HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/30/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
SPECIAL MEETING
July 30, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Executive Session.
This special meeting has been called to consider whether to go into executive session for the
purpose of meeting with the City Attorney and other affected members of City staff, as permitted
under City Code Section 2-31(a)(2), regarding potential litigation and related legal issues.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
1 of 76
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
July 30, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Local Action Regarding Amendment 64 (Recreational Marijuana.). (staff: Ginny
Sawyer, Don Vagge, Bronwyn Scurlock; 90 minute discussion)
On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64, which requires the state
to establish a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed (similar to alcohol) in a
retail environment. These licensed establishments must be separate and distinct from
medical marijuana centers.
Under Amendment 64, Council has three options in regard to retail operations: (1) adopt
an ordinance prohibiting retail marijuana businesses in Fort Collins; (2) refer a retail
marijuana prohibition question to the voters; or (3) allow retail marijuana businesses in
Fort Collins and impose local restrictions on the time, place, manner and number of retail
marijuana operations.
Additionally, the Amendment allows persons 21 years of age or older to legally possess
up to one ounce or less of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation and to grow up
to six marijuana plants. Local jurisdictions have the option to better define and regulate
home growing if they choose.
2 of 76
July 30, 2013
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
3 of 76
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
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 WORK SESSION
July 30, 2013
(after the City Council Work Session)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. The Role of the Urban Renewal Authority to Carry out the Mission and Implement the Policies Within
City Plan. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Tom Leeson; 1 hour discussion)
The three different roles the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) can play to support the redevelopment
of targeted areas include, React, Promote and Initiate. The various roles the URA takes are directly
related to its strategy to carry out the goals and policies in City Plan with respect to redevelopment.
The extent to which the Board engages in these roles is a policy decision and should be discussed
by the Board. Additionally, there is a relationship between the role the URA takes with a certain
project and the purpose of the financial assistance that also influences how the URA achieves its
mission.
3. Urban Renewal Policies Relating to Energy Efficiency Requirements and Recycling/Reuse of
Demolition and Construction Waste Materials. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Tom Leeson; 1 hour
discussion)
Consideration of the March 27, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board resolution to require URA
funded projects to participate in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as well as construction/demolition
waste diversion thresholds, was continued to allow for greater public outreach and discourse with
interested parties. Subsequent to the March URA Board meeting, staff set up a working group of
4 of 76
July 30, 2013
community members and industry professionals to provide feedback on the proposed changes. The
group supported the required participation in the Energy Star program; however, the group
recommended the punitive aspect of withholding funds if the project does not meet the required score
be removed. The working group also supported the required waste diversion from construction
and/or demolition but suggested an allowance for “As-Built Surveys” to be submitted as evidence of
non-compliance, require third-party verification, and to remove the punitive aspect of the policy.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
5 of 76
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
July 30, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Local Action Regarding Amendment 64 (Recreational Marijuana.). (staff: Ginny
Sawyer, Don Vagge, Bronwyn Scurlock; 90 minute discussion)
On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64, which requires the state
to establish a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed (similar to alcohol) in a
retail environment. These licensed establishments must be separate and distinct from
medical marijuana centers.
Under Amendment 64, Council has three options in regard to retail operations: (1) adopt
an ordinance prohibiting retail marijuana businesses in Fort Collins; (2) refer a retail
marijuana prohibition question to the voters; or (3) allow retail marijuana businesses in
Fort Collins and impose local restrictions on the time, place, manner and number of retail
marijuana operations.
Additionally, the Amendment allows persons 21 years of age or older to legally possess
up to one ounce or less of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation and to grow up
to six marijuana plants. Local jurisdictions have the option to better define and regulate
home growing if they choose.
6 of 76
July 30, 2013
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
7 of 76
DATE: July 30, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry, Ginny
Sawyer, Don Vagge, Bronwyn
Scurlock
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Local Action Regarding Amendment 64 (Recreational Marijuana.).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64, which requires the state to establish
a system in which marijuana is regulated and taxed (similar to alcohol) in a retail environment.
These licensed establishments must be separate and distinct from medical marijuana centers.
Under Amendment 64, Council has three options in regard to retail operations: (1) adopt an
ordinance prohibiting retail marijuana businesses in Fort Collins; (2) refer a retail marijuana
prohibition question to the voters; or (3) allow retail marijuana businesses in Fort Collins and
impose local restrictions on the time, place, manner and number of retail marijuana operations.
Additionally, the Amendment allows persons 21 years of age or older to legally possess up to one
ounce or less of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation and to grow up to six marijuana
plants. Local jurisdictions have the option to better define and regulate home growing if they
choose.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council need additional information to make a decision as to whether to ban or
regulate retail marijuana operations? If so, what information?
2. If retail operations are allowed in the City, what regulatory concerns would Council like staff
to address?
ALLOW RETAIL BUSINESSES - Includes Retail, Cultivation, Manufacturing, Testing
• Which types of retail establishments would be allowed?
• Utilize State regulations and adopt additional local regulations?
There are many options available for local regulations, including land use regulations,
limiting the number, fee setting, taxing allowing co-location of retail and medical,
etc.
If Council chooses to allow retail businesses, staff will recommend a temporary ban to allow
time to develop and approve local regulations
8 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 2
BAN RETAIL BUSINESSES - Some or All (Retail, Cultivation, Manufacturing, Testing)
• By Ordinance?
• By Vote? (November 2014 ballot)
TEMPORARY BAN
• Adopt a temporary ban on retail establishments until:
N Council has adopted local regulations
N It is determined whether the voters will approve sales and/or excise taxes on retail
operations in November 2014.
N Other?
3. Is Council interested in submitting a local sales tax on retail operations to the voters?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Amendment 64
On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64. In Larimer County, the Amendment
passed 55.77% to 44.23%. The Amendment allows for the following types of recreational marijuana
businesses:
• Retail Store - May purchase marijuana from cultivation facilities and marijuana products from
manufacturing facilities and sell to the public.
• Manufacturing Facility - May purchase marijuana for the manufacture, preparation, and
packaging of marijuana products. Products can be sold to retail stores or other manufacturing
facilities. May not sell to the public.
• Testing Facility - Entity licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana.
• Cultivation Facility - May cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana for sale to a retail store
or manufacturer. May not sell to the public.
Amendment 64 also allows people 21 years of age or older to legally possess, use, display, purchase,
or transport one ounce or less of marijuana without a doctor’s recommendation. Additionally,
anyone 21 years or older may possess, grow, process, or transport up to six marijuana plants. The
cultivation of marijuana must occur in an enclosed, locked space.
In May 2013 the state legislature passed three pertinent bills addressing retail marijuana regulation
and taxation (Attachment 2).
The State was required to adopt regulations implementing Amendment 64 by July 1, 2013. The
State met this deadline by enacting emergency rules that address some, but not all, aspects of retail
marijuana businesses. These emergency rules will expire in October and are meant to provide a
9 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 3
place-holder to give the State more time to conduct a formal rule making process. The State will
have final rules prior to businesses opening for operation in January 2014.
The State can begin accepting applications on October 1, 2013. A state license must be issued
within 45 to 90 days after the date of application unless the state finds that the application fails to
conform to the state’s regulations or any local ordinances or regulations that were in effect at the
time the application was submitted. If the City chooses to allow licensed retail stores and wants the
state to consider local regulations with regard to any applications submitted by October 1, the local
regulations would need to be adopted by that date.
Council Options
Amendment 64 has always allowed for local government to opt out entirely or opt in and enact local
regulations. Should a local government opt in, they must adopt an ordinance addressing licensing
by October 1, 2013.
Retail Businesses
The key local decisions include:
1. Whether to allow retail marijuana establishments to exist at all?
2. Whether to prohibit the establishment of licensed retail marijuana businesses permanently,
or only until a certain date in the future when the municipality would reevaluate whether
or not to allow such businesses to exist after some later date?
3. Which, if any, of the four distinct types of retail marijuana establishments should be
allowed?
a. retail marijuana stores?
b. retail marijuana cultivation facilities?
c. retail marijuana products manufacturers?
d. retail marijuana testing facilities?
4. Whether to limit the number of businesses allowed in any of the four classes of state
licensing and, if so, determine how to prioritize those who would compete for the limited
number of approvals.
5. Whether to pursue additional taxation on sales or businesses.
The Amendment provides for two means of opting out:
1. Ban by ordinance;
2. Refer a prohibition question to the voters in November 2014.
Communities that opt in have many local options, including:
• Setting a temporary ban until a reevaluation date in the future.
• Allowing some but not all of the types of retail establishments.
• Allowing only currently licensed medical marijuana licensees to convert to retail.
10 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 4
• Limiting the number of retail establishments allowed.
• Adopting local zoning and land use requirements.
• Setting fees.
• Imposing additional taxation including a sales tax and/or occupation tax.
• Adopting local licensing procedures.
Should Council decide to opt in, staff recommends enacting a temporary ban until March 2014. This
date allows time for final state rules to be adopted and incorporated, time to draft local regulations,
and also allows time to see if voters approve taxation in November.
Marijuana Growing-Personal Use
Amendment 64 allows adults to grow six plants “provided that the growing takes place in an
enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly and publicly, and is not made available for sale,”
however, the law does not define these terms. Municipalities may consider, and staff has already
begun, better defining what constitutes an “enclosed, locked space” and “open and publicly” in their
municipal codes.
As with medical marijuana, municipalities can use land use, building, and fire codes to regulate
home grows. Some municipalities have limited the number of plants per household (regardless of
the number of residents), some have dictated the minimum space needed per plant, others have
restricted indoor grows to using only specific types of lights; and at least one community has
prohibited home grows in multifamily housing.
Fort Collins currently allows medical marijuana patients and caregivers to grow up to 12 plants in
single-family detached residences. Growing is prohibited in multifamily residences for health and
safety reasons.
Regardless of Council direction on growing, the City will need to expand our current provisions
regarding patients and caregivers growing medical marijuana to include persons growing marijuana
consistent with Amendment 64, which allows for anyone over 21 to grow up to 6 plants.
What Other Communities are Doing
Staff has compiled data from CML and other sources to show what action other communities are
taking (Attachments 3 and 5). This data helps demonstrate the potential effects regionally, not just
by individual jurisdiction.
Our nearest neighbors are currently doing the following in regarding Amendment 64:
Loveland: Evaluating recreational marijuana
Windsor: Prohibition of all marijuana retail businesses
Greeley: Prohibition of all marijuana retail businesses
Berthoud: Prohibition of all marijuana retail businesses
Larimer County: Evaluating recreational marijuana
Boulder: Evaluating recreational marijuana
11 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 5
Next Steps
Should Council decide to opt-in at any level, staff recommends enacting a temporary ban to allow
time to craft, vet, and adopt local regulations. Should Council opt to refer the question to the voters
in November 2014, staff recommends a temporary ban until after voting results are known.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Retail establishment definitions
2. CML Knowledge Now-Marijuana Legislation Implementation
3. Chart of Other Jurisdictions
4. Powerpoint presentation
12 of 76
Amendment 64 Definitions
(h) "MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY" MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO CULTIVATE,
PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA AND SELL MARIJUANA TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES,
TO MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, AND TO OTHER MARIJUANA
CULTIVATION FACILITIES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(i) "MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT" MEANS A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, A
MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY, A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OR A
RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
(j) "MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY" MEANS AN ENTITY
LICENSED TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA; MANUFACTURE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA
PRODUCTS; AND SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO OTHER MARIJUANA
PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, BUT NOT TO
CONSUMERS.
(l) "MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY" MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TOANALYZE AND CERTIFY
THE SAFETY AND POTENCY OF MARIJUANA.
(m) "MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER" MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED BY A STATE AGENCY TO
SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND
THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
(n) "RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE" MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA FROM
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM
MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TO SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA
PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS.
ATTACHMENT 1
13 of 76
Marijuana LegisLation iMpLeMentation
By Rachel Allen, Colorado Municipal League staff attorney, and Kevin Bommer, deputy director
Important actIon Item for
munIcIpalItIes:
By oct. 1, municipalities must enact a
local ordinance as described in the
“Local Ordinance” section on page 2
of this document unless the governing
body of the municipality opts out of
retail marijuana pursuant to provisions
in Amendment 64. CML will draft a
boilerplate ordinance and collect
samples that will be available upon
request. It also will be available at
www.cml.org/marijuana.aspx.
introduction
In November 2012, Colorado voters
passed Amendment 64 to the Colorado
Constitution, legalizing the personal use
and possession of marijuana for adults
21-years-of-age and older, as well as
allowing for the retail sale, cultivation,
and testing of marijuana and the
production of marijuana-infused
products.
Gov. John Hickenlooper assembled the
Amendment 64 Implementation Task
Force on Dec. 10, 2012, in Executive
Order B2012-004. The task force was
asked to identify the legal, policy, and
procedural issues that needed to be
resolved, and to offer suggestions and
proposals for legislative, regulatory, and
executive actions necessary for the
effective and efficient implementation of
Amendment 64. The task force met for
two months and delivered its final report
on March 13.
Late in the 2013 legislative session, the
Colorado General Assembly passed
legislation to implement the licensing
and regulatory framework for retail
marijuana establishments, as well as
legislation submitting a single question
to voters to implement state sales and
excise taxes.
This paper is intended to be a general
introduction to the constitutional
amendment, state legislation, upcoming
regulatory actions by the state, and
some of the options municipalities have
to regulate local retail marijuana
operations. It is not intended as an
exhaustive legal analysis, and it should
not serve as a substitute for advice from
your municipal attorney.
state legislation
Three predominant bills encompass the
state marijuana law pertaining to retail
marijuana regulation and taxation:
• The duties of the state licensing
authority and the manner in which it
interacts with local jurisdictions is
established in Part 2. A state license
will be conditionally approved within
45 and 90 days, provided the
applicant meets state licensing
standards, but the state license only
becomes operational upon approval
from the local jurisdiction. A RMJ
establishment cannot operate legally
without both a state license and local
approval, in whatever form that
approval is granted as chosen by the
local jurisdiction.
• Once the conditional license has
been issued, local jurisdictions are
required to acknowledge to the state
licensing authority whether or not the
application is either approved or
denied by the local jurisdiction. There
is no time frame established in the
statute under which this approval or
denial must occur.
• Definitions and appropriate limitations
are created on each of the four state
license types under Amendment 64.
• Numerous unlawful acts related to
state licensure are established.
There are numerous other provisions
in the bill. It is important to note that,
consistent with Amendment 64, local
governments may adopt ordinances
and regulations that are more
restrictive as long as they do not
conflict with Amendment 64, state
statutes, or state rules.
Municipalities that do not choose to opt
out will need to consider the manner in
which they will approve or deny any
state application for an establishment.
While there is no requirement to have
a local license, the decision to require
establishments to meet local licensing
requirements provides an additional
element of local control, especially
as it relates to enforcement. (In the
Colorado Liquor Code, there are some
types of licenses — such as limited
winery licenses and manufacturers’
licenses — that may be issued without
local government approval, and CML
occasionally fields complaints and
concerns from members about a lack
of local control on the establishments.
Several municipalities requested
HB 13-1317 clearly establish the option
for a local licensing requirement to
maintain a clear local interest in
RMJ establishments within their
A local license in this scenario is
different than a local license that may
be required by a local jurisdiction as
part of dual state and local licensing.
The former scenario is in lieu of
the state’s license, and the latter
(described in more detail below) is in
conjunction with a state license.
To maintain harmony with the apparent
intent of Amendment 64, local
governments that want to prohibit the
operation of any or all of the retail
marijuana licenses should adopt an
ordinance to do so prior to Oct. 1,
and in a manner consistent with
the language of Amendment 64.
Moratoriums should be worded
sufficiently to apply enough force of
law to be recognized as the “opt-out”
allowed by Amendment 64. While a
retail marijuana business cannot
become operational without local
approval, the only guarantee against
the state processing any applications
for state licenses within jurisdictions
that do not want them is to choose
to prohibit retail marijuana operations
via ordinance.
Only the governing body can opt its
jurisdiction out prior to Oct. 1, as well
as any time thereafter. Initiated or
referred questions to opt out cannot be
voted on until November 2014, or any
even year thereafter. Referenda,
initiatives, and referred questions to
opt back into Amendment 64 are not
prohibited or restricted by Amendment
64 and can apparently occur at
any time.4
options permitted under the
constitution
In conjunction with the adoption of the
required ordinance mentioned above,
Amendment 64 also permits local
ordinances governing local fees, local
regulations, and the time, place,
manner, and number of marijuana
establishments within a city or town.5
fees
While the constitution allows the
establishment of application, operating,
and licensing fees, only the operating
fee may be collected by the local
government unless the state fails to
enact rules by July 1 or fails to act
upon an individual state license
4 Id. at § 16(5)(f).
5 Id.
application within 90 days.6 Operating
fees, while not defined in Amendment
to existing medical marijuana
licensees who seek to convert
to or add a retail marijuana
license?
10. Whether to impose spacing
restrictions?
a) for retail marijuana stores, or
for other classes of state
licensing as well?
b) carry forward any existing
spacing requirements currently
imposed upon medical
marijuana centers?
c) carry forward any existing
grandfathering provisions
currently enjoyed by medical
marijuana centers and
cultivators under previous city
licensing and zoning laws?
d) adopt new forms of spacing
requirements to be applied
to retail marijuana
establishments?
11. Whether to impose other location
restrictions on retail marijuana
establishments through zoning or
otherwise, e.g., by identifying
specific zone districts in which retail
marijuana establishments are
or are not allowed?
12. Whether to impose special
restrictions on signs and
advertising?
a) defer to state restrictions?
b) carry forward restrictions
previously imposed on medical
marijuana centers and apply
the same to retail marijuana
establishments?
c) adopt new restrictions?
13. To the extent a municipality
establishes a local licensing and
regulatory regime, what is an
appropriate annual “operating fee”
to impose upon licensed retail
marijuana establishments?
14. Whether board or council members
want to allow retail marijuana
businesses to exist in the
municipality at all if the state
defaults on its licensing and
regulatory responsibility by failing
to adopt necessary regulations by
July 1, 2013; or, failing to act on
any license application, the state
licensing authority receives within
90 days?
15. In general, any implementing
ordinance allowing retail marijuana
establishments to exist should
reports of co-ops and mobile
marijuana delivery services have
emerged after the passage of
amendment 64. Does the legislation
curb these activities?
Co-ops, and mobile delivery of
marijuana are prohibited.11
Municipalities may be better served by
enacting clearer local prohibitions in
zoning ordinances or other local land
use and regulatory tools.
social clubs (where adults gather in
a commercial space to consume but
not sell marijuana) have become
another recent concern. What
options do local governments have
to regulate these?
The state legislation prohibits
on-site consumption in licensed
establishments,12 and language added
to HB 13-1317 late in the session is
largely insufficient to effectively prohibit
social clubs. Some municipalities have
regulated private cannabis clubs with
local ordinances under their land
use authority.
can a person be charged with
stoned driving, similar to DuI?
Yes. In addition to existing laws
prohibiting driving under the influence,
the legislature passed a “driving under
the influence of drugs” (DUID) bill this
session, specific to marijuana, which
creates a “permissive inference”
of intoxication if a person tests
positive for five or more nanograms
of active THC.13
can adults use marijuana while
operating a motor vehicle or
possess an open container?
No, the open container law has been
amended to include marijuana in
addition to alcohol.14
Does the clean Indoor air act apply
to marijuana smoking in addition to
cigarette smoking indoors?
Yes, the Clean Indoor Air Act was
amended to prohibit marijuana smoke
in an identical manner to the existing
prohibition on cigarette smoke.15
11 C.R.S. 12-43.4-901(4)(c) and (h)
(2013).
12 Id. at § 12-43.4-901(4)(c).
13 C.R.S. 42-4-1301 (2013).
14 C.R.S. § 42-4-1305.5 (2013).
15 C.R.S. § 25-14-203 to 204, et seq.
(2013).
Do the same 1,000-foot distance
requirements from a school; an
alcohol or drug treatment facility;
Municipality Action Taken on Amendment 64
Medical
Marijuana
Growing
Regulations Incorporation
Vote in Favor
of Amend. 64
Aurora Ordinance to Comply with Amendment 64 age, grow, and
possession provisions; Moratorium on applications until
5/5/2014
prohibited N/A Home Rule Adams 56%;
Arapahoe
52.8%; Douglas
(45.4%)
Berthoud Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing,
testing facilities and retail marijuana stores
allowed N/A Statutory Town Larimer 54.6%;
Weld 50.2%
Boulder Evaluating recreational marijuana allowed N/A Home Rule 66.1%
Broomfield Prohibition of the operation of marijuana establishments prohibited N/A 52.8%
Carbondale Moratorium on the establishment of any new medical or retail
marijuana facility to 12/11/2013
allowed N/A Home Rule 56.8%
Castle Rock Ordinance to comply with Amendment 64 age and possession
provisions
prohibited N/A Home Rule Town (45.4%)
Centennial A moratorium to 09/30/2014 on the operation of marijuana
cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities,
marijuana testing facilities, retail marijuana stores, and
marijuana clubs; Ordinance regulating the manner in which
marijuana is grown for personal use, prohibiting the operation of
certain marijuana enterprises, and prohibiting marijuana on city
owned or leased property.
prohibited N/A Home Rule 52.8%
Colorado
Springs
Prohibition on all retail marijuana sales. allowed N/A Home Rule City
Denver Informally voted to move forward in regulating licensure of retail
marijuana. (6/4/2013)
allowed Home Rule City
Dillion Moratorium on the submission, acceptance or processing of
applications and the licensing, permitting, establishment or
operation of any recreational marijuana business to 10/01/2013.
prohibited N/A Home Rule 69.2%
Eaton Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing,
testing facilities and retail marijuana stores
Englewood Prohibition of the operation of marijuana establishments, put to
a citizen vote for the November 5, 2013 election as an advisory
question
allowed N/A Home Rule 52.8%
Erie Moratorium on the submission, acceptance or processing of
applications and the licensing, permitting, establishment or
operation of any recreational marijuana business to 10/01/2013.
prohibited N/A Statutory Town Boulder 66.1%;
Weld 50.2%
ATTACHMENT 3
19 of 76
Municipality Action Taken on Amendment 64
Medical
Marijuana
Growing
Regulations Incorporation
Vote in Favor
of Amend. 64
Estes Park Moratorium on marijuana establishments until 10/1/2013 prohibited Statutory Town
Evans Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing,
testing facilities and retail marijuana stores
prohibited Home Rule City
Ft. Morgan Moratorium on the operation of marijuana establishments
pursuant to Amendment 64 to 2/31/2013.
prohibited N/A Home Rule (42.3%)
Garden City Awaiting guidance allowed Statutory Town
Greenwood
Village
Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana
product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, or
retail marijuana store or marijuana club; Regulation of the
personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana; Banned
marijuana on sidewalks and public streets
prohibited Developing
ordinance
regarding
home growing
to
address mold &
fire
concerns
Home Rule 52.8%
Greeley Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana
product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, or
retail marijuana store.
allowed Home Rule 50.2%
Gunnison Ordinance to comply with Amendment 64 age, grow, and
possession provisions; Prohibition of any marijuana cultivation
facility, marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana
testing facility, or retail marijuana store.
prohibited N/A Home Rule City 67.3%
Johnstown Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing,
testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores.
prohibited
N/A Home Rule Larimer 54.6%;
Weld 50.2%
Larimer
County
allowed
Lafayette Moratorium on the submission, acceptance or processing of
applications and the licensing, permitting, establishment or
operation of any recreational marijuana business to 10/01/2013.
allowed N/A Home Rule 66.1%
Lakewood Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or
operation of any new marijuana enterprise to 01/01/2014
N/A Home Rule 53.7%
Longmont banned marijuana‐related businesses from the city limits; ban
marijuana clubs
prohibited N/A Home Rule City
Loveland prohibited N/A Home Rule City
Louisville Moratorium on retail marijuana establishments allowed Home Rule 66.1%
Municipality Action Taken on Amendment 64
Medical
Marijuana
Growing
Regulations Incorporation
Vote in Favor
of Amend. 64
Lyons Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or
operation of any new marijuana enterprise to 10/01/2013;
Moratorium on the licensing, permitting, establishment, or
operation of any new business that sells, cultivates, or tests
marijuana or any marijuana products, or any marijuana
enterprise to 10/01/2013.
N/A Statutory Town
Northglenn Decision pending on retail stores allowed N/A Home Rule Adams 56%;
Weld 50.2%
Steamboat
Springs
Moratorium on any business that permits or invites private
assembly for the purpose of the use or consumption in any
manner of marijuana or marijuana products in any form to
05/05/2013.
allowed N/A Home Rule 62.9%
Timnath Prohibition of marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing,
testing facilities and retail marijuana stores, and marijuana clubs.
prohibited N/A Home Rule Town
Vail Moratorium on the operation of marijuana establishments
pursuant to Amendment 64 to 08/06/2013.
prohibited N/A Home Rule 66.5%
Westminster Prohibition on retail sale, distribution, cultivation and dispensing
of recreational marijuana through marijuana establishments and
optional premises cultivation operations; Ordinance to comply
with Amendment 64 age, grow, and possession provisions.
prohibited N/A Home Rule Adams 56%;
Jefferson 53.7%
Wellington Ordinance to prohibit retail cultivation, retail manufacturing,
retail testing, and retail stores.
prohibited N/A Statutory Town
Windsor Prohibition of the operation of any marijuana business
enterprise within the meaning of Amendment 64; Prohibition of
the establishment and operation of private marijuana clubs.
prohibited N/A Home Rule Larimer
54.6%;Weld
50.2%
21 of 76
1
1
Amendment 64
and Local Implications
City Council Work Session
July 30, 2013
2
Direction Sought
1. Does Council need additional information to make a decision as to
whether to ban or regulate retail marijuana? If so, what
information?
2. If retail operations are allowed, what regulatory concerns would
Council like staff to address?
3. Is Council interested in submitting a sales tax option to the voters?
ATTACHMENT 4
22 of 76
2
3
Amendment 64 Overview
Provides for Legislature to adopt a system for
licensing marijuana businesses defined in the
Amendment.
Does not amend existing medical marijuana laws.
Does not amend Federal prohibition.
4
Types of Businesses
• Retail Store- May purchase marijuana/ products and sell to the
public.
• Manufacturing Facility- May purchase marijuana for the
manufacture, preparation, and packaging of marijuana products.
May not sell to the public.
• Testing Facility- Analyze and certify the safety and potency of
marijuana.
• Cultivation Facility-May cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana
for sale to a retail store or manufacturer. May not sell to the public.
23 of 76
3
5
Amendment 64 Overview
Allows Municipalities three options:
• Prohibit retail marijuana businesses by ordinance.
• Refer a retail marijuana prohibition question to the
voters. (Nov. 2014)
• Impose local restrictions on the time, place,
manner and number of retail marijuana
operations.
6
Amendment 64 Overview
• Treats marijuana similar to alcohol.
• Over 21, person may possess up to 1 ounce
without medical permission.
• Allows individuals to grow up to 6 plants in an
enclosed, locked space.
24 of 76
4
7
Current Status
• The state adopted emergency rules by
July 1, 2013.
• These rules will expire in October 2013 but are
meant to be a place holder.
• The state anticipates having final rules by
January 2014.
• State can begin accepting applications on
October 1, 2013.
8
Next Steps
Amendment 64 has always allowed for local
government to opt-out entirely or opt-in and enact
local regulations.
Should a local government opt-in they must adopt an
ordinance addressing licensing by October 1, 2013.
25 of 76
5
9
Opt-Out Options
Two means of opting out:
– Ban by ordinance.
– Refer a prohibition question to the voters in
November 2014.
10
Temporary Ban Options
• If Council refers a measure to the November
2014 election.
• If Council chooses to see whether voters
approve additional taxes in November 2014.
• If Council chooses to opt-in a temporary ban
would allow time to create and adopt local
regulations.
26 of 76
6
11
Opt-In Options
• Set a temporary ban until a re-evaluation date in
the future.
• Allow some but not all of the types of retail
establishments.
• Allow only currently licensed medical marijuana
licensees to convert to retail.
12
Opt-In Options
• Limit the number of retail establishments allowed.
• Adopt local zoning and land use requirements.
• Set fees.
• Pursue additional taxation.
• Adopt local licensing procedures.
27 of 76
7
13
Direction Sought
1. Does Council need additional information to make a decision as to
whether to ban or regulate retail marijuana? If so, what
information?
2. If retail operations are allowed, what regulatory concerns would
Council like staff to address?
3. Is Council interested in submitting a sales tax option to the voters?
14
Direction Sought
BAN RETAIL BUSINESSES-Some or All
By Ordinance?
By Vote? (November 2014 ballot.)
28 of 76
8
15
Direction Sought
ALLOW SOME OR ALL RETAIL BUSINESSES
Includes Retail, Cultivation, Manufacturing, Testing
Utilize State regulations and adopt additional local regulations?
Adopt a temporary ban on retail establishments until:
• Council has adopted local regulations.
• It is determined whether voters approve a sales tax in
November 2014.
• Other?
29 of 76
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
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 WORK SESSION
July 30, 2013
(after the City Council Work Session)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. The Role of the Urban Renewal Authority to Carry out the Mission and Implement the Policies Within
City Plan. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Tom Leeson; 1 hour discussion)
The three different roles the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) can play to support the redevelopment
of targeted areas include, React, Promote and Initiate. The various roles the URA takes are directly
related to its strategy to carry out the goals and policies in City Plan with respect to redevelopment.
The extent to which the Board engages in these roles is a policy decision and should be discussed
by the Board. Additionally, there is a relationship between the role the URA takes with a certain
project and the purpose of the financial assistance that also influences how the URA achieves its
mission.
3. Urban Renewal Policies Relating to Energy Efficiency Requirements and Recycling/Reuse of
Demolition and Construction Waste Materials. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Tom Leeson; 1 hour
discussion)
Consideration of the March 27, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board resolution to require URA
funded projects to participate in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as well as construction/demolition
waste diversion thresholds, was continued to allow for greater public outreach and discourse with
interested parties. Subsequent to the March URA Board meeting, staff set up a working group of
30 of 76
July 30, 2013
community members and industry professionals to provide feedback on the proposed changes. The
group supported the required participation in the Energy Star program; however, the group
recommended the punitive aspect of withholding funds if the project does not meet the required score
be removed. The working group also supported the required waste diversion from construction
and/or demolition but suggested an allowance for “As-Built Surveys” to be submitted as evidence of
non-compliance, require third-party verification, and to remove the punitive aspect of the policy.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
31 of 76
DATE: July 30, 2013
STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks
Tom Leeson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The Role of the Urban Renewal Authority to Carry out the Mission and Implement the Policies
Within City Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The three different roles the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) can play to support the redevelopment
of targeted areas include, React, Promote and Initiate. The various roles the URA takes are directly
related to its strategy to carry out the goals and policies in City Plan with respect to redevelopment.
The extent to which the Board engages in these roles is a policy decision and should be discussed
by the Board. Additionally, there is a relationship between the role the URA takes with a certain
project and the purpose of the financial assistance that also influences how the URA achieves its
mission.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Based on the goals and policies within City Plan related to redevelopment, does the URA
Board agree these are the appropriate roles for the URA?
2. Does the URA Board support the URA initiating projects in an effort to be more strategic
in terms of achieving the community’s redevelopment goals?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) mission is to “remedy blight, using Tax
Increment Financing, to leverage private capital investment, and stimulate sustainable development
and public improvement projects.” The URA mission is supported by, and takes direction from the
policies contained within the City’s adopted comprehensive plan related to redevelopment and infill
development. The role the URA takes to carry out the mission and implement the policies within
City Plan is the topic of discussion for this work session.
The URA, through the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), can engage in different roles to
accomplish the stated policies. In general, there are three different of roles the URA can play to
support the redevelopment of targeted areas:
1. React. In certain circumstances it may make sense for the URA to react to the real estate
market and allow the market to dictate the outcome. Appropriate times for a reactionary role
for the URA might be if there is enough momentum in the real estate market such that
32 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 2
redevelopment is occurring without any other effort by the URA; or in the very early years
of a TIF district to gauge the market’s desire for redevelopment.
In a reactionary role, the URA would establish the parameters for financial assistance, and
endorse plans for desired land use patterns and redevelopment efforts. In general, the URA
would respond to redevelopment proposals and provide financial assistance only when
requested by the private sector.
Examples of successful URA projects in which the URA played a reactionary role include
the North College Marketplace development, Jax Outdoor Gear expansion, Valley Steel, and
the Aspen Heights student housing project. In all of these cases, the URA responded to the
requested financial assistance and provided only the minimum assistance.
2. Promote. The URA, at times, has been active in promoting redevelopment projects and
actually endorsing proposals. A role in which the URA promotes redevelopment efforts is
a more active role in which the URA fosters a preferred market outcome, as opposed to just
reacting to market forces. Appropriate times for the URA to promote projects might be
when a project is a catalyst for an area and the preferred outcome is a priority for the
community and/or a project will impact an area to such a degree that it would influence the
outcome of future redevelopment projects.
In a promotion role, the URA forms partnerships with the private sector as a way to develop
mutually beneficial outcomes; promotes redevelopment opportunities as way to “market”
certain areas; and actually participates in a project’s planning and approval process to
influence future outcomes.
Examples of successful URA projects in which the URA was engaged in promoting projects
include the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall, the Summit student housing project, and
the Rocky Mountain Innosphere. In all of these cases, the URA played an active role with
respect to certain preferred outcomes related to site planning, design, and land uses. There
was a significant amount of collaboration with the private sector and a strong sense of
partnership.
3. Initiate. To initiate projects, the URA would actually generate proposals and engage in
shaping the market outcome. A role in which the URA initiates redevelopment efforts is the
most active role with regards to achieving the City Plan goals and policies for targeted
redevelopment efforts. Appropriate times for the URA to initiate projects might be when
a project involves public infrastructure upgrades or replacements that are necessary for an
area to redevelop; acquisition of a key property to ensure preferred market outcome; or to
deliver land uses to the market the private sector may not be able to deliver, such as
affordable housing.
The URA has initiated projects that involved infrastructure improvements on public
property, such as the North College Road improvements and the NECCO stormwater
improvements. There could be circumstances, however, when the URA might want to
acquire private property in order to control the market outcome, or to partner with private
sector to develop certain preferred uses.
33 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 3
The various roles the URA takes on projects is presented to provide the Board with an understanding
of how the URA can be strategic in its actions to carry out the goals and policies in City Plan with
respect to redevelopment. While each role has its place depending on the circumstances, it is
evident the URA has greater ability and influence on preferred outcomes (as stated in City Plan) if
it engages in a Promote or Initiate role. The extent to which the Board engages in these roles is a
policy decision and should be discussed by the Board.
URA Roles and Purpose of Assistance
During the May 14, 2013 work session, the Board discussed the three types of situations where it
is appropriate for the URA and the City to assist in closing a financial gap and provide tax increment
financing assistance. These three circumstances include:
• When conditions on the site make private market rate redevelopment impossible, so
providing TIF assistance helps to create a project that would not otherwise happen.
• When conditions on the site make the timing of market rate redevelopment uncertain, so
providing TIF assistance accelerates the timing of a project.
• When conditions on the site are such that the likely market rate redevelopment outcome is
not desirable, so providing TIF assistance enhances identified objectives in City Plan.
There is a relationship between the role the URA takes with a certain project and the purpose of the
assistance that is important to present. For instance, projects such as the Jax expansion or the Valley
Steel infrastructure upgrades were provided assistance to help create a project that would not
otherwise happen; however, the URA played a reactionary role in the sense of responding to the
requests and providing a minimum amount of assistance. Compare these projects to the Foothills
Mall redevelopment in which the URA provided assistance as means of accomplishing all three
purposes (create, accelerate, and enhance), and the URA acted much more as a partner with the
private sector as a strategy to achieve certain community goals. In this example the URA was
engaged in a “promote” role.
Table 1: Purpose of Assistance/URA Role Relationship
Purpose of Assistance
Enhance • North College
Marketplace
• RMI
• The Summit
• Foothills Mall
Accelerate
• North College
Marketplace
• Valley Steel
• Aspen Heights
• Foothills Mall
• North College
Road
Improvements
Create • Jax
• RMI
• The Summit
• Foothills Mall
• NECCO
React Promote Initiate
URA Role
This relationship between the purpose of the assistance and the URA role is presented to further
provide the Board with examples of how the URA can be strategic in its actions to carry out the
goals and policies in City Plan. A project that falls within the Create/React realm requires less in
34 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 4
terms of expected public benefit and URA resources than a project within the Enhance/Initiate.
However, a project that is initiated by the URA allows the URA to be more strategic in terms of
achieving the community’s redevelopment goals. A discussion around these differences could assist
staff in identifying how best to operationalize the review and processing of different types of URA
projects.
Additional Considerations with Respect to URA Role
The role the URA takes to achieve the policies and goals of City Plan influences larger policy
decisions, such as the creation of new urban renewal areas in targeted redevelopment areas (as
described in City Plan), the creation of new tax increment financing districts within established
urban renewal areas, as well as how the URA provides financial assistance (i.e., bonding vs.
reimbursement based on collected increment).
While the specifics of the these policy decisions do not need to be discussed during this work
session, the comfort level with the various roles helps to inform the preferred direction of the Fort
Collins URA and the strategies available to achieve the redevelopment goals of the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
35 of 76
1
Fort Collins URA Work Session –
URA Role in Redevelopment Strategy
July 30, 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
36 of 76
2
URA Mission
“Remedy blight, using Tax Increment Financing, to
leverage private capital investment, and stimulate
sustainable development and public improvement
projects.”
• Mission takes direction from the City Plan policies
related to redevelopment and infill development
37 of 76
3
Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
38 of 76
4
URA Roles
URA can engage in different roles to accomplish the
stated policies.
Each role requires different strategies and
resources.
Each role has different policy implications.
39 of 76
5
Role of URA
Market Dictates
Outcome
React Promote Initiate
Responds to
Proposals
Endorses
Proposals
Creates
Proposals
Foster Preferred
Market Outcome
Engage in
Market Outcome
Provide Assistance
Establish Parameters
Plan for Future
Outcomes
Form Partnerships
Promote Opportunities
Participate in Future
Outcomes
Acquire Property
RFPs
Implement Future
Outcomes
40 of 76
6
Role of URA – Project Examples
React Promote Initiate
North College Marketplace
JAX Expansion
Valley Steel
Aspen Heights
Foothills Mall
The Summit
RMI
N. College Road Improv.
NECCO Stormwater
41 of 76
7
Role/Purpose Relationship
Promote Initiate
Create
Accelerate
Enhance
Projects fall
somewhere along
continuum
URA Role
Purpose of Assistance
42 of 76
8
Example Projects
Promote Initiate
Create
Accelerate
Enhance
URA Role
Purpose of Assistance
Valley Steel
NC Marketplace
NC Marketplace
Aspen Heights
Jax The Summit
NC Road
Improvements
The Summit
Foothills
Foothills
Foothills
RMI
RMI
NECCO
43 of 76
9
Additional Considerations
Roles influence larger policy decisions:
• Creation of new urban renewal areas
• New TIF districts
• Financial Assistance package
44 of 76
10
Direction Sought
• Based on the goals and policies within City Plan
related to redevelopment, does the URA Board
agree these are the appropriate roles for the URA?
• Does the URA Board support the URA initiating
projects in an effort to be more strategic in terms of
achieving the community’s redevelopment goals?
45 of 76
DATE: July 30, 2013
STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks
Tom Leeson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Urban Renewal Policies Relating to Energy Efficiency Requirements and Recycling/Reuse of
Demolition and Construction Waste Materials.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consideration of the March 27, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board resolution to require
URA funded projects to participate in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as well as
construction/demolition waste diversion thresholds, was continued to allow for greater public
outreach and discourse with interested parties. Subsequent to the March URA Board meeting, staff
set up a working group of community members and industry professionals to provide feedback on
the proposed changes. The group supported the required participation in the Energy Star program;
however, the group recommended the punitive aspect of withholding funds if the project does not
meet the required score be removed. The working group also supported the required waste diversion
from construction and/or demolition but suggested an allowance for “As-Built Surveys” to be
submitted as evidence of non-compliance, require third-party verification, and to remove the
punitive aspect of the policy.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is there support for moving forward with a resolution to amend the evaluation criteria for
URA funded projects to require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as well as
construction/demolition waste diversion thresholds?
2. If there is support for the policy change, does the URA Board support the working group’s
recommendations?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2013 the URA Board reviewed a resolution to amend the evaluation criteria for URA
funded projects to require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system to set energy targets for new buildings and major renovations. Additionally, the resolution
would have required URA funded projects to demonstrate that at least 50% of the waste materials
by weight (excluding wastes containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous material) generated by a
construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through waste management options,
such as reuse or recycling (Attachment 1). While there was some discussion and questions
regarding the content of the resolution, much of the discussion was about public outreach. The
Board ultimately continued the item to allow for greater public outreach and discourse with
interested parties.
46 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 2
Subsequent to the March URA Board meeting, staff set up a working group of community members
and industry professionals to provide feedback on the proposed changes (Attachment 2). The group
met on three occasions and provided their perspective and some recommendations on the proposed
policy changes (Attachment 3).
In addition to the public outreach, the continuation allowed staff to evaluate existing City buildings,
as well as a previous URA project with regards to the Energy Star rating (See Attachments 4 and
5 for the Energy Star Ratings).
Energy Efficiency Requirements
The URA working group’s discussion about the EPA’s Energy Star program as it relates to URA
projects predominately centered on three main topics: the potential increase in costs associated with
the program, the difficulty in monitoring projects that property owners don’t fully control; and, the
uncertainty of receiving TIF reimbursement a year after project completion.
In terms of additional costs, it was demonstrated that buildings designed to meet the Energy Star
rating typically do not cost more. This is because the Energy Star scoring systems compares
proposed buildings to a national survey of buildings conducted in 2003. Most buildings are required
to meet energy codes newer than 2003, so in most cases proposed buildings compare favorably. As
a result, experience shows that meeting Energy Star does not increase construction costs. The power
in the program is getting designers and developers to consider energy use during the design phase
so adjustments can be made, as well as the 12-month monitoring period, which provides important
feedback about the building operation and user behavior.
The second and third topic discussions, while distinct, were related as they both dealt with the
requirement to monitor energy use for a year after completion in order to meet the Energy Star
designation. The proposed policy requires that, in addition to designing a building to meet the
Energy Star label, the energy use shall be monitored for 12 consecutive months after completion to
demonstrate the operating building earns an EPA rating of 75 or higher. The concern was two-fold:
in cases where property owners/developers lease tenant spaces, they don’t always have control over
energy use, so the prospect of having funding withheld at the end of 12-months was a significant
concern; and secondly, the potential of having funding withheld if the building does not meet the
Energy Star rating significantly complicates project financing and makes a relatively uncertain
process even more uncertain.
After much discussion, the group supported the Energy Star program, as well as the requirement to
monitor buildings for 12-consecutive months; however, the group recommended that the punitive
aspect of withholding funds if the project does not meet the required score be removed. In general,
the group felt the policy would be better received and more successful if it was not complicated by
the added uncertainty of withholding funds. However, the energy efficiency requirement would be
included within the project’s redevelopment agreement and the URA could enforce compliance
without withholding funds.
47 of 76
July 30, 2013 Page 3
Deconstruction/Construction Waste Recycling Requirements
The URA working group’s discussion about the deconstruction/construction waste recycling
requirements as it relates to URA projects predominately centered on three main topics: the one-size
fits all nature of the policy; the difficulty with monitoring compliance; and the punitive aspect of
the policy. With regards to the one-size fits all aspect of the policy, there was concern raised that
certain projects may or may not be able to meet the 50% threshold due to construction type or other
characteristics, but the policy, as written, does not allow for any deviation regardless of
circumstance. It was suggested the policy include a provision that allows an “As-Built Survey” to
be submitted if a property owner feels the diversion threshold could not reached; however, the
project would need to meet whatever the survey indicated was feasible. An “As-Built” survey
would estimate the amount of different materials within a building and estimate the amount of the
materials that could be recycled. An “As-Built Survey” could be conducted by any competent
architect, engineer, or construction manager, or by such organizations as the Institute for the Built
Environment, National Center for Craftsmanship, or the non-profit Waste-Not. Anyone conducting
an “As-built Survey” would need to be pre-approved by the City/URA and have no connection with
the proposed project.
With regards to monitoring compliance, the group discussed the difficulty of actually verifying
diversion rates. The numbers associated with construction waste loads can easily be manipulated,
and diversion by weight needs to be verified by a third-party. Without third-party verification, the
program may not actually achieve the goals intended. While the mechanics would still need to be
figured out, if third-party verification is required, the developer/property owner would be required
to contract with a URA approved “vendor” who would then provide verification to the URA.
Finally, similar to the Energy Star program, the group had concerns with the punitive nature of the
recycling policy. The potential of having funding withheld if the project does not meet the diversion
threshold complicates project financing and makes a relatively uncertain process even more
uncertain. The group recommended any punitive aspect of the policy be removed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. March 27, 2013 URA Board Meeting Minutes
2. URA Working Group Member List
3. URA Working Group Meeting Notes
4. City Buildings – Energy Star Rating
5. Valley Steel Energy Star Rating
6. Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation
7. Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation
8. Powerpoint presentation
48 of 76
March 27, 2013
Resolution No. 053
Adopting Revised Policies and Procedures for the
Urban Renewal Authority, Postponed Indefinitely
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a follow up to the February 28, 2013 URA Board work session, this Resolution amends the
adopted 2012 URA Policies and Procedures. As an alternative to required participation in IDAP,
the amended Policies require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system to set energy targets for new buildings and major renovations. Additionally, in an effort to
meet the City of Fort Collins established goal of diverting 50% of the community waste from
landfills, the amended Policies also requires URA funded projects to demonstrate that at least 50%
of the waste materials by weight (excluding waste containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous
material) generated by a construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through
waste management options, such as reuse or recycling. The Resolution also delegates the authority
to approve Administrative Procedures with the Executive Director, and includes some minor
language changes for clarification purposes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Energy Efficiency Requirements
During the October 23, 2012 URA Board meeting, it was recommended that URA projects be
required to participate in the Fort Collins Utilities Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP)
as an alternative to requiring buildings to meet a LEED certification. Since that time, City Utilities
has moved forward to redesign IDAP as a performance-based program in alignment with the
Architecture 2030 Challenge, a program with a path to carbon neutral buildings by 2030. The new
IDAP will require a significant commitment from property owners in terms of monitoring and
program compliance and would be very difficult to achieve without willing property owners that are
dedicated to the outcome.
As an alternative to required participation in IDAP, it is recommended the Board consider requiring
participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder system to set energy targets
for new buildings and major renovations (more than 50% of square footage affected). The Target
Finder is an online tool that enables architects and building owners to set energy targets and
receive an EPA energy performance score for projects during the design process (See Attachment
3 for program details). The program utilizes energy use targets based on actual building energy
consumption data for more than a dozen building types. EPA’s Energy Star energy performance
scale assigns a score between 1 and 100 for the corresponding energy use intensity for the specified
project. Projects that earn a score of 75 or higher are eligible for Designed to Earn the Energy Star
certification. A score of 75 means the building performs 35 percent better than typical, comparable
buildings and represents the top 25 percent of existing buildings. The Target Finder is a
comprehensive look at a building’s potential energy use as it takes into account building size,
climate, operating hours, number of occupants, computer use, and occupant behavior.
199
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MINUTES
ATTACHMENT 1
49 of 76
March 27, 2013
As a policy decision, the Board could choose to require URA projects that include new buildings,
or major renovations to meet the Designed to Earn the Energy Star certification. While this
requirement would be a major step in bringing energy use and efficiency to the forefront during the
design phase, this level of participation does not require that new buildings actually perform at the
designed target levels. The Board could choose to require that new buildings achieve the Energy
Star label. Closing the loop between the design's intended energy use and the building's actual
performance requires the commitment of the owner to earn the Energy Star label after the project
is built and operating. An operating building that earns an EPA rating of 75 or higher for 12
consecutive months of energy bills and receives verification by a professional engineer or registered
architect that the building meets indoor environmental standards qualifies to earn the Energy Star
label. This step solidifies that the design intent has been translated into the building's actual
performance. The following flow chart demonstrates the necessary process to obtain Design to Earn
Energy Star versus obtaining and Energy Star label.
Source: EnergyStar.gov
It is recommended that URA projects that do not include new construction or major renovations
(more than 50% of square footage affected) meet the current energy code, except for the building
envelope requirements, which could be cost prohibitive. It is also recommended that energy use be
monitored through the Energy Star program but not require any target energy performance level.
The current code requires energy assessments prior to building alterations with valuations of
$30,000 or greater, and requiring energy performance to be monitored will go a long way in
bringing awareness of energy use and efficiencies to building owners.
It should be noted that requiring new buildings and major renovations to achieve an Energy Star
label will add cost to the design phase of a project. The design phase is considered a soft cost and
represents a small percentage of overall project costs. Given the requirements in current building
codes, meeting Energy Star label should not add any additional costs to overall hard costs. The
advantage of the program is that it is focused on ensuring building systems are designed correctly
and appropriately for the intended users, that system commissioning is carried out (currently a code
requirement) and that monitoring take place over an extended period of time.
Based on the discussion above, staff is recommending the following URA Policy:
All URA projects that include new construction or major renovations of existing
buildings (more than 50% of square footage affected) shall be required to meet the
Energy Star label. Such projects shall be required to design buildings in such a
manner as to be eligible for Designed to Earn the Energy Star (DEES) certification.
Once buildings are completed, the energy use shall be monitored for 12 consecutive
months to demonstrate the operating building earns an EPA rating of 75 or higher
200
50 of 76
March 27, 2013
in Portfolio Manager and verification shall be received by a professional engineer
or registered architect that the building meets indoor environmental standards and
qualifies to earn the Energy Star label.
Additionally, all URA projects that include renovations that affect less than 50% of
existing square footage shall be required to meet the current energy code, except for
the building envelope requirements, and energy use shall be monitored through the
Energy Star program for 12-consecutive months in an effort to raise energy use
awareness.
Deconstruction/Construction Waste Recycling Requirements
With the adoption of the green building amendments, all new construction is required to submit a
construction waste recycling plan with the intent of diverting construction waste from the landfill.
The program focuses on the materials in which the City has capacity to receive, which includes
wood, metal, concrete, and cardboard. The current program does not apply to alterations.
The requirement for a construction waste recycling plan addresses the waste material generated
during the construction process, but does not address materials associated with the demolition of
existing structures. As articulated in both City Plan and the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, the
City of Fort Collins established a goal to divert 50% of the community waste from landfills. As
redevelopment occurs through the City of Fort Collins, a significant amount of material from
demolished structures can be diverted from the landfills by ensuring structures are deconstructed,
as opposed to demolished.
Deconstruction is the process of systematically dismantling a structure in an environmentally,
economically and socially responsible manner, aiming to maximize the recovery of materials for
reuse and recycling. Deconstruction is commonly separated into two categories; "non-structural"
and "structural". Non-structural deconstruction, also known as “soft-stripping”, consists of
reclaiming non-structural components including appliances, doors, windows, and finish or trim
materials. Structural deconstruction involves dismantling the structural components of a building;
removing the entire building down to or including the foundation.
Deconstruction, as a process, is more time consuming than standard demolition, and is generally
more expensive. However, many of the additional costs associated with deconstruction can be
reduced when taking into account reduced disposal costs, avoided purchases of new materials (if
materials are re-used on site), revenue earned from material sales and potential tax incentives. Tax
benefits can be obtained when materials are donated to a 501(c)(3), such as ReSource Fort Collins.
Therefore, staff is recommending that all URA funded projects demonstrate that at least 50% of the
waste materials by weight (excluding waste containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous material)
generated by a construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through waste
management options, such as reuse or recycling.
Approval Process of Administrative Procedures
The URA Administrative Procedures, which were most recently revised in October, 2012, have
historically been approved by a URA Board Resolution. The Administrative Procedures were
201
51 of 76
March 27, 2013
adopted as part of the Policies and Procedures, yet they serve a very different purpose. The
Administrative Procedures are intended to provide both minimum procedural requirements for URA
applicants and an operating framework for staff to implement the Policy and Procedures established
by the URA Board.
In an effort to allow staff the ability and flexibility to respond quickly to issues that arise when
implementing the URA Policies, it is recommended that the Board delegate the authority to approve
Administrative Procedures to the Executive Director. Any revisions to the Administrative
Procedures will be presented to the URA Board.
October 2012 URA Board Recommended Amendments
During the October 23, 2012 URA Board meeting in which the Policy and Procedures were adopted,
the Board requested staff to look at several sections and recommend possible language changes. The
amendments, which are included within the attached redlined version of the policies, address the
following policy sections:
Section 2- Objectives
• Presence of Floodplain language
Section 4 – Evaluation Criteria
• Financial Feasibility of Projects language
Section 4 – Public Benefit
• Affordable Housing as Public Benefit language.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The requirement for participation in the Energy Star program, as well as the required
deconstruction/recycling of waste material may result in some additional costs to URA projects.
While the additional costs may be eligible for reimbursement by tax increment financing, the
additional costs could impact the financial feasibility of certain projects. Tax increment financing
represents gap financing, meaning financing that covers the gap between a financially feasible
project and non-financially feasible project. When Code requirements add costs to a project, in
essence the gap becomes larger. This becomes a policy decision related to trade-offs for URA
financing. As more of the tax increment is necessary to offset costs associated with Code
requirements, less of the increment will be available for other improvements, such as required
public infrastructure, that also contribute to the gap.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Ultimately, the benefit will be positive to the environment as each project will increase the level of
quality and sustainability of all publicly funded URA projects. Benefits will include reduced energy
use, increased diversion from the landfill and subsequently a lower carbon impact.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
202
52 of 76
March 27, 2013
Given the relatively short period of time between the February work session and the Resolution
adoption date, there has been less public outreach than is typical of similar policy changes. The
following outreach effort shave been made:
• URA Board Worksession - February 28 (Attachment 4)
• Presentation to the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
Committee – March 22
• Presentation to the Air Quality Advisory Board - March 18
• Agenda Item Summary provided to the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Energy
Board
• Copies of proposed amendments sent to the North Fort Collins Business Association and the
South Fort Collins Business Association. “
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, introduced the item as the next step in the development
of URA policies and procedures.
Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager, stated staff has arrived at the green building
recommendation for URA projects to fall under the guidelines of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Energy Star program, and its associated target finder system. He detailed the requirements
for the program. Leeson stated the second aspect of the Resolution looks at deconstruction and
recycling requirements for URA projects and establishes a threshold for landfill diversion.
Hendee reviewed the positive components of the Energy Star program and stated there are some
boards and commissions which have not yet been able to give a recommendation on this item.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, commended the environmental accountability found in the plan and
requested the maximum public benefit from URA projects. He questioned the urgency of the need
for this change.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, questioned the urgency of the need for this change and
suggested a more thorough public outreach process be completed prior to adoption of new policies.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the changes to the policies and went on to discuss
his perceived problems with the URA and its existing policies and procedures.
Luke McFetridge, South Fort Collins Business Association President, encouraged additional public
outreach be completed prior to adoption of new policies.
Ron Lautzenheiser, North and South Fort Collins Business Association, suggested adoption of new
policies should be slowed down and further vetted.
Chair Weitkunat asked if deconstruction is impossible on some buildings. Leeson replied some
buildings may have too many hazardous materials to achieve an effective deconstruction; however,
deconstruction is generally an option.
Boardmember Troxell asked if these items would apply to entire projects, despite the fact that the
TIF funding may be going to infrastructure such as streets. Leeson replied the policies are currently
written to apply to entire projects.
203
53 of 76
March 27, 2013
Boardmember Troxell asked if these requirements would be a part of the scorecard for projects.
Leeson replied it would technically be, as it would be included within the evaluation criteria.
Boardmember Troxell suggested additional feedback should be sought, though he commended the
track the policies are on.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if exceptions were considered, particularly in cases where the TIF funding
is going to public improvements rather than the project per se. Leeson replied there has not been
discussion about that; however, that is certainly up for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ohlson noted new construction projects would only be subject to the energy component.
Leeson replied the recycling policies also apply to construction waste in addition to demolition.
Boardmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Kottwitz, to continue the item
to a later date pending additional public outreach and testing against existing projects.
Vice-Chair Ohlson disagreed that this has been a rushed process and stated the policies have been
considerably weakened. He opposed the City’s overall view of public outreach in terms of outreach
to business interests versus outreach to environmental interests. He stated the process should be
more consistent.
City Manager Atteberry stated he believed the public outreach process included many differing
viewpoints; however, he noted he is committed to work further on the process with the new Council.
Boardmember Manvel noted the mission of the URA involves sustainable development, and this is
a small step toward that end. He stated the issue deserves a vote rather than postponement.
Boardmember Poppaw stated she would not support the motion to postpone.
Boardmember Kottwitz supported postponement of the item and stated the URA has worked hard
at improving outreach. She expressed appreciation for staff work on the item.
Boardmember Horak stated public outreach has been inconsistent as it is not a documented,
systematic process; however, staff is working on development of such a process. He stated he would
support the motion to postpone the item, but hoped it would ultimately pass with the new Council.
Chair Weitkunat stated it is important to get the policies and direction of the URA right moving
forward.
Boardmember Horak asked about the date for taking up the issue again. City Manager replied staff
has considered May 21 as a possible date.
The vote on the motion to postpone consideration was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson, Poppaw, and Manvel.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
204
54 of 76
URA Policy Working Group Members
Name Organization Phone Email
Luke McFetridge South FC Business Association
Jim Eddy North FC Business Association
Ann Hutchinson FC Area Chamber
Anita Comer Waste Not Recycling
Dave Derbes Brinkman Partners
Cara Blake Fort Collins Sustainability
Group
Neil Kaufman National Center for
Craftsmanship
Matt Arabasz RB+B Architects
City of Fort Collins Staff
Tom Leeson Redevelopment Manager 970.416.2231 tleeson@fcgov.com
Bruce Hendee Chief Sustainability Officer 970-416-2332 bhendee@fcgov.com
Mike Gerbo Chief Building Official 970-416-2618 mgebo@fcgov.com
Gary Schroeder Sr. Energy Services Engineer 970-221-6395 gschroeder@fcgov.com
Stu Reeve Building Energy Manager 970-221-6274 sreeve@fcgov.com
ATTACHMENT 2
55 of 76
URA Policies Working Group
Commons Conference Rm., City Hall
April 17, 2013
12:00-1:30 PM
Meeting Notes:
Energy Star Discussion:
• The building community has been able to quantify the impact of the green building code
amendments at roughly $5/sf. The impact of Energy Star is unknown – need to try to
determine the impact.
• Need to try to benchmark existing buildings to determine how they would meet E-Star.
This can be done relatively easy for City owned buildings – will look at trying to see how
projects that have been approved through the URA previously would score.
• New buildings probably meet E-Star easily because of the new code requirements;
however, small renovations might be more difficult. Should the policy differentiate
between new and renovations so the smaller projects are not overly burdened?
• Need to recognize that there’s a difference between ownership and tenants in terms of
monitoring. An owner with numerous tenants has less control over how a
building/tenant space is utilized in terms of energy use.
• There’s a difference in product type as well. Multi-family products operate very
differently than retail. E-Star compares like products/building types, so product type has
less impact on rating/score than one would think.
• E-Star does not add too much cost. The power of the program is that it forces
owners/designers to consider energy use early in the design stage. It is a relatively
simple process (a couple hours) to input the information in the online program to
generate the score.
• The monitoring portion of the program is really the most important part. Having that
data is very valuable in terms of being able to determine any disconnect between the
design and the operation of a building.
• Having to wait a whole year to monitor a building adds a significant amount of
uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Perhaps the punitive nature of the policy
could be scaled back.
Deconstruction/Recycling Discussion
• Diversion rate of 50% can easily be achieved, but the question is - are we achieving what
we want with the policy.
• Metal and concrete are already being recycled
• Perhaps we should remove metal and concrete first and then have a recycling/reuse
threshold.
• Significant savings can be had with the tax credits, however, tax laws can be changed.
• More detail is needed with this policy. 50% seems to be arbitrary.
ATTACHMENT 3
56 of 76
Action Items
• Look at feasibility of benchmarking existing buildings
• Review policy to determine if differentiating smaller renovations is feasible
• Research E-Star program with regards to different product types
• Look at alternative to punitive measures if project does not meet E-Star rating
57 of 76
URA Policies Working Group
Commons Conference Rm., City Hall
April 30, 2013
12:00-1:30 PM
Meeting Notes:
Deconstruction/Recycling Discussion
• In order for program to be successful there is a strong need for third party reporting
• Tax incentives alone are enough to offset additional costs. Neil Kaufman indicated he
would gather data to demonstrate.*
• Concern about the one-size fits all approach. Due to time constraints and full
deconstruction process may not be feasible – may need to go through hybrid process
that is more waste diversion through recycling/reuse
• Different building types and use drive variables in cost and time – any policy needs to
take into account different processes for different building types/uses
• Certain materials are going to be recycled anyway (i.e., concrete, steel copper, etc.) –
these should not be considered waste.
• What happens if a project doesn’t meet the 50% threshold – are we going to withhold
funds? Punitive aspect is concerning.
• Do we, as a community, even know if we are diverting 50% of the waste we are
generating? Do we have this data?
• Monitoring diversion rates is problematic as it is very difficult to actually verify
compliance. Third-party monitoring would be very important.
• National Center for Craftsmanship and Waste Not would rather see an incentive based
program because it is easier to work with clients when they choose to go through the
process
• Could require 50% (by weight) diversion but include an exception clause that states that
if an “As-Built Quantity Survey” demonstrates 50% would not achievable.
• Neil Kaufman agreed to provide the group with an estimate of as-built quantity survey.*
• It is important to provide the development community the impacts of such policies.
*Additional information pending.
58 of 76
URA Policies Working Group
Commons Conference Rm., City Hall
May 10, 2013
12:00-1:30 PM
Meeting Notes:
Deconstruction/Recycling Discussion
• Discussion centered on the need to know the net impacts of required deconstruction.
The group was reminded that the current policy proposal was for a required
recycling/reuse threshold and not deconstruction.
• Neil Kaufman reviewed a handout demonstrating the potential return on investment for
deconstruction projects following the National Center for Craftsmanship model. He
emphasized the numbers are shown as an example and are not intended to show that it
works all the time.
• The group inquired as to the cost of quantity surveys to determine feasibility of
recycling/reuse of building materials. A full-blown quantity survey could cost several
thousand dollars; however, a full blown survey would not be required to determine
feasibility. The cost would be significantly less although exact amount is unknown.
• A comment was made that not all URAs are created equally in terms of time and money
available. North College URA only has 16 years left, so has less money available. The
more money required of a project due to policies/regulations, the less money that is
available for public infrastructure and other needed improvements.
• There was discussion regarding allowing any additional costs associated with
recycling/deconstruction to be considered a cost that is eligible for reimbursement by
the URA. It was emphasized that we should not set the bar too low in terms of recycling
requirements and end up paying a premium (reimbursement).
Energy Star Discussion
• There was discussion about additional costs associated with implementing the Energy
Star requirements. It was explained that the Energy Star scoring systems compares a
proposed building to a national survey of buildings conducted in 2003. Most buildings
are required to meet energy codes newer than 2003, so in most cases proposed
buildings compare favorably. As a result, experience shows that meeting Energy Star
does not increase construction costs.
• The group was reminded that the monitoring aspect of the proposal is problematic
because developers/property owners are not always in control of tenant spaces and
therefore cannot control energy use. It would be difficult to punish a property
owner/developer for circumstances they can’t control.
• The group discussed the positive benefits or meeting energy efficiency requirements,
but struggled with the punitive nature of the proposal. Could support the proposal if
there was no punitive aspect to the policy.
59 of 76
Energy Star Ratings for City Owned Facilities
My Portfolio: Stu Reeve
April 19, 2013 ‐ 05:51:51 PM
Total Buildings: 21
Current Rating
(1‐100)
117 N Mason 48 15,500 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
215 NM 90 72,000 9/30/2012
Not Eligible: Less than one year since the
period ending date of the last ENERGY STAR
application. Eligible again on 09/30/2013 11/16/2012
281 NC 95 37,603 10/31/2012
Not Eligible: Less than one year since the
period ending date of the last ENERGY STAR
application. Eligible again on 10/31/2013 11/30/2012
City Hall 2 31,553 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
City Park Pool/Bathhouse N/A 0 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
EPIC N/A 97,900 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Fleet Services N/A 23,200 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Lincoln Center N/A 74,143 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Loomis Warehouse 60 20,244 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
Mulberry Pool N/A 0 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Museum N/A 12,853 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Museum of Discovery 71 46,928 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 11/5/2012
North Transit Center 27 6,013 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
North‐Side Aztlan Center N/A 49,800 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Operation Services 88 26,564 9/30/2012
Not Eligible: Less than one year since the
period ending date of the last ENERGY STAR
application. Eligible again on 09/30/2013 11/27/2012
Facility Name Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) Current Energy Period Ending Date Eligibility for the ENERGY STAR Last Modified
ATTACHMENT 4
60 of 76
Current Rating
(1‐100)
Facility Name Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) Current Energy Period Ending Date Eligibility for the ENERGY STAR Last Modified
Police Services 57 98,800 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
Ricker Brothers Warehouse 38 14,160 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Senior Center N/A 41,220 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Streets/Maintenance Facility N/A 51,314 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Traffic Ops 19 9,500 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 11/5/2012
Transfort N/A 50,445 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 11/5/2012
Group Total 779,740
61 of 76
OMB No. 2060-0347
STATEMENT OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Valley Steel
Building ID: 3551491
For 12-month Period Ending: December 31, 20121
Date SEP becomes ineligible: N/A Date SEP Generated: May 09, 2013
Facility
Valley Steel
208 Hickory St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Facility Owner
N/A
Primary Contact for this Facility
N/A
Year Built: 2007
Gross Floor Area (ft2): 19,000
Energy Performance Rating2 (1-100) 79
Site Energy Use Summary3
Electricity - Grid Purchase(kBtu) 120,785
Natural Gas (kBtu)4 404,000
Total Energy (kBtu) 524,785
Energy Intensity4
Site (kBtu/ft2/yr) 28
Source (kBtu/ft2/yr) 43
Emissions (based on site energy use)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MtCO2e/year) 52
Electric Distribution Utility
Fort Collins Utilities
National Median Comparison
National Median Site EUI 46
National Median Source EUI 73
% Difference from National Median Source EUI -40%
Building Type Warehouse
(Unrefrigerated)
Stamp of Certifying Professional
Based on the conditions observed at the
time of my visit to this building, I certify that
the information contained within this
statement is accurate.
Meets Industry Standards5 for Indoor Environmental
Conditions:
Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality N/A
Acceptable Thermal Environmental Conditions N/A
Adequate Illumination N/A
Certifying Professional
N/A
Notes:
1. Application for the ENERGY STAR must be submitted to EPA within 4 months of the Period Ending date. Award of the ENERGY STAR is not final until approval is received from EPA.
2. The EPA Energy Performance Rating is based on total source energy. A rating of 75 is the minimum to be eligible for the ENERGY STAR.
3. Values represent energy consumption, annualized to a 12-month period.
4. Values represent energy intensity, annualized to a 12-month period.
5. Based on Meeting ASHRAE Standard 62 for ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, ASHRAE Standard 55 for thermal comfort, and IESNA Lighting Handbook for lighting quality.
The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 6 hours (includes the time for entering energy data, Licensed Professional facility inspection, and notarizing
the SEP) and
welcomes suggestions for reducing this level of effort. Send comments (referencing OMB control number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S., EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
EPA Form 5900-197
ATTACHMENT 5
62 of 76
ENERGY STAR® Data Checklist
for Commercial Buildings
In order for a building to qualify for the ENERGY STAR, a Professional Engineer (PE) or a Registered Architect (RA) must validate the accuracy of the data underlying
the building's energy performance rating. This checklist is designed to provide an at-a-glance summary of a property's physical and operating characteristics, as well as
its total energy consumption, to assist the PE or RA in double-checking the information that the building owner or operator has entered into Portfolio Manager.
Please complete and sign this checklist and include it with the stamped, signed Statement of Energy Performance.
NOTE: You must check each box to indicate that each value is correct, OR include a note.
CRITERION VALUE AS ENTERED IN
PORTFOLIO MANAGER VERIFICATION QUESTIONS NOTES
Building Name Valley Steel
Is this the official building name to be displayed in
the ENERGY STAR Registry of Labeled
Buildings?
Type Warehouse (Unrefrigerated)
Is this an accurate description of the space in
question?
Location
208 Hickory St., Fort Collins,
CO 80521
Is this address accurate and complete? Correct
weather normalization requires an accurate zip
code.
Single Structure Single Facility
Does this SEP represent a single structure? SEPs
cannot be submitted for multiple-building
campuses (with the exception of a hospital, k-12
school, hotel and senior care facility) nor can they
be submitted as representing only a portion of a
building.
208 Hickory Warehouse (Warehouse (Unrefrigerated))
CRITERION VALUE AS ENTERED IN
PORTFOLIO MANAGER VERIFICATION QUESTIONS NOTES
Gross Floor Area 19,000 Sq. Ft.
Is this the total gross floor area as measured
between the principal exterior surfaces of the
enclosing fixed walls and including all supporting
functions? The total gross floor area should
include offices, lobbies, rest rooms, equipment
storage areas, mechanical rooms, employee break
rooms, cafeterias, elevators, stairwells, all space
occupied by refrigeration/freezer units, and all
areas that are entirely refrigerated. Existing
atriums or areas with high ceilings should only
include the base floor area that they occupy. The
total gross floor area should not include outside
loading bays or docks.
Workers on Main
Shift 4
Does this number represent the average number
of workers that are present during the primary shift
(that is, the shift with the most workers)? Note: this
is not the total number of staff employed at the
property. For example, if there are three daily 8
hour shifts of 100 workers each, the Workers on
Main Shift value is 100.
Weekly operating
hours 54 Hours
Is this the total number of hours per week that this
warehouse space is in operation, excluding hours
when the facility is occupied by maintenance,
ENERGY STAR® Data Checklist
for Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption
Power Generation Plant or Distribution Utility: Fort Collins Utilities
Fuel Type: Electricity
Meter: Electric Meter (kWh (thousand Watt-hours))
Space(s): 208 Hickory Warehouse
Generation Method: Grid Purchase
Start Date End Date Energy Use (kWh (thousand Watt-hours))
12/01/2012 12/31/2012 2,720.00
11/01/2012 11/30/2012 4,360.00
10/01/2012 10/31/2012 4,240.00
09/01/2012 09/30/2012 1,440.00
08/01/2012 08/31/2012 1,640.00
07/01/2012 07/31/2012 1,440.00
06/01/2012 06/30/2012 1,800.00
05/01/2012 05/31/2012 1,360.00
04/01/2012 04/30/2012 2,680.00
03/01/2012 03/31/2012 4,560.00
02/01/2012 02/29/2012 4,880.00
01/01/2012 01/31/2012 4,280.00
Electric Meter Consumption (kWh (thousand Watt-hours)) 35,400.00
Electric Meter Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 120,784.80
Total Electricity (Grid Purchase) Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 120,784.80
Is this the total Electricity (Grid Purchase) consumption at this building including all
Electricity meters?
Fuel Type: Natural Gas
Meter: Gas Meter - Xcel (therms)
Space(s): 208 Hickory Warehouse
Start Date End Date Energy Use (therms)
12/01/2012 12/31/2012 1,087.00
11/01/2012 11/30/2012 537.00
10/01/2012 10/31/2012 17.00
09/01/2012 09/30/2012 0.00
08/01/2012 08/31/2012 0.00
07/01/2012 07/31/2012 0.00
06/01/2012 06/30/2012 0.00
05/01/2012 05/31/2012 0.00
04/01/2012 04/30/2012 39.00
03/01/2012 03/31/2012 351.00
Page 2 of 3
64 of 76
02/01/2012 02/29/2012 1,061.00
01/01/2012 01/31/2012 948.00
Gas Meter - Xcel Consumption (therms) 4,040.00
Gas Meter - Xcel Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 404,000.00
Total Natural Gas Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 404,000.00
Is this the total Natural Gas consumption at this building including all Natural Gas meters?
Additional Fuels
Do the fuel consumption totals shown above represent the total energy use of this building?
Please confirm there are no additional fuels (district energy, generator fuel oil) used in this facility.
On-Site Solar and Wind Energy
Do the fuel consumption totals shown above include all on-site solar and/or wind power located at
your facility? Please confirm that no on-site solar or wind installations have been omitted from this
list. All on-site systems must be reported.
Certifying Professional
(When applying for the ENERGY STAR, the Certifying Professional must be the same PE or RA that signed and stamped the SEP.)
Name: _____________________________________________ Date: _____________
Signature: ______________________________________
Signature is required when applying for the ENERGY STAR.
Page 3 of 3
65 of 76
FOR YOUR RECORDS ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT TO EPA.
Please keep this Facility Summary for your own records; do not submit it to EPA. Only the Statement of Energy Performance
(SEP), Data Checklist and Letter of Agreement need to be submitted to EPA when applying for the ENERGY STAR.
Facility
Valley Steel
208 Hickory St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Facility Owner
N/A
Primary Contact for this Facility
N/A
General Information
Valley Steel
Gross Floor Area Excluding Parking: (ft2) 19,000
Year Built 2007
For 12-month Evaluation Period Ending Date: December 31, 2012
Facility Space Use Summary
208 Hickory Warehouse
Space Type
Warehouse
(Unrefrigerated)
Gross Floor Area (ft2) 19,000
Workers on Main Shift 4
Weekly operating hours 54
Percent Cooled 0
Percent Heated 100
Number of walk-in
refrigeration/freezer units 0
Distribution Center o N
Energy Performance Comparison
Evaluation Periods Comparisons
Performance Metrics Current
(Ending Date 12/31/2012)
Baseline
(Ending Date 12/31/2012) Rating of 75 Target National Median
Energy Performance Rating 79 79 75 N/A 50
Energy Intensity
Site (kBtu/ft2) 28 28 31 N/A 46
Source (kBtu/ft2) 44 44 48 N/A 73
Energy Cost
$/year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$/ft2/year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MtCO2e/year 52 52 58 N/A 87
kgCO2e/ft2/year 3 3 3 N/A 5
More than 50% of your building is defined as Warehouse (Unrefrigerated). Please note that your rating accounts for all of the spaces listed. The National Median
column presents energy performance data your building would have if your building had a median rating of 50.
Notes:
o - This attribute is optional.
d - A default value has been supplied by Portfolio Manager.
66 of 76
2012
Valley Steel
208 Hickory St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Portfolio Manager Building ID: 3551491
The energy use of this building has been measured and compared to other similar buildings using the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Energy Performance Scale of 1–100, with 1 being the least energy
efficient and 100 the most energy efficient. For more information, visit energystar.gov/benchmark.
This building’s
score
79
100
Most Efficient
This building uses 43 kBtu per square foot per year.*
*Based on source energy intensity for the 12 month period ending December 2012
Date of certification
Date Generated: 05/09/2013
Statement of
Energy Performance
1
Least Efficient
50
Median
Buildings with a score of
75 or higher may qualify
for EPA’s ENERGY STAR.
I certify that the information contained within this statement is accurate and in accordance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s measurement standards, found at energystar.gov
67 of 76
1
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: May 15, 2013
TO: Urban Redevelopment Authority Board
FROM: Joseph Piesman on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: URA Project Requirements
In May the NRAB received information from staff concerning the proposed requirements for URA
funded projects to meet EPA Energy Star standards and to meet deconstruction/recycling goals. The
NRAB is supportive of these requirements.
Motion: The NRAB supports the EPA Energy Star requirements and deconstruction/recycling
requirements as recommended by staff for URA funded projects.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1 in favor.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Piesman
Chair, Natural Resources Advisory Board
691-6697
j.piesman@comcast.net
cc: Darin Atteberry
Tom Leeson
Susie Gordon
ATTACHMENT 6
68 of 76
Environmental Services
215 North Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6600
970.224.6177 Fax
fcgov.com/environmental services
The Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) submits the following recommendations to the Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) regarding the proposed resolution to modify the 2012 URA policies and procedures:
1. All projects must be monitored for 12 months to verify an Energy Star score of 75 or greater.
2. Increase the requirement for waste stream construction/demolition recycling to a minimum
of 60% and as high as feasible.
The AQAB encourages the URA to also consider the following:
3. Require active, verifiable ambient air quality mitigation during deconstruction and
construction to reduce mobile and fugitive emissions.
4. Clarify the meaning of the requirement that “…the building meets indoor environmental
standards …”. Does this include the City’s municipal code for radon?
5. Encourage participation in the City’s ClimateWise program.
The AQAB appreciates your consideration of these recommendations when drafting revisions to the
policy.
City of Fort Collins – Air Quality Advisory Board
To:
City of Fort Collins – Urban Renewal Authority
From:
Greg McMaster, Chair AQAB
Date: 3/18/2013
Re:
Recommendation to Urban Renewal Authority on Resolution Amending the 2012
URA Policies and Procedures
ATTACHMENT 7
69 of 76
1
1
Fort Collins URA Work Session –
Energy Efficiency Policies
July 30, 2013
2
General Direction Sought
• Is there support for moving forward with a resolution
to amend the evaluation criteria to require
participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as
well as construction/demolition waste diversion
thresholds?
• If there is support for the policy change, does the
URA Board support the working group’s
recommendations?
ATTACHMENT 8
70 of 76
2
3
URA Evaluation Criteria
Background:
• March 27, 2013 Board Hearing
• EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system
• 50% diversion rate of the waste materials by
weight generated by a construction or demolition
project
• Item continued to allow for greater public outreach
4
Policy Working Group
Working group of community members and industry
professionals established
Met on three occasions and provided perspective and
some recommendations
Evaluate existing buildings/projects
71 of 76
3
5
Energy Efficiency Requirements
• Designed to Earn the Energy Star certification
• Energy Star label
• Close the loop between design and actual
performance
• Monitor energy use for 12 consecutive months
6
Energy Efficiency Requirements
Applicability:
New buildings and major renovations (more than
50% of square footage affected)
• Energy Star Label
Minor Renovations (Less 50% square footage
affected)
• Current Energy Code (except building envelope)
• Monitor Energy Use for 12 months
72 of 76
4
7
Deconstruction/Recycling
URA funded projects demonstrate that at
least 50% of the waste materials by weight
(excluding wastes containing lead, asbestos
or other hazardous material) generated by a
construction or demolition project be diverted
from the landfill through waste management
options, such as reuse or recycling.
8
Outreach Efforts
Presentation to Additional Boards
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Air Quality Advisory Board
• Chamber
• South/North Fort Collins Business
Associations
• Policy Working Group
73 of 76
5
9
Working Group Discussion
Energy Efficiency Requirements:
• Concerned with Increase in Costs
• Lack of Control over certain Properties
• Withholding of funds
10
Working Group Recommendation
Energy Efficiency Requirements:
• Support for requirements
• Support for 12-month monitoring
• Remove punitive aspect of policy
74 of 76
6
11
Working Group Discussion
Recycling/Deconstruction Requirements:
• One-size fits all Nature of Policy Problematic
• Difficulty with Monitoring
• Punitive Aspect
12
Working Group Recommendation
Recycling/Deconstruction Requirements:
• Allow “As-Built Survey” to be submitted
• Require Third-party Verification
• Remove Punitive Aspect
75 of 76
7
13
Direction Sought
• Is there support for moving forward with a resolution
to amend the evaluation criteria to require
participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as
well as construction/demolition waste diversion
thresholds?
• If there is support for the policy change, does the
URA Board support the working group’s
recommendations?
76 of 76
security, or other support personnel? Note: the
average warehouse space operates 60 hours per
week.
Percent Cooled 0 %
Is this the percentage of the total floor space within
the facility that is served by mechanical cooling
equipment?
Percent Heated 100 %
Is this the percentage of the total floor space within
the facility that is served by mechanical heating
equipment?
Number of walk-in
refrigeration/freezer
units
0 Does this count include all large walk-in
refrigeration or freezer units at the warehouse?
Distribution Center No(Optional) Is this building considered a distribution center?
Page 1 of 3
63 of 76
20 of 76
the principal campus of a college,
university, or seminary; or a
residential child care facility, as
medical marijuana establishments
apply to retail marijuana
operations?
No, there is no 1,000-foot distance
limitation for retail marijuana
establishments as it pertains to
qualifications for a state license, so
municipalities should consider
addressing this in their local
ordinances or rules.
can a municipality act as the grower
or owner?
No, state law prohibits government-run
retail marijuana operations.16
Does the same requirement for the
state to issue a state license
between 45 and 90 days also apply
to local jurisdictions?
No. There is no constitutional or
statutory requirement specifying how
long a local government may take to
indicate its approval or denial of a
conditional state license. However, in
the event the state fails to meet any of
the obligations that would otherwise
cause an applicant to apply directly to
the local government under the
constitutionally required local licensing
ordinance, then the local government
must act within 90 days.17
If we choose to license retail
marijuana establishments, can the
city or town prohibit use in public
buildings and parks?
Yes. While consumption of marijuana
“openly and publicly”18 is not allowed,
Amendment 64 specifically allows
for the prohibition of marijuana
possession, consumption, use, display,
transfer, sale, transportation, or
growing in public buildings.19 The
state legislation does not define “open
and public,” so municipalities might
consider doing so in their local codes.
16 C.R.S. § 12-43.4-103 (2013).
17 COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16(5)(h).
18 Id. at § 16(3)(d).
19 Id. at § 16(6)(d).
can a municipality limit the size of
personal home grows authorized by
amendment 64?
While Amendment 64 allows each
adult to grow six plants “provided that
the growing takes place in an
enclosed, locked space, is not
conducted openly and publicly, and is
not made available for sale,”20 the law
does not define those terms, so
municipalities may consider clearly
defining what constitutes an “enclosed,
locked space” in their municipal codes.
Much like they can with medical
marijuana, municipalities can use
land use, building, and fire codes
to regulate home grows. Some
municipalities have limited the number
of plants per household (regardless of
the number of residents), some have
dictated the minimum space needed
per plant, others have restricted indoor
grows to specific types of lights, while
others have prohibited home grows in
multifamily housing.
additional resources
CML has sample ordinances and a
table tracking municipal actions on
retail marijuana at www.cml.org/
marijuana.aspx. Please contact
CML Staff Attorney Rachel Allen at
303-831-6411, 866-578-0936, or
rallen@cml.org to request copies of
additional sample ordinances.
If you have questions, please contact
CML Deputy Director Kevin Bommer
(kbommer@cml.org) or CML Staff
Attorney Rachel Allen (rallen@cml.
org). Both can be reached at 303-831-
6411 or 866-578-0936.
Special thanks
CML would like to extend a special
“thank you” and acknowledgement to
Denver Assistant City Attorney David
Broadwell for authoring the “Key
Decision Points” section of this
document.
20 Id. at § 16(3)(b).
KNOWLEDGE NOW 3
18 of 76
establish “civil penalties” for
violation of city requirements.
16. Any implementing ordinance
allowing retail marijuana
establishments to exist should:
a) clearly identify a single point of
contact with whom the state
licensing authority will interact
to determine whether or not a
particular license application or
other licensing action complies
with local requirements; and
b) specify deadlines for
responding to the state
regarding new license
approvals and other licensing
actions.
revenue and taxation
The major marijuana taxation bill of the
session was HB 13-1318, which refers
a single question to the November
2013 statewide ballot with two revenue
raising components: a wholesale
15 percent excise tax on cultivated
marijuana earmarked for school capital
construction as described in
Amendment 64; and a special
10 percent sales tax to be imposed
over and above the state’s normal
2.9 percent sales tax. The legislature
will have the ability through legislation
to increase the tax. Of the special
10 percent sales tax revenue,
15 percent will be shared with the
local jurisdictions in which the tax is
collected, similar to the cigarette tax
share back, with the exception that
local governments would not be
penalized for retaining their own sales
tax authority and existing taxes.
Both HB 1317 and 1318 capture sales
tax and fee revenue derived from retail
marijuana businesses and dedicate
these revenues to the “direct and
indirect costs” of administering the
state regulatory regimes for both
medical and retail marijuana. However,
the local share-back of revenue
derived from the special 10 percent
sales tax is not earmarked by 1318 for
any particular purpose.8
Policy makers should consider a
variety of options including:
• Whether to budget and appropriate
monies to provide additional
resources for marijuana-related
regulatory enforcement and services?
• Whether to require marijuana
establishments to post a marijuana
tax bond to ensure the payment of
local taxes by these retail
establishments?
• Whether to refer to the ballot a
question imposing additional local
sales or excise tax on marijuana?
— if your board or council decides
to refer a ballot question
- at what rate?
- earmark the revenues
for a purpose?
— additional tax considerations
include
- what to do with state
share back?
- what to do with existing
sales tax revenues derived
from medical and/or retail
marijuana operations?
- opt to levy an additional
sales or excise tax?
• Whether to impose operating fees on
retail marijuana establishments?
faQs
Is dual licensing at both the state
and local level (like liquor licensing)
contemplated in the legislation?
Dual licensing is expressly allowed, but
not mandated. However, unlike liquor
licensing, an applicant will get
conditional state approval before any
local approval is considered.9
can an adult purchase and
consume marijuana in the same
location?
No, consumption of marijuana is
prohibited on public premises that
are licensed to sell retail marijuana
or products.10
8 The ballot title designates that tax
revenues will be used “to fund the
enforcement of regulations on the retail
marijuana industry and other costs
related to the use and regulation of
retail marijuana.” Some may argue this
creates a limitation.
9 C.R.S. § 12-43.3-104(3) (2013).
10 Id. at § 12-43.4-901(4)(c).
4 COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
17 of 76
64, are defined by HB 13-1317 as
“fees that may be charged by a local
jurisdiction for costs, including but not
limited to inspection, administration,
and enforcement of retail marijuana
establishments.”7
local licenses
Even though it is not expressly
permitted or prohibited by Amendment
64, HB 13-1317 establishes the ability
for local jurisdictions to require a local
license under local “time, place, and
manner” conditions. This should not be
confused with the constitutional
requirement mentioned above that
directs local jurisdictions to establish
a local licensing procedure based
on the state’s failure to meet
certain deadlines. A local licensing
requirement under “time, place, and
manner” is purely optional and is
meant to work similar to alcohol
beverage dual licensing.
Key decision points
The legislation from the 2013 session
addressing state and local authority to
license and regulate retail marijuana
establishments and the text of
Amendment 64 leave cities and towns
with numerous options for local
regulation. Some of the considerations
for local regulation might include:
1. Whether to allow retail marijuana
establishments to exist at all?
2. Whether to prohibit the
establishment of licensed retail
marijuana businesses permanently,
or to do so only until a certain date
in the future at which time the
municipality would reevaluate
whether or not to allow such
businesses to exist after some
later date?
3. Which of the four distinct types of
retail marijuana establishments will
be allowed?
a) retail marijuana stores?
b) retail marijuana cultivation
facilities?
c) retail marijuana products
manufacturers?
d) retail marijuana testing
facilities?
6 Id.
7 Id.; C.R.S. § 12-43.4-103(11).
4. Whether to provide a phase-in
period during which only current
medical marijuana licensees may be
allowed to convert to retail marijuana
establishments or add a retail
marijuana license to current
operations?
a) if so, for how long?
b) allow changes of ownership
during the phase-in period?
c) allow changes in location
during the phase-in period?
5. Whether to allow collocation (i.e.,
dual use of the same location) for
medical marijuana businesses and
retail marijuana businesses?
6. Whether to limit the number of
businesses allowed in any of the
four classes of state licensing and, if
so, determine how to prioritize those
who would compete for the limited
number of approvals.
7. Whether to establish and administer
a separate local licensing
requirement, per se, or instead
depend entirely on other laws (e.g.,
zoning and land use laws) to enforce
“time, place, and manner”
restrictions on retail marijuana
establishments?
8. Whether to adopt counterpart local
regulations addressing some or all
of the same subject matter being
addressed in state regulations, or
instead focus local regulations
entirely on aspects of “time, place,
and manner” that are not being
regulated by the state?
a) character and background
checks for state license
applicants?
b) business operational
standards?
c) product standards?
9. Whether to establish hearing
procedures and approval criteria for
retail marijuana establishments?
a) only for retail marijuana stores,
or for other classes of state
licensing as well?
b) mandate public hearing
requirements?
c) criteria for approval: “needs
and desires” and “reasonable
requirements of the
neighborhood” as it is for liquor
licensing or something else?
d) apply same approval
procedures and criteria equally
KNOWLEDGE NOW 3
16 of 76
respective jurisdictions.)
HB 13-1318
HB 13-1318 contains the statutory
implementation of a special sales tax
and an excise tax, as well as refers a
single question on the adoption of both
to voters on the November ballot. If
approved by the voters, both the sales
and excise tax described in the
“Revenue and taxation” section below
become operational.
sB 13-283
SB 13-283 enacts several provisions
that were generally identified as
“consensus items” by the Amendment
64 Task Force. The bill
• enacts permissive language allowing
local governments the ability to
prohibit the use of compressed,
flammable gas in a residential setting
for use as a solvent in the extraction
of cannabinoids or THC;
• establishes the legality and
enforceability of contracts pertaining
to lawful activities authorized by
Amendment 64;
• creates several required state reports
and studies on various social and
health impacts of legalization of
possession and use of marijuana;
• includes marijuana smoke within the
Clean Indoor Air Act’s prohibition on
smoking in public places; and
• establishes a prohibition on open
containers of marijuana or marijuana
products within a motor vehicle that
mirrors the same prohibition on open
containers of alcohol.
As introduced, the legislation also
included consensus language on
criminal matters in Title 18, including
key definitions and related prohibitions
on terms stated in Amendment 64 but
left undefined. All of this language was
stripped, and the bill instead requires a
report by the Colorado Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ)
by the end of the year with the
intention of introducing a bill in the next
legislative session. The result is a
failure to have a standard language in
the state’s criminal code of “openly and
publicly,” “enclosed, locked space,”
and other language connected to the
now legalized possession and use of
cannabis until legislation is enacted
next year. In the meantime,
municipalities may choose to
address these issues within their
respective municipal codes.
constitutional requirements
state rulemaking
The Colorado Department of Revenue
(DOR) Marijuana Enforcement Division
(MED) must adopt regulations
implementing Amendment 64 by
July 1, 2013.2 Should the state fail to
meet this deadline, applicants may
submit license applications directly to
local jurisdictions starting on Oct. 1,
2013, and the local jurisdiction must
act on the application within 90 days.3
This local license is issued under
authority of the constitutionally
mandated local ordinance discussed
below, and the licensee is not subject
to any regulation or enforcement by
MED while the local license is active.
local ordinance
By oct. 1, every municipality and
county (that has not already prohibited
retail marijuana establishments) must
adopt an ordinance that designates the
entity within the local government
responsible for licensing under three
specific circumstances:
• if the state fails to adopt regulations
by the July 1 deadline;
• if the state fails to issue any licenses
by Jan. 1, 2014; or
• if the state licensing authority fails to
act within 90 days upon an
application submitted to it.
Should the state fail to license under
any of the three scenarios above,
then applicants may apply directly to
the local jurisdiction for a local license
under the required ordinance unless
that municipality has opted to prohibit
retail marijuana operations.
Amendment 64 recognizes that a local
jurisdiction will not have any state
assistance in this case, and allows
the local jurisdiction to establish
procedures for the issuance,
suspension, and revocation of any
license issued by the local jurisdiction.
2 COLO. CONST.art. XVIII, § 16(5)(a),
PERSONAL USE AND REGULATION
OF MARIJUANA (also known as
“Amendment 64”).
3 Id. at § 16(5)(i).
2 COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
15 of 76
HB 13-1317, HB 13-1318, and
SB 13-283.
HB 13-1317
HB 13-1317 contains the bulk of the task
force recommendations and establishes
the regulatory framework for licensing by
the state and local jurisdictions. The
established language of the Colorado
Medical Marijuana Code (CMMC) was
used to fill in the process-related
components of the new Colorado Retail
Marijuana Code (CRMC), but
differences in the licensing process
between the two led to significant
changes in the legislation as it
progressed.1
1 It is worth noting that the licensing
process in the CMMC was significantly
altered by HB 13-1238 to mirror
licensing under Amendment 64 going
forward. Municipalities are encouraged
to familiarize themselves with these
changes regarding any new medical
marijuana license applications in the
future. CML is available for further
assistance.
HB 13-1317 contains the following
significant provisions:
• At the state level, all future medical and
retail marijuana sales and excise tax
revenue, as well as all state licensing
and application fees, will be deposited
into a single fund for the newly
rebranded Marijuana Enforcement
Division of the Department of Revenue.
• On oct. 1, an existing medical
marijuana licensee may apply to the
state licensing authority for a state
retail marijuana establishment license.
Under certain circumstances, including
local approval, the licensee may
continue to operate part of the licensed
premises for medical marijuana (MMJ)
and part for retail marijuana (RMJ).
The state is required to act upon such
applications between 45 and 90 days,
and conditional licenses (explained
later) must be issued before Jan. 1,
and will be effective on Jan. 1.
• After Jan. 1, any person not already
licensed for MMJ may submit a notice
of intent to apply for a retail license. A
notice fee may be collected and half
will be sent to the local jurisdiction. The
person may apply for a state license on
July 1, 2014.
• Under all circumstances, one-half of
the application fee collected will be
sent to the local jurisdiction unless
the jurisdiction has opted out pursuant
to its authority to do so under
Amendment 64.
• Consistent with Amendment 64, local
jurisdictions may enact ordinances and
regulations governing the time, place,
manner, and number of marijuana
establishments. Under these
provisions, a local jurisdiction has the
option to create a local licensing
requirement.
The Knowledge Now series features practical research on timely topics
from the Colorado Municipal League.
KNOWLEDGE NOW 1
Marijuana legislation implementation, May 2013
The Voice of Colorado’s Cities and Towns the inforMation you need to serve your MunicipaLity and residents
knowledge now
ATTACHMENT 2
14 of 76