
is $900.
Temporary construction easement value is
$3,590.
Due to River Restoration work, staff does not
recommend charging Woodward for these
easements.
ORDINANCE NO. 044, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE TO WOODWARD, INC.
OF TWO NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City owns four parcels of land in the area between Lemay Avenue, Mulberry
Street, Riverside Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, known as: Udall Natural Area (“Parcel A”), 500
Riverside Avenue (“Parcel B”), 920 East Mulberry Street (“Parcel C”), and a portion of the Springer
Natural Area (“Parcel D”); and
WHEREAS, Parcel A is used for stormwater purposes and as a natural area; Parcel B was
purchased as a buffer for Wastewater Treatment Plant #1; Parcel C is the location of Wastewater
Treatment Plant #1; and Parcel D is used as a natural area and as a buffer for Wastewater Treatment
Plant #1; and
WHEREAS, the City is also working to acquire for natural areas purposes another parcel of
land in the same area, currently owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”),
which is described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (“Parcel E”); and
WHEREAS, Parcels A-E are collectively referred to herein as the “City Property”; and
WHEREAS, Woodward, Inc. (“Woodward”) is in the process of developing a new master-
planned campus that would house its manufacturing operations and corporate headquarters, as well
as commercial services (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be built on the site of the former Link-N-Greens golf
course, adjacent to the City Property; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Woodward is requesting a permanent, non-exclusive
drainage easement approximately 3,000 square feet in size, to carry storm water flows from the
Project property, and a portion of storm water drainage from Lemay Avenue, in a pipe across the
City Property to the Poudre River (the “Pipeline Easement”); and
WHEREAS, Woodward is also requesting a permanent, non-exclusive drainage easement
approximately 7,200 square feet in size, to carry concentrated water flows from its proposed water
quality pond across the City Property to the Poudre River (the “Concentrated Water Flow
Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the locations of the proposed Pipeline Easement and the Concentrated Water
Flow Easement are shown and described on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated herein by
reference (the “Easement Areas”); and
WHEREAS, the exact location of one or both of the permanent easements may have to shift
slightly during final design of the Project; however, the width, length and total square footage of the
Easement Areas is not expected to change significantly, and final legal descriptions of the Easement
Areas would be confirmed before the permanent easements are granted; and
WHEREAS, Woodward has also requested a Temporary Construction Easement on the City
Property, approximately 3.59 acres in size, to complete river restoration work, including grading and
landscaping, as part of the Project (the “Temporary Construction Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the location of the proposed Temporary Construction Easement is shown and
described on Exhibit “C”, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the two permanent easements and the Temporary Construction Easement are
collectively referred to herein as the “Easements”; and
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed Easements and
does not believe that any of them would interfere with the intended uses of the City Property, either
as part of the City’s utility systems, or as natural areas; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the two permanent easements have a value of
$900 and the Temporary Construction Easement is valued at $3,590; however, staff is
recommending that the City not charge Woodward for the Easements because the benefit the City
would receive from Woodward’s planned river restoration would exceed the value of the Easements;
and
WHEREAS, the Easements would not be effective until Woodward purchases the Project
property, and the City would not execute the Temporary Construction Easement on Parcel E until
the City has acquired Parcel E from CDOT; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 17, 2013, the Water Board reviewed the
proposed Easements and recommended that the City Council authorize their conveyance; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on February 13, 2013, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board reviewed the proposed Easements and also recommended that the City Council
authorize their conveyance; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned by the City,
provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the
best interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, with respect to property that is part of the City’s water or utility systems,
Section 23-111(b) of the City Code requires that the City Council also find that the disposition will
not materially impair the viability of the particular utility system as a whole and that it will be for
the benefit of the citizens of the City.
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easements as set forth herein is in the best interests
of the City, will not impair the viability of the stormwater system or the water system, and will be
for the benefit of the citizens of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easements on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together
with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City
Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but
not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easements, as long as such
changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easements.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of April, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of April, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
EXHIBIT A
A tract or parcel of land containing 2.734 acres, more or less, in the SE¼
of Section 12, T.7N., R.69W., of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Larimer County,
Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the SE corner of Section 12, T.7N.,
R.69W., bears S. 53º 15’ E. a distance of 661.6 feet;
1. Thence N. 28º 10’ W. a distance of 230.0 feet;
2. Thence N. 53º 14’ W. a distance of 281.5 feet;
3. Thence N. 0º 22’ E. a distance of 239.2 feet;
4. Thence S. 59º 08’ E. a distance of 276.5 feet to a point of curve;
5. Thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 998.6
feet a distance of 275.6 feet (the chord of which arc bears S. 51º 14’ E.
a distance of 274.7 feet);
6. Thence S. 21º 51’ W. a distance of 319.5 feet, more or less, to the
point of beginning.
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Hearing and Resolution 2013-027 Adopting the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy,
a Strategic Plan for Preserving Affordable Housing, including Mobile Home Parks and Other Types of Affordable
Housing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan.
The purpose of the Strategic Plan was to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects
by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the
displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are
located inside the city limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City
Charter.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy identifies strategies to preserve existing
affordable housing units. It also clarifies City and property-owner/redeveloper responsibilities and obligations to
residents when redevelopment projects cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-
2014, encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing units, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as
an important component of the community’s housing stock, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents
displaced through the closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities.
The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan
to address City policies contained in City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014. This past fall,
City staff, with the assistance of a consulting team, began an effort to clarify the City’s role, responsibilities, and
obligations in avoiding the loss of affordable housing and dealing with relocation issues when redevelopment causes
the displacement of low-income people from their homes. The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategy addresses the City Council’s request for a change to the current ad hoc, case-by-case methods
of dealing with the loss of affordable housing and mobile home parks.
For a variety of reasons, a couple of mobile home parks recently closed in Fort Collins, and since the mid-1990s a total
of five parks have closed. These closures displaced park residents and caused them to relocate. In all of the
displacement cases, City staff provided support and collaborated with other agencies to relocate or find other housing
for park residents. While there were some similarities in these park closures, the City’s involvement varied, and was
basically handled on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis.
Affordable multi-family rental units are typically considered the more common form of low-income housing in the
community. In 2010, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, which contains four
priority goals for the development of additional affordable housing; the preservation of existing affordable units; the
addition of units and facilities for special populations (homeless, seniors, etc.); and offering additional home ownership
opportunities for low-income families. The City already has several programs in place to acquire, manage, and
preserve apartments on a non-profit basis to keep rents at affordable levels and to provide assistance to first-time
home buyers.
Manufactured/mobile homes are a unique form of low-income housing. Many mobile home residents are homeowners
(they own their unit) but lease the land on which their home is located. Closure/redevelopment of a mobile home park
means that unit owners must move not only their personal belongings, but also must move the unit itself, or find
another form of housing – a challenging and stressful situation for residents.
March 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 10
The following table presents a comparison of the number of units in designated affordable housing multi-family
apartment/condo complexes, where rents are limited to levels affordable to low-income families and that contain long-
term commitments (e.g., 30 years) for affordability, versus the number of manufactured/mobile housing units located
in mobile home parks within the City limits and boundaries of the Growth Management Area (GMA).
Number of Units Category
1,969 Designated Affordable Housing Units
in Multi-Family Apartment/Condo Complexes
2,781 Mobile/Manufactured Housing Units
within the City Limits and GMA boundary.
While not every family residing in a mobile home park qualifies as low-income, information from key stakeholder
groups, including mobile home park property-owners/managers and park residents, indicates that the vast majority
of residents are low-income (including many seniors on fixed incomes). Thus, from the table data above, mobile home
units represent a significant proportion of the city’s inventory of lower cost/affordable housing. However, there are no
requirements that lot rents remain affordable to low-income families, and there no affordability period guarantees with
any of the mobile home parks. Most mobile home park residents are on month-to-month leases.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy is a strategic plan that deals with
displacement mitigation of families forced to relocate due to redevelopment activities. But, the strategic plan also deals
with preservation and stabilization options to reduce the potential for future redevelopment and displacement of low-
income residents. Simply put, if a affordable rental unit and/or mobile home park can be stabilized and preserved,
it reduces the probability of needing to deal with relocation issues in the future. Topics covered in greater detail in the
strategic plan include:
• A review of current City policies from City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014.
• An inventory and analysis of apartments with income controls and required affordability periods and
manufactured/mobile home parks.
• Options to discourage the loss of affordable housing including affordable rental units and mobile home parks
including:
N Acquisition of designated affordable units by non-profit agencies (e.g., the Fort Collins Housing Authority)
to preserve them in the affordable housing inventory.
N Rezoning of mobile home parks into a Manufactured/Mobile Home Park District.
N Financial assistance for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades.
N Resident purchase of mobile home parks.
• Options to mitigate the impacts of dislocation from affordable housing including:
N Requirements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Act.
N Requirements of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
N Additional notice of mobile home park closure.
N Requirements for a Relocation Report.
N Required payment of relocation costs.
• Summary of the public involvement process.
City Council Work Session, October 23, 2012
On October 23, 2012, the planning team (staff and consultants) conducted a work session with the City Council to
review mobile home park preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements to mitigate the impact on
residents displaced and forced to relocate due to a redevelopment project. The team was seeking feedback from the
Council as to the level of comfort the Council may have with some of the preservation techniques and relocation
assistance requirements researched by the team so far in the planning process. A summary of the work session is
attached (see Attachment 1). Council gave direction to the planning team to keep all options on the table, with one
exception (the Notice of Vacancy “Illegal Closures”), and to process them further with the stakeholder groups and the
public, before returning to the Council for final decisions. While Council kept many options on the table, it did not mean
that all options would eventually be supported and adopted by the Council.
March 26, 2013 -3- ITEM 10
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force can reside within the community. This
means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit to economic sustainability. Residents
of affordable housing include teachers, emergency services personnel, retail clerks, office support staff, etc., who all
provide needed goods and services to Fort Collins residents on a daily basis.
Redevelopment projects can produce significant benefits for Fort Collins, whether in increased sales and property tax,
or by removing blighted or underused properties, or by generating jobs or employment. So, it is always wise to
consider whether some types of redevelopment should be exempted from displacement mitigation strategies because
they could produce benefits to the City that offset (or more than offset) the costs they impose on current residents of
the property.
Requirements for redevelopment projects to pay the relocation costs of displaced low-income families would eliminate
the need for the City to consider contributing funds for relocations purposes. Requirements for redevelopment projects
to pay for the relocation of displaced families will increase the costs of the redevelopment project and could make
some projects economically infeasible.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing helps provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable housing options for low-income
people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the community instead of being forced to live outside the community
and commute into the city for work. This helps reduce traffic congestion and, thus, improves air quality.
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green building practices.
Green building practices are being used in both new construction and major rehabilitation of existing housing unit
projects. These practices include geothermal applications and other energy saving techniques.
Most new affordable housing developments and significant rehabilitation projects utilize financial subsidies from federal
grant programs (e.g., CDBG and HOME). Utilization of federal funds requires an Environmental Assessment and an
analysis of floodplain hazards, noise, hazardous materials, etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy.
Affordable rental units (apartments and homes), mobile homes (pre-1976), and manufactured homes (1976 and later,
which meet HUD safety standards) remain an important source of affordable housing in Fort Collins and Larimer
County. When affordable residential units are lost, they compound the difficulty of meeting the city’s affordable
housing needs. Many of the existing mobile/manufactured homes are located in mobile home parks, which raise
challenges when mobile home parks are redeveloped for other uses. Mobile/manufactured home owners own their
homes but rent the spaces where they are located. When mobile home parks close, residents need to move their
homes to other locations, which is complicated by the fact that many homes are old and difficult to move and spaces
in mobile home parks are often in short supply (particularly for older homes). If the mobile/manufactured home cannot
be moved, the owner faces the loss of not just a place to live but an asset that they have purchased. In recent years,
Fort Collins has experienced several mobile home park closures, has been asked to assist in relocating residents, and
has done so on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation
Strategy document sets a strategic policy direction for the City to address these issues in a more consistent way in
the future.
The Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy recommends that the City of Fort Collins
take the following seven steps to address the above issues, each of which is described in more detail in the Strategic
Plan document. Some of the following recommended steps have been modified from the Public Review Draft
document based on recommendations by the Affordable Housing Board and/or the Planning and Zoning board - the
footnotes help explain the changes. A table comparing the initial recommendations in the Public Review Draft and
March 26, 2013 -4- ITEM 10
changes made and contained in the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy document
presented to the City Council is provided in the Board/Commission Recommendations section below.
1. Continue to expand the inventory of “designated affordable” dwelling units, buildings, and complexes through
current programs administered by the Fort Collins Housing Authority, other non-profit affordable housing
agencies, and private developers.
2. Continue to offer relocation assistance to those residents of affordable units redeveloped with the use of
federal, Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (FCURA), or other City funds, but do not extend a requirement
to pay relocation expenses in private redevelopment projects that do not use public funds and do not require
a discretionary land use decision by the City.1
3. Draft a Manufactured Home Park Zoning District and rezone into that district those mobile home parks that
are relatively large and can serve as significant sources of affordable housing for the long term. From 1965
to 1997 the City of Fort Collins had two mobile home park zoning districts and most of the existing mobile
home parks located inside the city limits were zoned in one of those districts. A copy of the City’s former M-M
Medium Density Mobile Home Park district is attached for reference (see attachment 2).
4. Create a loan or grant program, or use the existing financial assistance competitive process, that would be
available to finance significant investments in new or existing affordable housing infrastructure that would be
available to those larger mobile home parks willing to commit to continuing operation of their mobile home
parks for a at least 10 years.2
5. Require a one (1) year notice of closure period for mobile home parks (rather than the 6 month minimum
notice required by the state). As an alternative, allow a six (6) month closure notice if the park owner delivers
to each resident on or before the notice date a detailed Relocation Report listing all available mobile home
park spaces available within 25 miles, providing the contact information for each of those park owners, and
including documented estimates of the costs of moving mobile/manufactured homes to those locations. In
addition, the notice provision shall also alert residents that the park may be closed before the mandatory
notice period has expired if all park residents have been successfully relocated to each party’s mutual
satisfaction.3
6. Require that redevelopment projects involving City financial assistance or a discretionary land use decision
by the City pay (a) actual costs of relocating owner occupied mobile/manufactured homes to a new site within
a 25 mile radius of the mobile home park, up to a maximum of $6,000 for a single-wide home and $8,000 for
a double-wide home, and (b) the actual value (as determined by the County Assessor) of any home that is
structurally able to be moved but that cannot be moved due to the unavailability of any spaces within 25 miles,
and (c) one-half of the actual value (as determined by the County Assessor) of any mobile/manufactured
homes that cannot be moved due to structural weakness or poor condition.4
1 The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority is currently considering narrowing its relocation assistance
policies to apply only when there is an eminent domain/condemnation action by the URA. This policy
change would have a significant impact on mobile/manufactured home owners, since they do not own the
land that is the subject of the condemnation action and generally do not participate in the negotiations.
This represents a departure from federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements followed by the Fort Collins
URA in the past, which were designed to protect renters in these types of situations.
2 Wording revised to broaden applicability to all affordable housing infrastructure, as recommended by
Planning and Zoning Board.
3 Wording revised to reflect recommendations of the Affordable Housing Board.
4 Affordable Housing Board recommended that this provision be strengthened, and Planning and Zoning
Board recommended that it be deleted. Recommendation remains unchanged from Public Review Draft,
except that relocation cost caps recommended by the AHB have been included.
March 26, 2013 -5- ITEM 10
7. Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-profit affordable housing providers, and support organizations
to purchase affordable housing types, including mobile home parks, offered for redevelopment and manage
them as long-term sources of affordable housing.5
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Affordable Housing Board
The Affordable Housing Board conducted a public hearing on February 7, 2013, to solicit comments on the Public
Review Draft of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. The Board recommended
changes to two of the seven recommendations as contained in the Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. These changes have been incorporated into the recommendations
listed in the previous section. A copy of the Board’s meeting minutes is attached (see Attachment 3).
Planning and Zoning Board
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a special public hearing on March 15, 2013, to solicit comments on the
Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. Minutes of the March
15, 2013, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting are attached (see Attachment 4).
Presented below is a table comparing the recommendations as contained in the Public Review Draft document, to the
changes recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, to the changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Board, and whether or not changes were made to the recommendations in the Affordable Housing Redevelopment
Displacement Mitigation Strategy document presented to Council.
Comparison of Recommendations from Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board
Public Review Draft ó City Council Document
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
1. Continue to expand the inventory
of “designated affordable”
dwelling units, buildings, and
complexes through current
programs administered by the
Fort Collins Housing Authority,
other non-profit affordable
housing agencies, and private
developers.
No change No change No change
2. Continue to offer relocation
assistance to those residents of
affordable units redeveloped with
the use of federal, Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority
(FCURA), or other City funds, but
do not extend a requirement to
pay relocation expenses in
private redevelopment projects
that do not use public funds.
No change No Change No change
5 Wording revised to reflect Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to broaden impact to include
purchase of all types of affordable housing.
March 26, 2013 -6- ITEM 10
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
3. Draft a Manufactured Home Park
Zoning District and rezone into
that district those mobile home
parks that are relatively large and
can serve as significant sources
of affordable housing for the long
term.
No change Do Not Include
Inconsistent with
Comprehensive Plan
and current zoning
criteria –
Recommended
Strategy
remains in City
Council
document
4. Create a loan or grant program,
or use the existing financial
assistance competitive process,
that would be available to finance
significant investments in mobile
home park water, sewer, septic,
or road infrastructure that would
be available to those larger
mobile home parks willing to
commit to continuing operation of
their mobile home parks for a at
least 10 years.
No change Substitute text to
broaden
recommendation to all
affordable housing
types:
“Create a loan or grant
program, or use the
existing financial
assistance competitive
process, that would be
available to finance
significant investments
in mobile home park
water, sewer, septic, or
road new or existing
affordable housing
infrastructure that would
be available to those
larger mobile home
parks willing to commit
March 26, 2013 -7- ITEM 10
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
period has expired if all park
residents have been successfully
relocated.
moving
mobile/manufactured
homes to those locations.
In addition, the notice
provision shall also alert
residents that the park
may be closed before the
mandatory notice period
if all park residents have
been successfully
relocated to each party’s
mutual satisfaction.
6. Require that redevelopment
projects pay (a) actual costs of
relocating owner occupied
mobile/manufactured homes to a
new site within a 25 mile radius
of the mobile home park and (b)
pay at least a portion of the value
of units that cannot be moved.
• Note – this applies only to
projects involving city financial
assistance or a discretionary
land use decision.
Require that mobile home
park owners or
redevelopers pay (a)
actual costs of relocating
mobile/manufactured
homes to a new site within
25 miles of the
redevelopment site, with a
maximum relocation cost
of $6,000 for a single-wide
unit and $8,000 for a
double-wide unit, (b) the
actual value of any home
(as determined by the
County Assessor) that is
structurally able to be
moved but that cannot be
moved due to the
unavailability of any
spaces within 25 miles,
and (c) the actual value of
any home (as determined
March 26, 2013 -8- ITEM 10
Public Review Draft
Recommendations
Affordable Housing
Board
Recommendations
Planning and Zoning
Board
Recommendations
City Council
Document
mobile home parks
offered for
redevelopment and
manage them as long-
term sources of
affordable housing.”
Summary of Significant Differences
• Recommendation #3 - Create a Mobile Home Park Zoning District and rezone several mobile home parks into the
new zone to help preserve them. The Planning and Zoning Board does not support a new mobile home park zone.
The Affordable Housing Board supports the recommendation.
• Recommendation #6 - Require redevelopment projects to pay displacement relocation costs. The Affordable
Housing Board supports the recommendation and sets limits as to the amounts of assistance to individual unit
owners. The Planning and Zoning Board does not support the recommendation and, instead, suggests
establishment of an impact fee or use of TIF to fund relocation costs and the development of additional affordable
housing.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The involvement of stakeholder groups, the general public, and City boards and commissions was a very important
component of this project. Three key stakeholder groups were identified and have been involved in the project,
including: (1) mobile home park property-owners; (2) mobile home park residents (unit owners and renters) and
interested citizens; and (3) affordable housing and human service agencies (e.g., Fort Collins Housing Authority,
Neighbor-to-Neighbor, CARE Housing, The Murphy Center, and Funding Partners).
A project website (http://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/mobilehomeservices.php) was established for the
dissemination of information, announcement of upcoming public meetings, and collection of public comments. An
online survey was available to offer another option for people to provide feedback who were not able to attend the
information open house, or may not be able to attend the public hearings.
Two key City advisory boards have been involved in the process, the Affordable Housing Board, because mobile
homes are a low cost, affordable housing component of the community’s housing stock, and the Planning and Zoning
Board, because future redevelopment of mobile home parks will likely involve decisions by the Board.
Two departments of the Larimer County government were also involved, including the Planning Department and the
Environmental Health Department.
Stakeholder / Public Meetings
Three stakeholder informational meetings were scheduled in September 2012 as part of the first phase of the public
process for the project. The three meetings for the specific stakeholder groups included: (1) manufactured/mobile
home park property-owners; (2) manufactured/mobile home owners, park residents, and interested citizens; and (3)
affordable housing and social service agencies. Notes from these initial informational meetings are attached (see
Attachment 5).
In November 2012, a second set of stakeholder meetings were conducted to provide a project update and report on
the results of the October 23, 2012, City Council work session about how to mitigate the impacts to residents when
manufactured/mobile home parks are redeveloped for other uses. Topics covered at the meetings included the
following:
March 26, 2013 -9- ITEM 10
• Mobile Home Park Preservation and Stabilization Techniques
N Mobile Home Park Zoning District
N Resident Purchase of Mobile Home Parks
N Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Financial Assistance
• Notice of Park Closure
N Relocation Assistance Requirements
N Relocation Report
N Payment of Relocation Costs
Notes from these second set of stakeholder meetings are attached (see Attachment 6).
Open House
On January 24, 2013, an Open House was conducted to present the Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy. Printed copies of the draft strategic plan document were available
at the open house. The document was also available for viewing on the project’s web site. Flyers announcing the
open house, as well as the future public hearings by the Affordable Housing Board, the Planning and Zoning Board,
and the City Council, were mailed to all 23 mobile home park property-owners and to 3,600+ residents (unit owners
and renters) of mobile home parks, located both inside the City limits and within the Growth Management Area. Flyers
were also sent via email to citizens who had attended previous stakeholder meetings and/or who indicated they wished
to receive notices of additional meetings by submitting their email address on the project’s web page, and to selected
staff of affordable housing and social service agencies.
The open house contained a series of 15 informational boards highlighting the key points of the strategic plan to
preserve affordable housing units, including mobile home parks, and the proposed requirements for the payment of
relocation assistance to displaced residents. Members of the planning team (staff and consultants) were available to
answer questions and provide additional information. Approximately 80 people attended the open house. Most
attendees were residents of mobile home parks, but a few park owners and staff from affordable housing agencies
also attended. Attendees were encouraged to fill out comment cards or complete the on-line survey using available
laptop computers.
Survey Results and Selected Public Comments
The Public Review Draft of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy was posted for
public review on the project’s web site on January 10, 2013. In order to obtain additional detailed feedback on the
strategic plan, the planning team organized an on-line survey that was posted on the web site and publicized on
January 11, 2012. The survey was not a random sample, statistically valid survey to obtain results that could be
equated to being representative of opinions of a larger group of people in the community. Anyone could visit the
project’s web site and participate in the survey.
Public input from the survey and comment cards were integrated and the results are summarized in the Affordable
Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, October 23, 2012
2. M-M, Medium Density Mobile Home District
3. Affordable Housing Board Public Hearing minutes, February 7, 2013,
4. Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing minutes, March 15, 2013
5. September 2012 Stakeholder Informational Meetings notes
6. November 2012 Stakeholder Update Meetings notes
7. Powerpoint presentation
Social Sustainability
321 W. Maple Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
www.fcgov.com
Attachment 1
October 31, 2012
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Joe Frank, Director of Social Sustainability
FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner
RE: Work Session Summary – October 23, 2012 – Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation
Strategies
Council Members Present:
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, Mayor Pro Tem
Aislinn Kottwitz
Ben Manvel
Lisa Poppaw
Wade Troxell
Work Session Participants:
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Joe Frank, Director of Social Sustainability
Ken Waido, Chief Planner
Don Elliott, Senior Consultant, Clarion Associates
Ishbel Dickens, Clarion Associates
Direction Sought/Questions to be Answered:
The planning team (staff and consultants) attended the work session to receive Council’s
responses and comments regarding the following questions:
1. What feedback does Council have regarding the following preservation and stabilization
options for mobile home parks?
1
a. Mobile Home Park Zoning District
b. Park Resident Ownership - Right of First Refusal or Right to Match Last Offer for
Sale of Mobile Home Park
c. Infrastructure/Maintenance/Replacement
2. What feedback does Council have regarding the following options for notice to affected
residents?
a. Notice of Closure
b. Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”)
3. What feedback does Council have regarding the following general relocation assistance
requirement options?
a. Relocation Report
b. Payment of Relocation Costs
c. Rental Assistance
4. Does the Council have any additional questions or comments at this time?
Council’s Discussion/Direction:
General Comments:
The current title of the project seems to indicate that the project addresses all affordable
housing, but the emphasis from the background materials is on mobile home parks – the
title should be revised to reflect either an emphasis on mobile homes or recognition that
other types of affordable housing are included in the project.
There is a need to clarify/be consistent with terms “mobile home” and “manufactured
housing.”
Project team should gather data to determine if mobile homes are actually a form of
affordable housing (i.e., need to look at average monthly costs, median incomes, percent
of income going towards housing, etc.).
All units within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) need to be addressed in this
strategic plan, not just units within the City limits
The strategic plan needs to address situations where mobile home park properties may
redevelop as other types of affordable housing.
Preservation and Stabilization Techniques
Mobile Home Park Zoning District
Council indicated that they did not believe a “one size fits all” solution is a viable option
for all parks. Different parks will need different techniques.
Approaches need to be tailored to different mobile home community characteristics,
which could include location, age, size, infrastructure, etc.
2
This option should remain a possibility and continue to be explored, especially in
combination with potential incentives for the development of new parks or voluntary
zoning into a mobile home park zone.
Park Resident Ownership
Resident-owned communities are likely to be very challenging to accomplish, but should
remain an option to be explored, looking at other comparable communities for potential
models or other ideas.
Infrastructure/Maintenance/Replacement
A program to provide financial assistance to mobile home park property-owners to
repair/replace aged infrastructure should remain an option within the strategic plan.
Notice of Closure
A longer notification period regarding a pending closure of a mobile home park seems
like a good approach and was supported by the Council – it would be good to have
examples of what other communities similar to Fort Collins are doing (e.g., is 12 months
suitable for a notification period?).
Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”)
Notice of vacancy may be a necessary approach to prevent circumventing of the
mitigation strategy requirements, but that needs to be explicit (otherwise this can appear
as too heavy-handed on the free market).
Council did not support this option.
Relocation Assistance Requirements
Relocation Report
A requirement for a relocation report which provides data and information regarding a
pending park closure, the socio-economic characteristics of park residents, and support
services available to residents seems like good approach to be included in the strategic
plan.
Payment of Relocation Costs
Taxpayer funds should probably not be the basis for future relocation assistance that is
needed due to private development. Relocation assistance could be paid by the
landowner/developer or possibly through a fund that generates revenue based on some
3
sort of mobile home transfer fees (although there may be some state limitations on
transfer fees).
The project needs to consider that any additional costs to the park owners could lead to
increased costs for residents in some communities.
Definition of Affordable Housing
Council requested clarification as to what constitutes an affordable housing unit. The City’s Land
Use Code contains definitions for an affordable housing unit. There are actually two definitions,
one for an affordable rental unit and the other for an affordable unit for sale.
Affordable housing unit for rent shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for rent on
terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty (80) percent or less of the
median income of city residents, adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty (30)
percent of gross income for housing, including rent and utilities.
Affordable housing unit for sale shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for rent on
terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty (80) percent or less of the
median income of city residents, adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty-
eight (38) percent of gross income for housing, including principal, interest, taxes,
insurance, utilities, and homeowners’ association fees.
If low-income households were to pay a higher percentage of their gross income for housing than
the above limits, they would have less money available for food, medicine, transportation, etc.
The 2012 Median Income (AMI) for a family of four in Fort Collins is $77,700.
The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014 establishes priorities for City financial
assistance for affordable housing programs. The top priority is to increase the inventory of rental
housing for families earning 50% or less of the AMI. The lowest priority is for first-time home
buyers earning between 60% and 80% of AMI.
Next Steps:
The planning team will meet in early November with each of the key stakeholder groups
and report on the Council feedback from the October 23 work session.
Stakeholder Focus Groups will meet to discuss more specific topics in November and
December.
The Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board will conduct public
hearings in January 2013.
The City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the strategic plan on February 5,
2013.
4
1
Attachment 2
The following zoning district for mobile home parks was included in the City of Fort Collins’
Zoning Ordinance from the mid-1960s to 1997.
M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District
Sec. 29-271. Purpose
The M-M Medium Density Mobile Home Park District is for areas for mobile homes.
Sec. 29-272. Uses permitted.
The uses permitted in the M-M District are as follows:
(1) Any use permitted in an R-M Medium Density Residential District, subject to all of the
use and density requirements of such district.
(2) Mobile homes on individual lots subject to all density requirements specified for a single-
family dwelling in an R-M Medium Density Residential District.
(3) Mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding eight (8) units
per net acre with accessory buildings and uses for storage, service and recreation.
(4) Mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding twelve (12)
units per net acre with accessory buildings and uses for storage, service and recreation,
provided that the plan for such mobile home park is shown on a Planned Unit
Development plan processed, approved and recorded according to the PUD code..
Sec. 29-273. Bulk and area requirements.
The bulk and area requirements in the M-M District are as follows:
(1) Each mobile home park established in the M-M District shall contain a minimum of five
(5) acres.
(2) Each mobile home park established in this district shall contain a minimum width of two
hundred (200) feet. In addition, there shall be a minimum width of sixty (60) feet which
shall front on a public street to provide access to the mobile home park.
(3) Minimum yard requirements in this district are as follows:
a. The minimum distance of any building or mobile home from any exterior lot line
of the mobile home park shall be thirty (30) feet. In addition, the minimum
distance of any building or mobile home from any public dedicated street shall be
twenty (20) feet.
b. The minimum distance allowed between mobile homes and the buildings in a
mobile home park shall be ten (10) feet.
1
Attachment 3
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado
February 7, 2013
Chair: Dan Byers
Staff Liaison: Ken Waido, 970-221-6753
City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw
Board Members present: Dan Byers, Jeffrey Johnson, Troy Jones, Curt Lyons, Tatiana
Martin, Karen Miller
Board Members excused: Terence Hoagland
Staff present: Ken Waido
Other Staff present: Kathryn Grimes, Note Taker
Guests: Shelby Sommer, Clarion Associates LLC; Ishbel Dickens, Manufactured
Homeowners Association of America; Jessica Ping-Small, City Revenue and Project
Manager
Meeting called to order with a quorum present at 4:05 p.m. by Chair Dan Byers
Public Comment
None.
Affordable Housing Displacement Relocation Mitigation Strategies
Ken Waido: Gave a PowerPoint presentation for an overview of the salient points of the
Public Review Draft Document before the board opened the meeting up to public comments.
The board will need to listen to public comments, have a discussion, then vote to make
recommendations to the City Council on items and issues related to the document.
The draft document has two major sections: 1) options for mobile home park stabilization
and preservation, and 2) options for displacement and relocation assistance of mobile home
park residents and what would be required for that particular section, Seven major
recommendations of the document are:
1) Continue to expand the inventory affordable housing units.
2) Continue to offer money and funding for these projects.
2
3) Create a Mobile home park zone for park preservation.
4) Create a grant or loan program for infrastructure maintenance.
5) Require one year notice of future park closures.
6) Provide relocation costs
7) Potential resident purchase of the park.
Dan Byers: At this time, we will open this up to public comment. Please keep your
comments to five minutes.
Susan Harmon: I currently reside at the mobile home park at 1601 N College Avenue. My
grandparents purchased a mobile home there in 1985. I now live there with my mother. The
park has been there since 1965. It is considered to be one of the nicer park although it is in a
highly desirable area of town for redevelopment. I thoroughly support the recommendation
extending the notification from six months to one year. We are looking at a resident
population of mostly over 55 years of age, senior citizens, who have very low income or
fixed income. Plus they’re elderly, set in their ways, resistant to change. It’s going to take
time for their families and other agencies to work with them when they need to relocate. A
year would definitely be a better option so they don’t feel the pressure. When you’re eighty
years old, six months seems like today and a year seems like tomorrow. So I thoroughly
support the year notification.
Again, relocation expenses, paid by the developer or the owner, I support as well. The reason
being, again, we’re looking at seniors. Most of them have very low income. There are
residents that have been in these parks for twenty years or more and it’s because of their
income. If they were forced to find the funds to move a mobile home, they’re not going to
find it because, number one, they don’t have the resources available to themselves, number
two, they don’t have an income to replace any kind of loan they would take, and the cost of
moving a mobile home is anywhere from eight to twelve thousand dollars which is ridiculous
in itself. But and then we’re talking about where would they move. Now that is a concern to
me that I hope this board will start thinking about. I had some time to speak with Ken about
what the zones mean and where they are and I understand it more now. But if you only have
“X” number of parks there that are zoned and all of a sudden we are finding that there are
eight parks that are closing, where are they going to go? Because a lot of these parks are
already filled. I’ve not seen anything that talks about the creation of another Mobile Home
Park Community for the residents that would be required to move if they are in a designated
targeted redevelopment area. So that’s something I would like to have this board discuss;
where are they going to go.
The mobile home park zoning was something new to me. I thank you again, Ken, for your
clarification on this subject. I do think that if you give mobile home park zones it is going to
give a more secure feeling to those residents in those zones. If the park is zoned for a mobile
home park, the chances are of it being redeveloped into something different are smaller. The
seniors I work with need some sense of security. A mobile home park zone might make them
feel a little bit more secure in their homes in those areas. Who is going to make that
determination of the value of that home? If it isn’t enough to compensate for their relocation,
that’s not begin fair to our seniors again. There is a great deal of people who do not have
access to computers and how will they get their opinions validated and heard? Nor do they
have access to get to these meetings. Has it ever been considered an option to hold a half
hour question and answer meeting at the clubhouses at some of these mobile home parks for
those folks who don’t have computers, can’t get out to these meetings, and don’t have the
3
resources to find out what we are talking about here? Because we’re talking about their lives
and where they’re going to live. So how many of the people who answered your survey were
from these mobile home parks? I would like to add that you have meetings at these parks to
include the actual residents of these parks in these decisions. We have to be appreciative of
our seniors and the greatest generation and we have to be helping them.
Nick (no last name given): Because, I’m not eighty five, I’m ninety and I can’t be moving
nowhere. It would be very hard for me to make a change right now. I cannot live with my
children; they have their own families. As far as cost, it costs quite a bit to move a home.
Every month we get enough to pay the rent from Social Security. And that’s all. We don’t
have the money to move. Thank you.
Dan Byers: Is there anyone else who has public comments? If not, this concludes the public
input portion.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Dan Byers: Let’s open this up to discussion. Our goal is to provide recommendation to City
Council.
Troy Jones: Could you help me understand number three?
Ken Waido: We’re looking at it as a step by step process. The first step is if the Council says
to create a mobile home park district. Then the City’s Land Use Code team would draft a
zoning district to be put into the Land Use Code. This strategic plan recommends which
mobile home parks should be put into that district. The details of what would and would not
be permitted in the zone have yet to be fleshed out.
Ishbel Dickens: A list of a range of options can be included in the zoning plans. It has not
been universal throughout all communities. It is what makes sense in that particular area. The
ordinance itself can also have exemptions.
Dan Byers: What was the reason the zoning went away?
Ken Waido: The city went to a more mixed-use land use concept.
Shelby Sommer: The city is shifting. The growth aspect is changing from outward growth to
inward growth. That is where the redevelopment pressure becomes stronger.
Dan Byers: To move forward, let’s go over each item. Number one, I think we all agree with
that one. Number two, you have to offer relocation assistance to be in compliance.
Jeffrey Johnson: We should consider striking the rationale. I’m suggesting we delete
“because” from the rest of the sentence.
Troy Jones: That makes sense. I’ll go along with you on that one.
Dan Byers: Rather than strike it out, maybe we could find a better way to say it. The city
could decide this on a case-by-case basis.
4
Jeffrey Johnson: I agree with that.
Troy Jones: Yes, that’s a good idea.
Troy Jones: Number three makes sense to me.
Dan Byers: There’s quite a bit of work to be done on this.
Curt Lyons: Is the intent of creating the zoning to deter development?
Ken Waido: No, it’s to preserve the mobile home park community as a mobile home park
community.
Dan Byers: Is there any opposition to the mobile home park zone? It sounds like the board
agrees on number three with additional clarification. Let’s talk about number four.
Troy Jones: One park on the north has a huge storm water management issue, big potholes,
etc. This seems like one that needs some redevelopment. Having the grant program in place
would help these issues.
Ken Waido: The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan has an action item for the City to look at
a permanent funding source for the Affordable Housing Fund. If a permanent funding source
is found, the AHF could have additional financial resources over what is available now.
Jeffrey Johnson: I agree that loan and grant money is critical. Infrastructure upkeep is
important. Could you get some money to take care of this? This seems to be an opportunity to
get some details. Can you sweeten it up with a loan or a grant? To make the property owner
feel better about infrastructure upkeep.
Dan Byers: Move on to number five. A lot of these parks are at full capacity. Is there space
to move all? I like the one-year notice.
Karen Miller: I would support removing the six-month caveat.
Tatiana Martin: I would rather see the six-month option included.
Jeffrey Johnson: I like the alternative of having both.
Troy Jones: That doesn’t seem like the way it’s written. To what extent do we want the early
closure tied to incentive? The developer isn’t on the hook to pay anything.
Ken Waido: We could combine numbers five and six somehow.
Karen Miller: It does kind of dovetail. It could force people into unfavorable conditions.
Dan Byers: I think we should keep five and six separate. They are two separate issues.
Ishmel Dickens: Six month closure would be allowed, it is between the owner and the
tenant, if everyone has left before the year then they can close the park.
5
Curt Lyons: Some kind of mutually satisfaction would be good.
Tatiana Martin: Residential apartment leases are month to month after one year, but I don’t
know for mobile homes.
Dan Byers: Concisely rewording number five: One-year notice is required unless the mobile
home park owner provides a packet plus the tenant shows they can leave or they are lawfully
evicted.
Karen Miller: I want it to say they will be appropriately relocated to each party’s mutual
agreement.
Dan Byers: Number six; does it say “Federal Funds”?
Troy Jones: I don’t support number six. The developer has to pay for relocation. I don’t
think the developer should pay for the relocation of everyone.
Dan Byers: That wouldn’t provide any assistance. That takes affordable housing out of the
community.
Karen Miller: Yes, that’s true.
Cory Lyons: I’m thinking of it like any other property. If somebody buys an apartment
building, it’s not the tenant’s right to be there forever.
Karen Miller: But you purchased the mobile home and you can’t compensate for it. Now
they can’t use their home anymore.
Jeffrey Johnson: There is a human component to this. But there is also a market component,
too.
Karen Miller: I think the park owner should at least pay the tenant for the home.
Dan Byers: I keep coming back to people being “involuntarily” displaced from their home.
Troy Jones: I’m uncomfortable with the A. Why is it the developer’s cost to move it? I agree
with the B and C. I can’t support A. Should we pull number six and vote on the rest?
Jeffrey Johnson: Change “market value” to “assessed value”, i.e., the assessor’s analysis of
real market value.
Dan Byers: I make a motion to accept numbers one, two, three, four, and seven.
Troy Jones: I second the motion.
Dan Byers: For number five; number five states: require a one year notice for relocation and
no less than the six-month minimum required by the State of Colorado, however, as an
alternative, the City could offer a six month notice detailed relocation report on all available
mobile home parks within twenty five miles by contact information to the park owners and
documented relocation costs and in addition, the mobile home park owner insures that all
6
tenants have been relocated to their mutual satisfaction or have otherwise abandoned or sold
their homes.
Curt Lyons: I move to accept number five as just stated.
Karen Miller: I second. And I agree with number six with a change of “market value” to
“assessor’s opinion of real market value”.
Troy Jones: I am in favor of everything but A. I would support A with a cap of $6,000 (for
single-wide units) - $8,000 (for doubl-wide unitse).
Tatiana Martin: I like it except for A.
Jeffrey Johnson: I don’t know how I feel about A. I accept B and C with “fair market value
determined by assessor”.
Curt Lyons: No opinion. It’s too long. There are so many parts to the equation.
Troy Jones: I move to recommend Item Six to council as written with the following
exceptions: Item A, having a cap of $6000 (single-wide) - $8,000 (double-wide) for
relocation and Item B with “full actual value according to the assessor’s opinion” and C with
the “½ attribute”.
Dan Byers: I second. All in favor? Five. Opposed? One: Jeffrey Johnson.
Comparison of Recommendations
Public Review Draft Affordable Housing Board
Public Review Draft Recommendations Affordable Housing Board
Recommendations
1. Continue to expand the inventory of
“designated affordable” dwelling units,
buildings, and complexes through
current programs administered by the
Fort Collins Housing Authority, other
non-profit affordable housing agencies,
and private developers.
No change
2. Continue to offer relocation assistance
to those residents of affordable units
redeveloped with the use of federal,
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
(FCURA), or other City funds, but do
not extend a requirement to pay
relocation expenses in private
redevelopment projects that do not use
public funds.
No change
3. Draft a Manufactured Home Park No change
7
Zoning District and rezone into that
district those mobile home parks that
are relatively large and can serve as
significant sources of affordable
housing for the long term.
4. Create a loan or grant program, or use
the existing financial assistance
competitive process, that would be
available to finance significant
investments in mobile home park
water, sewer, septic, or road
infrastructure that would be available to
those larger mobile home parks willing
to commit to continuing operation of
their mobile home parks for a at least
10 years.
No change
8
Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing Minutes
281 N. College Conference Room A
March 15, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hart, Heinz, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, and Smith
Staff Present: Kadrich, Hendee, Waido, and Sanchez-Sprague
Chair Smith said hearing attendees and described the following processes:
• Citizen participation is an opportunity to present comments on issues not on the meeting agenda.
• Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of
the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and
discuss in detail as a part of the discussion agenda.
• Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and
questions by board members. Public input follows.
• At the time of public comment, Chair Smith asked that individuals wishing to speak come to the
podium, state their name and address, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their
position. He encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion.
• Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment.
• He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered.
• The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon.
• The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda.
Citizen participation:
None
Discussion Agenda:
1. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 2
_______
Project: Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies
Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to preserve existing
affordable housing units with an emphasis on mobile home parks.
Recommendation: Make recommendation to City Council
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Senior Planner Ken Waido introduced Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer and team members
Don Elliott and Shelby Sommer of Clarion Associates. He provided background on the project – develop
a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities. He said
the project was needed to define the City’s role, responsibilities, and obligations in dealing with mobile
home park closures and the displacement of low-income families and cited recent efforts for Grape
Street and Bender Mobile Home Park.
Waido noted the Public Review Draft provided options for: affordable housing and mobile home park
preservation and stabilization and displacement relocation assistance. He cited the main reasons why
mobile homes parks close (market pressures increase property value and the property is sold for
redevelopment or the park’s infrastructure ages needing maintenance or replacement and the cost to do
so is not supported by lot rents). Waido said preservation and stabilization techniques include a Mobile
Home Park Zoning District, infrastructure maintenance/replacement with grants or loans, and City
financial assistance via Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Programs and Affordable
Housing Fund, and park resident ownership
Waido outlined recommendations for what the City should do if a mobile home park closes. He outlined
the project’s public involvement process and the short-term and long-term actions steps.
Public Input
Rose Lew, 2014 Westover Road, said she supports staff’s recommendations. She said the
establishment of a mobile home park zone is very critically important. She asked if there were no federal
funds, is there no requirement for the property owner/developer to pay any relocation costs.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, said they worked closely with the individuals
affected by the closure of the Grape Street and the Bender Mobile Home Park closures. She said
groups with whom she’s affiliated worked with social, environmental, and economic sustainability. She
said this plan really emphasizes that desire to look at economic, social, and environmental sustainability.
She said this plan really represents a lot of creative thinking by staff and the community at large. She
said as she worked with the displaced individuals, she came to respect them and to understand better
the devastating consequences they experienced. She said the plan addresses that. She appreciates
the zoning, the relocation expense and the one year notice. She appreciates that it looks at both
preservation and relocation.
Tawny Peyton, 22362 Schultz Lane, Berthoud, Co; said she’s the Executive Director of the Rocky
Mountain Home Association. They represent the manufacturing and modular home industry in Colorado.
She thanked staff for their efforts in the development of the plan. She asked what other businesses or
private property owners are required to provide a notice period before they change their use. What other
businesses have to provide a report for alternatives to their consumers? What other businesses are
required to pay for their consumer’s expenses? She said they are an affordable housing industry. She
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 3
said a lot of these changes will impact how likely businesses will want to do business within the city and
state. Some of the businesses are owned by ‘mom and pop’ owners who have worked their whole life to
provide housing for people. If they should need to sell their property due to a medical emergency, have
they lost the value of the property because of the relocation costs? Will they lose value because it’s
been zoned for one use?
Keith Cowan, 3240 Iris Ct., Wheat Ridge, said he owns Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. He said he’s
one of the ‘mom and pop’ operations just described by Ms. Peyton. He said if you’re an investor coming
into the city and you see the type of restrictions that are being proposed, you’ll say no because you’re not
going to be able to do the business you want. He said over time they’ve purchased homes and tried to
make them available for low income families by financing them. He said all this was good until last year
when the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted and financing was no longer an option. He thinks it’ll affect an
owner’s ability to keep their property up. He said only in Fort Collins is there a sales tax on the transfer
of a mobile home. He knows of some cases where people do not change the title into their name
because of the sales tax expense. He said both at the city and the state level, they are considering
legislation that will make it very difficult to keep mobile homes an affordable housing option.
Zach Heath lives at 135 S. Sunset. He said he’s encouraged by the plan to keep mobile homes an
affordable housing option in Fort Collins. Fort Collins is known as not being an affordable place to live.
He said you’d need to make $15 per hour to be able to afford rent in Fort Collins. He does think it’s a
vitally important and he appreciates staff’s efforts. He thinks the 6 month notice is not enough and a
longer period is required to reduce stress on ‘vulnerable’ community members. He believes that takes
priority over business interests. Mr. Heath asked about something he’d heard relative to new
developments being required to provide 10% affordable housing units in their development. Is that part
of this plan?
Chris Parks, 7408 Triangle Drive, said he works for RHB Properties. They’re the largest private owner of
mobile home communities in the country. They operate the Harmony Road Park. He said they’ve
provided more assistance than the city when helping people relocate and cited the Dry Creek Mobile
Home Park as an example. He said as the homes age it becomes more problematic from an investment
standpoint. He said you cannot stereotypically assume all mobile home owners are low income. He said
some have more savings than you or I. He said when you have a requirement of keeping mobile home
parks as they are or requiring them to be responsible for relocation you are essentially reducing property
values by 20%. Or, it’s adding 20% to the cost of redevelopment. He said it’s important when we look at
how to solve this problem where there’s less focus put on the community owners who have done their
best to maintain what’s in the market. He thinks the only reasonable option proposed is the transfer tax.
He appreciates the work that has been done and he hopes we look at the true cost of this and what the
city can do if they feel it’s very important.
Barbara Trewarton, previous Cloverleaf Community Manager, and a manufactured home owner. She’s
concerned that a manufactured home community is a business. She believes it is unfair to the owner to
make them wait a year to sell their business. On the homeowner’s side, if we can’t find a place to move
their manufactured home within 6 months; it’s not worth moving.
End of Public Input
Member Heinz left the meeting.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 4
Staff Response
Chair Smith asked staff to respond to the questions raised during public testimony.
Don Elliott, Clarion Associates, said with regard to the question if there are no federal funds involved will
there be no duty to pay relocation. Elliott said if there were no federal, redevelopment or city funds and
the applicant is not applying for a discretionary rezoning or permit; there would be no duty to pay. If it’s a
redevelopment by right under the zoning district and you are not asking for financial assistance; they you
would not have a duty to pay redevelopment costs. Board members agreed a redevelopment plan would
almost always require a discretionary decision. Shelby Sommer of Clarion Associates said it would likely
be a single family/allowed use per zone but it probably would not accommodate a full scale
redevelopment. Elliott agreed it would be better to restate the language in the report.
Elliott said with regard to the question what other industry requires notice of this type none that he can
think of. He said there are no other housing products he knows where the resident owns the unit and not
the land. That is why the State of Colorado has a notice requirement. With regard to any other industry
that requires a report he said not that he knows of. He said this plan does not require a report rather the
strategy says go to a one year notice but if you want to finish up in 6 months or less you may provide a
report that will lets people know where they can move and how much it would cost, etc. He said with
regard to what other industry requires relocation payments; he said it depends on the facts of the
redevelopment. He said when parks have closed they’ve come before City Council to request relocation
assistance. The question is “is there a system in place to pay” or does it come to City Council each time.
Elliott asked if the owner is required to pay relocation costs who actually pay. It may well be the owner of
the unit who pays due to increased rents. It might be rolled into the deal you make with the redeveloper.
Elliott said with regard to the question does the adoption of regulations such as these prevent investment
in this type of industry in Fort Collins he said no one knows. Every regulation has the potential to
discourage investment. He said as a practical matter, we’ve not seen investment in new mobile home
parks in Fort Collins for quite some time. He said a fair statement is in urban areas such as Fort Collins,
there isn’t a lot of investment going on in mobile home parks. The investment is going on in rural areas
where land is cheap, where development is simple, and where neighborhood opposition is lower.
Member Campana said it’s important to distinguish the development of new parks versus the purchase of
an older park.
Elliott said it’s up to the board to determine in their judgment if this is a reasonable plan. Any time you try
to deal with the externalities of any real estate investment, you’re going to affect the business climate.
The question is--is this a fair balance.
Elliott said the last question relative to an inclusionary housing requirement—for example, you redevelop
a park in which you need to house 10% of low-income people on site. They did think of it. They did not
find other models tied into mobile home park strategies. He said it’s a unique housing type. It’s not a
mobile home for an apartment exchange—you still own a mobile home that needs to be disposed. He
thinks in this case, it would be a mismatch.
Board Questions
Member Campana asked if staff looked at mitigation from the perspective of preventing the displacement
or mitigating the impacts of displacement. Elliott said there were two parts to the study and they did
both. He said that Council wanted both tools that discourage the redevelopment of mobile home parks
so they stay in the housing pool or tools that say it’s a free business environment – redevelopment when
you want but let’s figure out what should be done about relocation. He said on the west coast they’ve
concluded it’s less expensive to preserve than to allow the housing to go away.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 5
Member Kirkpatrick referred to the 6400 affordable housing units in Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(AHSP). Waido said the AFSP’s goal is to increase affordable rental units because that’s where the
greatest deficit is. He said mobile home units represent 50% of the affordable housing stock.
Member Hart asked Waido to speak to the fact that Fort Collins charges sales tax. Waido said he called
the Sales Tax Office to ask if Fort Collins is the only city that charges sales tax. They said no there are
several other cities in Northern Colorado. Hart asked if that was addressed in their strategies. Waido
said no. Member Kirkpatrick said maybe it would be a good idea to shift the proceeds to a relocation
fund.
Waido said they have investigated inclusionary zoning. A few years ago a consultant evaluated an
impact fee (whether on residential or commercial) or inclusionary zoning. The State Supreme Court
ruled that inclusionary zoning for rental purposes is unconstitutional. It seems the window is for home
ownership. He said Boulder and Longmont had inclusionary zoning requirements for home ownership.
Elliott said he’d like to thank the park owners. Throughout the process they have been extremely
collaborative, helpful, and engaged in the process. It’s added to a better product.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if there’s been interest in affordable house development. Waido said City
Council really did not take anything off the plate at their last worksession on this topic. If council says
yes to a zoning district, then how do you do that? He said the city has used zoning to preserve specific
types of housing in the past. If it gets into the Land Use Code, there’s nothing to stop a property owner
from coming to the city and requesting a rezoning. That may be one of the uses we can put our Land
Bank properties. With a RFP (Request for Proposal), we could see if any developer (profit, non-profit, or
combination) would be willing to get into that market.
Elliott said the intent of the report was to provide the information comprehensively. Not all tools will apply
to every park – there should be a system of which tools would apply in which situation. He said they’ve
found several examples of cities in the past 15 years who adopted districts such as this. They didn’t get
good answers on whether it was to preserver affordable housing or to rezone.
Member Kirkpatrick said if we closed a mobile home park we are not allowing the same level of density
(number of residents per unit) in another area. She asked what the project team had found at a national
level. Waido said the data they were looking for was not available at a geographic level. Sommer said
the number can vary even in Fort Collins depending on the population—there may be very ‘senior’ parks
with lower numbers.
Member Kirkpatrick asked about Strategy 7. Waido said given the two avenues – one is a new
organization the other an established organization such as CARE Housing; its better, at this stage of the
game, to go with the known established agency. He said there are organizations nationally that have
been successful in other states. He said it takes a willing seller.
Board Discussion
Member Carpenter asked how the memo drafted by the Board would be used. Director Kadrich said it is
still available should you choose to make that your recommendation. It is also available for modification.
Member Hart said he understands they are being asked to approve the strategies presented by staff with
or without certain modifications the Board may want to put forth.
Member Campana said he understands and originally supported the intent of the plan having been
involved with the Bender Mobile Home Park. His understanding was staff was directed to come up with
a displacement mitigation strategy so citizens would have an expectation/know what’s going to take
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 6
place when relocation is required. He said solving affordable housing is gigantic in comparison. In his
experience their concerns were affordability and availability. Predictability is helped by have 6 to 12
months to find a new location. He agrees with one of the citizens who spoke who said if you can’t find it
in 6 months, it’s probably due to the condition of your home. He said there’s a sense of independence
related to the ownership that offers another degree of complexity. Campana said with regard to
mitigation strategies, he could support a lot of what’s been presented. When it comes to discouraging
redevelopment, he doesn’t think we want to be in the business of discouraging redevelopment. We want
to encourage the development of affordable housing. If the city wants the right to preserve something,
he believes the city should be putting some money into it. It’s a community issue and we have to deal
with it.
Member Carpenter said she agrees. She said she thinks we’ve said this before. This grew into
something that nobody really perceived it to be. She’s having a hard time deciding whether she can
even recommend approval of the whole plan. The plan is a completely different thing than encouraging
affordable housing (which she supports). She’s struggling on how to get that across to City Council.
Member Kirkpatrick said she could support the plan moving forward to City Council and the board’s
comments except for # 3. She said the plan feels very disjointed – not quite sure what problem it’s trying
to solve. Parts of it make more sense for when we address our next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
She thinks mobile home parks are an important part of our housing stock. She thinks some of those
decisions go beyond this board.
Member Campana said the market should be allowed to exist where it exists with regard to mobile home
parks.
Member Hart said he does not support a specific zone because he doesn’t think that will help the
community. Member Carpenter agreed.
Chair Smith said that City Council has a very tough job and it’s a different job than this board’s. There
are a lot of considerations which the Planning and Zoning Board simply shouldn’t address. It’s outside
the board’s purview. Inherently there are very strong noble concepts and objectives in our
Comprehensive Plan as expressed in our Land Use Code. We’re going to build a city built on a lot of
uses. We’re going to encourage in-fill and redevelopment around transit. When we say we’re going to
stop adhering to some of those principles in one certain area, it’s problematic for a lot of reasons. One
is we’re going to create islands and stifle innovation. He said what he thinks is really problematic is it’s
clear to him that perhaps at the highest levels, the city has not made the commitment to affordable
housing as a general concept and mobile homes as a subset. He thinks the city is trying to use
regulations without looking at incentives such as waiving sales tax and disincentives first.
Smith said with regard to the creation of a Mobile/Manufactured Home Zoning District, he doesn’t think
we should be doing that. He said he’s okay with the memo the board drafted as being their
recommendation. The city, as a governmental entity, should look at what it’s doing as a much higher
objective in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. It should also look at some of the other financial
considerations such as sales tax. He said he’d be more in favor of an Affordable Housing District.
Member Carpenter said to have an Affordable Housing District is so against our philosophy of mixed-use
and making sure our neighborhoods have diversity. For her it would almost be a discriminatory thing.
She understands mobile home owners seeking independence but she thinks it’s a false sense of
independence. It doesn’t have the predictability and that’s what gives you independence.
Member Carpenter wondered how the board should proceed. Director Kadrich said as a recommending
board they could have: no recommendation, recommend in its entirety, or substitute something.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 7
Chair Smith made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board forward the following comments
The Planning and Zoning Board recognizes and supports the need for an adequate supply
of safe and healthy affordable housing in Fort Collins. As such the board would prefer
that recommendations brought forward to City Council apply to ALL affordable housing
types rather than only limited to mobile home parks. As such the board would support
Public Review Draft Recommendations #1, 2, and 5 and offer the following thought on the
other three recommendations.
Recommendation #3: This recommendation is clearly inconsistent with not only current
zoning criteria in the Land Use Code (LUC), but also some of the primary objectives of our
Comprehensive Plan. City Plan is largely based on a vision of compact, mixed-use,
redevelopment. More specifically, City Plan calls for a variety of land uses and building
types in every zone district, and as a result, encourages innovation that promotes
enhanced sustainability, efficiency, and vitality. As such, the board believes that a
Manufactured Home Park Zoning District would move away from the overall vision zoning
for the Fort Collins Community and should not be considered as an option.
Recommendation #4: The Board recommends substituting the following
recommendation: Create a loan or grant program, or use the existing financial assistance
competitive process that would be available to finance significant investments in new or
existing affordable housing infrastructure that would be available to those willing to
commit to continuing an affordable housing product for at least 10 years.
Recommendation #6: The board is not in agreement that this is the most effective way to
deal with the problem for a variety of reasons including the recommendation shifts too
much of the “burden” to the property owner and that it does not effectively preserve
affordable housing. If the ultimate goal is to provide affordable housing, the board feels
this process may lead to subsidizing substandard housing. The board suggests
implementing an impact fee and/or a TIF to help cover the costs of relocation or
development of affordable housing stock.
Recommendation #7: The board for the reasons listed previously offers a substitute
recommendation as follows: Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-profit
affordable housing providers, and support organizations to purchase affordable housing
types, including mobile home parks offered for redevelopment and manage them as long-
term sources of affordable housing.
with the addition of: adding manufactured housing in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan as a
primary goal and revisit sales tax on mobile home and perhaps either eliminate it or direct it to
some type of mitigation/relocation fund. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 15, 2013
Page 8
Other
Director Kadrich said they’re getting ready to advertise for the Planning Manager position. If there’s any
interest in participating in the process, please let her know.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair
1
Attachment 5
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Mobile Home Park Owners Meeting
September 25, 2012 – Harmony Library
Lots of differences between each mobile home community
City has handled each mobile home park closure differently. The purpose of this project is to City clarify
role/policies for future situations.
Potential Strategies to Prevent Redevelopment:
o Right of First Refusal
o Right of Last Refusal/offer
o Right of Preferential housing
o Incentives
o Zoning Changes
In other communities, did vendor fees increase to match the maximum relocation assistance amount?
o A pre‐determined amount usually means vendors will charge that amount
o A non‐fixed amount (actual cost) of relocation assistance may be better approach to avoid this
problem
o Consulting team will explore typical actual costs for moving within Fort Collins
What happens to abandoned homes when a park closes?
o The owner of park is usually responsible for removal
o This is a challenging issue for park owners, especially for re‐1976 (HUD) homes that are in poor
condition
If a federally‐funded redevelopment project occurs, a relocation process is already determined(Uniform
Relocation Act, which occurs at the cost of the redevelopment project)
Key factors in whether units are moved or abandoned are market vacancy rates and the age/value of
units
There may not be places to move homes in the event of a closure in Fort Collins
Is the City in favor of opening new parks?
o Mobile home parks are permitted uses in the LMN zone
o Although they are permitted uses, many higher density housing projects (e.g., student housing,
mobile home parks, etc.) can encounter opposition from surrounding neighborhoods/property
owners
The last mobile home park approved in Fort Collins was Dry Creek, although this project had some
financial challenges
The Housing Authority does have some modular housing units on permanent foundations – this trend
will likely increase in the future
Have there been any reconfigurations of mobile home parks to enlarge lots/reduce density?
o Not to the team’s knowledge, but this is permissible by amending the site plan (usually the
mobile home park is platted as one large lot)
2
o This is typically not usually a zoning issue as long as setbacks and minimum densities are
satisfied
Would the relocation mitigation policies apply to re‐configuration/reducing the number of lots in mobile
home parks?
o Probably not since it is unlikely that a park owner would eliminate lots if they were occupied
(i.e., consolidation of lots would generally occur only if vacant lots were available)
How would the displacement strategies differ for mobile home owners vs. renters?
o Residents who rent homes from the mobile home park owners or other landlords generally
have month to month (or longer) leases, and in these instances standard landlord/tenant
agreements apply (not displacement strategies)
o For mobile home owners who just lease the land, displacement mitigation assistance may apply
if the City decides to adopt such policies
How would the relocation strategies apply to properties outside of city limits?
o If a property is located within the County but adjacent to (Contiguous with) the City, any
redevelopment project would spur the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City
and the County, and the property would be annexed into the City and the development project
would be subject to City requirements (including displacement mitigation).
o If a property is located in the County and not adjacent to the City, redevelopment would be
handled by the County, and the City’s requirements would not apply, other than the City’s
requirement that the property sign an agreement to annex to the City when eligible.
If park owners are required to pay for relocation mitigation, they could get double the burden by having
to pay for relocation and then also by having to pay the costs of removing abandoned homes
Key issues to consider when developing strategies are the quality of the homes and occupants. The free
market determines which homes are worth moving and which ones are not worth moving (abandoned).
The abandoned homes are a big issue, and the strategy should explore whether or not some sort of
relocation assistance fund could also apply to park owners who are left with removing abandoned
homes.
Need to explore whether or not there are any State/City or other regulations about moving pre‐HUD
homes (some perceptions that regulations exist, but uncertainty about who governs/enforces).
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Residents and Representatives Meeting
September 25, 2012 – Northside Aztlan Center
Meeting Notes
The planning process seems to be short; need to determine if there is enough time allotted for thorough
feedback from all stakeholders
Need to advertise meetings as open to the public; mobile home park newsletters may be a good tool to
notify folks of future meetings
Will plan address MH parks in County?
o Mobile home parks in the City (approximately 1200 units) – yes, this plan will address
3
o Mobile homes in the County but contiguous/adjacent to City limits (approximately 1100 units) –
yes, the plan will address
o Mobile homes in the County and not contiguous/adjacent to City County (approximately 700
units) – no, these are subject to the County’s process and requirements, but the County will be
involved throughout the effort
Cheryl and Catholic Charities deserve recognition for Bender assistance efforts
City assistance helped with the Bender displacement but more assistance needed (could Section 8
vouchers be explored in the future?)
Low‐income housing needed throughout the City
Residents are the ones who lose out
This plan may also involve exploring changes in state laws and regulations to protect residents from
displacement
What have other communities done to prevent redevelopment of mobile home parks?
Right of First Refusal – time period given depends on location
o (Right of First Refusal) in Resident‐Owned Communities (ROC USA)
o Housing trust fund support – tap into local lenders
Right of Last Offer
Right of Preferential Housing (1st in line for new units)
o Form of inclusionary zoning
o Can be tied to existing rents or area median income
Incentives
Zoning – strengthen process/make it harder to close MH parks
o Some variation of a mobile home park zone
o Could this be a taking? No, as long as reasonable economic use of the property
o Why did the City drop MH park zones in 1997?
o Thought was that LMN would help preserve parks
Potential Assistance Tools when Displacement will Happen
Notification
o 6 months in CO
o Longer in other states (12 month – 2 year)
Financial Assistance
o Relocation Assistance Fund (WA) – state operates, funded by transfer of title fees paid by
residents
o Property owner/landlord pays (OR)
Landlord support (relocation coordinator)
Vacancy rate triggers notice
Purchases/Land trusts
Other Comments and Questions
Relocation of pre‐1976 homes is very challenging; Hard to find new parks that will accept them
o Solution needs to include voluntary abandonment
o Need state action to override covenants
How will various options be evaluated?
o State/local action/level of support
4
o Best practices/lessons learned
o City Council to be the final decision maker
Title changes – personal property vs. real property (stronger consumer protections for real property)
Mortgage settlement fund – explore potential to use some of this money for relocation assistance
Are mobile homes really affordable?
o Preserving existing communities cheaper than building new
o Residents are captive in parks
Land Trust model of non‐profit developer model could work to help with preservation
o Lowry a good CO model for affordable housing
Does the City have funding for mobile home community preservation? Look at overall affordable
housing budget in City
What role does/could CHAFA play?
Credit union lending could play a larger role
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Housing Agencies and Advocates Stakeholder Meeting
September 26, 2012 – 281 N. College Avenue
Meeting Notes
Current title of project is complicated but it needs to address preservation and displacement
mitigation
Explore partnerships/coordination with CARE housing and others on residents or agencies
owning mobile home parks
Would it be possible to develop the City’s land bank property as a mobile home park or swap
this property for another property?
State and federal funding is very limited to assist in relocation efforts (rough estimate of total
State funds for affordable housing +/- 2 million, Federal funds +/- 10 million)
Need models/case studies about the economics of resident owned communities or other
“benign” landowner situations
Some of the mobile home communitieLimited ability to move pre-1976 homes
Lots of very old parks
o Failed infrastructure one cause of closures
o Infrastructure improvements a possible strategy ( partnerships)
Dry Creek was the last mobile home park developed
Explore the potential development or trading of the City’s Land Bank properties to save mobile
home parks from redevelopment
5
Some communities have tried to secure long-term commitments to retain mobile home parks
but without much success
Need to clarify City vs. County vs. State vs. URA responsibilities when
redevelopment/displacement occur and compare these with the federal Uniform Relocation Act
requirements
Case studies to research
o Mapleton mobile home park (Boulder, CO Thistle Community Housing)
o Rocky Mountain Community Land Trust (CO Springs)
Aging in place a key issue in mobile home parks as well as throughout the community. Could
mobile homes be part of the solution?
Resident Owned Communities a successful approach in some areas
o Homeowners need financial partners to make this successful (partner with local banks?)
o Explore the role of the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) in establishing
resident owned communities
Revolving Loan Fund in Northern CO can be used on mobile homes but there is a $5,000
maximum allowed on repairs for mobile homes
The City doesn’t enforce private covenants, such as those enacted by mobile home parks and
other subdivisions
1
Attachment 6
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Mobile/Manufactured Home Park Owners Meeting Notes
November 19 – Harmony Library
General Discussion
Are Manufactured/Mobile Homes affordable housing?
o Anecdotally, most park owners agree that nearly all of their residents could be categorized as
low income households and a large proportion would qualify for affordable housing
o Census data is not available at that level of geography so detailed information about income and
percent of income spent on housing is not available
Some property owners think they might be able to knock on doors to get income data
Others think this type of information would be very tricky to gather
Mobile home vs. manufactured homes:
o Mobile homes can be put wheels on/move away (required to have a steel frame)
o Pre HUD/1976 = mobile homes
o Post HUD = manufactured homes
o Modular vs. manufactured (these terms are not necessarily synonyms either)
o CO state laws have definitions that should be referenced
Preservation Strategies Discussion
Would a Manufactured/Mobile Home zone also apply to new parks?
o New manufactured/mobile home parks are already permitted in some existing zones (LMN, E
districts)
o A new mobile home park zone would probably allow new parks, but that would need to be
determined if a new zone is created
o Some current park properties were previously in Manufactured/Mobile Home districts (ML,
MM)
Different options for a mobile home park zone district could include the City applying the zone to certain
parks (based on certain criteria), or parks volunteering to apply the zone now or in the future
o If the City decided to place some or all properties in a new zone district, property owners would
not have veto power of a rezoning (City Council is final decision maker)
Some property owners sent membership checks/correspondence to the National Manufactured Home
Owners Association (NMHOA) after meetings last January. There have been issues with communication
with this organization and property owners would like a response from the association’s representative
If the City provided grants or loans for property owners to upgrade/fix infrastructure issues, there are
concerns that this money would come with some conditions (e.g., requiring a certain percent of units to
remain affordable) that the property owners may/could not adhere to
2
High City sales tax collected on mobile homes presents is a huge barrier to preserving existing parks
within the City
o People leave the City for cheaper unit ownership opportunities in the County
o Many people avoid changing unit titles to avoid sales taxes
o Estimated $3000 in sales tax to the City for an average mobile home unit
Notification and Relocation Assistance Strategies Discussion
What is the purpose of a longer notification period?
o Gives more time for residents, affordable housing and social service agencies, and the City to
explore relocation options
o What about a 13 month notification period (which would be offset so that people could still
enter one year leases)?
Most leases are month to month
o General agreement/perception that residents will wait until the very last minute to relocate,
regardless of how long the notification period lasts
There would be economic impacts resulting from a longer notification period
o There is a cost burden for property owners if a longer notification period is required (i.e., the
property owner will have to carry the property longer with reduced income)
o Persons buying a park property for redevelopment may not willing to wait for the full
notification period and may devalue a property.
Do leases alert residents about potential sale of land?
o Some do, but not all of them do because it is not a mandatory provision
Relocation assistance payments (if required to be paid by the property owner) would ultimately be
transferred to the costs of operating the park, which would mean higher rents up‐front
Would relocation assistance be triggered even if public funding was not requested for a redevelopment
project?
o This project is examining that topic.
Would rental mobile home units be subject to relocation assistance?
o Probably would not be covered, but being explored as part of this project.
Has the City considered assessing a fee or other tax to build a relocation fund?
o That has come up in other meetings as well, but the City may be limited in the amount of new
fees/taxes it can charge.
o As part of a bigger picture, the City is looking a securing a more reliable funding source for all
types of affordable housing, which could include some sort of potential relocation assistance.
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Residents and Representatives Meeting Notes
November 19, 2012 – Northside Aztlan Center
3
General Discussion
County staff is considering more temporary (e.g. yurts) housing options now than before the High Park
Fire – this may have a positive impact on affordable housing options
What happened to the affordable housing project on Willox Lane west of College?
o The project fell through and is no longer proceeding as proposed; property may be bank‐owned
Impacts of right to farm on affordable housing
Are manufactured/mobile homes affordable housing?
o Would be difficult to get accurate data but there may be some ways to acquire some data
Section 8 data, LEAP loan applications, other government‐sponsored programs
Harmony Mobile Home Park has sold 3 times since 1998; none of these sales have been advantageous
to residents as lot rents have increased
Preservation Strategies Discussion
Resident‐owned communities
o What did the property owners think of the concept?
Not a lot of feedback for or against
Acknowledged that there has to be a willing seller
o What needs to happen so that non‐profits are poised or better prepared to own and/or manage
mobile home communities?
Park managers are not necessarily the property owners‐ could they be retained even if a
non‐profit purchases the land?
Real property vs. personal property
o Residential pay annual property tax
o Does real property means that the property is affixed to land? Uniform Law Commission
recently adopted a titling act for manufactured houses – they do not need to be affixed to the
land in order to be titled as real property.
o Need to examine if any other states have moved mobile homes into the real property category?
o What sorts of benefits/impacts would that shift cause?
Infrastructure Assistance
o This type of assistance would typically be in the form of a 0% interest loan due on resale
Notification and Relocation Assistance Strategies Discussion
Notification period
o Longer notification period is generally preferable to residents
o May be an issue to address at a statewide level, rather than locally (although Fort Collins as a
home rule city could probably adopt stricter requirements)
o Certain conditions could potentially be satisfied by the property owner to the reduce
notification period (e.g., relocation report, payment of relocation expenses, etc.)
Payment of relocation expenses
o Could the project explore some cost sharing options (e.g., public‐private arrangements)
o The City did pay for Bender relocation expenses, so some think that a precedent was set
o City should explore a potential fee, tax, or other source to build a relocation fund or more
general affordable housing fund
4
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Preservation and
Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Project
Affordable Housing Agencies and Advocates Meeting Notes
November 16, 2012 – 281 N. College Avenue
Preservation Strategies Discussion
Resident‐owned communities
o This would be difficult to organize but may be an opportunity for housing agencies/non‐profits
to become involved (none of the groups present volunteered for this role immediately, but are
open to exploring the idea long‐term)
Infrastructure Assistance
o This type of assistance would only be an incentive if it was provided as a grant; loan dollars
would come with other stipulations and would need to be paid back
Notification and Relocation Assistance Strategies Discussion
Notification period
o Could the length of the notification period be scaled based on the number of units involved
(e.g., a longer notification period for more homes)?
o Could there be a “buy down” option to reduce the notification period (e.g., the property owner
pays relocation costs or some other benefit to the residents in exchange for a reduced
notification period)?
o What sort of disclosures/notices are provided in typical mobile home community leases?
There is no typical lease, but some clause about potential sale of the land or notification
requirement would be valuable to put in all leases
The City of Longmont’s website has a helpful mobile home owners’ handbook, which
could be a useful model for Fort Collins
o Agencies are well aware of potential expiration of tax credits for other types of affordable
housing (non‐mobile homes) long before they expire and work to mitigate the impacts
Payment of relocation expenses
o Potential triggers for the payment of relocation costs could be requests for rezoning, public
assistance/funding, and/or development plans
o Abandonment of homes remains a huge issue for property owners and needs to be addressed in
any sort of relocation expense requirement
1
1
Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategies
March 26, 2013
City Council Public Hearing
2
Introductions
• City Staff:
– Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
– Joe Frank, Director of Social Sustainability
– Ken Waido, Chief Planner
• Consulting Team:
– Shelby Sommer, Clarion Associates (Fort
Collins)
ATTACHMENT 7
2
3
CITY PLAN IMPLENTENATION
NEAR-TERM IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIONS: 2011 AND 2012
• 24. Relocation Plan - Develop a
proactive plan to address the issue of
resident displacement due to
redevelopment activities.
CITY COUNCIL 2012 WORK PLAN:
• Develop an “Affordable Housing
Relocation Strategic Plan.”
4
Need for the Project
• This project was needed to define the City’s
role, responsibilities, and obligations in
dealing with mobile home park closures and
the displacement of low-income families.
– Grape Street
– Bender Mobile Home Park
• City involvement in previous closures:
– Ad-hoc, case-by-case basis
– Status quo is unacceptable
3
5
Affordable Housing
Relocation Displacement
Mitigation Strategies
The strategic plan provides:
• Options for affordable housing and
mobile home park preservation and
stabilization
• Options for displacement relocation
assistance requirements
6
Unit Comparison
Numbers Category
1,969
Units
4,800
Population
Designated Affordable
Rental Housing Units
In Multi-Family Apartment/Condo
Complexes
2,781
Units
6,800
Population
Mobile/Manufactured
Housing Units
Within the City Limits and
GMA Boundary
4
7
Relevant City Policies
City policies from City Plan and the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014:
• Recognize manufactured housing/mobile
homes as an important component of the
city’s housing stock.
• Encourage the preservation of affordable
housing units.
• Mitigate the relocation displacement impacts
upon residents due to redevelopment
activities.
8
Redevelopment Benefits
• Redevelopment has certain benefits,
including:
– Elimination of “blight,”
– Additional retail and service opportunities,
– New jobs/employment,
– Additional tax revenues.
• City Plan identifies Targeted Redevelopment
Areas on the Structure Plan map.
– Details are contained in adopted subarea
plans (e.g., North College Corridor Plan).
5
9
Reasons for MHP Closures
• There are two main reasons why mobile home
parks close:
1. The property is zoned for a different use (e.g.,
commercial zoning) and market pressures
increase the property value so the property is
sold for redevelopment purposes.
2. The park’s infrastructure ages and needs
major maintenance or complete replacement
and the cost to do so can not be supported by
lot rents as a mobile home park.
10
Preservation and
Stabilization Techniques
• Mobile Home Park Zoning District
• Fund Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement
• Resident Ownership of Mobile Home Parks
6
11
Relocation Assistance Strategies
• Increase the Time of the Notice of Closure
• Require a Relocation Report
• Require Payment of Relocation Costs
12
Public Involvement
• Three key stakeholder groups have been
identified and have been involved in the
project:
– mobile home park property-owners
– mobile home park residents (unit owners
and renters) and interested citizens
– affordable housing and human service
agencies
7
13
Public Involvement
• September 2012 - three stakeholder
informational meetings were conducted.
• November 2012 - a second set of stakeholder
meetings were held to provide a project
update and report on the results of the
October 23, 2012, City Council work session
• January 24, 2013 - an Open House was
conducted to present the Public Review Draft
of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment
Displacement Mitigation Strategy document.
14
Public Involvement
• City boards/commissions
– Affordable Housing Board
– Planning and Zoning Board
• Larimer County government
– Planning Department
– Environmental Health Department
• Project web page was established
– On-line survey
8
15
Implementation Actions
The strategic plan has developed
implementation actions grouped into either:
• Short-term actions, or
• Longer-term actions
Implementation actions are listed in three basic
categories:
• Actions the City can adopt unilaterally
• Actions that require coordination with Larimer
County
• Actions that require new state enabling
legislation
16
Recommendation #1
Continue to expand the inventory of “designated
affordable” dwelling units, buildings, and
complexes through current programs
administered by the Fort Collins Housing
Authority, other non-profit affordable housing
agencies, and private developers.
9
17
Recommendation #2
• Continue to offer relocation assistance to
those residents of affordable units
redeveloped with the use of federal, Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority (FCURA), or
other City funds, but do not extend a
requirement to pay relocation expenses in
private redevelopment projects that do not use
public funds and do not require a
discretionary land use decision by the City.
18
Recommendation #3
Draft a Manufactured Home Park Zoning
District and rezone into that district those
mobile home parks that are relatively large
and can serve as significant sources of
affordable housing for the long term.
10
19
Recommendation #4
Create a loan or grant program, or use the
existing financial assistance competitive
process, that would be available to finance
significant investments in new or existing
affordable housing infrastructure that would be
available to those larger mobile home parks
willing to commit to continuing operation of their
mobile home parks for a at least 10 years.
20
Recommendation #5
• Require a one (1) year notice of closure period
for mobile home parks (rather than the 6
month minimum notice required by the state).
As an alternative, allow a six (6) month closure
notice if the park owner delivers to each
resident on or before the notice date a detailed
Relocation Report listing all available mobile
home park spaces available within 25 miles,
providing the contact information….
11
21
Recommendation #6
• Require that redevelopment projects involving
City financial assistance or a discretionary
land use decision by the City pay (a) actual
costs of relocating owner occupied
mobile/manufactured homes to a new site
within a 25 mile radius of the mobile home
park, up to a maximum of $6,000 for a single-
wide home and $8,000 for a double-wide
home, and (b) the actual value (as determined
by the County Assessor) of any home that is
structurally able to be moved …
22
Recommendation #7
• Build the capacity of homeowner groups, non-
profit affordable housing providers, and
support organizations to purchase affordable
housing types, including mobile home parks,
offered for redevelopment and manage them
as long-term sources of affordable housing.
12
23
Significant Differences
• Recommendation #3 – Create a Mobile Home
Park Zoning District.
– Supported by the Affordable Housing Board
– Not supported by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
• Recommendation #6 – Require redevelopment
projects to pay displacement relocation costs.
– Supported by the Affordable Housing Board
– Not supported by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
24
Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Displacement
Mitigation Strategies
March 26, 2013
City Council Public Hearing
RESOLUTION 2013-027
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT DISPLACEMENT
MITIGATION STRATEGY, A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PRESERVING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, INCLUDING MOBILE HOME PARKS AND
OTHER TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHEREAS, City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, encourage the preservation of existing affordable
housing units, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the
community’s housing stock, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents displaced through the
closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities; and
WHEREAS, as part of its 2012 Work Plan, the City Council directed City staff to work on
a relocation plan for residents displaced by redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the purpose for the relocation plan was to define the City’s role, responsibilities,
and involvement in redevelopment projects that displace low income people from their homes,
especially mobile home parks, within the City or the City’s Growth Management Area, rather than
dealing with such situations on a case-by-case basis; and
WHEREAS, City staff, with the assistance of a consulting team, has developed the
Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy, dated March 2013, attached
and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” (the “Mitigation Strategy”); and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Strategy addressed displacement mitigation for people forced to
relocate due to redevelopment, but also presents options for preservation and stabilization to reduce
the likelihood of future displacement, including creation of a Manufactured Home Park Zoning
District; creation of a grant or loan program for funding improvements to mobile home park
infrastructure; and requiring a one-year notice of closure period for mobile home parks; and
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Board and the Planning and Zoning Board both held
public hearings to solicit comments on the Public Review Draft of the Mitigation Strategy, and those
Board’s recommended changes have been incorporated to the extent possible into the Mitigation
Strategy; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Strategy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that adoption of the Mitigation Strategy is in the best
interests of the citizens of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby approves and adopts the Affordable Housing Redevelopment
Displacement Mitigation Strategy dated March 26, 2013, attached as Exhibit A.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
26th day of March A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Brian Varrella
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating to Development in the
Poudre River Floodplain.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final component of the Stormwater Repurposing program is to review the level of regulation protecting life and
property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on March 18, 2013
by a vote of 5-1 (Nays: Ohlson), revises City Code to establish a “performance-based” criteria and regulation that
places more emphasis on life safety through advance warning and evacuation. An effective date of July 1, 2013 has
been established so that advance notice can be provided to property owners and applicants for development
submittals.
The Ordinance contains revised Code language to include an additional provision described in the staff presentation
on First Reading at the March 18, 2013 Council meeting. The provision states that an Emergency Response and
Preparedness Plan (ERPP) will not be required in situations where structures or portions of structures will be removed
from the 100-year floodplain and dryland access will be provided through the construction of new improvements
associated with a FEMA-approved Conditional Letter of Map Revision in advance of a Letter of Map Revision or
Physical Map Revision pursuant to §10-80(a)(1).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 18, 2013
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: March 18, 2013
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley,
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Brian Varrella
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating to Development in the
Poudre River Floodplain.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final component of the Stormwater Repurposing program is to review the level of regulation protecting life and
property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. Staff is recommending that Council adopt revisions to the City
Code that will establish a “performance-based” criteria and regulation that places more emphasis on life safety through
advance warning and evacuation.
The proposed Code language requires the development of a site-specific Emergency Response Preparedness Plan
(ERPP) for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within
the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. The ERPP requires that procedures be established for evacuation a minimum
of two hours in advance of when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation
routes. The Code language requires that the ERPP be reviewed and updated annually if there are substantive
changes to elements of the plan. In order to facilitate the implementation of this new Code language, staff has
developed the following documents:
1. A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation
of site-specific ERPP’s
2. A draft ERPP annual checklist form.
The Working Committee and North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) support the new approach and
recommend that the proposed revisions to the Poudre River floodplain regulations be presented to City Council for
adoption. The Water Board recommended approval of the proposed revisions as an enhancement to the existing
regulations, but encouraged Council consider prohibiting any new structures (i.e., development, redevelopment, etc.)
in the 100-Year Floodplain.
Staff recommends that an effective date of July 1, 2013 be established so that advance notice can be provided to
property owners and applicants for development submittals.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council requested a review of the Stormwater program in October 2008. Staff identified a list of issues to be
addressed that included a review of the Poudre River floodplain regulations. The review was to focus on whether
revisions were needed to better address foreseeable flooding risks to improve life safety and reduce property damage
using a sustainable approach that considers environmental, economic and social factors. The current regulations
focus almost exclusively on protecting new structures from flooding damage.
Evolution of Floodplain Regulation Revisions
The floodplain regulations have undergone thorough investigation and extensive public outreach over the last 2 ½
years. Floodplain regulation options have been presented and discussed previously at four Council work sessions,
four Water Board meetings and three Natural Resources Advisory Board meetings.
A Working Committee was created to provide public discussion on these revisions met eleven times with Stormwater
and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staff between January 2011 and June 2012. The objective was to research,
investigate and evaluate the potential development of an Adverse Impact Review (AIR) process and criteria. The
current regulations allow non-residential development within the 100-year flood fringe on the Poudre River that meets
specific criteria (i.e., freeboard, property use, etc.). Under these existing regulations, the potential flooding impacts
associated with such development are not analyzed. In addition, the group considered additional life safety and
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 6
property damage reduction criteria. The overarching goal was to establish criteria that balance the competing
economic, environmental, and public safety values of the Fort Collins community.
As a result of these efforts, and taking into account concerns expressed at Council work sessions regarding the
development of an implementable approach that addresses community values, the proposed revisions have evolved
over time.
Options presented to Council over this time include:
• No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative).
• The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway
• The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100-year floodplain.
• Adverse Impact Review (AIR).
The Working Committee and staff recommended to City Council that additional consideration be given to implementing
specific life safety and property damage criteria that will enhance and support the existing floodplain regulations.
At the work session in October 2011, Council directed staff to:
• Investigate a "scalable" AIR regulation that would require additional investigation for any development that
happens in areas with a higher potential impact to the flood elevations;
• Work with PFA for the development of specific code language;
• Examine a notification process similar to the Land Use Code with clarification of the associated legal issues
from the City Attorney's Office; and,
• Provide a consistent summary format for the various regulation comparison charts.
In 2012, Stormwater and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staff worked in combination with the Working Committee to
further evaluate the AIR process and develop specific life safety criteria. At its May 14, 2012 Working Committee
meeting, the general consensus was reached to discontinue the development of a scalable AIR regulation for the
Poudre River in consideration of:
• the future construction of the Poudre River Downtown Core Improvements and subsequent reduction in
potential development within the revised 100-year floodplain near College Avenue;
• the Link-N-Greens area will develop using a full CLOMR/ LOMR process that will include improvements and
enhancements to the Poudre River adjacent to the site;
• understanding that the Poudre River RiskMAP process will result in dramatically changed (corrected)
floodplain delineation, mapping and flood elevations;
• taking into account that the Floodway Surcharge Analysis identified primarily small floodway impacts to the
Poudre River section within the Mulberry Corridor; and,
• noting that the Mulberry Corridor is in the Growth Management Area (GMA) and not within the City Limits.
Floodplain Regulation Code Language Revisions
The current regulations allow non-residential development within the 100-year flood fringe on the Poudre River that
meets specific criteria (i.e., freeboard, property use, etc.). In addition, “dryland access” by elevating the access
roadways is a typical consideration to ensure the safe evacuation of properties, but only when feasible.
The final consensus of the Working Committee was that the Poudre River floodplain regulations should be revised
to improve life safety by requiring the preparation of site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans
(ERPPs) for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development
within the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. Staff from the City and PFA were tasked with developing the final code
language to incorporate proposed revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations into the City Code.
The current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-Year flood elevations reflect significant
flooding depths (i.e., 2 to 3 feet on Vine Drive east of College Avenue) on existing public arterials and collectors that
serve these areas. Requiring the construction of new emergency fire apparatus (access) roads to serve these
properties in times of flooding is not feasible as it will result in excessive grades and extended lengths of “elevated”
roadways that do not appropriately provide for improved life safety and emergency response.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -3- ITEM 6
At the February 4, 2013 Working Committee meeting, staff proposed the following revisions which create a
“performance-based” life safety regulation. Staff proposed that the Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan
(ERPP) require procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance of when flood waters
will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. This places the emphasis on life safety
through advance warning and evacuation instead of the costly and in many cases infeasible construction of “elevated”
emergency access roads. It also avoids potential adverse floodplain impacts resulting from embankments constructed
to elevate new access roads. The proposed Code language that reflects the elimination of the fire apparatus
(emergency access) road requirements and includes the revised ERPP provisions is shown in Attachment 1.
In order to demonstrate how the process would work, staff presented the following documents:
• A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation
of site-specific ERPP’s
• A sample ERPP for a property within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain situated along Vine Drive; and,
• A draft ERPP annual checklist form.
The Working Committee provided valuable feedback and comments on the updated approach as well as the draft
Code language and ERPP forms. The latest versions of the ERPP template and annual checklist form are included
as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively.
Effective Date
Staff recommends that an effective date of July 1, 2013 be established so that advance notice can be provided to
property owners and applicants for development submittals.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed approach of requiring Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs) places more emphasis
on life safety through advance warning and evacuation instead of the costly and in many cases infeasible construction
of “elevated” emergency access roads. This approach is also significantly less costly than the scalable AIR approach.
The requirement to prepare an ERPP is triggered by an addition, substantial improvement, change of occupancy,
redevelopment and/or new development within the Poudre River 100-Year floodplain. Anticipated costs include those
that are more easily estimated (initial preparation of the ERPP, annual review and update if conditions have changed)
and implementation measures such as signage and instructions, emergency preparedness kit, mandatory practice
drills, staff training, etc. which are more variable depending on the property location, type of structure, etc. The cost
estimates for the ERPP itself are:
• Initial Cost of ERPP Preparation $500 to $4,000 (Depends on complexity of site)
• Annual Cost (Monitoring / Notices) $0 to $1,000 (Depends on use of own staff or contract with a
meteorological consultant).
Given the typically significant project costs associated with any of the development actions that would trigger the
requirement to prepare the ERPP, the costs involved with the ERPP process are considered by staff and the Working
Committee as reasonable in order to improve life safety.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The existing Poudre River Floodplain Regulations provide protection to the Poudre River by restricting development
in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood fringe. Staff believes that the regulations in the Land Use
Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community and that any
additional code language in Chapter 10 of City Code (Flood Prevention and Protection) would be redundant and not
provide a measurable additional benefit.
When the Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review was first initiated, one of the key areas of concern was
protecting the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre River near the Link-N-Greens Golf Course as this was
the largest privately owned, undeveloped property along the Poudre River. The current floodplain regulations in
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -4- ITEM 6
combination with the Natural Resources Buffer regulations applied at the Link-N-Greens site are achieving the desired
outcomes that were discussed at the beginning of the Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review process. As part
of the planned Woodward development of Link-N-Greens, considerable amounts of previously placed fill are being
removed to lower the overbank to allow flows to spread out more frequently. This provides for reduced velocities and
improved water quality. Some of this excavated material will be used to elevate the buildings to protect the structures
from flood damage. An old meander bend is being recreated to allow the river to be more connected with the
floodplain. Extensive plantings of native species will create more ecologically diverse habitats. Bank stabilization work
will mitigate erosion problems along the stream banks. The river restoration work is being modeled to ensure that
there is no rise in 100-year flood elevations on nearby property owners. The floodplain maps will be revised through
the FEMA CLOMR and LOMR process to reflect the changes. This is clearly a success story of how the existing
floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and
improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
It is the recommendation of staff that the existing Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to incorporate the
proposed Code language introducing the requirement that a site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness
Plan (ERPP) be prepared, implemented and maintained for additions, substantial improvements, change of
occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-Year floodplain. The ERPP shall be reviewed
annually by the facility operator/owner and documentation shall be provided to the City during the first quarter of the
calendar year for plans requiring no changes (annual checklist form) and for plans requiring changes (new ERPP plus
annual checklist form).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Water Board
At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Water Board had an extensive discussion regarding the original options and the
Adverse Impact Review (AIR) approach. Several Boardmembers questioned whether the proposed ERPP process
significantly increases life safety if the regulations still allow non-residential development in the 100-Year Floodplain.
Staff noted that any new development, redevelopment, addition or substantial improvement is required by the
floodplain regulations to elevate new structures above the 100-Year Floodplain and to meet freeboard (additional 2
feet) requirements. This greatly reduces potential flooding of and damage to the new construction. The current
regulations, however, do not address emergency access to and evacuation of these structures for employees,
customers, vendors, etc. The intent of the ERPP process is to provide emergency response plans aimed at improving
life safety by encouraging evacuation of these structures in advance of potential flooding. Prohibiting any new
structures in the 100-Year floodplain was championed by some Boardmembers as providing an even higher standard
for life safety.
Concern was expressed that more emphasis should be placed on environmental considerations and protection of the
natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. Staff noted that the existing regulations provide protection to the Poudre
River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood fringe. Staff believes that
the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired
by this community and that any additional Code language in Chapter 10 of City Code (Flood Prevention and Protection)
is redundant and does not provide a measurable additional benefit. A key concern has been protecting the natural
and beneficial functions of the Poudre River near the Link-N-Greens property. Staff from Stormwater, Natural Areas,
and Parks have been actively involved in collaboration throughout the development review process. The proposed
Woodward development is clearly a success story of how the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources
buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the
floodplain.
The Water Board motion below was approved by a vote of 10 to 1::
“In order to mitigate life-safety hazards, the Water Board recommends that the existing Poudre River
floodplain regulations be revised to incorporate the proposed code language introducing the
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -5- ITEM 6
requirement that a site-specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan be prepared and
implemented for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or
new development within the 100-Year floodplain. The Water Board would further recommend that City
Council consider excluding new developments or structures within the 100-year floodplain.”
Attachment 4 contains an excerpt of the minutes from the February 21, 2013 Water Board meeting
Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)
At its February 20, 2013 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board had an extensive discussion regarding the
original options and NRAB’s previous recommendation that Council adopt the option prohibiting new structures in the
100-Year Floodplain. Staff noted that any new development, redevelopment, addition or substantial improvement is
required by the floodplain regulations to elevate new structures above the 100-Year Floodplain and to meet freeboard
(additional 2 feet) requirements. This greatly reduces potential flooding of and damage to the new construction. The
current regulations, however, do not address emergency access to and evacuation of these structures for employees,
customers, vendors, etc. The intent of the ERPP process is to provide emergency response plans aimed at improving
life safety by encouraging evacuation of these structures in advance of potential flooding.
NRAB members indicated that more emphasis should be placed on environmental considerations and protection of
the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. Stormwater staff noted that the existing regulations provide
protection to the Poudre River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood
fringe. Both Stormwater and Natural Areas staff stated that the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related
to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community. The proposed Woodward
Development of the Link-N-Greens site presented to NRAB earlier in the evening was referenced as an example of
how the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulations can work together to achieve property
protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain.
The NRAB chose not to provide a recommendation on the proposed draft Code language, citing the life safety focus
as being outside of its charter.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In 2012, Stormwater and PFA staff worked in combination with the Working Committee to further evaluate the AIR
process and develop specific life safety criteria. The Working Committee met five times in 2012 and recommended
that the development of a scalable AIR regulation be abandoned and that staff develop final Code language to limit
flood depths on new fire apparatus (emergency access) roads to six inches and require the preparation and
implementation of Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERRPs) for properties that pursue some type of
development or redevelopment.
Working Committee
At its February 4, 2013 meeting, the Working Committee concurred with the staff proposal to eliminate the six-inch
flood depth criteria for emergency access roads and instead modify the ERRP requirements to create a “performance-
based” life safety regulation requiring procedures be established for evacuation a minimum of two hours in advance
of when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. The Working
Committee Meeting minutes are provided in Attachment 5. In summary, the Working Committee’s recommendations
to Council are:
1. Discontinue the development of a scalable AIR regulation; and,
2. Adopt the proposed draft Code language that requires new construction, additions, substantial improvements,
redevelopment or change of occupancy of structures within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain to develop,
obtain approval of, and implement an Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan.
Chamber of Commerce
On February 8, 2013, the proposed Code language and accompanying ERRP process, template and annual checklist
were presented to the Chamber of Commerce. Attendees provided varied input and feedback on the process, but in
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 18, 2013 -6- ITEM 6
general expressed that the new approach was much preferable to the AIR process that had been under consideration
previously.
North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA)
On February 12, 2013, staff received an email (Attachment 6) from the North Fort Collins Business Association
(NFCBA) expressing appreciation for the work that has gone into the investigation of potential revisions to the Poudre
River Floodplain Regulations. The NFCBA is in support of the updated approach and identified some
concerns/questions to be addressed in finalizing the process:
1. Clarify the potential liability for businesses, individuals that submit ERPP plans;
2. Recommend that the City consider providing training on the ERPP process;
3. Increase clarity on who is responsible for the ERPP (i.e., building owner, tenant);
4. Provide better information on expected initial / annual costs;
5. Recommend the City develop/offer a grant program for ERPP costs; and,
6. Requested that Council finalize the FP regulation review.
Staff will address these issues in the finalization of the Code language and administrative procedures associated with
the ERPP process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Code Language (Chapter 10 – Flood Prevention and Protection)
2. Draft ERPP Template
3. Draft ERPP Annual Checklist Form
4. Water Board minutes, February 21, 2013
5. Working Committee Meeting Summary minutes, February 4, 2013
6. Email from NFCBA Board Secretary, February 12, 2013
7. Council Work Session Summary, October 25, 2011
8. Council Work Session Summary, February 22, 2011
9. Council Work Session Summary, January 11, 2011
10. Council Work Session Summary, August 24, 2010
11. Powerpoint presentation
ORDINANCE NO. 048, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN
WHEREAS, requirements and restrictions specific to development and related activities in
the Poudre River floodplain are set forth in Division 4 of Article II of Chapter 10 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, after thorough investigation, public outreach, and consideration of various
options and approaches, City staff has identified certain changes to the existing provisions regarding
the Poudre River floodplain in order to better address foreseeable flooding risks so as to improve life
safety through advance warning and evacuation measures; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the proposed revisions to the Natural Resources Advisory Board
(“NRAB”) at its regular meeting on February 20, 2013, and the NRAB discussed its prior
recommendation that the City Council revise the floodplain regulations to not allow any new
structures in the one-hundred-year floodplain of the Poudre River, but chose not to make a formal
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the proposed revisions to the Water Board (the “Board”) at its
regular meeting on February 21, 2013, and the Board voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed revisions, while also recommending that the City Council consider revising
the floodplain regulations to not allow any new structures in the one-hundred-year floodplain of the
Poudre River; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it would be in the best interests of the City to approve
the changes so as to better protect life safety in the Poudre River floodplain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 10-16 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of the following new definitions, to read in their entirety as follows:
Change of occupancy shall mean a change of occupancy as defined in Chapter 5, if
such change of occupancy results in an increase in the number of occupants..
Dry public road shall mean a public street at the intersection of a proposed driveway
or access road where the surface of the pavement is at an elevation above the base
flood elevation.
Emergency response and preparedness plan shall mean a plan, and related
preparations and systems, that are intended to provide both a reasonable measure of
preparedness for flooding and other emergencies that may occur in conjunction with
flooding, and a reasonable ability to respond to such circumstances so as to avoid and
minimize potential harm to persons or property, as described in §10-48.
Evacuation shall mean emergency egress to allow safe passage from a structure to
dry ground in the regulatory flood event.
Shelter-in-place shall mean onsite provision of refuge from floodwaters and related
hazards to allow continued occupation of a structure in the event that circumstances
preclude safe evacuation in the regulatory flood event or more frequent flood events.
Section 2. That Section 10-27(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit.
. . .
(c) The following information is also required for a floodplain use permit:
. . .
(4) Specifications for building construction and materials, filling, dredging,
grading, channel improvements and changes, storage of materials, water supply and
sanitary facilities;
(5) Detailed information documenting compliance with any specific requirements
applicable to the proposed development or activity pursuant to this Article; and
(6) An emergency response and preparedness plan, if required pursuant to this
Article, provided, however, that this requirement shall be considered a floodplain use
permit condition to be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, pursuant
to §10-27(g).
Section 3. That Section 10-27(e)(6) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit.
. . .
(e) When reviewing the application for a floodplain use permit, the Utilities
Executive Director shall determine which portions of any flood hazard areas are
affected by the particular development request and then shall apply the provisions of
this Article as applicable. The Utilities Executive Director also shall determine
-2-
whether the proposed construction or development is consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage and meets the intent of this Article after considering the
following factors:
. . .
(6) Whether the proposed use is for human occupancy, and, if so, the impacts to
human safety and the extent to which emergency response and preparedness and
other measures are required and have been assured in order to reduce safety risk;
. . .
Section 4. That Section 10-27(g) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit.
. . .
(g) If the Utilities Executive Director determines that the application meets the
purposes and requirements of this Article, he or she shall issue the permit and may
attach such conditions as he or she deems necessary to further the purposes of this
Article or to ensure compliance with the same. The Utilities Executive Director may
request that the City building official condition the release of a certificate of
occupancy or other final approval upon submission of final documentation of
compliance with conditions, as appropriate.
Section 5. That a new Section 10-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
added, to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 10-48. Emergency planning and preparedness.
For any structure or portion of structure required under this Article to submit an
emergency response and preparedness plan, the following emergency planning and
preparedness requirements shall apply:
(1) An emergency response and preparedness plan shall include the following,
together with such additional provisions as may be appropriate in light of the
particular circumstances associated with the structure or activity to which the plan
applies:
a. A flood risk assessment that, at a minimum, includes:
-3-
1. The source, flood frequency, expected duration, timing, and
depth of flood impacts that impact the structure, its occupants
or activity in the structure;
2. The expected impact on activities and operations;
3. Identification of persons potentially impacted; and
4. The impact of flooding on evacuation routes and emergency
vehicle access to the site.
b. A description of the method of receipt of flood warning;
c. Identification and assignment of personnel to implement the plan;
d. Procedures for notification of employees, customers, and other
building occupants, including:
1. Contact information;
2. Redundant methods of notification;
3. Safeguards to ensure all employees received the notification;
and
4. General content of the notices to be provided;
e. A description of procedures for both evacuation and shelter-in-place
of building occupants, including:
1. Method and responsibility for determination of appropriate
response, with evacuation generally considered the primary response,
and shelter-in-place is considered a secondary response;
2. Description of evacuation process, including:
a) Timing of opportunity to evacuate requiring a
minimum of two (2) hours of lead-time from when flood
waters would impact the site or any portion of the designated
evacuation routes;
b) Map and directions with evacuation routes including,
but not limited to, exits from occupied structures and from
occupied structures to a dry public road, specifically
identifying any approved fire apparatus access roads or other
emergency access routes;
c) Mode of evacuation – walking, car, and/or provided
transportation; and
d) Alternative routes for evacuation when preferred
routes are washed out or otherwise impassable;
3. A description of the shelter-in-place, including:
a) Description of safe on-site areas for shelter-in-place
occupation;
b) Development and maintenance of emergency
preparedness kit containing supplies for three days including
such items as food, water, blankets, flashlights, National
-4-
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration weather
radios, batteries; and
c) A communication plan for informing emergency
contacts of those sheltered-in-place;
f. Procedures for protecting the building from damage or hazardous
conditions, including:
1. Plan for shut down of utilities and equipment;
2. Relocation of computers, documents, or other important
resources or materials to higher areas; and
3. Required or other appropriate floodproofing measures;
g. A process for distribution and posting of plan and evacuation routes
and shelter-in-place instructions;
h. A description of mandatory training and practice drills, including:
1. Procedures for training all employees, including future new
employees;
2. Annual practice drills implementing the plan during the first
three months of each calendar year; and
3. Documentation of practice drills and identified areas for
improvement;
i. A description of post-flood recovery measures, including:
1. Procedures for notification to employees and, if applicable,
the public, of when it is safe to return; and
2. Site clean-up procedures; and
j. Designation of a person responsible for operation of the occupied
facility for which the plan is required, who shall be responsible to the City for
completion of the specific requirements set forth in this §10-48.
(2) Documentation of any required emergency response and preparedness plan
and of practice drills and related process improvements shall be maintained on file
and shall be available at the facility to which the plan pertains for inspection by the
Utilities Executive Director upon request.
(3) The person designated as responsible for any required emergency response
and preparedness plan under Subsection 10-48(1)(j) shall review the plan during the
first quarter of each calendar year, and shall submit documentation of each annual
review to the Utilities Executive Director on a form satisfactory to the Utilities
Executive Director during the first quarter of each calendar year.
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the requirements of this Section shall not
apply for any structure or portion of structure for which FEMA has approved a
-5-
Conditional LOMR providing for a LOMR or Physical Map Revision pursuant to
§10-80(a)(1) that:
a. removes such structure or portion of structure from the one-hundre-
year floodplain; and
b. provides at least one (1) designated dryland access and evacuation
route upon construction of the proposed improvements.
Section 46. That Section 10-71 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (10), to read as follows:
Sec. 10-71. Specific standards for development in Poudre River floodway.
. . .
(10) Emergency planning and preparedness. New construction, addition to, or
cumulative substantial improvement, redevelopment or change of occupancy of, any
nonresidential or mixed-use structure subject to this Section, other than an accessory
structure, shall be subject to the emergency planning and preparedness requirements
of §10-48.
Section 67. That Section 10-76 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (9), to read as follows:
Sec. 10-76. Specific standards for nonresidential development in Poudre
River flood fringe.
. . .
(9) Emergency planning and preparedness. New construction, addition to, or
cumulative substantial improvement, redevelopment or change of occupancy of, any
structure subject to this Section, other than an accessory structure, shall be subject to
the emergency planning and preparedness requirements of §10-48.
Section 78. That Section 10-77 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a new subsection (8), to read as follows:
Sec. 10-77. Specific standards for mixed-use development in Poudre River
flood fringe.
. . .
(8) Emergency planning and preparedness. New construction, addition to, or
cumulative substantial improvement, redevelopment or change of occupancy of, any
structure subject to this Section, other than an accessory structure, shall be subject to
the emergency planning and preparedness requirements of §10-48.
-6-
Section 89. That this Ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 2013.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
March, A.D. 2013, and to `be presented for final passage on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of March, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-7-
DATE: March 26, 2013
STAFF: Peter Barnes
Courtney Levingston
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-028 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the of the Decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board to Approve Sign Modifications for the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board approved three modification of standards requests pertaining
to two electronic message center ground signs proposed to be located along the South College Avenue frontage of
the Foothills Mall Redevelopment project. On February 21, 2013, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson filed a Notice of Appeal
with the City Clerk, appealing the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the three modifications.
On March 19, 2013, City Council took the following actions:
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, the Appellant, withdrew his appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to
grant a modification to allow two electronic message center signs to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total
area of the sign face (Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(d) of the Land Use Code).
2. By a vote of 5 - 0, the City Council upheld the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to grant a modification
to allow two electronic message center signs along the South College Avenue frontage of the development
(Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(h) of the Land Use Code).
3. With regard to the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to grant a modification to allow two electronic
message center signs to display messages in full color, the City Council, by a vote of 3 – 2 (Nays: Troxell,
Kottwitz), determined that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code, the unique hardship standard in particular, and that the Board erred in its
determination that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. This vote
resulted in the City Council overturning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to allow full color
message displays.
4. The City Council modified the approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment
Project Development Plan by adding a new condition to that approval which requires that electronic message
center signs must comply with the manner of display required by Section 3.8.7(M)4)(c).
In order to finalize this appeal process, Council is required to adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing
its decision on the Appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson’s Notice of Appeal did not contain any specific grounds for the appeal but did include a general
description of the issues to be considered on appeal. The issues centered on the Planning and Zoning Board’s
approval of modification requests to:
1. Section 3.8.4(M)(4)(c) - Allow two electronic message center signs (a.k.a. digital signs) to display messages
in full color rather than in one color;
2. Section 3.8.4(M)(4)(d) - Allow the size of two electronic message center signs to exceed fifty (50%) of the total
area of the sign face. Specifically, allow the size of each of the two signs to be sixty-four percent (64%) of the
total area of the sign.
3. Section 3.8.4(M)(4)(h) - Allow more than one electronic message center signs along the South College
Avenue frontage of the development. Specifically, allow two such signs along the frontage, with the signs
separated by a distance of 1164 feet.
March 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 12
At the March 19, 2013 hearing on the matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the applicant, the
appellant, and other parties in interest. After consideration of the record and discussion, City Council took the actions
described above in the Executive Summary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2013-028
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
THE APPEAL OF THE OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
TO APPROVE SIGN MODIFICATIONS FOR THE FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) approved
sign modifications the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2013, a Notice of Appeal of the Board’s decision regarding
three of the sign modifications approved by the Board was filed with the City Clerk by Mayor Pro
Tem Kelly Ohlson, as a party-in-interest under Section 2-46 of the City Code (the “Appellant”); and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on
appeal, AND heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties in interest; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant withdrew the appeal of one of the modifications during the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, after discussion, the City Council upheld one decision and overturned one
decision of the Board and modified the Board’s approval of the Foothills Mall Project Development
Plan accordingly; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-56(e) provides that no later than the date of its next regular
meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in
support of its decision on the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that, pursuant to City Code Section 2-56(e), the Council hereby makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions:
1. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal conforms to the requirements of Section 2-48
of the City Code.
2. The Appellant withdrew his appeal of the modification granted by the Board
pertaining to Section 3.8.4(M)(4)(d) which modification allowed the size of two
electronic message center signs to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total area
of the sign face by specifically allowing the size of each of the two signs to be
sixty-four percent (64%) of the total area of the respective sign face.
3. The Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the Land Use Code in
granting the modification of standards regarding Section 3.8.4(M)(4)(h) which
allowed more than one electronic message center sign along the South College
Avenue frontage of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project, and more
specifically allowed two such signs along said frontage with the signs separated
by a distance of 1,164 feet, and, accordingly, the decision of the Board with
regard to that modification is upheld.
4. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Land Use Code with regard
to its granting of a modification of standards regarding Section 3.8.4(M)(c)
when it allowed two electronic message center signs along College Avenue to
display messages in full color rather than in one color as is required by the Code.
The Council determines that the granting of this modification was detrimental
to the public good and was not supported by a legitimate hardship under Section
2.8.2(H)(3) of the Land Use Code and, accordingly, the Board’s approval of said
modification is overturned.
5. Since the City Council has overturned the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to grant the modification of standards pertaining to Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(c)
of the Land Use Code, the City Council hereby modifies the approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project
Development Plan by adding a new condition to that approval which requires
that electronic message center signs must comply with the manner of display
required by Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(c) of the Land Use Code.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
26th day of March A.D. 2013.
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-Chairperson City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Review:
• Executive Director’s Review of Agenda.
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals who wish to address the Board on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first
be recognized by the Chairperson or Vice Chair. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the
back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow.
The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there
are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Chairperson may reduce the time allowed for each
individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to Secretary
March 27, 2013
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Chairperson and Commissioners to follow-up on issues raised during
Citizen Participation.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Chairperson introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Chairperson requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Board questions of staff on the item
! Board motion on the item
! Board discussion
! Final Board comments
! Board vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Chairperson, to
ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the
room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz
again at the end of the speaker’s time.
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 15 and February 28, 2013 Urban Renewal
Authority Meeting.
7. Resolution No. 052 Approving a Redevelopment Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority and Breckenridge Group Fort Collins Colorado for the Aspen Heights Project. (staff: Bruce
Hendee, Josh Birks, Megan Bolin; 15 minute staff presentation; 90 minute discussion)
This Resolution would adopt a Redevelopment Agreement between Breckenridge Land Acquisition,
LP (Developer) and the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) for Aspen Heights, a 220-unit
student-oriented housing development in the North College Urban Renewal Plan area. The
Developer requests $792,166 in tax increment financing to construct off-site street improvements.
The total project cost is $46.5 million and is estimated to generate $174,641 in annual tax increment
revenue.
8. Resolution No. 053 Adopting Revised Policies and Procedures for the Urban Renewal Authority.
(staff: Tom Leeson, Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
As a follow up to the February 28, 2013 URA Board work session, this Resolution amends the
adopted 2012 URA Policies and Procedures. As an alternative to required participation in IDAP, the
amended Policies require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system to set energy targets for new buildings and major renovations. Additionally, in an effort to meet
the City of Fort Collins established goal of diverting 50% of the community waste from landfills, the
amended Policies also requires URA funded projects to demonstrate that at least 50% of the waste
materials by weight (excluding waste containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous material)
generated by a construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through waste
management options, such as reuse or recycling. The Resolution also delegates the authority to
March 27, 2013
approve Administrative Procedures with the Executive Director, and includes some minor language
changes for clarification purposes.
9 Other Business.
10. Adjournment.
by the County Assessor)
that cannot be moved due
to structural weakness or
poor condition.
• Should apply to all
applications for
redevelopment
regardless of city
financial involvement
or land use decision
Do not include.
Not the most effective
way to promote
affordable housing, may
subsidize substandard
housing, and
inappropriately shifts
cost burdens to mobile
home park owners.
Instead recommend
impact fee or TIF to help
cover cost of relocation
or development of
affordable housing.
Recommended
Strategy
remains in City
Council
document.
7. Build the capacity of homeowner
groups, non-profit affordable
housing providers, and support
organizations to purchase mobile
home parks offered for
redevelopment and manage
them as long-term sources of
affordable housing.
No change Recommend revised
text:
“Build the capacity of
homeowner groups,
non-profit affordable
housing providers, and
support organizations to
purchase affordable
housing types, including
PZ Board
revised text
included in City
Council
document
to continuing operation
of their mobile home
parks for a at least 10
years.
PZ Board
revised text
included in City
Council
document
5. Require a one (1) year notice of
closure period for mobile home
parks (rather than the 6 month
minimum notice required by
Colorado law). However, as an
alternative, the City could offer to
allow a six (6) month closure
notice if the park owner delivers
to each resident on or before the
notice date a detailed Relocation
Report listing all available mobile
home park spaces available
within 25 miles, providing the
contact information for each of
those park owners, and including
documented estimates of the
costs of moving
mobile/manufactured homes to
those locations. In addition, the
ordinance should provide an
incentive for the park owner to
assist in relocation by providing
that park may be closed before
the mandatory one year notice
Recommend substitute
text to ensure adequate
notice of potential earlier
closing
“Require a one year notice
of closure period for
mobile home parks (rather
than the 6 month minimum
notice required by the
state). As an alternative,
the City could offer to allow
a six (6) month closure
notice if the park owner
delivers to each resident
on or before the notice
date a detailed Relocation
Report listing all available
mobile home spaces
available within 25 miles,
providing the contact
information for each of
those park owners, and
including documented
estimates of the costs of
No change AHB revised
text included in
City Council
document
schedule. Max. of
1.25” per week. No
watering on Monday
and between the
hours of 10 a.m. and
6 p.m.
Permit required for a
special watering
schedule. Max. of
1.00” per week. No
watering on Monday
and between the
hours of 10 a.m. and
6 p.m.
Permit required for a
special watering
schedule for only
select fields. Max.
of 0.75” per week.
No watering on
Monday and
between the hours of
10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
No exceptions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 10. That item number 9, “Water Fountains” on page 3 of the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan attached to Ordinance No. 048, 2003, as Exhibit “A,” is hereby amended to
be entitled “Water features,” and to read as follows.