HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/17/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDAu r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, Vice-Chairperson City Hall West
Bob Overbeck 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana
Wade Troxell
Ross Cunniff Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
September 17, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Review:
• Executive Director’s Review of Agenda.
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Board on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Chairperson or Vice Chair. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Chairperson may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
• State your name and address for the record.
• Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
• Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to Secretary
• Address your comments to Council, not the audience
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Chairperson and Commissioners to follow-up on issues raised during
Citizen Participation.
6. Staff Reports.
7. Commissioner Reports.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Chairperson introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
! Staff and/or Applicant presentation (optional)
! Chairperson requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Board questions of staff on the item
! Board motion on the item
! Board discussion
! Final Board comments
! Board vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Chairperson, to
ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the
room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz
again at the end of the speaker’s time.
8. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 18 and July 2, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority
Board Meetings.
9. Resolution No. 061 Of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Approving a Redevelopment Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and
Prospect Station, LLC, for the Prospect Station Project and a Related Loan from the City of Fort
Collins. (staff: Tom Leeson, Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is for the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board to consider approval of a
Redevelopment Agreement between the URA and Prospect Station, LLC.
Prospect Station will be a new mixed-use development proposed within the Prospect South Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) District. This project will remediate blight by conducting environmental
mitigation, upgrading infrastructure, and enhancing public amenities. The Redevelopment Agreement
would authorize a $494,000 tax increment reimbursement obligation to Prospect Station LLC
(Developer) for eligible project costs. Half of the reimbursement would be provided to the Developer
upon completion of the project and verification of costs, and the remaining half would be dispersed
in annual payments over the remaining life of the TIF District.
10. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
11 Other Business.
12. Adjournment.
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Bob Overbeck, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
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. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING (REVISED AGENDA)
September 17, 2013
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring September 17-23, 2013 as Constitution Week.
B. Proclamation Declaring September 21, 2013 as Cemetery Stroll Day, with the theme of “The Spirits
of 1872: A Visit with the Founders of Fort Collins”.
Regular Meeting
After the Urban Renewal Authority Meeting (TIME CHANGE)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 17)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 20)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 13. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinances on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
Speakers are asked to:
! State your name and address for the record.
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk.
! Address your comments to Council, not the audience.
! Promptly cease your comments when the allotted time expires.
! You may not yield part or all of your time to another and another speaker will not be
credited with time requested but not used by you.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed.
Page 3
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 20 and September 3, 2013 Regular
Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the Term of
the Agreement Between the City and Mayo Foundation for Health Risk Assessment Software for the
City’s Wellness Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, authorizes a one-year
extension of the contract with the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research to provide
services associated with the assessment and management of existing and potential health risks of
City employees from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, with the option to extend for additional one (1)
year periods not to exceed four (4) additional one-year renewals. This extension will allowed
continued use of services provided by Mayo while staff assesses costs, benefits, services and other
options associated with an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic and the potential to consolidate health
risk assessment services now provided by Mayo with the Clinic.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, expands the
boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority and amends the Plan of
Development of the Authority to include a commercially zoned property in the 800 block of
Buckingham Street. The property, which includes one parcel owned by Colorado Iron and Metal Inc.
and one parcel owned by Odell Investments, LLC, is vacant land with no address.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013, Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of an
Access Easement on City Property to 201 S College, LLC.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, authorizes the
conveyance of a patio lease and a permanent access easement on Oak Street Plaza to the 201 S.
College, LLC owners of the lower level of Old Post Office Building adjacent to the park. The owner
of the lower unit of the building has requested a patio lease on a portion of the City property adjacent
to the north side of their building in anticipation of leasing the unit as a restaurant. The lease area
will be used by the unit owner and their tenant for dining and art display purposes only and will be
limited to a 10-year term with an option to renew for up to two (2) additional 5-year terms. In addition,
the owner has requested an access easement across the park leading from their north entrances out
to College Avenue. This access easement will provide the owner and their tenant legal access in and
out of the lower unit.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2013, Establishing a Temporary Ban on Marijuana
Establishments Within the City of Fort Collins.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, establishes a
temporary ban on marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana stores (collectively “marijuana establishments”) in the
City of Fort Collins through March 31, 2014.
Staff has scheduled work sessions for updates on November 12, 2013 and February 11, 2014. The
November work session will focus on the results of the statewide taxation ballot question and public
engagement conducted to date.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
The purpose of this item is to request approval of an agreement for the lease-purchase of vehicles
and equipment for the cost of $911,887. Payments under the agreement at the 2.28% interest rate
will not exceed $193,489 in 2014. Money for 2014 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2014
budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise
the total City debt by 0.67%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for
this lease. A 2013 Finance Department analysis of current and historical equipment lease financing
Page 4
arrangements showed that lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread
between lease rate and reinvestment rate. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's
best interest.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2013 Repealing Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code in its
Entirety.
Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding intrusion, robbery, fire and other alarm systems is
outdated and needs to be repealed in its entirety.
13. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Roger T Sterling and Bernita J.
Sterling, to install advanced metering system infrastructure for Laporte water meters at 2325 Eddy
Lane.
END CONSENT
14. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
15. Staff Reports.
a. Update on Flood Response and Recovery
16. Councilmember Reports.
17. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
Page 5
18. Resolution 2013-079 Concerning a Loan from the City of Fort Collins to the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Funding Certain Improvements for the Prospect Station Project
and Declaring the City Council’s Present Intent to Fund Such Loan. (staff: Tom Leeson; Megan Bolin;
5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this Resolution is to declare City Council’s intent to provide a loan to the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority (URA) for one half of the URA’s reimbursement obligation to Prospect
Station LLC.
On September 17, 2013, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will consider a
Redevelopment Agreement for Prospect Station, a new mixed-use development proposed within the
Prospect South Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The Agreement would authorize a $494,000
reimbursement obligation to Prospect Station LLC (Developer) for eligible project costs. Half
($247,000) of the reimbursement would be provided to the Developer upon completion of the project
and verification of costs, and the remaining half would be dispersed in annual payments over the
remaining life of the TIF District.
The Redevelopment Agreement would obligate the URA to make a $247,000 payment to the
Developer upon completion of the project in 2014. Since the URA will not have sufficient fund
balance to pay that amount outright, a loan is requested from the City of Fort Collins.
19. Items Relating to Exterior Property Maintenance. (staff: Mike Gebo, Beth Sowder; 15 minute staff
presentation; 1 hour discussion)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2013, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Personal Property.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2013, Amending Section 5-47 of the City Code
Pertaining to the International Property Maintenance Code.
The purpose of this item is to propose Code amendments that will address ongoing exterior
residential property maintenance issues that create a negative impact on neighboring properties and
that are not currently addressed by existing codes. This item focuses on three items that have a
significant impact to the neighborhood and the general public because they are viewable from the
public right-of-way. Neighbors have expressed that these conditions have a negative impact on their
property values, enjoyment of their properties, and a general feeling of neglect and deterioration. The
three proposed Code amendments include:
• Deficient Structures
• Vacant & Dangerous Buildings Registry
• Excessive Storage of Personal Property Viewable from the Public Right-of-Way
The above items are Phase 1 of this topic. Phase 2 will include excessive personal property and
inoperable motor vehicle storage in back yards. Phase 2 is scheduled for City Council consideration
on November 5, 2013.
20. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
21. Other Business.
Items Relating to the Larimer County Flood of 2013.
A. Resolution 2013-080 Extending the State of Local Emergency Declared by the City Manager.
B. Resolution 2013-081 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into Mutual Aid Agreements with
Other Local Governments in Response to the Larimer County Flood of 2013.
On Friday, September 13, 2013, the President of the United States and the Governor’s office declared
a disaster area for Northern Colorado due to the extensive flash flooding and river flooding along the
Front Range and Northern Colorado region.
Page 6
A local emergency proclamation was then signed by City Manager Darin Atteberry on September 13,
2013, and sent to the Governor’s office. The City proclamation was based on the fact that Fort Collins
suffered and was threatened with serious peril to the safety of people and property within the City
limits due to the “Larimer County Flood of 2013.” City Council is asked to approve the extension of
the proclamation of local emergency until such time as the City Manager determines it is no longer
necessary.
The “Larimer County Flood of 2013” has severely affected several neighboring communities including
Larimer County, Estes Park, Longmont and Loveland. These communities need aid and assistance
to respond and recover from the impacts of the flood and the City is in a position to provide some of
the requested resources. To expedite the City’s response, City Council is asked to authorize the City
Manager to enter into mutual aid agreements for short-term aid and assistance.
22. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 8
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 18 and July 2, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority Board Meetings.
8 of 253
June 18, 2013
Urban Renewal Authority
A meeting of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority was held on Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at 6:48
p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the
following Boardmembers: Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw and Troxell.
Boardmembers Absent: Campana, Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed property taxation as it relates to Urban Renewal
Authorities. He suggested the Fort Collins URA should be more cognizant of applicable legislation.
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 8 and May 14, 2013
Urban Renewal Authority Meetings, Adopted
Boardmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Overbeck, to approve the
minutes of the May 8 and May 14, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority meetings. Yeas: Poppaw, Horak,
Troxell, Cunniff and Overbeck. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution No. 058
Authorizing, Approving and Directing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery by the
Authority of Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds (North College Avenue Project)
Series 2013, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of $11,800,000;
Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Prior Actions, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Property tax revenue in the North College Plan Area has matured and is therefore attractive to
outside investors. The Resolution adopted by the City Council expresses the Council’s intent to
replenish the URA’s debt service reserve fund if such funds are ever used to make debt service
payments. Replenishment of the reserve fund is contingent upon annual appropriation of funds by
the City Council in its sole discretion. The City Council's expression of intent improves the credit
rating on the 2013 Bonds. With the City Council Resolution, the 2013 Bonds are expected to have
an effective interest rate of 3.3%, which is slightly less than the weight average of the current loans,
3.44%.
229
9 of 253
June 18, 2013
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The North College URA Project Area was created in 2004, allowing the URA to receive incremental
property taxes through 2029. Collection of property tax increment revenue in North College began
in 2007, and the 2012 property taxes payable in 2013 are expected to be $1.3 million.
Table 1 - Net Property Tax Increment Revenue $000’s
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*
$110 $287 $263 $493 $536 $907 $1,285
*anticipated
A common measure used by lenders in determining risk is the ratio of pledged revenue to debt
service, called a coverage ratio. Investors want that ratio to be high – at least 125%. The current
revenue of $1.3 million could support up to $1 million a year in debt service. The proposed
maximum annual debt service of $919,000 yields a good coverage ratio of 142%.
City Loans to URA
The initial financing model adopted for North College has the City providing initial capital through
a loan until the tax increment revenue reaches a maturity level that can support external financing
to third party investors. Eight loans have been made by the City to the URA in the North College
District. The first loan has been repaid. Table 2 recaps the current status of the loans.
Table 2 – North College Loan Status $000’s
Date Project
Original
Value
Current
Balance
Term
Years Rate
City Fund
Holding
09/2006 Valley Steel, URA start-up
funds
$ 150 $ 0 5 5.55% General
Fund
05/2009 North College Market Place,
Phase 1
5,000 4,729 20 2.85% Capital
Expansion
12/2010 JAX 173 106 5 2.50% Capital
Expansion
06/2011 NEECO 326 326 10 3.01% Storm
Drainage
07/2011 Kaufman Robinson 193 193 5 2.46% General
Fund
07/2011 North College Market Place,
Phase 2
3,000 2,884 19 4.09% Water Fund
08/2012 North College Road
Improvements
2,700 2,700 18 3.92% Capital
Projects
BCC
Loans to be refinanced 11,542 10,938 3.44% Weighted
average
06/09 RMI2 5,304 5,304 20 2.50% General
Fund
Total North College Area 16,846 16,242
230
10 of 253
June 18, 2013
The proposal is to issue enough debt to takeout $10.94 million in loans to the City, plus interest and
debt issue costs. For the following reasons, the City’s loan to the URA that relates to RMI is not
being refinanced.
• The use of the RMI loan proceeds does not qualify the interest to be tax exempt. Therefore
the interest rate would be significantly higher.
• The new market tax credit deal cannot be refinanced until 2017.
• There is not enough revenue capacity to meet external investor expectations relating to
coverage ratios. Only about $1 million of the $5.3 million could be considered for
refinancing if the favorable coverage ratio was to be preserved.
Preliminary Structure of 2013 Bonds
Approximately $11.4 million of bond proceeds will be used to takeout $10.94 million of debt to the
City, plus interest of $254,000, and pay debt issue costs of $206,000. Coupon interest rates vary
from 2% for near term bonds and 4% for longer term bonds. The collective Net Interest Cost is
expected to be 3.3%, which compares favorably to the 3.44% weighted average interest rate on the
debt being retired. Future annual payments will vary from $914,000 to $919,000 through 2029.
The Underwriters for the 2013 Bonds have recommended that a debt service reserve fund in the
amount of $920,000 would be advisable for marketing the 2013 Bonds and that purchasing a Surety
Policy for such an amount would be preferable to funding such a reserve with cash. The cost of
such a Surety Policy would be $55,000. If it was ever necessary to draw upon the Surety Policy, the
City’s replenishment pledge would repay such draw, subject to annual appropriation.
Staff prefers this option but will make a decision later based on the potential impact on the credit
rating.
City Council Resolution
It is anticipated that the City Council’s expression of intent to replenish the bond reserve fund will
result in a credit rating of Aa3. Without this, and a proven revenue stream, the interest rate would
likely be 5% or higher rather than 3.3%.
Future Financing Model
City staff have communicated to the URA that going forward the City intends to only loan money
when alternative financing agreements are not feasible. The reimbursement agreement recently
approved for Aspen Heights is an example of the preferred approach for future development
agreements. The Aspen Heights developer will be reimbursed over time as revenue is collected,
rather than in a lump sum upon completion of the project.
Timeline
June 24 Publish Preliminary Official Statement on Internet Sites
July 9-10 Market Bonds
July 23 Closing
231
11 of 253
June 18, 2013
Consultants – The URA and City have engaged three firms to help issue the new debt: Sherman &
Howard as the Bond Attorney, BLX as the Financial Advisor and RBC Capital Markets as the Bond
Underwriters.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The replacement debt will take out $10.94 million in debt to the City, pay $254,000 of interest and
pay $206, 000 in delivery date expenses. It should be noted that later this summer the City will use
some of the returned monies to loan $5 million to the URA for the first Midtown Project – The
Summit (Capstone).
Table 3 -Before Refinancing 000s
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cash In-flows
Property Tax Increment $ 907 $ 1,285 $ 1,310 $ 1,310 $ 1,337
Other Inflows 109 97 95 92 97
Loan Proceeds 2,700
Total Inflows 3,716 1,382 1,405 1,402 1,433
Cash Out-flows
Operating Costs (132) (235) (263) (268) (272)
Project Costs (3,718) (212)
Subordinate Debt Service (645) (804) (1,539) (1,008) (1,162)
Total Outflows (4,496) (1,251) (1,802) (1,276) (1,434)
Net Cash Flow (780) 130 (397) 126 (0)
Beginning Cash 2,531 1,751 1,881 1,485 1,611
Ending Cash 1,751 1,881 1,485 1,611 1,611
Table 4 - After Refinancing 000s
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cash In-flows
Property Tax Increment $ 907 $ 1,285 $ 1,310 $ 1,310 $ 1,337
Other Inflows 109 97 100 97 103
Loan Proceeds 2,700
Refinancing Proceeds 11,398
Total Inflows 3,716 12,780 1,410 1,407 1,439
Cash Out-flows
Operating Costs (132) (235) (263) (268) (272)
Project Costs (3,718) (212)
Debt Service 2013 Bonds (132) (917) (917) (915)
Subordinate Debt Service (645) (663) (133) (133)
Bond Issue Costs (206)
Takeout loans plus
interest (11,192)
232
12 of 253
June 18, 2013
Total Outflows (4,496) (11,978) (1,844) (1,317) (1,319)
Net Cash Flow (780) 802 (434) 90 120
Beginning Cash 2,531 1,751 2,553 2,120 2,210
Ending Cash 1,751 2,553 2,120 2,210 2,330
Table 5 - Net Change 000s
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ 0 $ 672 $ 635 $ 599 $ 719
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The URA Board Finance Committee reviewed and tentatively approved the refinancing and the
concept of a Council Resolution regarding debt reserve replenishment at its meeting on May 20,
2013.”
John Voss, Controller, discussed the financing model used by the URA for the prior six years and
stated the new model will involve reimbursing the developer as the TIF comes in. He stated there
will be some short-term cash gain; however, in the long-term, the result will be roughly null for the
URA.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the financing of the Aspen Heights project. He
argued there is no support for TIF districts in the state statutes relating to Urban Renewal
Authorities.
Boardmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution No.
058.
Vice-Chair Horak requested staff input regarding Mr. Sutherland’s comments. Mike Beckstead,
Chief Financial Officer, replied this transaction has been evaluated by several members of the City
Attorney’s Office, as well as by Dee Wisor of Sherman and Howard, for an independent review.
All of the reviewing parties have determined this transaction meets state statute requirements.
Boardmember Cunniff asked about implications for the broader URA. Dee Wisor, independent
counsel from Sherman and Howard, replied the City and County of Denver has multiple TIF districts
within a single Urban Renewal Area. He stated it is a common practice throughout the state.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Poppaw, Overbeck and Cunniff.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
233
13 of 253
June 18, 2013
Resolution No. 059
Adopting the Storefront Improvement Program for the North College
Urban Renewal Area and Authorizing the Executive Director
to Enter Into Project Reimbursement Agreements, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution is a formal approval of the Storefront Improvement Program for the North College
Urban Renewal Area. The purpose of the Program is to encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of
commercial buildings, improvements and conditions within the North College Urban Renewal Area
by offering financial assistance (50% of the total project cost, up to a maximum URA contribution
of $5,000 per storefront) to property owners and/or business tenants seeking to renovate or restore
their commercial storefronts and/or building facades.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The 2013-2014 biennial budget for Fort Collins approved funding for the Storefront Improvement
Program (Program), which included the following description:
“The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to property owners
and/or business tenants within an Urban Renewal TIF District seeking to renovate
or restore their commercial storefronts and/or building facades. The goal is to
leverage private investment to visually improve existing buildings.”
The purpose of the Resolution is to formally approve the Program, which will allow individual
funding requests to be approved administratively. As the budget language indicates, the purpose of
the Program is to encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of commercial buildings, improvements
and conditions within the North College Urban Renewal Area by offering financial assistance to
property owners and/or business tenants seeking to renovate or restore their commercial storefronts
and/or building facades (See Attachment A for a complete description of the Program).
Approved participants of the Program are eligible to receive financial assistance, upon the
completion their approved project. The assistance is for 50% of the total project cost, up to a
maximum URA contribution of $5,000 per storefront. While the URA monies act as financial
assistance to property owners and/or business tenants, the fundamental purpose of the assistance
is to further the goals and objectives identified in the North College Urban Renewal Plan and the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Eligible participants in the Program include property owners of commercial buildings and tenants
of ground floor commercial buildings that have an active sales tax license located within the North
College Urban Renewal Area. A grant from this Program may not be used in combination with tax
increment financing assistance. The eligible improvements include improvements that contribute
to the visual enhancement of the property as viewed from the public right-of-way. Property owners
that participate in the Program will be required to record a façade easement with the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder that will expire within five years of the date of project completion. The
234
14 of 253
June 18, 2013
easement requires the owner to maintain the facade, get URA approval of subsequent changes, and
it gives the URA the ability to make repairs and lien the property if the facade is not maintained (See
Attachment 1 for the easement template).
It is anticipated the URA will have two funding request deadlines per year. Significant outreach to
North College property and business owners will be made in an effort to gain interest in the
program. Due to the limited time remaining in 2013, only one funding request deadline will be
offered.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The 2013-2014 biennial budget for Fort Collins approved funding in the amount of $25,000 in 2013
and $50,000 in 2014 of tax increment financing (TIF) generated from the North College Urban
Renewal Area to fund a Storefront Improvement Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
It is not anticipated the Program will have any environmental impacts.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
URA staff has worked directly with the North Fort Collins Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG) in
developing this program.”
Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager, stated this Resolution is a formal approval of the
program which will allow future funding requests to be approved administratively. The goal of the
program is to leverage private investment to visually improve existing buildings and commercial
fronts within the North College area; it will provide financial reimbursement assistance for property
owners of commercial buildings and tenants of ground floor commercial buildings with an active
sales tax license.
Boardmember Overbeck asked about historic landmark preservation with regard to the program.
Leeson replied a structure deemed as historically significant would be required to go through the
normal historic preservation approval processes. Executive Director Atteberry stated there is
nothing that would prohibit a historically significant property from seeking additional funding
through the DDA process.
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, replied he has set a meeting with Karen McWilliams,
Historic Preservation Planner, to discuss the issue. Executive Director Atteberry noted there is no
desire to have the facade improvement program conflict with historic preservation goals. Any type
of overlap would aid in meeting both goals.
Boardmember Cunniff stated the DDA has a successful facade improvement program and asked if
this program will also prohibit recipients of the facade grants from coming back for another one,
unless it is a historic site. Leeson replied there is no language which would specifically prohibit
recipients from returning for an additional grant. He stated this program does not entail too many
regulations as there has yet to be a determination of interest.
235
15 of 253
June 18, 2013
Boardmember Cunniff asked if this program excludes branded signage. Leeson replied in the
affirmative.
Boardmember Overbeck asked about the applicability of a LEED certification requirement. Leeson
replied this program is for exterior modifications for which LEED certification would be difficult
to attain.
Boardmember Overbeck asked about monitoring of deconstruction. Leeson replied that is not
addressed in this program but there will be an opportunity to discuss that issue on July 30.
Boardmember Troxell asked if the recent review of the Beau Joe’s property would qualify for this
facade improvement program. Hendee replied it would qualify; however, it may not be approved.
Boardmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution
No. 059.
Boardmember Troxell asked how the Executive Director would evaluate a project based on
aesthetics and compatibility. Executive Director Atteberry replied there is the ability to deny
funding should the project not meet criteria.
Boardmember Cunniff suggested it may be helpful to have language to that effect in the Resolution.
Executive Director Atteberry suggested staff would return to the Board in a year for a review of the
program.
Boardmember Cunniff stated he would prefer stronger language relating to green building practices.
Hendee replied the quality of materials can be addressed through LEED and stated next year’s
funding increases to $50,000, which would necessitate the inclusion of additional details.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak and Poppaw.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Vice-Chair Horak suggested the development of a URA “frequently asked questions” list.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
_________________________________
Vice Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Secretary
236
16 of 253
July 2, 2013
Urban Renewal Authority
A meeting of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority was held on Tuesday, July 2, 2013, at 11:04
p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the
following Boardmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed a CORA request he submitted regarding the
issuance of URA bonds. He alleged the Larimer County Assessor has been illegally calculating tax
increment and opposed the way the URA is operated.
Boardmember Reports
Boardmember Troxell stated three Boardmembers met with State Representatives and have
discussed concerns regarding the URA with Executive Director Atteberry. He stated the City and
the URA Board have been responsible in the use and application of the URA statutes.
Resolution No. 060 of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Expressing the Board’s Intent Related to the Use of Tax Protest Covenants in Connection
with Redevelopment Projects for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Redevelopment agreements have generally required that an instrument be recorded to restrict the
protest of property tax valuations on the redeveloped property, a restriction that protects the
interests of the Authority by preventing the reduction of tax increment revenues. This restriction
needs to be waived because, in certain circumstances, it could cause certain tax revenues to be
viewed as “private payments,” which could then make the bonds in URA refinancing “taxable.”
If taxable bonds are issued, the URA’s borrowing cost increases. The proposed resolution will
authorize the Executive Director to modify and waive Tax Protest Covenants for the benefit of the
URA.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In the past the URA has used Tax Protest Covenants to protect the interest of the Authority by
preventing the reduction of tax increment revenues.
With one exception, the method used to financially support redevelopment in the North College
Project Area is a lump sum paid at the completion of the project. This method requires borrowing
237
17 of 253
July 2, 2013
from the City until refinancing to external investors becomes feasible. Most of the associated
redevelopment agreements include a “no protest clause” for the purpose of protecting the URA’s
ability to repay loans.
However, the current language in the “no protest covenant” potentially affects the taxability of the
bonds, changing them from tax exempt to taxable. This makes refinancing more expensive.
The proposed Resolution will authorize the Executive Director to modify and waive Tax Protest
Covenants, as needed, to benefit the URA. The Resolution directs staff to negotiate terms in future
Tax Protest Covenants that protects the URA without negatively impacting the tax status of future
or existing URA bonds.
The “no protest covenant” is not unique to agreements in the North College Project Area; it also
exists in the Summit (Capstone) agreement, which will likely be refinanced in the future. These and
other future agreements will include a provision allowing the Executive Director to waive that
covenant when it benefits the URA.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of the Resolution will allow the North College refinancing to be done at a more affordable
interest rate. The URA’s ability to repay their loan obligations is not expected to be significantly
affected by a taxpayer successfully protesting their property tax assessment in the North College
Area.”
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, briefly introduced the item and stated this is a corrective
action allowing refinancing to move forward and noted a broader risk-management policy will come
before Council in the future.
John Voss, Controller, stated no-protest covenants in the redevelopment agreements are causing the
tax issue. He stated the North College Marketplace, Jax, and Kauffman Robinson projects are all
affected. The North College Marketplace has already successfully protested its agreement. This
Resolution allows the Executive Director to waive the existing tax protest covenants as they are in
the existing agreements and directs the Executive Director to examine the phrasing of the upcoming
contracts.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the Board hold off until receiving a citation from
the IRS.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, questioned whether the no-protest covenants are fair.
Boardmember Cunniff requested information about which IRS regulation causes this effect. Deputy
City Attorney Daggett replied the source of this issue lies in the Treasury Regulations which has
specific discussion about one of the tests that the IRS applies in evaluating whether bonds can be
treated as tax exempt. This item suggests an approach that will hopefully resolve the issue from a
tax standpoint.
Boardmember Cunniff asked if the provision in the Resolution allowing the Executive Director to
grant waivers is necessary for the existing finance package or for future consideration. Beckstead
238
18 of 253
July 2, 2013
replied it is applicable to the current refinance loans and for the Capstone loan which has yet to be
made.
Boardmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Campana, to adopt Resolution
No. 060.
Boardmember Cunniff requested assurance that a dialogue will occur regarding bringing the policy
discussion forward sooner to be reviewed by the URA Board.
City Attorney Roy suggested any type of modification to the Resolution which may result from
those discussions should come before the Board at an alternate date rather than be amended tonight.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Poppaw, Horak, Overbeck,
Campana and Cunniff.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m.
_________________________________
Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Secretary
239
19 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Tom Leeson
Megan Bolin
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 9
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 061 Of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Approving a
Redevelopment Agreement Between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and Prospect Station, LLC, for the
Prospect Station Project and a Related Loan from the City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board to consider approval of a Redevelopment
Agreement between the URA and Prospect Station, LLC.
Prospect Station will be a new mixed-use development proposed within the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) District. This project will remediate blight by conducting environmental mitigation, upgrading infrastructure, and
enhancing public amenities. The Redevelopment Agreement would authorize a $494,000 tax increment
reimbursement obligation to Prospect Station LLC (Developer) for eligible project costs. Half of the reimbursement
would be provided to the Developer upon completion of the project and verification of costs, and the remaining half
would be dispersed in annual payments over the remaining life of the TIF District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In September 2011, City Council approved the creation of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area and Prospect South
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, beginning the 25-year timeframe within which the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) collects tax increment from within the District. Per Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-25-101 et seq.
(Urban Renewal Law), the URA then has the ability to provide financial assistance to projects that remediate blight.
Prospect Station LLC (Developer) submitted a formal application to the URA in June 2013 requesting TIF for a new
project. URA staff has since negotiated a Redevelopment Agreement, which is now ready for formal consideration
by the URA Board. The details of the project and financial assistance structure are summarized below; additional
detail can be found in the attached URA Application and Redevelopment Agreement.
Project Description
Prospect Station will be a new, three-story mixed-use development located at 221 West Prospect Road (south side
of Prospect Road to the west of the MAX guideway and Mason Trail). There will be 32 residential rental units, offering
a combination of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedrooms, for a total of 49 bedrooms. A total of 48 parking spaces will
be provided; 37 on-site and 11 off-site. The commercial portion will be 1,040 square feet and include two ground-floor,
live-work units that allow residents to operate a home-based business (the site plan is included as Exhibit A of the
Redevelopment Agreement).
The site is the former location of a gas station and is considered to be a brownfield, meaning there are hazardous
environmental contaminants that require remediation. It has been vacant and underutilized since, and was acquired
by the Developer in 2006. The Project Development Plan (PDP) was approved by the City in summer 2013.
Construction is anticipated to begin by October 2013, and completed no later than fall 2014.
Tax Increment
Based on an estimate of value provided by Larimer County (see Exhibit C of the Redevelopment Agreement), Prospect
Station, once complete, is expected to generate $39,156 per year of tax increment revenue. Based on a conservative
projection that assumes no appreciation, the project will generate a total of $865,340 over the remaining 23-year life
of the Prospect South TIF District.
20 of 253
September 17, 2013 -2- ITEM 9
Eligible Costs
The total project cost is $5,980,924, which includes land acquisition and construction of the project. Of this total, the
Developer originally requested $772,879 in TIF assistance; however, that amount was negotiated to $494,000 for
various improvements, which have been verified to be eligible costs according to Urban Renewal Law and are listed
in Table 1.
One aspect to bring to the Board’s attention is the fact that the Developer has already incurred costs associated with
the line item “extend and upgrade water and sewer line”. Pursuant to URA policy, TIF may be used to retroactively
reimburse costs incurred prior to approval of the Redevelopment Agreement, provided such costs are hard costs
associated with public improvements. In this case, the segment of Prospect Road in front of the project site was
planned to be closed for several weeks this summer due to construction. Knowing that the extension and upgrade
of the water and sewer line for this project would require closure of Prospect Road, the Developer coordinated the
timing of that improvement with the planned construction in order to avoid a second closure of Prospect Road later
this year. Staff recommends such costs remain eligible for reimbursement and are thus included in the
Redevelopment Agreement; this decision, however, is ultimately the URA Board’s.
Table 1: Eligible Costs
Description Amount
Environmental Mitigation
Installation of underground environmental vapor barrier $15,000
Materials testing $8,750
Deconstruction of existing structure and improvements, and Phase 1 environmental report $32,000
Removal of soil at old tank locations, replaced with new structural fill $62,000
Infrastructure Upgrades
Upgrade stormwater system $72,124
Modify and enhance the Prospect Road Transfort bus pullout $63,472
Extend and upgrade water and sewer line¹ $93,778
Public Amenities
Enhanced public plaza adjacent to transportation corridor including seating, lighting, dog waste
station, bike fix-it station, and enhanced landscaping
$137,500
Facade Enhancements
Enhancements to facade to address four-sided architecture $9,376
Total TIF Requested $494,000
¹ These costs have already been incurred by the Developer. The URA does not typically reimburse
for costs incurred prior to the Redevelopment Agreement, but exceptions are allowed for hard costs
related to public improvements, subject to URA Board approval.
Blight Remediation/Public Benefit
Urban Renewal Law identifies eleven factors of blight; this project will remediate several that were identified within the
Prospect South TIF District, including:
• Slum, deteriorating, or deteriorating structures
• Deterioration of site or other improvements
• Environmental contamination of buildings or property
Additionally, Prospect Station supports a number of City Plan policies, including:
• EH 4.1 Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
• ENV 17.2 Manage Hazardous Materials and Waste
• LIV 5.2 Target Public Investment Along the Community Spine
• LIV 35.2 Mix of Uses
• LIV 43.3 Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
• T 9.2 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Interface and Access
21 of 253
September 17, 2013 -3- ITEM 9
Redevelopment Agreement
Based on an evaluation of eligible costs and blight remediation, URA staff supports the project and has negotiated a
Redevelopment Agreement with the Developer. This Agreement is unique in that it blends reimbursement
methodologies, but is believed to result in a compromise that provides benefit to the project while mitigating risk to the
URA.
The Agreement would create a reimbursement obligation from the URA to the Developer for up to $494,000 of tax
increment. This amount would be used for approved, eligible costs that will ultimately be verified based on invoices
for actual work completed. The reimbursement is structured so that half, or $247,000, would be reimbursed to the
Developer in a lump sum upon completion of the project. The remaining $247,000 would be dispersed to the
Developer through annual payments of $11,762 until 2036. The reimbursement obligation represents approximately
60% of the total tax increment that will be generated by the project.
The URA will not have sufficient fund balance to pay the $247,000 lump sum to the Developer, and has thus requested
a loan from the City of Fort Collins. The Loan Agreement will be considered separately from the Redevelopment
Agreement; it is based on current City policy in terms of interest rate, which is anticipated to cost the URA
approximately $166,515 (note this is an estimate based on what the rate would be today, which may change once it
is time to execute the loan). Combined, the reimbursement obligation and financing cost to the URA represents
$660,515 or 80% of the total increment generated by the project.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
If approved, this Resolution creates a URA reimbursement obligation of up to $494,000 of tax increment to the
Developer, which represents 57% of the total estimated increment generated by the project. Due to the
reimbursement structure, the URA will seek a loan for half of the reimbursement obligation from the City once the
project is complete; the remaining obligation will be paid to the Developer from annual increment revenue generated
by the project. The total cost to the URA when financing costs are considered is estimated to be $669,284, or 77%
of the total estimated increment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Since the site was formally a gas station, there are environmental hazards associated with such a use that must be
mitigated prior to it redeveloping. The Developer has already invested in some of the steps necessary to mitigate such
hazards, and will finish the process to clean up the site as part of this project.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The URA Finance Committee will meet to discuss this Redevelopment Agreement on September 16, 2013. A
summary of that discussion will be provided in a read-before memo to the URA Board on September 17.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Prospect Station URA Application
2. Powerpoint presentation
22 of 253
Submit by Email Print Form
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION:
APPLICANT / DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION:
DATE:
APPLICANT DEVELOPER PROPERTY-OWNER
COMPANY NAME Prospect Station, LLC Prospect Station, LLC Prospect Station, LLC
COMPANY OWNER/CEO Connie Dohn Connie Dohn Connie Dohn
CONTACT PERSON Connie Dohn Connie Dohn Connie Dohn
TITLE Manager Manager Manager
COMPLETE ADDRESS
2642 Midpoint Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
2642 Midpoint Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
2642 Midpoint Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
PHONE 970,490.1855 970,490.1855 970,490.1855
FAX 970,490.6093 970,490.6093 970,490.6093
EMAIL cdohn@dohnconstruction.com cdohn@dohnconstruction.com cdohn@dohnconstruction.com
TYPE OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT / REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY:
PROJECT ELEMENTS:
NEW OR EXISTING BUSINESSES (NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ONLY):
FINANCIAL / FUNDING SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Date Modified: 09/09
TOTAL PROJECT COST $6,005,879
CURRENT ACTUAL VALUE (LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR) $160,000
PROJECTED ACTUAL VALUE (LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR) $5,451,108
PROJECTED ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX $40,841
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT EXPECTED $1,062,032
TOTAL TIF ASSISTANCE REQUESTED $772,879
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) ASSISTANCE
APPLICATION
Prospect Station
223 W. Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
Jun 20, 2013
Residential
Commercial/Retail
Industrial/Warehouse
Mixed-Use (Residential/Non-Residential)
Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial)
Other (please explain)
New Construction
Infrastructure Improvements
Land Acquisition
Site Clearance
Building Rehabilitation
Other (please explain)
New Business for URA Plan Area?
Existing Business for URA Plan Area?
Yes No
Yes No Years in Business Years
23 of 253
TYPE OF TIF REQUESTED (include general terms & conditions):
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS (for the entire project):
AMOUNT SOURCE USE
$772,879 URA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) Hazmat, infrastructure, etc. (see attach)
$1,501,470 EQUITY Land acquisition, pre-dev costs
$3,731,530 CONSTRUCTION LOAN Remaining development costs
$
$
$
$6,005,879 PROJECT TOTAL
INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR APPLICATION
Please include:
1. A location map
2. Site plans or project drawings (please include photos of site currently)
3. Project Proforma
4. Owner/Business resume
5. Executive Summary with the following questions answered:
a. What is the nature of the project?
b. Why is TIF assistance needed; how will the funds be used?
c. What other sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF?
d. How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)?
e. How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area?
f. How will the project help achieve the goals of the Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan?
g. How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions?
h. How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques?
Please be specific how this project uses energy efficiency, renewable resources, natural resource
conservation techniques, stormwater low impact design methods, or any other methods not listed.
i. Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods or effectiveness
of the proposed sustainable features within the project.
j. What is the proposed project timetable (what is the estimated time frame for major steps including
the City's planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance
of Certificate of Occupancy (CO)?
Please use the next page to provide this and any additional information that would be helpful to your
application.
Grant
Loan (include methods of payback in description)
24 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 1 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
a. Nature of the project
Prospect Station, located at 223 W Prospect Road, is a three-story, mixed-use community intended by its local development
partners to promote safety, enhance appearance and maximize rate of use at one of the most important interconnection
points between the multi-modal Mason Corridor and cross-town Transfort system. As the gateway between Old Town and
Midtown, as well as the front porch of Colorado State University, redevelopment along Prospect Road provides an ideal
opportunity to set a high standard for the type of transit-focused projects the City, Urban Renewal Authority and Fort Collins
citizens desire: progressive, iconic, safe, and built to last.
In planning and initiating work at the Prospect Station site, the development team was motivated by the following guiding
objectives and project goals:
1. Remediate a dangerous and environmentally hazardous former industrial site (brownfield) that has been
plagued for decades by underground petroleum contaminants, a derelict and unstable building, and
criminal activity including vandalism, theft of building components, drug use, and illegal camping by
transient individuals.
2. Provide 28,059 sq ft of residential space (a total of 49 bedrooms) and 1,040 sq ft of commercial space,
including two unique live-work units to allow residents to easily operate a home-based business with
Mason Corridor frontage. Enable residents, guests, commercial tenants and their customers to benefit
from immediate access to public transit including MAX, Transfort and the multi-use path, as well as from
its walkability to and from campus and the other amenities near Prospect and College.
3. Offer the highest quality construction and appropriate sustainability features for lasting durability,
retention of value and minimal environmental impact.
4. Offer thoughtful and practical liveability features such as balconies on most units, bathroom/bedroom
suites in every unit, laundry facilities in every unit, and secure, private recreation lockers for each tenant’s
bikes, skis and other lifestyle gear.
5. Provide convenience and quality of life for all tenants while keeping rental rates appropriate within the
broader Fort Collins market.
6. Provide adequate parking including electric car charging stations—despite convenience to public transit—
out of respect to residential and commercial neighbors, and in response to ongoing concerns brought
before City Council.
7. Welcome all transportation corridor patrons through seamless integration with trail system and open
public plaza, complete with seating, lighting, landscaping, dog waste and bike fix-it stations, as well as
façade-integrated and active lifestyle/trail-inspired public art.
8. Improve safety of property, trail and crossing area at night with additional lighting.
9. Help address CSU’s 15-year enrollment goals by offering self-contained housing that appeals to graduate
students and other professionals affiliated with the university—not exclusively undergraduates.
10. Involve local equity, employ at least 90% local trades, and retain local ownership and management for the
life of the development.
25 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 2 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
About the Prospect Station development partnership
Redeveloping an under-utilized parcel adjacent to the Mason Corridor into a transit-oriented, mixed-use community had
been a vision of local businessmen Rayno Seaser (founder of The Egg & I restaurants) and Steve Spanjer (president of Spanjer
Homes) since official plans for the bus rapid transit system were approved by the City of Fort Collins in 2000. As long-time
Fort Collins residents, Seaser and Spanjer agreed that such an undertaking could be more than just a business venture—it
would be an investment in the future growth and direction of the community. A few years later, after considering the old
Gasamat property at 223 W Prospect Road, they realized that redevelopment of this particular site would also provide an
opportunity to rehabilitate a dangerous lot into a productive one, establishing a critical gateway location between Midtown,
Old Town and Colorado State University: Prospect Station.
In 2012, Seaser and Spanjer recruited Doug and Connie Dohn of Dohn Construction, and Alex Schuman of Henderson
Property Management to partner in the construction and management of the project, arriving at a special synergy of
community involvement, awareness and responsiveness. Representing multi-generational involvement and deep roots in
Northern Colorado—as well as three BBB Torch Award-winning small business owners—the Seasers, Spanjers, Dohns and
Schumans are passionately engaged in the needs, wants and goals of Fort Collins citizens, business leaders and officials, and
are committed to acting as advocates and stewards of the community as it ushers in an exciting new era of Mason Corridor-
oriented development.
b. Why is TIF assistance needed; how will funds be used
Beginning in 2006, preliminary financing was identified, land was acquired, plans were drafted, proformas were created,
and cleanup of brownfield environmental hazards was initiated. Since that time, however, unforeseen code changes, effects
of nearby development, and the threat of eminent domain converged to turn Prospect Station from a viable privately-
funded enterprise into one that now faces project-ending financial obstacles. As of June 2013, the development is likely to
be halted unless TIF assistance can be obtained to close the economic gap created by the following factors:
• Loss of approximately 20% of original site to transit infrastructure. Prospect Station’s initial land purchase
included ample size for a building that included all amenities to meet project partners’ 10 goals listed
above, with sufficient square footage and number of units to make the project financially viable. As
plans for the Mason Corridor were finalized in fall 2009, however, developers were informed that they
would lose 5,489 sq ft of land running the entire length of the property’s eastern edge to a re-routed
pedestrian path. To ensure that the necessary land could be obtained from the site, City Council approved
the use of eminent domain, however project partners agreed to grant the City an easement instead, to
save the additional expense of legal action. The project lost additional buildable square footage to an
enhanced stormwater drainage system needed for the pedestrian path, and the new, significant setback
of underground utilities needed to accommodate the required 21’ right-of-way dedication for a bus stop
along Prospect (a constrained arterial street). While these infrastructure improvements are absolutely
necessary for safety and traffic flow on Prospect, they resulted in a fragmented lot—now too small to
accommodate the planned project at an economically viable size.
26 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 3 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
In September 2009 Prospect Station received $65,749 in compensation toward the easement’s land value,
however there are many other resulting out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the transit requirements that
were not considered in the settlement amount:
1. Creating and filing a lot re-plat and right-of-way vacation to convert Tamasag Dr. from a public
street to a private road. Cost to Prospect Station: $32,350
2. Purchasing an additional 1,331 sq ft of land from adjacent property owners to accommodate a
sufficiently sized building footprint. Cost to Prospect Station: $14,951
3. Granting seller 234 sq ft as a condition of purchase. Cost to Prospect Station: $3,128
4. Completing lot re-plat, relocating utilities, ordering new architectural plans and new
engineering for a new project with a smaller building footprint situated further west on the
newly assembled lot. Adjusting revenue projections and development economics based on
project’s smaller scale. Cost to Prospect Station: $16,000 to $20,000
• Abandonment of water and sewer lines by neighboring development. Prospect Station’s water and sewer
needs had been planned as—and continue to be served by—an adequately sized tie-in to lines beneath
Prospect Road via a new line under Tamasag Drive. In 2012 the construction of a nearby student housing
development resulted in the abandonment of a water and sewer line at Spring Creek (a half-mile to the
south), which had been intended to serve Prospect Station’s neighbors to the south. To enable future
development on these properties, now cut off from access to water and sewer service by an unrelated
project, it is the developers of Prospect Station who will be required to shoulder the considerable costs of
reconnecting these lots to City services by extending the main from Prospect Road, upgrading its capacity
and installing hydrants.
This issue recently and unexpectedly came to a head as a result of the MAX-related construction closure
of Prospect Road, which snarled traffic on adjacent roads, inconvenienced residents and hobbled nearby
businesses in March 2013. Project partners recognized that, although Prospect Station has not received
development approval or construction financing, it would be for the good of the community if the team
could take a leap of faith and assume the risk and expense of completing the required utility stub work
during the existing closure, rather than forcing an additional week-long closure of Prospect in August or
September. At an out-of-pocket cost of $65,000, partners ordered engineering, pulled together materials
and labor, paid overtime, and coordinated with the numerous City departments and independent
contractors involved with the MAX project to make infrastructure installation possible on immediate notice,
with little to no impact on the existing project, and with no further disruption to residents and businesses.
• Extraordinary costs associated with new sound mitigation requirements. Effective January 1, 2012, the
City of Fort Collins’ Green building code stipulates that all units within 1000 feet of an active railway
must meet a sound transmission coefficient (STC) rated at 40 or above. Due to the relatively small size
and close proximity of the planned building to the BNSF line forming the spine of the Mason Corridor,
the entire 360-degree exterior of Prospect Station will be armed with exceedingly soundproof wall
assemblies, window panes and building techniques. Again, because this code was adopted after initial
plans and proformas were created, this single feature has added a burdensome cost—well in excess of the
soundproofing that had been planned—which cannot be sufficiently offset or absorbed by increasing the
size of the project, the number of units, the amount of commercial space, or the rental rates.
27 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 4 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
• Response to ongoing parking debate within transportation overlay district. Providing adequate parking
for residents and customers of Prospect Station has been a priority and a conundrum since project start,
further compounded by ongoing land acquisition issues. Because Prospect Station is located within the
transportation overlay district, just steps from a MAX station, a Transfort stop and the pedestrian path,
no parking is required at this development. However, project partners are aware that many students and
professionals come to Fort Collins with a car—and many patrons of local businesses will drive—even
though alternative transit is available. The reality of high-density housing and mixed-use developments
without provided parking—especially those adjacent to university campuses with limited parking
resources—is that residents and customers will park in nearby neighborhoods and shopping centers.
Inconsiderate overflow parking has long been an issue near campus, and is addressed repeatedly in
Council chambers. Because of this ongoing concern, and out of respect for neighboring families and
businesses, Prospect Station’s project partners have gone above and beyond to fight for—and continue
to finance—an appropriate number of dedicated parking spaces: by purchasing and leasing additional
land, including a concealed above-ground parking structure behind the commercial space, and investing in
additional landscaping features to ensure visual appeal.
In striving to execute the community’s shared vision for high-density, transit-focused development, the project partners
have encountered unexpected and mounting costs associated with ongoing site modifications to accommodate evolving
transportation infrastructure, to provide necessary street and utility system upgrades, to fulfill newly adopted building and
sound mitigation requirements, and to relieve ongoing pain felt by campus neighbors and the general public. As a result
of the changes described above, Prospect Station’s vision for a safe, affordable, high-quality gateway community on the
transportation corridor is no longer feasible without TIF assistance.
To fulfill the planned development in accordance with the goals set forth by the City, URA and project partners, and to
provide a high-quality project at a suitable price for the market, Prospect Station seeks a total of $772,879 in TIF assistance
(73% of the property tax increment expected) to help address the following project needs. (Please refer to attached
spreadsheet for a breakdown of costs.)
• Hazardous materials mitigation. While developers are working in tandem with the State of Colorado
on brownfield cleanup, there are additional items newly required for long-term project safety including
the installation of an underground vapor barrier below the building, as well as ongoing soils testing and
monitoring. TIF dollars will also aid in hazardous materials removal, reporting and plan creation during the
deconstruction of the derelict building currently occupying the project site.
• Land assemblage. TIF dollars will help offset the considerable cost of acquiring additional land and
converting of Tamasag Drive to a private street in order to accommodate the economically-sized building
footprint following vacation of land for path realignment, bus turnout and associated infrastructure
upgrades.
• Parking. Because project partners are concerned with the impact that inconsiderate overflow parking
would have on neighboring homes and businesses, Prospect Station will provide a total of 49 non-required
parking spaces—including 19 covered garage parking spaces—for use by building residents, guests and
customers. TIF dollars will help absorb the costs associated with appropriate view cone mitigation and
visual concealment of parking facilities.
28 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 5 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
• Infrastructure serving future development. Stormwater drainage on the site will be upgraded from
a simple swale to an enhanced system, underground utilities will be relocated at greater setbacks from
Prospect Road, and sewer and water lines will be extended and upgraded in capacity to serve adjacent
property owners affected by the abandonment of those services at Spring Creek. As explained in the
preceding section, project partners recently shouldered the considerable out-of-pocket expense to
accelerate the development schedule for this item so that it could take place concurrently with the MAX
construction and avoid a second debilitating closure of Prospect Road during summer 2013. TIF dollars
will help recoup the $65,000 good-faith investment that made these upgrades possible in a way that
benefits surrounding businesses and the community as a whole, while also enabling cost-efficient future
development by adjacent property owners along the Mason Corridor, Tamasag Drive and on the Griffin
properties along Prospect Road.
• Sustainable features and public amenities. The equity partners have always embraced sustainability
in design and construction, despite the fact that there is no economic return for including these kinds
of features. As good stewards of the environment, partners desire to reduce one-time and ongoing
environmental impact of the project, as well as overall city utilities costs. But unfortunately, due to external
factors, the current project economics of Prospect Station no longer support features that are unable to
yield returns. TIF dollars will guarantee the inclusion of environmental quality features and enhancements
to public areas that face elimination due to budget encumbrances elsewhere in the project. With TIF
assistance, the project can once again pursue Energy Star Rating Version 3—complete with rooftop solar
panels, electric car charging stations, efficient fixtures and appliances, low-consumption plantings and
more. (Please refer to Section H for details.) In addition, TIF assistance will guarantee a public outdoor
space for all transportation corridor patrons with seating, ambient lighting, solar-powered trail-side safety
lighting, dog waste and bike fix-it stations, enhanced landscaping and public art, for which the project
requests $50,000 as a placeholder until the project scope is defined with the City’s Art in Public Places
Coordinator.
• Other. The newly required and exceedingly costly wall assemblies and building materials necessary to
achieve an STC rating of 40 have the potential to terminate the development or reduce it to a lesser-
quality product at a higher-than-acceptable price. TIF dollars will help absorb the cost of this new
requirement for the comfort of all occupants while allowing developers to maintain the total-project
quality and functionality originally envisioned.
c. What other sources of funding will the project secure other than TIF?
The project site has been owned under a private equity partnership since 2006. Since that time, the partnership has
assumed responsibility for brownfield clean-up in cooperation with the State of Colorado, and has financed architectural
drawings, multiple revisions, traffic studies, and initiated the City’s building review process. Additional private equity was
used to secure construction financing from a local lending institution, whose ability to fund the project is contingent upon
TIF award outcome.
29 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 6 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
d. How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure?
In tandem with the Mason Corridor project, Prospect Station has already and will continue to contribute to improvements to
transit infrastructure and traffic flow by:
• enabling a safer pedestrian crossing at Prospect Road
• alleviating traffic congestion at Prospect and the MAX/BNSF line with a bus turnout
• providing safe access to adjacent properties via privately paved and maintained Tamasag Drive
• relieving parking stress on neighboring homes and businesses with guaranteed spaces
Prospect Station will also contribute to utilities improvements by:
• installing enhanced stormwater drainage system
• relocating underground utilities
• extending and increasing capacity of water and sewer from Prospect Road to compensate for losses of
service caused by abandonment at Spring Creek
• installing rooftop PV panels to offset the project’s impact on City utilities
e. How will the project enhance the property tax base and sales tax base of the area?
The property is currently occupied by a deteriorating 800 sq ft building with a total actual value of $160,000, an assessed
value of $46,400 and annual property tax amount of $4,329.68. Following the environmental clean-up already underway,
the deconstruction of the current structure, and the completion of a state-of-the-art 29,099 sq ft building, the assessed
value of land and improvements will increase to approximately $5,451,108 in year one, generating an estimated $40,841
in property taxes per year. Those numbers are expected to grow to $6,75,084 and $51,895, respectively, by the end of
the URA’s 23-year life. The total tax increment expected (with appreciation) is estimated at $1,062,032. A TIF calculation
worksheet (with figures provided by the Larimer County Assessor’s office) is provided at the end of this document.
Once occupied, Prospect Station is expected to generate an estimated $442,200 per year in taxable residential rental income
paid to local management and local ownership. Additional tax opportunities will be derived from three on-site commercial
spaces, varying along with the nature of the business tenants, as well as the patronage of neighboring businesses by
approximately 50 new Prospect Station residents.
30 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 7 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
f. How will the project help achieve the goals of the Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan?
The following objectives (as well as those described in Sections G and H) are shared by both the Urban Renewal Authority
and the Prospect Station development team.
• Establish public-private partnerships that facilitate redevelopment and new development within
the Midtown Urban Renewal Area
• Address and remedy conditions that impair sound growth, through infrastructure improvements
such as enhancing storm drainage, relocating utilities, extending and increasing capacity of water and
sewer service, and completing adjacent roadways
• Redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner compatible to its surroundings, through activities
such as remediating environmental hazards and safety concerns, establishing transit-oriented communities
along the Mason Corridor, and providing destination locations for public use
• Effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land by initiating high-intensity, mixed-use
communities within the transportation overlay district
• Improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety, through activities
such as realigning the pedestrian path, alleviating traffic congestion with a bus turnout, providing safety
lighting, offering ample bike parking and storage, providing adequate parking, installing electric car
charging stations, upgrading adjacent intersections, and creating a seamless interface between transit
options and the development
• Contribute to increased tax revenues by increasing property value, creating sales tax generation
potential with commercial and live-work units, and establishing a higher density of quality housing options
• Eliminate blight, as described in Section G
Prospect Station also helps to support the following policies as outlined in the Fort Collins City Plan:
EH 3.3: Support Local and Creative Entrepreneurship (by offering unique live-work units)
EH 4.1: Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas
EH 4.2: Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment
ENV 5.2: Utilize Solar Access
ENV 5.7: Offer Incentives to Substantially Exceed Minimum Code Requirements
ENV 9.1: Promote Alternative and Efficient Transportation Fuels and Vehicles
ENV 17.2: Manage Hazardous Materials and Waste
ENV 20.4: Develop Public/Private Partnerships (for Stomwater Management)
LIV 5.1: Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
LIV 5.2: Target Public Investment Along the Community Spine
LIV 5.4: Contribute to Public Amenities
LIV 7.1: Encourage Variety in Housing Types
31 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 8 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
LIV 7.7: Accommodate the Student Population
LIV 10.4: Incorporate Street Art
LIV 11.2: Incorporate Public Spaces
LIV 12.2: Utilize Security Lighting and Landscaping
LIV 35.1: Location (of Community Commercial Districts)
LIV 35.2: Mix of Uses
LIV 35.3: Scale
LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment
LIV 43.3: Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
SW 2.3: Support Active Transportation
SW 2.4: Design for Active Living
T 9.2: Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Interface and Access
T 11.1: Bicycle Facilities
g. How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions?
The current condition of 223 West Prospect Road is certainly underutilized and unsightly, but it is likely also a safety concern
for neighbors and Mason Trail users. As a former industrial site, this particular brownfield suffers from environmental
hazards related to underground petroleum contaminants, and a deteriorating building that poses risks from asbestos
and other hazardous substances, as well as building systems made dangerous by illegal stripping of copper and other
components. Property crimes including trespassing, theft, vandalism, grafitti, and illegal camping, among others, have
been extensively documented by police reports, and liability issues related to use by Fort Collins’ transient population and
unsanctioned parking persist. Remediating the chemical pollutants, deconstructing the existing building, and replacing it
with a fully developed, well-lit facility— complete with active street and transit corridor frontage and a significant number of
residents and commercial customers—is expected to transform the site into a safe, productive and iconic destination where
Old Town, Midtown and CSU converge.
32 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 9 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
h. How will this project help achieve URA goals of sustainability through green building
techniques?
In cooperation with City staff, Dohn Construction, Inc. will oversee the multitude of environmentally-minded building
materials and techniques planned for inclusion in Prospect Station. The aforementioned Green building codes, effective
January 1, 2012, set exceptionally high standards for sustainability features in new developments in Fort Collins, however
the project partners still intend to go above and beyond requirements, pursuing Energy Star Rating Version 3. In order
to achieve this certification, the project will include numerous sustainable building features and construction practices.
Highlights include:
• High-efficiency HVAC systems
• Enhanced building envelope
• Low-flow water-conserving plumbing fixtures
• Water-reducing landscape design
• Diversion of construction waste from landfill deposits
• Use of high recycled-content and locally produced construction materials
• Restoration of previously developed, polluted site
• High connectivity of public transportation and resources to reduce the need for driving
• Practices to reduce dust and air pollutants to create a cleaner indoor air quality
i. Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods or
effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features.
The features and techniques listed in Section H generally adhere to the already stringent environmental standards set forth
by Fort Collins’ Green building code, with extra measures taken as needed to pursue Energy Star Rating Version 3.
With the above improvements, project coordinators expect water, heating/cooling, and electricity savings of at least 10.12%
over comparably sized projects where only basic energy codes have been met.
33 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: page 10 of 10
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
j. What is the proposed project timetable?
Development Activities/Milestones start completion
Entitlement 1/21/13 8/30/13
Site plan base complete 1/21/13 1/21/13
Start preparation of submittal documents 1/21/13 2/13/13
Neighborhood meeting (optional) 2/12/13 2/12/13
Preliminary Development Plan Submittal to City (PDP) 2/13/13 2/13/13
Submit URA application 2/22/13 2/22/13
Development Review Meeting/Comments from City (1st Round) 2/13/13 3/06/13
Work with adjacent property owners on off-site easements 3/06/13 3/13/13
Re-submittal to City (est. 3-week turnaround) 3/06/13 3/27/13
Development Review Meeting/Comments from City (2nd Round) 3/27/13 4/10/13
Re-submittal of URA TIF Assistance application 4/3/13 4/3/13
Re-submittal to City 4/10/13 5/01/13
Development Review Meeting/Final Comments from City 5/01/13 5/10/13
Re-submittal to City (PDF) 5/15/13 5/22/13
City schedules Type I Public Hearing 5/22/13 5/22/13
Hearing held 5/22/13 6/20/13
Re-submittal of URA TIF Assistance application 6/14/13 6/14/13
14-day appeal period 6/20/13 7/03/13
Hearing officer issues final decision 6/20/13 7/03/13
Final Plan Submittal to City 6/20/13 7/10/13
Development Review Meeting/Comments from City 7/10/13 8/07/13
Re-submittal to City (PDF or mylar) 8/07/13 8/14/13
Record mylars, sign development agreement 8/14/13 8/30/13
DCP Meeting held 9/04/13 9/04/13
Construction 9/04/13 8/15/14
Occupancy 8/15/14
34 of 253
PROJECT NAME: Prospect Station DATE: Revised June 20, 2013
PROJECT ADDRESS: 223 W. Prospect Road
PROJECT STATUS UPDATE
Prospect Station’s PDP hearing took place May 30, at which time the project gained initial approval
as a four-story, 40,000 square foot mixed-use development.
Following the hearing, project partners became aware that current construction cost estimates
and revenue projections no longer support a project of the size submitted to the City in February.
Because of the ownership group’s desire to see the project through, the project has been scaled
back a second time, resulting in a three-story, 30,000 square foot building with 49 beds instead of
69. The commercial space, live-work units, parking and public interface remain unchanged.
Yet even at this smaller scale, the project will not be feasible without the URA’s help.
Fortunately our revised submittal also contains good news. While the overall cost of the project
has decreased slightly, from $6,095,789 to $6,005,879, its projected actual value, and therefore
the overall tax increment expected, has increased—from $4,839,714 to $5,451,108 and from
$933,004 to $1,062,032, respectively. Assistance requested for Prospect Station is now at 73% of
the expected total increment, as opposed to the 80% requested in our April submittal. Relevant
figures (such as project cost, amount requested, allocation details, and proformas) have been
updated in this revision to reflect the new project scale, while much of the narrative that describes
the nature of the project, its objectives and benefits, and how TIF funds will be used is largely the
same as it was in earlier drafts.
Next steps:
Simultaneously to submitting our revised TIF application, we are also pursuing an amendment
with Planning and Zoning for the smaller project (once a final decision has been issued by
the department on June 13). Approval on the amendment is expected by mid-July. Assuming
favorable outcomes on both planning and financing decisions, we will be able to secure our
construction loan and break ground as scheduled, in August 2013.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
APPLICATION
35 of 253
LOCATION MAP
36 of 253
SITE PLAN
37 of 253
PROJECT DRAWINGS
38 of 253
PROJECT DRAWINGS
39 of 253
PROJECT DRAWINGS
40 of 253
PROJECT DRAWINGS
41 of 253
PROJECT DRAWINGS
42 of 253
[Prospect Station
Ullit0 Type Number Bf'ds ~. cIUniu 8d.ooms AV(; Sf Rent! 8ed.oom Pel" Unil 101<0 SF "'VMo Rtnt!Sf
Studio
1 aORM
, ,
" , " , <SO
'"
,, 950
',050
,, 950
',050
><00
""
, ,11.400
5,250
, ,2.11
,...,. 1.83
1 .....
,
1 " , "6
900
USO
,, 6SO
'SO
>.300
1,650
11700
''''
,, 16,900
1,lOO
,,
'" 1.43
FIrst Year StlIbllbed· Ope",tln, Statement
Effective POltnual ~~: ViICOi Gross Annual I\CY, L01.Income Rent;Sts, ei ll C lncomt , , ,
TOlaf AddltloNl ln(OPIe S
Adlu$led G.cS!O Rernallncome $
Elfeaive Income S
TClal Operating Ekptn~ 5
AntIual Het 0peI3IlIIt tl'\C:Ol'l'le 15
36.1~6
456,836
456,836.00
116,021.00
m ,'09.00 I
..,,'" 12 ., 22,275 , 36,SSO , 'OS
U,110 5·0%1
420,090
,..,
'"
43 of 253
IProspect Station
36,746
44 of 253
c. , 'I
o ,
EI ~ t• . 0 •
0. :
o ~ J .
.t •
45 of 253
IProspect Station
ITOTAl PROJEtr COST SUMMARY
Gross Building Square Footage 29,099 Square Feet
Net R~1able Square Footage 20% for hallw"vs, stailWeUs, circulation 29,099 Square Feet
Gross Partting 47 Spaces
Land Size 0.83 Acres
Tot"l8eds 49 Bedrooms
Tot,,1 Units 32 Units
PlanninalDe$i&,n/£n£I~rif!J $ 275,000
Planning $ $
Architectur,,1
Civil Engineeril18:
ALTA Survey
Utility locates
Plat
Lan(ls<:aping
Structural Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
lEED Consultation
Environmental Survey - Phase 1
Environmental Survey - Phase 2
Soils Report
Traffic Study
Asbestos Survey
Reimbursable Expenses (not above) $%
Preconstruction Servkes
Design EntWement Contingency Consultants '"
Munlcip"I/State Fees $ 596,260 $ 20.49
Building Permit Fees $ $
City/County Sales & Use Taxes $ $
City/County Oevelopment Review Fees $ $
City/County ~velopment Fees $ 596,260 $18,633
Affordable Housing -cash in lieu $ $
Utility Service and Relocation Fees $ $
City Bonding/letter of Credit $ $
SWMP Fees $ $
Dust Control Permit $ $
Fee Contingency 0% $ $
Core & Shell Construction $ 4,101,798 $ 127.21
Off,Site Improvements $ $
Site Development $ $
Core & Shell, Garage and TI Costs $ $
BaSement $ $
Parking Structure $ $
Phone/Data/Security $ $
FF&E $ $
VE Items $ $
46 of 253
ConStrtl(COtIstruction tion Cost Estimating Contingency '" $ $ 3,982,119,470 328 $ $ 124.3.00 21
Tenint Improvements $ 18,000 $ 0.62
TI • Design $ $
TI • Construction $ $
TI • Signage $ $
TI • Phor"lE!/Data/Security $ $
fl · ff&E $ $
Brokerage Commissions $ $
$ $
Construction Period HoIdl", COSts $ 100,000 $5.00
Construction Period Financing Cost $
Construction Period Interest $
Construction Period Payments $
Appraisal $
tender Site lnspectlOtl Fees $
Loan Title Insurance $
Recording and Misc. Closing COst $
ConStruction Surveying $
Material Testing $
AsbestOs Abatement $
Real Estil le Taxes During Construction $
Pennanent loan Costs $ $
ht Mortgage loan Points $ $
1st Mortgage tender Inspect ion Fees $ $
1st Mortgage Title Insurance $ $
lst Mortgage Closing Cost $ $
OtMrfees $ ...... $ ....
DevelOpment Management Fee 1.SS $ 74,866
Marketing Material During Construction $ 5,000 $ 0.17
carrying Costs Through Leas.e·up $ $
$
$
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 5,980,924 $ 205.54
$ 122,060 Per Bed
$ 186,904 Per Unit
$ 205.54 Per Rentable Square Foot
47 of 253
1
Prospect Station
Redevelopment Agreement
URA Board
September 17, 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
48 of 253
2
Tonight’s Action
• Resolution to adopt a Redevelopment Agreement
between Prospect Station, LLC (Developer) and
the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA).
49 of 253
3
Prospect Station
221 W. Prospect Rd.
South of Prospect Rd.
West of MAX Guideway
Site
50 of 253
4
Existing Conditions
• Former gas station
• Deteriorating structure
• Unsafe Conditions
• Environmental contamination
51 of 253
5
Project Description
• SW corner of Mason Trail and Prospect Rd.
• 32 Residential Rental Units
• 1 Commercial/Retail Unit
• Approved Project Development Plan (PDP)
52 of 253
6
Prospect Station Site Plan
53 of 253
7
Public Benefits
• Blight Remediation
– Environmental mitigation of hazardous site
– Removal of unsafe structures
• Infrastructure Upgrades
– Transportation Improvements
– Water/sewer lines upgrades
• Housing/Mixed Use
– Desired use for Midtown
–TOD
– Housing type variety
City Plan
Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan
Midtown Existing
Conditions Survey
54 of 253
8
Transportation
Improvements
Façade Improvements
Public Amenities Along
Mason Trail
55 of 253
9
Financial Request
Total Project Cost $5,980,924
Projected Actual Value $5,224,236
Projected Annual Tax Increment $39,155
Total Property Tax Increment Expected $865,340*
TIF Requested $494,000
% of Total Tax Increment Requested 57%
* Assumes 23 years of increment with zero growth.
56 of 253
10
Eligible Costs
Environmental Mitigation $117,750
Infrastructure Upgrades $229,374
Public Amenities $137,500
Façade Improvements $9,376
Total Eligible Costs $494,000
• Original Request = $772,879
• Negotiated Reimbursement = $494,000
57 of 253
11
TIF Reimbursement Structure
• Developer receives lump sum payment equal to
50% of total reimbursement amount
• Developer receives annual reimbursement
payments for 21 years that total 50% of
reimbursement amount
• Total Reimbursement Amount = $494,000
Example:
Lump Sum Payment = $247,000
Annual Reimbursement payment = $11,762
Total Annual Payments = $247,000
Total Reimbursement - $494,000
58 of 253
12
TIF Reimbursement Structure
• Total Reimbursement Amount + Interest = 77% of
Estimated Total Tax Increment
TIF Growth Rate 0%
Percent of TIF Pledged 77%
Total TIF Collected (Est.) $865,340
Developer Lump Sum $247,000
Developer Payback over time $247,000
Cost of Capital $175,284
Total TIF Pledged $669,284
59 of 253
13
Key Reimbursement Points
• Developer must obtain C.O. of building before
URA will make lump sum payment.
• URA may pre-pay the reimbursement at any time.
• Tax increment projection is based on County
Estimate of Value.
• Annual payment is fixed = $11,762
60 of 253
14
Recommendations
• Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
61 of 253
15
Thank you
62 of 253
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. 061
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AND
PROSPECT STATION, LLC, FOR THE PROSPECT STATION PROJECT
AND A RELATED LOAN FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) is a home rule municipality
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “State”) organized and existing under a
home rule charter (the “Charter”) pursuant to Article XX of the Constitution of the State; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution 78-49, adopting
findings and establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) as an
urban renewal authority pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, Part 1 of Title 31, Article 25, as
amended (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011-080, adopted and approved on September 6, 2011, the
City Council found and declared that the area described in such Resolution (the “Midtown
Area”) is a blighted area as described in the Act and appropriate for an urban renewal project;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011-081, adopted and approved on September 6, 2011, the
City Council adopted an urban renewal plan for the Midtown Area in Fort Collins, which area
includes the Property; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2013-043, adopted and approved on May 7, 2013, the City
Council adopted amendments to the previously adopted urban renewal plan for the Midtown
Area (as amended, the “Urban Renewal Plan” or the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Urban Renewal Plan is to eliminate blight and otherwise
implement and further the above-referenced Resolutions, and the purposes, policies, goals, and
objectives of the Authority and the Plan, pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, Prospect Station, LLC (the “Developer”) desires to construct a new
residential and commercial development with approximately 29 residential rental units and one
small retail commercial space immediately west of the Mason Trail, south of Prospect Road (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, in order to proceed with the Project certain public infrastructure and
amenities must be constructed, and environmental hazards must be mitigated; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff has worked with the Applicant to identify appropriate
financial assistance from the Authority that would enhance the likelihood that the Project will be
built; and
63 of 253
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Authority staff and the Applicant have discussed a financial assistance
package that includes reimbursing the Applicant for constructing certain activities and
improvements and environmental mitigation costs that would normally be the sole responsibility
of the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff has prepared for the Board of Commissioners of the
Authority (the “Board”) a proposed agreement between the Authority and the Applicant that sets
forth the terms and conditions upon which financial assistance will be provided to the Applicant
by the
Authority (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by
this reference; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is expected to be approximately $5.5 million and
the Agreement provides that the cost of the activities and improvements to be funded by the
URA is capped at $ 494,000, half of which ($247,000) will be paid upon completion of the
determination of the eligible costs for reimbursement (the “Initial Reimbursement”), and the
other half of which ($247,000) will be paid over time from the tax increment revenues expected
to be generated by the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority calculates that the Project will generate approximately
$39,155 annually in property tax increment; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the Agreement is in the best interests of the
Authority; and
WHEREAS, the URA must borrow funds to pay for the Initial Reimbursement until it is
able to use the additional increment of property tax generated by the Developer=s Project to issue
a bond or obtain other financing; and
WHEREAS, on this date, the City Council will consider Resolution 2013-079, expressing
the City Council’s intent to authorize the use of the General Fund reserves for a loan to the URA
to fund the Initial Reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Project and a determination of the final amount of
the reimbursement to the Developer under the Agreement, the City intends to lend to the URA,
subject to execution of a loan agreement and promissory note appropriate to evidence the URA’s
obligation for repayment, the amount of the Initial Reimbursement (the “Loan”); and
WHEREAS, the interest rate and payment schedule for the Loan will be set by the City’s
Financial Officer in accordance with the City Council approved policy for Interfund Loans in
effect at the time of the Loan; and
WHEREAS, the URA is authorized by Section 31-25-105 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes to borrow money in such amounts as may be needed to meet its purposes; and
64 of 253
- 3 -
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the Loan is in the best interests of the URA and will
promote the purposes of the URA..
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY as follows:
Section 1. That the Board hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the Authority
to provide financial assistance to the Applicant pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in
the Agreement because the Project will, within the Urban Renewal Plan Area, improve the
property and sales tax base, enhance and build public infrastructure, eliminate and prevent blight
and otherwise further the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan.
Section 2. That the Agreement is hereby approved, and the Executive Director is
authorized to execute the Agreement, subject to such modifications in form or substance as the
Executive Director may, in consultation with the Authority Attorney, deem desirable and
necessary to protect the Authority’s interests, or to further the purposes of the Urban Renewal
Plan and this Resolution.
Section 3. That the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute a note and
loan agreement, at a time and in a form determined by the Executive Director, in consultation
with URA legal counsel, to be consistent with this Resolution, and to be appropriate and
necessary to protect the interests of the URA.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 17th day of September A.D. 2013.
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
65 of 253
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PROSPECT STATION
This Agreement is made and entered into effective as of the ___ day of _________, 2013,
by and between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, a body corporate and politic of the
State of Colorado (the “Authority”), and Prospect Station, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability
company (the “Developer”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of the property that is the subject of this
Agreement (the “Property”) described as follows:
LOT 1 PROSPECT STATION SUBDIVISION
BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 10, GRIFFIN PLAZA SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF
VACATED TAMASAG DRIVE, SITUATE IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) is a home rule municipality
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “State”) organized and existing under a
home rule charter (the “Charter”) pursuant to Article XX of the Constitution of the State; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution 78‐49, adopting
findings and establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) as an
urban renewal authority pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, Part 1 of Title 31, Article 25, as
amended (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011‐080, adopted and approved on September 6, 2011, the
City Council found and declared that the area described in such Resolution (the “Midtown
Area”) is a blighted area as described in the Act and appropriate for an urban renewal project;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011‐081, adopted and approved on September 6, 2011, the
City Council adopted an urban renewal plan for the Midtown Area in Fort Collins, which area
includes the Property; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2013‐043, adopted and approved on May 7, 2013, the City
Council adopted amendments to the previously adopted urban renewal plan for the Midtown
Area (as amended, the “Urban Renewal Plan”); and
66 of 253
9/4/13
Page 2
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to eliminate blight and otherwise
implement and further the above‐referenced Resolutions, and the purposes, policies, goals, and
objectives of the Authority and the Plan, pursuant to the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Part I
of Article 25 of Title 31, C.R.S. (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is within the Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan, and is
within the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing District, in which property taxes have been
divided pursuant to the Act and the Plan, establishing a property tax increment to fund
redevelopment and public improvement projects of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Developer will pursue certain undertakings and activities to eliminate
and prevent blight, by clearing, rehabilitating and redeveloping the Property, within the
meaning of the term “urban renewal project,” as set forth in the Plan and as defined in the Act;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer wish to cooperate in the redevelopment of
the Property in furtherance of the Plan by entering into this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual obligations of the
Parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
Act means the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Part I of Article 25 of Title 31, C.R.S.
Agreement means this Agreement, as it may be amended or supplemented in writing.
References to Sections or Exhibits are to this Agreement unless otherwise qualified.
Building means the building identified in Exhibit A.
Category means one or more of the three (3) Categories of Eligible Costs set forth on Exhibit B
Certificate of Occupancy shall mean a final, unconditional certificate of occupancy issued by the
City’s Building Official under Chapter 5 of the City Code, or a conditional certificate of
occupancy, provided that the Authority, in its sole discretion, determines that the conditional
certificate of occupancy is sufficient given the circumstances and purposes of the Authority.
67 of 253
9/4/13
Page 3
Certificate of Valuation means the certification by the Larimer County Assessor’s Office to
determine predicted valuation of the Project once complete that is attached as Exhibit C.
Charter means the Municipal Charter of the City of Fort Collins.
City means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
City Code means the Municipal Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Commence Construction and Commencement of Construction mean to obtain a building permit
to construct the Building, if the Developer diligently pursues the construction of the Building
under the permit in a manner necessary to Complete Construction of the Project.
Complete Construction and Completion of Construction with mean that: 1) construction of the
Building is complete under applicable laws, ordinances and regulations; and 2) Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued for the Building for its intended permitted use without restrictions.
Control or Controlled by, with respect to any entity, means possession of the power to direct or
cause the direction of the management and policies of the entity, whether through the ownership
of the majority of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.
Covenant Not to Protest means the Covenant Not to Protest the valuation of the Property for
real property tax purposes by the Larimer County Assessor required under Section 2.11.
Developer means Prospect Station, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability company, and any
successors and assigns as permitted under Section 2.9 of this Agreement or as approved by the
Authority.
Developer Financing means the financing described in Section 2.1.
Development Agreement means the Development Agreement for the Project, once the same has
been approved by the City and recorded against the Property.
Eligible Costs means the reasonable and necessary expenditures to design and carry out the
Funded Improvements as identified on Exhibit B incurred by the Developer subsequent to the
date of this Agreement, as certified by the Developer and, at the Authority’s option, verified by
an appropriate expert. Certain costs for water and sewer line extension work identified on
Exhibit B, up to a total maximum amount of $10,000, that were incurred after the filing by
Developer with the Authority of an application for reimbursement, but prior to the date of this
Agreement, are deemed to be Eligible Costs. Eligible Costs shall not include interest paid or
accrued on any such expenditures.
68 of 253
9/4/13
Page 4
Final Development Plan means the Final Development Plan for the Project, once the same has
been approved by the City.
Funded Improvements means the improvements or activities and undertakings listed in Exhibit
B that the Developer will construct as part of the Project, for design and completion of which
the Eligible Costs will be incurred.
Land Use Code means the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Party or Parties means a party or the parties to this Agreement, as first identified above.
Plan and Urban Renewal Plan mean the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan described in the
Recitals.
Pre‐Project Tax Base Amount means the amount representing the taxes paid on the Property in
2013 before the construction of the Project and certified as such by the Larimer County
Assessor’s Office as shown on Exhibit C, which the Parties agree for the purpose of this
Agreement is$4,329.68
Project means the design, construction and reconstruction of all improvements, infrastructure,
parking, streets, rights‐of‐way, buildings, structures, signage, and landscaping to be constructed
on the Property pursuant to the Final Development Plan and Development Agreement, and
includes, but is not limited to, the Funded Improvements and Building.
Property means the real property legally described as follows:
LOT 1 PROSPECT STATION SUBDIVISION
BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 10, GRIFFIN PLAZA SUBDIVISION, AND A
PORTION OF VACATED TAMASAG DRIVE, SITUATE IN THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE
6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO
Outside Date means the date by which the parties agree a certain event must have occurred in
order for the Developer to be in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, as set forth in the
Schedule of Performance.
Reimbursement Cap means the maximum Reimbursement Obligation of Four Hundred and
Ninety Four Thousand Dollars ($494,000.00), subject to the conditions and limitations as
provided in Section 3.1.
Reimbursement Obligation means the obligation of the Authority to reimburse the Developer
for the Eligible Costs under Section 3.1, up to the Reimbursement Cap.
69 of 253
9/4/13
Page 5
Related Entity means any entity wholly owned or Controlled by the Developer. For this
definition, the term “owned” means the ownership of 100% of the ownership interests in the entity;
and the term “Controlled” shall have the meaning hereinabove set forth.
Schedule of Performance means the schedule that governs the times for the performance by the
Developer and the Authority attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Target Date means the date by which the parties agree a certain event is reasonably expected to
have occurred, as set forth in the Schedule of Performance.
Urban Renewal Area means all of the area of real property, including public rights of way
within the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Project as described and delineated in the Plan.
SECTION 2. DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS
2.1 Developer Financing. The Developer agrees to provide the Developer Financing
expected to comprise approximately $1.5 million of Developer equity and $4.5 million in
construction loans. The terms of the Developer Financing must be consistent with the
requirements of this Agreement and adequate to Complete Construction of the Project under
this Agreement and by the date specified in the Schedule of Performance. Subject to obtaining
Developer Financing, the Developer represents and agrees it has the financial and legal ability
and can bear the economic risk of financing and achieving Completion of Construction of the
Project, the costs of which are to be paid under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
the approved construction documents. The Authority acknowledges that the terms and
conditions of the Developer Financing will be determined by separate agreements and
instruments to which the Authority will not be a party, which agreements and instruments shall
not alter or affect the respective rights and obligations of the Developer and the Authority
under this Agreement. The Authority acknowledges, subject to the foregoing, that the
Developer and other parties to the Developer Financing are entitled to establish, modify or
amend the Developer Financing, without the consent of the Authority.
2.2 Demolition, Clearance and Preparation of the Property. The Developer will demolish
and clear any existing improvements from the Property and prepare the Property for
construction of the Project. This work shall be performed in accordance with the requirements
of all laws, rules, and regulations, including those of the City.
2.3 Design and Construction of the Project. The Developer is responsible for obtaining and
reviewing all information that the Developer believes is necessary or desirable to fulfill its
obligations under this Agreement. Subject to obtaining the Developer Financing, the Developer
agrees to construct the Project in accordance with this Agreement. The Schedule of Performance
sets forth the Target Dates and Outside Dates for obtaining Developer Financing and
Completion of Construction of the Project, and other deadline dates. The Developer, subject to
the approval of the Authority, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned
70 of 253
9/4/13
Page 6
or delayed, shall have sole responsibility for the design, development and construction of the
Funded Improvements, the Building, and the Project, including without limitation, design,
construction, selection, and supervision of any architects, engineers, and consultants. For
construction of the Project, the Developer agrees to select contractors that the Developer’s
architect deems qualified by experience to construct a Project of this quality and caliber.
Regardless of the costs incurred by the Developer for the Project, the Authority’s
Reimbursement Obligation shall not exceed the Reimbursement Cap.
2.4 Approval of the Construction Documents and Modifications to the Final Development
Plan. The Developer shall prepare and obtain the approval of the City and the Authority,
including, but not limited to, the City’s development review process and independent review
by the Authority, of all construction documents related to construction of the Project and the
Final Development Plan. Approval by the Authority shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned or delayed.
2.5 Construction of the Project. Subject to obtaining the Developer Financing, the Developer
shall Commence Construction and Complete Construction of the Project in accordance with the
City’s applicable standards and requirements. These activities will occur on or before the dates
specified in the Schedule of Performance. All construction activities shall conform to all laws,
codes, ordinances, and policies, including, but not limited to, those of the City.
2.6 [Paragraph omitted.]
2.7 Books and Accounts; Financial Statement. The Developer will keep, or cause to be kept,
proper and current books and accounts in which complete and accurate entries shall be made of
amounts paid out, and such other calculations, allocations and payments to construct the
Project.
2.8 Inspection of Records. All books, records and reports in the possession of the Developer
relating to the Project shall at all reasonable times and subject to twenty‐four (24) hours advance
notice be open to inspection (at Authority expense) by such accountants or other agents as the
Authority may from time to time designate.
2.9 Restrictions on Assignment and Transfer. Except as hereinafter permitted, prior to
Completion of Construction of the Project the Developer shall not assign or transfer all or any
part of or any interest in this Agreement or the Property without the prior written approval of
the Authority, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. For
this Agreement (a) an assignment or transfer shall include a change of the parties in Control of
the Developer, and (b) unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed shall mean failing to
approve within ten business days without identifying legitimate concerns of the Authority
related to, but not limited to, the generation of tax increment, the capacity of the assignee or
transferee to Complete Construction, and the preservation and promotion of the Plan. The
Developer shall, upon the Developer’s gaining of knowledge thereof, promptly notify the
71 of 253
9/4/13
Page 7
Authority of any and all changes in the identity of the parties in Control of the Developer, or the
degree thereof. No voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of the Developer shall acquire
any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein. Approval of an
assignment or transfer by the Authority shall not relieve the Developer of its obligations to
Complete Construction of the entire Project, unless the Authority agrees in writing. The
foregoing Restriction on Assignment and Transfer shall terminate upon Completion of
Construction of the Project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to receipt and approval of all relevant
documents confirming such transfer or assignment, the Developer may: (i) assign this
Agreement and transfer the Property to a Related Entity of the Developer; (ii) collaterally assign
its right to receive reimbursement under this Agreement to any lender that provides all or any
portion of the Developer Financing, provided that any document assigning the Developer’s
right to receive reimbursement hereunder shall expressly provide that no reimbursement will
be made by the Authority unless and until Completion of Construction of the entire Project by
the Developer under the terms of this Agreement; (iii) enter into a contract to sell all or a portion
of the Project upon Completion of Construction of the entire Project, provided that no such sale
may occur prior to Completion of Construction of the entire Project by the Developer without
the Authority’s consent. Except when a permitted assignee expressly assumes such obligation,
no permitted assignment of this Agreement or transfer of the Property shall relieve the
Developer of its obligation to complete Construction of the entire Project under this Agreement.
2.10 Progress Reports. Until Completion of Construction of the Project the Developer shall
make reports in such detail and at such times as the Authority may reasonably request as to
Developer’s progress with respect to the Commencement of Construction, the progress of
construction and the Completion of Construction as described in the Schedule of Performance.
2.11 Protesting the Actual Value Determined by the Larimer County Assessor/Condition
Precedent. The Developer, including any assignees and successors, agrees and acknowledges
that the Reimbursement Obligation is funded by the Larimer County Assessor’s collection of
property taxes. Consequently, Developer, and any assignees or successors, agrees that from the
date of this Agreement through December 31, 2036, if the Actual Value determined by the
Larimer County Assessor is at or below the value set forth in the Certificate of Valuation (the
“Valuation”) relied on by the Authority, and attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C, it will not
protest the Actual Valuation of the Property determined by the Larimer County Assessor to
reduce the property tax for the Property. If Developer, or any assignee or successor, either (i)
protests the Actual Value when it is at or below the value in the Valuation, or (ii) protests the
Actual Valuation and succeeds in reducing it to an amount less than the Valuation, the
Authority’s Reimbursement Obligation will be reduced proportionally commensurate with the
reduction in Actual Value. The Developer will file a covenant with the Larimer County Clerk
and Recorder in a form satisfactory to the Authority, reflecting this representation and
agreement (“the Covenant Not to Protest”) upon the execution of this Agreement. The
Authority shall have no obligation arising under this Agreement until the Covenant Not to
72 of 253
9/4/13
Page 8
Protest has been so recorded. The Covenant Not to Protest shall provide that the URA Executive
Director may terminate the Covenant at any time in his or her discretion by recording a notice
of termination and providing a copy of the same to the then owner of record of the Property.
If this Agreement is terminated for any reason whatsoever, the Covenant Not to Protest
shall immediately and automatically terminate, become null and void, and be of no further
force or effect. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Authority shall execute, acknowledge
and deliver to the Developer such documents or instruments as may be necessary or reasonably
required by a title company to delete and remove the Covenant Not to Protest from the chain of
title to the Property.
SECTION 3. AUTHORITY OBLIGATIONS
3.1 Reimbursement Obligation/Reimbursement Cap. The Authority agrees to reimburse the
Developer for the Eligible Costs incurred and certified by the Developer, to the extent provided
herein (the “Reimbursement Obligation”). If, as contemplated by the parties, the contingencies
and requirements described in this Agreement are satisfied, the Authority will reimburse to the
Developer One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Eligible Costs incurred, up to the total amount of
Four Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand Dollars ($494,000.00) (the “Reimbursement Cap”).
3.2 Conditions for Reimbursement.
3.2.1 The Reimbursement Obligation is contingent upon Completion by the Developer
of the Project. If this requirement is not met by the Outside Date specified in the
Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Exhibit D, the Authority shall have
no Reimbursement Obligation to the Developer and this Agreement shall be
deemed null and void.
3.2.2 The Reimbursement Obligation and any payment required to be made hereunder
is further contingent upon verification by the Authority that all of Developer’s
representations and warranties, as set forth in Section 5.1, below, have been met
and kept current. The Authority may delay payment of any Reimbursement
Payment (as defined below) due, until the Developer provides reasonable
evidence of full compliance with said representations and warranties, if
requested by the Authority in its discretion.
3.2.3 The Reimbursement Obligation is limited to reimbursement for Eligible Costs for
the specified Funded Improvements, as set forth in Exhibit B. The Developer
shall provide documentation of the Eligible Costs using forms provided by the
Authority. If this requirement is not met by the Outside Date specified in the
Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Exhibit D, including lien waivers
and releases for labor and materials provided for the Project for or related to the
73 of 253
9/4/13
Page 9
Funded Improvements, the Authority shall have no Reimbursement Obligation
to the Developer and this Agreement shall be deemed null and void. After the
Developer has submitted all required documentation of the Eligible Costs, the
Authority shall, within no more than 45 business days,including such
verification and review of costs by an appropriate expert as the Authority
determines to be appropriate, notify the Developer of the Authority’s
determination of eligibility, the costs determined to be Eligible Costs
reimbursable, and the total of the Reimbursement Obligation.
3.3 Payment of Reimbursement. After the Developer has completed performance of the
Conditions for Reimbursement as described in Section 3.2, and the Authority has determined
the Reimbursement Obligation, the Authority shall pay to the Developer the Reimbursement
Obligation, as follows:
3.3.1 Fifty percent (50%) of the total Reimbursement Obligation will be paid by the
Authority to the Developer in a single payment no later than 45 days after the
Conditions for Reimbursement have been met. The remaining fifty percent (50%)
of the Reimbursement Obligation shall be paid according to Sec. 3.3.2 below.
3.3.2 Fifty percent (50%) of the total Reimbursement Obligation will be paid by the
Authority to the Developer over a twenty‐one year period, commencing in 2016
and terminating in 2036. During that period, no later than each January 31st the
Authority shall pay to the Developer from the property tax increment
determined by the Authority to have been generated by the Project on the
Property and paid during the preceding calendar year, the amount of Eleven
Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty‐Two Dollars ($11,762.00), or such portion of
that amount remaining due within the Reimbursement Cap limitation in Section
3.3.3, if less than $11,762.00. The tax increment generated by the Project on the
Property and paid in the preceding calendar year shall be calculated by
subtracting the Pre‐Project Tax Base Amount from the total property taxes paid
in that year.
3.3.3 The total of all Reimbursement Payments shall not exceed the Reimbursement
Cap. The Authority shall continue to annually pay to the Developer a
Reimbursement Payment until the earlier of either: 1) the full payment of the
Reimbursement Obligation up to the Reimbursement Cap; or 2) February 1, 2036.
Upon the occurrence of either of these events, the Authority shall have no further
obligation to the Developer for reimbursement hereunder.
3.4 Authority Right to Pre‐Pay. The Authority reserves the right to pre‐pay any amount
due hereunder without penalty, in its discretion.
74 of 253
9/4/13
Page 10
3.5 Limitation. The Authority shall not enter into any agreement or transaction that impairs
the rights of Developer under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the right to receive
reimbursement for the Eligible Costs allocated to it under the procedures established in this
Agreement; provided, however, nothing herein shall preclude the Authority from entering into
other financial obligations, or other financial obligations regarding the Project, so long as the
Authority in its reasonable discretion concludes its actions do not and will not in the future
interfere with its obligations.
SECTION 4. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
4.1 Insurance. At all times after the date of this Agreement during which the Developer is
engaged in preliminary work on the Property or adjacent streets and during the period from the
Commencement of Construction until Completion of Construction of the Project, the Developer
shall carry, or cause its general contractor to carry, and, upon request, will provide to the
Authority certificates of insurance as follows:
a. Builder’s risk insurance (with a deductible not to exceed $5,000) in an
amount equal to 100% of the projected replacement value of the Improvements at
the date of Completion of Construction;
b. Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations,
contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and
contractual liability insurance) and umbrella liability insurance with a combined
single limit for both bodily injury and property damage of not less than
$1,000,000. Such insurance may carry a deductible in an amount not to exceed
$10,000 per claim for property damage and $5,000 per claim for employee
benefits; and
c. Worker’s compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, including the
deductible permitted by statute.
All such insurance policies shall be issued by responsible companies selected or approved by
the Developer, subject to the reasonable Approval of the Authority and the City. Prior to
Commencement of Construction, the Developer shall deliver to the Authority and the City
policies or certificates evidencing or stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Each
policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel or modify it without giving
written notice to the Developer and to the Authority and the City at least 30 days before the
date the cancellation or modification becomes effective and shall name the Authority and the
City as additional insureds, specifying that the insurance shall be treated as primary insurance.
4.2 Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for
and hold the Authority, the Authority’s commissioners, the City, the City’s council members,
and the officers and employees of the City and the Authority harmless (including, without
75 of 253
9/4/13
Page 11
limitation, for attorneys’ fees and costs) from all claims or suits for and damages to property
and injuries to persons, including accidental death, that may be caused by acts or omissions of
the Developer under this Agreement or in connection with the Project, whether such activities
are undertaken by the Developer or anyone directly or indirectly employed by or under
contract to the Developer and whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before or
after termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
5.1 The Developer represents and warrants, as of the Effective Date, as follows, with a
continuing obligation to notify the Authority of changes to the same through the completion of
payment of the Reimbursement Obligation by the Authority:
a. The Developer is a limited liability company under no disability that is
qualified to do business in the State of Colorado, and has the legal capacity and
the authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The
Developer has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this
Agreement;
b. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and such documents and
the performance and observance of their terms, conditions and obligations have
been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action to make this Agreement
and such documents and such performance and observance are valid and
binding upon the Developer;
c. To the Developer’s current, actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry,
the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the documents required
hereunder and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement will not:
i. conflict with or contravene any law, order, rule or regulation applicable
to the Developer or to its governing documents,
ii. result in the breach of any terms or provisions of, or constitute a default
under, any agreement or other instrument to which the Developer is a party
or by which the Developer may be bound or affected, or
iii. permit any party to terminate any such agreement or instruments or to
accelerate the maturity of any indebtedness or other obligation of the
Developer;
d. To the Developer’s current, actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry,
there is no litigation, proceeding, initiative, referendum, or investigation or any
76 of 253
9/4/13
Page 12
threat of the same contesting the powers of the Authority, the City, the
Developer with respect to this Agreement not disclosed in writing to the
Authority; and
e. The Developer has the legal ability to perform its obligations under this
Agreement and has the financial ability, through borrowing or otherwise, to
complete the Funded Improvements, the Building and the Project, subject to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes a valid and
binding obligation of the Developer, enforceable according to its terms, except to
the extent limited by bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws of general
application affecting creditors’ rights and by equitable principles, whether
considered at law or in equity.
5.2 The Authority represents and warrants as follows:
a. The Authority is an urban renewal authority duly organized and existing
under applicable law and has the right, power, legal capacity, and the authority
to enter into the Agreement and has authorized the execution, delivery and
performance of this Agreement by proper action of its Board of Commissioners;
b. To the Authority’s current, actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry,
the Authority knows of no litigation or threatened litigation, proceeding or
investigation contesting the powers of the Authority or its officials with respect
to the Project, this Agreement, or the Funded Improvements not disclosed to the
Developer;
c. To the Authority’s current, actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry,
the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the documents required
hereunder and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement will not:
i. conflict with or contravene any law, order, rule or regulation applicable
to the Authority or to its governing documents,
ii. result in the breach of any terms or provisions of, or constitute a default
under, any agreement or other instrument to which the Authority is a
party or by which it may be bound or affected, or
iii. permit any party to terminate any such agreement or instruments or to
accelerate the maturity of any indebtedness or other obligation of the
Authority; and
77 of 253
9/4/13
Page 13
d. This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the
Authority, enforceable according to its terms, except to the extent limited by
bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws of general application affecting creditors’
rights and by equitable principles, whether considered at law or in equity. The
Authority will defend the validity of this Agreement in the event of any litigation
arising hereunder that names the Authority as a party or which challenges the
authority of the Authority to enter into or perform its obligations hereunder.
SECTION 6. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
6.1 Default by Developer. Default by Developer under the Agreement shall mean one or
more of the following events:
a. The Developer fails to obtain the Developer Financing as required and set
forth in the Schedule of Performance;
b. The Developer, in violation of Section 2.9 of this Agreement, assigns this
Agreement or transfers any part of the Property, or any rights in the same;
c. There is any change in Control of the Developer or in the identity of the
parties in Control of the Developer that violates this Agreement;
d. The Developer fails to provide approved construction documents as
required by this Agreement;
e. The Developer fails to Commence Construction within a reasonable
period of time after: (i) approval of the Final Development Plan, final
construction drawings and issuance of permits by the City and (ii) funding of the
Developer Financing; or the Developer fails to Commence Construction later
than the Outside Deadline required by the Schedule of Performance;
f. The Developer fails to complete its obligations by the Outside Deadlines
in the Schedule of Performance;
g. The Developer fails to materially observe or perform any other covenant,
obligation or agreement required of it under this Agreement; or
h. The Developer attempts to protest the actual value of the Property with
the Larimer County Assessor in violation of the Covenant Not to Protest
required under Section 2.11.
If any Default is not cured within the time allowed in Section 6.3 then the Authority may
exercise any remedy available under this Agreement.
78 of 253
9/4/13
Page 14
6.2 Default by the Authority under the Agreement shall mean one or more of the following
events:
a. The Authority fails to pay the Reimbursement Obligation in violation of
this Agreement; or
b. The Authority fails to materially observe or perform any covenant,
obligation or agreement required of it under the Agreement.
6.3 Grace Periods. Upon a Default by either Party, that Party shall, upon written notice from
the non‐defaulting Party, proceed diligently to cure or remedy the Default and shall have cured
the Default within 30 days (60 days if the Default relates to the Outside Date for Completion of
Construction) after receipt of such notice, or shall have commenced the cure and diligently
pursued it to completion within a reasonable time if the cure cannot reasonably be
accomplished within 30 days (or 60 days if the Default relates to the Outside Date for
Completion of Construction). There shall be no grace period for the Submission of
Documentation for Eligible Costs to URA by the Outside Date, as set forth on Exhibit D.
6.4 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Default occurs and is not cured under Section 6.3,
the non‐defaulting Party may take any one or more of the following actions:
a. Suspend performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances
from the defaulting Party, deemed reasonably adequate by the non‐defaulting
Party, that the defaulting Party will cure its default and continue its performance
under this Agreement;
b. Cancel and rescind the Agreement; or
c. Take whatever legal or administrative action or institute such
proceedings as may be necessary or desirable in its opinion to enforce observance
or performance of this Agreement, including, without limitation, specific
performance or to seek any other right or remedy at law or in equity, including
damages.
6.5 Delays; Waivers. Any delay by either Party in instituting or prosecuting any actions or
proceedings or otherwise asserting its rights under the Agreement shall not operate as a waiver
of such rights or deprive it of or limit such rights. No waiver in fact made by a Party with
respect to any specific default by the other Party under the Agreement shall be considered or
treated as a waiver of the rights with respect to any other defaults by the other Party under the
Agreement or with respect to the particular default except to the extent expressly waived in
writing. The Parties intend this provision will enable each Party to avoid the risk of being
limited in the exercise of a remedy provided in the Agreement by waiver, laches or otherwise in
79 of 253
9/4/13
Page 15
the exercise of such remedy at a time when it may still hope to resolve the problems created by
the default involved.
6.6 Enforced Delays. Any delays in or failure of performance by any Party of its obligations
under this Agreement shall be excused if such delays or failure result from acts of God, fires,
floods, strikes, labor disputes, accidents, regulations, order of civil or military authorities,
shortages of labor or materials, or other causes, similar or dissimilar, that are beyond the control
of such Party.
6.7 Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties to the
Agreement are cumulative, and the exercise by either Party of any one or more of such remedies
shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other such remedies
for any other default or breach by any other Party.
SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS
7.1 Conflicts of Interest. None of the following shall have any personal interest, direct or
indirect, in the Agreement: A member of the governing body of the Authority or of the City; an
employee of the Authority or of the City who exercises responsibility concerning the Project, or
an individual or firm retained by the City or the Authority who has performed consulting
services for the Project. None of the above persons or entities shall participate in any decision
relating to the Agreement that affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any
corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested.
7.2 Antidiscrimination. The Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that
in the completion of the Funded Improvements, the Building and the Project provided for in the
Agreement and in the use and occupancy of the Property, the Developer will not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment otherwise qualified because of race, color,
creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability (subject to the availability of a reasonable
accommodation of the disability), marital status, ancestry, or national origin.
7.3 Title of Sections. Any titles of the several parts and sections of the Agreement are
inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting
its provisions.
7.4 No Third‐Party Beneficiaries. No third‐party beneficiary rights are created in favor of
any person not a party to the Agreement. The parties acknowledge that rights hereunder may
be assigned or transferred pursuant to under an Authority‐approved full or partial assignment
of this Agreement.
7.5 Venue and Applicable Law. Any action arising out of the Agreement shall be brought in
the Larimer County District Court and the laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the
80 of 253
9/4/13
Page 16
interpretation and enforcement of the Agreement, without giving effect to its conflicts of laws
provisions.
7.6 Non‐liability of Officials, Agents and Employees. No council member, board member,
commissioner, official, employee, consultant, attorney or agent of the Authority or the City shall
be personally liable to the Developer under the Agreement or in the event of any default or
breach by the City or Authority or for any amount that may become due to the Developer under
the Agreement. No official, employee, consultant, attorney or agent of the Developer shall be
personally liable to the Authority or the City under the Agreement or in the event of any default
or breach by the Developer or for any amount that may become due to the Authority or the City
under the Agreement.
7.7 Authority or City Not a Partner. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement or
any other agreement, representation, or warranty to the contrary, neither the Authority nor the
City shall be deemed or represented as a partner or joint venturer of the Developer or any
contractor or subcontractor performing work on the Property or the Funded Improvements, the
Building or the Project. Neither the Authority nor the City shall be responsible for any debt or
liability of the Developer, or its managers or members, or such contractor or subcontractor.
7.8 Integrated Contract. This Agreement is an integrated contract and invalidation of any of
its provisions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions,
which shall remain in full force and effect unless the Parties otherwise agree to an amendment.
7.9 Counterparts. The Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
7.10 Notices. A notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by any party
to the other shall be in writing and sufficiently given if delivered in person or if it is delivered
by overnight courier service with guaranteed next‐day delivery or by certified mail, return
receipt requested, postage prepaid, and:
a. In the case of the Developer, is addressed to or delivered to the Developer,
with a copy to XXX Bank, as follows:
Prospect Station, LLC
Attn: Connie Dohn
2642 Midpoint Drive.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
And
XXX Bank
Attn: ________
81 of 253
9/4/13
Page 17
[ADDRESS]
b. In the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered to the Authority as
follows:
Executive Director
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
And
City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
or at such other substituted address as the affected party may, from time to time, designate in
writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. Notice provided by in‐person
delivery or by overnight courier shall be considered delivered as of the verified date of delivery.
Notice provided by regular U.S. Mail shall be considered delivered three (3) days after the date
of deposit with the U.S. Postal Service.
7.11 Good Faith of Parties. In performance of the Agreement or in considering any requested
extension of time or in giving any approval, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and
will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay
any approval required by the Agreement.
7.12 Exhibits Merged. All Exhibits attached to the Agreement are expressly integrated
herein.
7.13 Days. If the day for any performance or event provided for herein is a Saturday, Sunday
or other day on which either national banks or the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer
County, Colorado, is not open for the regular transaction of business, the day for performance
shall be deemed to be the next day on which the banks or Clerk and Recorder are open for the
transaction of business.
7.14 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute such documents and take such action
as shall be reasonably requested by the other Party to confirm, clarify or effectuate this
Agreement.
82 of 253
9/4/13
Page 18
7.15 Certifications. Each Party agrees to execute such documents as the other Party may
reasonably request to verify or confirm the status of this Agreement and of the performance of
the obligations hereunder and such other matters as the requesting Party may reasonably
request.
7.16 Amendments. This Agreement shall not be amended except by written instrument.
Each amendment, which shall be in writing and signed and delivered by the Parties, shall be
effective to amend the provisions hereof.
7.17 Survival of Representations, Warranties and Covenants. No representations or
warranties whatever are made by any Party except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.
The representations, warranties and indemnities made by the Parties and the covenants and
agreements to be performed or complied with by the respective Parties shall be deemed to be
continuing. Nothing in this Section shall affect the obligations and indemnities of the Parties
with respect to covenants and agreements in this Agreement that are permitted or required to
be performed in whole or in part after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7.18 Minor Changes. This Agreement has been approved in substantially the form submitted
to the governing bodies of the Parties. The officers executing the Agreement have been
authorized to make, and may have made, minor changes in the Agreement and the attached
Exhibits as they have considered necessary. So long as such changes followed the intent and
understanding of the Parties at the time of Approval by the governing bodies, the execution of
the Agreement shall constitute conclusive evidence of the approval of such changes by the
respective Parties.
7.19 Joint Draft. The parties agree they drafted this Agreement jointly with each having the
advice of legal counsel and an equal opportunity to contribute to its content.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Developer have caused the Agreement
to be duly executed as of the day first above written.
DEVELOPER:
PROSPECT STATION, LLC,
A Colorado limited liability company
By: ______________________________________
Name: _____________________________________
Title: _______________________________________
83 of 253
9/4/13
Page 19
AUTHORITY:
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
By:_____________________________________________
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
ATTESTED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________ By: ____________________________
City Clerk Authority Legal Counsel
84 of 253
85 of 253
EXHIBIT B - ELIGIBLE COSTS
1 Environmental Mitigation
Installation of underground environmental vapor barrier $15,000
Hazardous materials testing, removal, reporting and plan creation $8,750
Deconstruction of existing structure and improvements $32,000
plus phase one environmental report
Removal of soil at old tank locations, $62,000
replaced with new structural fill compacted
Subtotal $117,750
2 Infrastructure Upgrades
Upgrade of stormwater handling from swale to enhanced system $72,124
as a result of the Mason Corridor pedestrian/ bike path
Modification of Prospect Road/ Max transportation pullout $63,472
Extension and upgrade of water and sewer line $93,778
to south property line to service adjoining properties
Subtotal $229,374
3 Public Amenities
Enhancement to public plaza adjacent to transportation corridor $137,500
including seating, lighting, dog waste station, bike fix it station,
and enhanced
landscaping
Subtotal $137,500
4 Façade Enhancements
Enhancements to façade to address four‐sided architecture $9,376
Subtotal $9,376
Total Eligible Costs $494,000
EXHIBIT B
86 of 253
EXHIBIT C
87 of 253
88 of 253
89 of 253
90 of 253
EXHIBIT D
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
Action Responsible Party Target Date Outside Date
Developer Financing Developer 10/15/2013 12/15/2013
Final Plan Approval Developer 9/30/2013 11/30/2013
Execution of Development Agreement Developer 9/30/2013 11/30/2013
Deliver Proof of Insurance Developer 10/15/2013 12/15/2013
Commence Construction of Project Developer 9/30/2013 12/31/2013
Complete Construction of Project Developer 9/30/2014 12/31/2014
Submit Documentation for Eligible Costs
to URA
Developer 10/31/2014 1/31/2015
91 of 253
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Bob Overbeck, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
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. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING (REVISED AGENDA)
September 17, 2013
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring September 17-23, 2013 as Constitution Week.
B. Proclamation Declaring September 21, 2013 as Cemetery Stroll Day, with the theme of “The Spirits
of 1872: A Visit with the Founders of Fort Collins”.
Regular Meeting
After the Urban Renewal Authority Meeting (TIME CHANGE)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 17)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 20)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 13. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinances on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
Speakers are asked to:
! State your name and address for the record.
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk.
! Address your comments to Council, not the audience.
! Promptly cease your comments when the allotted time expires.
! You may not yield part or all of your time to another and another speaker will not be
credited with time requested but not used by you.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed.
Page 3
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 20 and September 3, 2013 Regular
Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the Term of
the Agreement Between the City and Mayo Foundation for Health Risk Assessment Software for the
City’s Wellness Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, authorizes a one-year
extension of the contract with the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research to provide
services associated with the assessment and management of existing and potential health risks of
City employees from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, with the option to extend for additional one (1)
year periods not to exceed four (4) additional one-year renewals. This extension will allowed
continued use of services provided by Mayo while staff assesses costs, benefits, services and other
options associated with an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic and the potential to consolidate health
risk assessment services now provided by Mayo with the Clinic.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, expands the
boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority and amends the Plan of
Development of the Authority to include a commercially zoned property in the 800 block of
Buckingham Street. The property, which includes one parcel owned by Colorado Iron and Metal Inc.
and one parcel owned by Odell Investments, LLC, is vacant land with no address.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013, Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of an
Access Easement on City Property to 201 S College, LLC.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, authorizes the
conveyance of a patio lease and a permanent access easement on Oak Street Plaza to the 201 S.
College, LLC owners of the lower level of Old Post Office Building adjacent to the park. The owner
of the lower unit of the building has requested a patio lease on a portion of the City property adjacent
to the north side of their building in anticipation of leasing the unit as a restaurant. The lease area
will be used by the unit owner and their tenant for dining and art display purposes only and will be
limited to a 10-year term with an option to renew for up to two (2) additional 5-year terms. In addition,
the owner has requested an access easement across the park leading from their north entrances out
to College Avenue. This access easement will provide the owner and their tenant legal access in and
out of the lower unit.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2013, Establishing a Temporary Ban on Marijuana
Establishments Within the City of Fort Collins.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, establishes a
temporary ban on marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana stores (collectively “marijuana establishments”) in the
City of Fort Collins through March 31, 2014.
Staff has scheduled work sessions for updates on November 12, 2013 and February 11, 2014. The
November work session will focus on the results of the statewide taxation ballot question and public
engagement conducted to date.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
The purpose of this item is to request approval of an agreement for the lease-purchase of vehicles
and equipment for the cost of $911,887. Payments under the agreement at the 2.28% interest rate
will not exceed $193,489 in 2014. Money for 2014 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2014
budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise
the total City debt by 0.67%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for
this lease. A 2013 Finance Department analysis of current and historical equipment lease financing
Page 4
arrangements showed that lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread
between lease rate and reinvestment rate. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's
best interest.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2013 Repealing Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code in its
Entirety.
Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding intrusion, robbery, fire and other alarm systems is
outdated and needs to be repealed in its entirety.
13. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Roger T Sterling and Bernita J.
Sterling, to install advanced metering system infrastructure for Laporte water meters at 2325 Eddy
Lane.
END CONSENT
14. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
15. Staff Reports.
a. Update on Flood Response and Recovery
16. Councilmember Reports.
17. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
Page 5
18. Resolution 2013-079 Concerning a Loan from the City of Fort Collins to the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority for the Purpose of Funding Certain Improvements for the Prospect Station Project
and Declaring the City Council’s Present Intent to Fund Such Loan. (staff: Tom Leeson; Megan Bolin;
5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this Resolution is to declare City Council’s intent to provide a loan to the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority (URA) for one half of the URA’s reimbursement obligation to Prospect
Station LLC.
On September 17, 2013, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will consider a
Redevelopment Agreement for Prospect Station, a new mixed-use development proposed within the
Prospect South Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The Agreement would authorize a $494,000
reimbursement obligation to Prospect Station LLC (Developer) for eligible project costs. Half
($247,000) of the reimbursement would be provided to the Developer upon completion of the project
and verification of costs, and the remaining half would be dispersed in annual payments over the
remaining life of the TIF District.
The Redevelopment Agreement would obligate the URA to make a $247,000 payment to the
Developer upon completion of the project in 2014. Since the URA will not have sufficient fund
balance to pay that amount outright, a loan is requested from the City of Fort Collins.
19. Items Relating to Exterior Property Maintenance. (staff: Mike Gebo, Beth Sowder; 15 minute staff
presentation; 1 hour discussion)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2013, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City
Code Pertaining to the Outdoor Storage of Personal Property.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2013, Amending Section 5-47 of the City Code
Pertaining to the International Property Maintenance Code.
The purpose of this item is to propose Code amendments that will address ongoing exterior
residential property maintenance issues that create a negative impact on neighboring properties and
that are not currently addressed by existing codes. This item focuses on three items that have a
significant impact to the neighborhood and the general public because they are viewable from the
public right-of-way. Neighbors have expressed that these conditions have a negative impact on their
property values, enjoyment of their properties, and a general feeling of neglect and deterioration. The
three proposed Code amendments include:
• Deficient Structures
• Vacant & Dangerous Buildings Registry
• Excessive Storage of Personal Property Viewable from the Public Right-of-Way
The above items are Phase 1 of this topic. Phase 2 will include excessive personal property and
inoperable motor vehicle storage in back yards. Phase 2 is scheduled for City Council consideration
on November 5, 2013.
20. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
21. Other Business.
a. Consideration of Emergency Ordinance No. 130, 2013, Extending the State of Local
Emergency Declared by the City Manager.
b. Resolution 2013-080 Authorizing the City Manager to Provide Aid and Assistance to Other
Jurisdictions in Response to the Larimer County Flood of 2013.
22. Adjournment.
Page 6
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it is the privilege and duty of the American people to commemorate the
anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America with appropriate
ceremonies; and
WHEREAS, September 17, 2013 marks the two hundred and twenty-sixth anniversary
of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional
Convention; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to officially recognize this magnificent document
and the anniversary of its creation; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to officially recognize the patriotic celebrations
which will commemorate the occasion; and
WHEREAS, Public Law No. 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by
the President of the United States of America, designating September 17 through 23 as
Constitution Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do
hereby proclaim September 17 through 23, 2013 to be
CONSTITUTION WEEK
in Fort Collins, and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals the framers of the Constitution had in
1787.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
97 of 253
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Cache la Poudre valley had many desirable qualities to offer the
pioneers of the unsettled west; and
WHEREAS, these pioneers were visionaries who recognized the potential of a
settlement along the Cache La Poudre River; and
WHEREAS, these settlers banded together in 1873 in order to form a permanent and
thriving community with an outstanding quality of life for their families; and
WHEREAS, each year, the Cemetery Stroll, the City’s longest running living history
event, sponsored by the City of Fort Collins Senior Center, honors several individuals resting at
Grandview Cemetery; and
WHEREAS, this year’s theme for the Cemetery Stroll is The Spirits of 1873: A Visit
with the Founders of Fort Collins.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim September 21, 2013 as
THE SPIRITS OF 1873:
A VISIT WITH THE FOUNDERS OF FORT COLLINS DAY
in the city of Fort Collins and encourage the citizens of this community to honor the esteemed
Pioneers of this city, by attending our City’s oldest and biggest living history event, the
Cemetery Stroll, at Grandview Cemetery.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
98 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 20 and September 3, 2013 Regular Meetings.
99 of 253
239
August 20, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 20,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Troxell and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry announced two staff reports would be presented before Citizen
Participation and recommended postponing Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094,
2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our
Community Ourselves, Inc. for Up to Five Years, to September 3, 2013. Additionally, City
Manager Atteberry recommended a language addition to Item No. 25, Resolution 2013-070
Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority Regarding the Implementation of DDA and City
Financing of Certain Costs in Connection with the Woodward, Inc., Project at Lincoln and
Lemay, and stated the possible Executive Session on the agenda is no longer needed.
Staff Reports
Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager, provided an update regarding the USA Pro Challenge
and discussed the efforts of the Northern Colorado regional group in planning for the race.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City is on target with its projected budget for the race.
DiMartino replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about road closure impacts and mitigation efforts. DiMartino
replied much outreach has occurred and signage and messaging has been developed in order to
mitigate, where available.
Councilmember Campana commended DiMartino on her efforts with this project.
City Manager Atteberry discussed the history of the City’s approach to West Nile Virus and
mosquito spraying. He acknowledged the citizen interest and opposition to the spraying policy
and announced an October 29 work session on the topic.
Mike Calhoon, Parks Department Supervisor, discussed the mosquito treatment program and the
City’s criteria for spraying. He also detailed the public outreach efforts regarding the program.
100 of 253
August 20, 2013
240
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the proof this policy is the most effective response to
positively impact citizens’ health. He also asked what alternatives are available and how soon
work could begin on possibly modifying the policy. City Manager Atteberry replied data
collection and studies will begin now in an attempt to have a potentially revised policy in place
by next year.
Councilmember Cunniff noted human health is the ultimate goal and asked why the telephone
outreach system failed. Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager, replied over 30,000 calls were
successfully placed and about 2/3 of those were successfully received. She noted any phone on a
VOIP service would not be part of the phone database.
Citizen Participation
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, announced the Rocky Mountain Raptor Rescue open house,
thanked the City for mosquito spraying, commended Councilmember Horak for providing
leadership on a multitude of issues, and announced his candidacy for the Poudre School District
Board of Education.
Lauren Dittman, 800 Kimberly Drive, encouraged additional preventative action regarding
mosquito spraying but expressed concern regarding the use of permethrin.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated she did not receive a call related to mosquito spraying
and opposed the blanket spraying across the City, noting the infection rates were high only on
the south side of town.
Betsy and Sarah Pruznick, Fort Collins residents, thanked the City for its Neighborhood Night
Out grant.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, opposed the use of permethrin and questioned the City’s lack of data
regarding the effectiveness of the chemical.
Zach Heath, 135 South Sunset, stated there is a lack of data regarding the long-term health
effects of permethrin.
Sharon Gale, 229 Lyons, stated she was speaking for Dr. Sarah Rathburn of CSU who was
affected by West Nile Virus but believes the permethrin spraying is unnecessary.
Jesse Eastman, Fort Collins resident and Fort Collins Nursery owner, opposed the mass spraying
of permethrin and encouraged additional public outreach.
Sandy Lemburg, 300 Remington, stated the public outreach efforts were not significant enough.
Rebecca Sorberg opposed the mass spraying of permethrin and claimed the mosquito counts
increase after spraying.
Myles Crane, Human Relations Commission and Senior Center Council, announced the
Disability Pride Parade and festivities and discussed the success of the Senior Center.
101 of 253
August 20, 2013
241
Shari Due, Fort Collins resident, discussed cancer versus West Nile deaths and the carcinogenic
aspects of permethrin.
Misty Nelson, 215 North Shields, opposed the use of permethrin.
Delores Kueffler, 1621 East Pitkin, opposed the mass use of permethrin.
Dana Kunze, 2206 West Prospect, opposed the use of permethrin.
Chuck and Stacey Anderson, 818 Bramblebush Street, opposed the use of permethrin.
Chad Moore, 215 North Shields, suggested responsibility and choice should be shifted to
individuals from the City and opposed the use of permethrin.
David Roy, 2016 Evergreen Court, suggested Council take charge of this issue and direct staff to
take a different path.
Terry Francl, 7400 Bluewater Court, thanked Council and the City for putting together a well
thought-out and appropriately implemented plan to deal with the West Nile Virus issue.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, expressed concern regarding the cumulative impacts of
permethrin spray.
Marissa Sutfin opposed the use of permethrin.
Jerry Gerber, 945 Maple, stated he had West Nile Virus ten years ago and opposed the mass use
of permethrin.
Sonya Kruger, Fort Collins resident and beekeeper, opposed the use of permethrin.
Matt Goppel, Fort Collins resident, opposed the mass use of permethrin.
Christina Trout, Larimer County resident, opposed the use of permethrin.
Michael Tincher, 3300 North Overland Trail, Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, discussed the
effect of West Nile on raptors and encouraged better public outreach.
Sara Fisher, 731 Arbor Avenue, opposed the use of permethrin.
Jenny Jones, Fort Collins resident, opposed the use of permethrin.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, noted Council’s support of urban
agriculture appears in opposition to the decision to mass spray permethrin.
Simone Shod, Fort Collins resident, stated the spraying comes down to a private property issue
and the City should allow residents to opt out.
102 of 253
August 20, 2013
242
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, supported the proposed notification process
related to oil and gas setback requirements.
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, discussed public process concerns.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for the individuals who spoke and noted Council will
examine the policy.
Councilmember Cunniff encouraged residents to stay involved in the conversation and stated
Council wants to thoroughly examine the policy.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted Dr. LeBailly of the Larimer County Health Department has stated
this season will be the worst year for West Nile cases since 2003.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the July 2 and July 16, 2013 Regular
Meetings and the July 30, 2013 Special Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned
Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. for Up to
Five Years.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 16, 2013, authorizes a
lease for City-owned property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community
Ourselves, Inc. to house a non-profit café with a minimal food processing facility. The
total yearly lease payment for the property will be a minimum of $44,688. The term of
the lease shall be for one (1) year, with renewals on a yearly basis for up to four (4)
successive one-year terms. With this lease, either party will have the option to terminate
at any time upon a one (1) year advance written notice to the other party. The tenant will
be responsible for the taxes, all utilities, communication services, trash services and
janitorial services.
8. Items Relating to Appropriations for Woodward Related Public Improvements.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Natural Areas Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for
Woodward Related Public Improvements.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2013, Waiving the Application of the Art
in Public Places Requirements in Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code to
Improvements Constructed Pursuant to the City’s Agreement with Woodward,
Inc., and the Downtown Development Authority Regarding the Link-N-Green
Development.
103 of 253
August 20, 2013
243
Council approved the public improvement portion of the Woodward incentive package in
April 2013. The City agreed to provide assistance for Woodward’s relocation,
construction and expansion. Ordinance No. 098, 2013 appropriates funding for the
following projects:
Transmission Line Relocation $1,297,080
Right-of-Way Improvements 1,750,000
Open Space Improvements 3,500,000
$6,547,000
The projects will be funded through two sources: $6,047,080 from DDA contributions
and $500,000 from 2013 appropriations existing in the Natural Areas Fund.
Ordinance No. 109, 2013, exempts the right-of-way improvements under the Woodward
Agreement from the requirement to contribute 1% to Art in Public Places because the
contribution would not be required if the developer were constructing the improvements
and the City’s management of the right-of-way improvement project is being provided as
part of the Woodward incentive package. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted
on First Reading on July 16, 2013.
9. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2013 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process
for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community
Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP).
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
Ordinance No. 099, 2013 appropriates the City’s FY 2013 CDBG Entitlement Grant from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Ordinance No. 100, 2013
appropriates the City’s FY 2013 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD.
Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 16, 2013.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2013, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 5, 2013 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 16, 2013, calls a Special
Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 5, 2013 Larimer County
Coordinated Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or
referred issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to place any measures on the
ballot it would need to do so no later than at its August 20 meeting. If Council does not
take action by ordinance or resolution before the statutory deadline (September 4) to
certify ballot language to Larimer County, the election will be cancelled and the
provisions of this Ordinance will be of no further force and effect.
104 of 253
August 20, 2013
244
This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 5, 2013 ballot.
However, a group of citizens has been successful in collecting enough signatures on an
initiative petition relating to a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing. Resolution
2013-072 Submitting a Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Place a Five-Year
Moratorium on the Use of Hydraulic Fracturing Within the City of Fort Collins or Under
its Jurisdiction to Extract Oil, Gas, or Other Hydrocarbons and to Store and Dispose of
Its Waste Products at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 5, 2013, In
Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election will be considered on this
agenda as a Discussion item.
Adoption of this Ordinance is a required step in preserving the option for City Council to
submit the initiated ordinance, and/or any other ballot measures that Council may desire,
at the November 5, 2013 Coordinated Election.
11. Items Relating to the Residential Parking Permit Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2013, Establishing a Residential Parking
Permit Zone Program.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2013, Amending Various Provisions of
the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Manager or a designee to implement
residential parking permit programs in neighborhoods with parking problems.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 16, 2013 establish a
residential parking permit program. City staff will develop administrative procedures for
the program by working with neighborhoods and residents. The Traffic Code ordinance
is needed to make the program enforceable. This program will be phased in over a two-
year period as problem areas are identified and residents request assistance.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of
the Authority.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 16, 2013, expands the
boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and amends
the Plan of Development of the Authority to include a property in the 100 block of West
Laurel Street and adjacent right-of-way on South Mason Street and West Laurel Street.
The property includes the current location of Ram Bookstore (northeast corner of West
Laurel and South Mason Streets).
105 of 253
August 20, 2013
245
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2013, Vacating a Portion of Lady Moon Drive
Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the Ricketts Harmony Minor Subdivision.
The purpose of this item is to vacate a portion of right-of-way along Lady Moon Drive
that is no longer necessary or desirable to retain for street purposes. In 1993, the Ricketts
Harmony Minor Subdivision, located southeast of Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive,
platted two lots and dedicated additional right-of-way for Cambridge Avenue (now
known as Lady Moon Drive). Cambridge Avenue was realigned and constructed in its
current alignment with the approval of Harmony Technology Park Second Filing
Development Plans on the west side of Cambridge Avenue, which left the portion to be
vacated no longer necessary for street purposes. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on July 16, 2013, vacates this portion of Lady Moon Drive.
The adjacent property owners have been contacted regarding this vacation and have no
objections. All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation
and they report no objections, provided the area is retained as a utility easement. With
this Ordinance, the entire area proposed to be vacated will be retained as a utility
easement.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Include
Additional Regulations for Development in Close Proximity to Oil and Gas Operations.
The purpose of this item is to establish requirements for proposed residential
developments in close proximity to existing oil and gas operations.
The proposed Land Use Code changes were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
July 16, 2013. These changes establish a tiered approach to requirements for new
residential developments in close proximity to oil and gas operations. Disclosure to
future residents is required for any proposed oil and gas development within one
thousand feet (1,000’) of an existing operation. If the development is proposed to be
closer than five hundred feet (500’) of an existing oil and gas operation, additional
screening and protection measures are required. If the subdivision is proposed to be less
than three hundred fifty feet (350’) from an existing operation, a Modification of
Standard would be required.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate grant money to fund Restorative Justice
Services within Community Development and Neighborhood Services.
A grant in the amount of $45,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for salaries associated with the continued
operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for
shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all
other offenses. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender
accountable by facilitating a meeting with the offender, the victim/victim representative
106 of 253
August 20, 2013
246
and members of the community to determine the harm done by the crime, and how to
repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, Criminal
Justice Officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the
needs and concerns of the victims and affected community will be addressed. A $7,440
cash match is required and will be met by appropriating funds from the Community
Development and Neighborhood Services operating budget designated for restorative
justice. Total required match is 25% so an additional $7,560 in-kind match is designated
from the Eighth Judicial Probation Department.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for Building Remodel Costs at 281 North College Avenue.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to appropriate unanticipated building permit and plan
check fee revenues to facilitate co-location efforts for Community Development and
Neighborhood Services (CDNS) staff.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Transportation Services Fund for the Safe Routes to School Program and
Transferring Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund from the Operating
Budget to the Grant Program.
The purpose of this ordinance is to request appropriation of unbudgeted funds received
through a grant for the Safe Routes to School Program.
The City of Fort Collins FC Moves Dept. has received a $22,700 federal grant through
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the 2013–14 Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) program. This funding will allow the City’s Safe Routes to School
Program (administered and staffed by FC Moves) to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the
Term of the Agreement Between the City and Kubra Data Transfer for Utilities
Electronic Customer Billing Software.
The purpose of this item is to request a one-year extension of the contract for Fort Collins
Utilities’ e-Bill vendor, from October 23, 2013, to October 23, 2014, with the option to
extend for additional one year periods not to exceed four additional one-year renewals.
This extension will give the Fort Collins Utilities staff time to complete necessary
research and development for future e-Bill services, as well as support alignment of
customer interface services related to advanced meters and related customer software
systems.
107 of 253
August 20, 2013
247
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2013, Amending the Definition of Large Base
Industry as Contained in Article 5 of the Land Use Code.
This Ordinance amends the definition of Large Base Industry in the Land Use Code to
expand the types of firms that may qualify beyond manufacturing to also include firms
that provide products or services for local and regional users that are not manufactured
but are of comparable economic value to manufactured goods, or by establishing
corporate offices.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2013, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Which
Amended the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development
Overlay Zone District for One Additional Year.
The purpose of this item is to extend the pilot for the Planned Development Overlay
District for one additional year.
This Ordinance would provide for an additional twelve months for the Planned
Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot. The PDOD is a unique zoning mechanism
designed to address the challenges of infill and redevelopment, blending the concepts of
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and performance-based zoning. The pilot was
originally established by Ordinance No. 24, 2013 and provided a six-month timeframe to
accept PDOD development submittals; it is currently set to expire on September 9, 2013.
However, Ordinance No. 024, 2013 provided City Council the ability to extend the pilot
in the event that an insufficient number of PDOD projects were submitted. Since there
have been no submittals and none are expected within the remaining month of the pilot,
Council is asked to consider extending the pilot by an additional year.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2013, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the Kechter Road and Timberline Road Intersection Improvements
Project.
The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent
domain, if deemed necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct
improvements at the Kechter Road and Timberline Road intersection.
The Kechter Road and Timberline Road Intersection Improvements will construct interim
safety and congestion mitigation improvements at the intersection. The project is
planned to begin construction in the spring of 2014 and be completed within sixty (60)
days. To construct these improvements, the City will need to acquire certain property
interests adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include right-of-way and a
permanent easement from owners of the property at the southeast corner of the
intersection. Timely acquisition of the property is necessary to meet the anticipated
construction schedule. Staff fully intends to negotiate in good faith with the affected
owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be completed prior to the start
of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for all property
acquisitions for the Project only if such action is deemed necessary.
108 of 253
August 20, 2013
248
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox Access
Road.
The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent
domain, if deemed necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct rear access
road improvements associated with the North College Improvement Project – Conifer to
Willox.
This project will construct an access road on the west side of College Avenue between
Hickory Street and the mobile home park located at 1601 North College Avenue. During
the conceptual design process of the project, raised, landscaped medians were included as
a critical project component to accomplish the goals of improving the urban character and
safety of the corridor.
Raised medians are a part of both the City’s Master Street Plan and the US 287/SH 14
Access Management Report. Because the raised medians limit left turn access to many
of the properties along the Project, the plans have also identified the need for new access
roads along the rear of the properties. The project is planned to begin construction as
soon as possible in 2014, depending on the timing of the property acquisition. To
construct these improvements, the City will need to acquire certain property interests
adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include permanent easements and
temporary easements. Timely acquisition of the property interests is necessary to meet
the anticipated construction schedule. Staff fully intends to negotiate in good faith with
all affected owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be completed prior
to the start of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for all
property acquisitions for the Project only if such action is deemed necessary.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned
Property at 328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street to Poudre
Landmarks Foundation, Inc.
The purpose of this item is to continue leasing the Avery House and Carriage House.
Poudre Landmarks Foundation (“The PLF”) wishes to continue leasing from the City the
Avery House and the Carriage House, located at 328 West Mountain Avenue and 108
North Meldrum Street, respectively. The term of the Lease shall be for fifteen (15) years.
The yearly lease payment will be $25 or $375 for the full term of the lease. The PLF
maintains the interior of the buildings and the City will continue to pay all utility costs, as
budgeted.
109 of 253
August 20, 2013
249
24. Resolution 2013-069 Authorizing the Assignment of the City’s Private Activity Bond
Allocation for 2013 to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Finance Multi-Family
Housing Revenue Bonds for the Villages on Plum and Villages at Cunningham Corner
Projects.
The purpose of this item is to assign the City’s 2013 Private Activity Bond Allocation to
the Fort Collins Housing Authority.
The City has been notified that it has an allocation of a portion of the State ceiling Private
Activity Bonds (PAB) for 2013 in the amount of $6,962,218. The City received a request
from the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) for the assignment of the City's 2013
Allocation for the purpose of affordable housing rehabilitation. Specifically, these funds
will be used to finance the rehabilitation of 95 affordable housing rental units located in
the Village on Plum project, and any remaining funds will be carried over for the
rehabilitation of additional specific affordable housing projects.
Annually, the state allocates a portion of its ceiling for PAB to the City. If the City does
not use or assign this allocation, it is returned to the state on September 15. The City has
not received any other requests for the 2013 Allocation.
25. Resolution 2013-070 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of
Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Regarding the
Implementation of DDA and City Financing of Certain Costs in Connection with the
Woodward, Inc., Project at Lincoln and Lemay.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Manager to sign the Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) between the City and the DDA in connection with the Woodward Inc.
Project.
This IGA jointly establishes the following internal procedures between the City and DDA
which are necessitated by the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. adopted April, 2013 by
Ordinance No. 055, 2013:
• process for drawing proceeds on the $6,050,000 bond being purchased by
Woodward, Inc. to fund the Improvement Projects
• communication and timing steps associated with calculation of the variable
interest rate bond
• protocol for how Woodward has selected to transfer bond proceeds to the DDA
• process for payments by City project manager consultant of contractor invoices
related to construction of Improvement Projects
• process for debt payment and facade easement reimbursement to Woodward
• acknowledgment and/or establishment of projected dates for City and DDA
appropriation of bond proceeds for use in funding Improvement Projects and
facade easement payments.
110 of 253
August 20, 2013
250
26. Resolution 2013-073 Approving an Agreement Between the City and Custom Blending,
Inc., to Provide Business Investment Assistance.
The purpose of this item is to request business assistance to Custom Blending, a primary
Fort Collins employer, by means of tax rebates of $43,500 over a 7-year period.
Custom Blending, Inc., a primary employer in Fort Collins, CO, is seeking assistance of
$43,500 for the expansion of its facility. The Custom Blending expansion will consist of
adding an additional 34,000 square feet to its existing facility and making substantial
equipment purchases, representing a total investment of approximately $5.9 million and
adding an additional 16 full-time jobs with average annual salaries between $45,000 -
$47,000.
Based on information provided by Custom Blending representatives, City staff is
estimating a potential business assistance package of approximately $43,500, which
includes $31,100 in manufacturing use tax rebates and $12,400 in personal property tax
rebates (over a 7-year depreciable useful life). Both investments relate to revenues the
City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur within the city. In terms
of evaluating the investment agreement, the ratio of private investment to total public
investment is $138:$1, or $2,719 per job. Additional savings that could not be estimated
but could be provided include utility efficiency performance incentive and the Fort
Collins Solar Program.
27. Resolution 2013-071 Making Appointments to the Building Review Board and the
Parking Advisory Board.
The purpose of this item is to make appointments for vacancies on the Building Review
Board and the Parking Advisory Board.
28. Routine Deed.
Quit Claim Deed from The Ryland Group, Inc., dedicating 790 square feet to the City of
Fort Collins for the City’s public trail construction, located in McClelland’s Creek 3rd
Filing.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned
Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. for Up to
Five Years.
8. Items Relating to Appropriations for Woodward Related Public Improvements.
111 of 253
August 20, 2013
251
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Natural Areas Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for
Woodward Related Public Improvements.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2013, Waiving the Application of the Art
in Public Places Requirements in Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code to
Improvements Constructed Pursuant to the City’s Agreement with Woodward,
Inc., and the Downtown Development Authority Regarding the Link-N-Green
Development.
9. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2013 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process
for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community
Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the City’s Human Services Program (HSP).
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2013, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be
Held in Conjunction with the November 5, 2013 Larimer County Coordinated Election.
11. Items Relating to the Residential Parking Permit Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2013, Establishing a Residential Parking
Permit Zone Program.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2013, Amending Various Provisions of
the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of
the Authority.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2013, Vacating a Portion of Lady Moon Drive
Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the Ricketts Harmony Minor Subdivision.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Include
Additional Regulations for Development in Close Proximity to Oil and Gas Operations.
112 of 253
August 20, 2013
252
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for Building Remodel Costs at 281 North College Avenue.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Transportation Services Fund for the Safe Routes to School Program and
Transferring Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund from the Operating
Budget to the Grant Program.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the
Term of the Agreement Between the City and Kubra Data Transfer for Utilities
Electronic Customer Billing Software.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2013, Amending the Definition of Large Base
Industry as Contained in Article 5 of the Land Use Code.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2013, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Which
Amended the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development
Overlay Zone District for One Additional Year.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2013, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the Kechter Road and Timberline Road Intersection Improvements
Project.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox Access
Road.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned
Property at 328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street to Poudre
Landmarks Foundation, Inc.
34. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2013, Amending the City Code to Adjust the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the
City Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Service.
35. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2013, Amending Section 3.2.2(k) of the Land Use
Code Regarding Minimum Parking Requirements in the Transit-Oriented Development
Overlay Zone District.
113 of 253
August 20, 2013
253
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt the
Consent Calendar as amended. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Horak, Cunniff, Overbeck, Troxell
and Poppaw. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell encouraged the City Manager to become involved with the issue
regarding the postponed Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2013, Authorizing
the Lease of City-Owned Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community Ourselves,
Inc. for Up to Five Years. Additionally, he supported the work completed regarding Item No.
14, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Include
Additional Regulations for Development in Close Proximity to Oil and Gas Operations.
Councilmember Cunniff thanked staff for the amendments to Item No. 25, Resolution 2013-070
Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority Regarding the Implementation of DDA and City
Financing of Certain Costs in Connection with the Woodward, Inc., Project at Lincoln and
Lemay and expressed concern regarding the statement there is no environmental impact for Item
No. 19, First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2013, Amending the Definition of Large Base
Industry as Contained in Article 5 of the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Troxell reported on a meeting with the Clarendon Hills Homeowners
Association regarding the acquisition of land in the area by Front Range Community College.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on Neighborhood Night Out activities.
Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Place a Five-Year Moratorium
on the Use of Hydraulic Fracturing Within the City of Fort Collins or
Under Its Jurisdiction to Extract Oil, Gas, or Other Hydrocarbons and
to Store and Dispose of Its Waste Products, Resolution 2013-072 Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Place a Five-Year Moratorium
on the Use of Hydraulic Fracturing Within the City of Fort Collins or Under Its Jurisdiction
to Extract Oil, Gas, or Other Hydrocarbons and to Store and Dispose of Its Waste Products.
(No Action Needed)
114 of 253
August 20, 2013
254
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2013 Placing Five-Year Moratorium on the Use of
Hydraulic Fracturing to Extract Oil, Gas and Other Hydrocarbons and on the Storage of the
Waste Products of Hydraulic Fracturing Within the City of Fort Collins or on Lands Under
the City's Jurisdiction. (Option 1)
OR
Resolution 2013-072 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City, at a Special
Municipal Election on November 5, 2013, a Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Placing a
Five-Year Moratorium on the Use of Hydraulic Fracturing to Extract Oil, Gas and Other
Hydrocarbons and on the Storage of the Waste Products of Hydraulic Fracturing Within the
City of Fort Collins or on Lands Under the City's Jurisdiction. (Option 2)
The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on August 5, 2013, which has been
determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the
registered electors of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon
presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must
either (1) adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days; or (2) submit such
proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on August 5, 2013, which has been
determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the
registered electors of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon
presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must
either (1) adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days; or (2) submit such
proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city.
The City Clerk’s Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition
received on August 5, 2013. Under Article X of the City Charter, 3,907signatures of registered
electors (at least 15% of the total ballots cast in the last regular City election) are required to
place an initiative on a special election ballot. Upon presentation of an initiative petition
certified as to sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed
ordinance without alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the
registered electors of the city. In anticipation of receiving this petition, a special election has
been called for November 5, 2013, in conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated
Election.
The purpose of the initiated measure is to place a five-year moratorium on the use of hydraulic
fracturing within the City of Fort Collins or under its jurisdiction to extract oil, gas, or other
hydrocarbons and to store and dispose of its waste products. The text of the proposed ordinance
is as follows:
Fort Collins Public Health, Safety and Wellness Act.
Section 1. Purpose.
115 of 253
August 20, 2013
255
To protect property, property values, public health, safety and welfare by placing a five year moratorium
on the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons within the City of Fort Collins
in order to study the impacts of the process on the citizens of the City of Fort Collins.
Section 2. Findings.
The people of Fort Collins hereby make the following findings with respect to the process of hydraulic
fracturing within the City of Fort Collins:
The Colorado Constitution confers on all individuals in the state, including the citizens of Fort Collins,
certain inalienable rights, including “the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness,”
Colo. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3;
The Colorado Oil and Gas Act requires oil and gas resources to be extracted in a “manner consistent with
protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife
resources,” Colo. Rev. Stat. §34-60-102;
The well stimulation process known as hydraulic fracturing is used to extract deposits oil, gas, and other
hydrocarbons through the underground injection of large quantities of water, gels, acids or gases; sands or
other proppants; and chemical additives, many of which are known to be toxic;
The people of Fort Collins seek to protect themselves from the harms associated with hydraulic fracturing,
including threats to public health and safety, property damage and diminished property values, poor air
quality, destruction of landscape, and pollution of drinking and surface water;
Representatives from the State of Colorado have publically stated that they will be conducting a health
impact assessment to assess the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas
development.
The people of Fort Collins have determined that the best way to safeguard our inalienable rights provided
under the Colorado Constitution, and to and ensure the “protection of public health, safety, and welfare,
including protection of the environment and wildlife resources” as provided under the Colorado Oil and
Gas Act, is to place a five year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and the storage and disposal of its
waste products within the City of Fort Collins in order to fully study the impacts of this process on property
values and human health.
Section 3. Moratorium
Therefore, the people of Fort Collins have determined that the best way to safeguard our inalienable rights
provided under the Colorado Constitution, and to ensure the “protection of public health, safety, and
welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources” as provided under the Colorado
Oil and Gas Act, is to place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and the storage of its waste products
within the City of Fort Collins or under its jurisdiction for a period of 5 years without exemption or
exception in order to fully study the impacts of this process on property values and human health. The
moratorium can be lifted upon a ballot measure approved by the people of the City of Fort Collins.
Section 4. Retroactive Application
In the event this measure is adopted by the voters, its provisions shall apply retroactively as of the date the
measure was found to have qualified for placement on the ballot.”
City Clerk Nelson discussed the petition that was submitted and certified and stated Council has
two options: to adopt the initiated Ordinance without alteration, or place the measure before the
voters at the November election.
Robert Schutzius, 3208 Mesa Verde Street, stated he is proud to represent the oil and gas
industry and discussed his ties to Colorado and Fort Collins. He opposed the moratorium.
116 of 253
August 20, 2013
256
Heather Burnham, Johnstown resident, stated she is a petroleum engineer and has worked and
lived in and near drill sites without concern.
Kimberly (no last name given), Denver resident, stated she works for the oil and gas industry and
discussed the intense regulations of the industry and the necessity of the industry.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, requested that Council honor the operator agreement between the
City and Prospect Energy and opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Jeff Bailey, Fort Collins resident and legislative analyst, stated hydraulic fracturing has been
occurring for years and opposed the moratorium.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, supported the moratorium but stated he could oppose it
given authentic public education and corporate transparency and a commitment from Prospect
Energy to mitigate a reasonable number of the community’s concerns by November 5.
Jerry Gerber, Fort Collins resident, congratulated Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins on its
successful petition drive. He expressed concern regarding ozone pollution and suggested the
mosquito spraying issue and the hydraulic fracturing issue should be considered together.
Keith Stevens, 1632 Smith Place, supported allowing hydraulic fracturing for the benefit of the
city.
Rudy Zitti, 1626 Fantail Court, opposed the moratorium and noted the City has already entered
into an operator agreement with Prospect Energy.
Michael Zacs, Fort Collins resident, stated he works in the oil and gas industry and opposed the
moratorium.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, Fort Collins Alliance for Reliable Energy, opposed the
ballot measure and stated it undermines what Council should be able to do. He expressed
concern regarding the legal liability of breaking the agreement with Prospect Energy.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, opposed hydraulic fracturing and cited spills and accidents
in Weld County.
John Anderson, Larimer County resident, supported the moratorium.
Kelly Giddens, Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins, supported placement of the moratorium on
the ballot.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2013-072.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the Ordinance can either be adopted as presented or placed on the
ballot and stated Council will likely take some formal action either in support or opposition to
the item.
117 of 253
August 20, 2013
257
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the ballot language meets the intent of the petition collectors.
Ms. Giddens replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell stated he supports the item going to the ballot, but cited the
responsibility of Prospect Energy in its operations. He stated he would work to defeat the
initiative.
Councilmember Overbeck commended the work of the petition collectors and supported
placement of the initiative on the ballot.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed problems with the initiative and noted there is a strong
likelihood of legal action should the initiative pass.
Councilmember Campana stated he would support placement of the initiative on the ballot.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support placement of the initiative on the ballot and stated
she is proud of the agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, citing the fact that citizen
concerns were addressed in the agreement. She stated she would work to defeat the initiative.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the citizens who brought forth the initiative. She stated she
would support the initiative at the election.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Poppaw, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Ordinance No. 120, 2013,
Amending the City Code to Adjust the Amounts of the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to Reflect
Inflation in Associated Costs of Service, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the Capital Improvement Expansion fees to include current
infrastructure costs and updated methodology.
Capital Improvement Expansion (CIE) Fees were first implemented in 1996. In 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.
118 of 253
August 20, 2013
258
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff is recommending a 100%
implementation of the CIE fees imposed on residential development and a phased
implementation of the fees imposed on commercial and industrial development. This
recommendation balances the City’s current infrastructure needs against the financial impact
that the updated fees may have on the fee payers.
The net increase of the residential fee categories combined is 4% which does not create an
unreasonable impact on residential developers. In addition, to remain revenue neutral, less than
a 95% adoption of the updated fee structure would result in a revenue decline. For these reasons
staff recommends the 100% implementation for the residential fees.
Staff is recommending a phased approach to the commercial/industrial fees of 60/80/100. The
phased approach mitigates the magnitude of the fee adjustment to commercial and industrial
developers. Staff recommends that City Council adopt 60% of the new fee structure now, 80%
effective January 1, 2015 and 100% effective January 1, 2016. This approach reduces the impact
of the update on the building community while allowing the City to remain revenue neutral for
2013 and 2014. Anything less than a 55% adoption of the new fee structure will result in a
revenue decline.
In addition, staff is recommending that a 3-5 year comprehensive review of the CIE fees be
included in the Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
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’s often referred to as a “buy in”
method.
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.
119 of 253
August 20, 2013
259
Staff worked with the Duncan Associates, a nationally known firm that specializes in impact fees,
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.
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 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.
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.
• 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.
120 of 253
August 20, 2013
260
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 fee structure 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.
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.
• Fund Balance as of 12/31/2012: $262,255. The balance is being used by PFA 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.
121 of 253
August 20, 2013
261
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 would be needed before the loan will be
repaid.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The revenue impact of implementing the residential fees at 100% is dependent on the size of units
being built in the future. If the majority of permits are for smaller units which occurred in 2012,
then the revenue growth is estimated at 4% or $150k annually; however if permits lean towards
larger units than the revenue is estimated to be relatively flat. Generally, 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.
For the commercial/industrial fees the revenue impact is as follows based on the 10 year permit
average:
• Phase 1 – 60%: $10k remainder of 2013 through 2014
• Phase 2 – 80%: $130k annually
• Phase 2 – 100%: $240k annually
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Affordable Housing Board discussed the item at their February 7, 2013 meeting. The board
did not make a formal motion on the topic but expressed general concern regarding the effect on
affordable housing. Staff Note: The Code does allow for waiver of CIE fees for Housing
Authority Projects and deferral of CIE fees for affordable housing projects (Attachments 2 and
3).
The Economic Advisory Commission unanimously (6-0) recommended adopting the updated fee
schedule during its February 20, 2013 meeting (Attachment 4).
The Building Review Board voted to support the increased impact fees without the trail portion.
The motion failed with a 3-3 vote (Attachments 5 and 6).
The Parks and Recreation Board discussed the time at their May 22, 2013 meeting. The board
did not make a formal motion on the topic but expressed support regarding the parks portion of
the fee update (Attachment 7).
122 of 253
August 20, 2013
262
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff began the public outreach process in January of 2013. Staff specifically worked with the
following stakeholders through multiple meetings and presentations from January 2013- August
2013.
• Board of Realtors
• Homebuilders Association
• Chamber of Commerce (Attachment 8)
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.”
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the history of the item.
Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager, stated capital expansion fees are charged to
the developer at the time permits are pulled. The fees are based on a current level of service.
Ping-Small discussed the neighborhood and community parks fees, fire fees, police fees, and
general government fees and discussed the comprehensive study of fees which occurred in 2011.
She reviewed the proposed phasing of the fees and the public outreach process.
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad, questioned the implementation of the fees prior to the comprehensive
fee study, which is scheduled for 2014.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, stated the Board supports the proposed fees and
requested they be phased in where appropriate. He expressed concern that the higher fees on
small homes might be viewed as a disincentive to build smaller homes.
Beckstead noted the comprehensive review in 2011 began this process and these fees will be
reviewed again on a periodic basis.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if staff’s recommendation to codify a comprehensive review every three
to five years is part of this language. City Attorney Roy replied a new whereas clause has been
added to the Ordinance and read that language into the record.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why the five year review time was selected. Ping-Small noted the
review could be done more frequently, but must be done at least every five years. She also stated
large infrastructure additions are not generally made very frequently.
123 of 253
August 20, 2013
263
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the phasing time period of industrial and commercial fees.
Ping-Small replied staff is recommending a three-year phasing rather than a two-year phasing
because there would only be a few months left in 2013 for the initial 60% adoption.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the fees are not impacted by infill. Ping-Small replied infill
does have an impact on infrastructure; however as the system is built out and infrastructure
levels out, the functional population will increase and the periodic review will allow for fee
adjustments in the future.
Councilmember Troxell asked about accountability in the fees. Beckstead replied there is strict
accountability for how the revenues from the fees are treated and spent. The revenues for trails
and parks, for example, can only be used for new trails and parks.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Ordinance No. 120, 2013 as amended, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he understands Councilmember Cunniff’s concern regarding the
three year phasing for commercial and industrial fees but stated he is comfortable adopting this
new fee structure.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to amend the
motion to restore the two-year phasing for commercial and industrial fees, with January 1, 2014
being the first day for 80% and January 1, 2015 being the first day for 100%.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the amendment due to the exceptionally large
increase for the commercial and industrial fees.
Councilmember Poppaw noted the percentage increases seem large; however, the dollar amounts
are not.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern that examination of the percentages alone is
misleading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the amendment as the goal of the fee
changes is alignment with the capital fee structure, not income.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted the timing of the calendar year makes the three-year phasing
sensible.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Cunniff and Overbeck. Nays:
Weitkunat, Troxell and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would support the original motion, though he does not support
the three-year phasing.
124 of 253
August 20, 2013
264
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell, Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck, Horak and
Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 121, 2013,
Amending Section 3.2.2(k) of the Land Use Code Regarding
Minimum Parking Requirements in the Transit-Oriented
Development Overlay Zone District, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to propose minimum parking requirements for multi-family dwellings
in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
At the July 9, 2013 Joint Work Session of City Council and Planning and Zoning Board,
direction was given to implement interim minimum parking requirements for multi-family
dwellings in the TOD Overlay Zone, while maintaining that the long-term vision for the TOD
should stay intact. At the August 8, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Board
recommended revising the Land Use Code (LUC) to require minimum ratio of 60% - 70%
parking spaces to the proposed number of bedrooms, a provision to meet the standard through
alternative compliance, and a one year sunset in which time a TOD Parking Plan will be
created. Accordingly, the City Council will need to select the ratio and fill in the blank on page 2
of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2006, the TOD Overlay Zone was added to the City of Fort Collins LUC, creating the map
and the removal of minimum parking requirements to encourage a more urban form of
development and allow market conditions to provide adequate parking. It was further amended
in 2007 addressing mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented design. Attached to this AIS (with the
P&Z staff report) is a TOD memorandum dated May 10, 2013 that provides an in depth
discussion of the TOD formation and parking analysis.
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.
125 of 253
August 20, 2013
265
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. (Proposed with this
agenda item)
• Require a Parking Analysis to determine parking demand as identified in the Parking Plan.
(Proposed with this agenda item, to be expanded with consultant input)
• Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure as
recommended in the Midtown Plan. (Could be included with parking fee discussion)
• Require off-site parking storage. (Proposed as possible mitigation per alternative
compliance)
• 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 No.102, 2013 was
adopted by City Council on First Reading on July 16, 2013 and is considered on Second
Reading on August 20)
• 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). (Proposed with this
agenda item)
• Implement high-frequency transit. (In process)
• Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and
commercial services. (Being discussed in Midtown Plan)
Land Use Code
Staff analyzed eleven multi-family development projects in the TOD Overlay Zone (see attached)
and found that, on average, they provided a ratio of 57% parking spaces to bedrooms. If these
same projects were to be developed outside the TOD Overlay Zone, subject to existing minimum
parking requirements, they would have been required to provide an average ratio of 89%
parking spaces to bedrooms. Staff averaged these two numbers, representing the current market
ratio being proposed with development and the Land Use Code’s minimum requirement for
multi-family dwellings, which resulted in ratio of 73% parking spaces to bedrooms. Thus, staff
recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) a ratio of 70% parking spaces to
bedrooms.
126 of 253
August 20, 2013
266
Subsequent to publishing the P&Z staff report, additional analysis has been done on the same
projects in the TOD Overlay Zone with outlier percentages removed in an attempt to get a better
indication of what the market is providing (see attached spreadsheet). With the outliers removed
(The Summit [32.1%], Ram’s Crossing K2 [33.6%], and Penny Flats [92.9%]), the average
ratio is 58.5% parking spaces to bedrooms. This ratio was considered by the P&Z Board and
they recommended a ratio of 60% - 70% parking spaces to bedrooms.
The proposed alternative compliance section is premised on promoting the goals of the TOD
Overlay Zone - such as concentrated higher density residential development, high-frequency
transit, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities - without compromising compatibility with
existing neighborhoods in terms of excessive spillover parking. In order to request alternative
compliance, a Parking Analysis is required to be submitted that will provide an in-depth analysis
of parking demands created by the proposed development and mitigation measures taken to
reduce demands for on-site parking. The Parking Analysis criteria are a result of preliminary
implementation work done by staff for the Fort Collins Parking Plan: Downtown and
Surrounding Neighborhoods. However, these proposed criteria are a temporary solution to
expire in one year. In which time we plan to procure an expert consultant to expand the Parking
Plan to the TOD Overlay to create a comprehensive approach to parking requirements. Staff has
received a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates to develop this plan.
Parking Plan
Action Item #7 of the Parking Plan, adopted by Council on January 15, 2013, calls for an
amendment to the requirements for Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) to require that TISs for
development proposals include an assessment of parking impacts in Fort Collins.
Policy 6.4 – Review of New Development Parking Impacts
New development will be systematically evaluated for its impact on Downtown parking within a
Transportation Impact Study. The evaluation will include information about expected parking
generation for new uses, parking created or lost, demand reduction measures, impacts to public
parking, anticipated impacts to public parking, anticipated spillover effects, and any other
information relevant to changes in parking demand and supply.
Parking Fee Discussion
• Planning Development and Transportation (PDT) and Finance staff have been
evaluating the potential of creating a parking impact fee that would off-set impact created by
utilization of public parking; and/or creating a parking fee-in-lieu as a mechanism to permit
lowered parking ratios that would pay into facilities that absorb some of the parking demand
generated by a development. The parking fee discussion is tentatively scheduled for Council
Finance Committee on October 21, 2013 and Council Work Session on November 26, 2013.
127 of 253
August 20, 2013
267
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The TOD Overlay Zone has not had minimum parking requirements since 2006. The removal of
minimum parking requirements was implemented, in part, to incentivize infill and redevelopment
in challenging locations and conditions. This incentive may be reduced with this proposal to
require minimum parking. Additional analysis of financial and economic impacts is expected
with the forthcoming parking plan/study.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Planning and Zoning Board
Recommendation #1:
At the August 8, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Board voted 4 – 2 to recommend
approval of an ordinance requiring a minimum ratio of 60% – 70% parking spaces to bedrooms
for multi-family housing in the TOD Overlay Zone. The Board was divided on whether 60% or
70% was an appropriate minimum ratio, thus the recommendation of a range with a final ratio
to be decided by City Council. During deliberation two board members felt both ratios were too
high and other members felt it was too low. However, the Board did recommend approval of the
alternative compliance element and the one year sunset clause in the ordinance.
Recommendation #2:
Additionally, the Board recommended funding for a comprehensive study/plan and public
outreach for overall parking issues affecting the TOD Overlay Zone to be completed within the
next year before the ordinance expires. It recommended that a high priority be placed on this
study/plan worthy of “emergency funding” that would develop necessary tools to address
parking issues and also restate the benefits of transit-oriented development.
Discussion:
The Board debated various perspectives expressing concern about neighborhood character and
upholding the vision for transit-oriented development and infill in City Plan. Some
Boardmembers felt that the lack of parking minimums may work in communities that already
have fully operational public transit systems, but the MAX has not yet started operating so Fort
Collins still needs parking minimums. They also felt that people will still have vehicles
regardless of whether they will use them on a daily basis and therefore there will still be a need
for auto storage.
Other Boardmembers felt that the role of the Board is to implement City Plan which calls for a
compact, transit-oriented community core; and that implementation of a 70% parking ratio is
moving in the opposite direction from this vision. And, if this is the direction we are going to go,
it should be a comprehensive plan conversation. The Board further discussed how to get
developers to start thinking creatively to solve parking problems that does not involve excessive
spillover or expansive surface parking.
128 of 253
August 20, 2013
268
The Board agreed that the city is in a time of growth in which urban growth is struggling with
neighborhood character. And, it is challenging to know which comes first: higher density or the
high frequency transit system to serve it. Because conversely, the high frequency transit system
needs the high density residential to be successful. Thus, the Board agreed that a comprehensive
study of parking issues and tools needs to be prioritized in order to protect neighborhoods and
realize the city’s vision for the future.
Parking Advisory Board
The Parking Advisory Board has been established, but its members will be appointed on August
20, 2013, and therefore, has not had an opportunity to review the proposal.”
Seth Lorson, City Planner, stated the TOD was developed in 2006 and removed the minimum
requirement for parking in mixed-use and multi-family developments. The goal of the District
was to incentivize infill and redevelopment in challenging sites, implement the City Plan vision
for the growth management area, and illustrate commitment to the MAX/BRT project. He
discussed the reasons for moving forward with changes to the minimum parking requirements in
the TOD and stated staff examined eleven projects within the zone in order to determine a
recommendation. Lorson stated the Planning and Zoning Board ultimately recommended a
minimum parking to bedroom ratio of 60-70% with an alternative compliance option to sunset in
one year. The Board also recommended, within that year, a comprehensive parking plan within
the TOD overlay zone be completed.
Clint Skutchan, 719 Great Plains Court, expressed concern the Transportation Board has not
been able to weigh in on the issue and questioned the need to pass the item this evening.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated certain transit functions must exist in order for
transit oriented development to occur.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, encouraged Council to adopt the 70% parking requirement.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if most comparable cities in Colorado are within the RTD district.
Lorson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell asked what would occur following the one-year sunset. Laurie Kadrich,
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied the idea is to have this
stop-gap percentage in place as projects are reviewed during the next year in order to have time
to complete a more comprehensive study.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a more holistic approach will be part of the year. Kadrich
replied the intent of the study is to look at the comprehensive view of what is need in the TOD
related to parking for multi-family or other types of developments.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the Transportation Board did not give input regarding this
item. Kadrich replied the main participant has been the Planning and Zoning Board, but noted
Transportation Planning staff have been involved. She stated staff could take the
recommendation to the Transportation Board at Council’s request.
129 of 253
August 20, 2013
269
Mayor Weitkunat asked if any projects are in planning stages which may fit into this category.
Lorson replied five multi-family projects have gone through conceptual review.
Mayor Weitkunat commended the expeditious process resulting in this item.
Councilmember Campana discussed parking ratio standards.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 121, 2013, on First Reading, with the inclusion of 60% in 2.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use
Code.
Councilmember Campana stated he would like to see the same tables and data that already exist
for other parking requirements prior to Second Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck, Campana, Horak,
Weitkunat and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Advisory Opinion and Recommendation
Nos. 2013-02 and 2013-03 of the Ethics Review Board, Resolution 2013-075 Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to submit two opinions of the Ethics Review Board to Council for its
consideration and possible approval.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. The Ethics Review Board met on July 23,
2013, to consider two questions, one of which had been submitted by Councilmember Wade
Troxell, and the other by an alternate Review Board that had met late last year. Councilmember
Troxell’s question was whether he would have a conflict of interest in participating in any
decisions of the City Council related to a proposed development project of the Front Range
Community College. This issue arises because of the proximity of the Troxell residence to the site
of the Front Range Community College project. After receiving input on this question, the
majority of the Board concluded that Councilmember Troxell would not have a conflict of
interest.
130 of 253
August 20, 2013
270
The question submitted by the alternate Review Board was whether members of City boards and
commissions who own property within the notice zone of a proposed land use project should
utilize the same guidelines as Councilmembers in deciding, on a case-by-case basis, whether to
recuse themselves from participating in quasijudicial decisions related to such projects, or
whether they should instead routinely recuse themselves from those decisions unless an opinion
is rendered by the Board that they need not do so. The Board recommended the latter course of
action.
Section 2-569(e) states that opinions and recommendations of the Board are to be submitted to
the full Council so that the Council may determine whether to adopt the same.”
Councilmember Troxell withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2013-074.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she disagreed with the majority opinion of the Ethics Review
Board as this is a similar situation to Mayor Weitkunat’s situation regarding the Foothills Mall.
She noted a statement has been made that property values could be negatively affected with
additional Front Range Community College development.
Councilmember Campana stated the effect of the property value that Front Range Community
College has on adjacent properties has likely already occurred and there would be no additional
impact with new development. He noted Councilmember Troxell’s home is a couple blocks
from the area in question.
Councilmember Poppaw clarified one appraiser stated it would be difficult to measure an impact,
one appraiser stated the College has done a good job of designing its buildings to be compatible
with adjacent neighborhoods, and one appraiser thought additional development would have a
negative impact on home values.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she does not believe the development would have an impact on the
Troxell property.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the proposed use of the property and negative view of the
proposed development indicates there is significant interest and a potential belief that property
values will be negatively affected.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: Cunniff,
Overbeck and Poppaw.
THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Resolution 2013-075.
City Attorney Roy clarified the intent of this Resolution.
131 of 253
August 20, 2013
271
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Horak, Cunniff and Campana.
Nays: Overbeck.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
132 of 253
September 3, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, September 3,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Troxell and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Daggett.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, announced the fall address of CSU’s President Tony Frank,
stated he is a candidate for the Poudre School District Board of Education, and supported taxes
and fees on marijuana.
Min Meisel Staubo, Fort Collins resident, stated her daughters have been removed from her
custody and discussed the case under Judge Fields.
Eric Staubo, 3179 San Luis, continued Ms. Staubo’s statement regarding her custody case.
Rosemary VanGorder, 3508 Shore Road, continued the discussion of Ms. Staubo’s custody case.
Kathleen Baumgartner, Feeding Our Community Ourselves, discussed the lease for the FOCO
Café and stated the organization’s goal is to be good stewards of the donations it has received.
Lawrence Budd, 1436 Glen Haven Drive, discussed excessive water use at the Walmart at
Mulberry and Lemay and stated a City employee should be assisting with the issue.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed Ms. Staubo’s custody case and encouraged an
investigation of the County Court system.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell asked about the postponement of the FOCO Café lease item and
suggested City Manager Atteberry meet with Ms. Baumgartner regarding the issue.
133 of 253
September 3, 2013
2
Councilmember Overbeck requested staff follow-up regarding the watering issue at Walmart.
Councilmember Cunniff supported the FOCO Café and stated he is certain a lease agreement can
be reached.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of
City-Owned Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc.
for Up to Five Years to November 15, 2013.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 16, 2013, authorizes a
lease for City-owned property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community
Ourselves, Inc. to house a non-profit café with a minimal food processing facility. Staff
is requesting postponement of Second Reading to November 15, 2013, to allow more
time for the City and the prospective tenant to mutually agree to the lease terms of the
lease agreement, based on the timing of deconstruction of 212 Laporte Avenue per the
City’s Block 32 Master Plan. The Block 32 Master Plan will be presented to City
Council at the October 8, 2013 Work Session.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate grant money to fund Restorative Justice
Services within Community Development and Neighborhood Services.
Ordinance No. 110, 2013, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013,
appropriates a grant in the amount of $45,000 from the Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for salaries associated with the continued
operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for
shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all
other offenses.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the General Fund for Building Remodel Costs at 281 North College Avenue.
The purpose of this Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20,
2013, is to appropriate unanticipated building permit and plan check fee revenues to
facilitate co-location efforts for Community Development and Neighborhood Services
(CDNS) staff.
134 of 253
September 3, 2013
3
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue into the Transportation Services Fund for the Safe Routes to School Program
and Transferring Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund from the Operating
Budget to the Grant Program.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to request appropriation of unbudgeted funds received
through a grant for the Safe Routes to School Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013, appropriates
a federal grant in the amount of $22,700, through the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) for the 2013–14 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. This
funding will allow the City’s Safe Routes to School Program (administered and staffed
by FC Moves) to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend
the Term of the Agreement Between the City and Kubra Data Transfer for Utilities
Electronic Customer Billing Software.
The purpose of this item is to request a one-year extension of the contract for Fort Collins
Utilities’ e-Bill vendor, from October 23, 2013, to October 23, 2014, with the option to
extend for additional one year periods not to exceed four additional one-year renewals.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013, authorizes
an extension that will give the Fort Collins Utilities staff time to complete necessary
research and development for future e-Bill services, as well as support alignment of
customer interface services related to advanced meters and related customer software
systems.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2013, Amending the Definition of Large Base
Industry as Contained in Article 5 of the Land Use Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013, amends the
definition of Large Base Industry in the Land Use Code to expand the types of firms that
may qualify beyond manufacturing to also include firms that provide products or services
for local and regional users that are not manufactured but are of comparable economic
value to manufactured goods, or by establishing corporate offices.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2013, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013,
Which Amended the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned
Development Overlay Zone District for One Additional Year.
The purpose of this item is to extend the pilot for the Planned Development Overlay
District for one additional year.
135 of 253
September 3, 2013
4
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013, provides for
an additional twelve months for the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot.
The PDOD is a unique zoning mechanism designed to address the challenges of infill and
redevelopment, blending the concepts of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and
performance-based zoning. The pilot was originally established by Ordinance No. 024,
2013 and provided a six-month timeframe to accept PDOD development submittals; it is
currently set to expire on September 9, 2013. However, Ordinance No. 024, 2013
provided City Council the ability to extend the pilot in the event that an insufficient
number of PDOD projects were submitted. Since there have been no submittals and none
are expected within the remaining month of the pilot, Council is asked to consider
extending the pilot by an additional year.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2013, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the Kechter Road and Timberline Road Intersection Improvements
Project.
The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent
domain, if deemed necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct
improvements at the Kechter Road and Timberline Road intersection.
The Kechter Road and Timberline Road Intersection Improvements will construct interim
safety and congestion mitigation improvements at the intersection. The project is
planned to begin construction in the spring of 2014 and be completed within sixty (60)
days. To construct these improvements, the City will need to acquire certain property
interests adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include right-of-way and a
permanent easement from owners of the property at the southeast corner of the
intersection. Timely acquisition of the property is necessary to meet the anticipated
construction schedule. Staff fully intends to negotiate in good faith with the affected
owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be completed prior to the start
of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for all property
acquisitions for the Project only if such action is deemed necessary. This Ordinance was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox Access
Road.
The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent
domain, if deemed necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct rear access
road improvements associated with the North College Improvement Project – Conifer to
Willox.
136 of 253
September 3, 2013
5
This project will construct an access road on the west side of College Avenue between
Hickory Street and the mobile home park located at 1601 North College Avenue. To
construct these improvements, the City will need to acquire certain property interests
adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include permanent easements and
temporary easements. Timely acquisition of the property interests is necessary to meet
the anticipated construction schedule. Staff fully intends to negotiate in good faith with
all affected owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be completed prior
to the start of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for all
property acquisitions for the Project only if such action is deemed necessary. This
Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned
Property at 328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street to Poudre
Landmarks Foundation, Inc.
The purpose of this item is to continue leasing the Avery House and Carriage House.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20, 2013, authorizes
the lease of the Avery House and the Carriage House, located at 328 West Mountain
Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street, respectively, to the Poudre Landmarks
Foundation (“The PLF”). The term of the Lease is for fifteen (15) years, with a yearly
lease payment of $25, or $375 for the full term of the lease. The PLF maintains the
interior of the buildings and the City will continue to pay all utility costs, as budgeted.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the
Term of the Agreement Between the City and Mayo Foundation for Health Risk
Assessment Software for the City’s Wellness Program.
The purpose of this item is to request a one-year extension of the contract with the Mayo
Foundation for Medical Education and Research (Mayo) to provide services associated
with the assessment and management of existing and potential health risks of City
employees from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, with the option to extend for additional
one (1) year periods not to exceed four (4) additional one-year renewals. This extension
will allowed continued use of services provided by Mayo while staff assesses costs,
benefits, services and other options associated with an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic
and the potential to consolidate health risk assessment services now provided by Mayo
with the Clinic.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the
Authority.
This purpose of this item is to expand the boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) and amend the Plan of Development of the Authority to
include a commercially zoned property in the 800 block of Buckingham Street.
137 of 253
September 3, 2013
6
The property, which includes one parcel owned by Colorado Iron and Metal Inc. and one
parcel owned by Odell Investments, LLC, is vacant land with no address.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013, Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of
an Access Easement on City Property to 201 S College, LLC.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the conveyance of a patio lease and a permanent
access easement on Oak Street Plaza to the owners of the Old Post Office Building
adjacent to the park.
201 S College, LLC is the owner of the lower level of the building located at 201 South
College Avenue, also known as the Old Post Office Building. The building also houses
the Museum of Contemporary Art on the main floor. The building is located directly
adjacent to Oak Street Plaza Park. The owner of the lower unit of the building has
requested a patio lease on a portion of the City property adjacent to the north side of their
building in anticipation of leasing the unit as a restaurant. The lease area will be used by
the unit owner and their tenant for dining and art display purposes only and will be
limited to a 10-year term with an option to renew for up to two (2) additional 5-year
terms. In addition, the owner has requested an access easement across the park leading
from their north entrances out to College Avenue. This access easement will provide the
owner and their tenant legal access in and out of the lower unit.
19. Resolution 2013-076 Amending the Master Street Plan as Related to the Crowne on
Timberline Project.
The developer of the Crowne on Timberline project, which is in the vicinity of
Timberline Road and Zephyr Road, has identified a street on the site plan as a collector
street. The developer has requested the City add this collector street to the Master Street
Plan, which requires an amendment through City Council action. Based on traffic
analysis and planned connectivity in this area staff supports the addition of this collector
to the Master Street Plan.
20. Resolution 2013-077 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter Into a Professional
Services Agreement with McGladrey LLP, Certified Public Accountants, for Auditing
Services.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a professional
services agreement with McGladrey LLP for auditing services.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for audit services was issued to cover the next five years.
The selection process resulted in the selection of the McGladrey LLP. The auditor
selection process was designed to ensure that the selected firm exceeds the minimum
requirements and has knowledge and experience in auditing similar entities.
138 of 253
September 3, 2013
7
An annual external audit by an independent certified public accountant is required by
State Statute, City Charter and most grant agreements.
21. Resolution 2013-078 Appointing Two Representatives to the Colorado Municipal League
Policy Committee.
The purpose of this item is to appoint Councilmember Wade Troxell and City Manager
Darin Atteberry to represent the City of Fort Collins on the Colorado Municipal League
Policy Committee.
Appointments to the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Policy Committee are made
each fall and members serve for a one-year period from approximately September
through August. Each member municipality of the League is entitled to a representative,
and all cities over 100,000 are entitled to designate two representatives.
The Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and
recommending to the League Executive Board, positions of support, opposition, no
position or amendment to a wide variety of legislation affecting cities and towns. At each
annual conference in June, the Policy Committee proposes to the membership, revisions
to the League’s policies which guide League positions on public policy issues affecting
municipalities.
The Committee meets three or four times a year, before and during legislative sessions as
well as in May prior to the annual conference. The first CML Policy Committee meeting
will be held on Friday, October 18.
22. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from GCP College Ave,
LLC, to install a transformer for new electric service at 216 North College Avenue.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the General Fund for Building Remodel Costs at 281 North College Avenue.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue into the Transportation Services Fund for the Safe Routes to School Program
and Transferring Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund from the Operating
Budget to the Grant Program.
139 of 253
September 3, 2013
8
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend
the Term of the Agreement Between the City and Kubra Data Transfer for Utilities
Electronic Customer Billing Software.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2013, Amending the Definition of Large Base
Industry as Contained in Article 5 of the Land Use Code.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2013, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013,
Which Amended the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned
Development Overlay Zone District for One Additional Year.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2013, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the Kechter Road and Timberline Road Intersection Improvements
Project.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox Access
Road.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned
Property at 328 West Mountain Avenue and 108 North Meldrum Street to Poudre
Landmarks Foundation, Inc.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the
Term of the Agreement Between the City and Mayo Foundation for Health Risk
Assessment Software for the City’s Wellness Program.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the
Authority.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013, Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of
an Access Easement on City Property to 201 S College, LLC.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2013, Establishing a Temporary Ban on Marijuana
Establishments Within the City of Fort Collins.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and
approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Campana, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell,
Cunniff, Overbeck and Poppaw. Nays: none.
140 of 253
September 3, 2013
9
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Cunniff discussed Item No. 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013,
Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of an Access Easement on City Property to 201 S
College, LLC and requested the City have some control over the patio fence and pedestrian flow.
City Manager Atteberry concurred.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed Item No. 9, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2013,
Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into the Transportation Services Fund for the Safe
Routes to School Program and Transferring Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
from the Operating Budget to the Grant Program and noted the program was granted funds from
the BNSF Railroad.
Councilmember Campana discussed Item No. 6, Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 094, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to Feeding
Our Community Ourselves, Inc. for Up to Five Years to November 15, 2013, and suggested the
possibility of the fact this location may not be the appropriate one given the level of tenant finish
needed. City Manager Atteberry stated the City would like to partner with the Café in any way
possible and stated he would report back to Council regarding the location.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry reported on the success of the recent large community events, including
the USA Pro Cycling Challenge. He recognized the local organizing committee members and
staff who assisted with the event.
Eric Thompson, local organizing committee Co-Chair, discussed the success of the USA Pro
Cycling event in the Northern Colorado area. He stated a full report will be compiled soon.
Mayor Weitkunat commended the collaboration and partnership during the race event and
thanked the railroad for its assistance in halting operations.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Poppaw read a letter from the Fort Collins Housing Authority thanking Council
for its funding of affordable housing preservation.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on the Platte River Power Authority wholesale rate increase,
noting is was less than expected. He also reported on meetings with the Colorado Department of
Transportation regarding increasing traffic lanes on I-25 from Highway 66 to Highway 14.
Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on the CSU Community Welcome event.
141 of 253
September 3, 2013
10
Mayor Weitkunat reported on Hunger Action month and the food drive for the Larimer County
Food Bank and the City’s historic homes tour.
Ordinance No. 120, 2013,
Amending the City Code to Adjust the Amounts of the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to Reflect
Inflation in Associated Costs of Service, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the Capital Improvement Expansion fees to include current
infrastructure costs and updated methodology.
Capital Improvement Expansion (CIE) Fees were first implemented in 1996. In 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. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted
on First Reading (6-0; Campana recused) on August 20, 2013.
BACKGROIUND / DISCUSSION
During First Reading on August, 20, 2013, City Council requested additional information
regarding the impact of the fee update on the overall project valuation of the sample building
permits presented. Included is a table with the additional information requested:
Permit
Comparison
Residential or
Commercial
CIE Fees
PROPOSED
%
Change
Total Fees on
Permit
PROPOSED
%
Change
Total Project
Valuation
w/Updated
Fee*
%
Change
Legacy Senior
Housing
$264K
12%
$776K
4%
$8.3M 0.35%
The Summit
Permit 1*
$228K
6%
$795K
2%
$5.8M 0.24%
Spine Correction
Center
5,500 sq ft.
$7K 85% $115K 3% $543K 0.55%
Cargill
Greenhouse
September 3, 2013
11
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Ordinance No. 120, 2013, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff thanked staff for the commercial fees analysis.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Cunniff, Overbeck and
Poppaw. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 125, 2013,
Establishing a Temporary Ban on Marijuana Establishments
Within the City of Fort Collins, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to establish a temporary ban on marijuana cultivation facilities,
marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana
stores (collectively “marijuana establishments”) in the City of Fort Collins through March 31,
2014.
The City Council recommended proceeding with a temporary ban at a work session on July 30,
2013.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters approved Amendment 64, which allows for the licensing
of marijuana establishments in Colorado, including marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana
testing facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana stores.
Under Amendment 64, local municipalities have three options in regard to marijuana
establishments:
(1) adopt an ordinance prohibiting them; (2) refer a prohibition question to the voters; or (3)
allow them and impose local restrictions on their time, place, manner and number.
Amendment 64 requires local municipalities to adopt an ordinance specifying the entity that is
responsible for processing applications submitted for a license to operate a marijuana
establishment by October 1, 2013.
143 of 253
September 3, 2013
12
Additionally, Amendment 64 allows an applicant to apply directly to a local jurisdiction if the
state fails to issue a license by January 1, 2014, or within ninety (90) days of an application
being filed.
The Colorado Department of Revenue (“DOR”) has adopted emergency rules for the regulation
of the state retail marijuana industry by the DOR’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, which are
set to expire on October 1, 2013.
A question imposing an excise and sales tax on marijuana and marijuana products will appear
on the November 2013 ballot.
During the July 30, 2013 work session, Council determined that having additional time to
determine the degree and extent of the state rules, to analyze the results of the November ballot
question on taxation, and to conduct outreach within the community would be beneficial. Staff is
proposing a six month temporary ban to complete such efforts.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no immediate financial impacts with the exception of potential medical marijuana
businesses that are anxious to begin operations in Fort Collins. Pursuant to state law, January 1,
2014 is the earliest date that a currently existing medical marijuana business can obtain a
marijuana establishment license. Approximately nine months later, October 1, 2014, is the
earliest date that a marijuana establishment that was not a previously existing medical
marijuana business can obtain a license.”
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager, stated this ban would extend until the end of March,
2014 and would allow time for State rules to go into effect, taxation initiatives to be voted upon,
and public outreach to be completed. She outlined the four classifications of marijuana
businesses: retail stores, manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and cultivation facilities.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the impact of the outcome of the November taxation
question on the City’s regulations. Sawyer replied the state response to that initiative may
impact local communities given the taxation would supply funding mechanisms.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like to see the impact on the City’s proposed fee
structure given a passage or failure of the taxation initiative. City Manager Atteberry replied the
failure of the initiative could result in an examination of the legislation statewide.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would prefer a shorter ban.
Councilmember Troxell supported the six month ban and asked about the public outreach plan.
Sawyer replied staff is hoping to work with the CSU Center for Deliberation for a large-scale
community outreach.
144 of 253
September 3, 2013
13
Councilmember Troxell stated Council needs to be deliberate about the impacts to the
community and consider health and safety issues.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about additional public outreach processes. Sawyer replied the
community dialogue model utilizes students in a program center at CSU to help develop and
facilitate the public outreach process.
Councilmember Overbeck suggested a December rather than a February worksession. He asked
when the discussion regarding the inclusion of CSU began. Sawyer replied it began in the last
two weeks and City Manager Atteberry noted CSU has been actively involved in this issue over
the years.
City Manager Atteberry noted a more expedited process is Council’s prerogative to implement.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would prefer an expedited process.
Councilmember Campana stated the voters have requested a thorough examination of the issue
and staff’s opinion of the six month ban is justified.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested staff return with two plans relating to the timing of the process
after First Reading.
Mayor Weitkunat noted one key aspect of Amendment 64 was the ability for municipalities to
adopt their own regulations or prohibition and making those regulations should not be rushed.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested a status report at the worksession on November 12th.
Councilmembers Cunniff, Overbeck, and Campana agreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 125, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak clarified there will be an interim worksession on November 12th in order
to decide how long the ban should last.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Campana and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 121, 2013,
Amending Section 3.2.2(k) of the Land Use Code Regarding Minimum
Parking Requirements in the Transit-Oriented Development
Overlay Zone District, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
145 of 253
September 3, 2013
14
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance implements interim minimum parking requirements for multi-family dwellings in
the TOD Overlay Zone. This requirement will sunset in one year, in which time a TOD Parking
Plan will be created. Council has three options to consider on Second Reading:
• Option #1 - Proposed 60% Ratio (Unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 20,
2013).
• Option #2 - 60% of existing parking requirements outside the TOD Overlay Zone.
• Option #3 – 70% of existing parking requirements outside the TOD Overlay Zone.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the August 20, 2013 City Council meeting, staff was asked to prepare an alternative proposal
for establishing minimum parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family developments in
the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The staff proposal presented to
Council was to create minimum parking requirements based on a percentage (60%) of the total
number of bedrooms. Council asked that staff apply the recommended ratio of 60% to the
existing minimum parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family developments outside the
TOD Overlay Zone, which is based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. Please see
charts below to illustrate the difference and the attached analysis of projects in the TOD Overlay
Zone.
Option #1 - Proposed 60% Ratio (Adopted on First Reading):
Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Overlay Zone shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces in an amount
equal to or greater than 60% of the number of proposed bedrooms in the development.
Existing Minimum Parking Requirements Outside the TOD Overlay Zone:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2.0
Four and above 3.0
146 of 253
September 3, 2013
15
Option #2 - 60% of existing parking requirements outside the TOD Overlay Zone to be
applied to mixed-use and multi-family within the TOD Overlay Zone (as requested):
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
One or less 0.9
Two 1.1
Three 1.2
Four and above 1.8
Option #3 - 70% of existing parking requirements outside the TOD Overlay Zone to be
applied to mixed-use and multi-family within the TOD Overlay Zone (as requested):
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
One or less 1.1
Two 1.2
Three 1.4
Four and above 2.1
Seth Lorson, City Planner, provided an analysis of the projects currently within the TOD and
reviewed the options available to Council.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, asked why the discussion has been limited to three options
and supported adoption of the 70% parking standard.
Councilmember Cunniff stated an 80% parking standard should be considered and supported a
more conservative approach. He stated options two and three are too low.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak expressed concern regarding the ability for affordable housing projects to
be located in transit-heavy areas. He suggested postponement until all effects are considered.
Councilmember Campana discussed a student housing project he completed at the minimum
parking standard and stated there have been a large number of complaints relating to too little
parking. He stated the existing parking standards are too low given the current transit options
and suggested an alternative compliance options for creative solutions.
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, noted the
recommendation for an Ordinance this evening is a temporary measure and is derived from
comments from the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated there is an alternative compliance
option within this Ordinance which could be used to deal with an affordable housing
development.
Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Option
#3 of Ordinance No. 121, 2013, on Second Reading.
147 of 253
September 3, 2013
16
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked about the alternative compliance provision. Kadrich replied this
temporary measure, if approved, would allow for alternative compliance based on a parking
study.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Horak, Campana and Troxell. Nays:
Cunniff, Poppaw and Overbeck.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to ask the Mayor to
write a letter in support of looking at potential funding for a third lane on I-25 north of
Longmont. Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw, Campana, Horak, Weitkunat and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
148 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Gerry Paul
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the Term of the Agreement
Between the City and Mayo Foundation for Health Risk Assessment Software for the City’s Wellness Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, authorizes a one-year extension of
the contract with the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research to provide services associated with the
assessment and management of existing and potential health risks of City employees from April 1, 2014 to March 31,
2015, with the option to extend for additional one (1) year periods not to exceed four (4) additional one-year renewals.
This extension will allowed continued use of services provided by Mayo while staff assesses costs, benefits, services
and other options associated with an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic and the potential to consolidate health risk
assessment services now provided by Mayo with the Clinic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 3, 2013
(w/o attachments)
149 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 3, 2013
STAFF: Gerry Paul
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2013, Authorizing the City Manager to Extend the Term of the Agreement
Between the City and Mayo Foundation for Health Risk Assessment Software for the City’s Wellness Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request a one-year extension of the contract with the Mayo Foundation for Medical
Education and Research (Mayo) to provide services associated with the assessment and management of existing and
potential health risks of City employees from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, with the option to extend for additional
one (1) year periods not to exceed four (4) additional one-year renewals. This extension will allowed continued use
of services provided by Mayo while staff assesses costs, benefits, services and other options associated with an
Onsite Employee Medical Clinic and the potential to consolidate health risk assessment services now provided by
Mayo with the Clinic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2008, the City of Fort Collins utilized a competitive bid process and contracted with Mayo to provide an online portal
where City employees enter personal health information, access healthcare, nutrition, exercise information, and track
behavior modifications. Health data is gathered, reported to employees, aggregated and analyzed by Human
Resources staff to assess employees’ current and potential future health risks. Additional services provided by Mayo
include an educational website designed specifically for City employees and one-on-one coaching programs designed
to help manage or prevent disease. The Mayo Clinic platform is used by over 90% of the City’s employees.
Some organizations of similar size to the City are incorporating these services into an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic.
There are possible benefits (consolidation of health risk data, additional cost savings, coordinated care) associated
with this integrated model. In an effort to consolidate services and enhance program effectiveness, the City has
requested information from vendors interested in providing clinic services as well as those offered by Mayo. Vendors
have been asked to respond to the City’s interest in evaluating proposals that incorporate these services into a Clinic
model. Extending the contract for one year, with the option for additional extensions up to four, more years, will allow
continued use of services provided by Mayo while staff assesses costs, benefits, services and other options associated
with an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic and the potential to consolidate health risk assessment services now
performed by Mayo with the Clinic.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Funds are included in the 2013 and 2014 budgets to cover the cost of extending this contract.
150 of 253
ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MAYO FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE FOR THE CITY’S WELLNESS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, following a competitive bidding process in April 2008, the City entered into
an Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and
Research, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ( “Mayo”) to provide Health Risk Assessment
software for the City’s wellness program; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement’s original expiration date was March 31, 2013; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 038, 2013, the Agreement term was
extended from five years to six years with a revised expiration date of March 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Mayo for the last five years and Mayo has
satisfactorily performed under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in May, 2013, the City initiated a Request for Proposal as a first step in
assessing the viability of an Employee Onsite Medical Clinic Service; and
WHEREAS, City staff believes it is possible to consolidate the gathering of Health Risk
Assessment data within the scope of Employee Onsite Medical Clinic Services, with possible
cost savings, efficiencies, and effectiveness associated with consolidating the two activities; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to extend the term of the Agreement with Mayo for a period
of one year, with an option for such future extensions as may be required to evaluate the costs,
benefits, services and other options associated with incorporating the Health Risk Assessment
with various Employee Onsite Medical Clinical models; and
WHEREAS, because of the time and resources required to complete a competitive
process, the Purchasing Agent has determined that a competitive process cannot reasonably be
used prior to the extended expiration of the current agreement with Mayo and, if used, would
result in substantially higher cost to the City and may result in the impairment of the City’s
administrative functions, and the Purchasing Agent has submitted the requisite justification for
this determination to the City Manager for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed and approved the justification for this
contract extension; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-186(a) of the City Code provides that no contract for services,
including renewals, shall be made by the City for a period longer than five years, unless
authorized by ordinance.
151 of 253
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City a
one-year term extension to the Agreement with Mayo to March 31, 2015, for the employee
health wellness program, as well as the option of up to four additional one-year extensions, in
order to accommodate development of an enhanced comprehensive health wellness solution.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of September, A.D.
2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
152 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Matt Robenalt
Todd Dangerfield
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development
Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, expands the boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and amends the Plan of Development of the Authority to include a
commercially zoned property in the 800 block of Buckingham Street. The property, which includes one parcel owned
by Colorado Iron and Metal Inc. and one parcel owned by Odell Investments, LLC, is vacant land with no address.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 3, 2013
(w/o attachments)
153 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 3, 2013
STAFF: Matt Robenalt
Todd Dangerfield
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
Seco Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development
Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This purpose of this item is to expand the boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and
amend the Plan of Development of the Authority to include a commercially zoned property in the 800 block of
Buckingham Street.
The property, which includes one parcel owned by Colorado Iron and Metal Inc. and one parcel owned by Odell
Investments, LLC, is vacant land with no address.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Currently the DDA boundary includes several properties on Buckingham Street including portions of Colorado Iron and
Metal and Odell Investments properties previously petitioned for inclusion and approved by the DDA Board and City
Council. The owners’ current petitions for inclusion are a housekeeping action that will provide for the inclusion of
these two smaller parcels on Buckingham Street, left out of the original request due to a legal description error, by
adjoining them with the owners’ existing larger parcels already in the DDA Boundary.
The Buckingham Street inclusion parcels are commercially zoned, adjacent to the existing DDA boundary and eligible
for inclusion according to state statute and DDA policy. Both petitioners, GTG Investments/Colorado Iron & Metal and
Odell Brewing, have previously petitioned and the DDA Board and City Council approved the inclusion of portions of
their property into the DDA boundary in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Formal petitions from the property owners seeking inclusion are attached.
Petitioners:
1. Colorado Iron and Metal, Inc. (a Colorado corporation) Owner contact: Kent Garvin
Buckingham Street Inclusion #1 – no address (Colorado Iron and Metal)
2. Odell Investments, LLC (a Colorado limited liability company) Owner contact: Wynne O’Dell.
Buckingham Street Inclusion #2 – no address (Odell Investments)
The owners of these properties have voluntarily submitted Petitions for Inclusion of Properties (“Petitions” Exhibits A
and B) requesting that land be placed in the DDA district boundary. The criteria for inclusion of additional property into
the DDA boundary area pursuant to Section 31-25-822 has been reviewed by DDA legal counsel, adjacency to the
existing DDA Boundary and evidence of ownership of the property has been documented.
Inclusion of these properties is supported by the DDA policy for future inclusions. In 2009, the DDA Board established
a policy to guide future inclusions of property into the district. A thorough examination of land adjacent to the DDA
boundary was evaluated for compatibility with the DDA’s mission and vision, and the property associated with the
Petitioner’s request was considered acceptable because of the adjacency to other properties within the DDA boundary
154 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 3, 2013 -2- ITEM 17
and compatibility with the underlying zoning district.
This inclusion of property resulting in a boundary line adjustment will effectively amend the DDA’s Plan of
Development. The DDA Board of Directors took action on August 8, 2013 and recommended the Council amend the
Plan of Development boundary area.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There is no negative or positive fiscal impact to the City resulting from specific action to include this property into the
DDA boundary.
The Petition submitted by Colorado Iron & Metal, Inc. is a voluntary request, and this Petitioner understands that upon
inclusion into the DDA boundary the Petitioner’s property will be subject to an increase of 5 mils to the current area
mil rate of 93.312 mils, for a total of 98.312 mils. The annual net fiscal impact to the DDA is neutral from the inclusion
of this parcel because the County tax records previously included this parcel in the Colorado Iron & Metal valuation,
which became subject to the DDA five-mil levy increase in 2009. Future tax increment revenues may be realized when
the property redevelops.
The Petition submitted by Odell Investments, LLC is a voluntary request, and this Petitioner understands that upon
inclusion into the DDA Boundary the Petitioner’s property will be subject to an increase of 5 mils to the current area
mil rate of 93.312 mils, for a new total of 98.312 mils. The annual net fiscal impact to the DDA is positive and is
estimated to result in approximately $116 in new operating revenue based on the current value of the property. This
net fiscal impact estimate does not include future tax increment revenues that could be realized when the property
redevelops. The effective date of the tax liability increase resulting from the DDA mil levy will by Tax Year 2013
payable in 2014.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There is no direct impact on the environment by the proposed boundary inclusion.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors voted unanimously to recommend City Council inclusion
of the property, as requested by the property owners (“Petitioners”), located in the 800 block of Buckingham Street
into the DDA boundary area at its regular meeting on August 8, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map showing entire DDA Boundary including proposed inclusion.
2. Location map showing aerial view of proposed Buckingham Street inclusion.
3. Resolution 2013-10 of the Board of Directors of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, including
Exhibits A-D.
155 of 253
ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND AMENDING THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1981, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 046, 1981, creating
the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority (the “Authority”) and establishing
the boundaries of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1981, by Resolution 1981-129, the City Council approved the
Authority’s plan of development (the “Plan of Development”), which also describes the boundaries
of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-25-822, C.R.S., subsequent to the organization of a
downtown development authority, additional property may be included in the district of the
authority, pursuant to a petition signed by the owner or owners in fee of each parcel of land sought
to the included; and
WHEREAS, if the Board of Directors of the Authority (the “Board”) approves an application
to expand the boundaries of the Authority, the Board is to then submit the application to the City
Council and, if the City Council also approves the application, it is to amend the ordinance creating
the Authority so as to include the additional property as described in the petition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, on fifteen previous occasions, amended Ordinance No.
046, 1981, by the adoption of the following ordinances: Ordinance No. 162, 1981; Ordinance No.
002, 1982; Ordinance No. 002, 1993; Ordinance No. 199, 1998; Ordinance No. 148, 2000;
Ordinance No. 038, 2004; Ordinance No. 067, 2004; Ordinance No. 099, 2005; Ordinance No. 035,
2008; Ordinance No. 067, 2008; Ordinance No. 080, 2009; Ordinance No. 022, 2010; Ordinance No.
045, 2013; Ordinance No. 049, 2013; and Ordinance No. 104, 2013 (the “Amending Ordinances”);
and
WHEREAS, the Board has received a petition for the inclusion of two parcels of property
into the boundaries of the Authority from the fee owners thereof; and
WHEREAS, the legal description and the name of the fee owner of each property which is
the subject of a petition for inclusion referred to herein (referred to collectively herein as the
“Properties”) are set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the addition of the Properties into the Authority
boundaries would further the objectives and purposes of the Authority as contained in the Plan of
Development and has, by Resolution 2013-010, recommended approval of the inclusion of such
Properties by the City Council.
156 of 253
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves the inclusion of the following
Properties into the boundaries of the Authority and finds that such inclusion is in the best interests
of the City and will not substantially modify the Plan of Development:
Legal Description of Property No. 1:
A parcel of land being part of that parcel of land described in that Special Warranty
Deed recorded March 12, 2012 as Reception No. 20120016119 of the records of the
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, also being part of Lot 23, Replat of North
Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing, recorded October 14, 1981 as Reception No.
432424 of the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, located in the
Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section Twelve (12), Township Seven North (T.7N),
Range Sixty-nine West (R.69W), of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), City of
Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the most Northerly Northeast corner of that parcel of land described
in said Special Warranty Deed, said point lying on the North line of said Lot 23, and
assuming the most Northerly line of that parcel of land described in said Special
Warranty Deed and the North line of said Lot 23 as bearing South 90º00’00” West,
with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE South 00º00’00” West along the Easterly line of that parcel of land
described in said Special Warranty Deed a distance of 266.33 feet to the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 23; THENCE North 47º03’00” West along the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 23 a distance of 105.27 feet to the Westerly line of
that parcel of land described in said Special Warranty Deed; THENCE North
00º00’00” East along the Westerly line of that parcel of land described in said
Special Warranty Deed a distance of 194.61 feet to the Northwest corner of that
parcel of land described in said Special Warranty Deed, said point lying on the North
line of said Lot 23; THENCE North 90º00’00” East along the most Northerly line
of that parcel of land described in said Special Warranty Deed, also being along the
North line of said Lot 23, a distance of 77.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said described parcel of land contains 17,758 sq. ft., or 0.408 acre, more or less (±),
and may be subject to any rights-of-way or other easements of record or as now
existing on said described parcel of land.
Also described in the records of the Assessor of Larimer County, Colorado as a
portion of Parcel No. 97121-00-052.
-2-
157 of 253
Legal Description of Property No. 2:
A portion of Lot 23, Replat of North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing, located in
Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins,
Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of Lot 23, Replat of North Lemay
Subdivision, Second Filing; thence run S 47º03’00” E along the south line of said
Lot 23 for a distance of 285.62 feet; thence run N 00º00’00” E for a distance of
194.61 feet to the north line of said Lot 23; thence N 90º00’00” W along said north
line for a distance of 209.06 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 20,342 square feet (0.47 acres), more or less, and subject to all easements
and rights of way of record.
Also described in the records of the Larimer County Assessor as Parcel No. 97121-
12-024.
Section 2. That Section 3 of Ordinance No. 046, 1981 (as amended by the Amending
Ordinances) be, and hereby is, further amended by deleting the legal description contained therein,
which description establishes the boundaries of the Authority, and by substituting the following
therefor:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE AVENUE AND
LAUREL STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF LAUREL STREET
TO THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE
SAID CENTERLINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET, TO THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 60 FEET OF LOT 13, BLOCK 116; THENCE EASTERLY TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 60 FEET OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MASON STREET, 10 FEET;
THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL WITH LAUREL STREET, 50.0 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH MASON STREET, 140.0 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF LAUREL STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID RIGHT OF WAY
LINE TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN THE SAID
BLOCK 116; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT 12 BLOCK 116; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF AN EAST WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 116 TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE
60.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY TO THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE TO THE WESTERLY EXTENSION
OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 37.50 FEET OF LOT 11 BLOCK 116; THENCE
EASTERLY TO THE SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF THE SAID EAST WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 116; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE
SAID NORTH LINE, TO THE SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE NORTH SOUTH
ALLEY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE NORTH 37.50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOT 10 BLOCK 116; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE AND ITS WESTERLY EXTENSION TO THE
WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG
THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 5 BLOCK 106 HARRISON’S
ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 5 AND ITS
-3-
158 of 253
EXTENSION TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 60 FEET OF LOT 6 BLOCK 106; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
WEST MYRTLE STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE
WEST LINE OF THE EAST 65 FEET OF THE SAID LOT 5 BLOCK 106; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 90 FEET OF THE SAID
LOT 5 BLOCK 106; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE SAID
WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH MASON STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG
THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WEST MYRTLE
STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE TO A LINE WHICH IS 58
FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 9 BLOCK 116 HARRISON’S
ADDITION; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE SAID LOT 9; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF AN EAST WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 116 TO THE SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
THE NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 116; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID
WEST LINE TO THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WEST MYRTLE STREET;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
74.00 FEET OF LOT 8 BLOCK 116; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EXTENDED LINE
OF THE SAID EAST 74.00 FEET OF LOT 8 TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE SAID WEST
MYRTLE STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE TO THE
NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE SAID NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN
BLOCK 116; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE SAID CENTERLINE
OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 116 AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION THROUGH BLOCK 115
HARRISON’S ADDITION, TO THE CENTER 0F MULBERRY STREET; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF MASON STREET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 1, BLOCK 105,
HARRISON’S ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY EXTENSION
AND ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF
SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, AND ITS
EXTENSION, AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 105 HARRISON’S ADDITION
AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE CENTER LINE OF MULBERRY STREET; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF MULBERRY STREET
AND HOWES STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF HOWES
STREET TO THE CENTERLINE OF LAUREL STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF LAUREL STREET TO THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE
CENTERLINE OF THE NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCKS 96 AND 95 HARRISON’S
ADDITION; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EXTENSION AND ALONG THE SAID
CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF
OF LOT 10 BLOCK 96 HARRISON’S ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID
EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF MELDRUM
STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE, TO THE NORTH LINE OF
THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 9 BLOCK 96 HARRISON’S ADDITION; THENCE EASTERLY
ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE
NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCKS 96 AND 95 HARRISON’S ADDITION; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE, TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 6 BLOCK 95 HARRISON’S ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
THE SAID EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF
MELDRUM STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE TO THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SAID LOT 6 BLOCK 95; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID
NORTH LINE AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE NORTH SOUTH
ALLEY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF
MULBERRY STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF MULBERRY
STREET TO THE CENTERLINE OF HOWES STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE
INTERSECTION OF HOWES STREET AND MAGNOLIA STREET; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF MAGNOLIA STREET AND
MELDRUM STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE
-4-
159 of 253
INTERSECTION OF MELDRUM STREET AND MULBERRY STREET; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF MULBERRY STREET AND
WHITCOMB STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE
INTERSECTION OF WHITCOMB STREET AND MAGNOLIA STREET; THENCE EASTERLY
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF MAGNOLIA STREET, SHERWOOD
STREET, AND CANYON AVENUE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE
OF CANYON AVENUE TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTERLINE AND THE LOT LINE
BETWEEN LOT 5 AND LOT 6 OF BLOCK 83 EXTENDED; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID LOT LINE 123.1 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 86 FEET TO A POINT 50
FEET EASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 83; THENCE NORTHERLY
50 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF OLIVE STREET; THENCE EASTERLY TO THE
INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF OLIVE STREET, AND THE EXTENSION OF
CENTERLINE OF ALLEY IN BLOCK 82; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG ALLEY
CENTERLINES THROUGH BLOCKS 82, 81, TO THE CENTERLINE OF MOUNTAIN AVENUE;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID
CENTERLINE AND CENTERLINE OF SHERWOOD STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG
SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF A LINE 1-1/2 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH
LINE OF LOT 14, BLOCK 51 AND THE CENTERLINE OF SHERWOOD STREET; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID LINE 1-1/2 FEET NORTH OF SAID LOT 14 TO THE
CENTERLINE OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 51; THENCE SOUTHERLY TO
THE INTERSECTION OF ALLEY CENTERLINE AND NORTH LOT LINE OF LOT 5, BLOCK
51 EXTENDED; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID LOT LINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF
MELDRUM STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, TO THE CENTERLINE
OF SHERWOOD STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ON SAID CENTERLINE TO THE
INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND SHERWOOD STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCKS 55, 45, AND 35 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK
35; THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 26; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 26, TO THE CENTERLINE OF COLLEGE
AVENUE; THENCE CONTINUING EASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF VINE DRIVE
TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 12; THENCE NORTHERLY
TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 12, T7N, R69W OF THE SIXTH P.M.; THENCE
(CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH RANGE 69 WEST AS BEARING S89°58'19"E AND WITH THE FOLLOWING
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO) SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 12, S00°07'56"W 46.77 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EXISTING NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST VINE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID
EXISTING NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N88°18'14"E 602.54 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF LOT 1, LARIMER COUNTY SHOPS MINOR SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG
THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LARIMER COUNTY SHOPS MINOR SUBDIVISION,
N01°16'55"W 208.11 FEET, AND AGAIN S85°23'42"W 65.98 FEET, AND AGAIN N55°34'00"W
253.90 FEET, AND AGAIN N18°51'00"E 34.17 FEET, AND AGAIN N73°33'44"E 105.85 FEET,
AND AGAIN N12°50'18"E 71.56 FEET, AND AGAIN N10°20'00"W 42.66 FEET, AND AGAIN
N41°50'00"W 84.01 FEET, AND AGAIN N51°15'00"W 193.28 FEET, AND AGAIN N67°26'23"W
74.87 FEET; THENCE N18°50'30"E 108.60 FEET; THENCE N89°59'13"E 1484.20 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST
LINE, S00°00'00"E 533.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID ALTA VISTA
SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION,
N86°47'41"E 140.22 FEET, AND AGAIN N80°04'26"E 40.61 FEET, AND AGAIN N87°42'34"E
125.10 FEET, AND AGAIN N70°02'35"E 120.45 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING
WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ALTA VISTA STREET AS RECORDED IN THE LARIMER
COUNTY RECORDS IN BOOK 2024 AT PAGE 845; THENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING
WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S67°39'55"E 180.15 FEET, AND AGAIN S00°01'55"E
244.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST VINE
-5-
160 of 253
DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N88°18'14"E
341.16 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH
LEMAY AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
S00°01'59"E 581.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT A, EAST VINE STREETS
FACILITY P.U.D.; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST VINE STREETS
FACILITY P.U.D., S88°18'24"W 20.03 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, NEW
BELGIUM BREWERY THIRD FILING; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2
AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, S00°01'59"E 805.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EXISTING SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BUCKINGHAM STREET; THENCE ALONG
THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2 OF THE SECOND REPLAT OF
NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID
EAST LINE, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID LOT 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID LOT 2 TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID LOT 2; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF
BUCKINGHAM STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY
TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PLAT OF VANWORKS SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT
CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN A WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AT
RECEPTION NO. 20080043084 LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE, WESTERLY TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID VANWORKS
SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE
AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, PATRICK
SUBDIVISION FIRST FILING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID LOT 2
AND ITS WESTERLY EXTENSION, TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF THIRD STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EXISTING EAST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
BUCKINGHAM STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID EXISTING SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SAID
SECTION 12; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SAID
SECTION 12 TO THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF
EAST LINCOLN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST
LINCOLN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2, ODELL
BREWING COMPANY SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID LOT 2, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID LOT 2; THENCE ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SAID LOT 2 AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 1, ODELL
BREWING COMPANY SUBDIVISION, EASTERLY TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID LOT 1, SOUTHERLY TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SAID LOT 1 AND TO THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF
EAST LINCOLN AVENUE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF
WAY OF EAST LINCOLN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2 OF THE
REPLAT OF NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING; THENCE NORTHERLY
ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID LOT 2; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 2 AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT
3 OF THE REPLAT OF NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
OF LEMAY AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY TO THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST LINCOLN AVENUE; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTHERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE,
SOUTHERLY TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUFFALO RUN APARTMENTS
P.U.D.; THENCE (CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 7 TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH RANGE 69 WEST, AS BEARING NORTH 00
DEGREES 34 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST AND WITH THE FOLLOWING BEARINGS
CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO), RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
BUFFALO RUN APARTMENTS P.U.D. THE NEXT FIVE (5) COURSES: 1) NORTH 72
-6-
161 of 253
DEGREES 53 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 93.02 FEET; 2) ALONG THE
ARC OF A 465.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 38 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 55 SECONDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 313.19 FEET HAVING
A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 87 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 307.32 FEET; 3) SOUTH 68 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 498.09 FEET; 4) ALONG THE ARC OF A 134.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO
THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34 DEGREES, 58 MINUTES 05 SECONDS; AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 82.09 FEET, HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 86 DEGREES 02
MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 80.82 FEET; 5) NORTH 80 DEGREES 27
MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND ITS EASTERLY
EXTENSION, A DISTANCE OF 114.77 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND
DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 89022270; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38 MINUTES OO
SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 679.49 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
89 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 120.53 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 921.52 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 205.59
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
136.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE
OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 208.73 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY
14, AND A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, THENCE RUNNING
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE THE NEXT TWO (2) COURSES; 1) ALONG THE ARC OF A
CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 18
SECONDS HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,585 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 14.48 FEET, A
CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 89 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE
OF 14.48 FEET; 2) NORTH 89 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
645.85 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTH LINE AND THE EAST RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST MULBERRY STREET, WESTERLY TO THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SAID SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE SAID
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE, NORTHERLY TO THE SOUTH
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SAID EAST LINCOLN AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE SAID
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST LINCOLN AVENUE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 94091198; THENCE
(CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12
AS BEARING NORTH 89°29'04" WEST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
RELATIVE THERETO) ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID RECEPTION
NO. 94091198 THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1) SOUTH 10° 44' 56" WEST,
314.08 FEET; 2) SOUTH 71° 25' 09" EAST, 198.03 FEET; 3) NORTH 87° 59' 46" EAST, 138.53
FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH LEMAY AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING 6 COURSES AND
DISTANCES: 1) BEGINNING WITH A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25° 27' 37", A RADIUS OF 930.93 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 413.68
FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 10° 56' 48" EAST, 410.28 FEET; 2)
SOUTH 01° 47' 03" WEST, 1519.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THAT TRACT
OF LAND DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 20050097395; 3) ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID TRACT, SOUTH 05° 25' 37" WEST, 59.94 FEET; 4) CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID TRACT, SOUTH 02° 03' 31" WEST, 64.95 FEET; 5) CONTINUING ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT, ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 18' 36", A RADIUS OF 299.50 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 90.48
FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 10° 42' 48" WEST, 90.14 FEET; 6)
CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT, SOUTH 19° 22' 04" WEST, 13.69
FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF EAST MULBERRY STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1) NORTH 89° 47' 09" WEST, 205.09
FEET; 2) NORTH 89° 38' 44" WEST, 127.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2,
SPRINGER THIRD SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
-7-
162 of 253
2 THE FOLLOWING 4 COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1) BEGINNING WITH A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30° 50' 23", A RADIUS OF
1013.60 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 545.58 FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
NORTH 19° 18' 37" WEST, 539.01 FEET; 2) ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHEAST HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04° 42' 22", A RADIUS OF 487.50 FEET, AN
ARC LENGTH OF 40.04 FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 32° 23' 02"
WEST, 40.03 FEET; 3) ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 56' 38", A RADIUS OF 512.50 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 124.73
FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 36° 59' 47" WEST, 124.42 FEET; 4)
ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°
36' 28", A RADIUS OF 1023.60 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 10.86 FEET, AND THE CHORD
OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 44° 16' 20" WEST, 10.86 FEET TO THE NORTH CORNER OF SAID
LOT 2; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SOUTH 22° 29' 42"
WEST, 24.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT OF
LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 883, PAGE 318; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
LINE THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1) BEGINNING WITH A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 52' 11", A RADIUS
OF 998.60 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 259.16 FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
NORTH 51° 43' 42" WEST, 258.43 FEET; 2) NORTH 59° 09' 48" WEST, 276.50 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 883, PAGE 318;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT OF LAND, SOUTH 00° 20' 12" WEST,
239.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT NO.1 SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE THE FOLLOWING 4
COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1) NORTH 53° 16' 04" WEST, 5.70 FEET; 2) NORTH 79° 09' 04"
WEST, 251.50 FEET; 3) NORTH 88° 17' 04" WEST, 452.30 FEET; 4) SOUTH 41° 12' 56" WEST,
89.29 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 79° 27' 04" WEST, 590.41 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 09° 34' 10"
EAST, 985.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN MINOR SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BALDWIN MINOR SUBDIVISION, NORTH 09°
34' 10" EAST, 773.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST LINCOLN
AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST LINCOLN
AVENUE, WESTERLY TO THE EAST LINE OF THE PLAT OF IN-SITU SUBDIVISION AS
RECORDED FEBRUARY 6, 2004 AT RECEPTION NO. 20040011665 RECORDS OF THE
CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
THE SAID IN-SITU SUBDIVISION SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID IN-SITU SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE SAID IN-SITU SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID IN-SITU
SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE OF THE IN-SITU SUBDIVISION,
NORTHERLY TO THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST LINCOLN AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY, WESTERLY TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY BANK OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER; THENCE ALONG THE
SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BANK OF THE RIVER, SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAID EAST LINE OF WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 12; THENCE
ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 12, SOUTHERLY TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RIVERSIDE AVENUE AS ORIGINALLY PLATTED;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MULBERRY STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RIVERSIDE
AVENUE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MOUNTAIN AVENUE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4
OF BLOCK 141; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LOT LINE TO THE CENTER OF THE
ALLEY IN BLOCK 141; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG CENTER OF SAID ALLEY TO A
POINT 20 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17, BLOCK 141; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 20 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE EAST
LINE OF SAID LOT 17, AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF
WAY OF EAST OAK STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF
-8-
163 of 253
WAY TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF PETERSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST OLIVE
STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EAST
RIGHT OF WAY OF MATHEWS STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EAST
RIGHT OF WAY TO THE CENTERLINE OF EAST OAK STREET; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF OAK STREET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID
CENTERLINE AND THE EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE OF AN ALLEY IN BLOCK 132;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ALLEY TO THE WESTERLY
EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT TWO OAKPARK PUD; THENCE EASTERLY
ALONG THE SAID EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID TRACT
TWO TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF MATHEWS STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID TRACT TWO
OAKPARK PUD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE AND ITS
EXTENSION TO THE SAID CENTERLINE OF THE NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 132;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID ALLEY T0 A POINT 10 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH
LINE OF LOT 2 TO THE CENTERLINE OF MATHEWS STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF MATHEWS STREET TO THE CENTERLINE OF OLIVE
STREET; THENCE EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE TO A POINT OPPOSITE THE EAST
LINE OF LOT 8, BLOCK 143; THENCE SOUTH TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE EAST WEST
ALLEY IN BLOCK 143; THENCE WEST TO THE CENTERLINE OF MATHEWS STREET;
THENCE SOUTH TO A POINT OPPOSITE THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 4, BLOCK 133;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 4 TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE
NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 133; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID ALLEY TO
THE CENTERLINE OF EAST OLIVE STREET; THENCE WESTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION
OF EAST OLIVE STREET AND REMINGTON STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE TO A POINT OPPOSITE THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 15, BLOCK 133; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 15 TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE NORTH-
SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 133; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID ALLEY TO THE
CENTERLINE OF EAST MAGNOLIA STREET; THENCE WESTERLY TO THE
INTERSECTION OF EAST MAGNOLIA STREET AND REMINGTON STREET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF REMINGTON
STREET AND MULBERRY STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF
MULBERRY STREET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EXTENSION OF THE CENTERLINE
OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 125; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON THE CENTERLINE OF ALLEYS
THROUGH BLOCKS 125 AND 126 TO THE CENTERLINE OF LAUREL STREET; THENCE
WESTERLY ON SAID CENTERLINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Section 3. That the Plan of Development is hereby amended by the City Council so as
to delete the legal description of the boundaries of the Authority, and to substitute therefor the legal
description contained in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
-9-
164 of 253
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of September, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-10-
165 of 253
Exhibit “A”
Legal Descriptions and Fee Owners of Properties
To be included in District
Legal Description of Property No. 1:
A parcel of land being part of that parcel of land described in that Special
Warranty Deed recorded March 12, 2012 as Reception No. 20120016119 of the
records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, also being part of Lot 23,
Replat of North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing, recorded October 14, 1981 as
Reception No. 432424 of the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder,
located in the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section Twelve (12), Township Seven
North (T.7N), Range Sixty-nine West (R.69W), of the Sixth Principal Meridian
(6th P.M.), City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the most Northerly Northeast corner of that parcel of land
described in said Special Warranty Deed, said point lying on the North line of said
Lot 23, and assuming the most Northerly line of that parcel of land described in
said Special Warranty Deed and the North line of said Lot 23 as bearing South
90º00’00” West, with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE South 00º00’00” West along the Easterly line of that parcel of land
described in said Special Warranty Deed a distance of 266.33 feet to the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 23; THENCE North 47º03’00” West along the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 23 a distance of 105.27 feet to the Westerly line of
that parcel of land described in said Special Warranty Deed; THENCE North
00º00’00” East along the Westerly line of that parcel of land described in said
Special Warranty Deed a distance of 194.61 feet to the Northwest corner of that
parcel of land described in said Special Warranty Deed, said point lying on the
North line of said Lot 23; THENCE North 90º00’00” East along the most
Northerly line of that parcel of land described in said Special Warranty Deed, also
being along the North line of said Lot 23, a distance of 77.05 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING.
Said described parcel of land contains 17,758 sq. ft., or 0.408 acre, more or less
(±), and may be subject to any rights-of-way or other easements of record or as
now existing on said described parcel of land.
Also described in the records of the Assessor of Larimer County, Colorado as a
portion of Parcel No. 97121-00-052.
Fee Owner: Colorado Iron and Metal, Inc.
166 of 253
Legal Description of Property No. 2:
A portion of Lot 23, Replat of North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing, located
in Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort
Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of Lot 23, Replat of North Lemay
Subdivision, Second Filing; thence run S 47º03’00” E along the south line of said
Lot 23 for a distance of 285.62 feet; thence run N 00º00’00” E for a distance of
194.61 feet to the north line of said Lot 23; thence N 90º00’00” W along said
north line for a distance of 209.06 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 20,342 square feet (0.47 acres), more or less, and subject to all
easements and rights of way of record.
Also described in the records of the Larimer County Assessor as Parcel No.
97121-12-024.
Fee Owner: Odell Investments, L.L.C.
167 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz, Craig Foreman
Marty Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013, Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of an Access Easement
on City Property to 201 S College, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, authorizes the conveyance of a patio
lease and a permanent access easement on Oak Street Plaza to the 201 S. College, LLC owners of the lower level
of Old Post Office Building adjacent to the park. The owner of the lower unit of the building has requested a patio
lease on a portion of the City property adjacent to the north side of their building in anticipation of leasing the unit as
a restaurant. The lease area will be used by the unit owner and their tenant for dining and art display purposes only
and will be limited to a 10-year term with an option to renew for up to two (2) additional 5-year terms. In addition, the
owner has requested an access easement across the park leading from their north entrances out to College Avenue.
This access easement will provide the owner and their tenant legal access in and out of the lower unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 3, 2013
(w/o attachments)
168 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 3, 2013
STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz, Craig Foreman
Marty Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2013, Authorizing a Patio Lease and Conveyance of an Access Easement on City
Property to 201 S College, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to authorize the conveyance of a patio lease and a permanent access easement on Oak
Street Plaza to the owners of the Old Post Office Building adjacent to the park.
201 S College, LLC is the owner of the lower level of the building located at 201 South College Avenue, also known
as the Old Post Office Building. The building also houses the Museum of Contemporary Art on the main floor. The
building is located directly adjacent to Oak Street Plaza Park. The owner of the lower unit of the building has
requested a patio lease on a portion of the City property adjacent to the north side of their building in anticipation of
leasing the unit as a restaurant. The lease area will be used by the unit owner and their tenant for dining and art
display purposes only and will be limited to a 10-year term with an option to renew for up to two (2) additional 5-year
terms. In addition, the owner has requested an access easement across the park leading from their north entrances
out to College Avenue. This access easement will provide the owner and their tenant legal access in and out of the
lower unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The building at 201 South College is historically known as the “Old Post Office Building” and is located south of the
Oak Street Plaza Park (the “Park”). This entire building was owned by the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art
prior to being converted into three condominium units in 2012. The Museum of Contemporary Art continues to own
and occupy the main floor, and the lower unit and upper unit were sold to 201 S College, LLC.
Patio Easement
201 S College, LLC, represented by Brinkman Partners (“Brinkman”), has requested a patio lease adjacent to its
building for use by the owner and its future restaurant tenant. The future tenant, Blue Agave Restaurant, will use the
patio easement area for dining and art display purposes only.
The existing area of the proposed patio is currently occupied by landscaping and sidewalk improvements owned and
maintained by the City. The proposal presented by Brinkman would be to convert this area into a gated and fenced
patio dining area. The owner would be responsible for all patio and landscaping improvements installation and
maintenance, snow removal, cleaning, and general maintenance of the patio area. The City would reserve the right
to terminate the lease should the City receive complaints regarding noise and/or nuisances. The City may also
terminate the lease should the use of the patio area change from the intended use.
Parks Department staff has met on site with Brinkman to discuss the proposed patio improvements and use. City staff
determined that the proposal will not interfere with the use of the remaining property or negatively impact the aesthetics
of the Park; however, Parks staff recommends that the easement be limited to a 10-year term with the option to renew
for up to two (2) additional 5-year terms. Renewal will be by mutual agreement. At the end of the term of the
easement, the City will become the owner of the patio improvements and Brinkman would be required to leave the
area in a condition comparable or better than the adjacent Park.
169 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 3, 2013 -2- ITEM 18
Access Easement
The main entrances to the lower level of the building located at 201 South College Avenue are both located on the
north face of the building leading out to the Park. The boundary for the Park extends to the edge of the building face.
In 2006, Oak Street right-of-way was vacated in the area of the Park and the land reverted to the neighboring property
owners. The owners then agreed to convey the Park property back to the City so the City would be the fee owner of
the entire Park. MOCA also agreed to convey to the City a strip of land between the former right-of-way and the wall
of the Old Post Office building, from the northwest corner of the building, along the north wall, and around the northeast
corner of the building to the main stairs. It was not apparent at the time of this conveyance that the future users of the
lower level of the Old Post Office Building would require access across the Park to reach the nearby public rights-of-
way of Oak Street and College Avenue. Since the building is now separate condominium units, this has created a lack
of legal access for the owner of the lower unit of the building. This was not the intent of the City when the conveyance
in 2006 was completed. As such, City staff has determined it necessary to convey a permanent access easement
across the Park for the users of the lower level of the building. Since the access route across the park to the lower
unit could vary, Staff is proposing the access easement cover the entire Park. The access easement will cross
existing sidewalk areas and will not require any modifications or improvements to be made. The main purpose of this
conveyance will be to legally establish an access to the lower unit since it was not reserved at the time of the original
conveyance to the City in 2006. Parks staff has determined that the conveyance of this easement will not negatively
impact the property or interfere with the intended use of this area of the Park.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The owner will pay Real Estate Services a fee of $1,000 for staff time for processing the easement request.
Real Estate Services (“RES”) has estimated the lease value for the land of the Oak Street Plaza property to be
approximately $3,300 per year for the 797 square foot lease area. RES arrived at this value after consulting with the
Larimer County Assessor’s Office and a local real estate appraiser.
For the conveyance of the access easement, City staff recommends the City convey this easement at no cost due to
the fact that this access right should have been reserved in the original conveyance of the property to the City in 2006.
In conclusion, the total compensation for the easement is calculated as follows:
Real Estate Services Processing Fee: $1,000
Patio Lease: $3,300 per year
Permanent Access Easement: $0
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
2. Patio Lease area detail
170 of 253
ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING A PATIO LEASE AND CONVEYANCE OF AN ACCESS
EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY TO 201 S COLLEGE, LLC
WHEREAS, in the mid 1970s a portion of Oak Street directly west of College Avenue
was closed to vehicular traffic and converted into a pedestrian plaza (the “Plaza”); and
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City entered into an agreement with the property owners
adjacent to the Plaza; and
WHEREAS, under the agreement, the adjacent owners agreed that if the City vacated the
right-of-way underlying the Plaza, the owners would convey the vacated right-of-way back to
the City, so that the City would own the fee simple title to the Plaza and could manage it as an
urban park instead of as right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, in 2006 the City Council passed ordinance No. 134, 2006, vacating that
portion of Oak Street; and
WHEREAS, the adjacent property owners, the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary
Art (“MCA”) on the south and the Nojoumi family on the north, then conveyed the vacated
right-of-way back to the City; and
WHEREAS, in a separate transaction, MCA also conveyed to the City a strip of land
between the north wall of MCA’s building at 201 South College (the “Old Post Office”) and the
former right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the property now owned by the City and known as Oak Street Plaza Park is
described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by this reference (the “City
Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Old Post Office has since been sold and converted into three
condominium units; and
WHEREAS, 201 S College, LLC, (the “Owner”) is the owner of the lower unit of the Old
Post Office, described as Unit 100, Old Post Office Condos (the “Owner’s Property”), located
adjacent to the City Property; and
WHEREAS, the Owner’s Property is accessible through two doors in the lower level of
the Old Post Office, one near the northwest corner of the building, and the other at the northeast
corner of the building; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested a patio lease (the “Lease”) on the City Property, in
the area outside of the northwest door, for the benefit of a future restaurant tenant; and
171 of 253
WHEREAS, the area the Owner wishes to lease consists of 797 square feet, as described
on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Lease Area”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lease Area will consist of a fenced and gated patio area that
would be used for dining, landscaping and art display purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Owner would pay the City $3,300.00 per year as rent for the Lease Area
and a one-time fee of $1,000 for staff processing time; and
WHEREAS, the lease term would be for a period of ten years with an option to renew for
two additional 5-year terms; and
WHEREAS, the lease would be terminable by the City if the City observes or receives
complaints about noise or nuisance problems in the Lease Area that the Owner does not
satisfactorily control, or if the Owner’s Property is rented for some purpose other than a
restaurant; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has also requested an access easement over the City Property to
provide legal access from the public rights-of-way across the City Property to the entrances to
the Owner’s Property; and
WHEREAS, the Access Easement will cover the entire City Property, as it is not
reasonable to expect the Owner and the Owner’s tenants and invitees to follow a particular path
across the City Property to reach the Owner’s Property; and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the Owner not be charged for the
conveyance of the Access Easement, as it was not the City’s intent to eliminate the legal access
to the Owner’s Property when MCA conveyed its portion of the City Property to the City in
2006, and it would have been appropriate for MCA to reserve an access easement from that
conveyance; and
WHEREAS, the Access Easement will not create any impact on the City Property that is
different from or greater than the current use by the general public; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is
authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in
the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or
other disposition is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the leasing of the Lease Area and the conveyance of the Access
Easement on the City Property to 201 S College, LLC, as provided herein are in the best interests
of the City, as the City will receive revenue from the lease of the Lease Area.
-2-
172 of 253
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a negotiated lease
agreement for the Lease Area and such documents as are necessary to convey the Access
Easement to 201 S College, LLC, on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance,
together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the
City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City,
including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Lease Area
or the Access Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change
the character of the Lease Area or Access Easement.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of September, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
173 of 253
Exhibit “A”
City Property Description
That portion of the east 134.00 feet of Oak Street, lying west of the West Right of Way line of
College Avenue and abutting that portion of Lot 16, Block 112, City of Fort Collins, Larimer
County, Colorado that is owned by Grantor, from the northern lot line of Lot 16 to the centerline
of Oak Street, as shown on the Original Plat of the City of Fort Collins, in Larimer County, State
of Colorado.
AND ALSO:
The east 134.00 feet of Oak Street, lying west of the West Right of Way line of College Avenue
and abutting Lot 1, Block 111, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, as shown on the
Original Plat of the City of Fort Collins, from the southern lot line of Lot 1 to the centerline of
Oak Street, in Larimer County, State of Colorado.
AND ALSO:
Two tracts of land located in the Southeast quarter of Section 11, Township 7 North, Range 69
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, the said
tracts are also located in Lots 13 thru 16 of Block 112 City of Fort Collins, being more
particularly described as follows;
Considering the east line of the said Block 112 as bearing South 00 degrees 19 minutes 02
seconds West based upon found 7 feet by 7 feet brass cap block corner off-sets, GPS observation
and City of Fort Collins coordinate base, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto;
Commencing at the northeast corner of Block 112;
THENCE along the north line of the said Block 112, North 89 degrees 39 minutes 01 seconds
West for a distance of 82.85 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS
DESCRIPTION;
THENCE continuing along the said north line of Block 112, North 89 degrees 39 minutes 01
seconds West for a distance of 51.11 feet;
THENCE leaving the said north line, South 00 degrees 19 minutes 02 seconds West for a
distance of 11.66 feet to the westerly extension of the north line of the granite face of the existing
building (being the old Post Office building) on the said Lots 13 thru 16 Block 112;
THENCE along the said westerly extension, South 89 degrees 47 minutes 38 seconds East for a
distance of 7.03 feet;
THENCE leaving the said extension, North 00 degrees 12 minutes 22 seconds East for a distance
of 2.00 feet;
THENCE South 89 degrees 47 minutes 38 seconds East for a distance of 11.64 feet;
THENCE South 00 degrees 12 minutes 22 seconds West for a distance of 2.00 feet to the said
north building face;
THENCE along the said building face, South 89 degrees 47 minutes 38 seconds East for a
distance of 32.51 feet;
174 of 253
THENCE leaving the said building face, North 00 degrees 03 minutes 13 seconds West for a
distance of 11.53 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 570 square feet more or less.
TOGETHER WITH:
With the above described basis of bearings;
Commencing at the said northeast corner of Block 112, the said northeast corner is also the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE along the east line of the said Block 112, South 00 degrees19 minutes 02 seconds
West for a distance of 34.54 feet;
THENCE leaving the said east line, North 89 degrees 40 minutes 58 seconds West for a distance
of 2.69 feet;
THENCE South 00 degrees 20 minutes 11 seconds West for a distance of 2.41 feet;
THENCE North 89 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West for a distance of 19.30 feet;
THENCE North 00 degrees 19 minutes 09 seconds East for a distance of 27.60 feet;
THENCE North 89 degrees 47 minutes 38 seconds West for a distance of 9.32 feet
THENCE South 00 degrees 12 minutes 22 seconds West for a distance of 2.00 feet to the above
described north granite face of the existing building;
THENCE along the said north building face, North 89 degrees 47 minutes 38 seconds West for a
distance of 30.31 feet;
THENCE leaving the said building face, North 01 degrees 03 minutes 29 seconds East for a
distance of 11.48 feet to the north line of the said Block 112;
THENCE along the said north line of Block 112, South 89 degrees 39 minutes 01 seconds East
for a distance of 61.48 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1240 square feet more or less.
175 of 253
DESCRIPTION: PATIO LEASE AREA
A parcel located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of
the 6
th
P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly
described as follows:
Considering the North line of Block 112, City of Fort Collins as bearing North 89° 55’ 07” West
and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Block 112; thence along said North line, North 89°
55’ 07” West, 79.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 89° 55' 07" West, 3.36
feet; thence, South 00° 15' 35" East, 11.53 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00" West, 32.51 feet;
thence, North 00° 00' 00" West, 2.00 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00" West, 11.64 feet; thence,
South 00° 00' 00" East, 2.00 feet; thence North 90° 00' 00" West, 0.44 feet; thence along a non-
tangent curve concave to the left having a central angle of 32° 30' 49" with a radius of 17.57 feet,
an arc length of 9.97 feet and the chord of which bears North 15° 35' 17" West, 9.84 feet; thence
along a curve concave to the right having a central angle of 34° 47' 34" with a radius of 18.42
feet, an arc length of 11.18 feet and the chord of which bears North 16° 23' 10" West, 11.01 feet;
thence along a non-tangent curve concave to the right having a central angle of 28° 55' 32" with
a radius of 29.15 feet, an arc length of 14.72 feet and the chord of which bears South 81° 13' 32"
East, 14.56 feet; thence along a curve concave to the left having a central angle of 48° 10' 16"
with a radius of 22.00 feet, an arc length of 18.50 feet and the chord of which bears North 89° 09'
06" East, 17.96 feet; thence, North 65° 03' 59" East, 5.10 feet; thence, South 20° 32' 27" East,
3.93 feet; thence, North 66° 43' 10" East, 1.47 feet; thence along a non-tangent curve concave to
the left having a central angle of 90° 10' 08" with a radius of 7.76 feet, an arc length of 12.21 feet
and the chord of which bears South 73° 54' 22" East, 10.99 feet; thence along a curve concave to
the right having a central angle of 10° 37' 23" with a radius of 20.60 feet, an arc length of 3.82
feet and the chord of which bears North 62° 59' 11" East, 3.81 feet; thence along a non-tangent
line, South 00° 14' 39" West,4.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 797 square feet more or less and is subject to all
easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
7-1-13
379-027.02
Exhibit "B"
Page 1 of 2
176 of 253
Exhibit "B"
Page 2 of 2
177 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Steve Roy, Ginny Sawyer
Don Vagge
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2013, Establishing a Temporary Ban on Marijuana Establishments Within the
City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 3, 2013, establishes a temporary ban on
marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and retail
marijuana stores (collectively “marijuana establishments”) in the City of Fort Collins through March 31, 2014.
Staff has scheduled work sessions for updates on November 12, 2013 and February 11, 2014. The November work
session will focus on the results of the statewide taxation ballot question and public engagement conducted to date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 3, 2013
(w/o attachments)
178 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 3, 2013
STAFF: Steve Roy, Ginny Sawyer,
Don Vagge
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2013, Establishing a Temporary Ban on Marijuana Establishments Within the City
of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to establish a temporary ban on marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana testing facilities,
marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana stores (collectively “marijuana establishments”) in the
City of Fort Collins through March 31, 2014.
The City Council recommended proceeding with a temporary ban at a work session on July 30, 2013.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters approved Amendment 64, which allows for the licensing of marijuana
establishments in Colorado, including marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana stores.
Under Amendment 64, local municipalities have three options in regard to marijuana establishments:
(1) adopt an ordinance prohibiting them; (2) refer a prohibition question to the voters; or (3) allow them and impose
local restrictions on their time, place, manner and number.
Amendment 64 requires local municipalities to adopt an ordinance specifying the entity that is responsible for
processing applications submitted for a license to operate a marijuana establishment by October 1, 2013.
Additionally, Amendment 64 allows an applicant to apply directly to a local jurisdiction if the state fails to issue a license
by January 1, 2014, or within ninety (90) days of an application being filed.
The Colorado Department of Revenue (“DOR”) has adopted emergency rules for the regulation of the state retail
marijuana industry by the DOR’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, which are set to expire on October 1, 2013.
A question imposing an excise and sales tax on marijuana and marijuana products will appear on the November 2013
ballot.
During the July 30, 2013 work session, Council determined that having additional time to determine the degree and
extent of the state rules, to analyze the results of the November ballot question on taxation, and to conduct outreach
within the community would be beneficial. Staff is proposing a six month temporary ban to complete such efforts.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no immediate financial impacts with the exception of potential medical marijuana businesses that are
anxious to begin operations in Fort Collins. Pursuant to state law, January 1, 2014 is the earliest date that a currently
existing medical marijuana business can obtain a marijuana establishment license. Approximately nine months later,
October 1, 2014, is the earliest date that a marijuana establishment that was not a previously existing medical
marijuana business can obtain a license.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
None.
179 of 253
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 3, 2013 -2- ITEM 28
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This item has not gone to any boards or commissions.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There has not been formal public outreach; however, citizens have been contacting City Leaders with their thoughts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary. July 30, 2013
2. Powerpoint presentation
180 of 253
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 125, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY BAN ON MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the State
Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution (“Amendment 64”); and
WHEREAS, Amendment 64 allows for the licensing of marijuana cultivation facilities,
marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana
stores (collectively “marijuana establishments”); and
WHEREAS, under Article XVIII, Section 16(5)(e), local governments, including cities,
must enact an ordinance or regulation by October 1, 2013, specifying the entity that is
responsible for processing applications submitted for a license to operate a marijuana
establishment; and
WHEREAS, under Article XVIII, Section 16(5)(e)(g)&(h), if the state fails to issue a
license by January 1, 2014, or within ninety (90) days of an application being filed, an applicant
for a marijuana establishment license may submit its application directly to the City; and
WHEREAS, under Article XVIII, Section 16(5)(f), the City may prohibit the operation of
such marijuana establishments within its territorial limits; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Amendment 64, the Colorado Department of Revenue (“DOR”)
has adopted emergency rules for the regulation of the state retail marijuana industry by the
DOR’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, which rules are set to expire on October 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the DOR intends to adopt final rules prior to any marijuana establishments
opening for operation on January 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, a proposal that would impose an excise and sales tax on marijuana and
marijuana products will appear on the November 2013 ballot; and
WHEREAS, prior to making a final decision as to whether, and to what extent, the City
Council should authorize the licensing of marijuana establishments in the City, it is important
that City staff have sufficient time to formulate a recommendation to the City Council and to
develop proposed regulations after reviewing and considering the DOR’s final rules, analyzing
the outcome of the November ballot question, and conducting public outreach to determine the
desires of the adult residents in the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff believes that six months is a reasonable period of time to complete
such efforts, and has recommended that a temporary ban on marijuana establishments be
imposed by the City Council in the interim; and
181 of 253
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that such a temporary ban is in the best interests of
the City and is reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the recitals of this Ordinance are hereby adopted by the City Council
as findings of fact.
Section 2. That, for the foregoing reasons, there is hereby imposed, as of midnight
September 27, 2013, a temporary ban on the acceptance, processing, and approval of any
marijuana establishment application for any City of Fort Collins license pertaining to marijuana
establishments. This temporary ban shall automatically terminate at midnight on March 31 2013,
unless terminated earlier by the City Council or extended by the enactment of another ordinance.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall control over any conflicting ordinance of the
City, but only to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. That if any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect
the validity or constitutionality of and shall be severable from the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each
part or parts hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part or parts may be declared
unconstitutional or invalid.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of September, A.D.
2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
182 of 253
- 3 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
183 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Gerry Paul
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the
Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request approval of an agreement for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment for
the cost of $911,887. Payments under the agreement at the 2.28% interest rate will not exceed $193,489 in 2014.
Money for 2014 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2014 budget. The effect of the debt position for the
purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.67%. A competitive process was used to
select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. A 2013 Finance Department analysis of current and historical equipment
lease financing arrangements showed that lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread
between lease rate and reinvestment rate. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle
Public Finance at 2.28 % interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the agreement
to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term
of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including
the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase financing is
consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins.
All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City
realizes all cost savings.
The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in
accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community.
An "Equipment Request" justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece of fleet equipment is on file with Fleet
Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected
maintenance costs, fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been
approved in accordance with departmental procedures.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Lease-Purchase: The City's lease-purchase policy provides that:
The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment,
vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This
method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have
developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of
operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year.
The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds
equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation
by the Council each year.
184 of 253
September 17, 2013 -2- ITEM 11
Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are:
• Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment.
• Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog.
• Conserving operating reserves.
• Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life
of the equipment.
• Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease-
purchasing.
It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the
option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment.
A 2013 Finance Department analysis of current and historical equipment lease financing arrangements showed that
lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread between lease rate and reinvestment rate.
According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total
expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property;
and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the
agreements, including all optional renewal terms.
Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies
include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden.
The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following:
Streets
2011 Power Screen Chieftain 1400 1 79,200.00
7.6 yard Spreader and Tanks 1 45,609.00
Single Axle CNG Truck 1 130,000.00
6.6 yard Spreader and Tanks 1 50,099.00
Replacement Spreaders 3 56,199.00
Replacement Snow Plows 3 58,395.00
Transportation Fund Total: 419,502.00
Forestry
Variable Message Board 1 7,000.00
Forestry Equipment Total: 7,000.00
Patrol - New Officer Vehicles
Dodge Journey 1 20,410.00
Dodge Charger 1 23,902.00
Ford Police Interceptor FWD 1 26,263.00
Ford Police Interceptor FWD 1 25,603.00
Police Vehicle equipment 1 lot 27,275.00
Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 123,453.00
Investigations - New Officer Vehicle
Chevy Silverado 1500 4x4 1 28,318.00
Investigation New Officer Vehicle Total: 28,318.00
General Fund Total: 158,771.00
185 of 253
September 17, 2013 -3- ITEM 11
Information Technology
Dell Latitude E6430 Notebook 50 56,707.00
Docks – Latitude 50 7,500.00
Optiplex 7010 Desktop 200 179,476.00
Precision T3600 30 38,091.00
Logitech Keyboards 280 3,092.00
Panasonic C-53 Toughbooks 30 48,748.00
Data & Communications Fund Total: 333,614.00
Lease Total: 911,887.00
Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new replacement vehicles and equipment. Information
on replacement units is given below.
The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement. These
units are included in the financing list, above.
Department Old unit: Age:
Miles /
hours: New unit:
Disposal
of old
unit: Notes:
Streets
Spreaders
for units
2281, 2747
and 23021
16+
years
27082S,
27079S and
23021S
Auction /
recycle Due for replacement
Streets
Plows for
units 2281,
2747 ad
23021
16+
years
27079P,
27082P and
23021P
Auction/
recycle Due for replacement
Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement
vehicles arrive.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Due to improvements in emissions and engine technology, new vehicles and equipment will use less fuel and produce
fewer emissions than the units being replaced.
The new officers to be added by Police were approved by Council and vehicles must be added to accommodate the
increase in staffing levels. Those vehicles are as fuel efficient as can be provided pursuant to the needs of patrol and
investigation officers.
186 of 253
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 126, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY
LEASE-PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to provide certain real and personal
property for City purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, its
home charter and Part 8 of Article 15 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the
“Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in order to provide necessary land, buildings,
equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes, and such agreements
may include options to purchase and acquire title to such leased or rented property; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a lease-purchase proposal from Pinnacle Public
Finance to lease equipment to the City, consisting of the following vehicles and equipment (the
“Equipment”):
Streets
2011 Power Screen Chieftain 1400 1 79,200.00
7.6 yard Spreader and Tanks 1 45,609.00
Single Axle CNG Truck 1 130,000.00
6.6 yard Spreader and Tanks 1 50,099.00
Replacement Spreaders 3 56,199.00
Replacement Snow Plows 3 58,395.00
Transportation Fund Total: 419,502.00
Forestry
Variable Message Board 1 7,000.00
Forestry Equipment Total: 7,000.00
Patrol - New Officer Vehicles
Dodge Journey 1 20,410.00
Dodge Charger 1 23,902.00
Ford Police Interceptor FWD 1 26,263.00
Ford Police Interceptor FWD 1 25,603.00
Police Vehicle equipment 1 lot 27,275.00
Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 123,453.00
Investigations - New Officer Vehicle
Chevy Silverado 1500 4x4 1 28,318.00
Investigation New Officer Vehicle Total: 28,318.00
General Fund Total: 158,771.00
Information Technology
Dell Latitude E6430 Notebook 50 56,707.00
187 of 253
- 2 -
Docks – Latitude 50 7,500.00
Optiplex 7010 Desktop 200 179,476.00
Precision T3600 30 38,091.00
Logitech Keyboards 280 3,092.00
Panasonic C-53 Toughbooks 30 48,748.00
Data & Communications Fund Total: 333,614.00
Lease Total: 911,887.00
and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to
lease the above-described vehicles and equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also
providing financing for the Equipment acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the
leasing and financing of the Equipment; and
WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase
term of five years; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments to result from the proposed
arrangement will require payments by the City in the sum of $48,372.28 per quarter, and that
payments in that amount are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the
Equipment; and
WHEREAS, funds for the 2014 lease payments are included in the 2014 budget; and
WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct
or indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X
§20(4)(b) of the Colorado Constitution and may therefore be entered into without voter approval;
and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with previous appropriations
for that fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues
to be received during the fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-
purchase agreement for the above-described Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in
accordance with the following terms and provisions:
188 of 253
- 3 -
a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the
agreement through and including December 31, 2014. The agreement
shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of
five years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease
payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal
terms, shall not exceed the useful life of the property.
b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such
agreement but subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for such
payments.
c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal
terms, the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the
principal not to exceed $911,887.00, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to
2.28% per year, which is a reasonable amount.
d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on
the date of any scheduled quarterly payment during any term. The option
to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said
date and any remaining unpaid principal due after said date as to any or all
of the Equipment.
e. If the City renews the agreement for all renewal terms and makes all
payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised
the option to purchase said Equipment.
f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall
not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues.
Section 2. That the amount of Four Hundred Nineteen Thousand, Five Hundred and
Two Dollars ($419,502) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby
appropriated for expenditure in the Transportation Fund from unanticipated revenue in the
appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 3. That the amount of One Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred
and Seventy-One Dollars ($158,771) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is
hereby appropriated for expenditure in the General Fund from unanticipated revenue in the
appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions
of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 4. That the amount of Three Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand, Six Hundred
and Fourteen Dollars ($333,614) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby
appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from unanticipated revenue in
189 of 253
- 4 -
the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 5. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of
the Act is intended by the City Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions
of this Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the home rule charter of the City and shall
supersede, to the extent permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of October, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
190 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Ann Turnquist
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2013 Repealing Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code in its Entirety.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding intrusion, robbery, fire and other alarm systems is outdated and
needs to be repealed in its entirety.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code addresses intrusion, robbery, fire and other alarm systems. This Article, which
was last updated in 1972, is outdated due to the great advances in security systems technology over the years.
Systems are no longer dependant on a hard-wire type of system, which eliminates concerns over types of cables used
and cable locations.
Today, many security systems are wireless infrared, which are installed with no oversight by City departments. The
current Code requires permits and licenses to be issued by the Department of Community Development and
Neighborhood Services, a review to occur by Fort Collins Police Services, and an inspection to be conducted by
Building Services, all of which are unused and outdated provisions. Therefore, such provisions should be repealed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
191 of 253
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REPEALING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 15
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS IN ITS ENTIRETY
WHEREAS, Article II of Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding intrusion, robbery, fire
and other alarm systems was last updated in 1972; and
WHEREAS, since 1972, there have been great advances in security systems technology,
thereby eliminating the need for a hard-wire type of system; and
WHEREAS, today, many security systems are wireless infrared, which are installed with
no oversight by City departments; and
WHEREAS, the current Code requires permits and licenses to be issued by the Department
of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, a review to occur by Fort Collins Police
Services, and an inspection to be conducted by Building Services, all of which are unused and
outdated provisions; and
WHEREAS, City and Poudre Fire Authority staff recommend the repeal of Article II of
Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding burglar and security alarms in its entirety; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the repeal of this Article is in the best
interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Article II of Chapter 15 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby repealed in
its entirety.
ARTICLE II.
ALARM SYSTEMS
Division 1.
Generally
Sec. 15-16. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
Alarm business shall mean the business by any individual, partnership, corporation
or other entity engaged in selling, leasing, renting, maintaining, servicing,
repairing, testing, altering, replacing, moving or installing any alarm system in the
City or causing any alarm or alarm system to be sold, leased, maintained, serviced,
repaired, altered, replaced, moved or installed in or on any building, structure or
192 of 253
- 2 -
facility in the City or any business acting as a receiver of such alarm or alarm
system.
Alarm system shall mean any mechanical or electrical (AC/DC) device or system
which is designed or used for the detection of an unauthorized entry into a building,
structure or facility or for the detection of fire or other hazard to life or property or
used for mechanically or electronically alerting others by an externally audible or
visual signal to the commission of an unlawful act, whether installed inside or
outside a building. Devices which are exclusively audible or visible in the interior
of a building, premises, structure or area are not included within this definition or
within this Article.
Appellant shall mean a person who takes and perfects an appeal to the City Council
of any decision under this Article made by any part of the City administration.
Applicant shall mean a person who files an application for a new or renewal permit
or license as provided in this Article.
Audible alarm shall mean a device which generates an audible sound on the
premises when it is actuated.
Central station protective system shall mean a system or group of systems operated
for its customers by a person in which the operation of electrical protection circuits
and devices are transmitted, recorded on, maintained and supervised from a central
location, having trained operators and guards in attendance at all times that have the
duty to take appropriate action upon receipt of a signal or message including the
immediate relaying of messages by direct line to the communication center of Fire
Services or Police Services and meeting the requirements of, and listed by,
Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., or any other recognized testing laboratory.
Day shall mean a calendar day.
Direct line shall mean a telephone-company-supplied leased circuit or ring-down
circuit leading directly to the communications center of Fire Services, Police
Services, central station, modified central station or answering service that is for
the use only to report emergency messages and signals on a person-to-person basis.
False alarm shall mean an alarm signal necessitating response by Police Services
or Fire Services where an emergency situation does not exist.
Licensed answering service shall mean a telephone answering service which has
obtained a license from the City by meeting certain standards and paying the
required fee to operate a telephone answering service that includes the service
whereby trained employees in attendance at all times receive prerecorded voice
messages from automatic protection devices reporting an emergency at a stated
193 of 253
- 3 -
location and who have the duty to relay immediately by live voice any such
emergency message over a special trunk line to the communications center of Fire
Services or Police Services.
Maintenance contract shall mean an agreement in writing with a licensed alarm
business to perform servicing, repairing, altering, moving, installation or
maintaining of an alarm system for a certain contractual period of time.
Modified central station shall mean a central station operated for its customers by a
person with a license obtained from the City by meeting certain standards and
paying the required fee as herein specified which provides at all times monitoring
and relay services for customers in connection with automatic protection devices,
but which does not provide all the services of a central station protection system.
Notice shall mean written notice given by personal service upon the addressee or
given by United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person to be notified
at his or her last known address. Service of such notice shall be effective upon the
completion of personal service or upon the placing of the same in the custody of the
United States Postal Service.
Permittee shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation who
or which shall be granted a permit or license as provided herein, and the permittee's
agents and representatives.
Subscriber shall mean any person who purchases, leases, contracts for or otherwise
obtains an alarm system or obtains a contract for the servicing or maintenance of an
alarm system from an alarm business.
Sec. 15-17. Title; purpose.
(a) Short title. This Article shall be known and may be cited as the alarm permit
ordinance.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to establish standards and controls
concerning intrusion, robbery, fire and other alarm systems for businesses and
agents within the City, to require permits, to establish fees and to establish and
maintain effective and professional relations and communications between alarm
companies, customers, appropriate City departments and related individuals and
firms.
Sec. 15-18. Alarm committee.
The City administration is authorized to form an alarm committee composed of
representatives of Fire Services, Police Services, the Department of Community
Development and Neighborhood Services and licensed alarm businesses,
194 of 253
- 4 -
answering services and telephone company representatives which shall act as an
advisory body to the City Council to assist in determining policy concerning
alarms. All such alarm systems shall be subject to all rules, regulations, fees and
requirements set forth in this Article, except the provisions of this Article are not
applicable to audible alarms affixed to motor vehicles or trailers, other than mobile
homes, or to devices designed or used to register audible or visible alarms on the
interior only of protected buildings, structures or areas.
Sec. 15-19. Direct connections prohibited.
The City will not service such alarm systems through direct connection and the
connection with the City departments shall be terminated.
Secs. 15-20C15-30. Reserved.
Division 2.
Permit, License, Certificate of Compliance
Sec. 15-31. Required.
(a) No person shall conduct, operate or carry on an alarm business without first
applying for and receiving an alarm business permit in accordance with provisions
of this Article.
(b) No person shall engage in the business of repairing, servicing, altering,
replacing, removing, designing, maintaining, testing or installing alarm systems on
or in any building, structure or facility without first applying for and receiving a
special contractor alarm license in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(c) No person shall install an alarm or alarm system, as defined in this Article,
without first applying for and receiving a building permit as required by this
Article.
(d) Certificate of compliance for alarm systems:
(1) No person shall use an alarm or alarm system, as defined in this
Article, unless the alarm or alarm system has been inspected by the
Building Official and a certificate of compliance for the alarm system has
been issued.
(2) No person shall receive a certificate of compliance for the alarm
system or renewal of such certificate without a written maintenance
contract with a licensed alarm business who shall be responsible for
maintenance of the alarm or alarm system for the specified duration of the
contract. The certificate of compliance for the alarm system is considered
195 of 253
- 5 -
valid only when a maintenance contract and all other provisions listed
herein exist. The certificate of compliance shall be kept on the premises
where the alarm system is located.
Sec. 15-32. Issuance of permits and licenses.
The issuing and approving authority for any license or permit issued hereunder
shall be the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services.
Sec. 15-33. Permit and license application.
Applications for all permits and licenses required in this Article shall be filed with
the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and shall
be accompanied by the requisite fees. The fees are established and shall cover the
following costs:
(1) Fifty dollars ($50.) to cover the cost of processing the applications and permits;
(2) A cashier's check or money order made payable to the State Bureau of Investigation
in an amount sufficient to cover such costs as are necessary to conduct the investigations
required pursuant to this Article.
Sec. 15-34. Permit and license investigation.
(a) Every application for an alarm business or special contractor alarm license
shall require fingerprints and a photograph of the applicant or agent applying for
the applicant if the applicant is not a natural person. The Police Chief shall conduct
an appropriate investigation of the applicant to determine whether the permit or
license shall be issued. The Police Chief may require additional information of the
applicants which is necessary to conduct the investigation with the exception of
companies' blueprints or diagrams. Alarm blueprints and diagrams shall be deemed
to be the property of the agency with whom the business has a contract.
(b) The permit or license, whether it is a new application or a renewal, shall be
denied by the Police Chief, if:
(1) The character or reputation of the applicant is determined to be
inimical to the safety or general welfare of the community;
(2) The applicant for the alarm business permit or special contractor
alarm license does not comply with the standards and regulations adopted
pursuant to ' 15-56 et seq.;
(3) The applicant, his or her employee or agent, has knowingly made
any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of a material fact in the
196 of 253
- 6 -
application for a permit or license or in any report or record required to be
filed with any City agency;
(4) The applicant has had a similar-type permit or license previously
revoked for good cause within the past year unless the applicant can show a
material change in circumstances since the date of revocation;
(5) The applicant or any employee has demonstrated an inability to
effectively install service alarms or alarm systems in a manner ensuring
their reliability and lack of false alarms.
Sec. 15-35. Certificate of compliance for alarm systems.
A certificate of compliance for alarm systems shall be issued upon approval of the
Building Official. Such approval shall signify compliance with the standards and
regulations adopted and requirements set forth in '' 15-56C15-71. Said certificate
shall be issued to the person using or possessing the alarm system. Alarm
businesses shall procure and process applications for their subscribers. The
subscribers shall forward the completed application to the alarm business servicing
the system. The permit fee shall be collected from the subscriber by the alarm
business and transmitted forthwith to the Finance Department together with the
application.
Sec. 15-36. Appeal procedure.
The procedure for any appeal of a decision by the City shall be to the City Council.
Sec. 15-37. Fees for renewal of permits.
The renewal fee for an alarm business permit shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.) per
year. Such fee shall be tendered upon application for renewal of the permit. The
alarm business permit shall expire July 1 of each year and must be renewed prior to
its expiration date. No portion of the permit fee shall be prorated because of any
partial year.
Sec. 15-38. Fees for renewal of licenses.
The renewal fee for a special contractor alarm license shall be fifty dollars ($50.)
per year. Such fee shall be tendered at the time of application for a license. All such
licenses shall expire on July 1 of each year and must be renewed within thirty (30)
days of their expiration date. No portion of such license fee shall be prorated
because of any partial year.
Sec. 15-39. Fee for certificate of compliance.
197 of 253
- 7 -
The fee for a certificate of compliance for the alarm system shall be ten dollars
($10.) which shall be due and payable within ten (10) days of the installation of an
operable alarm system by any person possessing or using an alarm system,
proprietary alarm, fire alarm or other emergency alarm within the City. Each such
certificate shall be considered valid until such time that the system is declared
unreliable under the provisions of this Article. Each time a system is declared
unreliable, the system will need to be repaired, reinspected and have a new
certificate of compliance issued. No portion of any certificate fee shall be
refundable or applicable to the new certificate fee.
Sec. 15-40. Grounds for suspension or revocation.
The following shall constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of any license,
permit or certificate issued under this Article:
(1) The violation of any of the provisions of this Article;
(2) The failure to comply with requirements set forth or standards or
regulations adopted by this Article;
(3) When any alarm business permittee or special contractor is
convicted of any crime involving larceny, burglary, fraud or other crime
which would cause the honesty of the same to be suspect;
(4) When an alarm system actuates excessive false alarms and
constitutes a public nuisance;
(5) When the applicant or permittee, his or her employee or agent, has
knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of a material
fact in the application for a permit or license or in any report or record
required to be filed with the City;
(6) When the applicant or permittee has had a similar-type permit or
license previously revoked for good cause within the past year unless the
applicant can show a material change in circumstances since the date of
revocation.
Sec. 15-41. Procedure for suspension or revocation.
(a) Determinations for suspension or revocation of any license, permit or
certificate issued hereunder shall be made by the Building Review Board in the
same manner as set forth in ' 15-158 for suspension or revocation of contractors'
licenses.
(b) The determination of the Building Review Board with regard to matters of
198 of 253
- 8 -
suspension or revocation shall be appealable to the City Council, provided that a
notice of appeal is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the action of
the Board. The City Clerk shall transmit such appeal to the City Council at the next
meeting of the City Council held not less than two (2) days after filing of the notice
of appeal. Upon receipt of the appeal, the City Council shall set a time for hearing
of the appeal and shall give notice to the person making the appeal of the time and
place of the hearing. Appeals shall be heard and decided as determined by the City
Council.
(c) Any order of suspension or revocation made by the Building Review Board
shall be effective upon delivery of the order personally to the person holding the
license, permit certificate or forty-eight (48) hours after deposit of the order in the
mail.
(d) All revocations or suspensions shall remain effective pending
determination of any appeal to the City Council. All appeals shall be heard by the
City Council within thirty-one (31) days after the date of the City Council meeting
at which the appeal was presented.
Sec. 15-42. Violations.
The conviction of any person for a violation of any provision of this Article shall
not relieve such person from paying any permit or license fee required by this
Article. Each day that any violation of this Article continues shall be a separate
offense punishable as such.
Division 3.
Standards 1
Sec. 15-56. Promulgation of standards and regulations.
Any alarm system installed within the City and all devices and agencies acting
under this Article shall conform to the requirements of the standards adopted in this
Division. The Building Official shall inspect and approve all alarm systems
installed within the City and shall issue a permit authorizing such systems under
this Article. Any system which does not meet the requirements of this Article shall
not be approved and shall not be put in service until any deficiencies have been
corrected and such correction approved by the Building Official.
Sec. 15-57. Residential construction standards.
All intrusion detection alarm systems and components used in residential
applications shall meet or exceed the requirements of UL Standard No. 639 entitled
1 Cross-referenceCBuildings and building regulations, Ch. 5
199 of 253
- 9 -
"Standard for Safety, Intrusion-Detection Units," promulgated by Underwriters'
Laboratories, Inc., and the requirements of UL Standard No. 1023 entitled
"Standard for Safety, Household Burglar-Alarm System Units," promulgated by
Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. Additionally, all such systems shall include a
standby power source as specified in said UL Standard No. 1023, Section 19. All
fire alarm systems used in residential applications shall meet or exceed Standard
No. 43 of the Uniform Building Code.
Sec. 15-58. Mercantile commercial construction standards.
(a) All intrusion detection alarm systems and components used in mercantile or
commercial building applications shall meet or exceed the requirements of the
following standards promulgated by Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.: UL Standard
No. 365 entitled "Standard for Safety, Police Station Connected Burglar Alarm
Units and Systems," Standard No. 609 entitled "Standard for Safety, Local Burglar
Alarm Units and Systems," UL Standard No. 634 entitled "Standard for Safety,
Connectors and Switches for Use with Burglar Alarm Systems" and UL Standard
No. 639 entitled "Standard for Safety, Intrusion-Detection Units," as such
standards are applicable to the particular application. All such systems shall include
a standby power source as specified in said UL Standard No. 609, Section 61.
(b) All robbery (holdup) alarm units and systems used in mercantile or
commercial building applications shall meet or exceed the requirements of UL
Standard No. 636 entitled "Standard for Safety, Holdup Alarm Units and Systems"
promulgated by Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. All such systems utilizing
manually operated switches to initiate an alarm, such as push buttons, shall use only
switches that are protected from being accidentally engaged and which once
engaged cannot be reset without a key or other control device. All such systems
shall include a standby power source as specified in said UL Standard No. 636,
Section 35.
(c) All fire and/or smoke detection alarm systems and components used in
mercantile or commercial building applications shall meet or exceed the
requirements of Standard No. 43 of the Uniform Building Code.
Sec. 15-59. Installation standards.
(a) All installation of alarm systems and components shall be in accordance
with the provisions and requirements of the International Building Code, the
National Electrical Code and the Uniform Fire Code, as all of such codes are in
effect in the City, and the installation specifications set forth in the applicable
standards set forth in '' 15-57 and 15-58.
(b) All installations of protective wiring and devices connected to intrusion
detection systems or mercantile or commercial premises and on mercantile,
commercial or bank safes and vaults shall meet or exceed the requirements of UL
200 of 253
- 10 -
Standard No. 681 entitled "Standard for Safety, Installation and Classification of
Mercantile and Bank Burglar-Alarm Systems" promulgated by Underwriters'
Laboratories, Inc.
Sec. 15-60. Performance standards.
(a) All alarm systems shall be afforded a thirty-day adjustment period
commencing with the date of activation in order that the system may be brought to
maximum efficiency. During that period of time, no false alarms shall be charged
against the system. However, emergency response by appropriate public agencies
of the City may be restricted or curtailed if, in the determination of the head of that
agency, the number of false alarms becomes excessive.
(b) After the adjustment ends, the criteria for determining the reliability of an
alarm system shall be its performance. Any alarm system may be deemed
unreliable if it signals more than:
(1) Two (2) false alarms in any thirty-day period;
(2) Four (4) false alarms in any ninety-day period;
(3) Six (6) false alarms in any one-hundred-eighty-day period;
(4) Eight (8) false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty-day period.
(c) If any alarm system is deemed unreliable pursuant to this Article, Fire
Services or Police Services may declare the system unreliable and restrict or curtail
the response of the office to the alarm system until such time as the subscriber or
alarm business can show a material change in employee training, can show written
proof that the system has been repaired, can show written proof that the system has
been reinspected by the Building Official and can show proof of issuance of a new
certificate of compliance for the alarm system.
(d) If the alarm system deficiencies have not been corrected within thirty (30)
days from the date the system was declared unreliable, the City may suspend the
system's certificate of compliance in accordance with the provisions of ' 15-40 et
seq.
Sec. 15-61. Maintenance standards.
(a) The maintenance contract required for each alarm system shall be in writing
and shall be for the duration of the certificate of compliance for the alarm system,
usually one (1) year or fraction thereof.
(b) The maintenance contract shall provide for the following minimum
services:
(1) Repairs which may be necessary from time to time to maintain
201 of 253
- 11 -
reliability and efficiency of the system, such as replacement of worn
components, deteriorated batteries, etc.;
(2) Repairs which may be necessary due to an attack on the system or an
initiation of the system which results in damage to system components;
(3) Operational testing of all system components at least once every six
(6) months, with a complete report being maintained on file by the alarm
business maintaining the system. The report shall be made available for
inspection upon the request of any police officer, firefighter, building
inspector or the system subscriber.
(c) Trouble calls regarding an alarm system for which an alarm business has a
maintenance contract shall be responded to on the same day if the call is received
before 12:00 noon. Trouble calls received by the alarm business after 12:00 noon
shall be responded to as soon as possible and in no case later than the business day
following receipt of the call (UL-365, paragraph 43.5).
(d) All operational testing of alarm systems and/or components shall be
undertaken only after the monitoring agency has been notified of the impending
test. If the alarm system is unmonitored and of the type that registers an alarm on
the protected premises or transmits a prerecorded message, no operational testing
shall take place unless Police Services has been notified of the impending test.
Sec. 15-62. Central station standards.
A central station shall meet all the requirements and shall be listed by Underwriters'
Laboratories, Inc. or other recognized testing laboratory as a central station with
appropriate inspection and certification by such laboratory. A central station shall
carry liability insurance related to alarm monitoring and covering acts, errors and
omissions on the part of the station's employees in a minimum amount of three
hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.).
Sec. 15-63. Modified central station standards.
(a) A modified central station shall meet the requirements of Sections 48, 49,
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 of UL Standard No. 611 entitled "Standard for Safety,
Central Station Burglar Alarm Units and Systems."
(b) All persons employed by a modified central station shall be properly
selected and their backgrounds investigated prior to employment. They shall be
trained, equipped and disciplined to ensure reliable performance of their duties.
(c) A modified central station shall carry liability insurance related to alarm
monitoring and covering acts, errors and omissions on the part of the station's
202 of 253
- 12 -
employees in a minimum amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.).
Sec. 15-64. Licensed answering service standards.
(a) A licensed answering service shall meet the requirements of Sections 48,
49, 51, 52, 55.4 and 56 of said UL Standard No. 611.
(b) All persons employed by a licensed answering service shall be properly
selected and their backgrounds investigated prior to employment. They shall be
trained, equipped and disciplined to ensure reliable performance of their duties.
(c) A licensed answering service shall carry liability insurance related to alarm
monitoring and covering acts, errors and omissions on the part of the service's
employees in a minimum amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.).
Sec. 15-65. Change of location.
If the location of the police or fire communication facilities should be changed at
any time, all permittees shall be required to make the necessary changes at their
expense to comply with the requirements of this Article. The City shall not be
responsible for any resulting cost of moving alarm systems, direct line
communications, parts or any other such expense.
Sec. 15-66. Public primary trunk lines.
No emergency device shall be used which transmits a prerecorded message or other
signal directly to the police, fire or City communications centers. All such devices
shall terminate at other facilities.
Sec. 15-67. Removal of devices.
In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the Police Chief or Fire Chief may
whenever they shall have knowledge of the use of any cabinet, device or
attachment or telephone terminal not operated or maintained in accordance with the
provisions of this Article or contrary to these regulations order the removal of the
same from the police, fire or City communications facilities. It shall be unlawful to
disobey such order.
Sec. 15-68. Audible alarms.
Every person utilizing an audible alarm shall notify Police Services or Fire Services
of the names and telephone numbers of the persons to be notified to render repairs
or service and secure the premises during the hours of the day or night that the
alarm may be actuated. Such notice shall be provided before the system is
activated, and all such information shall be kept current.
203 of 253
- 13 -
Sec. 15-69. Display of license.
Every person engaged in the business of repairing, servicing, altering, replacing,
removing, designing, leasing, maintaining, testing or installing alarm systems shall
carry on his or her person at all times while so engaged a valid City special
contractor (alarm) license or telephone employee identification and shall display
such permit to any police officer, firefighter or subscriber upon request.
Sec. 15-70. Notification.
Any central receiving station, modified central station or licensed answering
service, upon receipt of an alarm signal indicating that an illegal act, fire or other
emergency situation has taken place, shall immediately notify Police Services or
Fire Services.
Sec. 15-71. Certain standards adopted.
The following standards promulgated by Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., as set
forth in this Article, are hereby adopted by reference. Such standards do not contain
any separate penalty provision. All of such standards are promulgated by
Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., 207 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611.
(1) The edition, impression date and other pertinent information
relating to the standard adopted is as follows:
Standar
d No.
Edition
Impression
Date
Other
UL 634
3rd
June 29, 1973
UL 365
1st
March 25, 1975
As revised by
transmittal
dated March 3,
1976
UL 609
7th
January 1972
UL 611
10th
June 1972
UL 681
8th
June 1972
UL 639
3rd
December 1971
As revised by
errata sheet
dated April 16,
1973
UL 1023
1st
Second (as
revised to
September 12,
204 of 253
- 14 -
1972)
November 1972
UL 636
6th
July 27, 1973
(2) At least one (1) copy of each standard herein adopted shall be kept on file in
the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection. One (1) copy of each
such standard shall be kept in the office of the Building Official. One (1) copy shall
be kept in the office of the Fire Marshal. One (1) copy shall be kept in the office of
the Police Chief.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
205 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Routine Easement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Roger T Sterling and Bernita J. Sterling, to install
advanced metering system infrastructure for Laporte water meters at 2325 Eddy Lane.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of this easement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Roger T. Sterling and Bernita J. Sterling, Location Map.
206 of 253
207 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Tom Leeson, Megan Bolin
John Voss, Chris Donegon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-079 Concerning a Loan from the City of Fort Collins to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority for
the Purpose of Funding Certain Improvements for the Prospect Station Project and Declaring the City Council’s
Present Intent to Fund Such Loan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Resolution is to declare City Council’s intent to provide a loan to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) for one half of the URA’s reimbursement obligation to Prospect Station LLC.
On September 17, 2013, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will consider a Redevelopment
Agreement for Prospect Station, a new mixed-use development proposed within the Prospect South Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) District. The Agreement would authorize a $494,000 reimbursement obligation to Prospect Station
LLC (Developer) for eligible project costs. Half ($247,000) of the reimbursement would be provided to the Developer
upon completion of the project and verification of costs, and the remaining half would be dispersed in annual payments
over the remaining life of the TIF District.
The Redevelopment Agreement would obligate the URA to make a $247,000 payment to the Developer upon
completion of the project in 2014. Since the URA will not have sufficient fund balance to pay that amount outright, a
loan is requested from the City of Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Prospect Station LLC (Developer) submitted a formal application to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
in June 2013 requesting tax increment financing (TIF) for a new, mixed-use project in the Prospect South TIF District.
URA staff has since negotiated a Redevelopment Agreement, which will be considered by the URA Board for approval
on September 17, 2013.
Based upon the Larimer County Estimate of Value, the project is anticipated to generate $865,340 over the remaining
23-year life of the Prospect South TIF District (although the TIF District ends in 2036, the URA will collect tax increment
revenue through 2037). If approved, the Redevelopment Agreement would establish a reimbursement obligation for
eligible costs from the URA to the Developer of up to $494,000. Of this amount, half would be due upon completion
of the project, and the remaining half would be dispersed through annual payments of $11,762 until 2036. The
reimbursement obligation represents approximately 57% of the total estimated tax increment generated by the project.
The project is expected to be complete by fall 2014; provided eligible costs are verified, this means that $247,000
would be due to the Developer. Since the URA will not have sufficient fund balance to pay this sum outright, it is
seeking a loan from the City of Fort Collins to fulfill this portion of the obligation. This Resolution would declare the
Council’s present intent to provide a loan to the URA. Although the Resolution would be approved now, the loan would
not be executed until such time as the funds are needed to make the payment to the Developer. The Resolution
establishes the basic terms of the loan according to the City’s current investment policy (see Attachment 1 for the
potential loan repayment schedule); if the terms need to change at time of execution and no longer adhere to
established policy, the loan would be brought back to the URA Board and City Council for reevaluation.
208 of 253
September 17, 2013 -2- ITEM 18
Loan Amount: $247,000
Interest Rate: Higher of the Treasury Rate or Municipal Rate plus .5%, per City investment policy. For
the purposes of this Resolution, the current rate of 5.25% was used to project a
repayment schedule. The actual rate will be established based on conditions when the
loan is executed.
Term: 21 years
Based on these assumptions, principle and interest payments will total $422,284. When combined with the remaining
half of the reimbursement obligation ($247,000), the total cost to the URA would be $669,284, which represents
approximately 77% of the total estimated increment generated by the project. See Attachment 2 for the anticipated
tax increment cash flow related to this project.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of this Resolution states Council’s intent to provide a loan to the URA at the time the URA needs to make
a payment to Prospect Station LLC, per the Redevelopment Agreement considered by the URA Board on September
17, 2013. The Resolution provides a repayment schedule based on the City’s current investment policy; the loan
amount and interest rate are subject to change at the time the loan is executed. Unless the terms need to change in
a way that no longer adheres to the City’s investment policy, the loan will be executed administratively.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Council Finance Committee will meet on September 16, 2013 to discuss this loan and Resolution. A summary
of that discussion will be provided as a read-before memo to Council on September 17.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Potential Loan Repayment Schedule
2. Prospect Station TIF Cash Flow
3. Powerpoint presentation
209 of 253
Midtown URA
Prospect Station
Reimbursement Agreement to City from the URA
Reimbursement Amount 247,000.00 Start Date 31-Dec-15
Interest Rate 5.250% Matures 31-Dec-37
$19,194.75 Payment Years 22
Time in
Years Date Payment Interest Principal Balance
- 31-Dec-15 (247,000.00)
1.000 31-Dec-16 ($19,194.75) ($12,967.50) ($6,227.25) (240,772.75)
2.000 31-Dec-17 (19,194.75) (12,640.57) (6,554.18) (234,218.57)
3.000 31-Dec-18 (19,194.75) (12,296.47) (6,898.28) (227,320.29)
4.000 31-Dec-19 (19,194.75) (11,934.32) (7,260.43) (220,059.86)
5.000 31-Dec-20 (19,194.75) (11,553.14) (7,641.61) (212,418.25)
6.000 31-Dec-21 (19,194.75) (11,151.96) (8,042.79) (204,375.46)
7.000 31-Dec-22 (19,194.75) (10,729.71) (8,465.04) (195,910.42)
8.000 31-Dec-23 (19,194.75) (10,285.30) (8,909.45) (187,000.97)
9.000 31-Dec-24 (19,194.75) (9,817.55) (9,377.20) (177,623.77)
10.000 31-Dec-25 (19,194.75) (9,325.25) (9,869.50) (167,754.27)
11.000 31-Dec-26 (19,194.75) (8,807.10) (10,387.65) (157,366.62)
12.000 31-Dec-27 (19,194.75) (8,261.75) (10,933.00) (146,433.62)
13.000 31-Dec-28 (19,194.75) (7,687.77) (11,506.98) (134,926.64)
14.000 31-Dec-29 (19,194.75) (7,083.65) (12,111.10) (122,815.54)
15.000 31-Dec-30 (19,194.75) (6,447.82) (12,746.93) (110,068.61)
16.000 31-Dec-31 (19,194.75) (5,778.60) (13,416.15) (96,652.46)
17.000 31-Dec-32 (19,194.75) (5,074.25) (14,120.50) (82,531.96)
18.000 31-Dec-33 (19,194.75) (4,332.93) (14,861.82) (67,670.14)
19.000 31-Dec-34 (19,194.75) (3,552.68) (15,642.07) (52,028.07)
20.000 31-Dec-35 (19,194.75) (2,731.47) (16,463.28) (35,564.79)
21.000 31-Dec-36 (19,194.75) (1,867.15) (17,327.60) (18,237.19)
22.000 31-Dec-37 (19,194.64) (957.45) (18,237.19) 0.00
(422,284.39) (175,284.39) (247,000.00)
Payment
* Dates and rates are preliminary.
Specifics will be set after the loan is authorized.
ATTACHMENT 1
210 of 253
TIF Growth Rate 0%
TIF for Obligations 669,284
% of TIF pledged
for Obligations 77%
TIF Net Income 196,056
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 TOTALS
Cash Inflows
TIF - 3,916 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 865,340
Loan from City 247,000 247,000
Total Cash Inflows - 250,916 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156 39,156
1,112,340
Cash Outflows
Lump Sum to Developer (247,000) (247,000)
Debt / Dev Pay Back Prin (to the City) (6,227) (6,554) (6,898) (7,260) (7,642) (8,043) (8,465) (8,909) (9,377) (9,870) (10,388) (10,933) (11,507) (12,111) (12,747) (13,416) (14,121)
(14,862) (15,642) (16,463) (17,328) (18,237) (247,000)
Interest (to the City) (12,968) (12,641) (12,296) (11,934) (11,553) (11,152) (10,730) (10,285) (9,818) (9,325) (8,807) (8,262) (7,688) (7,084) (6,448) (5,779) (5,074) (4,333) (3,553)
(2,731) (1,867) (957) (175,284)
Dev Pay over Time - (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762) (11,762)
(11,762) (11,762) (11,762) - (247,000)
Total Cash Outflows - (247,000) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957)
(30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (30,957) (19,195) (916,284)
-
Net Cash Flow - 3,916 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 8,199 19,961 196,056
Obligations to the Developer
% of
Total TIF
Lump Sum Payment 247,000 28.54%
Payments to Developer 247,000 28.54%
Loan Interest 175,284 20.26%
Total Obligations 669,284 77.34%
TIF Collections 865,340
Total Revenue 865,340
Net Income 196,056 22.66%
Obligations to the City
Obligations
Revenue
Midtown URA Prospect Station
(50% Loan and 50% Payback)
Assumptions
TIF Growth
ATTACHMENT 2
211 of 253
1
Prospect Station
City Loan Agreement
City Council
September 17, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
212 of 253
2
Tonight’s Action
• Resolution declaring the City Council’s intent to
fund a loan to the URA for the purpose of funding
certain improvements for the Prospect Station
project.
213 of 253
3
Financial Request
Total Project Cost $5,980,924
Projected Actual Value $5,224,236
Projected Annual Tax Increment $39,155
Total Property Tax Increment Expected $865,340*
TIF Requested $494,000
% of Total Tax Increment Requested 57%
* Assumes 23 years of increment with zero growth.
214 of 253
4
TIF Reimbursement Structure
• Developer receives lump sum payment equal to
50% of total reimbursement amount
• Developer receives annual reimbursement
payments for 21 years that total 50% of
reimbursement amount
• Total Reimbursement Amount = $494,000
Example:
Lump Sum Payment = $247,000
Annual Reimbursement payment = $11,762
Total Annual Payments = $247,000
Total Reimbursement - $494,000
215 of 253
5
TIF Reimbursement Structure
• Total Reimbursement Amount + Interest = 77% of
Estimated Total Tax Increment
TIF Growth Rate 0%
Percent of TIF Pledged 77%
Total TIF Collected (Est.) $865,340
Developer Lump Sum $247,000
Developer Payback over time $247,000
Cost of Capital $175,284
Total TIF Pledged $669,284
216 of 253
6
City Loan Structure
Terms
Loan Amount $247,000
Interest Rate Treasury Rate or Muni Rate plus .5%.
Current rate of 5.25% was used to project
a repayment schedule. Actual rate will be
established when the loan is executed.
Term 22 years
Principal and Interest $422,284
217 of 253
7
Recommendations
• Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
218 of 253
8
Thank you
219 of 253
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2013-079
OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONCERNING A LOAN FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE PROSPECT STATION PROJECT AND DECLARING THE
CITY COUNCIL’S PRESENT INTENT TO FUND SUCH LOAN
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution 78-49, adopting
findings and establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) as an urban
renewal authority pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, Part 1 of Title 31, Article 25, as amended
(the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011-080, adopted and approved on September 6, 2011, the
City Council found and declared that the area described in such Resolution (the “Midtown Area”)
is a blighted area as described in the Act and appropriate for an urban renewal project; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011-081, adopted and approved on September 6, 2011, the
City Council adopted an urban renewal plan for the Midtown Area in Fort Collins, which area
includes the Property; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2013-043, adopted and approved on May 7, 2013, the City
Council adopted amendments to the previously adopted urban renewal plan for the Midtown Area
(as amended, the “Urban Renewal Plan” or the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Urban Renewal Plan is to eliminate blight and otherwise
implement and further the above-referenced Resolutions, and the purposes, policies, goals, and
objectives of the Authority and the Plan, pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, Prospect Station, LLC (the “Developer”) desires to construct a new
residential and commercial development with approximately 29 residential rental units and one
small retail commercial space immediately west of the Mason Trail, south of Prospect Road (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, by separate action on this date, the Board of Commissioners of the URA (the
ABoard@), by the adoption of Resolution No. 061, will consider whether providing financial
assistance to the Developer for the Project is in the best interests of the URA and serves important
public purposes within the plan area, including the promotion, retention and expansion of local
businesses; improving the property and sales tax base; enhancing and building public
infrastructure; eliminating blight; and otherwise furthering and implementing the purposes, goals,
and objectives of the Plan; and
220 of 253
- 2 -
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 061, the Board will consider authorization of
Redevelopment Agreement for the reimbursement of certain redevelopment costs required for
completion of the Project (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is expected to be approximately $5.9 million and
the cost of the activities and improvements to be funded by the URA is capped at $ 494,000, half of
which ($247,000) will be paid upon completion of the determination of the eligible costs for
reimbursement (the “Initial Reimbursement”), and the other half of which ($247,000) will be paid
over time from the tax increment revenues expected to be generated by the Project; and
WHEREAS, the URA must borrow funds to pay for the Initial Reimbursement until it is
able to use the additional increment of property tax generated by the Developer=s Project to issue a
bond or obtain other financing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to state its present intent to authorize a loan to the
URA to fund the Initial Reimbursement, as more specifically provided herein; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Project and a determination of the final amount of the
reimbursement to the Developer under the Agreement, the City Council intends to lend to the
URA, subject to appropriation of funds for such purpose, and the execution of a loan agreement
(the “Loan Agreement’) and promissory note (“Note”) appropriate to evidence the URA’s
obligation for repayment, the amount of the Initial Reimbursement (the “Loan”); and
WHEREAS, the interest rate and payment schedule for the Loan will be set by the City’s
Financial Officer in accordance with the City Council approved policy for interfund loans in effect
at the time of the Loan; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Section 31-25-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
to borrow money in such amounts as may be needed to meet its purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the Loan is in the best interests of the City and
the URA and will promote the mutual purposes of the City and the URA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines, pursuant to the Constitution,
the laws of the State and the City’s Charter, and in accordance with the foregoing recitals, that
adopting this Resolution, entering into the Loan Agreement, and facilitating the provision by the
Authority of support for the Project in the form of the Initial Reimbursement are necessary,
convenient, and in furtherance of the City’s purposes and are in the best interests of the inhabitants
of the City; and will serve the important public purpose of facilitating the elimination and
prevention of blight and the redevelopment of property within the Midtown Area.
221 of 253
- 3 -
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, upon request
of the URA for the Loan, in consultation with the Financial Officer and the City Attorney, to
prepare a Loan Agreement and Note consistent with the terms of the Resolution and the City
Council-adopted policy for interfund loans. Said Loan Agreement and Note shall include a
payment schedule for the remaining term of the tax increment revenues to be received by the URA
from the Project, and a provision for repayment in the event the URA issues bonds for which said
revenues are to be pledged.
Section 3. Provided that funds necessary for the Loan have been appropriated by the City
Council, the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute said Loan Agreement and, upon
execution of the Loan Agreement and Note by the URA Executive Director, the City Manager is
further authorized to make the Loan to the URA in accordance with the terms and conditions set
forth in the Loan Agreement and this Resolution.
Section 4. This Resolution shall not create a general obligation or other indebtedness or
multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the City within the
meaning of its Home Rule Charter or any constitutional debt limitation, including Article X,
Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
Section 5. The actions set forth in this Resolution are contingent upon the approval by the
Board of Board Resolution No. 061, authorizing the Agreement and the Loan, consistent with this
Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th
day of September, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
222 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Mike Gebo
Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Exterior Property Maintenance.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2013, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to
the Outdoor Storage of Personal Property.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2013, Amending Section 5-47 of the City Code Pertaining to the
International Property Maintenance Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to propose Code amendments that will address ongoing exterior residential property
maintenance issues that create a negative impact on neighboring properties and that are not currently addressed by
existing codes. This item focuses on three items that have a significant impact to the neighborhood and the general
public because they are viewable from the public right-of-way. Neighbors have expressed that these conditions have
a negative impact on their property values, enjoyment of their properties, and a general feeling of neglect and
deterioration. The three proposed Code amendments include:
• Deficient Structures
• Vacant & Dangerous Buildings Registry
• Excessive Storage of Personal Property Viewable from the Public Right-of-Way
The above items are Phase 1 of this topic. Phase 2 will include excessive personal property and inoperable motor
vehicle storage in back yards. Phase 2 is scheduled for City Council consideration on November 5, 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, citizens have complained and inquired about residential properties that appear unkempt,
deteriorated, and in disrepair. Staff addressed concerns at the identified properties that were violations of the
Municipal Code; however, there continued to be existing, on-going issues that could not be resolved under the current
Code. In response to those continued concerns, staff researched what other communities have done, explored other
options, and discussed it with City Council at two work sessions.
Staff documented the properties in Fort Collins that have various exterior property maintenance issues that negatively
impact their neighborhood but are not currently in violation of the Code. There are relatively few properties that meet
this description (less than a dozen), but neighbors continue to say that these properties have a significant negative
impact on their neighborhood. Many of these properties have been deteriorating for several years, even decades in
some cases. Some negative impacts expressed by neighbors include: declining property values, loss of enjoyment
of their property, safety hazards, unwanted wildlife and insects, and a general feeling that no one cares about their
neighborhood.
City Council has discussed this issue at two work sessions – March 12, 2013 and July 23, 2013 (Attachments 1 and
2). At the July 23 Work Session, Council directed staff to bring Phase 1 items to Council for consideration now, and
to schedule the Phase 2 items in the fall (they are scheduled for November 5, 2013). Phase 1 includes:
223 of 253
September 17, 2013 -2- ITEM 19
• Deficient Structures
• Vacant & Dangerous Buildings Registry
• Excessive Storage of Personal Property Viewable from the Public Right-of-Way
Deficient Structures
The currently adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) specifically exempts owner-occupied
dwellings from the “substandard” classification addressing interior and exterior conditions. Substandard can be defined
as defects that need repair or maintenance and have not yet been declared “dangerous”. Dangerous is defined as an
imminent risk to the occupant or the public. When an owner-occupant fails to maintain the exterior of their property,
the building can continue to degrade and over time deteriorate to a condition resembling “dangerous” resulting in costly
repairs and becoming unsightly to an extent that property values throughout the neighborhood can be adversely
affected. (See Attachment 3 for photo examples)
A new classification of “deficient” is proposed that would be applicable to all buildings including owner-occupied
dwellings. Deficient would be defined as, “a structure that through neglect, disrepair, or lack of maintenance (1) is no
longer considered to be weather resistant using approved materials, or (2) allows the entrance of rodents or insects
through holes in the exterior envelope, or (3) has exterior materials which are displaced or lack sufficient covering to
provide the weather resistant barrier originally approved.”
Owners of buildings that are declared to be deficient would be notified of the specific issues and be given suggestions
on how to best mitigate the deficiencies. Building Services staff would work with the owner, provide contact information
for private support services, and allow a reasonable time for corrections. Owners of deficient properties have the right
to appeal any orders of the building official as described in the IPMC to the Building Review Board and in only extreme
deficient cases, could the owner be subject to a citation and fine of up to $1,000 per day.
Vacant & Dangerous Buildings Registry
The currently adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) establishes processes that the City can
use to monitor vacant buildings and includes actions needed to be taken when a building becomes dangerous. The
majority of vacant buildings throughout the City require no City involvement because the owner or responsible party
are providing the oversight, and there is no unlawful activity occurring.
The vacant properties that are most problematic are those that are continually broken into or are open and unsecured
or used for illegal activities. The City will post these buildings as “dangerous” and require that the owner install
appropriate security measures and provide ongoing monitoring. Some owners of these vacant and dangerous buildings
live out of state, and the City will notify the owner when a violation is identified. It can take the out-of-state owner a
number of days to correct the violation, mainly because the owner is trying to contact someone locally who is willing
to make the corrections. With the proposed Vacant and Dangerous Building Registry program, an owner of a vacant
building, that has been declared a “dangerous” building by Building Services, will be required to identify a local person
who assumes the responsibility for assuring that the property is secured from unlawful entry and who can act on behalf
of the owner to address and correct violations at that property.
Owners of Vacant and Dangerous buildings have the right to appeal any orders of the building official as described
in the IMPC to the Building Review Board and in only extreme cases, could the owner be subject to a citation and fine
of up to $1,000 per day, or an order to demolish the “dangerous” structure.
Excessive Storage of Personal Property Viewable from the Public Right-of-Way
Currently, the Code prohibits the storage of all items that are not customarily stored outside in residential areas (e.g.
indoor furniture, car parts, appliances, etc.) either in public view or viewable from ground level of a neighboring
property. Additionally, the Code does not allow the storage of any rubbish or trash. The Code currently does not limit
the amount of personal property that can be stored on any portion of the property if it consists of items that are
customarily stored outdoors in a residential area (e.g. yard equipment, outdoor furniture/ornaments, tools, barbecue
grills, landscaping materials, etc.).
This proposal attempts to address the excessive storage of personal materials stored in public view. It does not
prohibit the storage of items customarily stored outdoors in a residential neighborhood; rather, it addresses the amount
of items as well as the duration of time that they can be stored in public view. Because it is very difficult to define
224 of 253
September 17, 2013 -3- ITEM 19
“excessive” storage, this proposal takes several factors into consideration in order to declare a violation. (See
Attachment 4 for photo examples) The factors taken into consideration include:
• total amount of personal materials stored outdoors in public view
• duration of personal materials stored outdoors in public view
• general overall appearance of the stored materials
• level of deterioration or disrepair of the stored materials
• potential or actual negative impact of the materials on property values or loss of enjoyment of property of
neighboring residential properties
• potential for the stored materials to house rodents, insects, or other vermin
• whether the materials are stored in the applicable property setback
Additionally, this proposal includes an appeal process. If a property owner disagrees with a declaration of an
excessive storage violation, they would have the option to appeal it to the Community Development & Neighborhood
Services Director.
Violations of this Code would be civil infractions with fines assessed as a penalty for non-compliance. As with current
Code Compliance practices, a notice of violation would be sent to the property owner of record (as well as the tenant
and property manager, if known) giving them three weeks to correct the violation before a citation would be issued.
Staff can also work with property owners to refer them to available and appropriate resources or assistance programs
and to give them an additional, reasonable amount of time to correct the violation focusing on achieving voluntary
compliance whenever possible. If they do not comply, a civil citation can be issued to the property owner, tenant (if
any), or property manager (if any) assessing a fine and still requiring compliance. Anyone who receives a citation also
has the right to request a hearing in front of the Municipal Court Referee or Judge.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is anticipated that there will be very little financial impact to the City related to enforcement of these code
amendments. There are relatively few properties that will be impacted, and the City already responds to inquiries
about these properties now.
There may be some economic benefit to addressing these properties because of the increase, or perceived increase,
in property values and increased level of neighborhood quality.
There will be an economic burden on the property owners that must make corrections to comply with the Code
requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This item could potentially improve the environment by reducing the harborage or infestation of rodents/insects and
by improving the physical appearance of neighborhoods.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Affordable Housing Board and the Building Review Board both heard presentations about this item, although
neither Board provided a recommendation.
The Affordable Housing Board provided feedback that the code changes could add new financial burdens to struggling
low-income households, and suggested that “excessive accumulation of storage” should be defined clearly. Staff
explained that the Larimer Home Improvement Program would be available to help people who qualify financially and
that staff would be able and willing to work with affected households regarding time and possible solutions.
(Attachment 7)
The Building Review Board provided feedback that there were specific reasons why owner-occupied units were
excluded from the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) requirements when they were adopted and
expressed concern that the new “deficient” category holds some similar requirements. (Attachment 6)
225 of 253
September 17, 2013 -4- ITEM 19
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public Outreach to date includes:
• Coloradoan Article
• CityNews
• Neighborhood News
• Focus Group meetings
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors Governmental Affairs group meetings
• Social Media
• Affordable Housing Board – June 6, 2013 and September 5, 2013
• Building Review Board – July 25, 2013
Feedback included primarily support for these items. Most of the people who have expressed a high level of support
are immediate neighbors of the identified problem properties. Most people who expressed opposition to these code
changes stated that they feel it is too much government intervention.
One common area of concern from stakeholders as well as the Affordable Housing Board was whether there would
be any assistance available for people who cannot afford to make the necessary corrections. Staff confirmed that the
Larimer Home Improvement Program could be utilized by people who meet the income qualifications to get assistance
for needed home repairs (Attachment 5). Additionally, staff would be able to work with people regarding the amount
of time they need to make the necessary corrections.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Work Session Summary Memo March 12, 2013
2. Council Work Session Summary Memo July 23, 2013
3. Photo Examples of Deficient Structures
4. Photo Examples of Excessive Storage of Personal Property
5. Larimer Home Improvement Program Brochure
6. Building Review Board Minutes, July 25, 2013
7. Affordable Housing Board Minutes
8. PowerPoint Presentation
226 of 253
227 of 253
ATTACHMENT 2
228 of 253
1
DEFICIENT STRUCTURES EXAMPLES
ATTACHMENT 3
229 of 253
1
EXCESSIVE STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY EXAMPLES
ATTACHMENT 4
230 of 253
2
231 of 253
3
232 of 253
4
233 of 253
ATTACHMENT 5
234 of 253
235 of 253
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
July 25, 2013
Excerpt of minutes
2. EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated the purpose of this discussion is to
discuss possible solutions regarding some ongoing residential exterior property maintenance
issues, particularly relating to health and safety, which are not addressed by current City codes.
Sowder noted there are few properties in Fort Collins with such issues; however, those
properties do have significant negative impacts on neighborhoods. Phase One items, which
include those visible from the street, are planned to go before Council in September and Phase
Two items are slated for a November Council agenda.
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official, discussed the International Property Maintenance Code
(IPMC) and the categories within the document: dangerous, unlawful, unfit, and substandard.
He noted owner-occupied dwellings were specifically exempted from the substandard condition
when the 2206 IPMC was adopted. Gebo discussed staff’s solution to this issue which would
be the development of a fifth category, deficient, which would be applicable to all buildings. He
went on to detail the dangerous vacant building warning issue.
Sowder discussed the excessive storage of property viewable from the public right-of-way and
possible solutions to that issue. She went on to discuss public outreach efforts and available
assistance for low-income residents.
Cram asked why owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from the substandard category.
Gebo replied at the time of adoption of the 2006 IPMC, there was concern over requiring
owners to do insignificant substandard repairs. He stated the process of creating a new
category applicable to all units is easier than re-opening the substandard condition for owner-
occupied dwelling units. The new deficient category would apply only to exterior water-resistant
elements considered substandard; the interior and exterior substandard list goes beyond these
issues.
Cram asked if this change would be well-received by homeowners upon whom the new
standards will be imposed. Gebo replied there are only a handful of properties in town which
are having these issues. Polly Lauridsen, Code Compliance Supervisor, replied staff has not
spoken to all affected parties; however, those who have been contacted have known for months
these changes may occur.
Cram asked about the impact on residents who may not be able to afford the improvements.
Lauridsen replied the home with the tarp on the roof is owned by an individual who lives in a
much more affluent area. Gebo replied all repair notices are accompanied by a notice of the
right to appeal and stated staff works with individuals to get repairs completed.
Cram discussed the reasons behind the exclusion of owner-occupied units from the
substandard condition and expressed concern the new deficient category holds some similar
language. Gebo clarified the Phase One item is coming forward now and the Phase Two item
will occur once some of these details are clarified.
ATTACHMENT 6
236 of 253
BRB – July 25, 2013 - Page 2
Cram expressed concern regarding what would classify as a nuisance and stated he cannot
support making these changes at the owner-occupied level.
Reider asked how many complaints are received by staff regarding these types of issues.
Sowder replied many complaints are received from owners near these particular problem
properties.
Cram argued these regulations would not be an appropriate use of force. Lauridsen replied this
one percent of homes takes up thirty percent of staff time.
Cram asked what would occur should contact with the property owner not occur. Gebo replied
the owner would receive a ticket; however, all attempts are made to contact the owner prior to
that occurrence. Ultimately, the City could condemn a property and demolish it, though the
City’s budget does not include provisions for such condemnations.
Gebo stated staff would put together addresses and photos of the few problem properties.
237 of 253
ATTACHMENT 7
238 of 253
239 of 253
1
1
Exterior Property Maintenance
Codes
City Council Meeting
September 17, 2013
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager
2
Purpose
ATTACHMENT 8
240 of 253
2
3
Proposed Changes
Phase 1:
• Deficient Structures
• Vacant & Dangerous Buildings Registry
• Excessive Storage of Personal Property
Phase 2:
• Excessive Storage in back yards
• Storage of vehicles, trailers, etc.
4
Background Information
• Citizen complaints for several years
• Properties unkempt, deteriorated, disrepair
• Negatively impact neighborhood:
– Declining property values
– Loss of quality enjoyment of their
property
– Safety hazards
– General feel of neglect and deterioration
241 of 253
3
5
Council Work Sessions
Two Work Sessions:
• March 12, 2013
• July 23, 2013
• Direction included Phase 1 items now
• Phase 2 items in the fall
6
Deficient Structures
242 of 253
4
7
Proposed Code Amendment
• New classification – “Deficient”
• Applicable to all buildings
• Defined as:
– Neglect, disrepair, lack of maintenance
– No longer weather resistant
– Allows entrance of rodents or insects
– Lack sufficient covering
8
Enforcement Process
• Property Owner notified
• Information, suggestions, potential
resources/referrals provided
• Reasonable amount of time for
correction
• Right to appeal
• Subject to citation
243 of 253
5
9
Vacant & Dangerous Buildings
Registry
10
Proposed Code Amendment
• Vacant Dangerous Building Registry
• Require local contact person
• Responsible for ensuring property is
secure from unlawful entry
• Act on behalf of the owner to address and
correct violations
244 of 253
6
11
Enforcement Process
• Property Owners Notified
• Right to Appeal
• Subject to Citation
• Demolition Order
12
Excessive Storage of Property
245 of 253
7
13
Proposed Code Amendment
• Attempts to address excessive storage in
public view
• Does not prohibit storage of items
• Addresses amount of items
• Addresses duration of time items are
stored
14
Factors to Consider
• Amount of items stored in public view
• Duration of materials stored
• Overall appearance of materials
• Level of deterioration or disrepair
• Potential or actual negative impact
• Potential to house rodents, insects or
vermin
• Whether materials stored in property
setback
246 of 253
8
15
Enforcement Process
• Right to appeal
• Civil Infraction
• Property owner notified
• Reasonable amount of time to correct
• Refer to available/appropriate resources or
assistance programs
• Extension of time to comply
• Civil citation could be issued
16
Public Outreach
• Coloradoan Article
• Neighborhood News and CityNews
• Focus Group meetings
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Governmental Affairs group
• Social Media
• Affordable Housing Board – 6/6/13
• Building Review Board – 7/25/13
247 of 253
9
17
Next Steps
• October 1, 2013 – Second Reading
• October 11, 2013 – implementation
• November 5, 2013 – Phase 2
248 of 253
ORDINANCE NO. 128, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS PERTAINING TO THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City Council has observed a growing problem in the City regarding the
quality and appearance of neighborhoods due to the presence of physically neglected properties; and
WHEREAS, the neglect of individual properties can accelerate the deterioration of entire
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, City staff has received various complaints from neighbors and other citizens
regarding the unsightliness and hazards of properties with an excessive amount of storage visible
from public streets and sidewalks; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such conditions constitute a public
nuisance and should be prohibited under the nuisance provisions contained in Chapter 20 of the City
Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety, and welfare of the City that the City Code be amended to prohibit the excessive storage of
personal property which is visible from any public street or sidewalk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Chapter 20, Article IV of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by
the addition of a new Section 20-42.7 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 20-42.7. Excessive Amount of Storage of Personal Property Prohibited
(a) No owner or occupant of any residential premises within the City shall cause
or permit on such premises the outdoor storage of an excessive amount of personal
property as said condition is more particularly addressed and regulated by provisions
of this Article, and such condition is hereby declared to be a nuisance and a menace
to the public welfare. This declaration of nuisance shall only apply to locations that
are visible from any public street or sidewalk, and shall apply whether or not the
personal property is sheltered or covered or within a carport or other partially
enclosed structure.
(b) For purposes of this Section, an excessive amount of personal property shall
mean any amount of storage of materials that is or could be injurious to human health
or welfare, or which could unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property of neighboring properties, persons, or other citizens. Officers are
empowered to make a prima facie determination as to whether an excessive amount
of personal property is being stored, which determination may be based upon, but
need not be limited to, a consideration of the following factors:
249 of 253
(1) the number and size of materials stored;
(2) the duration the materials have been stored;
(3) the overall general appearance of the stored materials;
(4) the level of deterioration or disrepair of the stored materials;
(5) the potential or actual negative impact on property values or loss of
enjoyment of neighboring properties;
(6) the potential for the stored materials to pose a fire or safety hazard or
house rodents, insects or other vermin;
(7) the condition and appearance of neighboring and nearby properties;
(8) any other factors tending to show the extent of the impact of stored
materials on neighboring properties.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
250 of 253
ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 5-47 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PERTAINING TO THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
WHEREAS, the International Property Maintenance Code adopted by the City specifically
exempts owner-occupied dwellings from certain “substandard” classification provisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
structures defined as “deficient” not be exempt from regulation because they are owner-occupied;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that it is in the best interests of the City
that a registry of vacant and dangerous buildings be established so that vacant buildings which have
been declared to be dangerous may be placed on the registry in order to provide the City with a name
and contact information for persons who may, upon notification from the City, act responsibly with
respect to such property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 5-47(9) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(9) The title of Section 108, along with Sections 108.1, 108.1.1, 108.1.2, 108.1.3
and 108.1.4, are hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 108 - SAFETY OF STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT
“108.1 General. When any structure or portion thereof is found to be substandard,
unfit for human occupancy, unlawful, or dangerous, or deficient or when any
equipment or fixture installed or used therein is found to be substandard, such
condition shall be abated or otherwise corrected, repaired, or removed pursuant to the
provisions of this code.
. . .
Section 2. That Section 5-47(11) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(11) Section 108.2 is hereby amended as follows:
“108.2 Vacant Buildings and structures.
251 of 253
“(a) General. When a building or structure is vacant and unsecured or unfit for
human habitation and occupancy the code official is authorized to post a
”Vacant Building Notice” on the premises and order the structure closed up
so as not to be an attractive nuisance. Upon failure of the owner to close up
the premises within the time specified in the order, the code official shall
cause the premises to be closed and secured through any available public
agency or by contract or arrangement by private persons and the cost thereof
shall be charged against the real estate upon which the structure is located and
shall be a lien upon such real estate and may be collected by any other legal
resource.”
“108.2.1 Vacant & dangerous buildings registry. Any vacant building or
structure which has been declared dangerous in accordance with this code
shall be placed on a vacant & dangerous building registry to be kept by the
Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (Director).
Owners of a vacant and dangerous building or structure shall provide the
Director with the name and contact information for an individual who, acting
on behalf of the owner, will accept responsibility for monitoring the property
and responding to City identified violations within 24 hours of receipt of
notice from the Director.”
Section 3. That Section 5-47(17) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(17) Section 202 is amended by the addition of thirty-threefour (3334) new
definitions to the list of terms therein in alphabetical sequence of such list to read as
follows:
. . .
“DEFICIENT. Condition(s) that through neglect, disrepair, or lack of
maintenance 1) is no longer considered to be weather resistant using
approved materials, or 2) allows the entrance of rodents or insects through
holes in the exterior envelope, or 3) has exterior materials which are
displaced or lack sufficient covering to provide the weather resistant barrier
originally approved.
. . .
-2-
252 of 253
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this17th day of
September, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
253 of 253
DATE: September 17, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
Mike Gavin
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Larimer County Flood of 2013.
A. Resolution 2013-080 Extending the State of Local Emergency Declared by the City Manager.
B. Resolution 2013-081 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into Mutual Aid Agreements with Other Local
Governments in Response to the Larimer County Flood of 2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On Friday, September 13, 2013, the President of the United States and the Governor’s office declared a disaster area
for Northern Colorado due to the extensive flash flooding and river flooding along the Front Range and Northern
Colorado region.
A local emergency proclamation was then signed by City Manager Darin Atteberry on September 13, 2013, and sent
to the Governor’s office. The City proclamation was based on the fact that Fort Collins suffered and was threatened
with serious peril to the safety of people and property within the City limits due to the “Larimer County Flood of 2013.”
City Council is asked to approve the extension of the proclamation of local emergency until such time as the City
Manager determines it is no longer necessary.
The “Larimer County Flood of 2013” has severely affected several neighboring communities including Larimer County,
Estes Park, Longmont and Loveland. These communities need aid and assistance to respond and recover from the
impacts of the flood and the City is in a position to provide some of the requested resources. To expedite the City’s
response, City Council is asked to authorize the City Manager to enter into mutual aid agreements for short-term aid
and assistance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution 2013-080 which extends the proclamation of local emergency
until such time as the City Manager determines it is no longer necessary.
Staff also recommends that City Council approve Resolution 2013-081 which authorizes the City Manager to enter
into short-term mutual aid agreements to help with immediate impacts of the Flood.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Resolution 2013-080: Extending the Proclamation of Local Emergency
The flood “Larimer County Flood of 2013” began on September 12. Evacuations in certain areas of the City such as
Andersonville, Alta Vista and Buckingham neighborhoods were ordered along with numerous road and bridge closures.
On September 13, 2013 the City Manager, as Director of the City’s Office of Emergency Management, declared the
existence of a local emergency in accordance with Section 2-671 of the City Code.
As the flood waters recede and the response phase turns to the assessment and recovery phase, the existence of
the local emergency continues. The most immediate focus of this phase includes extensive assessment of the City’s
infrastructure and local facilities. Some examples include:
• Assessment of critical infrastructure such as our raw water pipelines, storm water infrastructure, buildings,
and the City’s flood warning system review (damage has already been observed at the Lincoln Avenue gauge)
• Assessment of the City’s bridges (the water level remains too high to fully inspect footings)
• Assessment of our underground power facilities
• Assessment of property and roads at Meadow Spring Ranch.
September 17, 2013 -2- ITEM 21
Review and assessment of the entire Poudre floodplain and the River bank must be conducted to assess the impacts
of the flood before any work can be performed in the River or within the floodplain.
We have damage along the Poudre Trail. The worst section is between Prospect Ponds and the Environmental
Learning Center with bank erosion and the trail overhanging the bank. Fallen trees and debris are strewn over 11
miles of the Poudre Trail. There is also structural trail damage under some underpasses and erosion and scouring
in areas elsewhere.
Debris management will continue to be a significant issue as the water level decreases and staff determines what
remains in the Poudre River basin and the flood prone areas.
The flood occurred in the midst of the ongoing recovery efforts of last year’s High Park Fire. Teams will begin to
assess the mulch this week. While the High Park Fire is a separate event, it has substantially stretched our resources
and compounded our challenges to recover from the extensive impacts of that disaster.
Resolution 2013-080 is being presented for City Council’s consideration. Section 2-671(a)(1) of the City Code states
that a local emergency shall not be continued or renewed for a period in excess of seven days, except by or with the
consent of the City Council. In order to allow sufficient time for a transition from the emergency response phase to
a thorough assessment and determination of the status of critical infrastructure, it is necessary that the proclamation
of local emergency remain in place. Therefore, this Resolution extends the proclamation of local emergency until such
time as the City Manager determines it is no longer necessary.
The City Manager will notify the Council, in writing, that the local emergency is ended.
Resolution 2013-081: Authorizing Mutual Aid Actions and Agreements
The “Larimer County Flood of 2013” has severely affected several neighboring communities including Larimer County,
Estes Park, Longmont and Loveland. These communities need aid and assistance in the form of resources and
services to respond and recover from the impacts of the flood. During critical phases of the emergency, it is important
that neighboring communities work together to protect lives and property. It underscores the concepts of partner
communities helping one another during emergencies as well as “whole community” that are emphasized by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In the spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance, the City wants to respond quickly. To do that, the City Council is
asked to authorize the City Manager to enter into mutual aid agreements with other governmental entities for short-
term aid and assistance.
RESOLUTION 2013-080
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXTENDING THE STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY
THE CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, beginning on September 12, 2013, the City suffered, and is still threatened
with, serious injury and damage constituting a disaster of extreme peril to the safety of persons
and property, consisting of flash floods and river flooding, known as the “Larimer County Flood
of 2013” (the “Flood”); and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2013, in order to undertake emergency measures to
protect the life, health, safety and property of the citizens of the City and persons conducting
business therein, and in order to attempt to minimize the loss of human life and the preservation
of property, the City Manager, as the Director of the City’s Office of Emergency Management,
proclaimed a “local emergency” in accordance with Section 2-671(a)(1) of the City Code, and
WHEREAS, the results of the Flood continue to require emergency action and
remediation as the City’s activities move from response to assessment of the impacts of the
Flood and recovery efforts, including debris management and repairs to infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-671 (a)(1) of the City Code states that a local emergency
proclaimed by the City Manager shall not be continued or renewed for a period in excess of
seven days without the consent of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, conditions continue to exist which, for the protection of the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins, warrant the continuation of the previously
proclaimed local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is requesting that the City Council continue the
proclamation of local emergency as established by the City Manager on September 13, 2013
until such time as the City Manager determines the conditions justifying this local emergency no
longer exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that conditions continue to exist which,
in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins, warrant the
continuation of the previously proclaimed local emergency until such time as the conditions
warranting this local emergency no longer exist.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes, approves, and consents to the
continuation of the state of local emergency until such time as the City Manager determines in
writing that the conditions justifying this local emergency no longer exist and such written
determination is filed with the Office of the City Clerk.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2013-081
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN RESPONSE
TO THE LARIMER COUNTY FLOOD OF 2013
WHEREAS, the Larimer County Flood of 2013 (“the Flood”), which began on
September 12, 2013, has affected the City of Fort Collins and has even more dramatically
affected neighboring communities; and
WHEREAS, such communities are in need of aid and assistance in the form of resources
and services, some of which the City is in a position to provide; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that neighboring communities work together to share and
provide resources to one another during critical periods in emergencies when resources become
scarce, as such resources are necessary to preserve life and property; and
WHEREAS, providing such assistance supports the ideology of the “whole community”
as emphasized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), and also builds a
partnership with neighboring communities that may prove beneficial to Fort Collins in the event
of future emergencies; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, § 29-1-203, governments
may cooperate or contract with one another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully
authorized to each of the cooperating or contracting units; and
WHEREAS, under Section 1-22 of the City Code, intergovernmental agreements and
other cooperative arrangements between the City and other governmental entities are to be
submitted to the City Council for review, unless they fit within one of the exceptions that permit
authorization by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, if a neighboring community is in need of immediate aid and assistance, the
City wants to be able to respond quickly by entering into a mutual aid agreement with such
community, without the need for additional review and approval by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in light of the current emergency situation, staff recommends that the City
Council authorize the City Manager to enter into mutual aid agreements with other governmental
entities to provide aid and assistance in response to the Flood; and
WHEREAS, such agreements will address short-term aid and assistance, and will only be
for a reasonable period of time to help with the immediate impacts of the Flood; and
WHEREAS, if an outside local government requires more permanent, long-term
assistance from the City, such assistance would be contracted for through a state or federal
Incident Management Team, in which case the City would be reimbursed for all or a portion of
the value of the resources provided; and
WHEREAS, Mutual Aid Agreements will enable the City of Fort Collins to share and
provide its resources to neighboring communities during this emergency, which will in turn build
a partnership with neighboring communities that may prove beneficial to Fort Collins in future
emergency situations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the City that the City enter into mutual aid agreements with other governmental
entities as needed to provide aid and assistance in response to the Flood.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into mutual aid
agreements with other government entities on terms and conditions consistent with this
Resolution, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the
interests of the City or to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
17th day of September, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
13,700 sq ft.
$16K 85% $115K 7% $1.1M 0.70%
*Valuation reported on building permit application”
142 of 253