HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/09/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
July 9, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Boards and Commissions Periodic Review. (staff: Darin Atteberry; 90 minute
discussion)
Each year Council meets with several boards and commissions to review their functions
and goals. This year Council will review the following boards and commissions:
• Human Relations Commission
• Women’s Commission
• Zoning Board of Appeals
• Planning and Zoning Board
3. Joint Work Session with the Planning and Zoning Board. (staff: Laurie Kadrich; 60-90
minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is for the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) to solicit
feedback from Council on policy issues: Additional Permitted Use (APU), Mixed-Use
1 of 160
July 9, 2013
and Transit Oriented Development (TOD); and discuss whether a more formal process
should be developed to address future emerging issues related to development
applications.
During the April 5, 2013 P&Z Retreat, the Councilmember liaison suggested a joint
meeting be scheduled with Council to discuss emerging issues, examine the reasons
behind recent appeals, create a shared understanding of the development review process,
and discuss any policy issues that policy makers should address.
4. Capital Improvements Expansion Fee Update. (staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Mike
Beckstead; 90 minute discussion)
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees were first implemented in 1996. In the fall of 2012,
staff initiated a comprehensive review of the original study. The goal of the review was
to ensure that the methodology first implemented was still applicable and to assess the
fee structure to confirm that it was consistent with the current level of service. To assist
with the review, Finance staff contracted with Duncan Associates, a nationally known
firm that specializes in impact fees.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
2 of 160
DATE: July 9, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Boards and Commissions Periodic Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year Council meets with several boards and commissions to review their functions and goals.
This year Council will review the following boards and commissions:
• Human Relations Commission
• Women’s Commission
• Zoning Board of Appeals
• Planning and Zoning Board
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The work session will conclude with either:
1. A statement that the board should continue without alteration; or
2. Direction to staff to prepare legislation making any changes (number of members, duties,
etc.).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its January 25, 2000 Work Session, Council discussed several procedures regarding its boards and
commissions. A portion of the discussion focused on the establishment and scope of a process to
periodically review the purpose and functions of the City's boards and commissions. At Council’s
request, staff developed a Periodic Review Process which was adopted on February 20, 2001 by
Resolution 2001-026 as a part of the Boards and Commissions Manual. The review dates have been
staggered; each board or commission will be reviewed approximately every six years. The 2013
review includes the following boards and commissions:
• Human Relations Commission
• Women’s Commission
• Zoning Board of Appeals
• Planning and Zoning Board
In accordance with the adopted review process, each of the boards listed above completed a self-
assessment questionnaire. Attached to each questionnaire is the City Code description of the board’s
duties, the most recent work plan, annual report, and bylaws. The Role of Council Liaisons to
3 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 2
Boards and Commissions is also attached to define the description of the Council Liaison as it relates
to direction, communication, facilitation and meeting attendance for boards and commissions. The
Council’s review will consist of the following questions:
- What does the board do? (current functions)
- Does the City need a board that does this?
- If so, should any of the duties of the board be changed?
- Can any of the duties of this board be consolidated with another board?
- Is the size of the board appropriate?
- Is the work done by the board beneficial and useful to the Council?
The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from each of the boards and commissions have been invited
to join the Council during the review of each board or commission. The discussion at the work
session is intended to assist the Council in determining whether it should:
- Continue the board without alteration of duties or composition.
- Continue the board with amendment to duties and/or composition.
- Eliminate the board and its duties.
- Eliminate the board and transfer of some or all duties to other existing board(s).
The work session will conclude either with:
1. A statement that the board should continue without alteration; or
2. Direction to staff to prepare legislation making any changes (number of members, duties,
etc.).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Human Relations Periodic Review Questionnaire – (with attachments)
2. Women’s Commission Periodic Review Questionnaire – (with attachments)
3. Zoning Board of Appeals Periodic Review Questionnaire – (with attachments)
4. Planning and Zoning Board Periodic Review Questionnaire (with attachments)
5. Periodic Review Process adopted February 20, 2001
6. The Role of Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions adopted on May 17, 1988 and
revised on June 6, 2000
4 of 160
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
DATE PREPARED: June 5, 2013
BOARD/COMMISSION NAME: Human Relations Commission
LIST OF MEMBERS: Mr. Myles Crane, Chair; Mr. James Lesco Vice Chair; Dr. James
Owiny, Chair Media and Community Recognition Committee; Ms. Preety Sathe, Chair,
Government Relations Committee; Ms. Faith Sternlieb, committee member; Ms. Christine Hays,
Chair Educational Outreach Committee; Ms. Colleen Conway, committee member; and Dr.
Mary Lyons, committee member.
1. Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
Current duties of HRC as defined by City Code appear realistic.
HRC has no suggested additions or deletions to City Code at this time.
HRC amended its Bylaws on April 11, 2013.
2. Is the Board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
The HRC’s annual work plan is about right with extensive community communications,
government relations and educational program outreach. During the board’s annual work
plan preparation, HRC members carefully evaluated their duties to complete their
workload effectively, not to overextend themselves as had been done in 2012 and balance
these volunteer duties with their other full-time jobs, family and/or other personal time
commitments.
Some attention was given by Council in 2012 to evaluate possible consolidation of the
HRC with three other boards: Commission on Disability (COD), Women’s Commission
(WC) and Youth Advisory Board (YAB). After several meetings with these respective
boards and two meetings with HRC’s Council Liaison, HRC determined that workloads
unique to each of these four boards did not accommodate consolidation. Instead
continued collaboration is desirable. In instances where overlap of specific functions
might be identified, then consideration should be given to consolidating those specific
functions. In this regard, the HRC has initiated a proposal to consolidate the HRC and
WC awards breakfast each May with the Mayor’s Awards program presented by the
COD in October. The HRC board has also approved collaboration with the Foundation on
Aging, Senior Advisory Board and Larimer County Office on Aging for a Summit on
Aging project in 2014.
ATTACHMENT 1
5 of 160
2
HRC would note that as a result of limited participation and/or absence by a few
HRC members, there has been some imbalance in workload distribution. HRC has
communicated with and received support from Council Liaison about this issue.
3. Does the Board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
On balance, the Board does accomplish its work plan well. The term “effectively”
however, has broad interpretation.
It is challenging for nine individual volunteers with varying backgrounds and interests to
provide appropriate coverage to all the diverse groups and human rights and relations
issues within the Fort Collins community. What the HRC elects to address is done
effectively. However; there are myriad groups and issues that we would like to cover but
owing to limited resources cannot do so to the extent desirable.
HRC’s Executive Committee proactively attends standing committee meetings. The
Government Relations Committee schedules commissioners’ attendance at Council
meetings and reports to the HRC on Council activities and decisions. The Media and
Community Recognition Committee devotes substantial resources to working with the
WC and in 2014 with the COD as well to plan organize and sponsor the Human Relations
Awards function. The Educational Outreach Committee continues to successfully work
with Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation and numerous community
organizations to explore opportunities for presenting educational programs to inform
various segments of the community. Additionally, all HRC members have liaison
responsibilities with other Boards and Commissions (B&C) and community organizations.
In 2014, the City of Fort Collins’ Human Relations Commission will be celebrating its
50
th
Anniversary. The HRC welcomes suggestions from Council on what kinds of related
events Council might want to take place.
4. Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
Monthly board and regularly scheduled committee meetings are conducted in an efficient
and effective manner. The HRC board has excellent staff support from its staff liaison
Melissa Herzog as well as an outstanding recorder Michele Dunlop.
Regularly scheduled monthly meetings typically include: standard review of agenda,
recent minutes and HRC budget, time-limited public input, invited guest speakers, reports
by the four standing committee chairs, comments and discussion with all commissioners,
as well as an updated summary of various community liaison reports. All board
commissioners have multiple opportunities to speak during old and new business
initiatives under Robert’s Rules of Order.
6 of 160
3
A new initiative in 2013, is a Meeting Mentor document distributed before each meeting
to all commissioners, the staff liaison and recorder as an Agenda supplement. This
document highlights agenda items by providing helpful background information to the
meeting proceedings and key points for board members to consider and/or address. It also
serves as real-time training guide for new board members and a helpful reference during
the meetings.
At each meeting a different HRC member volunteers to note key bullet points discussed.
Immediately prior to adjournment, a motion is presented to recap the meeting’s highlights.
Then shortly after the meeting, the HRC Staff Liaison distributes these meeting highlights
to Council and several other boards and commissions.
All of the above contribute to conducting the HRC meetings in an effective manner.
To improve board meetings, members could consider submitting more email summaries of
their B&C and community liaison reports. Also guest speaker presentations and Q&A
could continue to be time limited consistent with the meeting agenda.
5. Is the current size of the board appropriate?
A board size of nine members is appropriate to the extent that all nine members regularly
attend board meetings and carry out their share of responsibilities. A smaller size would
be inadequate and a larger size board is desirable not required at this time.
As of the writing of this report, one member who has been absent from several meetings
in 2012 and 2013 recently resigned on account of his increased full-time work
responsibilities. A second member has also been absent from several meetings in 2012
and 2013. As a result the HRC board is short-staffed. The HRC would appreciate the
support of Council to fill open positions more promptly to the extent possible for B&C’s.
6. Are communications between the Board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
HRC especially appreciates the communications relationship with Council Liaison,
Mayor Weitkunat and her excellent assistant Sara Kane. HRC’s Council Liaison has
consistently attended HRC meetings when invited, as well as significant HRC events
such as the Anti Bullying Summit, Elder Abuse Forum and HRC Awards breakfasts.
Also, Assistant Senior Attorney Greg Tempel is always prompt in responding to HRC
inquiries.
To improve communications, HRC would value an annual meeting with Council together
with selected B&C’s to discuss highlights of their completed annual work plans with
Council input provided and appreciated.
7 of 160
4
B&C’s could be invited in groups of two and threes. Such a meeting could be completed
in two hours over a light breakfast, lunch or supper. For the convenience of Council,
these meetings could be spread over the year and/or perhaps combined with their working
meetings. Presence of City Manager or designated staff would be a plus.
A similar process to the aforementioned is common among corporate C-level executives
especially in larger corporations who wish to improve communications within their
organizations.
Follow-up by Council is desirable regarding outcomes from the 2012 B&C’s meeting
hosted by the WC.
As B&C’s serve Council in an advisory capacity, it might be helpful for Council or City
Department Managers or their designated staff to provide heads-up communications to
B&C’s whenever there are periodic progress summary reports of activities and
accomplishments within the City.
7. Other comments:
1. When a member on any B&C leaves before his/her term expires, a more efficient
process could be in effect to replace that member. Filling vacancies has tended to be
somewhat slow to help B&C’s on a timely basis.
2. The City might consider publishing notices on its home page requesting volunteers to
fill open board positions.
3. Better access and coordination with the City’s information services resources would be
helpful to improve HRC communications online such as through social media, Youtube
and so forth. The HRC welcomes any suggestions/assistance to improve website and
related e-communications.
The HRC would like to recognize the quick response and cooperation of the City
Warehouse.
4. A more flexible process for occasional special budget requests for unique events such
as HRC’s 50
th
anniversary in 2014 is desirable.
Attachments:
City Code description of duties
Current Work Plan
Current Annual Report
Current Bylaws
8 of 160
DIVISION 17. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Sec. 2-261. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created a Human Relations Commission, hereafter
referred to in this Division as the "Commission."
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 11, 11-4-86)
Sec. 2-262. Membership; terms.
(a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City
Council.
(b) Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four (4) years,
except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in
order to achieve overlapping tenure. Appointments shall specify the term of
office of each individual. All members shall be subject to removal by the City
Council. If a vacancy occurs on the Commission, it shall be filled by the City
Council for the remaining unexpired portion of the term. No member shall
serve more than two (2) consecutive terms. For the purposes of this provision, a
"term" shall include the balance of an unexpired term served by a person
appointed to fill a vacancy if such unexpired term exceeds twenty-four (24)
months.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 11, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 83, 1992, § 2, 7-21-92; Ord. No. 93,
2002, § 1, 7-16-02)
Sec. 2-263. Functions.
The Commission shall have the following functions:
(1) To promote positive interaction among all City residents and to discourage
all forms of discrimination based upon the diversified values and individual
differences of such residents by:
a. Developing and promoting educational programs and activities that
advocate awareness and respect for diversity;
b. Cooperating with and providing leadership and support for other
groups interested in promoting value and respect for diversity and
positive intergroup relations;
9 of 160
c. Educating City residents about existing local, state and federal laws
dealing with discrimination and diversity;
d. Reviewing proposed legislation, policy changes or other governmental
action at the federal, state or local level which may affect human rights
in the City and making recommendations to the City Council regarding
the same; and
e. Recommending to the City Council such actions as may be necessary
or advisable to achieve:
1. Equal employment opportunities for all persons;
2. Equal housing opportunities for all persons;
3. Equal public accommodation opportunities for all persons; and
4. Positive community relations in all fields of governmental
endeavor.
(2) To assist residents of the City in utilizing the complaint procedure under
Chapter 13, Article II of the Code and to hear appeals from decisions of the
City Manager as provided in Subsection 13-23(b) of the Code; provided,
however, that any members of the Commission who have rendered assistance
to particular complainants shall refrain from participating in the Commission's
review of any decisions of the City Manager related to such complainants.
(3) To facilitate the review of citizen complaints concerning the actions of City
police officers or community service officers by:
a. Designating volunteers from the public or from the Commission's own
membership to assist individual citizens who wish to file such
complaints;
b. Assisting citizens who have language barriers in the completion of
complaint forms;
c. Soliciting assistance from other social agencies in notifying the public
about the complaint process; and
d. Communicating with other similar Commissions in order to share
experiences and become more sensitive to potential problems.
10 of 160
(4) To make periodic reports to the City Council concerning the activities and
recommendations of the Commission; and
(5) To perform such functions as are committed to it by other ordinances or
resolutions of the City.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 11, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 83, 1992, § 3, 7-21-92; Ord. No. 103,
1993, 9-21-93; Ord. No. 76, 1998, § 3, 8-4-98; Ord. No. 151, 2001, 10-16-01)
Sec. 2-264. Officers; bylaws.
The Commission shall elect annually from its membership a chairperson and such
officers as may be required. Bylaws may be adopted by the Commission, which
bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the Charter, the Code or other policies that may
be established by the City Council. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City
Clerk for the use of the City Council immediately after adoption by the Commission,
and the same may be subject to the approval of the City Council.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 11, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 104, 2002, § 2, 8-20-02)
Sec. 2-265. Minutes; annual report; work plan.
The Commission shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of
§ 2-73 of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Commission shall file a
report with the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Commission for the
previous year. On or before November 30 of each year, the Commission shall file a
work plan with the City Clerk for the following year.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 11, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 79, 1988, § 10, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 83,
1992, § 4, 7-21-92)
11 of 160
1
Fort Collins Human Relations Commission
2013 Work Plan
As Community leaders and advisors to City Council, we research, deliberate and
take proactive and responsive measures to promote the dignity of individuals and
groups in Fort Collins. HRC Mission Statement
For 2013, the Fort Collins Human Relations Commission will continue with a
broad plan for supporting Human issues that are pertinent to the City of Fort
Collins. Responsibilities are divided amongst its four Committees but are not
exclusive to that Committee. Our Commission has pledged to become informed
about human relations issues and events within Fort Collins and recommend
appropriate action to City Council.
The EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE shall…
Determine meeting agendas for monthly HRC meetings and special meetings.
Maintain regular communication with our HRC City Council Liaison and City
Council.
Delegate issues for resolution to standing or to special committees.
Provide support to other HRC committees as needed.
Call special meetings when problem - resolution of urgent issues is needed.
The GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE shall…
Act as primary point of contact for the Citizen Liaison Program which assists
citizens in filing complaints with Fort Collins Police Services. Coordinate with
Police Services to train people in the Citizen Liaison Program and to allow
effective utilization of the program within the complaint process. Maintain a list of
interpreters to assist with translation in filing complaints.
Keep a calendar of City Council meetings and solicit HRC members to monitor
City Council agendas and attend or view meetings as appropriate; develop
protocol for attendance at City Council meetings; specifically monitoring the
12 of 160
2
Community Open Mike period at the beginning of Council sessions. Address
City Council as needed and report back to the HRC.
Attend Citizen Review Board meetings and provide assistance upon its request.
Help to educate citizens and recommend actions which promote positive
relations among community members, Fort Collins Police Services and the
Citizen Review Board.
Review proposed legislation, policy changes or other governmental action at the
federal, state or local level which may affect human rights and civil liberties in the
city in order to make recommendations regarding the same, as appropriate.
Research and recommend actions necessary to achieve: equal employment
opportunities; equal housing opportunities; equal public accommodation
opportunities and the best possible Fort Collins government/community relations
in all fields of government, as appropriate.
Maintain regular communication with our HRC City Council Liaison and City
Council.
The MEDIA/COMMUNITY RECOGNITION COMMITTEE shall…
Foster cooperative relations with media to increase visibility of HRC’s work.
Draft necessary articles or communication pieces to support the work of the
HRC.
Plan and execute the Annual HRC Awards in collaboration with the Women’s
Commission.
Update the HRC website and brochure, working with the city staff.
Streamline the publicity process for event planning.
Compile and generate a media resources plan and kit.
The EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH COMMITTEE shall…
Create a better understanding of issues involving cultural, ethnic, racial, gender,
age, disability or diversity through the use of educational programs and/or
events.
Keep the Commission current on topics involving diversity and equality and to
move on action items that parallel the HRC mission and strategic plan.
Increase our collaboration with new and existing committees and organizations
in Fort Collins as well as pursue opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with
City Boards and Commissions that have similar functions.
Partner with other organizations to assist in outreach programming and direct
responsiveness to queries and situations.
13 of 160
1
Human Relations Commission
2012 Annual Report
As Community leaders and advisors to City Council, we research, deliberate and take proactive
and responsive measures to promote the dignity of individuals and groups in Fort Collins.
HRC Mission Statement
Executive Committee:
In an effort to strengthen teamwork, improve meeting efficiency, and integrate new
members more easily and effectively into the Commission, the following were completed
in 2012:
Consistent meeting planning, organization and facilitation including education around
Robert’s Rules.
Teamwork training – 5 meetings had a separate agenda item and time dedicated to
building teamwork and strengthening relationships among Commission members
resulting in closer connections and improved performance on projects and
collaboration both inside and outside the Commission.
“After Action Reviews” (AAR) were conducted after each major event including the
HRA Breakfast and Elder Abuse Forum to analyze what worked, what didn’t and
how to build on these for the future.
Initiation and implementation of a mentoring program for new members; new
members were paired with experienced members to assist them with questions,
answers, policies, etc.
Educational Outreach Committee:
Consistent with the HRC’s Work Plan for 2012 as revised by City Council, two HRC
members met twice with their Council Liaison, Mayor Karen Weitkunat, to ensure
compliance with Council’s directives. To that end, the HRC accomplished the
following:
o Conducted a special training meeting with the Youth Advisory Board (YAB)
and discussed a Board self-assessment tool developed by HRC members
14 of 160
2
o Met with the Commission on Disability (COD) and suggested they consider
coordinating annual award events of the COD, HRC, and Women’s
Commission (WC ) on the same date starting in 2014
o Suggested the COD consider appointing a liaison from COD to periodically
attend HRC meetings
o Attended various collaborative meetings with the WC including a Boards and
Commissions (B&C) breakfast meeting to share ideas with members from
several boards and commissions
o Attended the B&C meeting in October in which two HRC members assisted
in facilitation of table discussions and one HRC member
served on that meeting’s planning committee to assist and support WC’s
efforts.
Based on its work, the HRC suggests that City boards continue to collaborate
proactively and identify those areas where working together would be beneficial to
the community and maximize our resources to create economies of scale. HRC also
observed that there are many City-related initiatives which are unique to the specific
missions and directives of those individual boards including the COD, HRC, WC and
YAB
A letter from HRC Council Liaison, Mayor Karen Weitkunat, was distributed in April
2012 to clarify the original intention of the HRC’s Revised 2012 Work Plan. This
letter emphasized collaboration and initiatives with other boards to increase resource
efficiency rather than evaluate specific boards and commissions. Based on the HRC’s
interactions with these boards, the HRC wanted to share its conclusion that it is not
practically feasible at this time to consolidate most activities of HRC with COD, WC
or YAB or consider elimination of any of these boards.
HRC hosted “Make It Stop: Elder Abuse Forum” (hereafter referred to as the
Forum) on October 22
nd
at the Fort Collins Senior Center. Mayor Karen
Weitkunat introduced this important program to raise community awareness about
elderly abuse and neglect.
o The Forum was co-sponsored by HRC, Colorado State University’s (CSU)
Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) and six other boards, commissions and
councils: Disability, Senior Advisory, Women’s, Youth Advisory, Larimer
County Office on Aging, and Senior Center.
o The HRC Chair moderated a distinguished panel composed of speakers from
the following offices: Larimer County District Attorney, Fort Collins Police
Department Crime Prevention, Adult Protection Services, PVHS Emergency
Services, the AARP Foundation and AARP Elder Watch. A video of the
panel’s informative and insightful comments as well as audience Q&A
15 of 160
3
participation can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-if6p-
CRcug&feature=plcp
o Students from the CPD facilitated intergenerational roundtable discussions
with a focus on improving elder abuse prevention, increasing monitoring,
reporting and intervention, and discussing broader issues about culture change
concerning the aging.
o Over 135 people attended including one State Senator and two State
Representatives who each expressed appreciation to HRC for this program.
Each also advised HRC of their intent to address the reporting aspect of elder
abuse in the Colorado State Legislature to the extent that there is available
funding.
o The CPD has prepared a draft Initial Report consolidating raw data provided
by attendees. The CPD will issue a subsequent Final Report later in 2013
which will add detailed analysis of the key themes derived from the raw data
in the Initial Report. Once these reports are finalized, they will be emailed to
City Council, conference attendees who provided their email addresses. The
report will also be sent to the following organizations which attended the
Forum to provide the public with an opportunity to meet with over 30
community resources in one venue at one time and talk with these
professionals about their services.
o Community Resources participating at the Forum included the above seven
co-sponsoring boards, AARP Foundation, Adult Protection Services,
Alzheimer’s Association, Arc of Larimer County, ARCH, Aspen Club,
Catholic Charities, Colorado AARP Elder Watch, Colorado Coalition for
Elder Rights and Abuse Prevention, Connecting Health, Elder Care Network,
Elderhaus, Fort Collins Police Department – Crime Prevention, Fort Collins
Senior Center, Larimer County District Attorney, Foundation on Aging,
Larimer County Office on Aging, Larimer County Ombudsman, Loveland
Senior Advisory Board, Meals on Wheels, Poudre River Public Library,
SAVA, Touchstone Health Partners, and United Way 2-1-1.
An HRC member attended a 3-day training session called “Stop the Hate”
sponsored by CSU, a train the trainer program. An HRC member also participated
at this program.
Three HRC members have been trained at CSU as CPD facilitators. Also, two
HRC members are listed in the CPD’s 2011-2012 Annual Report for their
volunteer work as community associates assisting students in class and at public
meetings.
Two HRC members managed a booth at the Fort Collins High School Diversity
conference on April 21
st
.
16 of 160
4
HRC members participated in the Citizen Liaison Program which included
training and a police ride-a-long to increase public awareness and better
understand the role of the Citizen Review Board.
Government Relations Committee
City Council, Citizen Review Board, Commission on Disability, CSU’s Center for
Public Deliberation, Senior Advisory Board, Women’s Commission, Youth Advisory
Board and Larimer County Office on Aging Advisory Council meetings were
attended and/or monitored.
A number of guest speakers spoke at HRC meetings. Subjects included diversity,
social justice, tolerance, financial planning, medical care for low income families,
police services, the Citizen Review Board, and the LGBTQ community.
The HRC maintains a list of translators available to citizens who may need language
translation assistance.
Members of the HRC received a proclamation from Mayor Karen Weitkunat
declaring December 10, 2012 as International Human Rights Day.
As a means of improving communication both with members of City Council and
other boards and commissions, subsequent to each HRC monthly meeting, the HRC
sends out summary bullet points highlighting key topics and events discussed by
HRC.
A member of the HRC is serving on the Martin Luther King Day Planning
Committee. An HRC member has received the honor of being selected as a Martin
Luther King Day Parade leader. Members of the HRC also assisted in judging the
Youth Writing Contest coordinated by the Black/African American Cultural Center at
CSU for entries by middle school students in the Poudre School District.
Media / Community Recognition Committee:
HRC conducted its annual search for individuals, groups, companies or organizations
which promote acceptance and respect for diversity in the City of Fort Collins.
o An HRC Annual Awards Breakfast was held at the Northside Aztlan
Community Center on May 1
st
.
o HRC recognized successful candidates in the following five categories
with awards for Police and Emergency Service, Senior, Adult, Youth and
Organization.
o The Guest Speaker was Mary Ontiveros, Colorado State University’s Vice
President for Diversity.
o The Awards Breakfast was attended by approximately 130 people.
17 of 160
5
o The event was coordinated with the Women’s Commission which
presented its annual Marcile N. Wood award for advancing the status of
women in the community.
HRC made multiple presentations and distributed HRC event flyers to City Council
and members of the Fort Collins community. The Commission also produced HRC
information pamphlets and PowerPoint slides.
Several “Soapbox” articles and letters to the editor were written by HRC members
and published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan as well as in other print and news
media.
Members of the HRC also participated in radio interviews on KRFC FM and made
public presentations promoting the Elder Abuse Forum.
18 of 160
1
FORT COLLINS HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION BYLAWS
(Revised 4/11/2013)
Section I - Purpose of the Commission
The Commission is assigned the following functions by City Ordinance:
A. To develop and promulgate an educational program to acquaint Fort Collins residents with all
local, state and federal civil rights ordinances, statutes and laws.
B. To recommend to the City Council such actions as may be necessary or advisable to achieve
the following:
1. Equal employment opportunity for all persons.
2. Equal housing opportunities for all persons.
3. Equal public accommodation opportunities for all persons.
4. Best possible Fort Collins government-community relations in all fields of
governmental endeavor.
C. To supplement the foregoing purposes by the following means:
1. Formation of special subcommittees, including non Human Relations Commission
member specialists;
2. To make a continuing study of ways to support the laws concerned;
3. To solicit aid from other social agencies in educating the public;
4. To communicate with other similar commissions in order to share experiences and
become more sensitive to potential problems.
D. To perform such functions as are committed to it by other ordinances or resolutions.
Section II – Membership and Attendance
Upon application for acceptance of appointment, HRC members have demonstrated
their intention and ability to attend meetings. HRC’s regularly scheduled meetings
include: monthly HRC meetings; periodic meetings of the Standing Committee on
which the HRC member has volunteered to serve; attendance at City Council on
designated previously agreed upon dates; recommended special event meetings for
attendance by all HRC members including but not limited to the annual HR Awards
Breakfast, Educational Outreach public events, other occasional public meetings and
HRC training and development.
19 of 160
2
Consistent with the Attendance Policy in the Boards and Commissions Manual Revised
January 2013: either of the following shall automatically cause a member’s appointment
to be terminated:
Three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled HRC meetings, if prior to the
meeting where the absences occurred, no written notification of any such absence has been
submitted to the staff liaison, or the chair, or if the chair is the person experiencing
attendance problems, then to the vice chair.
Four absences from regularly scheduled HRC meetings in any calendar year, without
written notification to the staff liaison or the chair or, if the chair is the person experiencing
the attendance problems, then to the vice chair.
In the event that a vacancy occurs by reason of this policy, the chair and/or vice chair shall
work with the staff liaison consistent with current Boards and Commissions Manual policy
so that the vacancy can be filled in a timely manner by Council.
Section III - Offices. Tenure and Duties
The commission shall elect from its membership a Chair and Vice Chair, each for a
one- year term and they will be eligible for re-election. Their duties shall be those generally
assigned by the nature of their offices. Interim elections may be held if any such office is
vacated.
Section IV - Committees
Standing Committees of the Commission shall be appointed by vote of the Commission
after discussion by the Commission. Each Committee shall annually elect appropriate
officers from among its membership. Interim elections may be held if any such office is
vacated. The following shall constitute the Standing Committees with responsibilities as
described under each:
Standing Committees:
1. Executive Committee:
- To provide problem resolution of urgent issues brought to HRC.
- To delegate issues for resolution to standing or to special committees.
- To become informed about possible human relation issues within Fort Collins in order to
take appropriate preventative action.
- To draw up monthly meeting agenda.
20 of 160
3
2. Educational Outreach Committee:
- To promote the commission’s vision and mission to the local community and to heighten
awareness to create a better understanding of issues regarding specific cultural , ethnic,
racial, gender, age, disability or diversity specific issues through the use of forums, talk
shows, articles, speaker bureau or other communication venues.
- To collaborate and continue to develop liaisons with other organizations to present
cultural, educational activities to the Fort Collins community.
3. Media and Community Recognition Committee:
- To present annual HRC awards which recognize and commend deserving individuals
groups, companies or organizations for inspiring contributions and leadership on behalf
of minority or disadvantaged citizens and betterment of the community.
- To foster cooperative relations with local media regarding HRC's vision, mission and
consequent events and activities.
- To draft necessary articles or communication pieces to support the work of the HRC
4. Government Relations Committee:
- To manage the Citizen Liaison Program.
- To foster cooperative relations with the Citizen Review Board.
- To monitor City Council agendas and attend meetings as appropriate.
- To review proposed legislation , policy changes or other governmental action at the
federal , state or local level which may affect human rights in the city and make
recommendations regarding the same.
- To research and recommend actions necessary to achieve 1) equal employment
opportunity; 2) equal housing opportunities; 3) equal public accommodations
opportunities and 4) the best possible Fort Collins government/community relations in
all fields of governmental endeavor.
5. Other Committees as formed by the Commission:
The Chair of the Commission shall establish any other committees prior to the next
Commission meeting for the length of time needed to accomplish stated purposes as need
shall arise in order to carry out Commission functions.
Section V – Conduct of Business
A. Quorum - A quorum for the official conduct of business shall consist of a majority of
Commission members.
B. Business shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order.
C. Meeting Time
1. The Commission shall hold regular monthly meetings which shall be conducted on the
second Thursday of each month at 5:30 p. m. in the CIC Room , 300 W. LaPorte
Avenue.
21 of 160
4
2. Meeting times or location can be changed by a majority vote, or in case of emergency by
the Chair.
3. Additional meetings as needed shall be called by the Chair.
D. Time Commitment - members have agreed to a minimum time commitment of 6 hours
per month (2 hours for the regular meeting and 2 hours for committees).
Section VI Changes and Amendments
The Bylaws may be changed and amended by motion passed by a majority of the entire
Commission.
Section VII- Continuing Relation of the Commission to the City Council
Reports - The Commission shall provide an annual report to the City Council in January, and an
annual work plan in November. It shall also provide other reports at such time as requested by
the Council when deemed advisable by the Commission.
Adopted by the Human Relations Commission this 11th day of April, 2013.
Myles W. Crane, Chair April 11, 2013
22 of 160
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
DATE PREPARED: May 16, 2013
BOARD/COMMISSION NAME: Women’s Commission
LIST OF MEMBERS:
Lea Hanson, Chair
Marija Weeden-Osborn, Vice-Chair
Ginny Carroll
Catherine Douras
Suzzette Greany
Jan Hawn
Merry Hummell
Deborah Young
Annette Zacharias
Staff Liaison: Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson
1. Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
Our current responsibilities are realistic. That said, we would like to see our duties and
responsibilities grow to include the Women’s Commission being a more regular sounding board
to the City Council on decisions that affect women in Fort Collins. We are very interested in
being able to provide more regular advice and feedback so city leadership can continue to make
decisions that take into consideration the needs of women in our community, particularly in
relation to our core issues of poverty, health and safety.
2. Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
Our work plan evolves and improves each year. Through our work plan in 2013 and the last few
years we have focused on improving the state of women in Fort Collins in two ways: through our
three focus areas (poverty, health and safety) and by working to improve the way that boards and
commissions work with each other and with City Council in order to help ensure that the issues
and concerns of women are factored into recommendations and decision. While well-balanced,
we believe that there is room to expand our work plan to increase our role in city discussions on
issues that directly impact the financial stability, health and safety of women in Fort Collins. To
accomplish this we would like to have City Council include the Women’s Commission regularly
when referring issues to boards and commissions for feedback.
ATTACHMENT 2
23 of 160
3. Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
Absolutely. We add responsibilities each year that help us to continually better align with serving
the needs of the City Council and the community at large, and we believe that we can serve City
Council and the community in a higher capacity when included in conversations earlier.
4. Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
Yes. We consistently have high attendance and a full agenda of important and relevant topics for
conversation and decision.
5. Is the current size of the board appropriate?
No, as requested at our last review and in conversations with our Council Liaison, we believe the
Commission needs two additional positions to be reserved for youth members. We feel so
strongly that young women in our community should have a voice that in the past three years we
have recruited two young women who have attended our meetings as non-voting members.
These members have provided a perspective of the community and the issues we faced that is not
often heard and we are committed to working to recruit these positions, but believe they should
be voting members.
6. Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
Since our last periodic review, we have worked to improve and streamline our communication
with City Council more each year, and we believe there is additional work to be done. We are
thankful for the Council’s willingness to hear feedback from the Women’s Commission when we
provide it, but we believe this could be improved by making communication more bilateral.
While the Women’s Commission works to keep up on Council agendas and the 6 month
planning calendar, it would be helpful to also have Council seeking the input of the commission
and notifying us when issues are before you that affect the women of Fort Collins.
The Women’s Commission has chosen to focus on three specific areas that affect the women of
Fort Collins, though we recognize that there are other issues that may arise and we are willing to
weigh in on those as well. The areas we have focused on are Poverty, Safety and Health. There
is a great range of specific issues that fall within these categories, and since our last review we
have engaged in several. These included:
● Transit, in particular the need for transit in southeast Fort Collins which has a high
population of seniors, which is a population that tends to be predominantly women
● The Student Housing Action Plan because of its potential influence on the multifamily
housing and therefore the affordability of housing in Fort Collins which greatly impacts
low income families, particularly families which are headed by females, and
24 of 160
● tiered water rates and electric rate increases which while may seem like minor changes
can be a huge impact on a low income family’s budget.
While on the surface these examples may not seem to be issues that affect women – at least
specifically – when we examine them more deeply, it’s a clear connection.
With increased bilateral communication with City Council we anticipate being able to join these
important conversations sooner, thereby increasing the ability of the solutions to address these
important issues. One particular example that stands out is the Student Housing Action Plan.
While the discussion started as an attempt to address student housing issues, it became clear that
anything that came out of it would affect affordable housing across the board in Fort Collins. As
a result, representatives from our commission attended multiple meetings to give feedback as the
topic related to and affected women in our community, though we would have appreciated
Council bringing the discussion to our attention sooner. Multifamily dwelling units are not only
for students - many families reside in them. These units are especially important for families who
have fewer resources, which often includes those which are headed by one parent. In Fort
Collins, we know that 70% of single family homes are headed by women.
The Women’s Commission is committed to ensuring that Fort Collins is a community that
provides opportunity for all of its residents, and many of the decisions that you as Council make
affect that opportunity for women and their families. Over the course of the next few years we
would greatly appreciate Council being more proactive in seeking our voice and notifying
us of conversations in which we should be engaged.
7. Other comments:
The Women’s Commission is very proud of our work over the past few years to engage and
collaborate with other boards and commissions. We have worked hard to create events and
avenues for improving and streamlining communication among and between groups. Some
examples of these efforts include the planning, execution, and facilitation of an annual mixer;
creating a partnership with the HRC with the annual awards and recognition breakfast; and
planning the B&C collaboration meeting in late October 2012 that resulted in recommendations
for a number of systematic and organizational changes that will improve communication,
training, and the general work of each board and commission.
We look forward to continuing this important work to improve the effectiveness of how boards
and commissions work with each other and City Council with city staff and Council members.
Attachments:
City Code description of duties
Current Work Plan
Current Annual Report
Current Bylaws
25 of 160
DIVISION 10. WOMEN'S COMMISSION
Sec. 2-166. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created a Women's Commission, hereafter referred to in
this Division as the "Commission."
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 7, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 066, 2006, 5-2-06)
Sec. 2-167. Membership; term.
(a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City
Council. In addition, the County and Colorado State University may each
appoint a representative to serve as an ex officio nonvoting liaison to the
Commission.
(b) Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four (4) years,
except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in
order to achieve overlapping tenure. Appointments shall specify the term of
office of each individual. All members shall be subject to removal by the City
Council. If a vacancy occurs on the Commission, it shall be filled by the City
Council for the remaining unexpired portion of the term. No member shall
serve more than two (2) consecutive terms. For the purposes of this provision, a
"term" shall include the balance of an unexpired term served by a person
appointed to fill a vacancy if such unexpired term exceeds twenty-four (24)
months.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 7, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 27, 1987, § 1-4, 3-17-87; Ord. No. 24,
1990, § 1, 4-3-90; Ord. No. 92, 1992, § 5, 9-15-92; Ord. No. 7, 1994, 2-1-94; Ord. No.
103, 2000, 9-5-00; Ord. No. 145, 2001, 9-18-01; Ord. No. 93, 2002, § 1, 7-16-02)
Sec. 2-168. Functions.
The Commission is created for the purpose of enhancing the status of and
opportunities for all women in the City. The Commission shall have the ability to:
(1) Document issues of importance to the status of women in the City;
(2) Conduct educational programs in the Fort Collins community to increase
public awareness and sensitivity to the needs and capabilities of all women;
26 of 160
(3) Cooperate with other organizations and individuals interested in issues
affecting women in the Fort Collins area;
(4) Review proposed legislation, policy changes or other governmental action
at the federal, state or local level that would enhance or otherwise affect the
status of women in the City and make recommendations to the City Council
regarding the same.
(5) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of local legislation or policies
that would enhance the status of women in the City.
(Ord. No 158, 1986, § 7, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 001, 2011, 1-18-11)
Sec. 2-169. Officers; bylaws.
The Commission shall elect annually from its membership a chairperson and such
officers as may be required. Bylaws may be adopted by the Commission, which
bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the Charter, the Code or other policies that may
be established by the City Council. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City
Clerk for the use of the City Council immediately after adoption by the Commission,
and the same may be subject to the approval of the City Council.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 7, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 104, 2002, § 2, 8-20-02)
Sec. 2-170. Minutes; annual report; work plan.
The Commission shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of
§ 2-73 of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Commission shall file a
report with the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Commission for the
previous year. On or before November 30 of each year, the Commission shall file a
work plan with the City Clerk for the following year.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 7, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 79, 1988, § 5, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 92, 1992,
§ 5, 9-15-92)
27 of 160
Women’s Commission
2013 WORK PLAN
The City of Fort Collins Women’s Commission promotes decisions and actions that
address the needs and positively impact women in our community. We do this by
listening to the voice of women, advising city council, promoting community events, and
educating ourselves and others about safety, health and poverty.
INTRODUCTION
For the year 2013, the Fort Collins Women’s Commission will continue to focus
its efforts on three key areas affecting women in Fort Collins: Poverty, Health,
and Safety. The Commission is focused on becoming a stronger voice to the City
Council and the community on behalf of the women of Fort Collins.
GOALS
The Women’s Commission has established the following goals for 2013:
[1] Review and capitalize on the research available from existing sources
to provide a picture of the status of women in the community. These
sources include, but are not limited to, the Shriver Report, updates from
the National Association of Commissions on Women, Larimer County’s
Pathways Past Poverty research, Larimer County Compass website, and
information from local agencies and organizations. By utilizing these
credible resources and communicating key data, stories and pictures about
women to the decision makers and movers, we seek to engage the
community, foster dialogue and create the forums and synergies necessary
for problem solving.
[2] Bring to the attention of City Council and identify and utilize key
events/media outlets in the community where the materials and messages
of the Women’s Commission can be effectively communicated and
leveraged.
[3] Continue to develop and leverage relationships with other City of Fort
Collins’ boards and commissions around issues that impact the key focus
areas of the women’s commission, i.e. – presentation of the the Marcile N.
Wood Award at the HRC’s annual awards breakfast and collaboration
meetings .
ANNUAL COMMISSION ACTIVITIES
• Attending and presenting material at City Council meetings
• Organizing collaboration meetings with other Boards and Commissions
28 of 160
• Produce written materials related to annual goals which will be available in both
electronic and paper form
• Work with local media to highlight events and emerging relevant topics
• Participate in and/or arrange community events that highlight issues pertinent to
women in Fort Collins. (The Marcile N. Wood Award will be presented at the
HRC’s annual awards breakfast)
• Create collaborative relationships with individuals and entities who address the
community’s issues of poverty, health, and safety
• Identify and reach out to community experts and resources to inform the work of
the women’s commission
• Professional development and training for Women’s Commission members
• Quarterly evaluations of progress
• Participate in city budget discussions as appropriate
COMMISSION LIAISONS
Relationship with City Council – Track the Council’s policy agenda and, in the
Commission’s advisory role, provide information and appropriate comments to
the City Council on issues of information gathered by the commission.
Develop and strengthen relationships with community organizations and groups
that focus on women in the community - including Colorado State University,
local non-profit groups, and others.
GENERAL TIMELINE
January:
• Approve the 2012 Annual Report to be presented to the City Council by the end
of the month.
• Set up the 2013 Commission Retreat for February
• Work collaboratively with Board and Commission members on Board and
Commission effectiveness groups
• Assign development of the March proclamations - International Women’s Day
(March 8, 2013) and Women’s History Month
• Assign development of Equal Pay Day Proclamation (April)
• Schedule meeting with City Council liaison
February:
• Annual Retreat
• Discuss Affordable Care Act/Health Exchange community event
• Discuss plans for Take Back the Night participation and support (April).
• Discuss ways to collaborate with other Senior Advisory Board for Older
Americans Month (May)
• Assign development of Equal Pay Day Proclamation (April)
29 of 160
• Approve the March proclamations; confirm attendance to receive the
proclamation (March 5, 2013).
• Collaborate with HRC in preparation for their annual awards breakfast
o Marcile N. Wood Award application and selection process
March:
• Schedule the year based on information from the February Retreat – review and
confirm subcommittee assignments
• Explore publicity options for promoting events, winners, and honoring women
within the community at large
• Approve Equal Pay Day Proclamation; confirm attendance to receive the
proclamation in April
• Attend City Council meeting for International Women’s Day and Women’s
History Month proclamations
• Assign development of Women’s Health Week Proclamation (May)
• Assign development of Women’s Equality Day Proclamation (July)
• Quarterly evaluation of progress
April:
• Approve the Women’s Wellness Week proclamation; confirm attendance to
receive the proclamation in May
• Attend City Council meeting for Equal Pay Day proclamation
• Support the HRC Award breakfast; present the Marcile N. Wood Award
May:
• Attend City Council meeting to receive the Women’s Wellness Week proclamation
• Assign development of the Women’s Equality Day proclamation
• Review City Council retreat outcome and six month planning calendar
• Quarterly evaluations of progress
June:
• Participate in Four Year Review of Commission
• Planning as determined by the Commission – review rest of 2013 and make
adjustments as necessary
• Approve the Women’s Equality Day proclamation; confirm attendance to receive
the proclamation in July
• Discuss participation in Pride in the Park
July/August:
• Attend City Council meeting to receive the Women’s Equality Day proclamation
September:
• Review subcommittee assignments
• Begin working on 2014 Work Plan.
• Quarterly evaluations of progress
30 of 160
October:
Review draft 2014 Work Plan
Work collaboratively with Board and Commission members on Board and
Commission effectiveness groups
November:
• Approve 2014 Work Plan; submit to Clerk’s Office.
• Plan December activity to review the year and celebrate any outgoing
Commission members
December:
• Begin working on 2012 Annual Report
• Quarterly evaluations of progress
• Celebration
31 of 160
City of Fort Collins
Women’s Commission
2012 Annual Report
The City of Fort Collins Women’s Commission promotes decisions and actions that address the
needs and positively impact women in our community. We do this by listening to the voice of
women, advising city council, promoting community events, and educating ourselves and others
about safety, health and poverty.
Women’s Commission members in 2012 were Ginny Carroll, Catherine Douras, Lea Hanson, Jan
Hawn, Sara Hoffman, Merry Hummell, Marija Weeden-Osborn, Deborah Young and Annette
Zacharias.
In 2012, the Women’s Commission:
• Compiled a list of resources in the three focus areas (Poverty, Safety, and Health) for
women in Fort Collins and posted the list on the Women’s Commission web page.
• Held the third annual retreat on March 3, 2012, creating a strategic plan for the year.
• Continued to discuss the message and image for the Commission and wrote a motto
that sums up the Commission’s work.
• Met with Mayor Karen Weitkunat February 29, 2012 (Young and Hanson).
• Attended meeting with representatives from all 27 other city boards on April 4, 2012
(Young and Hanson).
• Completed the materials for panels on the table top display, which will be reviewed and
updated regularly.
• Attended the Growing Older in Fort Collins – Part 3 presentation on April 17 (Young).
• Partnered with Human Relations Commission (HRC) to present the Marcile N. Wood
award in 2012. The winner, Mary Atchison, was announced at the HRC Award breakfast
on Tuesday, May 1, 2012. The Women’s Commission conducted the review process and
assisted in the presentation at the breakfast.
• Continued the dialogue with other Boards and Commissions by hosting a third breakfast
mixer on May 23, 2012.
• Presented the Women’s Wellness Week, International Women’s Day, Women’s History
Month, Equal Pay Day, and Women’s Equality Day Proclamations at City Council
meetings.
• Members attended Silver Tsunami series about growing older in Fort Collins.
• Cosponsored the Elder Abuse Forum with the HRC – October 22, 2012, 4:30-6:30 at
Senior Center. Several Women’s Commission members attended.
32 of 160
• Coordinated and cohosted a Boards and Commissions Collaborative Meeting on October
29, 2012. Ginny Sawyer facilitated the meeting and Women’s Commission members
served as table facilitators. Most of the 27 City Boards and Commissions were
represented. The mayor and two City Council members attended.
• Will continue collaboration with interested members after October 29 meeting.
• Was a presence at City Council meetings in 2012, with a Commission member attending
each one.
• Continued our membership with the National Association of Commissions for Women
(NACW).
Guests to meetings included:
Judy Lindquist – community member
Ki Johnson – AbleWomen Mentoring Program
Myles Crane – Human Relations Commission (HRC)
Savannah Lloyd – Fossil Ridge High School student
Chris Hays – HRC Women’s Commission liaison
Ellen Lirley –Senior Advisory Board Women’s Commission liaison
Kathryn Woods – Assistant Director of the Women and Gender Advocacy Center
Karen Buchanan – HRC Chair
Dale Adamy – previously on city’s Air Quality board and interested community member
Laurie Kadrich – Director, City Community Development and Neighborhood Services
The Women’s Commission continues to work toward better communication with City Council
and collaboration with Boards and Commissions. The coordination of the breakfast mixer,
attendance at the April 4 focus group, and especially the Collaborative meeting in October are
evidence of this work. The Women’s Commission looks forward to supporting this process in
2013.
33 of 160
34 of 160
35 of 160
36 of 160
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
DATE PREPARED: May 23, 2013
BOARD/COMMISSION NAME: Zoning Board of Appeals
LIST OF MEMBERS: Michael Bello, Chair
Peter Bohling, Vice-chair
Dana McBride
John McCoy
Heidi Shuff
Daphne Bear
Robert Long
1. Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
Yes, the duties of the board are very realistic and require a reasonable amount of time to
perform.
2. Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
The current workload is ‘too little’. The Board consists of talented, capable people and
we only work a few hours a month.
3. Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
Yes it does, and the members believe it does an excellent job of doing so.
4. Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
Yes, the meetings are conducted in a very professional and effective manner. Staff does
an excellent job of preparing the presentation and pre-meeting materials. The format of
the meetings is to present the appeal to the board, get input from the applicant, the
general public – both for and against – then open a dialogue amongst the board members
and finally a vote. The Board discussions are excellent, often with different opinions
being expressed. The City attorney is present for any legal guidance and we believe the
whole process is a good reflection on City process and its staff.
ATTACHMENT 3
37 of 160
The effectiveness of the Board is reflected in the small number of decisions that are
appealed to City Council (one in the last several years). The applicant and/or neighbors
may not agree with our decisions, but they believe they at least had a fair hearing.
5. Is the current size of the board appropriate?
Yes. Any additional members would be cumbersome, and very seldom is there an issue
with having a quorum.
6. Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
Most members have been on the Board for numerous years and can’t remember ever
having a Council member present at a meeting to observe what the Board does and how
meetings are conducted. An occasional appearance by a council member would certainly
be welcome.
7. Other comments:
Board members have heard comments repeatedly that we approve too many variances.
However, it’s important to remember that we see only a fraction of the potential
variances the city is approached on. First there is a vetting process by the City staff that
shares the process and expectations with potential applicants. Staff then review and
discuss options and viability with potential applicants who wish to take the next step.
And finally the board gets to hear those that have some basis of merit. We have good
interaction with both board members and applicants during our hearings and at time even
make recommendations for modifications to the appeal that end up being the basis of
approval. We believe we do a good job of deliberating on what a sound appeal is and
what is not. We are not a “rubber stamp” of approval, but a conscientious and
considerate voice for what is reasonable and what pushes the boundaries of good
governance.
Attachments:
City Code description of duties
Current Work Plan
Current Annual Report
Current Bylaws
38 of 160
DIVISION 36. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Sec. 2-451. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created a Zoning Board of Appeals, hereafter referred to
in this Division as the "Board."
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 25, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 29, 1992, 3-3-92)
Sec. 2-452. Membership; term.
(a) The Board shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City
Council.
(b) Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four (4) years,
except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in
order to achieve overlapping tenure. Appointments shall specify the term of
office of each individual. All members shall be subject to removal by the City
Council. If a vacancy occurs on the Board, it shall be filled by the City Council
for the remaining unexpired portion of the term. No member shall serve more
than two (2) consecutive terms. For the purposes of this provision, a "term"
shall include the balance of an unexpired term served by a person appointed to
fill a vacancy if such unexpired term exceeds twenty-four (24) months.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 25, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 110, 1990, 10-16-90; Ord. No. 29, 1992,
3-3-92; Ord. No. 92, 1992, § 21, 9-15-92; Ord. No. 93, 2002, § 1, 7-16-02)
Sec. 2-453. Functions.
The Board shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) To hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement,
decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with
enforcement of the regulations established by the Land Use Code or, if
applicable, Articles I through IV of the Transitional Land Use Regulations in
accordance with the provisions of Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code.
(2) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases, and in accordance with the
provisions of Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code, variances from the terms of
Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code or, if applicable, Chapter 29, Articles I
through IV of the Transitional Land Use Regulations.
39 of 160
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 25, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 154, 1987, § 13, 10-20-87; Ord. No. 29,
1992, 3-3-92; Ord. No. 51, 1997, § 7, 3-18-97; Ord. No. 113, 1997, § 2, 8-5-97)
Sec. 2-454. Officers; bylaws.
The Board shall elect annually from its membership a chairperson and such officers
as may be required. Bylaws may be adopted by the Board, which bylaws shall not be
inconsistent with the Charter, the Code or other policies that may be established by
the City Council. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk for the use of
the City Council immediately after adoption by the Board, and the same may be
subject to the approval of the City Council.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 25, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 29, 1992, 3-3-92; Ord. No. 104, 2002, §
1, 8-20-02)
Sec. 2-455. Minutes; annual report; work plan.
The Board shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of § 2-73
of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Board shall file a report with
the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Board for the previous year. On or
before November 30 of each year, the Board shall file a work plan with the City Clerk
for the following year.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 25, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 79, 1988, § 19, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 29,
1992, 3-3-92; Ord. No. 92, 1992, § 21, 9-15-92)
40 of 160
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
2013 WORK PLAN
The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will meet on the second Thursday of every month,
provided that there are discussion items appearing on the regular monthly agenda. The
Board may also meet as needed in order to convene special meetings.
The primary purpose of the meetings will be to hear and decide appeals of certain
administrative decisions made by City staff and to authorize variances from the
requirements of the Land Use Code. It is estimated that the Board will consider
approximately 35 variance requests in 2013.
The Board will participate in the review of recommendations resulting from the Eastside
and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study prior to City Council consideration of
any related ordinances. The ZBA will also review proposed Land Use Code revisions
that will be necessary as the City continues refinement of the Code through the annual
code update ordinance. No other special projects or issues are anticipated at this time.
41 of 160
42 of 160
43 of 160
44 of 160
45 of 160
46 of 160
47 of 160
48 of 160
49 of 160
50 of 160
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
DATE PREPARED: June 7, 2013
BOARD/COMMISSION NAME: Planning & Zoning Board
LIST OF MEMBERS:
Andy Smith, Chair
Jennifer Carpenter
Gerald Hart
John Hatfield
Emily Heinz
Kristin Kirkpatrick
Jeff Schneider
1. Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
The board thinks the duties as currently defined by City Code are realistic.
2. Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
In an effort to meet the demands of a higher development review load and to have the
time to consider policy issues, the board has moved to a 5 hour worksession. In addition,
the regular hearing date will be changed to 2
nd
Thursday with the 3
rd
Thursday reserved
as needed to manage the number of reviews in any given month. It’ll also insure
applications are considered at a time when affected stakeholders can participate.
3. Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
Yes, see attached 2013 Work Plan and 2012 Annual Review.
4. Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
Yes. The Order of Proceedings is prescribed by the Land Use Code. The board, in
conjunction with transparency improvements such as the addition of the Neighborhood
Development Review Liaison (NDRL) position will be making suggestions for how to
improve the hearing process. The addition of the position has been a huge asset in
helping neighborhood residents understand the process and to provide effective input.
ATTACHMENT 4
51 of 160
5. Is the current size of the board appropriate?
Yes, it helps when vacancies can be filled quickly.
6. Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
The board has consistently been interested in maintaining good communications with the
full Council. To that end, Mayor Weitkunat, our former Council Liaison at our last
retreat suggested a worksession at which the new Council and the full board could engage
in a conversation on topics of mutual interest. We understand that date is being
scheduled and look forward to meeting with you.
7. Other comments:
Attachments:
City Code description of duties
Current Work Plan
Current Annual Report
Current Bylaws
52 of 160
DIVISION 26. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Sec. 2-351. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created a Planning and Zoning Board, hereafter referred to
in this Division as the "Board."
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 19, 11-4-86)
Sec. 2-352. Membership; term.
(a) The Board shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council.
(b) Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four (4) years,
except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in
order to achieve overlapping tenure. Appointments shall specify the term of office
of each individual. All members shall be subject to removal by the City Council.
If a vacancy occurs on the Board, it shall be filled by the City Council for the
remaining unexpired portion of the term. No member shall serve more than two
(2) consecutive terms. For the purposes of this provision, a "term" shall include
the balance of an unexpired term served by a person appointed to fill a vacancy if
such unexpired term exceeds twenty-four (24) months.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 19, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 82, 1990. § 6, 8-7-90; Ord. No. 92, 1992, §
16, 9-15-92; Ord. No. 93, 2002, § 1, 7-16-02)
Sec. 2-353. Functions.
The Board shall have the following functions:
(1) To advise the City Council on zoning, subdivision, annexations, major public
and private projects and long-range planning;
(2) To exercise the authority vested in it by state planning and zoning laws subject
to the provisions of this Division and the following additional provisions and
limitations:
a. All references in Title 31, Article 23, Part 2, C.R.S., to the adoption of the
master/comprehensive plan by a "planning commission" shall not apply to
the Board, and the function of the Board with respect to the adoption of a
master/comprehensive plan for the City shall be to advise and make
recommendations to the City Council regarding the adoption of the same.
b. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Section 31-23-214, C.R.S., or in
Title 31, Article 23, Part 2, to the effect that a planning commission has
the power to adopt regulations governing the subdivision of land in the
53 of 160
City, all such regulations governing the subdivision of land shall be
adopted by the City Council as required pursuant to Article II, Section 6 of
the Charter.
c. The procedures for development review within the City shall be as established in
the Land Use Code or, if applicable, the Transitional Land Use
Regulations. Accordingly, Section 31-23-215, C.R.S., shall have no force
or effect in the City.
d. To the extent that any provision contained in Title 31, Article 23, C.R.S.
conflicts, either expressly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, with any law
or regulation enacted by the City, the law or regulation of the City shall
control.
(3) To cooperate with school, county and any other planning and zoning board
and with the approval of the City Council to enter into agreements to promote
uniform planning and zoning within and without the City;
(4) To take final action to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions
planning items in accordance with this Code and Charter subject to the appeal
procedures contained in Article II, Division 3 of this Chapter. In taking such final
action, the Board shall have the authority to accept the dedication of streets,
easements and other rights-of-way as laid out on plats presented to the Board for
approval or as otherwise described in deeds of dedication, whether on or off the
site of a specific planning item, provided that such dedication is necessitated by
reason of the approval of such planning item. The Board shall also have the
authority to vacate easements and other rights-of-way, but not to include streets
and alleys, by resolution or by approval of replats containing notation of such
vacation.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 19, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 173, 1987, 11-3-87; Ord. No. 4, 1988, 1-19-
88; Ord. No. 59, 1988, 5-3-88; Ord. No. 135, 1988, 10-18-88; Ord. No. 37, 1993, 5-4-93;
Ord. No. 89, 1995, § 1, 8-1-95; Ord. No. 33, 1996, 4-2-96; Ord. No. 51, 1997, § 6, 3-18-
97; Ord. No. 91, 1998, 5-19-98; Ord. No. 43, 2005, 5-3-05)
Cross-references—Zoning, annexation, subdivisions and development of land, Land
Use Code (or Transitional Land Use Regulations, if applicable).
Sec. 2-354. Officers; bylaws.
The Board shall elect annually from its membership a chairperson and such officers as
may be required. Bylaws may be adopted by the Board, which bylaws shall not be
inconsistent with the Charter, the Code or other policies that may be established by the
City Council. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk for the use of the
City Council immediately after adoption by the Board, and the same may be subject to
the approval of the City Council.
54 of 160
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 19, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 104, 2002, § 1, 8-20-02)
Sec. 2-355. Minutes; annual report; work plan.
The Board shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of § 2-73 of
the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Board shall file a report with the City
Clerk setting forth the activities of the Board for the previous year. On or before
November 30 of each year, the Board shall file a work plan with the City Clerk for the
following year.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 19, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 79, 1988, § 15, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 92, 1992,
§ 16, 9-15-92)
55 of 160
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
TO: Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
FROM: Andy Smith, Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
DATE: November 15, 2012
SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan - 2013
During 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board saw an increase in the number of development
applications and has reviewed and approved some notable developments including Legacy
Senior Residences, Regency Lakeview, Link-n-Greens, and Bucking Horse. A number of
appeals were filed on projects approved during the year and included, The District at Campus
West, 1305 S. Shields, Remington Annex (705 – 715 Remington), Aspen Heights, and Regency
Lakeview. This trend toward appeals is expected to continue in 2013, given City Plan policies to
promote infill/redevelopment that may be in conflict with the expectations of neighborhood
property owners and residents.
The Board also reviewed and recommended approval of the Wild Plum Farm 1st & 2nd, Wood
Street, Forney, Kechter 1st & 2nd, and Kechter Crossing Annexations. A number of policy plans
were reviewed by the Board in 2012, including the Outdoor Vendor Study, Downtown Parking
Plan, Streetscape Standards, and Oil and Gas Standards. Land Use Code changes to medical
marijuana, appeal process, bicycle parking standards, and multi-family housing were also
reviewed by the Board.
Development applications increased through 2012 and are expected to continue to increase in
2013, based on recent trends in Conceptual Review requests and submittals, as well as phone
inquiries. Many of the anticipated projects will be on infill/redevelopment sites, so the Board will
be addressing compatibility issues in existing neighborhoods on these projects. Outreach to the
community on development proposals increased in 2012, with full Board packets being placed
on-line and the hiring of the City’s first Neighborhood Development Review Liaison, Sarah
Burnett.
Several key development proposals are anticipated during 2013 for the Board’s review and
include the Link-n-Greens PDP, Foothills Mall redevelopment and associated multi-family
housing, Pateros Creek PDP, and the Banner Health Medical Campus on Harmony Road. The
level of interest in developments that have either expired, or for which extensions are being
requested has also increased. These developments have been in a holding pattern for several
years and with the increased availability of investment money, projects that are already entitled
are very appealing to the development industry.
In addition to reviewing and evaluating development proposals, the Board will address important
land use policy issues during 2013, including:
56 of 160
2013 Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan
November 15, 2012
Page 2
- 2 -
Commercial and River Downtown Redevelopment District Architectural Design Standards -
This project was originally two separate projects that came out of the last City Plan update and
were merged due to having similar subject matter. The River Redevelopment District vision is
for redevelopment design to complement the existing historic structures and reflect the
agricultural-industrial aspects of the area’s history. The commercial development topic includes
issues of community identity, pedestrian orientation and visual quality of individual buildings and
developments and how those are brought together to shape streetscape, walkways, plazas and
other areas that adjoin the public right-of-way.
East Side/West Side Character Study – The East Side/West Side Character Study continued
through 2012 and has a November 27, 2012 work session scheduled with City Council. Staff
expects to bring recommendations to the Board in early 2013 in response to Council direction
given at the work session. The focus of this study is to identify the characteristics of these
neighborhoods that create their unique character and context and identify potential tools for
retaining and enhancing these features.
Harmony Corridor Plan Update/Gateway area – The Harmony Corridor Plan was adopted in
1991 and updated in 2003. In 2006, the Harmony Corridor Standards & Guidelines were
adopted. The update to this plan will focus on the Harmony Road gateway at I-25 and will
create design guidelines for future development in the gateway area.
Land Use Code Amendments – In 2013, there will continue to be a major effort to identify and
recommend code revisions to City Council to implement principles of Plan Fort Collins, as well
as other plans and policies. Council’s preference for important code changes is to bring
changes on an as-needed basis, rather than waiting for the annual update package. This will
result in the Board being asked more frequently to make recommendations to City Council on
code amendments, including the following items:
• Multi-family housing related code changes, as a result of the Student Housing Action
Plan;
• Urban Agricultural Land Use code changes – this effort has been an extension of the
2012 work program to ensure the Land Use Code supports the community’s desires in
relation to urban agriculture practices both when and where appropriate. This project
will resume in early 2013.
• Non-Native Trees – In October 2012, staff discussed whether or not the current
regulations related to non-native trees, specifically Siberian elm and Russian olives,
adequately addressed the ecological value these trees can provide. The proposed
changes to the Code will be brought to the Board in early 2013.
Lincoln Avenue Corridor Strategic Plan – This plan will provide a community-supported vision
and strategies to implement that vision for the corridor area. The project will explore how the
“Catalyst Project Area” concept can be achieved and provide a model for sustainability,
collaboration and partnerships, transportation and social connections, and implement a “great
green street” along with other unique ideas to strengthen existing area attributes.
Mason Street Corridor – The Choice Center (re-development of the Johnson Mobile Home Park
in 221 dwelling units/676 beds) is nearing completion. This project, along with the Mason
Corridor/MAX improvements may act as a catalyst for other redevelopment along the Corridor.
Future redevelopment proposals along the corridor may propose significant physical changes to
the existing urban form and could include increased building height, unique architectural design,
reduced vehicular parking spaces, and neighborhood compatibility issues.
57 of 160
2013 Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan
November 15, 2012
Page 3
- 3 -
Mid-town Urban Design Plan – This plan will guide the design of future redevelopment in the
Mid-town area, and identify opportunities to further enhance streetscapes and multi-modal
connectivity. It is expected to address connectivity along/across College Avenue, integrate the
Mason Trial and MAX stops with other ped connections, develop a parking strategy that
supports desired densities, provide guidelines for site planning, architecture, and massing of
buildings, identify catalyst sites, and provide way-finding and signage recommendations.
Construction of the new MAX guideway and stations along the Mason Corridor is tentatively
scheduled to be completed by winter of 2013.
Nature in the City Amenities in Mixed-Use Areas – This project was identified from the City Plan
update and is intended to encourage the integration of unique landscape features into the
design and architecture of development and capital projects. These features may range from
informal and naturalized, to highly structured and maintained features (i.e. trees groves within a
project, storm water facilities that become naturalized over time, walls with vines).
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations – Assuming that the proposed Oil and Gas
Regulations are adopted by City Council, the Board would receive memo-based updates once a
month on the issue in order to more quickly respond to the need to adapt the regulations.
Planning Development Overlay District (PDOD) – In 2012, the PDOD tool was refined by staff
and a six-month Pilot Project was proposed to confirm whether the tool would work as intended
and to assess interest from the development community. The pilot project was approved by the
Board in mid-2012 and staff is meeting with Council members to further understand Council’s
concerns about the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project is expected to be considered by City council
in early 2013 and the Board is expected to review the first PDOD project sometime in 2013,
depending on the level of interest from the development community.
Student Housing Action Plan – This joint effort between C.S.U., neighbors, developers and
other stakeholders to identity strategies to address the increasing need for student housing
within the context of the existing neighborhoods will continue into 2013 and may result in
additional Land Use Code changes for multi-family housing.
West Central Neighborhood Plan Update – The West Central Neighborhood Plan was adopted
in 1999 for the area that is generally bounded in an “L” shape by Mulberry Street on the north,
Shields Street, and the BNSF Rail line on the east, Drake Road on the south, and Taft Hill Road
on the west. in1999, issues have emerged that warrant a plan update. The update this plan will
begin in January 2013 and assess such things as student housing project impacts,
neighborhood compatibility of new development, land use/zoning, and impacts of traffic/parking
near CSU and adjoining neighborhoods.
cc: Planning and Zoning Board Members
Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Council Liaison
Karen Cumbo, PDT Director
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
58 of 160
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
MEMORANDUM
To: Molly Wendell, Boards and Commissions Coordinator
From: Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager
Date: January 31, 2013
Re: 2012 Annual Report: Planning & Zoning Board
New officers (Chair Andy Smith and Vice-Chair Gino Campana) were elected in January.
In 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board held 11 regular and 3 special hearings, taking
action on an average of 5 items per meeting. The agenda ranged from one to seven items.
The Board also held 14 work sessions. In addition to reviewing upcoming hearing topics,
staff used work sessions to provide policy updates on a variety of topics including the East
Side/West Side Character Study, Oil and Gas Development Local Regulations, Streetscape
Design Standards and Guidelines, Parking Plan for Downtown and Surrounding
Neighborhoods, Student Housing Action Plan, Urban Agriculture, Affordable Housing
Redevelopment Relocation Mitigation Strategies, and Non-Native Trees.
There was one Board retreat in 2012.
The Development Review agenda items for the year totaled:
3 Overall Development Plans (including amended plans);
4 Project Development Plans;
10 Additions of Permitted Use;
8 Modification of Standard (Stand-alone request);
0 Re-zonings;
7 Annexations totaling approximately 144.879 acres;
1 Major Amendments;
4 Site Plan Advisory Reviews;
5 Extension of Final Plan.
The Board provided recommendations to the City Council on the following items:
• 3 Mile Plan Update
• Oil and Gas Regulations
• PDOD General Statements and PDOD Pilot
• Downtown Parking Plan
• Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines
• Land Use Code - 2012 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions
59 of 160
P&Z 2010 Annual Report
January 31, 2013
Page 2
- 2 -
• Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Medical Marijuana (consistent with former
Municipal Code Provisions)
• Land Use Code Amendment(s) – How Appeals are handled (LPC, Planning and
Zoning Board, and City Council)
• Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Outdoor Vendors
• Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Multi-Family
• Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Division 2 – Director discretion as relates to
applications/land ownership
• Wild Plum Farm 1 and 2 Annexation and Zoning
• Wood Street (formerly Benson Mobile Home Park) Annexation and Zoning
• Forney Annexation and Zoning
• Kechter Annexation and Zoning
• Kechter Crossing Annexation and Zoning
• Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning
Planning and Zoning Board Decisions appealed to City Council:
• 1305 S. Shields (Carriage House Apartments) – Decision Upheld
• 705, 711, 715 Remington (Remington Annex) – Decision Upheld
• Regency Lakeview Addition of Permitted Use and Project Development Plan –
Decision Overturned on Appeal - Staff is now reviewing the Land Use Code in
the context of the feedback provided by City Council.
cc: Planning & Zoning Board members
Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Council Liaison
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Karen Cumbo, PDT Director
Mark Jackson, Deputy PDT Director
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
60 of 160
61 of 160
62 of 160
63 of 160
64 of 160
PERIODIC REVIEW PROCESS
! A periodic review will be conducted for all boards except the Downtown Development
Authority, Housing Authority, and Liquor Licensing Authority.
! The initial review dates will be staggered. Thereafter, review will occur every 6 years.
! The reviews will be conducted at an annual study session (4-5 boards per year). Study
session materials should include self-assessment completed by each board. The study
session will conclude either with (a) a statement that the board should continue without
alteration, or (b) direction to staff to prepare legislation making any Council-requested
changes (number of members, duties, etc.). Review and formal action, if any, should be
completed at least one (1) month prior to beginning the annual recruitment process.
! Self-assessment by each board should consist of the following questions:
- Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
- Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
- Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
- Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
- Is the current size of the board appropriate?
- Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
- Required attachments: City Code description of duties, recent work plan, annual
report, bylaws
! Council review would consist of the following questions:
- What does the board do? (Current functions)
- Does the City need a board that does this?
- If so, should any of the duties of the board be changed?
- Can any of the duties of this board be consolidated with another board?
- Is the size of the board appropriate?
- Is the work done by the board beneficial and useful to the Council?
! Possible outcomes of review include:
- Continuation of the board without alteration of duties or composition.
- Continuation of the board with amendment to duties and/or composition.
- Elimination of the board and its duties.
- Elimination of the board and transfer of some or all duties to other existing board(s).
ATTACHMENT 5
65 of 160
INITIAL REVIEW SCHEDULE
BOARD TYPE 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Affordable Housing Board A /
Air Quality Advisory Board A /
Art in Public Places Board A /
Building Review Board D /
Citizen Review Board AA /
Commission on Disability A /
Commission on the Status of Women A /
CDBG Commission A /
Cultural Resources Board A /
Election Board D /
Electric Board A /
Golf Board A /
Human Relations Commission A /
Landmark Preservation Commission D /
Library Board A /
Natural Resources Advisory Board A /
Parks and Recreation Board A /
Planning and Zoning Board D /
Retirement Committee D /
Senior Advisory Board A /
Telecommunications Board A /
Transportation Board A /
Water Board D /
Youth Advisory Board A /
Zoning Board of Appeals D /
A = Advisory
AA = Advisory to Administration
D = Decision-making
66 of 160
THE ROLE OF COUNCIL LIAISONS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Every two years, following the election of Councilmembers, the Council selects its liaisons to the
boards and commissions. Council has defined the role of Council liaisons as follows:
1. To communicate with the board or commission when Council communication is needed
and to serve as the primary two-way communications channel between Council and the
board or commission.
2. To take the lead in filling vacancies, reviewing applications, and interviewing candidates
for the board or commission.
3. To serve as the primary informal Council contact for the board or commission.
4. To help resolve questions the board or commission may have about the role of Council,
municipal government, and the board or commission.
5. To establish formal or informal contact with the chairperson of the board or commission
and effectively communicate the role of the liaison.
6. To provide procedural direction and relay Council's position to the board or commission,
and to communicate to the board or commission that the liaison's role is not to direct the
board in its activities or work.
7. To serve as Council contact rather than an advocate for or ex-officio member of the board
or commission.
8. To review the annual work plan of the board or commission and make recommendations
to the City Council regarding the work plan.
9. To identify and help resolve any problems that may exist with respect to the functioning
of the board or commission.
10. To facilitate the training of new board and commission members by providing suggestions
and relevant information to the City staff members responsible for providing such training.
Council liaisons do not normally attend monthly meetings of the boards and commissions. Liaisons
are informed of boards and commissions activities through agendas and minutes, work plans, and
annual reports. Liaisons may attend a meeting due to an interest in a specific agenda topic, or may
“pop in” just to observe. Attendance by a Council liaison should not affect the normal structure of
a board meeting. Attention should not be focused on the Council liaison and his or her input.
If Council liaison participation is critical to a particular item, a direct invitation should be made to
the Council liaison, explaining why participation is deemed to be critical. If appropriate, discuss
with the liaison prior to the meeting what expectations are and whether the liaison can meet those
expectations.
Revised: June 6, 2000
ATTACHMENT 6
67 of 160
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION ‐‐ CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
July 9, 2013
The joint Work Session was suggested by the City Council liaison at the Planning and Zoning Board
retreat in April. The purpose is to discuss emerging policy issues such as Additional Permitted Uses and
Transit Oriented Development, examine the reasons behind recent appeals, and discuss some process for
addressing such issues with City Council
I. Development Review Process Overview
II. Appeals Process concerns
About 15% of the land use hearings were appealed in the last year (detailed analysis
provided). Staff is working on possible changes to the process.
III. Emerging Policy Issues
A. Additional Permitted Uses—During an appeal last November, Council asked staff and
the Planning and Zoning Board to follow up on possible changes to the APU process
B. Transit Oriented Development (TOD)—Concerns have been expressed by neighbors and
Councilmembers about the neighborhood impacts if adequate parking is not provided
and staff and P & Z have been discussing how to address these concerns in the context
of City Plan.
C. Mixed Use Development –There is some perception that the current approaches to
Mixed Use Development are not necessarily generating the desired outcome.
IV. Consideration of a process to jointly discuss emerging issues in the future.
68 of 160
DATE: July 9, 2013
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Joint Work Session with the Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is for the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) to solicit
feedback from Council on policy issues: Additional Permitted Use (APU), Mixed-Use and
Transit Oriented Development (TOD); and discuss whether a more formal process should be
developed to address future emerging issues related to development applications.
During the April 5, 2013 P&Z Retreat, the Councilmember liaison suggested a joint meeting be
scheduled with Council to discuss emerging issues, examine the reasons behind recent appeals,
create a shared understanding of the development review process, and discuss any policy issues that
policy makers should address.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support P&Z’s approach to clarify aspects of the APU process in order to
provide better protections in residential areas, and better identify how/when the APU can be
used?
2. Does Council support moving ahead with evaluating options to address parking capacity,
spillover parking, and parking demand associated with projects within the TOD or nearby
neighborhoods?
3. Does Council agree that further evaluation of mixed-use projects is warranted?
4. Does Council support developing a more formal process for the Planning and Zoning Boards
to discuss emerging issues with City Council?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Development Review Process
Staff was asked to provide an overview of the development review process. Briefly, the process
typically begins with property owner or developer making a phone call or visiting with a member
of the planning staff. Several “exploratory” meetings may be held with planners and other technical
staff to determine how a developer or owner’s idea of a project may fit into our community.
Discussions are held relative to compatibility with City Plan or sub-area plans, challenges with the
site, the zone district’s permitted uses and applicable sections of the Land Use Code (LUC). Based
on this information, the developer or owner may choose to no longer pursue the project, modify the
69 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 2
project to better meet the vision of City Plan, or determine if the project is likely to match the vision
of City Plan.
Following these discussions the developer or owner submits plans for conceptual review and
receives initial feedback from all development review departments. These departments include
Historic Preservation, Environmental, and Development Review Planners and Engineers, who all
review projects for compliance with code provisions. Other technical staff members are also part
of the review process, including Stormwater, Utilities, Fire, and Zoning. Typical conceptual review
processes will last three to six (3-6) months depending upon the complexity of the project and
whether detailed plans were initially submitted for conceptual review, however it is not uncommon
to have larger projects in this informal review for twelve to eighteen (12-18) months prior to
submitting a formal application.
Prior to the formal submittal of an application, if required (as a Type 2 Review), and oftentimes at
the suggestion of staff, neighborhood meeting(s) will be held. After the neighborhood meeting,
additional staff and developer meetings may occur before an application will be submitted to
officially enter the development review process. Those meetings are oftentimes used to modify the
project in some way to respond to comments heard by neighbors. This submittal is reviewed by staff
to ensure compliance with the Land Use Code prior to scheduling a hearing. During this time
significant changes can occur to the design concept originally presented to staff during the
conceptual review meeting. Once a hearing is scheduled the project will either be reviewed by the
P&Z Board or a Hearing Officer and a decision will be rendered as to whether the project submitted
meets the requirements of the City’s LUC.
Appeals Recap
There have been a total of fourteen (14) appeals filed and heard by City Council since April of 2012.
Thirteen of the appeals were related to Planning, out of eighty-six (86) planning hearings that
occurred in the same timeframe. There was also one (1) appeal filed on a project heard before the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), out of thirty-seven (37) cases heard by the ZBA. Another appeal
was filed, although withdrawn by the appellant prior to hearing.
The first two appeals related to whether properties should or should not have been designated as
eligible under historic preservation codes and therefore allowed to be demolished. Following the
appeals, new code was adopted that provides a method for a property owner to appeal any
designation to the Landmark Preservation Commission and Council if necessary.
The remaining twelve (12) appeals were filed for a variety of reasons, ranging from sign posting to
the development being too large. There were three (3) appeals, District at Campus West, Regency
Lakeview and Max Flats, that were similar in nature as appellants were concerned about the size and
massing of buildings. Some code revisions were implemented during the Student Housing Action
Plan process to better respond to the compatibility and intensity issues that were being expressed.
The following is a breakdown of appeals based on hearing type:
• Six (6) of the appeals were filed on P&Z Hearings,
• Seven (7) on Hearing Officer decisions
• One (1) from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
70 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 3
While there does not seem to be a pattern of why these appeals were filed, many of the appealed
projects proposed higher densities than are currently in the area. Of these projects, five are identified
as student housing projects, including Carriage House Apartments, Remington Annex, District at
Campus West, Aspen Heights, and Max Flats.
See Attachment 1 for a detailed summary of these appeals. Staff continues to work with many
interested stakeholders as well as the City Attorney’s and City Clerk’s office on possible changes
to the Appeals process.
Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) Discussion:
During the November 8, 2012 appeal of the Regency Lakeview Project, Council directed that staff
and the P&Z follow up on whether any changes were needed to the APU process. Council and
citizens had expressed concerns that the APU process was used inappropriately or should not be
used in residential areas.
The Addition of a Permitted Use (APU) process was adopted to introduce a measure of flexibility
on a parcel-specific basis subject to the requirements of a Type 2 review, i.e., Neighborhood
Meeting and P&Z Hearing. Without such a tool, the only options for evaluating a potential land use
that was not codified as a permitted use was to either rezone the parcel or add a text amendment (i.e.,
a new use) to the existing zone district. For both of these options, the result would have
ramifications on a zone district-wide or city-wide basis and not be limited to the individual parcel.
The existing process invites citizen participation and an analysis of the potential impact and possible
ways to mitigate the impact. The concept was established in the original version of the Land Use
Code in 1997 and expanded in 2008.
The P&Z requested that staff prepare information regarding the use of the APU process since it was
enacted. On June 20, 2013 P&Z held a public hearing regarding the process and discussed the
history of projects using the APU process. During the hearing the Board considered testimony from
four speakers and reviewed several e-mails from interested citizens. This discussion is summarized
as follows:
• There is a heightened concern when a use is proposed in close proximity to or within a
residential area. While some members are very concerned about the APU process in or near
neighborhoods, others indicated that such proximity is not the problem but that the process
could be improved. Compatibility and location are key variables to consider.
• Some Boardmembers expressed that there should be consideration of a size or scale
threshold beyond which an APU process could not be used. For example, if a defined
threshold is exceeded, then the applicant should be steered towards either a Text Amendment
(adding the proposed use to the zone district on a city-wide basis) or Zoning Map
Amendment (re-zoning the subject parcel to different zone district).
There seemed to be agreement that there is room for process improvements, particularly when
adjacent to residential areas. It was suggested that the Neighborhood Development Review Liaison
assist in these efforts.
See Attachment 2 for more information regarding the APU issue.
71 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 4
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Discussion
Problem Statement
The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for concentrated
higher density housing and mixed-use development supported by investment in infrastructure
including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design improvements, as well as pedestrian
and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking requirements for multi-family
development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised upon the availability and full
implementation of these infrastructure investments, especially transit service. While progress is
being made on those investments, the full system is not yet in place. In the meantime, the limited
parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause spillover
parking into existing, adjacent neighborhoods.
To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the demand for
parking capacity, and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could be implemented:
Parking Capacity
• Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone.
• Require a Parking Impact Study for each development to determine parking demand as
identified in the Parking Plan.
• Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure as
recommended in the Midtown Plan.
• Require off-site parking storage.
• Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan.
Spillover Parking
• Create a Residential Parking Permit Program. (Implementation underway)
• Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the Parking
Plan and already implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood.
Parking Demand
• Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of bus passes,
enhanced bike facilities, implement car share and bike share programs).
• Implement high-frequency transit.
• Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and
commercial services.
See Attachment 3 for additional information.
Mixed-Use Developments
The Planning and Zoning Board has requested staff prepare information to discuss mixed-use
development as it relates to the Land Use Code (LUC). Specifically, P&Z wants to know if the
72 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 5
provisions for Mixed-Use in the LUC are generating the desired outcome or is the City getting
mixed-use development that is token in nature. Some recent development proposals that met the
current definition of Mixed-Use provided a disproportionate mix of uses, e.g., a very high
percentage of residential with a small retail/commercial component. Therefore the question has been
posed that if the vast majority of a development is comprised of multi-family dwellings but has a
token retail space; does it have the same impact as a multi-family project or a mixed-use project?
See Attachment 4 for more details.
Emerging Issues
One of the purposes for this joint work session with Council is to discuss whether a more formal
process for discussing emerging policy issues should be established.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012-2013 Appeals Matrix
2. APU Staff Report-updated 6-25-13
3. TOD Staff Report-updated 6-25-13
4. Mixed-Use Staff Report
5. Powerpoint presentation
73 of 160
ATTACHMENT #1
1
2012/2013 PLANNING PROJECT APPEALS
Project/Type Date of Appeal Reason(s) for Appeal Type 1 or 2 Outcome
Carriage House Apartments
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
4/3/2012
Appealed by applicant –
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading and failed to interpret the relevant
provisions:
Section 3.4.7(B) preservation of structures
deemed eligible for local landmark
designation and
Section 3.4.7(E)demolition of an individually
eligible structure) of the LUC
2 P&Z Decision Upheld**
**Denial of two standalone
modifications.
Remington Street Annex –
705, 711, 715 Remington St.
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
4/17/2012
Appealed by applicant –
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading and failed to interpret the relevant
provisions :
Section 3.4.7(B) preservation of structures
deemed eligible for local landmark
designation and
Section 3.4.7(E)demolition of an individually
eligible structure) of the LUC
2 P&Z Decision Upheld
**Denial of two standalone
modifications.
74 of 160
ATTACHMENT #1
2
District at Campus West PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
7/17/2012
There were (2) appellants for this project:
Appeal received 5/21/2012 by Zeta Tau Alpha
Fraternity Housing Corporation; Allegation that the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically
Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1.
And appeal filed 5/19/13 by Robert M Meyer, which
was superseded by an Amended Notice of Appeal
5/29/13; containing allegations that the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land use Code, specifically Sections
3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G)
In summary, the appellant’s concerns were;
A) Issues with the impact of light and shadow of
buildings over 40 feet in height on the
adjacent properties.
B) The architectural character of the area, and
building size, height, bulk, mass and scale.
C) Privacy and security concerns for the sorority
located to the north of the proposed project
site.
D) That the new buildings would alter the
quality of desirable views of the neighbors.
1
Hearing Officer Decision Upheld with
the following conditions:
1. All three residential buildings
must achieve a LEED Silver
designation.
2. The north side of Building
Three must be reduced in
height from five to four stories
and feature a pitched roof
similar to the roof shown in
the approved PDP for Building
One, and
3. Along the entire north
property line, all new trees
must meet or exceed the
minimum size requirements as
specified in Section
3.2.1(F)(1).
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
8/21/2012
7/9/2012 Save the Poudre (STP) filed a Notice of
Appeal seeking redress of Hearing Officer’s decision,
which was superseded by an Amended Notice of
Appeal was filed 7/27/12. The STP appeal asserts the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically
Sections 2.82(H), 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), Section 3.2.4,
ATTACHMENT #1
3
misleading on two accounts:
The project’s Ecological Characterization
Study did not provide sufficient evidence to
support the statement that the project
would create no additional impacts to the
Poudre River Corridor, and
The applicants indicated at the Hearing there
was no other place in Fort Collins to build a
comparable project, and STP contends that
there are other sites in the City where this
project could be built.
The appeal included one of the Modifications of
Standard as well as the PDP
[there were three Modifications of Standard included
with the PDP review]
Aspen Heights PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
(1st) 7/24/2012
(2nd)10/30/2012
Appeals from (2) appellants were received after the
1st Administrative Hearing on 5/21/12;
Appeal received 6/19/12 by Eric Sutherland, which
was superseded by an Amended Notice of Appeal,
filed 7/10/12. Mr. Sutherland alleged that the
Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing based
on each of the four permissible “fair hearing”
grounds, including the allegation that the hearing
Officer substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure by failing to record
the hearing and provide a verbatim transcript [the 1st
hearing recording equipment failed]. Further, his
appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code.
Appeal received 6/19/12 by Tom Lawton and Lori
Nitzel, which was superseded by an Amended Notice
of Appeal, filed 7/10/12. Tom Lawton and Lori Nitzel
alleged that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a
fair hearing by substantially ignoring previously
established rules of procedure. This is because the
1 The 1st hearing (July 24, 2012) was
remanded to the Hearing Officer due
to lack of recording/verbatim
transcript.
Hearing Officer (2nd Hearing )Decision
Upheld with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must provide a
shuttle bus for the use of the
project residents, with the
understanding that if there is
insufficient ridership demand
to support the need for the
shuttle bus, the applicant may
apply for a minor amendment
to the approved Final Plan to
reduce or eliminate this
shuttle bus requirement.
ATTACHMENT #1
4
sign posted on the property was not upright for
some portion of the required time for posting of a
notice sign. Further, their appeal alleges that the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
the standards relating to prairie dog colonies over 50
acres in size and replacement of the lost resource.
Appeal to the 2nd Administrative Hearing that was
held 8/7/12:
Appeal received 8/30/12 by Tom Lawton. Mr.
Lawton’s allegation was that the Hearing Officer failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed
to conduct a fair hearing.
In summary, the appellant’s concerns were: A)
Posted Notice and Mailed Notice. B) Issues with the
fact that they would apply for a Modification to
allow Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (with more
than 3 unrelated) after the Certificate of Occupancies
had been issued, and this was not included in the
PDP. C) Stating that according to the Development
Review Guide, this project should have been a Type II
review. D) The Hearing Officer did not consider two
policies from City Plan. E) The Hearing Officer had
already made his decision based on the original
hearing.
the time of submittal of the
Final Plan and in consultation
with City staff: (a) enhance the
design of the naturalized
drainage channel transecting
the property in such a manner
as to provide an increased
width and/or vegetation
diversity provided that such
enhancement does not unduly
diminish the capacity of the
channel to carry the
anticipated storm water flow;
and (b) enhance the wetland
mitigation area through
increased size and/or
vegetation diversity.
Off‐Premise Sign (Billboard) in
the BNSF Railroad ROW; 190
West Prospect
11/6/2012
Variance to LUC Section 3.8.7(P) which prohibits the
construction of new‐off premise signs. The variance
would allow the existing off‐premise (billboard) sign
located on the BNSF railroad right‐of‐way at 1900 W.
Prospect Road to be removed and reinstalled at a new
location with the same railroad right‐of‐way (70 feet
from its current location).
ZBA ZBA Conducted a Fair Hearing**
**ZBA failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code
77 of 160
ATTACHMENT #1
5
Regency Lakeview Addition of
Permitted Use and PDP
Multi‐family housing
11/8/2012
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because the board
exceeded its authority as contained in the Code,
ignored it’s previously established rules of procedure,
and considered evidence that was substantially false
and grossly misleading and failed to interpret the
relevant provisions:
Section 1.3.4 (A) and (B) and
Section 3.6.4
2 P&Z Decision Overturned
which approved Addition of Permitted
Use for multi‐family dwellings.
Foothills Mall Redevelopment
PDP
Modification of Standards 3/19/2013
Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson – no reason
required.
2 P&Z Decision Upheld**
** overturned decisions re:
modification to 3.8.7(M)(4)(h) to allow
2 signs on College and decision re:
modification to 3.8.7(M)(4)(c) to allow
full color signs.
621 S Meldrum Street PDP
Multi‐family housing
Modification of Standards
5/7/2013
On 3/6/2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Eric
Skowron. An Amended Notice of Appeal was
received 3/19/2013 by Alan, Eric and Walter Skowron
with allegations that the Hearing Officer failed to
conduct a fair hearing because evidence which was
substantially false and grossly misleading and that
the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the appellant.
In summary, the appellant’s concerns were; A) The
possibility of rot/decay of the wood retaining wall
that would be placed on the property line, and B)
Issues with the proposed parking setbacks.
1 Hearing Officer Decision Upheld
Carriage House Apartments
PDP Multi‐family‐housing
5/21/2013
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly
misleading related to trip generation values and fees.
2 P&Z Decision Upheld
78 of 160
ATTACHMENT #1
6
Max Flats PDP
Multi‐family housing
6/4/2013
The appellant alleges the Planning & Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it 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. They also
allege the Board failed to properly interpret LUC:
Sections 3.5.3 (D ) Variation in Massing
Section 3.5.3 (E) (2) Façade Treatments
Section 3.5.1.(B) General Standards ‐
Architectural Character
Section 3.5.1.(C) Building Size
2 P&Z Decision Upheld w/conditions:
1. Five trees must be planted
along the west side of the
building.
2. Juliet balconies must be
installed along the west side
of the building as shown on
the elevation presented to the
City Council on appeal.
3. The tower elements must be
added to the building as
shown on the elevation
present to City Council on
appeal.
4. All materials cladding the
building must be consistent on
all elevations around the
building
79 of 160
ATTACHMENT #2
1
Planning and Zoning Board Discussion
Addition of Permitted Use
June 20, 2013
After considering testimony from four speakers and reviewing several e-mails from
interested citizens, the Board discussed the Addition of Permitted Use process. This
discussion is summarized as follows:
There seems to be a heightened concern when a use is proposed in close proximity to
or within a residential area. While some members are very concerned about the A.P.U.
process in or near neighborhoods, others indicated that such proximity is not a huge
problem but that the process could be improved. Compatibility and location are key
variables to consider.
Some board members expressed that there should be consideration of a size or scale
threshold beyond which an A.P.U. process could not be used. For example, if a defined
threshold is exceeded, then the applicant should be steered towards either a Text
Amendment (adding the proposed use to the zone district on a city-wide basis) or
Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning the subject parcel to different zone district).
There seemed to be agreement that there is room for process improvements,
particularly when adjacent to residential areas. It was suggested that the Neighborhood
Development Review Liaison assist in these efforts.
The board acknowledged that for this type of process, just as there is in other
communities with Planned Unit Developments, there is a dilemma between flexibility
and predictability and that it is a challenge to find the regulatory sweet spot. The fact
that the board endorses the Planned Development Overlay District speaks to flexibility.
The fact that the Board is concerned about impacts on neighborhoods speaks to
predictability. The chairman concluded the discussion with an observation that since
2008, the community has collectively done a good job with administering the A.P.U
process and he graded the overall effort as an A-.
80 of 160
ATTACHMENT #3
1
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
City Council Joint Work Session with Planning & Zoning Board
July 9, 2013
At the May 10 Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Board discussed multi-family
development and parking in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. More
specifically, they discussed whether the standards in the Land Use Code (LUC) are
providing an adequate capacity for the parking demand being generated by multi-family
development and how it relates to the City’s vision for the TOD Overlay Zone and the
Mason Corridor. The discussion formulated the following problem statement.
Problem Statement
The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for
concentrated higher density housing and mixed-use development supported by investment
in infrastructure including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design
improvements, and pedestrian and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking
requirements for multi-family development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised upon
the full implementation of these infrastructure investments. While progress is being made
on those investments, the full system is not yet in place. In the meantime, the limited
parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause
spillover parking into existing neighborhoods.
To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the
demand for parking capacity, and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could
be implemented:
Parking Capacity
Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone.
Require a Parking Impact Study (PIS) to determine parking demand as identified in
the Parking Plan.
Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure
as recommended in the Midtown Plan.
Require off-site parking storage.
Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan.
(To be discussed at November 26 Work Session.)
Spillover Parking
Create a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). (Ordinance scheduled for
July 16 City Council Hearing.)
Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the
Parking Plan and already implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood.
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
81 of 160
ATTACHMENT #3
2
Parking Demand
Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of
bus passes, enhanced bike facilities, implement car share and bike share
programs).
Expand support for high-frequency transit.
Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and
commercial services.
Background
Summary of May 10 Discussion
The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board expressed concern about the lack of minimum
parking requirements for multi-family dwellings in the TOD Overlay Zone. Members of the
Board felt that residential projects may not be providing adequate parking to meet the
anticipated demand and that there could be spillover impacts on residential
neighborhoods. While it was acknowledged that the infrastructure to support lower
parking ratios – including MAX, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities, etc. – were
planned but not yet in place, Board members felt that the issue needed to be examined
further, and some felt that it was imperative for developers to secure additional parking
even with those future infrastructure improvements.
The vision for TOD, as expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code
(LUC), is for denser infill redevelopment supported by high frequency transit, mixed-use,
and pedestrian facilities. The purpose behind the removal of minimum parking
requirements for commercial projects citywide was to acknowledge that the amount of
parking may be best determined by the private marketplace, rather than a one-size-fits-all
parking requirement. For residential projects in the TOD, the purpose for removing
parking minimums was based on the same premise, but was also intended to account for
increased transit usage, bicycling, walking, and convenience of services. In addition, it was
intended to lessen the amount of surface parking in order to increase land use intensity
and to ensure that these places are more pedestrian-friendly. The P&Z Board expressed
concern that, simply based on marketplace conditions, developers will rely on public
infrastructure such as on-street parking and thus be subsidized by other developments in
the area that were required to provide off-street parking. Additionally, the use of on-street
parking does not necessarily alleviate the lack of capacity for the anticipated parking
demand. Off-site parking and/or shared parking structures may be necessary to address
needed capacity.
The limited data, based on a one-day observation, provided by staff and reviewed by the
Board showed that there is not a current parking problem driven solely by multi-family
projects in the TOD. However, there is at least one area – north of CSU between Laurel
and Mulberry streets - where multi-family projects contribute to the parking issue with
commuter traffic and the high occupancies of single family homes. In addition, there may
be current and future projects that are unable to meet their parking demand, such as The
Summit (Choice Center). Further data will need to be collected in order to understand the
year-round impact that spillover and commuting traffic have on neighborhood streets.
82 of 160
ATTACHMENT #3
3
Parking for Multi-Family Projects in the TOD
Project Name Bedrooms
Parking
Provided
Required If
Outside TOD Difference
Percent
Difference
Willow Street Lofts 46 36 42 ‐6 ‐13%
Flats at the Oval 98 57 83 ‐26 ‐32%
Penny Flats 280 260 255 5 2%
Pura Vida Place 100 49 90 ‐41 ‐46%
318 W Myrtle 17 8 13 ‐5 ‐38%
Sherwood Forts 9 5 6 ‐1 ‐17%
Ram's Crossing K2 58 47 67 ‐20 ‐30%
The Summit
(Choice Center)*
676 217 471 ‐254 ‐54%
Legacy Senior
Apts* 112 52 118 ‐66 ‐56%
Average ‐46 ‐31%
Other Communities TOD Parking Requirements
o Denver Zoning Code: Maximum number of spaces shall not exceed 110% of the
minimum parking spaces required by context-specific ratios (Denver’s method of
calculating parking requirements everywhere). Parking in structures doesn’t count
toward the maximums.
o Aurora TOD Zoning Sub-District: Minimum 5 – 1.0 space per multi-family dwelling
unit depending on proximity to station compared to 1.0 – 2.5 spaces per unit
depending on number of bedrooms outside TOD.
o Lakewood Transit Mixed Use Zone District: Minimum 1 space per unit, maximum 2
spaces per unit. Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums. The
parking requirements may be met on-site or off-site at a distance of up to 600 feet
from the use.
o Eugene, Oregon: Establishes parking exempt areas not subject to minimums
including Downtown and a couple other areas.
o Metro Portland recommends three actions when the parking ratio is below 1.0
space/unit:
Charge for all covered parking
Get flexcar (car-share) in your building or nearby
Provide first rate bicycle facilities (lockers, wash areas, secured bike parking,
etc.)
83 of 160
ATTACHMENT #4
1
Mixed-Use
City Council Joint Work Session with Planning & Zoning Board
July 9, 2013
At the June 14 Work Session, the Planning and Zoning Board discussed mixed-use
development as it relates to the Land Use Code (LUC). More specifically, whether the
provisions for Mixed-Use in the LUC are generating the desired outcome or is the city
getting mixed-use development that is token in nature. The discussion formulated the
following problem statement.
Problem Statement
Mixed-use developments are encouraged in City Plan and incentivized in the Land Use
Code (LUC) by permitting them administratively (Type 1). This is because mixed-use
developments are recognized as ideal for infill and redevelopment by creating compact
development and an active pedestrian environment that is less auto-dependent; yet they
are challenging to develop due to financing hurdles, market segmentation, and lack of
critical mass. Even with the procedural incentives in the LUC, the city is not receiving
mixed-use development proposals as envisioned in City Plan.
The LUC broadly defines Mixed-Use with no minimum mix of uses required. Accordingly,
recent development proposals that meet the current definition of Mixed-Use have provided
a disproportionate mix of uses. Typically, this has been a very high percentage of
residential with a small retail/commercial component.
The Mason Corridor and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone call for
mixed-use development as a component of a walkable district that is anchored by high-
frequency transit. Without a significant commercial element in the mix of uses, the area
may become saturated in multi-family residential and not provide the commercial/retail
uses needed to fulfill the vision.
Background
Summary of June 14 Discussion
The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board expressed concern that mixed-use developments
in the TOD Overlay Zone and the Mason Corridor (which significantly overlap) are not
providing a large enough commercial component along with the multi-family residential
component. The P&Z Board felt that without a significant mix of uses, including retail and
office, the Mason Corridor could no longer be a desired place to shop and values would
decrease.
Conversely, the Board acknowledged that a minimum residential density (typically around
15 dwelling units per acre throughout the corridor) is necessary to support the MAX Bus
Rapid Transit that will be introduced in 2014. Thus, the discussion focused on how to get
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
84 of 160
ATTACHMENT #4
2
genuine mixed-use in the corridor that provides residents to support the transit line and
infill goals of the city, and the commercial to support those residents.
In order to achieve a genuine mixed-use product, the Board suggested that it become a
requirement in the TOD Overlay Zone. This could be implemented by revising the
definition of Mixed-Use to have a minimum mix of uses and/or simply not permitting multi-
family development without a mix of uses in the TOD Overlay Zone.
Land Use Code
The LUC defines Mixed-Use in two different ways: Mixed-Use, and Mixed-Use Dwelling.
Mixed-Use Dwelling is a residential use in the same building with another use; and is
considered a stand-alone land use which is permitted separately than Multi-Family
Dwelling (with one exception discussed below). Mixed-Use (without residential) is not
considered a stand-alone land use but is permitted according to the most stringent of the
proposed uses in the mix.
Mixed-Use Dwelling and Mixed-Use are broadly defined in the LUC with no minimum mix
of uses required. Nor does Mixed-Use (without residential) require the various uses to be
in the same structure but may be placed on the same lot.
Mixed-Use Dwelling is acknowledged as a desired land use through process incentive by
permitting it as a Type 1. However, the recent LUC revision that creates a threshold for
Multi-Family Dwellings (with more than 50 units or more than 75 bedrooms) to be
permitted through the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) has the following language
clause that requires Mixed-Use Dwellings to also comply with the threshold: “Any
residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings…”
Currently, the development standards in LUC Sec. 3.5.3 are being applied to all mixed-use
projects. The standards “promote the design of an urban environment that is built to
human scale to encourage attractive street fronts”. While the development standards in
LUC Sec. 3.8.30 are applied to multi-family projects. These standards “promote variety in
building form and product, visual interest, access to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and
compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.” These two sections of the LUC address
distinctly different forms of development. The mixed-use standards (3.5.3) seek to develop
a building that is dense, street/sidewalk fronted, and activates the pedestrian environment;
such as Max Flats or Prospect Station. Conversely, the multi-family standards (3.8.30)
seek to develop a pedestrian-oriented residential neighborhood that has open space and
housing variety; such as The Grove or The Crowne on Timberline.
85 of 160
ATTACHMENT #4
3
Recent Mixed-Use Projects in the Mason Corridor
Project Mix of Uses
Max Flats*
(Total: 77,000 s.f.)
Residential:
62,461 s.f.
(64 units) 81%
Retail:
1,439 s.f.
(1 unit) 1.9%
Parking:
13,100 s.f.
(39 spaces) 17%
Prospect Station*
(Total: 51,929 s.f.)
Residential:
39,622 s.f.
(47 units) 76%
Retail:
1,041 s.f.
(1 unit) 2%
Parking:
11,266 s.f.
(19 spaces) 12%
Choice Center (Summit)
(Total: 316,564 s.f.)
Residential:
270,434 s.f.
(223 units) 85%
Retail:
46,130 s.f.
15%
Parking:
Surface parking
(336 spaces)
Flats on the Oval
(Total: 56,940 s.f.)
Residential:
44,822 s.f.
(47 units) 79%
Retail:
7,476 s.f.
13%
Parking:
Surface/tucked
parking
(57 spaces)
Penny Flats Building 5
(Total: 38,933 s.f.)
Residential:
28,959 s.f.
(25 units) 74%
Commercial/Retail
7,399 s.f.
19%
Parking:
Underground
(35 spaces est.)
1
Joint Meeting
Planning and Zoning Board
&
City Council
Laurie Kadrich
Director, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
July 9, 2013 Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 5
87 of 160
2
Items for City Council
Consideration:
1. Development Review Process Overview
2. Appeals Process Concerns
3. Emerging Policy Issues
– Addition of a Permitted Use (APU)
– Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
– Mixed Use Development
4. Process for Future, Joint Discussions
88 of 160
3
1. Development Review Process:
Exploratory
Conceptual Review: will last 3-6 months
– Larger or more complex projects 12-18 months
Neighborhood meetings
Developer-owner meetings
Formal Application
Hearing
– P & Z Board
– Hearing Officer
.
89 of 160
4
Project submitted at Conceptual
90 of 160
5
Project at Hearing
91 of 160
6
Project at Conceptual
92 of 160
7
Project at Hearing
93 of 160
8
Project at Conceptual
94 of 160
9
Project at Hearing
95 of 160
10
Multi-family
96 of 160
11
2. Appeal Re-cap:
86 Hearings were held by planning since April
2012, of those projects 9 were appealed:
– Some projects were appealed more than once:
Aspen Heights, Carriage House and District at
Campus West (all Student Housing),
– Two were historic preservation eligibility issues
– Six (6) were P & Z, Seven (7) Hearing Officer
Some projects were appealed more than once
Code changes were made relative to the historic
preservation appeals and multi-family projects
.
97 of 160
12
3. Emerging Policy Issues - APU
Addition of a Permitted Use (APU):
Process used in the Regency Lakeview project that
was overturned by Council during appeal.
Question:
1. Does Council support P & Z’s decision to clarify
aspects of the APU process in order to provide
better protections in residential areas, and better
identify how/when the APU can be used?
98 of 160
13
3. Emerging Policy Issues - TOD
Transit Overlay District (TOD):
Area identified in main transit corridor that does not
have minimum parking requirements for
development.
Question:
2. Does Council support moving ahead with
evaluating options to address parking capacity,
spillover parking, and parking demand within the
TOD or nearby neighborhoods?
99 of 160
14
3. Emerging Policy Issues –
Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use:
The development of a lot, tract or parcel of land,
building or structure with two (2) or more different
uses designed, planned and constructed as a unit.
Intended to provide services near where people live
or work
100 of 160
15
Emerging Issue(s)
• Issue:
– Some recent developments, even though they
comply with code, may have a disproportionate
amount of residential use
Question:
3. Does Council agree that further evaluation of
mixed-use projects is warranted?
– If the vast majority of a development is
residential, are we building what was
intended?
101 of 160
16
4. Process for Future, Joint
Discussions
In light of recent issues related to infill, student
housing and multi-family development should
there be a consistent method of creating dialogue
between Council and P & Z prior to developing
LUC amendments?
Question:
4. Does Council support developing a more formal
process for the Planning and Zonings Boards to
discuss emerging issues with Council?
102 of 160
17
Items for City Council
Consideration:
Questions:
1. Does Council support P & Z’s decision to clarify
aspects of the APU process in order to provide
better protections in residential areas, and better
identify how/when the APU can be used?
2. Does Council support moving ahead with
evaluating options to address parking capacity,
spillover parking and parking demand within the
TOD or nearby neighborhoods?
103 of 160
18
Items for City Council
Consideration:
Questions:
3. Does Council agree that further evaluation of
mixed-use projects is warranted?
4. Does Council support developing a more formal
process for the Planning and Zonings Boards to
discuss emerging issues with Council?
104 of 160
DATE: July 9, 2013
STAFF: Jessica Ping-Small
Mike Beckstead
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Capital Improvements Expansion Fee Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees were first implemented in 1996. In the fall of 2012, staff
initiated a comprehensive review of the original study. The goal of the review was to ensure that the
methodology first implemented was still applicable and to assess the fee structure to confirm that
it was consistent with the current level of service. To assist with the review, Finance staff contracted
with Duncan Associates, a nationally known firm that specializes in impact fees.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback or questions does Council have related to the information presented
regarding:
a. Methodology
b. Fee calculations
c. Factors driving fee adjustments
2. Is there additional information that City Council would like provided prior to the August
20th City Council meeting?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Update to Existing Fees
Capital Improvement Expansion (CIE) fees are used to require new developments to pay a
proportionate share of infrastructure costs. The City’s Capital Improvement Expansion fees were
originally prepared and adopted in 1996. The fees included in the study are:
• Neighborhood Parks (Residential permits only)
• Community Parks (Residential permits only)
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
Capital Improvement Expansion fees are based on factors including the value of the current
infrastructure, not future build costs. The revenue generated from the fees, however, is used to fund
infrastructure in the future to service new development. It is often referred to as a “buy in” method.
105 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 2
Although the fees have been updated annually for inflation according to the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index, there has not been a comprehensive review of the study since
implementation. However, based on the outcome of the fee study, the inflationary updates have
been fairly accurate. The update to CIE fees has been on the Council work plan for the past two
years. Due to staff turnover, the project was delayed until the fall of 2012.
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates to review the methodology and update the fees. The
outcome of the study retains the basic methodology of incremental expansion (the buy in method)
but recommends changes to some of the inputs. Fire, Police and General Government retain the use
of functional population, which is the number of people present at a land use. The fees have all been
updated based on current Level of Service (LOS) which factors in current capital asset replacement
costs for all fees.
In addition to the updates to current LOS, the study also suggests another option for calculating
residential fees. The current residential fees are assessed by square footage of unit. Another option
would be to assess residential fees based on a single family or multifamily classification.
Information regarding this option is included in the draft study.
Staff is recommending that City Council proceed with the current approach in which residential fees
are based on dwelling unit size. Staff makes this recommendation for the following reasons:
• A single family/multifamily provides advantage to multifamily developers because the fee
would be based on the lowest of the current fee options regardless of unit size.
• The single family/multifamily option equates to a disadvantage to single family developers
because they would generally be paying a higher fee regardless of unit size.
• The single family/multifamily option would generate significantly less revenue annually
with estimates in the $300K range.
Updated Fee Structure – What’s driving the change in fees?
• Updated household data which resulted in a shift in population per dwelling unit or fewer
people in larger units and more people in smaller units than the previous study which is
driving the changes to parks fees
• Current level of service has increased based on updated infrastructure or asset information
which is driving the change to Police, Fire and General Government fees
• A correction to the original formula for General Government commercial and industrial fees
106 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 3
Fee Table
Key Updates from 1996 Study
Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks
• Park infrastructure was updated to include current asset total. Significant additions include
Spring Canyon, Fossil Creek and numerous neighborhood parks.
• A more reliable data source was selected to determine the population per dwelling unit.
• The current data shows less variation between the number of residents in smaller and larger
units than the previous study. Fewer people are living in larger units and more people are
living in smaller units which is causing the fees for smaller units to increase more or decline
less and the fees for larger units to decline.
• The combined fees are decreasing an average of 7%.
Fire
• Asset information updated to current. A key addition since 1996 is Station #4.
• Credit is given in the fee calculation for the debt on Station #4.
• Fees are increasing proportionately due to infrastructure growth.
107 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 4
Police
• Asset information updated to current. The Police Services Building on Timberline is the
major addition to the infrastructure.
• The fee assumes 25% in excess capacity at the Timberline facility which is calculated into
the fee as a credit.
• Fees are increasing an average of 39% for residential and decreasing an average of 10% for
commercial industrial.
General Government:
• Facility assets updated to include 215 North Mason.
• Streets facilities and capital included as part of fee calculation which is a change from the
1996 study.
• Formula correction to original study for commercial and industrial fees which is driving a
portion of the increase. Update to asset information is driving the additional increase.
Revenue Analysis
Based on the 10 year average for building permits, including single family, multifamily and
commercial/industrial the estimated revenue gain is 6% or $220K annually. Community Parks will
see a revenue decline due to the fee update, whereas the Neighborhood Parks, Fire, Police and
General Government will experience moderate revenue growth.
Staff has presented an option to phase the updated fee structure in over a 3 year period. Due to the
moderate increase across the fee types, staff is not recommending a phased approach. Anything less
than a 95% adoption would result in a revenue decline based on historical permit data.
Current Fund Balance Information
1. Neighborhood Parkland Fees: Expenditures shall be made for approved purposes for the
acquisition, development and administration of neighborhood parks, including purchases of
new or replacement park site equipment and plantings.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $5,127,970
• Offers Funded in 2013 Budget: $750,000
• Offers Funded in 2014 Budget: $1,050,000
2. Community Parkland Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition, construction
and development of capital improvements related to the provision of community parklands.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $9,156,115
• Offers Funded in the 2013 Budget: $1,270,000
3. Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fees: Expenditures shall be made for
the acquisition, construction and development of capital improvements related to the
provision of fire protection services to City residents, as described in the capital
improvements plan for fire protection.
108 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 5
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $262,255. The balance is being used by Poudre Fire
Authority to pay debt service on Station #4.
4. Police Capital Expansion Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the acquisition,
construction and development of capital improvements related to the provision of police
services as described in the capital improvements plan for police services.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $1,008,220. The balance is being used to pay debt
service on new Police Facility.
5. General Government Capital Expansion Fees: Expenditures shall be made for the purpose
of funding capital improvements related to the provision of general governmental services.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $ 6,159,361 of which $4,834,743 has been loaned
to the URA for North College Marketplace and JAX, leaving only $1,324,618 in
liquid investments, it was not anticipated this money was needed before the loan will
be repaid.
Public Outreach – Existing Fees and Trail Fee
Staff began the public outreach process in January 2012. In addition to presentations at the Council
Finance Committee and a City Council work session in February 2012, staff presented at the
following boards (repeated visits at some boards):
• Affordable Housing Board
• Board of Realtors
• Homebuilders Association
• Economic Advisory Committee
• Building Review Board
• Chamber of Commerce
• Parks and Recreation Board
The goal of the outreach was to ensure stakeholders fully understood the methodology and trusted
in the integrity of the data. Staff was overall successful in gaining support for the data integrity and
methodology; however, support for the fee update was mixed. The high level concerns surround:
• Fees increasing more for smaller units than larger units which creates burden on affordable
housing and responsible growth
• Business community concern for spike in Commercial/Industrial fees
• Fees don’t address infill
• Trail Fee – mixed support – questions about “why now” and current trial funding sources
Next Steps
City Council will formally consider the recommended updates to the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees at the August 20, 2013 Regular Meeting.
109 of 160
July 9, 2013 Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Fee Study
2. Power Point Presentation
110 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study
for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
prepared by
June 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
111 of 160
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
Background....................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 1
Demand Factors .............................................................................................................................. 1
Comparative Fees ............................................................................................................................ 2
PARKS .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Service Units ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................................................................................... 5
Net Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................................................. 7
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................... 7
FIRE .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 10
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 10
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 11
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 12
POLICE .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 13
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 13
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 14
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 15
GENERAL GOVERNMENT ....................................................................................................... 16
Service Units ................................................................................................................................... 16
Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................................................... 16
Net Cost per Service Unit ............................................................................................................ 17
Potential Fees ................................................................................................................................. 17
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ................................................................................. 19
Average Household Size by Housing Types ............................................................................. 19
Average Household Size by Unit Size ........................................................................................ 20
Existing Housing Units by Type ................................................................................................. 22
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ...................................................................... 23
Residential Functional Population .............................................................................................. 23
Nonresidential Functional Population ....................................................................................... 24
Total Functional Population ........................................................................................................ 25
112 of 160
List of Tables
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees ................................................................ 3
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers ............................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities ....................................................................................... 5
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre .......................................................... 5
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre ............................................................... 6
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit ................................................................................................. 7
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees............................................................................. 8
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 9
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit .............................................................................. 11
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees ......................................................................... 12
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees .................................................................................................... 12
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles .................................................................................................. 13
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit ........................................................................... 14
Table 16. Police Debt Credit ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit .................................................................................. 15
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees ...................................................................... 15
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees ................................................................................................ 15
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities ...................................................................... 16
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit ............................................................... 16
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit ................................................................................ 17
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit ....................................................... 17
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees ........................................... 18
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees ..................................................................... 18
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010 ..................................................................... 19
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000 ...................................................... 19
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010 ............................................ 20
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010 ......................................................... 20
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type .................................................. 20
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011 ..................... 21
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010 ...................................... 22
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012 ................................................ 22
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses ................................................ 24
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses ......................................... 25
Table 36. Existing Functional Population ..................................................................................... 25
Prepared by Duncan Associates
360 Nueces St., Suite 2701, Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 258-7347 x204, clancy@duncanassociates.com
113 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 1 May 21, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study provides the analysis required to update the City’s capital expansion fees for
neighborhood park, community park, fire, police and general government facilities. The City’s
capital expansion fees are impact fees that assess new developments for the proportionate share of
the cost of new capital facilities required to serve them at the same level of service provided to
existing development.
Background
The City’s capital expansion fees were originally adopted in June 1996, based on a study prepared by
City staff.1 The fees have been updated periodically to account for inflation, but have not been
comprehensively reevaluated in 16 years. The current community park fees are about 82% higher
than the ones originally calculated in 1996, while the fire, police and general government fees are
about 50% higher than originally calculated. The park fees were increased by 14% in 2000 to
include the cost of irrigation water and required Americans with Disabilities Act improvements.
Excluding this adjustment, the park fees were increased by 68% over the 16 year period to account
for inflation. By way of comparison, the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index increased
by 66% from June 1996 to June 2012.
Methodology
The same basic methodology employed in the 1996 study is retained in this update. The overall
methodology is known as “incremental expansion.” The incremental expansion methodology bases
the fees on the existing level of service. The concept behind the incremental expansion
methodology is simple: as a community grows, capital facilities and equipment will need to be
expanded proportional to the growth. The existing level of service, whether measured directly in
terms of cost per service unit or indirectly in terms of an intervening variable, such as acres of
parkland, is assumed to be adequate to serve existing development, but with little or no excess
capacity to serve growth).2
Demand Factors
In impact fee analysis, the demand for services generated by different types of development must be
expressed in terms of a common measure, known as a service unit. For example, residential
population is a commonly-used service unit for park impact fees. For each land use type, the
number of service units expected to be generated by a unit of development is specified in what is
often called a demand equivalency table. In this table, for example, a new single-family detached
home may be determined to house an average number of residents.
Some changes have been made in this update in determining the service units and demand
equivalency tables. The park fees continue to be based on population, but rather than using
1 City of Fort Collins, Capital Expansion Cost Study, May 21, 1996.
2 The exceptions are that the new police station is estimated to have about 25% excess capacity to serve future
development, and the new Fire Station #4 is estimated to have about 95% excess capacity.
114 of 160
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 2 May 21, 2013
population directly, the number of people is translated into equivalent dwelling units, based on the
average number of residents in an occupied single-family detached unit. This approach has the
advantage of eliminating the need to consider occupancy rates, which can be quite variable over
time. Functional population is retained as the service unit for fire, police and general government
fees. Functional population represents the number of people present at a land use, expressed in full-
time equivalents.
While the service units are relatively unchanged, the methodology used to calculate the demand
equivalency tables have been modified somewhat in this update. The park fees are based on
dwelling unit size, expressed in square footage and divided into five size ranges (up to 700 square
feet, for example). To determine persons per unit by unit size, the 1996 study relied on census data,
which does not include information on the size of the dwelling unit. Since the census does provide
data on the number of bedrooms, bedrooms were used as an indicator of unit size. Building permit
data were analyzed to determine the relationship between bedrooms and square footage, and
regression analysis was used to determine persons by unit size ranges. This update relies on a single
data source, the American Housing Survey, that provides information on both number of residents
and unit size. Since the data provided by the American Housing Survey are regional (western United
States), the results have been adjusted to match the overall average household size in Fort Collins.
The basic functional population methodology used in the 1996 study was also used in this update. A
minor change was to simplify the calculation of functional population multipliers for nonresidential
land uses. The 1996 study calculated nonresidential functional population on a weekly basis, with
separate calculations for weekdays and weekends, while this update uses a daily approach based on a
typical weekday.
Comparative Fees
Current and updated capital expansion fees are shown in Table 1. As noted, this is the first
comprehensive update of the City’s capital expansion fees in 16 years. All of the inputs into the
calculation of fees were updated. This update included an inventory of existing capital facilities,
determination of current costs and identification of existing levels of service. Changes in costs and
levels of service, however, would cause fees to go up or down uniformly for all land use types.
Changes to inputs that would affect fees differently by land use type are related to the demand
equivalency tables discussed above. Changes to residential fees by unit size for all the fee types are
the result of utilizing a more direct data source for linking residents and unit size. This resulted in
less variation between the number of residents in the smallest and largest size ranges than was found
in the 1996 study. Consequently, the updated fees for smaller units increase more than fees for
larger units.
The updated park fees tend to be higher than current fees for neighborhood parks and lower for
community parks. Without the additional trail fee, which could be adopted as part of the
community park fee or as a separate fee, the combined park fees would be relatively similar to
current fees overall, although higher for the smallest units and lower for larger units. The combined
park and trail fees would be higher than current park fees for all but the largest units.
Fire and police tend to increase less for nonresidential than for residential units, while the opposite
is true for general government fees. This reflects changes in the functional population multipliers.
115 of 160
Executive Summary
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 3 May 21, 2013
While the calculation of residential functional population is simple and unchanged from the previous
study, the calculation of nonresidential functional population requires many inputs, including trip
generation rates, average vehicle occupancy, employee density and average time spent at a land use.
Since the 1996 study did not specify what inputs were used, it is not possible to determine precisely
what input changes were responsible for the residential/nonresidential variability in the updated fees
compared to the current fees.
The total of all updated fees, including the new trail fee, is higher than current fees for all land uses
except for the largest residential units. It should be kept in mind while that the percentage increases
for nonresidential look high, the nonresidential fees are relatively low. For example, the 85%
increase for commercial equates to only $0.55 more per square foot.
Table 1. Current and Updated Capital Expansion Fees
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Trail Fire Police Gov't w/o Trail w/Trail
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,181 $1,001 $474 $255 $128 $300 $2,865 $3,339
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,515 $1,285 $608 $324 $162 $384 $3,670 $4,278
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,674 $1,419 $672 $359 $180 $423 $4,055 $4,727
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,744 $1,479 $700 $373 $187 $443 $4,226 $4,926
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $1,868 $1,584 $749 $400 $200 $475 $4,527 $5,276
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $308 $154 $730 $1,192 $1,192
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $73 $37 $171 $281 $281
Current Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $937 $1,041 $0 $112 $75 $142 $2,307 $2,307
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,325 $1,477 $0 $160 $109 $201 $3,272 $3,272
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,559 $1,735 $0 $186 $129 $235 $3,844 $3,844
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,791 $1,996 $0 $215 $148 $272 $4,422 $4,422
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $2,181 $2,428 $0 $262 $180 $330 $5,381 $5,381
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $229 $160 $257 $646 $646
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $63 $44 $71 $178 $178
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $244 -$40 $474 $143 $53 $158 $558 $1,032
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $190 -$192 $608 $164 $53 $183 $398 $1,006
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $115 -$316 $672 $173 $51 $188 $211 $883
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -$47 -$517 $700 $158 $39 $171 -$196 $504
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -$313 -$844 $749 $138 $20 $145 -$854 -$105
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $79 -$6 $473 $546 $546
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $0 $10 -$7 $100 $103 $103
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 26% -4% n/a 128% 71% 111% 24% 45%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 14% -13% n/a 103% 49% 91% 12% 31%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 7% -18% n/a 93% 40% 80% 5% 23%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -3% -26% n/a 73% 26% 63% -4% 11%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -14% -35% n/a 53% 11% 44% -16% -2%
Commercial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 34% -4% 184% 85% 85%
Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a n/a 16% -16% 141% 58% 58%
Total Fees
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from Table 8 (parks and
trails), Table 12 (fire), Table 18 (police) and Table 24 (general government).
116 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 4 May 21, 2013
PARKS
The City provides a number of public park facilities for the benefit of residents. This section
calculates updated community and neighborhood park capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The demand for City park facilities is generated by people. However, it is preferable to base the
service unit on housing units, since the number of housing units can be more easily determined than
the number of people, which is affected by highly variable occupancy rates. The proposed service
unit for the park impact fee update is an equivalent dwelling unit or EDU. An EDU represents the
average number of people living in a single-family detached dwelling unit. A single-family home is
by definition one park service unit. The number of service units associated with other types and
sizes of dwelling units is determined by dividing average household size of that housing type by the
average household size of a single-family unit. The resulting service unit multipliers are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Park Service Unit Multipliers
Average Single-Family EDUs/
Housing Type Unit HH Size Avg. HH Size Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 2.76 1.00
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 2.76 0.67
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 2.76 0.67
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 2.76 0.86
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 2.76 0.95
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 2.76 0.99
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 2.76 1.06
Source: Average household size from Table 30 and Table 31 in Appendix A; EDUs/unit is average
household size divided by single-family average household size.
The existing number of service units can be determined by multiplying the estimated number of
housing units by the service unit multipliers for each housing type and summing. Existing service
units (EDUs) in the City of Fort Collins are calculated in Table 3.
Table 3. Park Service Units, 2012
Existing EDUs/ Existing
Housing Type Unit Units Unit EDUs
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.00 35,838
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 0.67 17,317
Total 53,155
Source: Existing units from Table 33 in Appendix A; EDUs per unit from Table 2.
117 of 160
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 5 May 21, 2013
Cost per Service Unit
The City of Fort Collins provides a variety of parks and recreation facilities for it residents. Existing
park and trail facilities are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Existing Park and Trail Facilities
Park Facility Type Number Acres
Developed Community 6 507.65
Developed Neighborhood 27 352.48
Developed Pocket 11 14.83
Total Developed Acres 874.96
Undeveloped Parks/Natural Features 75.75
Total Park Acres 950.71
Trails 4 121.24
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 and
January 8, 2013.
The cost per acre to develop a neighborhood park is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Neighborhood Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions, mobilization $60,000 Site survey and plat $7,000
Traffic control $7,000 Environmental studies $10,000
Adjacent street improvements $15,000 Landscape architecture firm $6,000
Access drive and parking lot $20,000 Architect $30,000
Domestic water system $17,000 Engineering firm $15,000
Sanitory sewer system $25,000 Soils evaluation/testing $8,000
Demolition $7,000 Irrigation design $6,000
Topsoil management $25,000 As-built stormwater survey $5,000
Storm drainage improvements $15,000 Stormwater analysis/floodplain $15,000
Earthwork $70,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $102,000
Electrical service $15,000
Underground irrigation system $70,000
Lined irrigation pond $65,000 Street oversizing and local $5,000
Irrigation pump house and pumps $85,000 Light & Power charges $7,000
Raw water delivery system $15,000 Water plant investment fee $15,000
Restroom $200,000 Raw water fee $10,000
Picnic shelter(2) $55,000 Sewer plant investment fee $3,500
Playground infrastructure $25,000 Plan check and permit fees $2,000
Playground equipment/surface $70,000 Stormwater drainage fees $6,000
Sidewalks - concrete $20,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $48,500
Plaza area $20,000
Special feature - multi-use pad $35,000
Ballfield $30,000 Administration $80,000
Site lighting $5,000 Park mainteance facility $30,000
Landscape, trees, etc. $45,000 APP $11,781
Soil prep, and seeding $45,000 Raw water for irrigaiton $80,000
Bike racks, picnic tables, etc. $10,000 Total Development Cost $1,530,381
Contingency and change orders $107,100 ÷ Acres 6.8
Subtotal, Construction $1,178,100 Development Cost per Acre $225,056
Source: City of Fort Collins Park Planning, December 4, 2012 (2011 pricing).
118 of 160
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 6 May 21, 2013
The cost per acre to develop a community park is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Community Park Development Cost per Acre
General conditions $250,000 Bike racks, picnic tables, entry, etc. $250,000
Traffic control $10,000 Signage $50,000
Adjacent street improvements $100,000 Maintenance facility $200,000
Access drive and parking lots $840,000 Contingency and change orders $783,800
Domestic water system $60,000 Subtotal, Construction $7,338,000
Sanitary sewer system $55,000
Demolition $40,000 Site survey and plat $10,000
Topsoil removal/replacement $50,000 Environmental studies $15,000
Earthwork $475,000 Landscape Architecture firm $300,000
Strom drainage improvements $100,000 Architecture $80,000
Electrical & telecomm. service $300,000 Engineering firm $100,000
Underground irrigation system $500,000 Soils engineer site evaluation $35,000
Lined irrigation pond $60,000 Soils engineer construction testing $40,000
Irigation pumphouse & pump $80,000 Irrigation design $70,000
Raw water delivery system $25,000 As-built survey w/stormwater need $15,000
Restrooms $470,000 Stormwater analysis $10,000
Picnic shelter (4) $350,000 Subtotal, Consultant Fees $675,000
Playground infrastructure $300,000
Playground equipment $500,000 Street oversizing and local $70,000
Sidewalks concrete/gravel paths $220,000 Light & Power charges $140,000
Plaza areas $163,000 Water plant investment fee $5,000
Special features, bike trials, etc. $10,000 Raw water fee- domestic $7,000
Ballfield (2) $80,000 Sewer plant investment fee $2,500
Skate park $200,000 Plan check and permit fees $45,000
Dog park with pond $120,000 Public R.O.W. inspection fees $45,000
Tennis courts $80,000 Storm drainage fee $15,000
Basketball courts $120,000 Subtotal, Development Fees $329,500
Splash park complete $150,000
Site features, walls, etc. $240,000 Administration $160,000
Site trail bridges, culverts, etc. $90,000 Art in Public Places $95,000
Site fencing $100,000 Raw water $300,000
Site lighting: ball fields, tennis, etc. $300,000 Total Development Cost $8,897,500
Landscape, trees, etc. $500,000 ÷ Acres 74.6
Soil prep and seeding $400,000 Development Cost per Acre $119,269
Source: City of Fort Collins Parks Department, December 2012 (2011 pricing).
The existing level of service can be expressed in terms of the current cost per service unit, as shown
in Table 7. The total cost represents the expenditure that would be required to acquire the amount
of existing developed park land and to develop that land as parks and trails at today’s prices. The
trail cost per mile is based on a standard per mile construction cost, plus the proportional per-mile
cost of the 23 existing underpasses. The total cost is divided by the existing number of service units
to determine the cost per service unit to provide the same level of service to future residents.
119 of 160
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 7 May 21, 2013
Table 7. Park Cost per Service Unit
Neighborhood/ Community
Pocket Parks Parks Trails
Developed Acres 367.31 507.65 na
x Development Cost per Acre $225,056 $119,269 na
Existing Park Facility Cost $82,665,319 $60,546,908 na
Total Acres 367.31 628.89 na
x Land Cost per Acre $30,000 $30,000 na
Existing Park Land Cost $11,019,300 $18,866,700 na
Miles of Trails na na 34.00
x Construction Cost per Mile na na $1,104,626
Existing Trail Cost na na $37,557,284
Total Existing Facility Cost $93,684,619 $79,413,608 $37,557,284
÷ Existing EDUs 53,155 53,155 53,155
Cost per EDU $1,762 $1,494 $707
Source: Developed and total acres from Table 4; development cost per acre from Table 5 and
Table 6; land cost per acre, miles of trails and trail cost per mile from Park Planning, December
5, 2012, January 18, 2013 and February 1, 2013; existing EDUs from Table 3.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the fees are based
on the existing level of service, there are no deficiencies. The City has no outstanding debt on past
park or trail improvements. Consequently, no credits against the park impact fee are required based
on these criteria, and the net cost per service unit is the same as the cost per service unit calculated
above.
Potential Fees
The maximum neighborhood park, community park and trail capital expansion fees that may be
adopted by the City based on this study are determined by multiplying the number of service units
generated by a dwelling unit by the net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedules are
presented in Table 8. Two options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family)
and fees by unit size.
120 of 160
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 8 May 21, 2013
Table 8. Potential Park Capital Expansion Fees
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit EDU Unit
Neighborhood Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,762 $1,762
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,762 $1,515
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,762 $1,674
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,762 $1,744
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,762 $1,868
Community Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,494 $1,494
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,494 $1,001
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,494 $1,001
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,494 $1,285
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,494 $1,419
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,494 $1,479
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,494 $1,584
Trails
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $707 $707
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $707 $474
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $707 $474
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $707 $608
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $707 $672
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $707 $700
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $707 $749
Source: EDUs per unit from Table 2; net cost per EDU is cost per EDU from Table 7.
The updated park fees by unit size are compared to current fees in Table 9. In general, the updated
fees are higher for smaller units and lower for larger units. This reflects the fact that this study
found that larger units have fewer residents than was found in the 1996 study.
Without the new trail fee component, the total updated park fees would probably generate about the
same amount of revenue as the current fees, depending on the size mix of new units. With the trail
component, the total park and trail fee would be higher than the current park fee for all but the
largest units.
121 of 160
Parks
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 9 May 21, 2013
Table 9. Comparative Park Capital Expansion Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $937 $1,181 26%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,325 $1,515 14%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,559 $1,674 7%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,791 $1,744 -3%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,181 $1,868 -14%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,041 $1,001 -4%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,477 $1,285 -13%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,735 $1,419 -18%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,996 $1,479 -26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,428 $1,584 -35%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,182 10%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $2,800 0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,093 -6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,223 -15%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $3,452 -25%
Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $474 n/a
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $608 n/a
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $672 n/a
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $700 n/a
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $0 $749 n/a
Total Parks and Trails
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,978 $2,656 34%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,802 $3,408 22%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,294 $3,765 14%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,787 $3,923 4%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $4,609 $4,201 -9%
Source: Current fee from City of Fort Collins, Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, Effective January 2,
2012; updated fees from Table 8.
122 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 10 May 21, 2013
FIRE
Fire protection and rescue service is provided in Fort Collins by the Poudre Fire Authority pursuant
to an intergovernmental agreement. The fee is based on the fire stations and apparatus that are
located within the city limits, plus the City’s share of administrative and training facilities. The City
collects the fees from new development in the city limits and provides the funds to the Fire
Authority to be used for capacity-expanding improvements serving the city. This section calculates
updated fire capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time.3 The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide fire protection to new development is based on the current level
of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of the
replacement cost of existing fire capital facilities serving Fort Collins to existing fire service units in
Fort Collins, as summarized in Table 10. The fire stations included in calculating the level of service
for Fort Collins are limited to those stations located within the city limits. The portions of the
administration and training facilities service attributed to Fort Collins are based on the City’s share
of the Authority’s total annual call volume.
3 See Clancy Mullen, Fire and Police Demand Multipliers: Calls-for-Service versus Functional Population, proceedings of the
National Impact Fee Roundtable, Arlington, VA, October 5, 2006 http://growthandinfrastructure.org/proceedings/
2006_proceedings/fire%20police%20multipliers.pdf
123 of 160
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 11 May 21, 2013
Table 10. Existing Fire Stations
Building Building
Facility Address Acres Sq. Feet Cost
Fire Station #1 Peterson 505 0.54 8,516 $1,672,835
Fire Station #2 S. Bryan 415 0.31 4,376 $729,125
Fire Station #3 Mathews 2000 0.55 6,500 $688,295
Fire Station #4 1945 W. Drake 3.54 15,380 $2,616,461
Fire Station #5 Hogan 4615 1.18 8,773 $1,431,268
Fire Station #10 Vermont 2067 0.62 9,830 $1,213,549
Fire Station #12 E. Country Club Rd. 321 1.09 9,800 $1,308,246
Fire Station #14 2109 Westchase Rd. 0.89 10,800 $1,236,189
Administration (City share) 102 Remington 0.50 8,375 $1,553,855
Training Center (City share) W. Vine 3400 3.35 10,888 $973,923
Offices (City share) W. Vine 3400 n/a 10,134 $727,153
Fire Tower (City share) W. Vine 3400 n/a 3,152 $604,151
Burn Building (City share) W. Vine 3400 n/a 9,256 $382,263
Total 12.57 115,780 $15,137,313
Source: Poudre Fire Authority, December 3-4, 2012 and February 12, 2012 (City share of administration and
training facility acres, square feet and building cost based on 83.75% of calls to locations within city limits in
2011).
The fire stations and equipment serving existing development in Fort Collins have a total estimated
replacement cost of $33 million, as summarized in Table 11. The Poudre Fire Authority issued debt
to finance its newest fire station in the city (Fire Station #4, which was completed in 2011) and is
using the capital expansion fees to retire the debt. The amount of the outstanding principal on the
debt represents capacity to serve future development, and this amount is excluded from the fee
calculation. Dividing the net cost of existing capital facilities and equipment (excluding the value of
the remaining debt on Fire Station 4) by the existing functional population results in a net cost of
$204 per service unit.
Table 11. Existing Fire Cost per Service Unit
Fire Facility Building Replacement Cost $15,137,313
Fire Facility Land Cost $377,100
Fire Vehicle Replacement Cost $17,607,388
Total Replacement Cost $33,121,801
– Debt on New Fire Station 4 -$2,589,499
Net Replacement Cost $30,532,302
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Net Cost per Functional Population $204
Source: Existing building cost from Table 10; land cost based on acres from
Table 10 and $30,000 cost per acre; vehicle replacement cost from Poudre
Fire Authority, December 5, 2012; outstanding debt principal from Poudre
Fire Authority, February 12, 2013; existing 24-hour functional populaiton from
Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such a credit is warranted include funding of
124 of 160
Fire
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 12 May 21, 2013
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. While there is some debt
on existing facilities, as noted above, this debt has been excluded from the value of the facilities used
in determining the existing level of service, and the Poudre Fire Authority can continue to use the
updated capital expansion fees to retire the debt on Fire Station 4.
Potential Fees
The maximum fire capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study are
determined by multiplying the number of service units generated by a unit of development by the
net cost per service unit. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 12. Two residential fee
options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family) and fees by unit size.
Table 12. Potential Fire Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.85 $204 $377
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.24 $204 $253
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $204 $255
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $204 $324
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $204 $359
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $204 $373
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $204 $400
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $204 $308
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $204 $73
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population from Table 11.
Table 13 compares the current fire fees with the updated fire fees (using the residential option of
fees by housing type). The updated fees increase more for residential than for nonresidential uses,
and more for smaller residential units than larger ones.
Table 13. Comparative Fire Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $112 $255 128%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $160 $324 103%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $186 $359 93%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $215 $373 73%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $262 $400 53%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $229 $308 34%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $63 $73 16%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from
Table 12.
125 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 13 May 21, 2013
POLICE
The City provides police protection throughout the town. This section calculates updated police
capital expansion fees.
Service Units
The two most common methodologies used in calculating public safety (fire and police) service units
and impact fees are the “calls-for-service” approach and the “functional population” approach. The
1996 study used the functional population approach, and this update retains this methodology. This
approach is a generally-accepted methodology for both fire and police impact fee types, and is based
on the observation that demand for public safety facilities tends to be proportional to the presence
of people. This approach generates service unit multipliers that are similar to those based on call
data, but are more stable over time. The service unit is functional population. The description of
the functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing fire and police service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit to provide police protection to new development is based on the existing
level of service provided to existing development. The level of service is quantified as the ratio of
the replacement cost of existing police capital facilities to existing police service units.
The replacement cost of existing police vehicles is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Existing Police Vehicles
Vehicle Type Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Bearcat 1 $233,554 $233,554
Car 24 $22,000 $528,000
Mini-Bus 1 $77,313 $77,313
Motorcycle 3 $20,841 $62,523
Patrol Car 105 $33,845 $3,553,725
Patrol Pickup 1 $75,845 $75,845
Patrol SUV 28 $40,025 $1,120,700
Patrol Van 13 $32,950 $428,350
Pickup 6 $26,923 $161,538
Police Car 1 $18,967 $18,967
Police Van 1 $29,125 $29,125
SUV 14 $37,727 $528,178
Van 9 $29,125 $262,125
Total 207 $7,079,943
Source: City of Fort Collins, December 5, 2012.
The City’s recently-completed new police station was built with some excess capacity to serve future
growth. According to the City, approximately 25% of the building represents excess capacity.
Consequently, only 75% of the cost will be included in determining the current level of service (cost
per service unit) for existing development. Including vehicles and equipment, the portion of the
City’s existing police facilities serving existing development has a total estimated replacement cost of
126 of 160
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 14 May 21, 2013
$34.7 million, as summarized in Table 15. Dividing the cost of existing capital facilities and
equipment serving existing development by existing service units results in a cost of $231 per
functional population.
Table 15. Existing Police Cost per Service Unit
Police Station Building Square Feet 99,878
Police Station Land Acres 7.53
Police Station Building/Land Value (75%) $20,294,687
Police Firing Range Value $351,930
Police Facility Contents Value $6,937,981
Police Vehicle Replacement Value $7,079,943
Total Police Facility/Equipment Value $34,664,541
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
Source: Building square feet, acres and replacement values from City of
Fort Collins, December 5, 2012 (75% of police station deemed to serve
existing development); existing functional population from Table 36.
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the police station, as well as outstanding capital lease
payments on some vehicles. A relatively simple way to calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to
divide the debt by the number of existing service units. This places new development on an equal
footing with existing development in terms of the proportion of their costs that are funded through
debt. Since 25% of the new police station represents excess capacity available to serve, only 75% of
the debt is eligible for credit. The other 25% of the debt represents the cost of facilities that will
serve future development, and this portion of the debt service could be retired with police capital
expansion fees. As shown in Table 16, the police debt credit is $129 per functional population.
Table 16. Police Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Police Station (75%) $18,900,000
Outstanding Vehicle Capital Lease Payments $453,578
Total Police Facility Debt $19,353,578
÷ Existing Functional Population (24-Hour) 149,740
Police Debt Credit per Functional Population $129
Source: Outstanding debt and capital lease payments as of December 31,
2012 from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010; existing functional
population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit (see Table 17 below).
127 of 160
Police
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 15 May 21, 2013
Table 17. Police Net Cost per Service Unit
Police Cost per Functional Population $231
– Police Debt Credit per Functional Population -$129
Net Police Cost per Functional Population $102
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum police capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on this study is
the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the net cost per
service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 18. Two residential
fees options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family) and fees by unit size.
Table 18. Potential Police Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.85 $102 $189
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.24 $102 $126
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.25 $102 $128
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.59 $102 $162
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.76 $102 $180
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.83 $102 $187
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.96 $102 $200
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 1.51 $102 $154
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.36 $102 $37
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost from Table
17.
Table 19 compares the current police fees with the updated fees (using the residential option of fees
by housing type). The updated fees are higher for residential uses and lower for nonresidential uses.
Table 19. Comparative Police Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $75 $128 71%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $109 $162 49%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $129 $180 40%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $148 $187 26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $180 $200 11%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $160 $154 -4%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $44 $37 -16%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from
Table 18.
128 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 16 May 21, 2013
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The City provides a number of administrative facilities that will need to be expanded as the
community grows. To ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of these facilities,
the City charges a general government capital expansion fee. This section calculates updated general
government capital expansion fees.
Service Units
One of the most common methodologies used in calculating general government impact fees is the
“functional population” approach. This allocates the cost of growth to different types of new
development based on the presence of people at the site of the land use. The description of the
functional population methodology, the calculation of the service unit multipliers and the
determination of existing general government service units are presented in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The City’s existing general government facilities and replacement costs are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20. Existing General Government Facilities
Land Building Building
Facility Address Acres Value Sq. Feet Cost
City Hall 300 Laporte Ave 2.00 $60,000 31,553 $8,968,435
Main Administration Bldg. 281 N. College 0.75 $22,500 37,603 $6,689,347
City Office Building 215 N. Mason 2.00 $60,000 71,500 $12,731,810
OPS Service Facility 2.50 $75,000 26,564 $5,647,145
Streets Storage 625 Ninth St 3.24 $97,200 48,400 $4,125,256
Streets Office/Shop 625 Ninth St 8.48 $254,400 14,287 $763,936
Total 18.97 $569,100 229,907 $38,925,929
Source: City of Fort Collins, January 4, 2013 (land value based on $30,000 per acre).
The existing level of service (cost per service unit) is determined by dividing the replacement cost of
existing facilities by the existing service units being served by those facilities. As shown in Table 21,
the cost per service unit for general government facilities is $328 per functional population.
Table 21. General Government Cost per Service Unit
Building Replacement Value $38,925,929
Land Value $569,100
Vehicle/Equipment Value $9,753,022
Total Replacement Cost $49,248,051
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $328
Source: Building and land replacement costs from Table 20; vehicle-
equipment value is sum of original costs from City fixed asset listings,
January 2, 2013; existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
129 of 160
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 17 May 21, 2013
Net Cost per Service Unit
Impact fees should be reduced in order to account for other types of revenues that will be generated
by new development and used to fund capacity-expanding improvements of the same type as those
to be funded by the impact fees. Cases in which such an offset is warranted include funding of
existing deficiencies and outstanding debt payments on existing facilities. Since the updated fees are
based on the existing level of service, there are no existing deficiencies.
The City has some outstanding debt on the main administration building. A relatively simple way to
calculate a credit for outstanding debt is to divide the debt by the number of existing service units.
This places new development on an equal footing with existing development in terms of the
proportion of their costs that are funded through debt. As shown in Table 22, the police debt credit
is $5 per functional population.
Table 22. General Government Debt Credit
Outstanding Debt on Main Administration Bldg. $745,745
÷ Existing Functional Population (16-Hour) 150,354
Cost per Functional Population $5
Source: Outstanding debt from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2010;
existing functional population from Table 36 in Appendix B.
The credit for outstanding debt is subtracted from the cost per service unit to determine the net cost
per service unit, as shown in Table 23.
Table 23. General Government Net Cost per Service Unit
Cost per Functional Population $328
– Debt Credit per Functional Population -$5
Net Cost per Functional Population $323
Source: Cost per functional population from Table 15; debt credit from
Table 16
Potential Fees
The maximum general government capital expansion fees that may be adopted by the City based on
this study is the product of the number of service units generated by a unit of development and the
net cost per service unit calculated above. The resulting fee schedule is presented in Table 24. Two
residential fee options are shown: fees by housing type (single-family and multi-family) and fees by
unit size.
130 of 160
General Government
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 18 May 21, 2013
Table 24. Potential General Government Capital Expansion Fees
Func. Pop. Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit Func. Pop. Unit
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.38 $323 $446
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.93 $323 $300
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.19 $323 $384
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.31 $323 $423
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.37 $323 $443
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.47 $323 $475
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 2.26 $323 $730
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0.53 $323 $171
Source: Functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35 in Appendix B; net cost per
functional population from Table 23.
Table 25 compares the current general government capital expansion fees with the updated fees
(using the residential fee options of fees by unit size). The updated fees increase more for
nonresidential than for residential uses, and more for smaller residential units than larger ones.
Table 25. Comparative General Government Fees
Current Fee Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type Unit per Unit per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $142 $300 111%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $201 $384 91%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $235 $423 80%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $272 $443 63%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $330 $475 44%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $257 $730 184%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $71 $171 141%
Source: Current fees from City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 121, November 6, 2012; updated fees from
Table 24.
131 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 19 May 21, 2013
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Average Household Size by Housing Types
A key input into impact fee analysis is the average number of people residing in different types of
dwelling units. This statistic, known as average household size, is the ratio of household population
to households (which is the same as occupied dwelling units).
The most reliable data on average household size comes from the decennial census counts.
However, these 100%-count data are only available for all housing units, with no distinction by
housing type. Overall, the trend between the 2000 and 2010 census was one of a slight decline in
overall average household size, as can be seen in Table 26.
Table 26. Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
All Housing Types, 2000 47,755 45,882 112,597 2.45
All Housing Types, 2010 60,503 57,829 136,901 2.37
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF1 (100% counts).
The 2000 census provided data on average household size by housing type for a 1-in-6 sample
(about 17%). Those data are shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2000
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family Detached 26,706 25,941 73,943 2.85
Single-Family Attached 3,613 3,464 7,031 2.03
Multi-Family 16,163 15,190 28,522 1.88
Mobile Home 1,267 1,216 2,840 2.34
RV/Other 17 17 40 2.35
Total 47,766 45,828 112,376 2.45
Multi-Family/SF Attached 19,776 18,654 35,553 1.91
Source: 2000 US Census for Fort Collins, CO, SF-3 data (1-in-6 sample)
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau has discontinued providing robust sample data as part of the
decennial census, and instead conducts annual data from 1% samples, which has been aggregated
into a 5% sample for the 2006-2010 period. These data are based on a much smaller sample than the
2010 census, and also collapse single-family detached and attached housing into the same category.
They are shown in Table 28.
132 of 160
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 20 May 21, 2013
Table 28. Average Household Size by Housing Type, 2006-2010
Total Occupied Household Average
Housing Type Units Units Population HH Size
Single-Family, Det./Att. 38,434 36,779 96,923 2.64
Multi-Family 19,441 17,747 31,168 1.76
Mobile Home 1,414 1,350 3,383 2.51
Other 13 13 21 1.62
Total 59,302 55,889 131,495 2.35
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey data (5%
sample), Fort Collins, CO.
Comparing the data from 2000 and 2006-2010, it is clear that the decline in average household size is
not due to a change in the mix of housing, but rather to a more general decline in household size
among all housing types. While mobile home units show an increase, the sample sizes are too small
for this housing type for the results to be reliable.
Table 29. Change in Average Household Size, 2000-2010
Percent
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 Change
Single-Family, Detached/Attached 2.75 2.64 -4.00%
Multi-Family 1.88 1.76 -6.38%
Mobile Home 2.34 2.51 7.26%
Total 2.45 2.35 -4.08%
Average HH Size
Source: Table 27 and Table 28.
An estimate of current average household size by housing type starts with the data from the 2000
census, since these numbers are based on the most robust sample. The average household sizes
from the 2000 census are adjusted downward for all housing types by the overall decline, as shown
in Table 30.
Table 30. Current Average Household Size by Housing Type
Ratio of
Avg. HH Size 2010/2000 Current
Housing Type 2000 Census Avg. HH Size Avg. HH Size
Single-Family Detached/MH 2.85 0.9673 2.76
Multi-Family/SF Attached 1.91 0.9673 1.85
Total 2.45 0.9673 2.37
Source: 2000 average household size from Table 27; ratio derived from Table 26.
Average Household Size by Unit Size
In the 1996 study, average household size by dwelling unit size was estimated using census micro
data for Larimer County to determine average household size by bedrooms, and City building permit
data to determine average dwelling unit size by bedrooms using linear regression analysis. The two
results were combined to estimate average household size by dwelling unit size.
While the approach used in the original study has the advantage of relying solely on local (city and
county level) data, its weakness is that it is indirect – neither the census data nor the building permit
data contain information on both the number of persons in the unit and the size of the unit.
133 of 160
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 21 May 21, 2013
Consequently, the 1996 analysis had to utilize an intervening variable of the number of bedrooms in
the unit.
A simpler and more direct approach is to utilize national data from the American Housing Survey,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau. The most recent survey was done in 2011. This survey provides data on the
number of residents and the square footage of a sample of individual housing units. The data from
the Western Census Region, which includes Colorado, was used. Average household sizes by
dwelling unit size from the western U.S. were converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), with
one EDU representing the average number of persons residing in an occupied single-family
detached unit. These EDU multipliers were then multiplied by the average household size of a
single-family unit in Fort Collins to estimate local average household sizes by dwelling unit size, as
summarized in Table 31.
Table 31. Average Household Size by Dwelling Unit Size, Western U.S., 2011
Ft. Collins
House- Avg. EDUs/ Avg. HH
Housing Type/Size Sample HH Pop. Holds HH Size Unit Size
0-700 sf 4,726 3,943,814 2,046,482 1.93 0.675 1.86
701-1,200 sf 11,845 13,908,874 5,631,663 2.47 0.864 2.38
1,201-1,700 sf 8,570 11,753,334 4,320,515 2.72 0.951 2.62
1,701-2,200 sf 6,218 8,824,060 3,112,727 2.83 0.990 2.73
2,200 sf + 7,686 11,545,664 3,793,080 3.04 1.063 2.93
All Units 39,045 49,975,747 18,904,467 2.64 0.923 n/a
All Single-Family Det. 23,453 34,517,546 12,053,378 2.86 1.000 2.76
American Housing Survey, 2011
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, 2011, Western Census
Region; Fort Collins average household size by unit size based on average household size for a single-family
detached unit in Fort Collins from Table 30 and EDUs/unit from the American Housing Survey.
The updated average household sizes confirm the tendency of larger units to have more residents,
but the difference between the smallest and largest units is less pronounced than it was found to be
in the 1996 analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Average Household Size by Unit Size, 1996 and 2012
134 of 160
Appendix A: Demographic Data
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 22 May 21, 2013
Existing Housing Units by Type
The mix of housing units by type in Fort Collins has not changed significantly over the last decade,
as shown in Table 32. Because of its larger sample size, the housing shares from the 2000 census
will be used.
Table 32. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2000-2010
Housing Type 2000 2006-10 2000 2006-10
Single-Family Detached 26,706 33,525 55.9% 56.5%
Single-Family Attached 3,613 4,909 7.6% 8.3%
Multi-Family 16,163 19,441 33.8% 32.8%
Mobile Home 1,267 1,414 2.7% 2.4%
RV/Other 17 13 0.0% 0.0%
Total 47,766 59,302 100.0% 100.0%
Single-Family Det./Mobile Home 27,973 34,939 58.6% 58.9%
Total Units % of Total Units
Source: 2000 data from 2000 US Census, SF3 (1-in-6 sample); 2006-2010 data from US
Census, American Community Survey (5% sample).
The current number of dwelling units in Fort Collins by housing type is estimated based on the total
number of units enumerated in the 2000 census, the share of units by housing type from the 2000
census, and the number of building permits issued over the last two years, as shown in Table 33.
Table 33. Dwelling Units by Housing Type, Fort Collins, 2012
Housing Est. 2010 2010-2011 Est. 2012
Housing Type Share Units Permits Units
Single-Family Detached/MH 58.6% 35,432 406 35,838
Multi-Family/SF Attached 41.4% 25,071 775 25,846
Total 100.0% 60,503 1,181 61,684
Source: Housing share based on 2000 Census from Table 32; 2010 total units from 2000 Census (Table
26), 2010 units by housing type based on housing share; 2010-2011 permits are number of permits
issued by City in 2010 and 2011 calendar years from City of Fort Collins, December 3, 2012.
135 of 160
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 23 May 21, 2013
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
A common methodology used in calculating public safety (fire and police) and general government
service units and impact fees is the “functional population” approach. This approach is a generally-
accepted methodology for these impact fee types and is based on the observation that demand for
public safety and general government facilities tends to be proportional to the presence of people at
a particular site.
Functional population is analogous to the concept of “full-time equivalent” employees. It
represents the number of “full-time equivalent” people present at the site of a land use, and it is
used for the purpose of determining the impact of a particular development on the need for
facilities. For residential development, functional population is simply average household size times
the percent of time people spend at home. For nonresidential development, functional population
is based on a formula that factors trip generation rates, average vehicle occupancy and average
number of hours spent by visitors at a land use.
Two types of functional population are used in impact fee analysis: “24-hour” functional population
and “daytime” functional population. 24-hour functional population is most appropriate for
services, like fire and police protection, that operate on a 24-hour per day basis. Daytime functional
population is more appropriate for general government facilities, which do not operate around the
clock.
Residential Functional Population
For residential land uses, the impact of a dwelling unit on the need for capital facilities is generally
proportional to the number of persons residing in the dwelling unit. This can be measured for
different housing types in terms of either average household size (average number of persons per
occupied dwelling unit) or persons per unit (average number of persons per dwelling unit, including
vacant as well as occupied units). In this analysis, average household size is used to develop the
functional population multipliers, as it avoids the need to make assumptions about occupancy rates.
Determining residential functional population multipliers is considerably simpler than the
nonresidential component. It is estimated that people, on average, spend 16 hours, or 67 percent, of
each 24-hour weekday at their place of residence and the other 33 percent away from home. For
daytime functional population, a 16-hour day is used, and it is estimated that people spend half of
the 16-hour day at home. The functional population per unit for residential uses is shown in Table
34.
136 of 160
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 24 May 21, 2013
Table 34. Functional Population per Unit for Residential Uses
Average
Housing Type Unit HH Size 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 2.76 0.67 0.50 1.85 1.38
Multi-Family Dwelling 1.85 0.67 0.50 1.24 0.93
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.86 0.67 0.50 1.25 0.93
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.38 0.67 0.50 1.59 1.19
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.62 0.67 0.50 1.76 1.31
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.73 0.67 0.50 1.83 1.37
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 2.93 0.67 0.50 1.96 1.47
Occupancy Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Average household size from Table 30 (housing type) and Table 31 (unit size).
Nonresidential Functional Population
The functional population methodology for nonresidential land uses is based on trip generation and
employee density data. Functional population per 1,000 square feet is derived by dividing the total
number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a week day by 24 hours (16 hours for
daytime functional population). Employees are estimated to spend 8 hours per day at their place of
employment, and visitors are estimated to spend one hour per visit. The formulas used to derive the
nonresidential functional population estimates are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Nonresidential Functional Population Formulas
24-HR FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 24 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
DAILY FUNCPOP/UNIT = (employee hours/1000 sf + visitor hours/1000 sf) ÷ 16 hours/day
Where:
Employee hours/1000 sf = employees/1000 sf x 8 hours/day
Visitor hours/1000 sf = visitors/1000 sf x 1 hour/visit
Visitors/1000 sf = weekday ADT/1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy – employees/1000 sf
Weekday ADT/1000 sf = one-way avg. daily trips (total trip ends ÷ 2)
137 of 160
Appendix B: Functional Population
Capital Expansion Fee Study duncan|associates
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 25 May 21, 2013
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates, vehicle occupancy rates from the
National Household Travel Survey and other sources and assumptions, nonresidential functional
population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are calculated in Table 35.
Table 35. Functional Population per Unit for Nonresidential Uses
Trip Persons/ Employee/ Visitors/
Land Use Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit 24-Hour Daytime
Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 21.47 1.96 1.02 41.06 2.05 3.08
Office 1,000 sq. ft. 5.51 1.24 2.31 4.52 0.96 1.44
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 3.48 1.24 1.05 3.27 0.49 0.73
Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 1.78 1.24 0.43 1.78 0.22 0.33
Func. Pop. Per Unit
Source: Trip rates based on one-half of average daily trip rate from ITE, Trip Generation, 8th ed., 2008 (retail based
on shopping center, office based on general office, industrial based on light industrial); persons/trip is average
vehicle occupancy from Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Household Travel Survey, 2009;
employees/unit from U.S. Department of Energy, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2003;
visitors/unit is trips times persons/trip minus employees/unit; functional population/unit calculated based on
formula from Figure 2.
Total Functional Population
The total functional population of Fort Collins is determined by multiplying the number of existing
units of development by the functional population per unit, as shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Existing Functional Population
Existing
Land Use Unit Units 24-Hour Daytime 24-Hour Daytime
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 35,838 1.85 1.38 66,300 49,456
Multi-Family Dwelling 25,846 1.24 0.93 32,049 24,037
Commercial/Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 32,533 1.51 2.26 49,125 73,525
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 6,295 0.36 0.53 2,266 3,336
Total Functional Population 149,740 150,354
Func. Pop./Unit Functional Pop.
Source: Existing dwelling units from Table 33; existing nonresidential building square footage from Larimer
County Assessor’s Office, December 4, 2012; functional population per unit from Table 34 and Table 35
(commercial/institutional is average of retail and office; industrial/warehouse is average of industrial and
warehouse).
138 of 160
1
Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee Update
City Council Work Session
July 9, 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
139 of 160
2
Existing Fees Included in Update
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Parks
• Fire
• Police
• General Government
140 of 160
3
Background
• Capital Improvement Fees (CIE) require new developments to pay a
share of current infrastructure costs or to “buy-in” to the system
• Revenue is used to expand infrastructure to serve new development
• First implemented at the City of Fort Collins in 1996
• Fees updated annually according to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index
• In 2012, City contracted with Duncan Associates to:
Analyze methodology
Update Fees
Draft Study – Basis for presentation
Fees are based on current data – not future build costs, however,
the revenue generated is used to build infrastructure in the future.
141 of 160
4
Methodology
• Largely unchanged from 1996 study – retained incremental
expansion or “buy-in” approach
• Updated household size data & asset information
• Continued use of functional population for Police, Fire and
General Government
• Included option for assessing residential fees by single
family/multifamily vs. current sq. ft. approach
Fee update retains the overarching methodology and
formula approach of the 1996 study.
142 of 160
5
Fees – Overview
What’s Driving the Changes?
• Parks - Updated data source for household size which
resulted in less variation between small and large units than
previous study
• Police, Fire and General Government - Inputs to the
calculations that include:
Updated inventory of existing capital facilities
Updated determination of current replacement costs
Updated functional population to current
Although methodology remains similar – the inputs to fee calculations changed,
resulting in a variation in updated fees – both positive and negative.
143 of 160
6
Fee Overview
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Fire Police Gov't Total
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,181 $1,001 $255 $128 $300 $2,865
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,515 $1,285 $324 $162 $384 $3,670
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,674 $1,419 $359 $180 $423 $4,055
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,744 $1,479 $373 $187 $443 $4,226
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $1,868 $1,584 $400 $200 $475 $4,527
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $308 $154 $730 $1,192
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $73 $37 $171 $281
Current Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $937 $1,041 $112 $75 $142 $2,307
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,325 $1,477 $160 $109 $201 $3,272
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,559 $1,735 $186 $129 $235 $3,844
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,791 $1,996 $215 $148 $272 $4,422
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $2,181 $2,428 $262 $180 $330 $5,381
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $229 $160 $257 $646
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $63 $44 $71 $178
Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $244 -$40 $143 $53 $158 $558
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $190 -$192 $164 $53 $183 $398
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $115 -$316 $173 $51 $188 $211
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -$47 -$517 $158 $39 $171 -$196
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -$313 -$844 $138 $20 $145 -$854
Commercial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $79 -$6 $473 $546
Industrial 1,000 sf $0 $0 $10 -$7 $100 $103
Percent Change
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling 26% -4% 128% 71% 111% 24%
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling 14% -13% 103% 49% 91% 12%
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling 7% -18% 93% 40% 80% 5%
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling -3% -26% 73% 26% 63% -4%
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling -14% -35% 53% 11% 44% -16%
Commercial 1,000 sf n/a n/a 34% -4% 184% 85%
Industrial 1,000 sf n/a n/a 16% -16% 141% 58%
144 of 160
7
Neighborhood and Community Park
• What is Included:
All Neighborhood and Community Parks
Key additions from 1996 – Spring Canyon Park, Fossil Creek Park,
numerous neighborhood parks
• What Changed:
More reliable housing data source than original study
Data shows less variation in number of people from small to large
units – fewer people in larger homes/more in smaller homes
• Result:
Fees are increasing for smaller units and decreasing for larger
units
Combined fees decreasing an average of 7%
The variation between number of people in smaller units vs. larger units
decreased which is driving fees up in smaller units and down in larger units.
145 of 160
8
Neighborhood/Community Park Fees
Historical building permit data shows few to no permits in the
residential up to 700 sq. ft. range.
Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type per Unit Change
Neighborhood Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $1,181 26%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. $1,515 14%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. $1,674 7%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. $1,744 -3%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. $1,868 -14%
Community Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $1,001 -4%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. $1,285 -13%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. $1,419 -18%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. $1,479 -26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. $1,584 -35%
Total Parks
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $2,182 10%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. $2,800 0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. $3,093 -6%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. $3,223 -15%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. $3,452 -25%
146 of 160
9
Park Fees – Single Family/Multifamily Option
Recommend maintaining current method because the
single/multifamily option favors multifamily over
single family developers and negatively affects revenue.
EDUs/ Net Cost/ Net Cost/
Land Use Type Unit per Unit EDU Unit
Neighborhood Parks
Single-Family Detached Dwelling 1.00 $1,762 $1,762
Multi-Family Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.67 $1,762 $1,181
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.86 $1,762 $1,515
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.95 $1,762 $1,674
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 0.99 $1,762 $1,744
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling 1.06 $1,762 $1,868
147 of 160
10
Fire Capital Improvement Fees
• What is Included:
All Fire Stations, facilities and vehicle assets
Key additions from 1996 – Station #4
• What Changed:
Updated asset information
Credit its given for debt on Station #4
• Result:
Fees are increasing proportionately due to growth in
infrastructure
Residential fees increasing from an average of $187 to
$342 or a 90% increase
Commercial/Industrial increasing an average of 25%
No significant change to methodology, updated asset
information driving increase to fees.
148 of 160
11
Police Capital Improvement Fees
• What is Included:
Police facilities and vehicle assets
Key additions from 1996 – Police facility on Timberline
• What Changed:
Updated asset information
Fee assumes 25% excess capacity in Police Services facility, credit
is given to both cost & debt
• Result:
Fees are increasing proportionately due to growth in infrastructure
Residential fees increasing from an average of $128 to $171 or a 39%
increase
Commercial/Industrial decreasing an average of 10%
No significant change to methodology, updated asset
information driving increase to fees.
149 of 160
12
Proposed Fire Fees
Proposed Police Fees
Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $128 71%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. $162 49%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. $180 40%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. $187 26%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. $200 11%
Commercial $154 -4%
Industrial/Warehouse $37 -16%
Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $255 128%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. $324 103%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. $359 93%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. $373 73%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. $400 53%
Commercial $308 34%
Industrial/Warehouse $73 16%
150 of 160
13
General Government Fees
• What is Included:
General Government facilities and vehicle assets which includes
City Hall, 215 N. Mason, Operation Services, etc.
Key additions from 1996 – 215 N. Mason, Streets Facilities and
vehicle assets
• What Changed:
Updated asset information
Addition of Streets Capital
Formula correction to Commercial/Industrial fees from 1996
• Result:
Residential fees increasing 75% from an average of $236 to $405
Commercial/Industrial increasing significantly due to updated
asset information and correction to original formula
General Government fees experiencing the most significant
increase due infrastructure expansion and formula correction.
151 of 160
14
Proposed General Government Fees
Updated Fee Percent
Land Use Type per Unit Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $300 111%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. $384 91%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. $423 80%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. $443 63%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. $475 44%
Commercial $730 184%
Industrial/Warehouse $171 141%
Although the percentage increase for residential fees is significant, the
dollar value ranges from a $145-$188 increase for Residential and a $473
& $100 increase for Commercial & Industrial respectively
152 of 160
15
Proposed Fee Breakdown
Residential
1200-1700 sq. ft.
Total Fee %
Neighborhood Park $1,674 41%
Community Park 1,419 35%
Fire 359 9%
Police 180 4%
General Government 423 10%
Total $4,055 100%
Park fees account for over 75% of the total fee structure.
153 of 160
16
Fee Comparison – Residential
Neighborhood and Community Park fees are the most common
and substantial of the Capital Expansion fee mix in Northern Colorado.
*Fort Collins Fees based on a 1201-1700 sq. ft. unit
$‐ $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Loveland
Longmont
Windsor
Fort Collins Proposed*
Fort Collins Current*
Greeley
Boulder
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Fire
Police
General Government
154 of 160
17
Annual Revenue Impact – Based on 10 yr. Avg Permits
Unit Type* Current Fees Proposed Fees
%
Change
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $28,607 $35,526 0%
Residential, 701‐1,200 sq. ft.
769,574 863,184 12%
Residential, 1,201‐1,700 sq. ft.
1,065,557 1,124,046 5%
Residential, 1,701‐2,200 sq. ft. 704,867 673,624 ‐4%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft.
888,941 747,860 ‐16%
Commercial 276,428 510,065 85%
Industrial 4,323 6,824 58%
Total $3,738,296 $3,961,130 6%
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
155 of 160
18
Option to Phase in Fees over 3 years - Based on 10 yr. Avg.
Unit Type* Current Fees
2013
95%
2014
97.5%
2015
100%
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. $28,607 $ 33,750 $34,638 $35,526
Residential, 701‐1,200 sq. ft. 769,574 820,025 841,604 863,184
Residential, 1,201‐1,700 sq. ft. 1,065,557 1,067,844 1,095,945 1,124,046
Residential, 1,701‐2,200 sq. ft. 704,867 639,943 656,784 673,624
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. 888,941 710,467 729,164 747,860
Commercial 276,428 484,562 497,313 510,065
Industrial 4,323 6,483 6,653 6,824
Total $3,738,296 $3,763,073 $3,862,101 $3,961,130
*Units include both single and multifamily dwellings for residential
Less than a 95% implementation would result in revenue decline.
156 of 160
19
Public Outreach
Existing Fees
ENTITY DATE
Council Finance Committee January 14 & June 17
Chamber of Commerce January 25 & March 15
Affordable Housing Board February 7
Board of Realtors/Homebuilders
Association
February 12 & April 16
Council Work Session February 12
Economic Advisory Committee February 20
Building Review Board February 28 & April 25
Currently Scheduled for First Reading – August 20
157 of 160
20
Public Outreach Feedback
• Concern about fee increase for smaller units – puts a burden
on affordable housing
• General discomfort with Commercial/Industrial increase
• Mixed level of support for trail fee
• Concern that fee increases don’t take infill into account
• Most understand methodology but don’t support increase
The Boards are generally comfortable with methodology but
do not support the fee increases, especially for smaller units & commercial.
158 of 160
21
Staff Recommendation
• Continue with current square foot methodology for
residential units
Avoids potential advantage to multifamily developer
over single family developer
Negates possible revenue decrease
• Adopt Proposed Fees as presented without phased
approach
Overall impact 6%
Brings methodology and asset information current
159 of 160
22
Final Thoughts..
• Staff will recommend codifying comprehensive
review every 3-5 years
• If supported, staff will present ordinance at August
20th
City Council Meeting
Ordinance to update existing fees
• New web page:
http://www.fcgov.com/finance/capitalexpansion.php
160 of 160
*Project includes structured parking within the building.
86 of 160
2. To the extent reasonably
feasible, the applicant shall, at
76 of 160
Section 3.4.1(D)(1), and Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k). In
addition, the STP appeal asserts that the Hearing
Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the
Hearing Officer considered evidence relevant to its
finding which was substantially false or grossly
1
Hearing Officer Decision Upheld (PDP
and three Modifications of Standard)
75 of 160