HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/02/2013 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JDATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 4 and June 18, 2013 Regular Meetings and the June 11, 2013
Adjourned Meeting.
June 4, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by
the following Councilmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Chris Eikenberg, formerly of 1245 East Lincoln, discussed the fire at Buffalo Run Apartments and
expressed concern regarding management of the complex. She stated all apartments should be
required to have a fire extinguisher on site and requested Council pass legislation related to “slum”
landlords.
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, expressed concern regarding management at Bull Run
Apartments and expressed concern regarding upcoming changes to Dial-a-Ride services.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the affordability of the junk bonds for the
Foothills Mall project.
Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, thanked staff and Council for work on the hydraulic
fracturing issue and stated Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins has set forth a proposal to place a
moratorium on fracking for five years.
Kelly Giddens, Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins campaign organizer, stated the citizens of Fort
Collins should be able to make a decision regarding fracking and suggested a five year moratorium
would allow time to garner information from health studies.
Cindy Peck, 212 West Myrtle owner, expressed concern regarding parking requirements for rental
properties.
125
June 4, 2013
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional information regarding the property management
company at Buffalo Run and Bull Run Apartments. City Manager Atteberry replied staff will meet
with Ms. Eikenberg and Ms. Armendariz.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the bond funding for the Foothills Mall project was the best possible
deal.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2013 Regular Meeting and the
May 14, 2013 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep
Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is a request for
an appropriation of $33,000 to support the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program
from prior years in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund (KFCG). The Landmark Rehabilitation
Loan Program is a highly successful financial incentive program for encouraging the
sustainable revitalization of historic residential and commercial structures. The Program
was funded with Keep Fort Collins Great funds in the amount of $25,000 each year for 2013-
2014. However, this year alone, the popular program received over $65,000 in loan funding
requests from 12 applicants for 24 projects costing over $206,200 in materials and services.
Without Rehabilitation Loan Program funding, many of these projects could not proceed.
The request is for the use of KFCG Other Community Priority prior year reserves created
by the 2012 unspent Design Assistance Program (DAP) budget. Both the Loan Program and
the DAP were funded in 2012 from KFCG - Other Community Priorities. These two
incentive programs are closely linked sub-programs of the Historic Preservation Program,
and provide a continuum of financial support for qualified historic preservation projects.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so
as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil
Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, changes City Code
Section 4-196 from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. On February 19, 2013,
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 021, 2013, amending Chapter 4 of the City Code
decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals. This change was
intended to include all animal offenses that constitute neighborhood nuisances. After further
deliberation, Animal Control recommends keeping the section pertaining to interference with
an animal control officer as a criminal misdemeanor. Staff recommends changing this Code
section from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor.
126
June 4, 2013
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code
Related to the Service of a Civil Citation.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is an effort to
correct an inadvertent change that occurred with a previous Code change. This amendment
will provide the ability for a civil citation to be issued immediately for repeated civil
infractions. This will apply to a second or subsequent violation within a twelve (12) month
period for the same violation. This process already applies for Land Use Code Section
3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits, so this change would make the process consistent for
civil infractions. Additionally, this Code change specifies that a civil citation may be issued
immediately for animal code violations.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the
City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, makes two minor
changes to the Code provisions relating to Municipal Court Referees. First, it removes the
residency requirement for such Referees from Section 19-36 so that the Assistant Municipal
Judge, who lives outside the City limits, can serve as a back-up Referee, especially on
animal infraction cases. Second, it revises Section 19-41 so that all Referees have the same
authority to reduce or waive penalties and assessments when appropriate. It removes the
previous distinction between the authority of the Parking Referee and the Civil Infraction
Referee, which was creating some confusion.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable
Permits to Non-City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, eliminates the
requirement that a non-City utility provider apply for a permit to continue providing electric
service to properties annexed into the city. A revocable permit would automatically be
granted at annexation and revoked upon transfer of service.
The second proposed Code change would allow the Utilities Executive Director to adopt
minor technical revisions that clarify an existing standard or improve conformity toward best
engineering practices.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize
Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection
Project Standards.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, grants the Utilities
Executive Director authority to approve temporary exemptions or technical modifications
to the City’s various electric utility regulations for the purpose of supporting City-managed
special pilot projects, equipment testing or research partnerships.
This authority will not be extended to allow exemptions of such regulations and standards
to ongoing operations or services provided to Utility customers not participating in testing
or research projects.
127
June 4, 2013
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project
Located on the Woodward Property.
Council approved the Woodward incentive package in April 2013. As a part of that
agreement, Woodward agreed to advance funds to support the relocation of the Platte River
Power Authority (PRPA) Transmission Line. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on May 21, 2013, appropriates $1,297,080 from the General Fund Reserves for the
relocation of the PRPA transmission line. Immediate appropriation is needed to allow the
transmission line relocation to move forward so that Woodward's building site plans may
remain on schedule. Delay in authorizing the appropriation may necessitate the need for
PRPA to construct and remove a temporary transmission line as well as design and construct
the relocated permanent transmission line. This effort would require that PRPA incur
additional costs.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste Innovation
Program.
This Ordinance shifts $135,560 that has accumulated in the Waste Innovation Program’s
reserve account into the City’s General Fund account so that the money can be used for the
purposes intended. Revenues are paid into the Waste Innovation Program by City
departments that “self haul” trash from municipal operations for disposal in the Larimer
County Landfill. The fund is designated to pay for projects that enhance these same
departments’ ability to divert more waste away from the landfill. Unspent funds from
several previous years had been moved into a “reserve” account; this action moves the funds
back into the General Fund.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into
the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the
Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project
for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
The Stormwater Utility has received a grant from the State of Colorado totaling $17,881.
The grant funds will be used to enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the
increased risk of flooding caused by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used
for the match of $5,960.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the
Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The City will use a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
(Soapstone Prairie) as match towards the grant, as well as management funds currently
obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent
as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will
expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) research and monitoring work
to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds
128
June 4, 2013
that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority
species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico.
This will be the fifth such match authorized as the City, in partnership with RMBO, has been
successful on four previous grant applications. The previous partnership efforts have resulted
in a broader understanding of the grasslands bird species that nest on Soapstone Prairie and
the contiguous Meadow Springs Ranch, and has contributed to the conservation of these
species’ winter ranges in Mexico.
17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments
to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining
to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both
Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential
developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land
to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to
require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee
amounts by 11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district
receives by 6.9 percent. The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected
because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed
and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will
not be adjusting fees in 2013.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer
on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm
Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel
within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge
are Larimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased
by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of
the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency
has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current
leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases
with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals
process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more contemporary language.
Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel will continue at the
same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native grasslands by the
end of the lease term of five years.
19. Resolution 2013-051 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed
Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District
Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2012 from the Poudre Valley Fire
129
June 4, 2013
Protection District (the “District”) in accordance with state law. The properties will continue
to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep
Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so
as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil
Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code
Related to the Service of a Civil Citation.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the
City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable
Permits to Non-City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize
Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection
Project Standards.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project
Located on the Woodward Property.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into Standard Power Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic System Owners
for up to 20 Years.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste Innovation
Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into
the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the
Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project
for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
130
June 4, 2013
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the
Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments
to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining
to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer
on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements,
a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and
City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River District Block One
Mixed Use Development.
Councilmember Overbeck withdrew Item No. 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013
Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge
Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 17, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained
in Such Agreement, from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items not
withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Horak, Troxell,
Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Rick Richter, City Engineer, discussed highlights of the Mason Street Corridor MAX project. He
noted the Prospect Road closure was not as long as expected and discussed the schedule for station
construction and upcoming closures.
Mark Jackson, Planning, Development, and Transportation Deputy Director, reported on a VIP
reception held on April 25th, that provided tours and updates regarding the MAX project.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the frequency of east-west road closures. Richter replied the closures
along Mason are primarily at the railroad and arterial crossings and are related to utility installation.
The Harmony Road closure was not related to this project, but rather to some safety improvements
that were needed for the railroad crossing.
131
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the configuration of the railroad ballasts. Richter replied the
railroad’s preference is to have the ballasts level with the ties, which will ultimately occur.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a status report regarding the project’s budget. Richter replied the
project is tracking very close to the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested information regarding the bridge to Whole Foods. Richter replied
construction on that overpass will begin within a few weeks, with a bridge being set in September.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on the strategic planning process at Poudre Fire Authority, which
will include planning regarding ambulance service. He also reported on the Platte River Power
Authority strategic planning process and stated preliminary estimates will place a rate increase in
2014 at less than 3%.
Ordinance No. 080, 2013
Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication
and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre
School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a
school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for
development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is
authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts by
11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district receives by 6.9 percent.
The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land
values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School
Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In April 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Thompson and Poudre School Districts entered into
Intergovernmental Agreements regarding land dedication for new developments, including a
provision for fees-in-lieu of land dedication. Poudre School District has asked that the amount of
the fees be increased to reflect the current cost of acquiring school sites. Thompson School District
has not requested a change.
The City’s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Poudre School District allows for periodic
updates to the fees and land dedication requirements. Since adoption of the IGA, fees have been
adjusted in 2001, 2006, and 2011.
132
June 4, 2013
Fees are based on a number of factors including school site size, student population projections,
enrollment capacities of each type of school (elementary, junior high and high schools), and the cost
of developed land within the school district. Site sizes and enrollment capacities are set by School
District policy.
School Districts in Colorado are allowed by State law to either require school site dedications from
residential developers or collect a fee-in-lieu of such land dedication. The calculation of this fee
must be closely tied to the cost of land to be dedicated, as well as the factors listed above.
This fee increase is at the request of PSD and is based on a land value analysis performed for the
District in late 2012 (Attachment 2).
The effect of the proposed change in per dwelling unit costs would be as follows:
Poudre School District
Fee per dwelling unit:Current FeeRevised Fee
1-4 attached dwelling units $1,600 $1,710
5 or more attached dwelling units $ 800 $ 855
The Intergovernmental Agreement requires that the City conduct a public hearing prior to any
changes in the fee or land requirement. The Poudre School District Board has reviewed its
methodology for this program and requested that the City Council approve this revision. The
detailed methodology for calculating the fees are provided in Exhibits A and B of the Ordinance.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed Ordinance will not have a financial impact on the City of Fort Collins because the
fees are collected on behalf of Poudre School District. Revenues from the fees will pass through
City accounts and will not affect City revenue limits under Article X, Section 20.
This Ordinance implements a fee increase requested by Poudre School District. The increased fee
will raise the cost of residential development in the community collected at the time of building
permit by $110 per single family unit Multi-family unit fees (over 5 units) are increased by $55 per
dwelling unit. This is a 6.9% increase.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This action was reviewed and approved at the February 26, 2013 Poudre School District Board
Meeting.”
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern regarding the methodology used by Poudre School
District and asked whether any further consideration has been given to asking the state legislature
for additional enabling legislation to allow for brick and mortar to be covered with development fees
as well. Ed Holder, Poudre School District, replied the rates are based on three factors, which
include student yield, school site size, and the residential land values. Those values have been
133
June 4, 2013
reassessed every two years based on Larimer County’s assessments and the school site size has
dropped.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about legislation for building construction. Mr. Holder replied there
is a potential for marijuana tax funding of school construction, but he is unaware of any other
proposals.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested these fees should be prorated to allow for true
infill and redevelopment.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if Poudre School District currently has a level fee structure across
the district. Mr. Holder replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Campana agreed with Mr. Sutherland that impact fees should be evaluated for infill
projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if there is a City–Poudre School District committee. Mr. Holder
replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested this item be discussed annually at that
committee.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Troxell,
Poppaw, Campana and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 081, 2013
Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space,
Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm Open
Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel within Coyote
Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge are Larimer County and
the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat
production and have been since the time of purchase of the properties by the Cities and County.
Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency has management authority and receives the
lease revenues for each property. As current leases expire on the properties, all three entities have
worked collaboratively to create leases with similar terms and have advertised the properties for
lease via one Request for Proposals process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more
contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel
will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native
grasslands by the end of the lease term of five years.
134
June 4, 2013
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1997, the 479-acre Long View Farm Open Space was purchased by Larimer County, the City of
Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with an ownership split of 50%, 33%, and 17%, respectively.
At the time of acquisition, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was also drafted. Per the terms
of the IGA, the County manages the property and administers the agricultural lease, and receives
all rental income from the property.
In 2000, the 785-acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area was acquired from Harry Sauer by Loveland
(75% ownership) and Fort Collins (25% ownership). Per the terms of the IGA, Loveland manages
the property and the agricultural lease, and receives all rental income from the property.
In 1997, Fort Collins acquired the 973-acre McKee Farm parcel of Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Fort Collins owns and manages the property entirely with no shared ownership or management with
other entities.
Mr. Sauer farmed all three properties prior to City and County ownership, and has continued
farming under the existing leases that are set to expire in 2013.
RFP Process
In the fall of 2011, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was conducted by Fort Collins for dryland farming
leases on all three properties. Mr. Sauer’s proposal was selected. The new agricultural lease
reflects the terms and conditions outlined in the proposal. Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer
County worked together to draft leases for each Property that are nearly identical in terms with
several minor exceptions. The lease rate and the large majority of terms for all three leases are the
same. These consistent lease terms will allow consistency and ease of management across the three
adjacent properties and provide Mr. Sauer with essentially one set of lease terms to adhere to.
Lease Terms
Mr. Sauer will lease Long View, Prairie Ridge, and McKee for a period of five (5) years beginning
August 1, 2013 and expiring no later than July 31, 2018.
The lease rate will be $20/acre of farmed land annually for each property. Mr. Sauer will receive
100% of the Crop Flexibility payments from the Farm Service Agency, and is responsible for any
and all costs associated with crop production, insect control and noxious weed control. In addition,
the lease terms have been updated to a more contemporary format with more preferable terms.
Restoration
Over the past five years, Fort Collins has restored approximately 50 acres of farmland annually to
native grasslands on McKee. Currently, Fort Collins plans to continue restoration efforts on McKee
at the same pace; approximately 50 acres of farmable acreage will remain on the property by the
end of this lease term, which will be restored the following year. The McKee lease details this
restoration and Mr. Sauer will work cooperatively with Fort Collins to farm the remaining portion
of the property.
135
June 4, 2013
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rent payments from Long View and Prairie Ridge will be retained by Larimer County and
Loveland, respectively, per the respective IGAs. The McKee lease rate is roughly double the
previous rate, and Mr. Sauer will be responsible for all management on the lease area of the
property. The City will receive all rental income from the McKee property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no significant environmental impacts to Fort Collins. The properties’ land use will not
change and existing farming practices and restoration efforts will continue unchanged.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 8, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend that City Council approve three leases with Harry Sauer to farm dryland winter wheat
on portions of Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.”
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the price per acre figure for the lease and requested
information regarding a GMO policy, the contemporary lease terms and the mineral rights owner.
Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner, replied the lease price was decided
based on a request for proposal, and Mr. Sauer was the high bid in this case. Additionally, the rates
are in line with typical custom rates for dryland farms in Colorado and this lease places the cost of
weed control solely on Mr. Sauer. He stated there is currently no GMO policy as there are no wheat
crops which are pesticide-resistant. Figgs replied oil and gas rights are held by the City and no
surface entry is allowed for any ore collection.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the restoration schedule for the properties. Figgs replied
restoration began about five years ago and approximately 50 acres per year are converted from
cropland to native grass. Larimer County and Loveland are not restoring their properties at this
time.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance
No. 081, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if the Legislative Committee has discussed GMO information provided
by Food and Water Watch. Councilmember Troxell replied it has not been discussed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Campana, Horak, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
136
June 4, 2013
Ordinance No. 075, 2013,
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into Standard Power
Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic
System Owners for up to 20 Years, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages the installation of new
local solar systems on behalf of all Utilities customers in support of Fort Collins renewable energy
commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The basis of the FCSP3 is a
fixed-price, 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Fort Collins Utilities and
photovoltaic system owners for solar energy generation. Program funding was approved through
the budget process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is
necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements.”
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager, provided a brief description of the program and stated
citizen comments were addressed via a Service Area Request following First Reading.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated there is a Charter provision which prohibits paying for
experimentation with rate payer dollars without a vote of Council. He supported this Ordinance.
Councilmember Poppaw requested information as to what occurs at the end of the 20-year
agreement. Norm Weaver, Senior Energy Services Engineer, replied several close-out options are
available, including contract extensions and a switch to net metering by the solar client. He stated
there is a notion that renewable energy credits (RECs) do retire after a certain amount of time.
Phelan replied the RECs are generated as the energy is generated and delivered on an annual basis.
The 20-year term is standard in the industry to create a clear financial structure to enable the initial
capitalization of the projects.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 075, 2013, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak supported the Ordinance.
Councilmember Troxell supported distributed generation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Campana, Horak, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
137
June 4, 2013
Resolution 2013-052
Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal
of the March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the
Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for
the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. On April 4, 2013, a Notice of Appeal
was filed by Joel Rovnak seeking to remand the decision back to the Planning and Zoning Board.
On May 21, 2013, City Council voted 5 - 0 (Poppaw absent, Campana withdrawn) upholding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate
the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council is required to adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was based on allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence contained in the Traffic Impact Study
which was substantially false and grossly misleading.
At the May 21, 2013 appeal hearing, Council considered the testimony of the Appellant, Applicant
and City staff. After consideration of the record and discussion, Council determined that Planning
and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Council upheld the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board, approving the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development
Plan.”
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of this item as she did not participate in the
appeal hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution
2013-052. Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Horak, Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 083, 2013,
Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
138
June 4, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of the property, Gino Campana of Johnson Farm LLC, is initiating this request for Fort
Collins Landmark designation for the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standards
1, 2, and 3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its
architectural significance to Fort Collins.
The Johnson Farm is significant under Standard One (1) for its association with agricultural
contexts in Fort Collins since the late nineteenth century, including the open range cattle industry,
farming and ranching, and sheep raising.
The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several
prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley,
Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnsons first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established
multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnsons thrived in farming and
stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in
the city as President of the Water Supply and Storage Company and Mayor from 1963 to 1967.
Furthermore, the property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses,
built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples of vernacular agricultural architecture.
Also, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city’s few remaining examples of
a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access
to forage stored in the barn.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Recognition of the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark
enables its owner to qualify for federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only
to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the
property would see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this
increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that
designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark;
and the assurance of predictability that design review offers.”
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At a public hearing held on April 10, 2013, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted
unanimously 8-0 to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standards 1, 2, and
3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its architectural
significance to Fort Collins. “
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner, showed slides of the property.
139
June 4, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 083, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell commended the written history of the property.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s
April 18, 2013 Decision to Approve the Max Flats, Project Development Plan,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld, With Modifications
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the
application for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to
demolish the existing King’s Auto building at 203 West Mulberry Street and construct a 63,900
square-foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square-feet of
ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line at the Mulberry Station in
the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the Community Commercial (CC) Zone
District. The project requested four modifications of standards, as follows: (a) a reduction in
parking lot landscaping; (b) the ability to provide off-site bike parking; (c) a reduction for parking
lot setback from five feet to four feet two inches; and (d) an increased percentage of compact
parking spaces.
On May 2, 2013, Bruce Froseth (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code,
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false
and grossly misleading, and substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when
approving the Project Development Plan application.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under the appeals procedure contained in the Municipal Code, the appeal is required to be
considered upon the record on appeal, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds
for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and the arguments made by parties-in-interest at the hearing
on the appeal, provided the arguments raised by parties-in-interest were raised in the notice of
appeal.
The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties-
in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. Staff is prepared
to answer questions regarding the allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers.
140
June 4, 2013
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
After testimony from the Applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, the Planning and
Zoning Board voted 4 – 0 to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan application.
In support of its motion to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the
findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 9 of the staff report.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this project was required to be
reviewed as a type 2.”
The Appellant states, “staff provided information to the board concerning why the hearing was held
so soon after the required neighborhood meeting. Staff responded that this project was, ‘caught in
the middle’, of a change in the L.U.C. This is not correct. This project in fact, was required to go
through a type 2 review process from the beginning of the development submittal.”
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got
caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan
and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made
a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing
review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact
that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion that we
had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded
ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a
definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on
the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The
developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on
the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the
time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through
Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of
things about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught
sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.” (Page
16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process
question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two
different systems really, and I think that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been
141
June 4, 2013
explained well as to why it happened and going forward, the improvement for the community is that
a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the
right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. At the hearing “elevations in their entirety were not shown.”
The Appellant states, “Only sections or portions of elevations were shown. A limited visual image
in the form of a tree-framed perspective depicting a foreshortened view of the major façade was
featured and left on the screen. The true representation of mass and scale of the project remains
elusive. The presentation appeared to be misleading and avoided depiction of the reality of the
project.”
The neighborhood meeting was held on April 10, 2013. The Applicant submitted a revised version
of the building elevations prior to the public hearing on April 16, 2013, as shown in the Power Point
presentation to Planning and Zoning Board (Attachment 4: Materials submitted to Planning and
Zoning Board at the Hearing). The revised plans show a fifth floor setback on the west side and a
change in material from metal panel to brick.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the manner in which images were presented.
Building elevations were displayed during staff presentation and provided in the staff report
(Attachment 1 – PDP Plan Set).
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly substantially
ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan
application?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get comments to the board and
indeed were unaware and uninformed by staff that the work session was planned to review
this project at all or specifically was taking place the next day.”
The Appellant states, “Neighborhood comments should have been delivered to the P & Z Board at
that work session where the developer was present and had the opportunity to observe.
Subsequently, the P & Z meeting was held on Thursday, April 18, 2013. This timeline was
inadequate for comprehensive neighborhood feedback, as well as counter to proper expected
procedure.”
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got
caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan
and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made
a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing
review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact
142
June 4, 2013
that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion that we
had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded
ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a
definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on
the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The
developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on
the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the
time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through
Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of
things about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught
sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.” (Page
16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process
question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two
different systems really, and I think that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been
explained well as to why it happened and going forward, the improvement for the community is that
a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the
right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “This project fails to meet compatibility standards.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C)(1) states: horizontal masses shall not exceed a height:width ratio of 1:3 without
substantial variation in massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed
elements.
The Appellant states, “The proposed 5 story 56-foot high building at 240-feet in length along the
major axis has a ratio of over 1:4 with no change in height or step backs on the featured block
frontage” and the “proposed step in the building height on the North elevation did fully depict how
it relates in scale and mass to the overall building due to lack of a West elevation. There is little or
no visual effect from the later proposed North minimal stepping at the fifth floor to the major East
or West elevations.”
143
June 4, 2013
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page
5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is
able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(3) states: all sides of the building shall include material and design
characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side
or rear facades shall be prohibited.
The Appellant states, “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.
No substantial projecting elements or substantial recessed elements of consequence occur to break
up the block-like composition leading to the lack of architectural quality, (please see elevations).
There are no decks, balconies, horizontal/shading elements brick and minimal enhanced features
proposed as shown on the principal elevation.”
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the design characteristics on the side facing the
neighborhood.
Staff has prepared information regarding the design characteristics on the side of the building
facing the neighborhood and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by
Council.
3. “The project detracts from the character by setting up a physical and visual barrier in its
block-type form.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(B) states: New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established,
or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development
shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
The Appellant states, “The burden is upon this project to set an enhanced standard. It fails to do so
as it ignores how sensitive mass and form promote compatibility.”
The Applicant’s narrative, attached to the staff report, discusses and illustrates the existing
neighborhood character. The Planning and Zoning Board stated, ”I like what the applicant’s team
has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it. This is a nice way to extend the
downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason Corridor come to life and be
functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason, and even across the street,
to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very eclectic architecture
in that neighborhood…very eclectic.” (Page 21, Line 24 – 28 of Verbatim Transcript).
Staff has prepared information regarding the neighborhood character and project compatibility and
is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
144
June 4, 2013
4. “This building's architectural character has taken on an overall vocabulary of repetitive
elements, lacking in detailing superimposed upon an overwhelming scale and building
mass.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(C) states: Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be
articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the
nearest intersection.
The Appellant states: “It [the proposed building] does not relate to street and neighborhood.”
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page
5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is
able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Review the record and determine if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the
Max Flats Project Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the
Board for further consideration.”
City Attorney Roy reviewed the City’s appeal process.
Seth Lorson, City Planner, reviewed the proposed project and location and stated the Planning and
Zoning Board approved the project, with four modifications of standard. Additionally, Lorson
reviewed the Notice of Appeal and its allegations.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he attended the site visit in order to obtain a visual aspect of the
property.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he attended the site visit for the same reasons.
Councilmember Troxell noted his comments with respect to the properties to the west and solar
shading issues.
Councilmember Overbeck stated he inspected the property individually.
Councilmember Campana stated he attended the site visit in order to better understand the property’s
physical attributes.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Susan Kruel-Froseth, Appellant, stated the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, Land Use Code, and Charter and cited specific
provisions relating to size, mass, and scale and design elements as well as compatibility. She argued
the Board failed to adequately address compatibility and the related Land Use Code provisions.
145
June 4, 2013
Bruce Froseth, Appellant, argued the neighborhood meeting for the project was held too close to the
Planning and Zoning Board work session and hearing.
OPPONENT PRESENTATION
Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners, stated this project is supported by City staff, the Planning and
Zoning Board, the Downtown Development Authority, the Chamber of Commerce, and owners of
neighboring properties. He discussed the project location and cited examples of neighborhood
compatibility.
Eduardo Illanes, Oz Architects, detailed the architectural components of the proposed project.
Jeff Johnson, Counsel for the Developer, discussed the eclectic nature of the neighborhood and
stated this project establishes an excellent precedent for further redevelopment. He argued a fair
hearing was conducted.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Ms. Kruel-Froseth stated the first time she heard of the project was in January when the sign was
first posted on the property and argued the neighborhood was not made aware of the project until
that time. She stated this project is one of high visibility and questioned whether this was the type
of tone the City wants to set for the Mason Street Corridor.
OPPONENT REBUTTAL
Mr. Brinkman stated he has met four times with the appellant and has offered enhancements to
materials and detailing.
Mr. Johnson stated this project demonstrates its compliance with the Land Use Code and will be a
project appropriate for the future.
Mr. Illanes discussed the articulation and materials of the proposed building.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Cindy Peck, 212 West Myrtle owner, expressed concern regarding the neighborhood notification
process and opposed the parking situation in the neighborhood.
Mr. Brinkman stated the parking situation should not impact neighbors and opposed a remand to the
Planning and Zoning Board.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Councilmember Cunniff requested the height to width ratio along the north-south axis and asked if
the floodplain requirements actually prohibit residential development on the ground floor, or if those
units must simply be raised above floodplain level. Lorson replied any residential units must be one
or two feet above the floodplain elevation.
146
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked when the effective date for the Ordinance requiring a Planning and
Zoning Board hearing for projects greater than fifty units occurred. Lorson replied the effective date
for that Ordinance was November 30, 2012 and the application date for this project was December
12, 2012.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City had erred by not placing this project into the Type II
review process at that point. Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Director, replied staff was engaged in updating multi-family Land Use Code regulations to better
address some of the community concerns through last fall. A process began last fall requiring multi-
family unit developments over a certain unit size to be required to have a Type II hearing. Prior to
that, projects of that size in certain zones were allowed to have a Type I hearing.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Mr. Brinkman would still be willing to discuss landscape buffering
and other issues with the appellant. Mr. Brinkman replied the 10-inch landscape modification
allowed a parking aisle and added he would be willing to work with the appellant on any
landscaping issues. He discussed some concessions he has made to compromise with the appellants
and mentioned additional items he is willing to change.
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional detail regarding the project transitions mentioned by
Mr. Brinkman. Mr. Brinkman replied he has incorporated a step-back on the fifth floor and has
changed materials per neighbor requests.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the Downtown Development Authority
(DDA) funding and the differences between the east and west sides of the building. Mr. Brinkman
replied the funding went to public improvements in the right-of-way, not to the building facade.
Councilmember Troxell requested a west side rendering showing the Juliet balconies. Mr.
Brinkman described the proposed Juliet balconies on the west facade and stated he would be willing
to include those per neighborhood requests.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the involvement of the City’s Neighborhood Advocate in this
project. Lorson replied the Neighborhood Advocate was present at the neighborhood meeting and
was available as neighbors expressed concerns.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the multi-family versus mixed-use definition. Lorson replied
the new language for the threshold references any residential use consisting in whole or in part.
Kadrich replied the Planning and Zoning Board is discussing this issue as part of its policy
development and stated there is not currently a requirement within the mixed-use definition that
would tie or limit any kind of the mixed-use.
Councilmember Troxell requested a staff comment regarding the benefit, or lack thereof, of
remanding the item to the Planning and Zoning Board. Kadrich replied an earlier neighborhood
meeting would have allowed for earlier consideration of neighborhood opinions.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the neighbor reference to parking. Lorson replied this
project is in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) in which there is no minimum
parking requirement. He stated the parking provided by this project provides about one parking
space per unit, which adequately meets the Land Use Code.
147
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Campana stated the intention of the Ordinance mentioned was to allow more
transparency and citizen input on projects, therefore increasing the threshold for requiring a
neighborhood meeting. He discussed the confusion which could have occurred relating to multi-
family versus mixed-use. He asked if the appellants had a dialogue with the developer or submitted
written materials at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Kruel-Froseth replied in the affirmative and
cited the transcript from the meeting.
Councilmember Campana discussed the massing and articulation aspects of the Land Use Code and
requested an interpretation of the one-to-three ratio, which he noted could be interpreted in different
ways. Lorson replied the Land Use Code section states “horizontal masses shall not exceed a
height-width ratio of one-to-three, without substantial variation in massing that includes a change
in height or projecting or recessed elements.” He stated staff’s opinion is that the project provides
substantial variation in massing and meets this section of the Code.
Councilmember Poppaw discussed the lack of articulation on the west side of the building in
comparison to the east side and asked if the developer is willing to make changes to the west side
of the building in order to add articulation and visual interest.
Councilmember Campana stated he would have difficulty requiring additional articulation on the
west elevation based on the Land Use Code. Councilmember Poppaw disagreed and stated the Land
Use Code specifically calls out for the additional articulation.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, that the Planning
and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in its consideration of the MAX Flats Project
Development Plan #120034.
Councilmember Cunniff stated it could be argued the Board was presented with false information
due to the process flaw and therefore may not have given as much consideration to the neighborhood
concerns as it could have.
Councilmember Troxell argued the absence of information is not false information.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the project was submitted two weeks after the Ordinance which
would have required the project to go through a Type II review was in place; therefore, the statement
that the project was caught in the middle of the transition is false.
Councilmember Campana argued the intent of the neighborhood meeting was met.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak argued the Board conducted a fair hearing regardless of the process prior to
the hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell and Poppaw.
Nays: Cunniff and Overbeck.
Councilmember Campana asked if there was a requirement for increased landscaping to compensate
for the modification for the parking aisle. Lorson replied the Planning and Zoning Board discussed
the issue but there is no tool in the Land Use Code to require that type of mitigation.
148
June 4, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested that Mr. Brinkman discuss the modifications he would be willing
to make. Mr. Brinkman replied he is willing to provide five additional trees, of the appellants’
choice, in the landscape buffer.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to see as many trees as possible in the landscape
buffer area.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the caliper of the trees had been discussed. Mr. Brinkman replied
there is a utility easement in the area which will partially dictate tree location.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the other modifications mentioned were with respect to enhanced
materials and massing compatibility. Mr. Brinkman replied he would be willing to add the Juliet
balconies, though they are not required, and he would be willing to add a tower element in the
middle of the west elevation to aid in concerns regarding massing; however, other neighbors have
opposed the tower element due to the increase in height.
Councilmember Cunniff requested input regarding the tower design from the appellants. Ms. Kruel-
Froseth replied this is the first time she has heard about the tower and stated there have been no
specific discussions relating to the landscape buffer. She stated she would like to see all sides of the
building contain materials and design characteristics consistent with the front of the building.
Councilmember Cunniff supported varying the height of the building in order to provide interest.
Councilmember Campana expressed concern regarding re-designing the project at this point.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to see a compromise reached between the parties and
asked if the materials to be used on the back side of the building are of lesser quality than those on
the Mason Street side. Mr. Brinkman replied the materials are the same from the second floor up.
The pedestrian level is mostly brick on the front and side; however, those elements are not there on
the back side of the building as there is no pedestrian element.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to modify the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the MAX Flats Project Development Plan #120034 by
adding the following conditions: five trees will be added to the landscape buffer along the west side,
Juliet balconies will be added, the tower element will be added, and consistent materials will be used
around the entire building. Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 084, 2013
Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a
Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way
and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River
District Block One Mixed Use Development, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
149
June 4, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development (“Encompass”) is a mixed use
development at 418 Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The
property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC (“LB LLC”). Several easements are required for this
project. These easement interests are needed for improvements in the right-of-way, bank
stabilization and river enhancement, drainage and landscape areas.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Encompass is a mixed use development at 418 Linden consisting of one building with two floors of
office space, two floors of apartments (12 units) and a restaurant. The first floor of this building has
a walk-way to the rear of the lot. The O’Neil family is developing the property. Their software
company, Encompass Technologies will occupy the second floor. The property is held in the name
of Linden Bridges LLC.
Encompass looked at plans to relocate to a larger space and instead chose to develop a new office
as part of a mixed-use development as a long-term investment in downtown Fort Collins. The site
at 418 Linden provides a great opportunity for Encompass to create a vibrant mixed-use
development that connects downtown Fort Collins to the Cache la Poudre River.
This project embodies the character and vision of the City Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the
2001 Poudre River Master Plan, and the R-D-R zone district for high quality redevelopment in
downtown with river interface that is envisioned for the Downtown River Redevelopment District.
Easements Requested by Encompass:
The properties affected by these requests include the property between the development site and the
Poudre River. The City owns the top of the bank, which was acquired 30 years ago for a
recreational trail, the river bank and the land under the river. In the end, the trail was constructed
on the other side of the River and the City will not utilize this site as a trail in the future. The City
property has not been maintained for years. All easement requests are shown on the Easement
Exhibit, Attachment 2.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Encroachment Easement (shown in green on Easement Exhibit):
This easement would be made up of several easement areas located in the right of way. Since
permanent improvements are being constructed in the right-of-way, it is appropriate to grant a
permanent easement instead of a revocable permit. Encompass will have a permanent right to use
these improvements in perpetuity. The City cannot cancel or terminate this easement; only
Encompass could request to have this easement vacated. If the City determined it needed the land
under the improvements, it would need to enter into negotiations with the owner to purchase this
easement interest. In the Easement Agreement, Encompass will be required to carry property and
liability insurance and will need to have the City added as additional insured.
There is a significant change in grade along Linden Street. This creates the need for an upper and
lower sidewalk similar to properties downtown. Thus some of the permanent features requiring
easements are a ramp, stairs and a planter box. In addition, Encompass has requested an outdoor
deck along Linden Street for the restaurant. The restaurant will also have two decks on their
property with a river view. Having the deck along Linden Street is a key urban design element.
150
June 4, 2013
Permanent Non-Exclusive Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement (shown in yellow
on Easement Exhibit):
This easement abuts the development site and includes a strip of land from the top of the river bank,
to the water’s edge. The river bank needs to be stabilized and this project plans include
reconstruction approximately 160 feet of the river bank to meet the design criteria for a 100 year
flood event. Included with the bank stabilization are two decorative retaining walls.
Additional improvements are being completed by Encompass along the bank as per the City’s
Poudre River Enhancement Plan. This work is a benefit to both the development and the City by
providing additional stabilization of the banks and improved scour protection for the Linden Street
bridge. Encompass will complete all the construction. When the work is complete and approved
by Stormwater Utilities, the City will repay Encompass for river enhancement work that benefits the
City from a combination of Stormwater Funds and Bridge Engineering Funds.
As per the Land Use Code, the project is required to provide a continuous buffer and a walking path
along the top of the bank. It is planned to build the buffer and path on the development site and the
City-owned property. The easement grants Encompass access for the path and its users.
Encompass will maintain all improvements located in this easement area, with the exception of the
bridge protection. After acceptance of the work by the City, the City will maintain the bridge
protection. The City will not perform maintenance on the trail in the easement area. The City’s
public trail is on the other side of the River.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement (shown in yellow and outlined in red on Easement
Exhibit);
Encompass is requesting a permanent 20-foot wide drainage easement to carry their development
flows, as well as the flows from the property to the south, from their water quality pond, in an
eighteen-inch pipe under the City’s property to the Poudre River. This easement location is in part
of the Permanent Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement, but we requested a separate
legal description for this use.
Temporary Construction Easement (shown on Temporary Easement Exhibit):
The above easement gives Encompass the right to do their bank stabilization work; however, they
need to be able to access the bank from the Poudre River. In order to complete work in the River,
a Floodplain Use Permit is required. Encompass has met with the Floodplain Administrator on site
and an access area has been identified. The preferred access point goes through the Encompass
site and goes through a break in trees on the City property to access the River. This area is shown
on the Temporary Easement Exhibit, Attachment 3. There will be very minimal disturbance in the
river bed. The banks will only be disturbed in the areas of the Construction, Access and
Maintenance Easement. All disturbed areas along construction access from top of bank to the River
shall be revegetated per approved landscape plans.
The area of the Temporary Construction Easement extends upriver under the bridge and adjacent
to the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. Encompass will construct a temporary upstream
and downstream coffer dam and pump in the Temporary Construction Easement area. Downstream
there is an area where the river is separated by a stretch of land. The temporary coffer dam will
divert the River to the eastern side of the land and they will also install a pump in low point
discharge on other side of island.
151
June 4, 2013
The duration of the requested Temporary Construction Easement will start when our Easement
Agreement is signed and will continue to December 31, 2014. The work is planned to be in intervals
and this is not a consecutive time period. While the Temporary Construction Easement does give
them permission to enter our property, they will also need a current Floodplain Use Permit to
access the Temporary Construction Easement area. At the meeting held in May with Stormwater
staff, it was determined that work in the River cannot commence until the end of September of 2013
due to the high river conditions this year.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Landscape Easement (shown in orange on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested a Non-Exclusive Permanent Landscape Easement to landscape a 2,206
square-foot area adjacent to their property to improve the view for their project. The strip of land
is southeast of the Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement area and goes to the current
top of bank. This area is currently not maintained and does not contain much vegetation.
Encompass submitted a landscape plan during the approval process of the development. This
landscape plan was approved and determined to meet the criteria of the Land Use Code 4.17 – River
Landscape Buffers.
Revocable Permit (shown in purple on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested the right to come into the large purple shaded area on the Easement
Exhibit to trim the existing trees. The trees are not well maintained and contain numerous dead
branches. Encompass wants to trim these trees to improve the view of the river to users of the
development. The requested Revocable Permit is for twenty (20) years unless revoked sooner, and
will allow trimming of trees, but not tree removal.
Along with the Revocable Permit, Encompass must meet with the Forestry Department to agree on
which trees can be trimmed. Once Encompass gets the official permission from Forestry, the tree
company doing the trimming will need to obtain a permit from Forestry to do the actual trimming.
In addition, since this is in a floodplain, Encompass will be required to obtain a Floodplain Use
Permit for each time they do any trimming activities.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Encroachment Easements. These easements are located in the right of way. Currently the City does
not have an adequate policy in place on how to process or value permanent easements in the public
right of way. Encroachment Permits are charged $10/year and permanent easements on City-
owned properties are compensated at fair market value. Staff will be bringing an Ordinance to
Council in the next few months with a recommendation on how to process and value easements in
the right of way. Until a policy is established, compensation will be based on fair market value.
Staff has set a value for the encroachment easements requested. Values on Linden Street have
increased dramatically over the last two years. The price per square foot assigned for these
easements is an average of the last two properties sold. That value is $19.50 per square foot.
The encroachment easements for the stairs with handrails and the ramp will typically be used not
only for occupants or customers of Encompass, but could also be used by the general public. For
this reason, the easement percentage of value is 50% and the easement value for these areas is
$5,099.00.
152
June 4, 2013
The easement percentage of value for the encroachment easement for the outdoor patio deck is 75%.
That is because the general public will not have any use in this area unless they are customers of
the restaurant. The easement value for the patio deck is $8,350.00, or $13,449.00 for both areas.
Developer will be charged $13,449.00 for the Encroachment Easement; however, if the City
Council, on or before December 31, 2013, adopts a policy for granting of easements in the City’s
rights of way, including charges therefor, Encompass will instead pay compensation for the
Encroachment Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to exceed $13,449.00.
Compensation for the Encroachment Easement is not due until the new policy is adopted or
December 31, 2013.
Other Easements: The City’s practice is to charge for easements on estimated market value.
Market values for properties are estimated on a wide range of criteria including, the zoning,
topography, physical constraints and overall use of the property. After considering the above
criteria and consulting with area appraisers, staff set the market value for the City parcels at $5,000
per acre. It is difficult to set a value for properties within floodplains because there are not many
comparable sales. These properties are usually purchased by government entities for preservation.
The appraisers compared these properties to highly restricted conservation easement properties.
The values recommended by the appraisers range from $3,500 to $5,000/acre. The exception is in
the Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement. Approximately half of its area is in the FEMA
Moderate Risk Floodplain. Generally there is not a deduction for the developable value because
it is relatively inexpensive to cure. This small area would not be developable on its own; however,
since this area is being used to enhance the development of the adjacent property, the value of this
area would be about 50% of developable market value, or $10 per square foot.
Using this data, staff has determined a value of $17,675.00 for the Construction, Access,
Maintenance Easement and the Drainage Easement, the Landscape Easement, the Temporary
Construction Easement, and the Revocable Permit. It is staff’s recommendation that we do not
charge Encompass for these easements because the enhanced riverbank improvements, landscaping
improvements and tree trimming provide benefits to the City that exceed the value of the
easements.”
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, discussed the development proposal for 418 Linden
Street and stated the street encroachment easement would allow for an improved urban design
setting and the river easement would provide the opportunity to enhance the river edge.
Helen Matson, Real Estate Service Manager, detailed the easements and their locations.
Hendee discussed the emergence of the Downtown River District area and new proposed
developments in the area, including an enhanced streetscape.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Natural Areas staff or other ornithologists will be involved in
the tree trimming process. Hendee replied in the affirmative and stated the City Forester and
Planning and Natural Areas staff will be involved.
Councilmember Cunniff noted the City is going to reimburse the developer for improvements in the
former natural area and requested an estimate of that amount. Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering
Field Operations Manager, replied some of the planned work along the river bank includes long term
plans from the Poudre River Enhancement Plan and is being treated like a developer re-pay
153
June 4, 2013
estimated at around $100,000, or 40% of the total cost. The amount will be shared between Bridge,
Engineering, and Stormwater.
Councilmember Cunniff requested information regarding the slope of the area to be reinforced by
the retaining walls. Haukaas replied the slope is currently quite steep and the reinforcement through
retaining walls involves anchoring at the base and landscaping which will ultimately cover most of
the wall.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance
No. 084, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff stated this property is valuable due to its proximity to the River corridor
and its riparian habitat and expressed concern that the City does not charge for this portion of the
easement. He suggested a fee for this portion of the easement be developed prior to Second
Reading.
Councilmember Campana asked about the value of the property. Matson replied the value of the
property is based on market value and the current use of the property; it does not currently have a
great deal of monetary value.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern that this would set a precedent that the City does not
charge for this land. Matson replied the principle used to determine market value would be used on
another easement; however, it would be up to staff and Council to determine whether or not the
benefits would outweigh the need to charge.
Councilmember Troxell stated this project enhances the Poudre River and the community’s access
to the River.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated Council needs to hold a work session regarding the River area and
stated the valuation of land should be examined in values other than monetary.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, for staff
to create two options for Second Reading, one as written and one including a fee for the land to be
purchased by the project.
Councilmember Troxell argued the City is gaining a public benefit.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion to amend and argued no precedent would
be set.
Councilmember Poppaw supported bringing forth both options.
Councilmembers Cunniff and Overbeck withdrew the motion to amend.
Mayor Weitkunat supported the Ordinance and commended staff work and the presentation
regarding the item.
154
June 4, 2013
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 084, 2013, on First Reading, was as follows: Yeas:
Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw, Campana and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Cunniff received support from additional Councilmembers to request that staff
bring forth a second option regarding charging for the land on Second Reading.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested an update regarding discounted Transfort passes at various social
agencies. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, replied Transfort
does sell passes to social agencies at a discounted rate and is contacting agencies to determine what
they need.
Councilmember Poppaw supported a work session on the topic, given the potential negative effect
of these purchases on agency budgets.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adjourn to June 11,
2013 so that the Council may consider any additional business that may come before the Council,
including a possible Executive Session to conduct the mid-year reviews of the three direct report
employees of the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
155
June 18, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 18, 2013,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw and Troxell.
Councilmembers Absent: Campana, Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the payment of junk bond interest by taxpayers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 21, 2013 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste
Innovation Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, shifts $135,560 that
has accumulated in the Waste Innovation Program’s reserve account into the City’s General
Fund account so that the money can be used for the purposes intended. Revenues are paid
into the Waste Innovation Program by City departments that “self haul” trash from
municipal operations for disposal in the Larimer County Landfill. The fund is designated to
pay for projects that enhance these same departments’ ability to divert more waste away
from the landfill. Unspent funds from several previous years had been moved into a
“reserve” account; this action moves the funds back into the General Fund.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from
the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant
Project for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
165
June 18, 2013
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, appropriates funds
received from a State of Colorado grant totaling $17,881. The grant funds will be used to
enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the increased risk of flooding caused
by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used for the match of $5,960.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and
the Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Grant Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, authorizes the use
of a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area as match towards a
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act grant, as well as management funds currently
obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent
as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will
expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) research and monitoring work
to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds
that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority
species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to
the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both
Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential
developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land
to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to
require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and, in 2011, the Poudre School District reduced fee
amounts by 11 percent. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4,
2013, will increase the amount of the fees the District receives by 6.9 percent. The School
District is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land values
and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School
Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry
Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge
Natural Area.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm
Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel
within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge
are Larimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased
by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of
the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency
has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current
leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases
with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals
166
June 18, 2013
process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, authorizes
dryland farm leases to Harry Sauer on these areas. The new leases have a higher lease rate
and more contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the
McKee parcel will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely
restored to native grasslands by the end of the lease term of five years.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, adopted by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) on First Reading on June 4,
2013, designates the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins
Landmark. The owner of the property, Gino Campana of Johnson Farm LLC, is initiating
this request.
13. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance
of Four Easements, a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City
Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River
District Block One Mixed Use Development to July 2, 2013.
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development is a mixed use
development at 418 Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a
restaurant. The property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC. Several easements are required
for this project for improvements in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and river
enhancement, drainage and landscape areas. The Developer has requested that Second
Reading of this Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of easements, be postponed until July
2, 2013, due to scheduling conflicts with the developer and the consultant.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable
Housing and Related Activities.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $3,169 as the 2012
payments for public services and facilities. The Authority requests that the City refund those
payments, also known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), to fund sorely needed
affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort
Collins residents.
Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT
payments to the City. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in
accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council
determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has annually
remitted the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Access Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners
Association.
The Natural Areas Department intends to formalize its verbal agreement with Paragon
Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) for access across an existing two-track road off
167
June 18, 2013
Trilby Road to the HOA’s pumphouse. The pumphouse is located within an existing
irrigation easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area. The HOA’s current access has
minimal impact to the Natural Area and no additional impacts are anticipated. Access would
be solely for maintenance and operation of the facilities associated with the existing
irrigation easement. No other access rights are to be conveyed.
16. Resolution 2013-054 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of
the April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Max Flats Project
Development Plan.
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application
for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. On May 2, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed
seeking to modify the approval.
On June 4, 2013, City Council voted 5-2 (Nays: Cunniff, Overbeck)concluding that the
evidence presented did not indicate the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering
evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, nor did
it substantially ignore its previously established rules of procedure. City Council voted 7–0
that the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code in
approving the Plan, but that, based upon information presented to the City Council on
appeal, the City Council determined that the decision of the Board should be modified by
the addition of the following conditions of approval:
a. Five trees must be planted along the west side boundary of the property.
b. Juliet balconies must be installed along the west side of the building as shown on the
elevation presented to the City Council on appeal.
c. The tower elements must be added to the building as shown on the elevation
presented to the City Council on appeal.
d. All materials cladding the building must be consistent on all elevations around the
building.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste
Innovation Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from
the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant
Project for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
168
June 18, 2013
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and
the Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Grant Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to
the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry
Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge
Natural Area.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable
Housing and Related Activities.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Access Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 16, Resolution 2013-054 Making Findings of Fact and
Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of
the Max Flats Project Development Plan, from the Consent Calendar.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 10, Second Reading of Ordinance No.
080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained
in Such Agreement, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Horak, Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2013-054
Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the
April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Max Flats
Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
169
June 18, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for the
Max Flats, Project Development Plan. On May 2, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed seeking to
modify the approval.
On June 4, 2013, City Council voted 5-2 (Nays: Cunniff, Overbeck) concluding that the evidence
presented did not indicate the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, nor did it substantially
ignore its previously established rules of procedure. City Council voted 7–0 that the Planning and
Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code in approving the Plan, but that,
based upon information presented to the City Council on appeal, the City Council determined that
the decision of the Board should be modified by the addition of the following conditions of approval:
a. Five trees must be planted along the west side boundary of the property.
b. Juliet balconies must be installed along the west side of the building as shown on the
elevation presented to the City Council on appeal.
c. The tower elements must be added to the building as shown on the elevation presented to the
City Council on appeal.
d. All materials cladding the building must be consistent on all elevations around the building.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution making
findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was based on allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence was substantially false and grossly
misleading and that it substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. The
Appellant also alleged that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.”
Councilmember Cunniff stated the intent of one of the conditions was to ensure the materials
cladding the non-street sides of the building were of the same quality as the materials cladding the
street side.
Seth Lorson, City Planner, stated the materials are already consistent on all sides of the building.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the inclusion of brick on one side of the building. Lorson
replied the brick wraps around the north side of the building to the east side along the commercial
element of the building. The east side of the building is an open parking structure at the ground
level and the higher levels are consistent with the front side of the building.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the intent of Council and the topic of the discussion related to the
use of the same high-quality brick as on the Mason Street side of the building elevation on all
stories. Lorson replied that may need to be clarified in the language.
City Attorney Roy suggested language for the Resolution.
170
June 18, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2013-054, as amended with the suggested language. Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-Up
Councilmember Cunniff noted Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing
the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Access Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to
Paragon Estates Homeowners Association, was also passed unanimously by the Land Conservation
Stewardship Board.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Troxell reported on the ribbon-cutting for an exhibit at the Global Village Museum.
Resolution 2013-055
Concerning the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and its Tax Increment
Revenue Refunding Bonds (North College Avenue Project), Series 2013,
Declaring the City Council’s Present Intent to Appropriate Funds to Replenish
the Reserve Fund Securing Such Bonds, If Necessary; and Authorizing a Cooperation
Agreement and Other Actions Taken in Connection Therewith, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The URA intends to refinance a portion of the debt it originally borrowed from the City in relation
to the North College area. Now that an established revenue stream can be shown to investors,
private money can be used to replace City money. The 2013 bonds require the URA to establish a
debt reserve fund. To further facilitate the credit rating on the replacement debt, the City Council
is asked to adopt the Resolution expressing the Council’s intent to replenish the debt reserve fund
if such funds are ever used to make debt payments. With this Resolution, the new URA debt is
expected to have an effective interest rate of 3.3%.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The North College URA Project Area was created in 2004, allowing the URA to receive incremental
property taxes through 2029. Property tax increment revenue in North College was first received
in 2007 and the 2012 property taxes payable in 2013 are expected to be $1.3 million.
Table 1 - Net Property Tax Increment Revenue $000’s
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 *
$110 $287 $263 $493 $536 $907 $1,285
*anticipated
171
June 18, 2013
A common measure used by lenders in determining risk is the ratio of pledged revenue to debt
service, called a coverage ratio. Investors want that ratio to be high – at least 125%. The current
revenue of $1.3 million could support up to $1 million a year in debt service. The proposed
maximum annual debt service of $919,000 yields a good coverage ratio of 142%.
City Loans to URA
The initial financing model adopted for North College has the City providing initial capital through
a loan until the tax increment revenue reaches a maturity level that can support external financing
to third party investors. The City Council first authorized an Interagency Loan Policy in December
2008, with the most recent amendments approved in December 2012.
Eight loans have been made by the City to the URA in the North College District. The first loan has
been repaid. Table 2 recaps the current status of the loans.
Table 2 – North College Loan Status $000’s
Date Project
Original
Value
Current
Balance
Term
Years Rate City Fund Holding
09/2006 Valley Steel, URA start-
up funds
$ 150 $ 0 5 5.55% General Fund
05/2009 North College Market
Place, Phase 1
5,000 4,729 20 2.85% Capital Expansion
12/2010 JAX 173 106 5 2.50% Capital Expansion
06/2011 NEECO 326 326 10 3.01% Storm Drainage
07/2011 Kaufman Robinson 193 193 5 2.46% General Fund
07/2011 North College Market
Place, Phase 2
3,000 2,884 19 4.09% Water Fund
08/2012 North College Road
Improvements
2,700 2,700 18 3.92% Capital Projects
BCC
Loans to be refinanced 11,542 10,938 3.44% Weighted average
06/2009 RMI2 5,304 5,304 20 2.50% General Fund
Total North College
Area
16,846 16,242
The proposal is to issue enough debt to take out $10.94 million in loans to the City, plus interest and
debt issue costs. For the following reasons the City loan to the URA that relates to RMI is not being
refinanced.
• The use of the RMI2 loan proceeds does not qualify the interest to be tax exempt. Therefore
the interest rate would be significantly higher.
• The new market tax credit deal cannot be refinanced until 2017.
• There is not enough revenue capacity to meet external investor expectations. Only about $1
million of the $5.3 million could be considered for refinancing if the favorable coverage
ratio was to be preserved.
The General Fund is holding the URA loan relating to the RMI2. Later this year the loan will be
reallocated and held equally between the Water Fund and Capital Expansion Fund. This will free
172
June 18, 2013
up some monies in the General Fund. Future debt payments by the URA will then be allocated
appropriately to each fund.
Preliminary Structure of 2013 Bonds
Approximately $11.4 million of bond proceeds will be used to takeout $10.94 million of debt to the
City, plus interest of $254,000, and pay debt issue costs of $206,000. Coupon interest rates vary
from 2% for near term bonds and 4% for longer term bonds. The collective Net Interest Cost is
expected to be 3.3%, which compares favorably to 3.44% weighted average interest rate on the City
debt being retired. Future annual payments will vary from $914,000 to $919,000 through 2029.
City Intent to Replenish Reserves
The Underwriters for the 2013 Bonds have recommended that a debt service reserve fund in the
amount of approximately $920,000 would be advisable for marketing the 2013 Bonds and that
purchasing a Surety Policy for such amount would be preferable to funding such reserve with cash.
The cost of such Surety Policy would be $55,000. If it was ever necessary to draw upon the Surety
Policy, the City’s replenishment would repay such draw. Staff prefers the Surety Policy option but
will make a decision later based on the potential impact on the credit rating. The City I snot legally
bound to replenish the reserve fund and it would be subject to annual appropriation of funds by the
City Council in its sole discretion. Sherman & Howard will issue a legal opinion that the City can
make this non-binding commitment.
It is anticipated that the City’s non-binding commitment will result in the replacement debt receiving
a credit rating of Aa3. Without this, and a proven revenue stream, the interest rate would likely be
5% or higher rather than 3.3%.
Authority to Adopt the Resolution
Through the adoption of the URA Resolution, the Urban Renewal Authority is issuing property tax
increment revenue bonds to refinance loans made by the City to the URA. The loans that are being
refinanced by the issuance of those bonds were made by the City to finance public infrastructure.
No private improvements were financed through the loans. In order to enhance the marketability
of the bonds that are being issued by the URA, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt
a resolution pursuant to which the City Council would indicate that, if the reserve fund for the bonds
is ever drawn upon, the City Council will consider appropriating funds to replenish the reserve fund.
This is not a legally binding obligation but rather is subject to appropriation by the Council, when
and if the reserve fund is drawn upon. (This has sometimes been referred to as a “moral obligation
pledge”.)
Since the City cannot be compelled to appropriate funds under this approach, the Resolution and
related documents do not create a debt for purposes of the City Charter or the Colorado
Constitution.
A question has been raised by a local citizen as to whether Council actions such as the making of
this non-bindling commitment violates certain provisions of the City Charter. The Charter
provisions in question read as follows:
173
June 18, 2013
ARTICLE V. FINANCE ADMINISTRATION
PART I. BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Section 15. Appropriations forbidden.
No appropriation shall be made for any charitable, industrial, educational, or
benevolent purposes to any person, corporation, or organization not under the
absolute control of the city, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or
association.
(Ord. No. 10, 1991, § 1(a), 2-19-91, approved, election 4-2-91)
Section 16. City not to pledge credit.
The city shall not lend or pledge its credit or faith, directly or indirectly, or in any
manner to or in aid of any private person or entity for any amount or any purpose
whatever, or become responsible for any debt, contract, or liability thereof.
(Ord. No. 203, 1986, § 1, Part D, 12-16-86, approved, election 3-3-87; Ord. No. 10,
1991, § 1(a), 2-19-91, approved, election 4-2-91)
These charter provisions are, in all material respects, identical to provisions contained in the
Colorado Constitution. Thus, the limitations contained in the Charter provisions apply to all
Colorado municipalities through the state constitution.
In response to the concerns that have been expressed, staff has conferred with both the City
Attorney’s Office and the City’s bond counsel to ensure that the proposed transaction does not
violate either of the provisions in question. Legal counsel has confirmed the following:
Article V, Section 15 of the City Charter is not applicable in this situation because (1) the Urban
Renewal Authority is under the absolute control of the City (since its governing body is made up of
the same members as the City’s governing body) and it is not a denominational or sectarian
institution; and (2) the projects refinanced by the bonds are public infrastructure projects; thus, the
bond proceeds are not being used, either directly or indirectly, for a charitable, industrial,
educational or benevolent purpose.
Article V, Section 16 of the City Charter is not applicable because: (1) the Urban Renewal Authority
is a public entity; (2) the City would not incur any indebtedness or other legally binding obligation
by taking the proposed action; and (3) as noted above, the projects refinanced by the bonds are
public infrastructure projects,.
It should be noted that the financing structure being recommended by staff is not unique to the City.
Other municipalities that have utilized this same procedure in connection with tax increment
transactions include the City and County of Denver, the cities of Thornton, Westminster, and
Steamboat Springs, and the Town of Avon. The State of Colorado has also used this type of
financing structures for housing, charter schools and higher education.
174
June 18, 2013
Future Financing Model
City staff have communicated to the URA that, going forward, the City intends to only loan money
when alternative financing agreements are not feasible. The reimbursement agreement recently
approved for Aspen Heights is an example of the preferred approach for future development
agreements. The Aspen Heights developer will be reimbursed over time as revenue is collected,
rather than in a lump sum upon completion of the project.
Consultants
The URA and City have engaged three firms to help issue the new debt: Sherman & Howard as the
Bond Attorney, BLX as the Financial Advisor and RBC Capital Markets as the Bond Underwriters.
Timeline
June 24 Publish Preliminary Official Statement on Internet Sites
July 9-10 Market Bonds
July 23 Closing
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Property tax revenue in the North College URA plan area is unlikely to decline enough to trigger
the use of the Debt Service Reserve Fund.
The 2013 Bonds will be used to takeout $10.94 million in debt to the City, pay $254,000 of interest
and pay $206,000 in delivery date expenses.
Later this summer the City will use some of the returned monies to loan $5 million to the URA for
the first Midtown Project – The Summit (Capstone).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Council Finance Committee reviewed and tentatively approved the refinancing and the concept
of a Council Resolution regarding a debt reserve replenishment pledge at its meeting on December
17, 2012 and again on May 20, 2013. “
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, briefly introduced the item.
John Voss, Controller, discussed the refinance and stated this item would provide a moral obligation
pledge to help enhance the credit of the URA. He discussed the North College TIF district.
Adoption of this Resolution would enable the City to pledge to consider replenishing the URA
reserve fund. He noted this process may be new to Fort Collins but it has occurred in other Colorado
municipalities.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the City has already approved the moral obligation
pledge. He opposed the URA tax increment financing arrangement.
175
June 18, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff requested an estimate of the date for the return of funds to the General
Fund. Beckstead replied the intent would be to do that in the fall, though it could be done earlier
if needed.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested staff input regarding the reason for taking this action. Beckstead
replied a great deal of due diligence goes into a process such as this prior to the item coming before
Council, including getting a credit rating on the offering. This allows quick execution of the
transaction as quickly as possible after Council approval. He stated there was no representation that
Council had approved the moral obligation pledge. He discussed the methodology used by the
County for URAs.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt
Resolution 2013-055.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the Finance Committee reviewed the item and recommend approval.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Troxell, Poppaw, Overbeck and Cunniff.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 080, 2013,
Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu
Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre
School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a
school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for
development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is
authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and, in 2011, the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts
by 11 percent. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, will
increase the amount of the fees the District receives by 6.9 percent. The School District is requesting
an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This
fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson
School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated Poudre School District is building a school in Timnath
and it is being funded by all the citizens in Timnath, with the exception of those living in the Urban
Renewal Authority. He opposed the way in which the County Assessor has been diverting a portion
of Poudre School District’s revenues to Urban Renewal Authorities.
176
June 18, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080-2013, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he is interested in ultimately affecting legislation change.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Overbeck and Poppaw.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Troxell discussed construction of the new Xcel pipeline. He suggested a more
formal agreement should be put in place regarding dispute resolution in order to avoid potential
long-term costs being incurred by the City. City Manager Atteberry replied he will follow up with
Xcel and look into the possibility of creating such an agreement.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
177
June 11, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 11,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Troxell, and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Items Relating to the Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy
Center of Hope, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2013-053 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with United
Way of Larimer County for Funding of Operations at the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center
of Hope.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund to Be Used for Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
The City has received a request for funding in the amount of $45,000 for the operation of the Sister
Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope, from January to July, 2013 (six months). Other funding
partners include United Way ($58,000), Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and Serve 6.8 ($35,000).
The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for
homeless and near homeless persons. The operation of the Center is an important component in the
community’s network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness is rare, short-
lived and non-recurring in Fort Collins.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope (“Murphy Center”)
The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for
homeless and near homeless persons; approximately 23 agencies provide services at the Center;
the Center also provides showers, breakfast, phones/computers, washers/dryers, clothing, day
shelter services, and more. Services available at the Center include employment resources, housing
assistance, financial counseling, transportation assistance, mental health and substance abuse
156
June 11, 2013
counseling, and more. Many believe that the Center is one of the most innovative facilities in the
nation for serving the homeless and near homeless. The Murphy Center is currently owned by the
United Way of Larimer County (UW) and operated by Touchstone Health Partners of Fort Collins.
During the past four years, the Murphy Center has been a major player in the local homeless service
delivery system and will play an even more critical role as the region moves toward a new and
improved housing model. Notable achievements of the Center include:
• Total number of visits: 110,782.
• Now averaging 156 visitors per day, up from 80 at the end of the 1st year.
• Now have 23 different agencies that provide services out of the Center.
• Total number of showers taken: 12,841.
• Total number of loads of laundry done: 4,649.
• Total number of unduplicated people provided services by a Resource Specialist: 10,148.
• 37% of the people served are part of a family with children.
• In 2012, 77% of the people that meet with a Resource Specialist report being literally
homeless, a 57% increase from 2011.
• Received mail through the center: more than 800 people.
• Utilized lockers at the center: more than 250 people.
• Provided voicemail boxes: more than 150 people.
• 429 people have been assisted in getting Food Stamps.
• 106 people have been assisted in getting Aid to the Needy.
• 253 people have been assisted in getting Medicaid.
• 879 people have received mental health and/or substance abuse services.
• 1,312 households have received emergency rent assistance.
• 2,507 households have received utility assistance.
The approximate $2.5M cost of construction of the Center was funded through a collaboration of
private foundations, private resources, and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Since 2004, the
City has contributed approximately $90,000 in CDBG and General Fund dollars to build the
facility, and as such has a legal and financial interest. In addition, the City has funded several of
the agencies that occupy the Center. As equity partners on the land (along with the City of
Loveland), City staff has met with United Way and Serve 6.8 officials. Our goal, moving forward,
is a smooth transition on executing new legal documents, and ensuring that parameters for property
use tied to federal funding are clear. One of these parameters includes federal limitations on
inherently religious activities such as worship, religions instruction, or proselytization. We are also
interested in being sure that the Murphy Center has a critical role to play in the future in the
“Continuum of Care” for the homeless and near homeless.
Ownership and Operations of the Center
The Murphy Center opened in March, 2009. At that time, the United Way (UW) committed to
owning/funding/operating the Center for one year, hoping to find someone who would take over
operations of the Center from United Way in year two. Funding was secure for the first three years
of operation, until March 2012; the Center was originally intended to be transferred debt free. The
original plan was for Touchstone Health Partners to take over the facility, and over several years,
plans for the transition were discussed. Last March 2012, those plans started to fall apart when
Touchstone announced it was no longer interested in taking over the Center. Subsequently, United
157
June 11, 2013
Way had to search for a new owner/operator. UW had serious but unsuccessful discussions with
several potential agencies about taking over the facility, including but not limited to, Catholic
Charities and the Salvation Army. UW was also left with the challenge of more than $180,000 in
additional expenses to continue operations of the facility. United Way had to use general reserves
not intended for this purpose while it searched for a new partner. United Way also seriously
considered closing or curtailing services at the Center when reserve funding ran out in December
2012. Instead, United Way chose to keep the Center operating and sought community partners to
cover the $180,000 in extra costs.
Last November, a small group of interested stakeholders met to discuss the future of the Murphy
Center. The group consisted of Gordan Thibedeau (United Way), Randy Ratliff (CEO Touchstone
Health Partners), Cheryl Zimlich (Bohemian Foundation), Alison Hade, City of Loveland
(Community Partnership Department), Julie Brewen (FCHA), Bryce Hach (Homeward 2020), and
Joe Frank (Social Sustainability Department). Last January, the group met with Mark Orphan,
Pastor of the Timberline Church Missions and Outreach program, and Mike Walker, Timberline
Church Local Outreach Director, about potentially taking ownership and operation of the Center.
Serve 6.8 is the “community service” arm of the Timberline Church. “Serve 6.8” is in reference to
two passages in the bible (Micah and Isaiah). Serve 6.8's stated mission is “people serving our
community to demonstrate God’s love in tangible ways to people in Northern Colorado with no
strings attached.” Serve 6.8 has said “We partner with many local organizations to promote their
mission, provide volunteers, and offer assistance.” Serve 6.8 has been involved in a variety of
“ministries” and partnerships in the community, some involving the homeless. Serve 6.8 was
heavily involved in the High Park Fire recovery efforts. Serve 6.8 now has 501(c)3 status, and is
a separate entity from the Timberline Church.
Serve 6.8 submitted a letter of intent to assume ownership and operation of the Murphy Center, and
most appear to be comfortable with them. United Way is satisfied that it has the resources and
mission to take over and successfully operate the facility. Mark Orphan and Mike Walker will be
the primary managers of the Murphy Center. They indicated that the Center will continue to deliver
current services and will keep the current professional staff. Serve 6.8 will also be using volunteers.
At this time, Serve 6.8 is doing its due diligence, developing a business plan, completing necessary
agreements, talking with the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, etc. Serve 6.8 has said that they
have recently embarked on a fund raising campaign for the Murphy Center, with a goal of $5
million; having already raised about $750,000. The goal is to complete the ownership/operation
transition on/around July 1, 2013.
The United Way and Serve 6.8 has been very transparent in the transition process, including
involving key stakeholders early on, working with existing Murphy Center staff, presenting to the
North Fort Collins Business Association, informing Murphy Center customers, working with staff
from the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins, informing Murphy Center funders, informing
Timberline Church members, and providing interviews and information to the local press.
UW/Serve 6.8 intends to do additional outreach when the transfer of ownership/operation finally
occurs, and Serve 6.8 has indicated that they plan to hold a formal “opening” event later this year,
possibly as part of National Homeless Month.
An article of the Murphy Center written by Sarah Jane Kyle, and published in the June 2, 1013
Coloradoan on the Murphy Center transition is attached (Attachment 1)
158
June 11, 2013
Funding Request
The United Way is seeking funding partners to continue the operation of the facility. The Center’s
monthly operating cost is about $38,600; approximately 85% of that is personnel and 15% is
operations. United Way has a federal grant that covers about $8,100 per month; the net monthly
cost is approximately $30,500. Six months of operations costs approximately $183,000. United
Way’s proposal is that it provides $58,000, the Bohemian Foundation and the City each provide
$45,000 and Serve 6.8 provides $35,000, for the operation of the Murphy Center from January to
July, 2013 (6 months). The City of Loveland was approached to participate in funding but declined;
less than 10% of the Murphy Center visitors are from Loveland, and because the participation is
so low, it declined to participate in the one-time funding of operations.
According to Gordan Thibedeau, Executive Director of the United Way:
“There are two reasons that we are seeking continuation funds to support the
operation of the Murphy Center. First, it was our intent to transfer ownership no
later than December 31, 2012, which did not happen. Second, we have been unable
to secure additional grant funding to support the operation primarily because we
play a “pass through” role. We were able to overcome this concern for the first 4
years of funding but foundations have become increasingly interested in having the
funds go directly to the service provider.”
Funding Alternatives
During the May 28 Work Session, Council specifically asked staff to consider making the funds
available to a different agency (not United Way) that could potentially benefit from leveraging the
City funds. There are four alternatives that the City Council could consider to fund the operations
of the Murphy Center:
A. “United Way” Option - Approve the original funding request to United Way in the amount
of $45,000, for operating expenses incurred between January 1 and June 31, 2013. The
funds would go directly to United Way for additional expenses they incurred to continue the
operation of the facility.
B. “Touchstone” Option - Approve the funding request, in the amount of $45,000, with the
direct recipient of the funds being Touchstone Health Partners, for operating expenses
incurred between January 1 and June 31, 2013. The funds would go directly to Touchstone
Health Partners for expenses they incurred during this time period. Touchstone is the only
agency at the Murphy Center that incurs significant operating expenses. Touchstone has
said they would then reimburse United Way.
C. “Serve 6.8” Option - Approve the funding request, in the amount of $45,000, with the direct
recipient being Serve 6.8 for future operating expenses. Serve 6.8 has not incurred any
direct operating costs of the facility. So, if it is the recipient of the funds, the funds would
be used to cover future operating costs (after July 1, 2013). The reasoning behind this is
different from the other options; funding future operations (saving Serve 6.8 and/or United
Way from having to do it) rather than reimbursing UW for past expenses. Since this option
would no longer be framed as a sort of “emergency”, it also raises a question of why Serve
159
June 11, 2013
6.8 should not just apply for the funds through the City’s Competitive Process like other
social service agencies.
D. “Do nothing” option – No City funding.
According to agency representatives, the “benefit” to Touchstone or Serve 6.8 in receiving the City
funds, for instance, to leverage other funds, is not significant, because the funds would already have
been spent, and would not be available to “match” other grants. The funds would show up on their
balance sheet as a contribution from the City; the City’s financial support is important to other
potential funders.
Funding Agreement
The major terms of the “funding agreement” are as follows:
1. The City shall pay the agency selected by the Council the sum of $45,000 upon receipt of the
expense report.
2. The funds will be (or must have been) used for personnel and non-personnel costs associated
with the operation of the Murphy Center.
3. The agency shall submit a detailed expense report to the City for our review and approval.
4. The process and conditions of turning the facility over to Serve 6.8 should be as transparent
and inclusive as possible to the critical stakeholders.
5. The existing functions of the Murphy Center as a one stop center and entry for homeless
services must continue; and Serve 6.8, needs to be at the table in the discussions around a
new homeless service delivery model, known as ”Continuum of Care”.
6. The City shall have a representative on the advisory/leadership board of the new Murphy
Center.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City’s share will come from the City’s General Fund Reserves. Providing financial assistance
to the Murphy Center is a long term investment. Helping people out of homelessness prevents future
community costs associated with homelessness.
Typically, funding requests for human services are made thru the City’s Spring Competitive Process.
The Spring Competitive Process was not a good match for the current Murphy Center situation
because the funds do not become available until October 1, 2013. Also, the Competitive Process
funds cannot pay for any cost of services, projects or programs expended prior to October 1, 2013.
Over the years, the City has also funded from the General Fund, several social service programs
and activities, outside of the Competitive Process. For example, since 2009, the City has funded:
• Homeward 2020 (the original $100,000 was through the exceptions process) and continue
to do so with a $25,000 sponsorship each year out of the City Manager’s Office budget (and
approved through BFO), for a total of $175,000.
• The Murphy Center Capital Campaign in 2009 ($5,000), 2010 ($6,000), and 2011 ($2,000)
using contingency funding.
• The United Way Temporary Winter Homeless Shelter ($3,000 – operating costs).
160
June 11, 2013
• The Crossroads Safehouse, in 2010 - $3000 – appraisal report; and, in 2010 - $350,000 for
renovation of Crossroads’ new facility, from Police Capital Improvement Expansion fees.
• The Bender Mobile Home Park relocation assistance – 2012 ($50,000) – BFO.
• The City has also provided “sponsorships” through a donation and sponsorship line item
in BFO through the City Manager’s Office (CMO). For those sponsorships that were
unexpected and not funded through BFO, the CMO usually relies on Contingency or
Community Opportunities funds to cover. Agencies receiving this funding include United
Way, Habitat for Humanity, Crossroads Safehouse, and the Food Bank of Larimer County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative B - Touchstone, because it most closely responds to the
direction of Council at its May 28 Work Session. The Murphy Center plays a critical role in the
delivery of services to the homeless and near-homeless in the community, a role that is likely to
become more important as a new model (e.g., “Continuum of Care”) evolves in the North Front
Range area. United Way has carried the cost of operating the Center for the past four years, over
a year longer than originally intended. United Way has demonstrated that it needs the financial
assistance of the City and the other partners, to pay for part of the costs of six months of operations
of the Center. After that time, it appears very likely that Serve 6.8 will take over the ownership and
operation of the Center. Serve 6.8 has said that it intends to continue the original mission and
services of the Center. Serve 6.8 also appears to have the capacity, experience and mission to
continue the important services the Center now provides, and to work collaboratively toward a new
homeless model.”
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated the request before Council is for a one-time
appropriation of General Fund reserves in the amount of $45,000. He discussed the community
services provided by the Murphy Center and the reason for the funding request. The funds would
be used to backfill funding from United Way reserves.
Gordan Thibedeau, United Way of Larimer County CEO, discussed the history of the Murphy
Center in terms of funding and noted there was a plan to transfer the ownership of the Center after
its first year of operation. He stated though this may appear as a request for retroactive funding, the
agreement was informally made six months ago.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, stated he would support any of the available options, but
suggested a modified option C. He asked if United Way takes a fee if the money is given through
it in Option A and asked why the full $183,000 is not being considered for funding.
Mark Orfan, Serve 6.8 Development Director, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to partner
with the United Way and stated it is their intent to continue to building on the existing model.
Monica Elliott, 815 Roma Valley Drive, stated she volunteers at the Murphy Center and supported
funding for the Center.
Emily Peterson, Touchstone Health Partners, discussed the mental health services provided by
Touchstone and expressed support for Option B.
161
June 11, 2013
Kristen Eiswerth, Fort Collins resident, stated she volunteers at the Murphy Center and supported
providing funding in order to maintain necessary services.
David Rout, Homeless Gear Program Director, discussed the need for support for the community’s
homeless population and supported funding for the Murphy Center.
Sarah Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridget Court, stated she volunteers at the Murphy Center and supported
funding for the Center.
Bonnie Inscho, 2815 William Neal Parkway, stated she was a mental health specialist at the Murphy
Center and discussed the importance of the Center to the community. She supported funding.
Richard Thompson, 636 Cheyenne Drive, Fort Collins Area Interfaith Council President, discussed
the value of the Murphy Center to the community and supported funding for the Center.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked Mr. Thibedeau for additional information regarding the City’s role in
the agreement mentioned. Mr. Thibedeau replied there were two options discussed approximately
six months ago: to either decrease the hours of the Center or to close it. He discussed the
involvement of Serve 6.8, which was not possible for a few months following its initial interest. He
stated keeping the Center open for that time period would cost about $180,000 and an informal
discussion was held regarding possible sources for that funding. He stated he recommended, based
on that conversation, continuing full-time operation until such time as Serve 6.8 decided on taking
over the Center.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why the request for funding did not occur several months ago. Mr.
Thibedeau replied there was a need to first ensure that Serve 6.8 would be moving forward and
scheduling issues also came into play.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the impact to the Murphy Center should this funding not be
approved. Mr. Thibedeau replied the Center would not go away and noted the United Way has
completed its contract payments with Touchstone and is in the process of handing over the operation
of the Murphy Center to Serve 6.8.
Councilmember Campana asked about the informal agreement, mentioning a commitment by the
City. Mr. Thibedeau replied the members of the Homeward 2020 Board had conversations with City
representatives and Bohemian Foundation representatives. He reiterated there was no formal
commitment or agreement.
Councilmember Campana asked who from the City made the informal commitment. Mr. Thibedeau
again stated there was no formal commitment, though he felt comfortable enough the funding would
eventually occur.
City Manager Atteberry stated this funding always hinged on Council approval, whether
recommended by staff or not.
Joe Frank, Social Sustainability Officer, stated the facility is important for the community and noted
the importance of the City continuing its support of the Center.
162
June 11, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked if this program would be part of the competitive process for CDBG
funds in the future. Frank replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked why the funding was not brought forward as a budget amendment in
November or December. Frank replied things were not far enough along at that time to bring
forward a request for funding.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Option
B of Resolution 2013-053.
Councilmember Cunniff supported the Murphy Center but opposed the perceived lack of fairness
of this funding request and suggested Serve 6.8 go through a future competitive process for CDBG
funding.
Councilmember Overbeck supported the Murphy Center, but opposed this request for funding.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion and stated this is an important
expenditure for an important aspect of the community.
Councilmember Campana stated he would support the motion and expressed support for the Murphy
Center.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak agreed the process for this funding request was imperfect but stated he would
support the motion, given there was a potential commitment from staff.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the individuals who spoke regarding this item but questioned the
fairness of providing a backfill on reserves for an organization. She expressed support for the
Center, the United Way, Touchstone, and Serve 6.8 and encouraged future participation in the
competitive process for CDBG funds.
Mayor Weitkunat reiterated support for the Murphy Center and opposed this general appropriation
process; however, she stated she would support the motion as the City made a commitment.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell and Horak. Nays:
Cunniff, Overbeck and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Horak, to adopt Ordinance
No. 082, 2013, on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat,
Campana, Troxell, Overbeck and Horak. Nays: Cunniff and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
163
June 11, 2013
Executive Session Authorized
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, asked if citizens are allowed to provide input regarding the
mid-term reviews of the three direct Council employees. The Council accepted a document from
Mr. Pruznick for consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to go into Executive
Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City Code, for the purpose of conducting the
mid-year performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge. Yeas:
Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Horak, Troxell, Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s Note: The Council returned from Executive Session at 10:08 p.m.)
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
164