No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/16/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2012 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Page 2 3. AGENDA REVIEW: • City Manager Review of Agenda. • Consent Calendar Review. This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item No. 20) N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item. No.27 ) 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen Participation. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 16. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of: ! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual. ! State your name and address for the record. ! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed ! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk Page 3 BUDGET CONSENT ITEM 6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2013. The Annual Appropriation Ordinance is presented for First Reading. Ordinance No. 107, 2012, sets the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) 2013 Operations and Maintenance Budget amount of $769,440 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the administrative operations budget; appropriates the 2013 Line of Credit Draw in the amount of $1,000,000; sets the amount of $3,197,535 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013; and sets the 2013 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2013. NON-BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS 7. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Regular Meetings 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. The purpose of this annual Clean-Up Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2012 budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds. Funding for the annual appreciation event to thank volunteers for serving on the City’s boards and commissions, funding for the November 6, 2012 special election and additional funds for the Recreation Youth Football Program fund raiser in the Recreation Fund have been included in the Ordinance on Second Reading. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment. The City of Fort Collins is lease-purchasing desktop computers and laptops for various City departments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at an interest rate of 2.28%. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $294,000. Payments at the 2.28% interest rate will not exceed $15,596 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.21%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, amends Section 7-87(b) of the City Code to enact language that is consistent with the original intent that the City Clerk, within 18 months after the decennial publication of the U.S. Census, recommend district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous Council district. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known as Daisy Street and Columbine Street. Daisy Street and Columbine Street are located between City Park Avenue and Bluebell Street, north Page 4 of Plum Street. The property that both Daisy Street and Columbine Street serve is currently going through the development review process and is in the stages of final review. All lots adjacent to these two short street stubs have been included within the District at Campus West development proposal. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, will vacate the public right-of-way to allow the parcels and the streets to be replatted to accommodate the multifamily development. 12. Items Relating to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Grant for the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road Project. A. Resolution 2012-094 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Grant Agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from Colorado Parks and Wildlife in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. This Ordinance appropriates a $200,000 trail grant received from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. The project involves a new trail from Lemay Avenue, east along the north side of Trilby Road, to a planned underpass of Trilby, just west of the location where Fossil Creek goes under the road. The trail will then proceed south to connect with the Fossil Creek Trail, which was constructed north of Carpenter Road in 2012. A spur trail will travel east along the north side of Trilby Road to connect to the Power Trail. The total length of new trail will be about one mile. Resolution 2012-094 authorizes the City Manager to enter into the grant agreement. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2012, Appropriating a Grant from Great Outdoors Colorado for the City’s Portion of Larimer County’s Poudre River Corridor and Regional Trail Initiative Grant. Great Outdoors Colorado has awarded a grant to Larimer County for its Poudre River Corridor & Regional Trail Initiative project. Larimer County is the lead agency for the grant application that includes the City of Fort Collins, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, and the City of Greeley. The grant request includes open space acquisitions, trail easements, and trail development along the Poudre River from Fort Collins to Greeley. The total grant project cost is $8,074,826, with the Great Outdoors Colorado grant being in the amount of $5,098,150. The City of Fort Collins portion of the project is $1,558,880, with the Great Outdoors Colorado grant amount being $737,597. The City’s portion of the project involves a new trailhead parking lot along Strauss Cabin Road, extending the 10-foot wide concrete Poudre River Trail to the west side of I-25, an overpass of I-25 and short trail connection to Timnath’s trail east of I-25. The total length of new trail will be about 0.5 of a mile. The trail placement on Arapaho Bend Natural Area has been coordinated with the Natural Areas staff. Construction of the project is scheduled to start in 2013. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2012, Approving a Fourth Amendment to the Fort Collins- Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management, and Related Issues, Eliminating Original Terms Related to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Establishing the Terms of Cost Sharing for Design Engineering of Substituted Improvements in the Boxelder Basin. On February 17, 2009, the City of Fort Collins (City) and the Town of Timnath (Timnath) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) regarding annexations, growth management, and related issues. The IGA resolved certain differences that had arisen between the City and Timnath concerning a variety of planning and growth management issues. The IGA sets forth provisions for the funding, design and construction of the Boxelder Overflow Project. The IGA has been amended three times since for items such as the extension of deadlines for approval of the respective GMA’s and the deletion of all references to Timnath’s possible purchase of the Vangbo property. The parties have determined that development of the Boxelder Overflow Project originally contemplated by Timnath as described in the Intergovernmental Agreement is neither feasible nor desirable, and have further identified a mutually beneficial alternative approach to address flood Page 5 impacts in the Boxelder Creek Basin as it impacts Timnath and Fort Collins, referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. In order to move forward cooperatively to further investigate, conceptually plan and preliminarily design the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, the parties desire to apply toward those Projects a portion of the funds previously paid into an escrow account by Fort Collins in accordance with Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The City and Timnath are entering into this Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document their intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. 15. Resolution 2012-095 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Crossing Annexation. This is a request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Kechter Road, approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Kechter Crossing is adjoining and immediately west of a parcel of land owned by the City of Fort Collins for the City’s Affordable Housing Land Bank. This annexation is not associated with the Kechter Farm development, which is located southeast of the Kechter Crossing Annexation. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M- N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, and west. The City land bank property to the west is zoned L-M-N. 16. Routine Easement. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, to install an electric transformer to provide additional capacity, located at Lot 27, Block 111, east of Mason between Mountain Avenue and Oak Street. END CONSENT 17. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 18. Staff Reports. 19. Councilmember Reports. 20. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items. DISCUSSION ITEMS The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ! Staff presentation (optional) ! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen) ! Council questions of staff on the item ! Council motion on the item ! Council discussion Page 6 ! Final Council comments ! Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2013; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2013 and Ending December 31, 2014, and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2013. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion) The Annual Appropriation Ordinance is presented for First Reading. This Ordinance sets the City Budget for the two-year period (2013–14) which becomes the City’s financial plan for the next two fiscal years. This Ordinance sets the amount of $483,445,062 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Including the 2013 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $193,666 and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) of $1,038,682 the total City operated appropriations amount to $484,677,410. This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. 22. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges for 2013. (staff: Brian Janonis, Lance Smith; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. The following monthly rate increases are recommended for 2013: Service % Annual Increase Water 4.0% Electric 4.33% WITHDRAWN Page 7 The proposed water increase is a flat 4% across the board to all customer classes. The electric rate increases which average 4.33% are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.35% to 5.33%. The proposed changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages and will vary by season. Electric development fees are proposed to decrease an average of 2.4% for residential and decrease an average of 1.6% for commercial development. There are no changes in the monthly rates for wastewater or stormwater services being proposed for 2013. With the rate changes contained in the proposed Ordinances, a typical single family customer’s monthly utility bill will increase $5.01 in the summer from $162.96 to $167.97 and $2.95 from $131.03 to $133.98 in non-summer months. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2012, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. (staff: Jason Licon, Mike Beckstead; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The 2013 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $803,600, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each City), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2013 Airport budget and totals $401,800. This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $702,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2013 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,405,000, will be used to complete major Airport improvements, such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development. NON-BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS 24. Resolution 2012-096 Approving an Agreement Between the City and Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing, Inc., to Provide Business Investment Assistance for Phase Two of the Building Four Retrofit. (staff: Josh Birks, Bruce Hendee, SeonAh Kendall; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) This Resolution considers a Business Investment Agreement between the City and Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing, Inc. (Avago Technologies). The Avago Technologies project will consist of building out the remaining 12,160 square feet space in Building #4 and making substantial equipment purchases on their Fort Collins campus, representing an investment of approximately $165 million and 135 new jobs. The Agreement provides two investments: (1) a use tax rebate (expected to span two years) on manufacturing equipment purchased as part of the expansion; and (2) a personal property tax rebate on the same equipment for ten years. The City of Fort Collins’ Business Investment Agreement requires Avago Technologies to meet several performance metrics: (1) the continued operations of Building #4 for manufacturing for a minimum duration of the rebated years, (2) purchase certain equipment that add substantial value to the Fort Collins property, and (3) the creation of 135 new jobs at their Fort Collins campus. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur within the City. In terms of evaluating the investment agreement, the ratio of private investment to total public investment is $27:$1. 25. Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project. (staff: Rick Richter, Steve Roy; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, Establishing a Special Fee to Be Paid by the Owners of Property Within Close Proximity to the Reconstructed Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. Page 8 On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Windsor (the “IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”). The IGA states that, by March 31, 2011, the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the fee requirements identified in the IGA. City Council has adopted several resolutions extending this deadline, the most recent extension being to October 16, 2012. Ordinance No. 117, 2012, will establish the specifics of a special fee to be paid by the Property Owners near the interchange. The fee includes two parts and is summarized as follows: • The first part of the fee is in proportion to the anticipated appreciation in property value as a result of the interchange improvements. This amount has been determined from an appraisal report prepared by a licensed MAI appraiser (the "Foster Study"). • The second part of the fee is based on the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of the properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties. Based on negotiation with the Property Owners, the City and Town have created a second option for Property Owners. Property Owners signing an agreement with the City would be permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the modified IGA first approved by City Council on December 21, 2010, now revised to be consistent with the implementation of the fees as described above. Similar ordinances will be presented for consideration to the Windsor Town Board on October 22, 2012. 26. Consideration of the Appeal of the August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals Decision to Approve a Variance to Allow the Existing Off-premise Sign (Billboard) Located in the BNSF Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road to Be Removed and Reinstalled at a New Location Within the Same Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road. (staff: Peter Barnes; 10 minute staff presentation; 90 minute discussion) On August 9, 2012, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered Appeal #2714, submitted by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department. This Appeal was for a variance to Section 3.8.7(P) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), which prohibits the construction of new off-premise signs. The variance was requested in order to allow the existing off-premise sign in the BNSF Railroad right of way on the north side of Prospect Road to be relocated within the railroad right of way 70 feet west of its current location. The sign’s current location is in direct conflict with the guideway alignment for the MAX BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) project. The ZBA unanimously approved the variance request as authorized by Section 2.10.1 of the LUC. On August 23, 2012, Richard L. Anderson (the Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk. The Appellant alleges that the ZBA: A. Failed to conduct a fair hearing in that: 1. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading; 2. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; 3. The Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction. B. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. Page 9 27. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. 28. Other Business. 29. Adjournment. a. Motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 23, 2012. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Gerry Horak, District 6 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. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING October 16, 2012 (after the Regular Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 4, 2012 and September 18, 2012 General Improvement District No. 1 Meetings. 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2013; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 2 minute presentation; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $273,523 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2013. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $38,769. The total 2013 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $312,292. Recommended appropriations for 2013 projects and expenditures will be $193,666. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Gerry Horak, District 6 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. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEETING October 16, 2012 (after the General Improvement District No. 1 Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2013; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 2 minute staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2013. The total amount will be used in the future to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the City wants to recognize the valuable contribution citizens with disabilities make to this community; and WHEREAS, the month of October is National Disability Awareness Month and National Disability Employment Awareness Month; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is interested in the welfare of, and improving the quality of life for, citizens with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the City wants to encourage businesses, individual citizens and the community- at-large to promote full inclusion for citizens with disabilities in work and recreation in the community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2012 as DISABILITY AWARENESS MONTH in the city of Fort Collins and ask the citizens to recognize and include in all activities, all citizens with disabilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Matt Robenalt Kathy Cardona AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Annual Appropriation Ordinance is presented for First Reading. Ordinance No. 107, 2012, sets the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) 2013 Operations and Maintenance Budget amount of $769,440 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the administrative operations budget; appropriates the 2013 Line of Credit Draw in the amount of $1,000,000; sets the amount of $3,197,535 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013; and sets the 2013 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2013. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Downtown Development Authority was created in 1981 with the purpose, according to Colorado State Statute, of planning and implementing projects and programs within the boundaries of the DDA. By state statute, the purpose of the ad valorem tax levied on all real and personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five (5) mills, shall be for the budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development that specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes of the State statute and the Plan of Development, the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various tax increment bonds which require debt servicing. The DDA staff and Budget Committee are very cognizant of the changed revenue environment of the organization and economic conditions, and have made a strong effort to budget conservatively to reflect this climate. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is requesting approval of the DDA Operations and Maintenance budget for fiscal year 2013 in the amount of $769,440. It is requesting appropriation of up to $1,000,000 for the 2013 Line of Credit draw. It is also requesting approval of the DDA debt payment commitments in the amount of $3,197,535 for 2013 obligations. Uses: Personnel Services $453,727 Contractual Professional Services 271,253 Purchased Supplies and Commodities 25,693 Other 18,767 Total $769,440 The 2013 Line of Credit draw, whose debt service payment will be made from the debt service fund, is projected to fund up to $1,000,000. Uses: Museum of Discovery – 2013 Payment $500,000 Future Facade Public/Private Investments 450,000 Fees: Project Management and Bank 50,000 $1,000,000 October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 6 The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service payments for 2013. Uses: Debt Payment: 2013 $3,197,535 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors and staff recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 107, 2012 on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 11, 2012 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its proposed budget for 2013 totaling $4,966,975 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2012-04 Recommending to Council the Determining and Fixing of the Mill Levy of the DDA for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2013 2. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2012-05 Recommending to Council the Budget of the Estimated Amounts Required to Pay the Expenses of Conducting the Business of the DDA for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2013 3. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2012-06 Recommending to Council the appropriation of the 2013 Line of Credit Draw 4. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2012-07 Recommending to Council the Appropriation of $2,914,885 and $282,650 from the DDA Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service and the DDA’s Obligation for the Civic Center Parking Structure for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2013 5. Downtown Development Authority Boundary Map E VINE DR RIVERSIDE AVE SMITH ST E ELIZABETH ST S MASON ST N COLLEGE AVE S LEMAY AVE MATHEWS ST LOCUST ST WHEDBEE ST PETERSON ST E LINCOLN AVE E MYRTLE ST LINDEN ST STOVER ST REMINGTON ST S COLLEGE AVE 12TH ST MAPLE ST E PLUM ST 9TH ST W OAK ST S HOWES ST CHERRY ST E OLIVE ST W OLIVE ST CONIFER ST E OAK ST E MULBERRY ST BUCKINGHAM ST S MELDRUM ST W LAUREL ST W MYRTLE ST LAPORTE AVE HEMLOCK ST WILLOW ST S WHITCOMB ST N LEMAY AVE REDWOOD ST 1ST ST 3RD ST 2ND ST W MAGNOLIA ST N SHERWOOD ST W MULBERRY ST N WHITCOMB ST W MOUNTAIN AVE CA J E TA N ST 10TH ST COWAN ST N MASON ST O S I A ORDINANCE NO. 107, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE FORT COLLINS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) has been duly organized in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S) 31-25-804, 1973 as amended; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2012, the DDA Board of Directors (the “DDA Board”), acting under the provisions of C.R.S. 31-25-816, 1973, as amended, adopted a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 which included appropriation of funding for the 2013 Line of Credit , and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment during fiscal year 2013 of properly authorized operational and maintenance expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate the sum of FOUR MILLION, NINE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($4,966,975) in the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund and the Debt Service Fund for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, to be used as follows: DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 769,440 2013 Revolving Line of Credit 1,000,000 DDA Debt Service Fund 3,197,535 $4,966,975 WHEREAS, the DDA Board has recommended to the City Council a mill levy of five mills upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the DDA District, such levy representing the amount of taxes for DDA purposes necessary to provide for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized operational and maintenance expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS ($769,440), to be expended for the authorized purposes of the DDA. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from draws upon the Downtown Development Authority 2013 Line of Credit the sum of up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000), to be used as specified in the attached Exhibit A. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund the sum of THREE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED NINTY SEVEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS ($3,197,535), for payment of debt service on previously issued and outstanding bonds, to pay the City’s investment service charge, for payment on the 2013 Line of Credit draw, and to be used to cover the DDA’s one-third share of payment on the Civic Center Parking Structure. Section 4. That the 2013 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the DDA District as of December 31, 2012 shall be five (5) mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for the District purposes to provide for payment during the aforementioned fiscal year of properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA. Said mill levy shall be certified to the County Assessor and the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, by the City Clerk as provided by law. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Project/Program to be Funded Museum of Discovery ‐ 2013 Payment $500,000.00 Future Façade Public/Private Investments ** $450,000.00 Project Management Fee $49,250.00 Annual Fee $500.00 Cost of Financing $250.00 $1,000,000.00 **Release of funds in 2013 is contingent upon owner submission of all DDA requirements for project reimbursement 2013 Line of Credit Draw EXHIBIT A DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Regular Meetings. September 18, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Horak. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Citizen Participation Roger Dodds supported the Corporation Separation Movement and the resolution which will be presented for Council consideration on October 2. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Corporation Separation Movement and the resolution which will be presented for Council consideration on October 2. Chuck Washington, 1125 Deercroft Court, supported the reestablishment of Dial-a-Ride service to the southeast part of town. Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed the proposed business incentive package for Avago. Myles Crane, Human Relations Commission member, announced an elder abuse forum. Steve Raimer, Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship, supported the Corporation Separation Movement and the resolution which will be presented for Council consideration on October 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 21, 2012 and September 4, 2012 Regular Meetings and the August 28, 2012 Adjourned Meeting. 34 September 18, 2012 7. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District. 8. Items Relating to the 2012 Downtown Development Authority-Related Financing Activities. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2012, Authorizing the Establishment of a Revolving Line of Credit to be Paid Solely with Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Funds for a Six Year Period in the Amount of up to One Million Dollars Annually to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and Programs in Accordance with the Downtown Development Authority Plan of Development and Approving Related Documents. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Downtown Development Authority Fund, Funds Drawn from the 2012 City of Fort Collins Revolving Line of Credit Established to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and Programs and Funds for Debt Service on the Revolving Line of Credit. The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) believes it would be financially beneficial for the DDA and the community as a whole for a revolving Line of Credit to be established with a local bank for a six-year period. The Line of Credit will be used to finance DDA projects and programs. Ordinance No. 089, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, authorizes the establishment of the Line of Credit and approves the execution of the First National Bank documents. Ordinance No. 090, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, appropriates unanticipated revenue from interest earnings in the amount of $191,032; from project savings in the amount of $331,113; funds appropriated but not spent of $940,430; funds from the 2010 Bond Series that were not appropriated in the amount of $500,000; and funds from the 2012 Revolving Line of Credit draw of up to $1,000,000 for a total 35 September 18, 2012 appropriation of $2,962,575. The DDA Board has authorized the expenditure on the various projects and programs. This Ordinance also appropriates the debt service payment on the 2012 Line of Credit draw. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating Budget. Ordinance No. 091, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, appropriates a grant in the amount of $45,000 from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Juvenile Diversion fund for the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program for all other offenses. A cash match of $7,440 is required and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for Restorative Justice Services. The total required match is 25%; an additional $7,560 in-kind match is designated from the Eighth Judicial Probation Department. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2012, Amending Section 26-279 of the City Code to Allow a Reduction for Calculated Evaporative Losses in Determining Wastewater Volume for Existing Large Industrial Processes. In 2010, Chapter 26 of the City Code was modified to establish an additional method of determining wastewater volume as the basis for Wastewater Service fees. That Code amendment allowed Utilities to recognize specific quantities of water consumed or processed in manufacturing processes for the City’s industrial and large commercial wastewater customers. Examples include cooling towers and other equipment or processes where a measurable reduction in wastewater discharge can be determined and metered. The reduction may apply to either a specified portion of the user’s facilities or the facility as a whole. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, adds an option to Section 26-279 of the City Code to allow for the use of nationally accepted industry standards of calculation to recognize specific quantities of water that are evaporated off as part of an industrial process and as a result are not discharged to the wastewater system. The models would provide a quantifiable amount of water which should not be included in the wastewater discharge volume which serves as the basis for Wastewater Service fees in lieu of metering for existing structures. This adjustment will be allowed only for large industrial customers, and metering will still be required for newly constructed facilities. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2012, Designating the Schroeder House/Laurel Apartments, 121 East Laurel, Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, designates the Schroeder Residence/Laurel Apartments at 121 East Laurel Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The property owner, Brian Beeghly, is initiating this request. 36 September 18, 2012 12. Items Relating to the Forney Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2012, Annexing the Property Known as the Forney Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2012, Amending and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Forney Annexation. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, annex and zone 23.16 acres located on the north side of LaPorte Avenue, approximately 1,280 feet east of North Taft Hill Road. The parcels to be annexed, all owned by Forney Industries, are currently located in Larimer County’s I – Industrial Zoning District. The requested zoning for this annexation is the T - Transition. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Coby S. Hughey and Linda C. Hughey. In 1992, the final plat of Pheasant Ridge Estates dedicated Tract A to the City of Fort Collins for the purpose of a detention basin. After the dedication, the developer certified to the City that he could meet the required stormwater detention volumes without excavating and grading the western most portion of Tract A (the portion adjacent to 1700 Westview Road.) Due to the City’s change of use for this portion of Tract A, the adjacent property owners, Coby and Linda Hughey, have expressed an interest to obtain the portion of Tract A that abuts their property at 1700 Westview Road. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of a portion of Tract A to the Hugheys. 14. Items Relating to the High Park Fire Remediation. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2012, Appropriating Additional Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund for Additional High Park Fire Remediation. B. Resolution 2012-090 Authorizing the Mayor to Sign Additional Intergovernmental Agreements Regarding Funding of Cache La Poudre Watershed Mitigation in Response to the High Park Fire. On August 21, City Council approved an emergency ordinance appropriating reserves from the Water Fund to begin the soil stabilization efforts required to limit the impacts of the High Park Fire on the Cache la Poudre watershed. That appropriation allowed work to begin on the Hill Gulch, which had been identified as the most critical area comprising Phase 1 of the effort for the whole 5,657 acres which will require aerial mulching and seeding per the Burn Area Emergency Response (BAER) report. That work is anticipated to be completed in 2 weeks, allowing the next critical area, Boyd Gulch, to be treated before October. This Ordinance seeks $2,000,000 from the Water Fund reserves to tackle the soil stabilization efforts in the Boyd Gulch and other high-priority areas to be completed in 2012. 37 September 18, 2012 On August 21, City Council also approved Resolution 2012-079 authorizing the Mayor to sign two Intergovernmental Agreements to allow the initial work to be done in Boyd Gulch. With the additional funding being requested through Ordinance No. 098, 2012, it will be necessary to enter into similar agreements to complete the additional soil stabilization efforts. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees Retirement Committee. The existing structure of the General Employees’ Retirement Committee (GERC) has 6 positions and must include at least 3 active employee members and only 1 retiree receiving a benefit. The GERC recommends more flexibility in appointment of committee representatives by changing those 4 positions to be any of the following: an active employee, a former employee that is vested but not yet receiving a benefit, or a retiree receiving a benefit. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to School Program. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Office has received a $27,500 federal grant through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2012–13 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. This funding will allow the City’s Safe Routes to School Program, administered and staffed by Transportation Planning, to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory Board to Coincide with the School Year. At the request of the Youth Advisory Board, and at the direction of Council, this Ordinance amends the terms of members of the Youth Advisory Board so that terms begin June 1 and expire May 31. This change will allow newly appointed members to include Youth Advisory Board meetings and activities when planning for the upcoming school year. The Youth Advisory Board does not meet during the summer months. The terms of all City boards and commissions expire on December 31 as required by Ordinance No. 070, 2000. This Ordinance provides that the next time the Boards and Commissions Manual is updated, the term expiration dates of the City Boards and Commissions will be addressed in the Manual. 18. Resolution 2012-091 Amending Resolution 2006-124 to Revise the Process for City Council Evaluation of the Performance of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Resolution 2006-124 outlines the process for completion of the annual formal performance evaluation of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge (the “Employees”), as well as the process for determining compensation and benefit changes. In order to improve 38 September 18, 2012 communication and provide more timely information to Council, the due date for Employee self-evaluations and compensation requests will be moved from 4 days prior to the Employees annual review to 20 days prior. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson. 7. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 8. Items Relating to the 2012 Downtown Development Authority-Related Financing Activities. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2012, Authorizing the Establishment of a Revolving Line of Credit to be Paid Solely with Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Funds for a Six Year Period in the Amount of up to One Million Dollars Annually to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and Programs in Accordance with the Downtown Development Authority Plan of Development and Approving Related Documents. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Downtown Development Authority Fund, Funds Drawn from the 2012 City of Fort Collins Revolving Line of Credit Established to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and Programs and Funds for Debt Service on the Revolving Line of Credit. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating Budget. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2012, Amending Section 26-279 of the City Code to Allow a Reduction for Calculated Evaporative Losses in Determining Wastewater Volume for Existing Large Industrial Processes. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2012, Designating the Schroeder House/Laurel Apartments, 121 East Laurel, Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 12. Items Relating to the Forney Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2012, Annexing the Property Known as the Forney Annexation. 39 September 18, 2012 B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2012, Amending and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Forney Annexation. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Coby S. Hughey and Linda C. Hughey. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2012, Appropriating Additional Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund for Additional High Park Fire Remediation. 23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2012, Amending Certain Provisions of the Land Use Code to Afford Better Regulation of Multi-Family, High Density Housing Developments Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees Retirement Committee. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to School Program. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory Board to Coincide with the School Year. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas, a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports Kim Newcomer, Communication and Public Involvement Manager, provided a brief overview of the growing mobile internet market and stated the City has created several different mobile applications, both for the public and employees. Dan Coldiron, Chief Information Officer, reviewed the most popular City applications. He announced the City’s website was awarded the Pinnacle Award from the National Association of Government Webmasters as the best website in the nation for medium-sized organizations. 40 September 18, 2012 Lynn Sanchez, Wellness Program Coordinator, provided an overview of the City’s employee wellness program and stated the City’s health claim costs are trending in a positive direction. Rick Richter, Interim City Engineer, discussed the MAX bus rapid transit construction and stated the Mason Street two-way conversion has occurred. He stated downtown station construction will begin after the first of the year. He stated construction on the south transit center recently began. Claire Thomas, Public Relations Coordinator, announced the Mason to the MAX event to be held Thursday, September 27 and a public open house to be held October 3 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the timing of the construction of the railroad-required pedestrian and bike overpass. Richter replied that project will likely be re-bid in March of 2013 with construction in the spring 2013. Tomas stated there is a full communication plan in place for that project as well. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the Parks Department for its work with the Southridge Community Association. Councilmember Troxell reported on the 100 year anniversary celebration and fireworks at City Park. Councilmember Poppaw reported on the current exhibits at the newly renovated Lincoln Center. Mayor Weitkunat announced the current vacancies on City boards and commissions and encouraged citizens to apply. Ordinance No. 092, 2012, Amending Certain Provisions of the Land Use Code to Afford Better Regulation of Multi- Family, High Density Housing Developments, Adopted as Amended on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At City Council’s direction, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) department analyzed what immediate measures Council could consider to help mitigate adverse impacts of current and future multi-family housing in areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods. This Ordinance, adopted 6-1 (Kottwitz) on First Reading on September 4, 2012 will: 1. require Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) land use and development standards for all multi-family projects, particularly outside the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. 2. modify the Neighborhood Commercial zone district to ensure a significant commercial component. 3. require an operation, management and security study for larger multi-family developments.” 41 September 18, 2012 Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, discussed feedback received from the Planning and Zoning Board and other groups regarding these proposed changes. The Planning and Zoning Board did not recommend approval on Second Reading. Troy Jones, Affordable Housing Board member, stated the Affordable Housing Board would like to see the Second Reading of this item postponed for further consideration. Jeffery Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors President, supported the proposed changes but asked that there be some consideration of a floor provision for the security, operation, and management plan requirements, and some consideration of possible exemptions for affordable housing developments and those with a majority of owner-occupied units. Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett Road, supported the Ordinance and stated it is a product of the Student Housing Action Plan process and reflects compromise. Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, expressed general support for the Ordinance, but expressed concern regarding the expedited process and suggested exemptions for affordable housing and small developments. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the expedited process. Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chief Executive Officer, expressed general support for the Ordinance, but expressed concern regarding the expedited process. He requested consideration of exemptions for affordable housing and a possible postponement to allow consideration by the Affordable Housing Board. Mayor Weitkunat asked that staff define multi-family housing as it applied in this case. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, replied the definition will not change - multi-family housing refers to a three-plex or greater and there is no ownership or student aspect to the definition. Councilmember Manvel asked if the twenty-five foot setback would apply to a three or four-plex being built next to a residential dwelling. Shepard replied geographic specific zone standards of the Land Use Code will override these citywide standards. Mayor Weitkunat asked about the removal of the fifty unit minimum. Kadrich replied that change was suggested by the Planning and Zoning Board through a work session. It was also suggested by Council and citizen groups. Councilmember Manvel clarified that the idea of having a specific threshold was rejected; however, the flexibility to have extensive security and more management for larger projects does exist. Councilmember Troxell requested a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board discussion. Kadrich replied the Board considered whether or not to recommend this phase one of the Land Use Code proposals for adoption. She stated the first motion stated the Board “cannot support Land Use Issue 920 unless and until more extensive stakeholder and public outreach is conducted, and a thorough analysis is conducted and evaluated, we cannot support this Land Use Code change. We are not convinced it provides an actual solution to the problems associated to multi-family housing projects that we have reviewed.” Kadrich stated that motion was approved unanimously and that 42 September 18, 2012 the Board went on to discuss the NC zone change. That motion was approved by a vote of 4-2. The third motion was that the Board cannot support the Land Use Code Issue 924, which is the operations, management, and security study “unless and until more extensive stakeholder and public outreach is conducted and a subsequent thorough analysis is performed and evaluated, we cannot support this specific proposed Land Use change. And in this case, we are not convinced this proposal is appropriate for inclusion in the Land Use Code.” That motion was approved unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Manvel requested staff input on whether or not this change does belong in the Land Use Code. Kadrich replied it could be part of the City Code and governed through Neighborhood Services. The staff recommendation was specific to comments received from the public. Mayor Weitkunat asked if most of the public outreach had occurred in neighborhoods around and near CSU. Kadrich replied she was uncertain; however, most of the written input received did come from the West Central Neighborhood area, as well as around campus. Mayor Weitkunat questioned whether or not the management and security requirement is necessary as a universal code change that has merit citywide. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the fifty unit minimum was originally in both the security study portion and the setback portion. Shepard replied it was just in the operations, management, and security plan provision. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if staff has recommended any changes between First and Second Reading. Kadrich replied it is not too late to delay Second Reading or separate out part of the proposed changes. She stated the Code does have provisions to make exemptions for affordable housing. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the process had been expedited due to a request by some Councilmembers. Kadrich replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Manvel made a motion to postpone Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, for two weeks in order to obtain additional input from the Affordable Housing Board. The motion was not seconded. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 092, 2012, on Second Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz stated she did not second the motion for postponement as she did not want the two week limit. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he does not care if the operation, management and security study is in the Code as long as it works the way it should and offers protection to existing single-family neighborhoods. He stated he would not support attempts to exempt affordable housing from these standards, given the definition of affordable housing is not specific enough. Additionally, the Code already provides the ability for affordable housing projects to be exempted from certain projects. He noted Council did not adopt a moratorium on these types of projects in exchange for working at a more expedited pace on regulations. 43 September 18, 2012 Mayor Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to amend Ordinance No. 092, 2012, by striking section 3.8.29(G), in reference to the multi-family development standards for operational management and security plan. Mayor Weitkunat stated she would like to see that aspect placed in the Student Housing Action Plan to come forward in another venue. Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the requirement coming back in another format. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Troxell, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion to adopt the Ordinance as further discussion should occur with stakeholders and the public. Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for the Planning and Zoning Board comments but noted most of the Board’s objections were related to process concerns. Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would not support the motion and disagreed that this process is an alternative to a moratorium. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted staff always has the ability to bring forward suggested changes should they become necessary. Councilmember Troxell stated he does not want staff to be bound to artificial timelines. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the timeline is related to Council’s work plan. Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion as this is a good first step to begin the process of correcting what is happening in our neighborhoods. The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 092, 2012, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: Troxell and Kottwitz. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas, a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. 44 September 18, 2012 “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Circumstances are favorable to refinance the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPs). Bank of America has proposed terms for the new debt that result in a net present value savings of $4.8 million and equates to 13.4% of the refunded principal. The 2012 debt will mature in the same time frames as before: Police through 2026, Natural Areas through 2019, and Transportation through 2024. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2004 COPs of $48.7 million were issued to acquire open space areas that included Soapstone, Bobcat Ridge, Andrijeski, and Coyote Ridge; construct a new police facility; and construct a sand/salt storage facility for the streets department. Debt payments go through June 1, 2026. The average coupon interest on the remaining 2004 certificates is 5.19%. Although market rates have been low for some time now, refinancing was delayed because the 2004 debt is not callable until June 1, 2014. An escrow account will continue to make payments on the 2004 COP’s until the call date. Bank of America submitted the best and lowest proposal among four proposals received through a Request for Proposal process. Terms are 1.82% through 2026, callable in 5 years, and a step down payment structure relating to each project that is similar to the existing debt service schedule. The settlement date for issuing the refunding certificates is expected to occur before October 18, 2012. Supporting the City in this financing deal are the law firm of Sherman & Howard and the financial consulting firm of BLX. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The net cash savings will be about $5.9 million with a net present value of $4.8 million that is 13.4% of the refunded principal. In 2013 the savings will be approximately $648,000. 45 September 18, 2012 Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated this is a good news, cost savings item. John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer, stated the term “certificate of participation” is a type of debt and discussed the items funded by it beginning in 2004. Interest rates are now favorable for refinancing and this refinance will result in cash savings of $5.9 million. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the $403,198 has already been factored into the budget. Beckstead replied it has not yet been factored into the budget and will need to be dealt with in 2013-2014. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern that these types of costs always manage to be covered whereas certain expenditures desired for public improvements by Council cannot always be funded. Beckstead noted this refinance will result in $4.4 million in savings to the General Fund over the next fourteen years; therefore, reserves can be used in the next four years with the security that they can be replenished over the final ten years of this financing term. Additionally, sales tax revenues have been higher than anticipated. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended staff for work on the item. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 102, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing on the 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial Budget for the City of Fort Collins, Hearing was Held The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the first official public hearing on the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2013-2014 budget. In an effort to receive further public input, a second public hearing is scheduled for the October 2, 2012 Council meeting. Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on Tuesday, October 16 and Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the Main Library, the Harmony Branch Library, Council Tree Library, or the City Clerk’s Office. The recommended budget can also be viewed online at www.fcgov.com/budget.” Mayor Weitkunat noted this is a public hearing and stated additional hearings will be held October 2, 16, and November 20. Edye Slovick, 5706 Wingfoot Drive, supported the addition of Dial-a-Ride service in southeast Fort Collins. 46 September 18, 2012 Ellen Lirley, 3201 Sharps Street, supported the items that have been recommended for funding relating to the Senior Center and requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion from the Building Community Choices funds. Joan Black, 1206 Canvasback Court, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride and Transfort in southeast Fort Collins. Sandy Gordon, 300 Remington, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion. Marjorie Morningstar, 2237 Dover Drive, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion from the Building Community Choices funds. Deborah Flynn, Green Ride Colorado, supported funding for the ClimateWise program. John Drigot, 3321 Snowbrush Court, Poudre Valley Health Systems Sustainability Coordinator, supported funding for the ClimateWise program. Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview Drive, Senior Center Expansion Committee Chairperson, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion from the Building Community Choices funds. Linda Gabel, 826 Blondel Street, Senior Advisory Boardmember, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion from the Building Community Choices funds. Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported funding for several portions of the Environmental Health portion of the budget. He requested that Council consider funding the Landscape Transform to Xeriscape offer. Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and for arts and culture programs, specifically the Arts Incubator of the Rockies. Rick Cullen, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for solar programs. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported funding for transit and Transfort. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the majority of Council will work hard to fill the $500,000 gap for the Senior Center. Councilmember Kottwitz asked that staff follow-up regarding southeast service of Dial-a-Ride prior to the final work session on the budget. Councilmember Troxell stated the Arts Incubator of the Rockies is currently unfunded and stated he would like funding considered. 47 September 18, 2012 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 48 October 2, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 2, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weitkunat. (Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 7:06 p.m.) Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated that Item No. 22, Resolution 2012-093, Adopting “The Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods” as an Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Adopting Relating Changes to the Transportation Master Plan, is being postponed to a later date in order to allow time for community input. Citizen Participation James Owiny, Human Relations Commission member, announced an Elder Abuse Forum to be held October 22, 2012, at the Senior Center. Liz Prusner, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the potential financial impacts of the proposed on-campus stadium and opposed any funding by the City of Fort Collins. Lynn Hall, Fort Collins resident, announced October as Arts and Humanities Month and supported the arts community in Fort Collins. Wes Kenney, Fort Collins Symphony Musical Director, thanked Council for its support of performing arts and the Symphony and announced the upcoming Symphony season. Catherine Douras, Fort Collins Women’s Commission member, supported the Day of the Girl proclamation. Gary Peterson, Fort Collins resident, supported ballot question 301 and state ballot issue 64, the medical marijuana items. 49 October 2, 2012 Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Troxell noted there is no consideration in the current budget for support of the on- campus stadium and suggested the possibility of Council considering Resolutions regarding any type of City costs for infrastructure related to the stadium. He stated information provided by Poudre School District was cited with regard to ballot issue 301. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees Retirement Committee. The existing structure of the General Employees’ Retirement Committee (GERC) has 6 positions and must include at least 3 active employee members and only 1 retiree receiving a benefit. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, changes those 4 positions to be any of the following: an active employee, a former employee that is vested but not yet receiving a benefit, or a retiree receiving a benefit. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to School Program. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Office has received a $27,500 federal grant through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2012–13 Safe Routes to School program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, appropriates the funding. The grant allows the City’s Safe Routes to School Program, administered and staffed by Transportation Planning, to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory Board to Coincide with the School Year. At the request of the Youth Advisory Board, and at the direction of Council, this Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, amends the terms of members of the Youth Advisory Board so that terms begin June 1 and expire May 31. This change will allow newly appointed members to include Youth Advisory Board meetings and activities when planning for the upcoming school year. The Youth Advisory Board does not meet during the summer months. The terms of all City boards and commissions expire on December 31 as required by Ordinance No. 070, 2000. This Ordinance provides that the next time the Boards and Commissions Manual is updated, the term expiration dates of the City Boards and Commissions will be addressed in the Manual. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and 50 October 2, 2012 Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas, a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, authorizes the refinance of the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPs). Bank of America has proposed terms for the new debt that result in a net present value savings of $4.8 million and equates to 13.4% of the refunded principal. The 2012 debt will mature in the same time frames as before: Police through 2026, Natural Areas through 2019, and Transportation through 2024. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. The annual Clean-up Ordinance allows for the appropriation of expenses related to unanticipated revenue, grants and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted. The details of these clean-up requests were reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on September 17, 2012. At that meeting it was requested that all use of prior year reserves be highlighted, as well as any changes not seen by the Committee. A table with the use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the Agenda Item Summary. The only items included in this Clean-up Ordinance that were not reviewed by the Council Finance Committee is a request for $28,277 of unanticipated revenue in Forestry and $200,000 for a tandem dump truck in the Water Fund. The purpose of this annual Clean-Up Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2012 budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment. The City of Fort Collins is lease-purchasing desktop computers and laptops for various City departments. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $294,000. Payments at the 2.28% interest rate will not exceed $15,596 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.21%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. 51 October 2, 2012 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. This Ordinance will amend Section 7-87(b) of the City Code to enact language that is consistent with the original intent that the City Clerk, within 18 months after the decennial publication of the U.S. Census, recommend district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous Council district. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known as Daisy Street and Columbine Street. Daisy Street and Columbine Street have existed since 1956. The City has not found any record that would indicate that the street right-of-way has been dedicated to the City by plat or separate document, but the City believes that under the doctrine of “common law dedication” it is the legitimate owner of the streets. The roads are improved with curb, sidewalk and asphalt and have been maintained by the City. All lots adjacent to these two short street stubs have been included within the District at Campus West development proposal that was approved by administrative hearing on May 7, 2012 and upheld on July 17, 2012 after an appeal to overturn the approval of the administrative hearing of said project was heard at City Council. The property owner of the adjacent lots (the District at Campus West developer) has requested that Daisy Street and Columbine Streets be vacated to allow the parcels and the streets to be replatted to accommodate the multifamily development. Vacations of public right-of-way are governed by City Code Section 23-115, which provides for an application and review process prior to submission to the City Council for formal consideration. The process includes review by potentially affected utility agencies, City staff, emergency service providers, and affected property owners in the vicinity of the right- of-way proposed to be vacated. This review process was followed in connection with this proposal, and based on comments received; the City Engineer has recommended that the vacation be approved. All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and they report no objections to the vacation. 14. Routine Easement. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from S. Edward and Phyllis Stoner, to install a telecommunication equipment for water meter readings for the Advanced meter Fort Collins Project. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as 52 October 2, 2012 Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees Retirement Committee. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to School Program. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory Board to Coincide with the School Year. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas, a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto. 19. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2012, Amending Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code relating to Art in Public Places. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known as Daisy Street and Columbine Street. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports City Attorney Roy announced some letters were included this evening in the record relating to Council’s consideration of an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s July 19, 2012 decision to approve Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-Family Dwellings at Christ Center Community Church and Project Development Plan. 53 October 2, 2012 Councilmember Reports Mayor Weitkunat announced the extension of the deadline for board and commission applications to October 17, 2012. Councilmember Horak reported on the Platte River Power Authority meeting and discussed water leases and policies relating to those leases. Ordinance No. 078, 2012, Amending Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code Relating to Art in Public Places, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 21, 2012. At that time, Council provided direction to staff and the Art in Public Places (APP) Board to reexamine the modification included in the Ordinance that caps the total annual contribution to APP from each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, and Light & Power) at $100,000. A revised Ordinance is being presented for Second Reading that includes a revised cap option for Council consideration and approval. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On First Reading of this Ordinance, Council provided direction to staff and the Art in Public Places (APP) Board to reexamine the modification to the APP program that caps the total annual contribution to APP from each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, and Light & Power) at $100,000. APP, Utility staff and the APP Board reviewed different options for the cap and are presenting for Council consideration on Second Reading a revised method of calculating the Utility cap. APP UTILITY CAP REVISION FOR SECOND READING Art in Public Places continues as a 1% program, meaning City capital projects with a budget over $250,000 designate 1% of their project budget for art. The revised Ordinance for Second Reading includes the following APP cap for Utility projects: The APP Utility contribution cap would be set as .5% of each Utility’s annual budgeted Operating Revenue. • Operating Revenue is made up of the payments received from the rate payer. • Each Utility’s revenue from the rate payer varies in accordance with the size of that Utility; therefore the cap would vary and be right-sized for each Utility fund. • This option specifically limits the maximum impact to the rate payer to no more than .5% of the Operating Revenue per Utility. • Using a percentage allows the cap amount to potentially change over time, if Operating Revenue increases or decreases, but never impact the rate payer more than .5%. 54 October 2, 2012 • The cap limits contributions from the largest Utility projects. For example, the Mulberry Water Reclamation Project was budgeted at $25,650,000 in 2009. The uncapped APP contribution was $265,500. A cap calculated at .5% of Wastewater Operating Revenue would have been $90,803 (.5% of $18,160,570 Operating Revenue in 2009). Therefore the Wastewater APP contribution would have been capped at $90,803, a reduction of $165,967. Other large projects that would have been or will be capped under this scenario are the Spring Creek and Fossil Creek Basins; Canal Importation; Drake Water Reclamation Project; Halligan improvements; or service center improvements. The Average Cap at .5% of Operating Revenue, based on 2008-2012 actuals, would be: Light & Power: $461,813* Water: $130,425 Wastewater: $90,491 Stormwater: $68,348 *Because the Light & Power Operating Revenue is the highest of the four Utility Funds, averaging over $90 million annually, the .5% cap is also the highest cap. A lower percentage cap on Light & Power could be considered. At .25%, the average cap on Light & Power would be $230,906. Although still above the average Light & Power APP contribution amount of approximately $73,836, the .25% cap would further limit potential Light & Power contributions to APP. In 2012, the total Utility Budget is $180,401,672 with Operating Revenues of $164,341,682. Art in Public Places actual contributions were $100,266 or .019% of the total Utility Budget. Below are two tables showing the Utility Rate Payer Typical Customer Bill for 2012 and 2013. The tables illustrate the relationship between APP and the rate payer bill, based on actual and projected APP budgets and show the maximum impact to the rate payer if the .5% or .25% of Operating Revenues caps is reached. 2012 2012 Rates APP Actual APP Maximum APP Cap Typical Cost/Month per Rate Payer .5% of bill .25% of bill Electric $ 59.68 $ 0.01 $ 0.30 $ 0.15 Water $ 33.66 $ 0.06 $ 0.17 $ 0.08 Wastewater $ 30.26 $ 0.04 $ 0.15 $ 0.08 Stormwater $ 14.26 $ 0.01 $ 0.07 $ 0.04 Monthly Total $ 137.85 $ 0.12 $ 0.69 $ 0.34 Annual Total $ 1,654.23 $ 1.41 $ 8.27 $ 4.14 (1) Electric total of 8075 kWh over 12 months (2010 monthly average use) (2) Water total of 98213 gallons over 12 months (2010 monthly average use) (3) Wastewater 4600 Gallons Winter Quarter Water Use (4) 8600 sq ft lot with light run off 2013 2013 Est. Rates APP Actual APP Maximum APP Maximum Typical Cost/Month per Rate Payer .5% of bill .25% of bill Electric $ 62.26 $ 0.01 $ 0.31 $ 0.16 Water $ 35.01 $ 0.07 $ 0.18 $ 0.09 Wastewater $ 30.26 $ 0.05 $ 0.15 $ 0.08 Stormwater $ 14.26 $ 0.02 $ 0.07 $ 0.04 55 October 2, 2012 Monthly Total $ 141.79 $0.15 $ 0.71 $0.35 Annual Total $ 1,701.48 $1.79 $ 8.51 $4.25 Average Increases for 2013: Electric 4.33%; Water 4.%; Wastewater 0%; Stormwater 0% The revised Ordinance on Second Reading includes the .5% of Operating Revenue cap option. The following two tables detail the past five years and next five years of Utility total budgets, Operating Revenue, actual or projected APP contributions from capital projects, and both the .5% and.25% cap options with impacts to APP for comparison. APP Utility Cap as .5% or .25% of Operating Revenue 2008-2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Light &Power Total Budget 100,843,892 95,792,694 107,246,097 106,977,193 112,752,791 523,612,667 Operating Revenue 83,752,596 86,957,098 91,213,692 95,892,159 103,997,211 461,812,756 Actual contribution to APP 138,815 49,256 142,835 16,950 21,326 369,182 APP as % of Total Budget .138% .051% .133% .016% .019% 0.071% APP as % of Op Rev .166% .057% .157% .018% .021% 0.080% Cap at .5% of Op Rev 418,763 434,785 456,068 479,461 519,986 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 209,381 217,393 228,034 239,730 259,993 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Wastewater 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Budget 31,681,336 50,588,597 23,115,680 22,431,628 21,235,473 149,052,714 Operating Revenue 16,305,707 18,160,570 17,622,768 18,713,219 19,688,506 90,490,770 Actual contribution to APP 89,000 256,500 28,750 38,050 24,450 437,750 APP as % of Total Budget 0.281% 0.507% 0.124% 0.170% 0.120% 0.294% App as % of Op Rev 0.546% 1.412% 0.163% 0.203% 0.129% 0.484% Cap at .5% of Op Rev 81,529 90,803 88,114 93,566 98,443 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 7,471 165,697 0 0 0 173,169 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 40,764 45,401 44,057 46,783 49,221 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 48,236 211,099 0 0 0 259,334 Water 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Budget 30,618,969 40,031,414 32,851,744 30,370,924 32,063,681 165,936,732 Operating Revenue 26,789,947 25,430,648 26,448,689 25,008,022 26,748,036 130,425,342 Actual contribution to APP 35,850 123,550 72,400 40,600 47,000 319,400 APP as % of Total Budget 0.117% 0.309% 0.220% 0.134% 0.147% 0.192% APP as % of Op Rev 0.134% 0.486% 0.274% 0.162% 0.176% 0.245% Cap at .5% of Op Rev 133,950 127,153 132,243 125,040 133,740 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 66,975 63,577 66,122 62,520 66,870 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 0 59,973 6,278 0 0 66,252 Stormwater 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Budget 17,470,888 16,644,536 15,723,422 14,229,352 14,349,727 78,417,925 Operating Revenue 13,328,099 13,588,955 13,724,845 13,798,078 13,907,929 68,347,906 Actual contribution to APP 73,650 66,650 37,100 32,100 7,400 216,900 APP as % of Total Budget 0.422% 0.400% 0.236% 0.226% 0.052% 0.277% APP as % of Op Rev 0.553% 0.490% 0.270% 0.233% 0.053% 0.317% 56 October 2, 2012 Cap at .5% of Op Rev 66,640 67,945 68,624 68,990 69,540 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 7,010 00007,010 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 33,320 33,972 34,312 34,495 34,770 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 40,330 32,678 2,788 0 0 75,795 APP Utility Cap as .5% or .25% of Operating Revenue 2013-2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Light &Power Total Budget 119,604,695 124,868,020 123,447,384 126,631,643 135,807,745 630,359,487 Operating Revenue 109,235,769 113,794,095 117,217,900 122,872,600 127,804,700 590,925,064 Projected contribution to APP 13,075 13,337 12,642 12,894 86,402 138,350 APP as % of Total Budget 0.011% 0.011% 0.010% 0.010% 0.064% 0.022% APP as % of Op Rev 0.012% 0.012% 0.011% 0.010% 0.068% 0.023% Cap at .5% of Op Rev 546,179 568,970 586,090 614,363 639,024 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 273,089 284,485 293,045 307,182 319,512 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Wastewater 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Budget 22,471,641 21,190,275 22,078,143 22,350,465 20,529,664 108,620,188 Operating Revenue 19,450,506 19,524,904 20,110,651 20,713,971 21,335,391 101,135,423 Projected contribution to APP 33,563 39,864 50,000 50,000 30,000 203,427 APP as % of Total Budget 0.149% 0.188% 0.226% 0.224% 0.146% 0.187% App as % of Op Rev 0.173% 0.204% 0.249% 0.241% 0.141% 0.201% Cap at .5% of Op Rev 97,253 97,625 100,553 103,570 106,677 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 48,626 48,812 50,277 51,785 53,338 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Water 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Budget 32,836,906 34,588,260 32,025,578 32,524,130 32,476,435 164,451,309 Operating Revenue 26,553,614 27,569,551 28,692,805 29,840,397 30,737,475 143,393,842 Projected contribution to APP 50,037 74,789 50,000 50,000 50,000 274,826 APP as % of Total Budget 0.152% 0.216% 0.156% 0.154% 0.154% 0.167% APP as % of Op Rev 0.188% 0.271% 0.174% 0.168% 0.163% 0.192% Cap at .5% of Op Rev 132,768 137,848 143,464 149,202 153,687 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 66,384 68,924 71,732 74,601 76,844 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 0 5,865 0005,865 Stormwater 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Budget 13,857,411 14,046,997 12,343,383 13,553,945 12,971,959 66,773,695 Operating Revenue 13,853,000 13,974,000 14,043,870 14,114,089 14,184,659 70,169,618 Projected contribution to APP 23,129 25,040 26,857 27,394 27,942 130,361 APP as % of Total Budget 0.167% 0.178% 0.218% 0.202% 0.215% 0.195% APP as % of Op Rev 0.167% 0.179% 0.191% 0.194% 0.197% 0.186% 57 October 2, 2012 Cap at .5% of Op Rev 69,265 69,870 70,219 70,570 70,923 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 Cap at .25% of Op Rev 34,633 34,935 35,110 35,285 35,085 N/A Reduction to APP w Cap 000000 UPDATES TO “ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED” FOR SECOND READING APP worked with Finance to address the non-lapsing status of APP projects to improve accountability and transparency. This change was primarily addressed through an administrative policy change; however, in making the changes as requested, Finance is recommending some updates to the APP Code to accurately reflect the accounting process, update terminology, and make section titles clearer and more easily understood. The updates recommended for consideration on Second Reading are as follows: • 23-302 Definitions: remove the “APP reserve account” definition and add the new defined term “cost center” to accurately describe the fund for APP. Also remove the wording “reserve account” throughout the Ordinance. • 23-303 Accounts Established: retitle this section to “Accounting Methods” and revise language in the Code to explain where the money is going, use current terminology, and reflect the administrative change of budgets for works of art as non-lapsing. Administration and maintenance budgets will remain as lapsing. Utility funds will still be held separately, but the wording is updated. • Change the headings for Sections 23-304, 23-305, 23-306 to more accurately reflect the three program levels of APP. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Implementing a cap on APP contributions from each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, Light and Power) as a calculation of .5% of the budgeted Operating Revenues in each fund will reduce the contributions from Utility Capital Projects to APP. If the .5% of Operating Revenue cap were in place from 2008-2012, $180,179 would not have been contributed to the APP program from Utility capital projects, a reduction of 13%. Compared to the $100,000 cap proposed on First Reading, had it been in place for the same time period, $261,700 would not have been contributed to APP from Utility capital projects. Looking ahead (2013-2017) at the projected Utility capital projects, if the .5% of Operating Revenue cap is in place, APP Utility budgets will fall well below the projected cap amount, unless new projects are added. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The APP Board reviewed the revised Cap option at its September 19, 2012 meeting. The APP Board supports the .5% of Operating Revenue Cap as presented in the revised Ordinance.” 58 October 2, 2012 Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services and Facilities Director, introduced the Second Reading of the Ordinance. Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator, discussed the modifications approved by Council on First Reading. She stated staff is recommending capping utility contributions to the Art in Public Places (APP) program at 0.5% of each utility’s annual budgeted operating revenue. Stilwell stated utility capital projects over $250,000 would continue to contribute 1% of their budgets to Art in Public Places. The proposed cap is a separate calculation based on the rate payers’ payments into each utility. The cap limits the impact to the utility rate payers to a maximum of $0.71 per month; however, the anticipated impact is expected to be $0.15 per month. At this point, the anticipated Art in Public Places projects for the year should be funded in full, despite the cap. York, Art in Public Places Board Chairman, stated the Board supports the proposed cap as a reasonable compromise. Harry Rose, 504 Edwards Street, opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places and urged a flexible cap rather than a hard cap. Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards Street, opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the subsidy of arts in the community and opposed changing the funding for Art in Public Places. Beth Flowers, 200 West Mountain, Beet Street Executive Director, opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places. Councilmember Manvel asked about the discontinuity regarding the Light and Power budget contribution. Marty Heffernan, Community Services Director, replied the operating budget for Light and Power is far greater than that of the other utilities; therefore, the 0.5% cap is quite a large number coming from that utility. The number of capital projects for Light and Power, and the other utilities, is quite modest over the next five years. The impact of the cap will be somewhat muted until a large capital project occurs. Over the past five years, given the number of capital projects, the impact of the cap would have been to cut about 13% of the Art in Public Places budget. Councilmember Troxell asked about the meaning of non-lapsing. Stilwell replied non-lapsing accounts do not end at the end of a year. Mayor Weitkunat stated she does not understand the rationale in using the operating revenues as the cap. Stilwell replied the operating revenues were used in order to limit the potential impact to rate payers. Mayor Weitkunat stated it seems illogical to impose a cap that will never be achieved. Heffernan replied the cap, had it been in place over the last five years, would have had an impact. The overall capital projects for utilities over the next five years are fairly modest at this point; therefore, the cap would not apply. 59 October 2, 2012 Mayor Weitkunat noted there was never intent to end the Art in Public Places program; however, the funding being attached to utilities was never publically considered. She expressed concern regarding the large build-up of reserves with no projects to fund. Heffernan stated any large capital project will have the effect of having significant reductions on the APP budget. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 078, 2012, on Second Reading. Councilmember Manvel noted there are several changes since First Reading. City Attorney Roy clarified the Second Reading includes several changes, including the 0.5% cap. City Manager Atteberry noted the Executive Summary of this item erroneously states the item was adopted unanimously on First Reading. Councilmembers Ohlson and Poppaw voted against adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Councilmember Horak supported the compromise. Councilmember Poppaw stated she would prefer no cap, but expressed appreciation for the compromise. Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for work on the item and stated he would support the motion. Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion and its compromise. Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for the compromise and stated she would support the motion despite her concerns regarding the extensive levels of reserves resulting from the program. Councilmember Poppaw disagreed that the reserves were inappropriate. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2012-092 Supporting an Amendment to the United States Constitution That Would Limit Constitutional Rights to Natural Persons and Would State That Political Contributions and Expenditures Are Not Constitutionally Protected Speech, Adopted as Amended The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council has directed staff to present a resolution urging the City’s representatives in the U.S. Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that: (1) only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and (2) money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and expenditures is not equivalent to limiting political speech. In 60 October 2, 2012 a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court held that those portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited expenditures on "electioneering communications" by corporations were an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of corporations1. In response to the Citizens United decision, some cities, states and individual lawmakers have proposed amending the U.S. Constitution in the manner described above. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund “electioneering communications” (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. The Citizens United decision held that portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited expenditures on electioneering communications by corporations were an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of corporations. The Citizens United court held that the First Amendment does not permit restrictions on speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. The court further held that the categorical ban on corporate political speech imposed by the applicable provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 could not be justified on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent quid pro quo corruption. The Citizens United decision has resulted in several governmental entities and individual lawmakers proposing to amend the U.S. Constitution similar to or as described above. According to a website called "movetoamend.org", the list of local and state governments that have passed resolutions similar to the proposed resolution includes but is not limited to Boulder, CO, Seattle, WA, Telluride, CO, Albany, NY, Chicago, IL, and the State of Vermont.” Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated this Resolution is being brought forth at the request of Council. Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, noted this Resolution was brought forth by citizens and discussed the history of Citizens United and its case against the Federal Elections Commission. The information would likely go to the U.S. Congressional delegation if Council adopts the Resolution. (Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at this point in the meeting.) City Attorney Roy stated the Resolution was slightly rewritten from the version presented by citizens. Councilmember Horak noted this was not a citizen initiative, but was rather a suggestion for Council consideration. He stated he will support adding “and labor organizations” in two places in the Resolution. Roger Dodds, 2102 Creekwood Court, thanked Council for its consideration of the item and thanked City Attorney Roy for his thoughtful changes to the Resolution. He supported the Resolution as written. 1 558 U.S. 310 (January 21, 2010). 61 October 2, 2012 Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Resolution and thanked City Attorney Roy for his changes to the Resolution. David Bell, Fort Collins resident, thanked Council for its consideration of the item. He supported the Resolution as written. Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive, stated corporations are not people and supported the Resolution as written. He discussed the differences between corporations and labor organizations. Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker Street, supported the Resolution as written. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Resolution as written and discussed the idea that money is not speech. Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, supported the Resolution as written. City Attorney Roy noted the version of the Resolution his office worked on was the product of a meeting held by Councilmember Horak and proponents of the item. Councilmember Troxell asked how this impacts Fort Collins elections. City Attorney Roy stated the City does not regulate independent expenditures but does have a limit on direct contributions. Councilmember Troxell asked how the City, as a municipality, relates to the Federal Election Commission. City Attorney Roy replied the City’s elections are governed by the City Code as a home rule municipality. Councilmember Troxell asked what other legal entities exist beyond corporations and labor unions. City Attorney Roy replied there are a number of legal entities including limited liability corporations, partnerships, and other kinds of associations. The Resolution only speaks to corporations and labor organizations because the portion of the federal act that was the subject of the case had to do only with those and with federal elections. The wording is such because the court’s ruling was limited to invalidating that portion of the act and spoke to just those two types of entities. The implications of the ruling is likely to go beyond those two types of entities. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2012-092, with the addition of “labor organizations” in two places. Councilmember Manvel expressed support for the Resolution and noted a change in the Constitution which would be supported by this Resolution would result in allowing Congressional representatives the ability to debate and decide the appropriate level for corporate contributions. Councilmember Kottwitz stated this type of Resolution is not the role of city government and cautioned against its potential unintended consequences. Councilmember Troxell stated this type of Resolution is not the role of city government and expressed concern regarding Council’s consideration of non-binding issues. 62 October 2, 2012 Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the Resolution as it reflects the opinion of a citizen group and is not the appropriate role of local government. Councilmember Horak stated local government does have the ability to affect change on a federal level. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Weitkunat asked that the letter written to the U.S. Congressional delegation reflect the divided Council vote. Public Hearing on the 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial Budget for the City of Fort Collins, Hearing was Held The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second official public hearing on the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2013-2014 Budget. Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on Tuesday, October 16 and Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the Main Library, the Harmony Branch Library, Council Tree Library, or the City Clerk’s Office. The recommended budget can also be viewed online at www.fcgov.com/budget”. Myles Crane, 4913 Langdale Court, supported the Senior Center expansion and requested the additional $1 million in funding from Building Community Choices. Irene Vernon, Poudre Canyon Road, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school programs. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed the proposed funding for electric vehicle charging stations and supported additional funding for public transit. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the budgeting process. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported funding for the Landscape to Xeriscape budget offer and more funding for Transfort and Dial-a-Ride services. She supported funding for the Poudre School District after school programs. Bruce Henderson, Fort Collins resident, supported the Great Lawn budget offer. 63 October 2, 2012 Beth Flowers, 200 West Mountain, Beet Street Executive Director, supported the Great Lawn budget offer and supported funding for the Arts Incubator of the Rockies. Alex Blackmer, Atmosphere Conservancy Executive Director, supported FortZed funding. Harry Rose, 504 Edwards Street, supported funding for the Great Lawn and the Arts Incubator of the Rockies. Bruce Freestone, 701 Peak Street, expressed support for arts funding, specifically the Great Lawn project. Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards Street, supported funding for the arts, specifically the Arts Incubator of the Rockies project. Dulcie Willis, Bas Bleu Theatre Company Executive Director, supported funding for the Great Lawn project. Rachel Vernon, 204 North Roosevelt, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school programs. Frank Martinez, 3815 Celtic Lane, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school programs. York, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for the Great Lawn project and the Poudre School District after school programs. Rob Cagen, 1225 Buttonwood Drive, supported funding for the Great Lawn budget offer. Jim Cambon, 3517 Canadian Parkway, supported funding for the ClimateWise program. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s July 19, 2012 Decision to Approve Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-family Dwellings at Christ Center Community Church and Project Development Plan, Postponed The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In April 2012, Regency Residential Partners submitted a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-Family Dwellings in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project Development Plan for an 11-acre parcel located on the east side of the Christ Center Community Church. The parcel is located at the southeast corner of Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. As proposed, the project consists of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a clubhouse. On July 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding an application for an Addition of a Permitted Use and for approval of the Regency Lakeview P.D.P. 64 October 2, 2012 After receiving testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, and after deliberation, the Board voted 4 – 2 to approve the request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-Family Dwellings, and then voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan. On August 2, 2012, Andrew Lewis et. al., filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board (1.) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and (2.) failed to conduct a fair hearing. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The project consists of two components because a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use must be accompanied by either an Overall Development Plan or a Project Development Plan. As mentioned, the project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a clubhouse. There would be a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units. There would be 292 parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached garages and surface parking, and 283 bike spaces. Amenities would include a clubhouse, pool and walkways. There are no four bedroom units. Leases would be by the unit, not the bedroom. The dwelling units are intended to be leased at the market rate and do not include any public subsidy for affordable housing purposes. The applicant has indicated that there is no specific targeting of any one particular demographic group. The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged and improved as a two-acre, private pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either Lemay Avenue or Drake Road. The parcel is presently used as an athletic field as part of the 25- acre Christ Center Community Church campus. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD The Board took two actions: • Voted 4 – 2 to allow Multi-Family Dwellings in the R-L zone on the subject parcel only and as specifically depicted on the Regency Lakeview P.D.P. • Voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview P.D.P. THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter? 3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure? 4. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? 65 October 2, 2012 ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL A. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(1). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(1) reads as follows: “Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.” The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings, as indicated by the Regency Lakeview P.D.P., are not appropriate within the R-L zone district because the R-L zone is for low density housing, not multi-family housing. The Planning and Zoning Board not only considered the underlying zoning but also evaluated the context of the individual parcel and its relationship to the surrounding area. Given the site’s location within this existing urban context, the addition of Multi-Family Dwellings, at this particular location, was considered appropriate. As noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 – 23), board member Schmidt commented: “I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time, I supported, actually, the rezoning. I thought the higher density housing was appropriate in this area because of the two arterials, the City’s commitment to the infill. “ Also as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 35 – 39), board member Smith commented: “So, with that said, I still looked at this one as being, you’ve still got to fit the zone district. Is this… is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it going to be acceptable and appropriate to go through the Addition of a Permitted Use process? And, so, looking at it line by line, it does seem that it does fit all the criteria that’s laid out to be accepted for an addition of a permitted use.” B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(2). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(2) reads as follows: “Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.” The appellants state that adding Multi-Family Dwellings to the R-L zone does not conform to the basic characteristics of the zone and other permitted uses. The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this standard. As noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 40 – 42 and page 62, lines 1 – 2) board member Schmidt commented: 66 October 2, 2012 “I just wanted to say quickly, too, I think I had a concern, too, whether the addition of a permitted use was the right way to go with this, and I think, again, because we’re keeping it residential, which goes with the character of the neighborhood. You’ve got a project that has garages, so I think when people, you know, have cars, these are going to be the kinds of tenants who are going to want to stay and become a part of the neighborhood.” Also as noted in the transcript (page 62, lines 10 – 14), board member Smith commented: “…by and large, the zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed-use, every one of them essentially. And so, when I got into the purpose statement of the RL, which, again, it is one sentence. And it talks about predominant single-family residential areas, located throughout the city which were existing at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code. This is clearly a hold-over in order to be able to accommodate some large swaths of land that were going through the process.” C. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(3). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(3) reads as follows: “Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.” The appellants state that the addition of Multi-Family Dwellings as indicated by the Regency Lakeview P.D.P. would create more adverse impacts than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses in the R-L zone. The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 7 – 23), board member Smith commented: “And so, holding that up against what the criteria for Additions of a Permitted Use are, I went through each one. I’ve looked at each one of them. Clearly, it’s not a medical marijuana dispensary, or cultivation facility, not specifically listed as a permitted use. Went through each one of them, and I think what it boiled down to me for was that, ultimately, you get into some of these tangible effects, how a property performs as it’s proposed, to whether it’s going to, you know…relative to what would be otherwise approved, if it were to be specifically allowed and permitted by the Code. Does it create more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences, and there’s a litany of these, and I think everybody in the room has gone through and seen what these all are. And, then I think about…as I think the applicant had said that, you know, the way that this is set up is that you actually invite that analysis of being able to look at the 67 October 2, 2012 project as proposed, relative to something that were to be just explicitly allowed by the Code, and whether or not it would be excessive as it performs in the neighborhood beyond what is… a project that would just, by right, approved. I could not come up…I could not be convinced that this project would be creating any more adverse effects than, say, if the church were to go and fully develop out a campus, for instance, that had a lot of different uses, including a school.” In summary, the Board found that the request for Multi-Family Dwellings, as proposed on the subject parcel and the accompanying P.D.P., complies with the applicable criteria related to adverse impacts. The Board found that the project would not create any more offensive or adverse impacts or any other objectionable influences than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the R-L zone. D. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(B). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows: “The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good.” The appellants assert that by using the Addition of a Permitted Use process is improper because it is in effect a rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 7 – 9), board member Carpenter commented: “I guess when I look at this, I…on the question of whether this is detrimental to the public good, I just cannot see that it is. It’s city-wide, it fits City Plan, it is what we wanted to do with City Plan, so I really can’t see that it is detrimental to the public good.” Also as noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 – 28), board member Schmidt commented: “I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time, I supported actually, the rezoning. The members of the Board, I’ll speak for some of them that aren’t here anymore, I think had a concern that if you just rezone, it makes things more unpredictable for the neighborhood, and you could get commercial, you could get different things. And, so, our direction to the church at the time was, we’d like to see a specific project and then the neighbors could weigh in and see how compatible that is. So, I think the church has taken that direction and tried to move forward with something to actually present and use the Addition of a Permitted Use process to do that.” E. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(4) and 1.3.4(B). Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(4) reads as follows: 68 October 2, 2012 “Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.” Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows: “The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1.” Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code addresses issues related to project compatibility with the surrounding area. It is considered in conjunction with the definition of compatibility which is as follows: “Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.” The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings are not compatible with the existing single family detached homes by virtue of the fact that the two uses are incongruent. Further, the assertion is made that Section 3.5.1 only addresses physical and operational characteristics of buildings and cannot be used in a compatibility analysis. The Board evaluated these two criteria. As noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 2 – 5), board member Schmidt stated: “So I can see that in all the design work that they’ve put into this project, they’ve tried to make it as compatible as possible to the neighborhood, and have the least impact on the surrounding neighbors, and I really appreciate that.” Also as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 20 – 22), board member Campana commented: “And, frankly, I think that the design is very good. I think you’ve done…as I put on my designer hat, I think you’ve done about everything you can to transition, buffer, mitigate an existing neighborhood.” In summary, the Board evaluated the proposed use not in isolation but in conjunction with the various characteristics as found in the aforementioned definition. Considerable testimony was provided to the Board regarding how the project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the project is designed with a specific objective to buffer the existing neighborhood to the east with landscaping, building setbacks, one-story garages, architectural detail and varying building heights. To the south, buffering is achieved by virtue of open space gained by the stormwater detention pond, approximately two acres in size, which would be upgraded 69 October 2, 2012 to a pocket park. Finally, the traffic impact on surrounding streets was evaluated and determined to comply with the adopted level of service standards. F. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Considering Evidence Relevant To Its Findings Which Was Substantially False Or Grossly Misleading – Section 3.6.4. Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows: “All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part II of the Multi-modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section.” This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants assert that the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved because there are no medians in either arterial street which would act as pedestrian refuge islands. Further, the assertion continues that, as stated by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant, since the existing sidewalks along both arterials would not be deconstructed and then reconstructed to feature detached sidewalks separated by parkways, the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved. It is asserted that new medians and sidewalks can indeed be installed as there appears to be sufficient land area in which to retrofit these improvements. In addition, the allegation is that traffic information provided to the board did not properly assess the potential traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot in order to gain access to Lemay Avenue. Evidence was presented to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant that the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping center) would be used more frequently than the southern access (which aligns with Strachan Drive) and yet there is no basis for this assumption. Traffic using the using the southern access will impact the neighbors to the south. Finally, the allegation is that the traffic delay analysis of traffic leaving the church or neighborhood onto Lemay Avenue was not properly considered. With regard to the pedestrian level of service, the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant addressed the Board. This testimony is on page 48, lines 1 - 11 of the transcript. In addition, on page 54, lines 35 – 38 of the transcript, there was this exchange: “Boardmember Kirkpatrick: Just to confirm, where there are no plans to put medians on Lemay are there?” “Mr. Stanford (City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer): None that I am aware of. I think it would be difficult just to find the room to do it with the current build-out characteristic.” 70 October 2, 2012 With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant (transcript page 48, lines 1 – 5): “In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet them.” The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter. With regard to traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot, the fundamental design objective is to minimize traffic from the apartments from traveling along the length of the southern property line which is separated from the back yards of the existing houses by a six foot high solid privacy fence. Residents along this shared property line indicated at the neighborhood meetings a preference for this traffic to be directed away from their back yards. In response, the site plan was revised such that Regency Lakeview traffic heading west to Lemay Avenue would be directed as far to the north as possible in order to prioritize the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping center). Consequently westbound drivers will traverse the parking lot at the north edge of the parking lot away from the houses. While it may be possible for these drivers to decide to exit at the southern driveway (which aligns with Strachan Drive on the west side of Lemay Avenue), instead of the north driveway (which aligns with the shopping center drive), for the most part, this traverse is north of the existing houses. Diverting this traffic pattern thus accomplishes the essence of the design intent which is to minimize the impact along the southern property line. Regarding the church south access, and traffic delay, the City’s traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 53, lines 12 – 20: “The development has done efforts to try and move the traffic to the north access, which we applaud. And, the south access is expected much lower quantities of traffic. We also don’t have an existing accident history there for that characteristic. So, I’m assuming that the motorists are pretty cognitive of it, and will continue to be able to drive adequately to use it appropriately. At this point, we don’t have a concern with that characteristic. Will it possibly cause a little delay to somebody exiting when they’re trying to consider what the other person may be doing? Yes, they certainly can. Is it going to be a common, frequent activity? We don’t believe so. If it does become something of an accident quantity, it’s also an aspect that we have a responsibility to address, and at that time, that we will do so.” Regarding the church north access, the City’s traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 54, lines 5 – 12: “Let’s see, in …the north access to the church on Lemay, or…which will be their access also (Regency Lakeview), we don’t see it as being an exit or entrance problem, basically, just to the geometric layout, the left turns don’t conflict with each 71 October 2, 2012 other. And, we do expect…it was at my direction, the basically, the distribution of traffic. And, we expect that most of the traffic that’s going towards Lemay from the side (site), or using Lemay from the side (site), will either be going north, towards the higher business area, or to the west, to the also higher business area. And, so, with that, the right turn out there is the higher movement anyway than the left turn.” (Parentheticals added for clarity.) G The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Exceeding Its Authority and Ignoring Its Previously Established Rules of Procedure This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants contend that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing primarily because they failed to consider that the level of service for pedestrians falls below the required minimum. This is the same assertion as in the previous section and is repeated but under a different ground for appeal. As stated in the preceding section: With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant (transcript page 48, lines 1 – 5): “In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet them.” The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter.” City Attorney Roy provided a brief explanation of the appeal process and noted only parties-in- interest are allowed to speak at this appeal hearing. He stated there were some letters that had been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to its hearing that were initially omitted from the Council packet. Those letters were provided to Council today and made available to certain parties- in-interest earlier today. Those letters were also made available earlier this evening for meeting attendees. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the time limits. City Attorney Roy replied the initial presentations are usually twenty minutes with a ten minute rebuttal time. However, the Code allows the Mayor to establish those time limits. Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, stated the additional letters were not provided to Council until this afternoon and suggested their late receipt violates the rules of procedure for the record of appeal. She also stated there was a misclassification of some documents received by Council and stated there were parties-in-interest who did not receive notice of the appeal hearing. Mayor Weitkunat asked if any Councilmembers needed additional time to read the letters in question. 72 October 2, 2012 Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated she was unaware of the notification issue. City Clerk Nelson stated she would need to do additional research regarding the notification issue. Councilmember Horak asked what redress Ms. Dubiel would like. Ms. Dubiel replied that responsibility should not be placed with her. Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not receive the same PowerPoint presentation as did Council and opposed the order of questions as presented in a document summarizing the Council site visit. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the font was enlarged for the street names on some of the slides. He stated he was asked by the City Attorney’s Office and the members of Council who attended the site visit to write a summary of that visit. Lucia Liley, attorney for the applicant, stated the record should be corrected; however, the applicant does not have any procedural issues. City Attorney Roy stated Council could vote to continue the item due to the irregularities. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to postpone the appeal hearing in order to allow time for the correction of procedural issues and accurate re- notification. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the possibility of holding the hearing on a different night given Council’s full schedule. Mr. Lewis, appellant, stated he supported postponement. Ms. Liley stated the postponement would negatively affect the applicant; however, the applicant would like to participate in a fair hearing and would not have any objection to a postponement, if necessary. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Kottwitz, Horak, Troxell, Poppaw, Manvel, Ohlson and Weitkunat. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Roy noted the appeal hearing should be heard within 75 days of the filing of the appeal. He asked if there is any objection to going beyond that timeframe. Ms. Liley stated the applicant would be willing to waive any objection to that timeframe as long as the re-hearing is scheduled as expeditiously as possible. City Manager Atteberry stated the October 16 agenda is full. Ms. Liley asked if the City would provide re-notification and asked about the timeframe for that notice. City Clerk Nelson stated re-notification would occur. 73 October 2, 2012 Mayor Weitkunat stated the appeal hearing will be postponed until a date agreeable to all parties is agreed upon. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 74 DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this annual Clean-Up Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2012 budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds. Funding for the annual appreciation event to thank volunteers for serving on the City’s boards and commissions, funding for the November 6, 2012 special election and additional funds for the Recreation Youth Football Program fund raiser in the Recreation Fund have been included in the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The following items have been added to the Clean Up Ordinance after First Reading. A. GENERAL FUND 1. For the past several years, funds for the annual appreciation event held to thank citizen volunteers serving on the City’s boards and commissions have been reduced. The Council Leadership Team requested that the 2012 Event be enhanced to provide a better experience for the attendees. This appropriation will provide a quality venue, entertainment, a nice meal, and a video honoring outgoing members. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 7,000 FOR: Boards and Commissions Expenses $ 7,000 2. The Council has called a special election to be held in conjunction with the Larimer County General Election for the purpose of considering a citizen-initiated ordinance relating to operation of medical marijuana businesses in Fort Collins. The County’s estimate for the City’s share of the cost of the election is approximately $300,000. In addition, the City Clerk’s office has incurred expenses related to redistricting, and will incur additional expenses relating to the November election, primarily for legal publications. This appropriation of $310,000 is estimated to cover all 2012 costs, and any unspent balance will be returned to the reserve. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 310,000 FOR: Election Expenses $ 310,000 I. RECREATION FUND The Recreation Youth Football Special Revenue Account - Brax Cup fund raiser, which is almost complete, was more successful than anticipated. Additional funds in the amount of $12,262 are needed to purchase the necessary cups for the fund raiser. Revenue from this fund raiser is used for the needed replacement of football equipment. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 12,262 FOR: Recreation Programs $ 12,262 October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 2, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 2, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The annual Clean-up Ordinance allows for the appropriation of expenses related to unanticipated revenue, grants and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted. The details of these clean-up requests were reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on September 17, 2012. At that meeting it was requested that all use of prior year reserves be highlighted, as well as any changes not seen by the Committee. A table with the use of prior year reserves appears at the end of this Agenda Item Summary. The only items included in this Clean-up Ordinance that were not reviewed by the Council Finance Committee is a request for $28,277 of unanticipated revenue in Forestry and $200,000 for a tandem dump truck in the Water Fund. The following is a summary of funds that make up the increase in requested appropriations: General Fund Unanticipated Revenue $ 703,597 Prior Year Reserves Police Seizure Reserve $ 4,500 Computer Aided Dispatch Reserve $ 65,000 Fourth of July Reserve $ 33,000 PEG Reserve $ 70,000 Other Reserves $ 26,940 Cemeteries Fund $ 56,000 Capital Projects Fund $ 352,627 Conservation Trust Fund $ 93,250 Cultural Services and Facilities Fund $ 333,727 Light & Power Fund $2,696,700 Natural Areas Fund $ 9,893 Neighborhood Parkland Fund $ 1,410 Recreation Fund $ 151,987 Sales & Use Tax Fund $8,110,028 Transit Services Fund $1,284,000 Transportation Services Fund $ 486,000 Water Fund $ 375,000 Wastewater Fund $ 28,212 The purpose of this annual Clean-Up Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2012 budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -2- ITEM 10 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A. GENERAL FUND 1. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources which needs to be appropriated to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these items follows: a. $34,900 - Chemical Test Fees & Driving w/o Insurance Penalty Assessments - Pursuant to C.R.S. 16-11- 501(2)(j), the costs of chemical tests (blood/breath tests) shall be reimbursed directly by the defendant to the law enforcement agency which administered and paid for the test. The driving without insurance law provides revenue to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation. It is projected that by the end of 2012 $34,900 will have been collected by the courts and passed on to FCPS under these provisions. This revenue is used to directly offset the actual cost of blood/breath testing for DUI and DUID (driving under the influence of drugs). Charges from local hospitals and the Colorado Bureau of Investigations laboratory total $29,300 thus far in 2012. b. $6,800 - Training Revenue - Every year the FCPS SWAT team hosts a school for other agencies to attend. The revenue from this class is being utilized to offset the cost of specialized training for Fort Collins SWAT members to attend in October 2012. c. $101,920 - Miscellaneous Overtime Reimbursement - FCPS conducts community education workshops for Municipal Violation and Noise Violation offenders. As part of their sentence the offenders are required to attend. The fee is $20 per participant. This money is used to offset the overtime incurred by those teaching the course. d. $35,800 - Police Report and Special Event Permit Fees - Police reports purchased by the public and insurance agencies generate revenue of approximately $7.50 a report. Special event permits are required if the public wishes to hold an event that will interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or takes place on public property. Special event permits cost $50 a piece. In 2012 it is estimated $35,800 will be collected from these two sources. The revenue from this fee is used to subsidize the cost of copy machine rental. f. $4,200 - Community Contributions - In 2012 FCPS received a generous contribution from a community member for the K-9 program. The money has been used to offset the cost of a new K-9. g. $11,604 – Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Cooperative Agreement - Fort Collins Police and the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force entered into an agreement to have a task force investigator dually assigned to a DEA team in the Denver area. The DEA reimburses FCPS for the lease payment of that investigators vehicle. h. $11,058 – Miscellaneous Reimbursements - Police Services received $11,058 from miscellaneous sources for the reimbursement of gate fobs, computer equipment, copier rental and communications equipment. i. $5,359 – Recycling Revenue - With the transition to the iPhone program, Police Services had a surplus of PDA’s and cell phones to recycle. The proceeds from selling the old devices is being used to offset the cost of new technology. j. $4,175 – Loss Reimbursement - In 2011 a Police motorcycle was damaged in an accident; the reimbursement from the insurance company for the damage arrived this year. k. $3,000 – Restorative Justice Fee Appropriation - While the majority of the Restorative Justice program is funded by a grant, the program also collects fees from participants to off-set the cost of supplies to run the program. This appropriation is necessary to make up the difference between grant funding and program expenses. l. $27,510 – Traffic Unit Motorcycle Sale Proceeds - In 2011 Operations Services facilitated the sale of Traffic Unit motorcycles and deposited the revenue into an account to house the sale of capital assets. Traffic Unit motorcycles are funded each year entirely by revenue from the Camera Radar Program. The COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -3- ITEM 10 units to replace those sold were purchased in 2012; this revenue needs to be appropriated to offset the cost of the new units. m. $4,500 – Fort Collins Police Services Seizure - In 2012, the Seizure Committee Members (Chief Hutto, Mayor Weitkunat, District Attorney Abrahamson, and Captain Vagge) have authorized $4,500 in expenses to come from this fund. The $4,500 will be used for paying part of the cost of the District Attorney’s Drug Free Calendar expenses and to fund the youth police academy via the designated Police Seizure reserve. n. $65,000 – Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Replacement Project - The CAD Replacement Project is an ongoing capital project to replace the computer aided dispatching system at Police Services. This project began in 2011 and will run through 2014. Back in 2010 when the 2011-2012 budget was adopted this project was still in the planning stages. The timing of milestone payments and reimbursements from Larimer County are dependent upon the progress of the project. Instead of appropriating more than necessary in a year and having the funds lapse; the Clean-up Ordinance is utilized to correct the budget shortfall. This request is to access enough funds in the CAD designated reserve to last through the end of the year. o. $7,300 – Seatbelt Enforcement Grant - In 2012 FCPS received a contract from the State of Colorado Department of Transportation for $4,000 to be used for Seatbelt Compliance Enforcement. Rather than take this grant on its own ordinance for appropriation it is being included here. p. $15,020 – DUI Enforcement Grant – In 2012 FCPS received $15,020 in funding for DUI enforcement. The grant pays for FCPS officers’ overtime during multi-agency checkpoints and enforcement waves. q. $1,380 – Victims Assistance Grant - Late in 2011 FCPS received $1,380 from the 8th Judicial District to assist in sending some victim advocates to training. The training has already been attended. r. $5,697 – Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children Grant - Late in 2011, Fort Collins Police Services was the sub-recipient of $5,697 in grant funding as part of the Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force. The Colorado Springs Police Department administered the grant and FCPS received funds to pay for training for investigators. s. $4,342 – Supplemental High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Award - Fort Collins Police Services is the administrative agency for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF). The NCDTF is the recipient of a grant from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. Occasionally, additional funding is available to help offset the cost of illegal narcotics investigations. The 2011 grant received supplemental funding in the amount of $4,342. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $ 246,326 FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Police Seizure) $ 65,500 FROM: Prior Year Reserve (CAD Reserve) $ 65,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $ 7,300 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $ 15,020 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Victims Assistance Grant) $ 1,380 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ICAC Task Force Grant) $ 5,697 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (HIDTA Grant) $ 4,342 FOR: Police Services $ 246,326 FOR: Drug Free Calendar and Youth Police Academy $ 4,500 FOR: CAD Replacement Project $ 65,000 FOR: Seatbelt Grant $ 7,300 FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $ 15,020 FOR: Victims Assistance Grant $ 1,380 FOR: ICAC Task Force Grant $ 5,697 FOR: Northern Colorado Drug Task Force HIDTA Grant $ 4,342 2. The Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS) department requests appropriation of $24,390 in Certified Local Government (CLG) funding for the Campus North grant. The grant awarded COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -4- ITEM 10 authorized a survey of the properties within a six square block area north of the Colorado State University campus. The grant work has been completed and money received from CLG. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 24,390 TO: North Campus Grant project $ 24,390 3. The Community Development & Neighborhood Services department requests the appropriation of $18,520 to cover committed projects for the Landmark Rehabilitation program. This program is funded through repayments received from prior projects and is generally collected at the time a property is sold. The money is in General Fund Reserves since it was received in prior years. The funding being requested is from an account that receives funding from repaid loans. Ordinance No. 108, 2009 states, “All loan repayments shall be returned to the landmark rehabilitation loan program.” The account receives repays on an irregular basis from the sale of historic properties that have received a loan sometime in the past. The fund is used to backfill loan commitments made in the previous loan approval cycle. Given the uncertain timeframe of loan repays, it is impossible to predict the year-to-year amount that would be available for future loan commitments, and therefore was not included in the 2013-2014 Budgeting for Outcomes process. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 18,520 TO: Landmark Rehab Program $ 18,520 4. The Municipal Court requests the appropriation of $1,420 to cover lease payments for its copier through 2012. It was the intent of the Court to utilize its previous copier through 2012 covered under a maintenance contract. However, the Court was informed that parts for the increasingly frequent repairs were becoming difficult to find resulting in the decision to lease a new copier instead. To pay for lease payments, funds from other account sources were utilized. However, there are not sufficient funds to cover the rest of 2012 and the balance due for the year was not part of the 2012 Budget. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $1,420 FOR: Municipal Court Copier Expenses $1,420 The Municipal Court requests the appropriation of $7,000 for The Larimer County Detention Center (LCDC). The LCDC has been under capacity for much of 2012 resulting in a significantly larger number of our prisoners being held on Municipal Court warrants, increasing the jail operating expense. The 2012 budget for this expense is $20,000 and, to date has expensed $19,325. The Court estimates that approximately $7,000 will be needed to cover expenses through 2012 for the LCDC. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $7,000 FOR: Municipal Court Operating Expenses $7,000 6. This request is to appropriate $33,000 of the 4th of July Reserve. This request is to appropriate $33,000 of the 4th of July Reserve. Funds will be used to pay for hourly wages and overtime, entertainment, port-a-lets and any additional costs incurred for the postponed 4th of July fireworks event held on Sunday. September 16. The initial event on the 4th of July still occurred at City Park with music, parade, vendors, Firecracker 5K race, Old Timers Softball Game, City Park 100 Celebration, High Park fire fundraiser, etc. The only event that did not occur was the fireworks display which was postponed by the City Manager due to heightened fire danger at the time. The Parks Division incurred significant costs on the 4th of July and used the budget initially approved for the 4th of July, except the fireworks contract budget. On September 16th, the Parks Division staffed the evening fireworks event and provided all the necessary amenities, setup and clean up after the event. The 4th of July reserve was set up to cover unanticipated cost for the 4th of July and holding another event for the fireworks is an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen when the 2012 budget was prepared in early 2010. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (4th of July) $33,000 FOR: 4th of July Expenses $33,000 COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -5- ITEM 10 7. This is a request to appropriate funds donated for holiday lights during the 2012/2013 holiday season. DDA is contributing $35,000, DBA is contributing $11,000. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $46,000 FOR: Holiday Lights $46,000 8. The Gardens on Spring Creek would like to appropriate unanticipated revenues received beyond the original revenue appropriated during the budget process. These revenues will be used to fund hourly, seasonal staff and supplies at The Gardens. In addition, sponsorship dollars were raised to support events. These monies must be spent on those events (Harvest Festival, Garden of Lights, etc.). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $150,000 FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek $150,000 9. The Gardens received grants in 2012 that need to be appropriated. They are as follows: Can Do Grant - $5,000 and Colorado Health Foundation Grant - $55,000. These grants fund the Community Garden Outreach Program which grows food for the Food Bank for Larimer County in the Garden of Eatin’; coordinates Garden Network meetings for those interested in community gardens and growing food for low income populations; provides technical assistance to people and organizations that are creating community gardens specifically targeting low income residents; and the Family Garden Program which teaches low income residents to grow their own food, how to prepare and preserve it, and nutrition. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $60,000 FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek Grant Expenses $60,000 10. Cable 14 is requesting $70,000 in Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) reserves to fund capital infrastructure needs to enable shared video storage and archival of Cable 14 video files and programs including Council meetings and other important video assets. Each year approximately $110,000 is budgeted for Cable 14 PEG Equipment per the Comcast/PEG agreement. All unspent funding year-end goes into the PEG reserve for future needs and is restricted to this use only. In 2012, funding that was originally intended for a video archive system was utilized to purchase software and hardware for video streaming to iPads/iPhones. Consequently, we need to allocate $30,000 from reserves to fund the video archive system. Additionally, $40,000 is needed to replace equipment that failed unexpectedly. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (PEG Reserve) $70,000 FOR: Cable 14 Expenses $70,000 11. The Poudre Valley Health System has been awarded a grant (Choose the Right Road) in the amount of $24,895 from the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division of the Colorado Department of Human Services. These funds will be disbursed by the Colorado Department of Human Services and directed through the City of Fort Collins, pursuant to State of Colorado requirements, then paid to the Poudre Valley Health System. The grant period will run from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $24,895 FOR: Poudre Valley Health System $24,895 12. The Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (FCCVB) has been awarded a $77,291 grant from the Colorado Welcome Center through the State of Colorado. These funds will be disbursed by the State of Colorado and directed through the City of Fort Collins, pursuant to State of Colorado requirements, then paid to the FCCVB. The grant period will run from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $77,291 FOR: Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $77,291 COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -6- ITEM 10 13. The City sells the public roughly 1000 radon kits annually at the Senior Center and Development Review Center. This appropriation recovers this additional revenue (sale proceeds) in order to replenish the stock of kits. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $5,149 FOR: Radon Program $5,149 14. Advance Planning requests appropriation of $7,530 to cover expenses related to Land Bank property maintenance needs. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $7,530 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $7,530 15. Forestry is requesting these funds to be used for the maintenance and perpetuation of City property trees. A payment in this amount has been received from the contractor at the Lincoln Center for the damaged and destroyed City trees. This is compensation for lost value. It will also help compensate costs that forestry incurred related to the project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $28,277 FOR: Tree Maintenance $28,277 B. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. Appropriations in the amount of $22,044 are needed to cover the cost of rebuilding the Pole Barn at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. The 2012 Natural Areas budget includes appropriations for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the pole barn. This item appropriates the revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Soapstone Public Improvements Project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from Natural Areas) $22,044 FOR: Soapstone Public Improvements Project $22,044 2. The City was awarded a grant from the State of Colorado Governors Energy Office in the amount of $19,336 to construct a flex-fuel facility at the Police Services site, located at 2221 Timberline Road. The grant revenue was received in March 2012 and the project has been completed. This item appropriates the grant revenue in the Police Facility capital project to cover the cost of the flex-fuel facility. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $19,336 FOR: Police Facility Capital Project $19,336 3. The Police Building Project has earned $270,144 of interest that have not yet been appropriated. These interest earnings will be appropriated and used to pay down the 2004 Certificates of Participation Debt when it is refinanced this year. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $270,144 FOR: Police Facility Capital Project - Debt $270,144 4. In 2010, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) received a grant from Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to replace the railroad tracks on Lake Street. The City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department then replaced the sidewalk in conjunction with the railroad project and was reimbursed by BNSF in March of 2012 in the amount of $13,681. In 2011, BNSF removed the railroad tracks on Mason Court and the Engineering Department managed the street replacement. BNSF then reimbursed the City for managing the street replacement in January of 2012 in the amount of $6,222. This item appropriates the funds received into the Capital Projects Fund – Railroad Crossing Replacement project to offset the associated costs. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $19,903 FOR: Railroad Crossing Replacement Project $19,903 COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -7- ITEM 10 C. CEMETERIES FUND This request is to appropriate $56,000 of the Cemetery Fund Reserves. These funds will be used to pay for the installation of fiber optics at the new office building being constructed in Roselawn Cemetery. The new building is funded through the BOB initiative, but a fiber optics line was not available during the initial planning process and not included in the budget for this project. Early in 2012 the Traffic Division made available a fiber optic line that could be used at Roselawn Cemetery. The line was located at the intersection of Summit View and Mulberry which was ideal. The Cemetery Fund would be responsible for the installation cost of the fiber optic line to the new office. The IT department recommended installing the fiber optic infrastructure in the building during construction instead of waiting until 2013. It was more cost efficient and eliminated retrofitting the building at a later date. This item was not budgeted through the 2011/2012 budget process because the fiber optic line was not an option at that time. The Cemeteries Fund has sufficient reserves to cover the fiber optics installation, but using reserves for this purpose will delay building a new mausoleum by two to three years depending on how quickly reserves can be replenished. An offer was submitted during the BFO 2013/2014 budget process (Offer 195.2) to reimburse the Cemetery Fund reserves with KFCG Parks and Recreation Reserve funds, so the mausoleum would not be delayed. That offer is currently not purchased. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $56,000 FOR: Installation of Fiber Optics $56,000 D. CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 1. Fossil Creek Trail - A $1,000 donation was received for the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road No. 38E project from Interwest Consulting Group. Another $1,500 donation was received from Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the same project. Both donations supported the engineering and hydrologic design work for the project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $2,500 FOR: Engineering and Hydrologic Design Work $2,500 2. Pickle Plant - The storage building at the Pickle Plant was leased for several years with resulting revenue of $90,750. These funds will be used to cover the cost of the removal of the storage building. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $90,750 FOR: Removal of the Storage Building $90,750 E. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 1. The Lincoln Center made a purchase from Libbey Glassware and, unbeknownst to staff, was entered into a drawing. The Lincoln Center won the cash grand prize. These funds will be appropriated to purchase shade sails for the Rooftop Deck, doors in the lobby and other projects not completed during the renovation. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $30,641 FOR: Lincoln Center Expenses $30,641 2. Ticket sales and expenses for Lincoln Center performances are exceeding the original budgeted projections. The additional revenue is requested for appropriation to be used for technical staff ($30,000), advertising ($36,000), and contractually required equipment ($29,000). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $95,000 FOR: Lincoln Center Expenses $95,000 COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -8- ITEM 10 3. The Lincoln Center collects all internet ticket fees and then pays the internet vendor their commission. This increase in revenue and related increase in expenses is due to the new ticketing software that went live in 2011. The additional revenue is requested for appropriation to pay the commission due to the internet vendor ($118,000), for banking services ($27,000), and for staff necessary for unanticipated conference events ($13,000). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $158,000 FOR: Lincoln Center Expenses $158,000 4. $28,886 has been received from the Bohemian Foundation for the Pianos About Town project. This is a collaborative project with the Bohemian Foundation, Downtown Development Authority, and the City of Fort Collins Art in Public Places program. This funds the overall project, including the tuning, moving, purchase, repairs and artists painting the pianos, as well as a portion of the administration costs. There will be thirteen pianos painted this year. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $28,886 FOR: Art-in-Public Places projects $28,886 5. One of the projects approved by the voters as part of the BOB program was the Lincoln Center Renovation and Cultural Facilities Plan. In 2006, Ordinance No. 28 transferred $150,000 of the BOB tax revenue to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Cultural Facilities Plan. The plan was completed and the unspent BOB funds of $21,200 have been reserved in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund in case there were any additional costs, but there was not any. This item appropriates the $21,200 from reserves for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund – Lincoln Center Renovation Project to pay the remaining project expenses. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Cultural Services) $21,200 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $21,200 Capital Projects Fund FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (BOB Taxes) $21,200 FOR: Lincoln Center Renovation Project $21,200 F. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 1. Purchase Power - In 2012, the Utilities budgeted $73,410,587 for energy purchased from Platte River Power Authority. The original projection was based on estimated wholesale rates with no growth in energy or peak demand from 2010 to 2012. While there was negligible growth in 2011, year to date in 2012 energy and peak demands have increased 3% and 4% respectively over 2010 levels. Much of that increase has occurred in the three month summer season when PRPA rates are highest. Using eight months of actual 2012 data and with projections for the remainder of the year based on 2011 energy and demands, total 2012 purchase power expense is now estimated at between $74.8 million and $75.9 million depending on the level of growth and weather conditions for the remainder of the year. This will result in a budget shortfall of between $1.3 million and $2.5 million. Customer revenues are also exceeding original projections due to the increased energy use by customers. It is estimated that 2012 revenues will exceed budget by about $3.5 million. Light and Power requests an appropriation from unanticipated revenues for the purchase of power in the amount of $2,500,000. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $2,500,000 FOR: Purchase of Power $2,500,000 2. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) – In 2012, Light and Power budgeted $5,886,635 for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOTs). The 2012 PILOTs budget totaled 6% of projected 2012 operating revenues (before PILOTs). Based on current revenue projections, the Light and Power Fund is anticipating 2012 operating revenues to be about $3.5 million greater than budgeted due to increased sales of electricity. This additional operating revenue will result in additional PILOTs payable to the General Fund of approximately $196,700. Light and Power requests an appropriation from unanticipated revenues for the payment of PILOTs in the amount of $196,700. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -9- ITEM 10 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $196,700 FOR: Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) $196,700 G. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. REI is supporting the Natural Areas Department’s commitment to volunteerism and stewardship by supporting five key public volunteer days: National Public Lands Day (September 2012), Make A Difference Week (October 2012), Earth Day/Natural Areas’ 20th Anniversary (April 2013), National Trails Day (June 2013), and a Poudre River Clean-Up (May 2013). The grant funds ($4,920) will support volunteers at these events by providing food, a small gift and project supplies. We expect the 300 volunteers, in the five proposed projects, will donate about 1,200 hours at an estimated value of $26,436. (Independent Sector value of volunteer time, $22.03/hr.) This item appropriates the grant for the volunteer expenses. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (REI Grant) $4,920 FOR: Natural Areas Expenses $4,920 2. A $20,000 Prairie Education Grant was awarded to the Natural Areas Department in 2009 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide educational activities for school children and the public focused on the shortgrass prairie education ecosystem and endangered black-footed ferrets. Additional funds were to be received for the next four years, subject to availability. Additional funds in the amount of $4,973 have been received and need to be appropriated. No further funding is expected. Funds were used to provide fourth graders a classroom visit followed by a field trip, educational presentations about the prairie for the public, and continuing education for volunteers. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $4,973 FOR: Prairie Education Grant Expenses $4,973 H. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND 1. Maple Hill Neighborhood Park - The developer of the land adjacent to Maple Hill Park required an irrigation line easement through the park. The cost of the easement was $1,410, made payable to the City, and will be used toward the development of the park. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $1,410 FOR: Maple Hill Park Project $1,410 I. RECREATION FUND The Recreation Division administers several restricted revenue accounts for various programs. Revenues for these programs include grants, fund-raising events and activities, and sponsorships. The following items appropriate expenditures from unanticipated revenue for programs in the Recreation Division. a. $46,942 – Child Development – Expecting at least $46,942 in unanticipated revenue in the Child Development Programs which will be appropriated through this item and used to cover additional costs of increased program activity. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $46,942 FOR: Recreation Programs $46,942 2. The Recreation Division administers several restricted revenue accounts for various programs. Revenues for these programs include grants, fund-raising events and activities, and specified donations/sponsorships. The following items appropriate the unanticipated restricted revenue and restricted reserves for the specific programs. a. $3,306 – Adult Sports - Prior year reserves in the Adult Sports special revenue account will be appropriated through this item for replacement of the gym scoreboard which failed unexpectedly. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -10- ITEM 10 b. $14,121 – Youth Sports - Prior year reserves in the Youth Sports special revenue account will be appropriated through this item to purchase new equipment, specifically ultra-light basketballs for new league and rule changes that occurred in spring 2012. Program t-shirts for middle school students were purchased from a sponsorship by Credit Union of Colorado. Field markers for fall sports need to be purchased for Fossil Creek following Parks decision to close City Park sports fields for restoration. c. $9,500 – Adopt an Animal - Prior year reserves in the Adopt an Animal special revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used for hay and feed purchases for the animals at The Farm. Drought and reduced yield have increased feed prices significantly. d. $4,353 – Active Kids - Unanticipated revenue ($450) and prior year reserves in the Active Kids special revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used to support youth physical activities. A donation of $5,000 was received after the last budget cycle. e. $44,105 – Youth Football - Unanticipated revenues ($15,422) and prior year reserves ($28,683) in the Youth Football special revenue account will be appropriated through this item for helmet replacement per new safety standards that became effective in 2011 over sport concussion concerns. A Brax Cup Fundraiser was successful last year in raising funds for this purpose, and another is planned this fall to support future football equipment replacement needs. f. $17,000 – NACC Youth Programs - Prior year reserves in the Youth Programs special revenue account will be appropriated through this item to support community participation events such as the Kite Festival, Cinco de Mayo, Hip Hop Expo, 5K Run and Toys for Kids. Donations also provide the ability to support afterschool enrichment opportunities at Northside. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $15,872 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $76,513 FOR: Recreation Programs $92,385 3. The following items appropriate expenditures from unanticipated grant revenue for programs in the Recreation Division. a. $1,660 – Passport Grant - Additional grant funding was made available for the Passport grant and will be appropriated through this item to fulfill the requirements of the grant used for funding an adaptive recreation aide. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $1,660 FOR: Passport Grant $1,660 b. $11,000 – NRPA Achieve Grant - Unanticipated revenue associated with the NRPA Achieve Grant will be appropriated through this item and used to provide training to recreation staff. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $11,000 FOR: NRPA Achieve Grant $11,000 J. SALES AND USE TAX FUND 1. The revenue forecast model was updated in July 2012 with data from the first six months of the year. The net sales and use tax revenue increase is projected to be about 6.3% over the budgeted amount. While staff does not recommend appropriating the additional revenue at this time, the appropriations for transfers from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax and to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax need to be increased. Transfers to the General Fund, the Keep Fort Collins Great Funds, and the Transportation Services Fund are not needed because the tax revenues are recorded directly into the appropriate fund and don’t flow through the Sales and Use Tax Fund. This item appropriates the projected increase of $371,966 for transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax by and $371,966 from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -11- ITEM 10 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales Tax) $743,932 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $371,966 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $371,966 2. In accordance with Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate, $263,774 was paid out in April 2012 for the 2010 rebate program. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local manufacturing firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds from the Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate Reserve to cover the payment of the rebates. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $263,774 FOR: Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $263,774 3. The sales and use tax revenue came in higher than anticipated in 2011 and there were not enough appropriations for transfers from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax and to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax. Adjustments to the General Fund, the Keep Fort Collins Great Funds, and the Transportation Services Fund are not needed because the tax revenues are recorded directly into the appropriate fund. This item appropriates the additional funds of $24,708 from prior year reserves by increasing the transfers from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax by $ 12,354 and to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax by $12,354. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $24,708 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $12,354 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $12,354 4. This item appropriates $7 million in Sale and Use Tax Fund reserves for transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the General Fund. Several factors caused the accumulation of these funds within the Sales and Use Tax Fund: a change in accounting practice to accrue yearend sales and use tax revenue from December activity that is received in January combined with a prior policy called the “Use Tax Cap” that capped the budget utilization of use tax received and another accounting practice change to record sales and use tax receipts directly into the General Fund vs. into the Sales and Use Tax Fund. Staff does not recommend appropriating the funds in the General Fund at this time but allowing the transfer to roll into the General Fund reserves. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $7,077,614 FOR: Transfer to General Fund $7,077,614 K. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND 1. Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Section 5309 State of Good Repair Funding - The City of Fort Collins, as grantee, has been recently awarded $1,065,720 in unanticipated 2012 FTA Section 5309 "State of Good Repair" funding. This funding was awarded to the City to purchase three (3) replacement heavy duty transit buses for older model vehicles that have exceeded their useful life. Federal funding has been awarded at an 83/17 match rate and local match in the amount of $218,280 is requested from the Transit Capital Reserves Fund (Fund 290). Staff is requesting that appropriations for capital projects be increased by a total of $1,284,000 to accommodate the unanticipated increase in FTA Section 5309 funding. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (FTA Section 5309 Funding) $1,065,720 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Transit Services Fund) $ 218,280 FOR: Replacement Buses $1,284,000 L. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. The Traffic Construction program is Traffic Operation’s “Work for Others” program. Project related expenditures for traffic signal work, traffic signs, and pavement marking installations are tracked within this account and billed out to other city departments, municipalities and developments. The original budget of $749,494 was an estimate based on scheduled projects. Several unanticipated projects (primarily traffic signal COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -12- ITEM 10 projects) were added in 2012 and additional appropriations of $400,000 are needed to cover the cost of these projects. The appropriations will be used to pay for labor, materials and equipment. This request appropriates funds from Traffic Operations unanticipated revenues in the amount of $400,000 for the Traffic Construction budget. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $400,000 FOR: Traffic Construction Expenses $400,000 2. Historically, the City of Fort Collins, via Transfort, has contributed an annual amount to SAINT (Senior Alternatives in Transportation) for the preservation of paratransit service to non ADA-eligible seniors and disabled persons in the community. In order to maintain the fiscal integrity of this funding under federal eligibility guidelines, staff is requesting that this expenditure be appropriated in and paid out of the Transportation Fund as a non-federal expense. The 2012 General Fund transfer to Transfort and the appropriate expense budget will be reduced by $36,000 in the Transit Services Fund and added to the Transportation Services Fund budget. This item appropriates the $36,000 for expenses related to SAINT in the Transportation Services Fund. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from General Fund) $36,000 FOR: Transportation SAINT Expenses $36,000 3. The 2012 Transfort budget includes $50,000 for a comprehensive transit study, necessary for possible future federal funding in the development of the Harmony Corridor. Local funds must be utilized to pay for the transit study and in order to maintain the fiscal integrity of this funding under federal eligibility guidelines, staff is requesting that this expenditure be appropriated in and paid out of the Transportation Fund as a non-federal expense. The 2012 General Fund transfer to Transfort and the appropriate expense budget will be reduced by $50,000 in the Transit Services Fund and appropriated in the Transportation Services Fund. This item appropriates the $50,000 in the Transportation Services Fund for the comprehensive transit study. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from General Fund) $50,000 FOR: Transportation Expenses $50,000 M. WATER FUND 1. Utility Relocations for the MAX/BRT Project – In 2011, the Utilities obtained a $625,000 appropriation for the relocation of water facilities in the Mason Corridor to accommodate the MAX/BRT Project. The funding request was based on the best available engineering estimate at that time. Since the original appropriation, additional study and final designs have been completed and the cost estimate has been revised. Based on this revised estimate, the Water Fund is requesting an additional $175,000 appropriation to pay for the water facility relocations. The Utilities is considered to be a private contractor for the MAX/BRT Project and will be reimbursed by the MAX/BRT Project upon completion. While the cost estimate for the water facilities relocation has increased, the cost for the wastewater facilities relocation decreased. Considering the revised estimates for both the water and wastewater relocations, the MAX/BRT Project will see an overall savings. The Water Fund requests an appropriation of unanticipated revenues for the MAX/BRT water line relocations capital project in the amount of $175,000. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $175,000 FOR: Water Line Relocations for MAX/BRT $175,000 2. Tandem Dump Truck - The Water Field Operations department is requesting $200,000 in additional funds to replace an existing tandem dump truck due to repairs that are needed to keep the truck in operation. It was brought to our attention the week of September 10th, 2012 that along with some mechanical repairs, the truck also has what is called rust jacking problems with the frame. This problem requires replacing part of the frame. Considering the truck’s model year is 1991 and that it has about 138,000 miles on it, we feel it is a sound business decision to replace the truck now instead of next year. This is one of our main vehicles used in the repair and replacement of the Water Distribution System as well as being part of the fleet used for Snow Plow Operations. The request will appropriate funds from prior year reserves from the Water fund’s Capital Outlay reserve. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -13- ITEM 10 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Water Fund) $200,000 FOR: Replace Existing Tandem Dump Truck $200,000 N. WASTEWATER FUND 1. Lighting Rebate for Drake Water Reclamation Facility – The Drake Water Reclamation Facility is retrofitting existing site lighting from incandescent to LED at a cost of about $140,000. This is funded in part by $28,212 in energy efficiency rebates from Light and Power and Platte River Power Association. The new lighting will result is a 50 kilowatt demand reduction at the facility. Wastewater requests an appropriation of $28,212 from unanticipated revenues for this LED lighting capital project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Energy Efficiency Rebates) $28,212 FOR: LED Lighting $28,212 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases total City 2012 appropriations by $14,881,871. Of that amount, this Ordinance increases General Fund 2012 appropriations by $903,037 including use or $199,440 in prior year reserves. Funding for the total City appropriations is $6,615,098 from unanticipated revenue, $8,137,529 from prior year reserves, and $129,244 transferred from other funds. The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves: Item # Fund Use Amount A1m General Fort Collins Police Services Seizure $ 4,500 A1n General Computer aided dispatch (CAD) replacement project 65,000 A3 General Landmark Rehab Program 18,520 A4 & 5 General Municipal Court expenses 8,420 A6 General September 16th fireworks event 33,000 A10 General Cable 14 equipment 70,000 C1 Cemetery Fiber Optics at the Roselawn office 56,000 E5 Cultural Services & Facilities Lincoln Center renovation project 21,200 I2a - f Recreation Recreation programs 76,513 Use of Prior Year Reserves $ 353,153 J2 Sales & Use Tax Manufacturer’s Equipment Use Tax Rebate 263,774 J3 Sales & Use Tax Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics and Natural Areas Funds 24,708 J4 Sales & Use Tax Transfer to General Fund 7,077,614 Use Tax Transfers and Rebates $7,366,096 K1 Transit Replacement buses 218,280 M2 Water Tandem dump truck 200,000 Large Equipment Expenses $ 418,280 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 103, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City has prior year reserves, excess revenue, and unanticipated revenue available to appropriate; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b) of the City Charter, any expense or liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter also permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide for the expenditures listed below and the City Manager recommends that these expenditures be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following funds are hereby authorized for transfer and appropriated for expenditure for the purposes stated below: A. GENERAL FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $ 246,326 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Police Seizure) $ 4,500 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (CAD Reserve) $ 65,000 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $ 7,300 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $ 15,020 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Victims Assistance Grant) $ 1,380 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ICAC Task Force Grant) $ 5,697 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (HIDTA Grant) $ 4,342 FOR: Police Services $ 246,326 FOR: Drug Free Calendar and Youth Police Academy $ 4,500 FOR: CAD Replacement Project $ 65,000 FOR: Seatbelt Grant $ 7,300 FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $ 15,020 FOR: Victims Assistance Grant $ 1,380 FOR: ICAC Task Force Grant $ 5,697 FOR: Northern Colorado Drug Task Force HIDTA Grant $ 4,342 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 24,390 FOR: North Campus Grant project $ 24,390 3. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 18,520 FOR: Landmark Rehab Program $ 18,520 4. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 1,420 FOR: Municipal Court Copier Expenses $ 1,420 5. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 7,000 FOR: Municipal Court Operating Expenses $ 7,000 6. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (4th of July) $ 33,000 FOR: 4th of July Expenses $ 33,000 7. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $ 46,000 FOR: Holiday Lights $ 46,000 8. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 150,000 FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek $ 150,000 9. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 60,000 FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek Grant Expenses $ 60,000 10. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (PEG Reserve) $ 70,000 FOR: Cable 14 Expenses $ 70,000 11. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 24,895 FOR: Poudre Valley Health System $ 24,895 12. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 77,291 FOR: Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $ 77,291 13. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 5,149 FOR: Radon Program $ 5,149 14. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 7,530 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $ 7,530 -2- 15. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 28,277 FOR: Tree Maintenance $ 28,277 16. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 7,000 FOR: Boards and Commissions Expense $ 7,000 17. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 310,000 FOR: Election Expense $ 310,000 B. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from Natural Areas) $ 22,044 FOR: Soapstone Public Improvements Project $ 22,044 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 19,336 FOR: Police Facility Capital Project $ 19,336 3. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 270,144 FOR: Police Facility Capital Project - Debt $ 270,144 4. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 19,903 FOR: Railroad Crossing Replacement Project $ 19,903 5. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (BOB Taxes) $ 21,200 FOR: Lincoln Center Renovation Project $ 21,200 C. CEMETERIES FUND 1. APP FROM: Prior Year Reserves $ 56,000 FOR: Installation of Fiber Optics $ 56,000 D. CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $ 2,500 FOR: Engineering and Hydrologic Design Work $ 2,500 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 90,750 FOR: Removal of the Storage Building $ 90,750 E. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 30,641 FOR: Lincoln Center Expenses $ 30,641 -3- 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 95,000 FOR: Lincoln Center Expenses $ 95,000 3. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 158,000 FOR: Lincoln Center Expenses $ 158,000 4. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 28,886 FOR: Art-in-Public Places projects $ 28,886 5. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Cultural Services) $ 21,200 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $ 21,200 F. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 2,500,000 FOR: Purchase of Power $ 2,500,000 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 196,700 FOR: BOB - Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) $ 196,700 G. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (REI Grant) $ 4,920 FOR: Natural Areas Expenses $ 4,920 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 4,973 FOR: Prairie Education Grant Expenses $ 4,973 H. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 1,410 FOR: Maple Hill Park Project $ 1,410 I. RECREATION FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 46,942 FOR: Recreation Programs $ 46,942 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 15,872 28,134 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $ 76,513 FOR: Recreation Programs $ 92,385 104,647 3.a. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 1,660 FOR: Passport Grant $ 1,660 -4- 3.b. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 11,000 FOR: NRPA Achieve Grant $ 11,000 J. SALES AND USE TAX FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales Tax) $ 743,932 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $ 371,966 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $ 371,966 2. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $ 263,774 FOR: Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $ 263,774 3. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $ 24,708 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $ 12,354 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $ 12,354 4. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $ 7,077,614 FOR: Transfer to General Fund $ 7,077,614 K. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (FTA Section 5309 Funding) $ 1,065,720 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Transit Services Fund) $ 218,280 FOR: Replacement Buses $ 1,284,000 L. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 400,000 FOR: Traffic Construction Expenses $ 400,000 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from General Fund) $ 36,000 FOR: Transportation SAINT Expenses $ 36,000 3. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from General Fund) $ 50,000 FOR: Transportation Expenses $ 50,000 M. WATER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 175,000 FOR: Water Line Relocations for MAX/BRT $ 175,000 2. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Water Fund) $ 200,000 FOR: Replace Existing Tandem Dump Truck $ 200,000 -5- N. WASTEWATER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Energy Efficiency Rebates) $ 28,212 FOR: LED Lighting $ 28,212 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -6- DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Jim O’Neill AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins is lease-purchasing desktop computers and laptops for various City departments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at an interest rate of 2.28%. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $294,000. Payments at the 2.28% interest rate will not exceed $15,596 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.21%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 2, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 2, 2012 STAFF: Jim O’Neill AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins is lease-purchasing desktop computers and laptops for various City departments. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $294,000. Payments at the 2.28% interest rate will not exceed $15,596 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.21%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.28 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City realizes all cost savings. The equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community. The equipment purchases have been approved in accordance with departmental procedures. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Lease-Purchase: The City's lease-purchase policy provides that: The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment, vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year. The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation by the Council each year. Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are: • Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment. • Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog. • Conserving operating reserves. • Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life of the equipment. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 2, 2012 -2- ITEM 11 • Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease- purchasing. It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment. Finance Department performed an analysis of this equipment lease financing arrangement which showed that this lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread between lease rate and reinvestment rate. According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property; and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the agreements, including all optional renewal terms. Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following: Information Technology Dell OptiPlex 7010 Minitower 140 129,000 Dell Latitude e6430 Laptops 106 130,500 Panasonic Toughbook 53-I5-2520M 25 34,500 Data & Communications Fund Total: 294,000 Lease Total: 294,000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 104, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY LEASE-PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to provide certain real and personal property for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, its home charter and Part 8 of Article 15 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes, and such agreements may include options to purchase and acquire title to such leased or rented property; and WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Pinnacle Public Finance to lease certain equipment to the City (the "Equipment"), consisting of the following: Information Technology Dell OptiPlex 7010 Minitower 140 129,000 Dell Latitude e6430 Laptops 106 130,500 Panasonic Toughbook 53-I5-2520M 25 34,500 Data & Communications Fund Total: 294,000 Lease Total: 294,000 and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to lease the Equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also providing financing for the Equipment acquisition; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the leasing and financing of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase term of five years; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments to result from the proposed arrangement will require payments by the City in the sum of $15,596 per quarter, and that payments in that amount are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, funds for the 2013 lease payments are included in the 2013 budget requests; and WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X §20(4)(b) and may therefore be entered into without voter approval; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-purchase agreement for the Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in accordance with the following terms and provisions: a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the agreement through December 31, 2012. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, shall not exceed the useful life of the property. b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such agreement but subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for such payments. c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal terms, the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the principal, $294,000, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to 2.28% per year, which is a reasonable amount. d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on any quarterly payment date of any term. The option to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said date and the unpaid principal due after said date. e. If the City renews the agreement for all the renewal terms and makes all payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase said Equipment. f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues. -2- Section 2. That the amount of TWO HUNDRED NINETY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($294,000) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease- purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 3. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of the Act is intended by the Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the home rule charter of the City and shall supersede, to the extent permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, amends Section 7-87(b) of the City Code to enact language that is consistent with the original intent that the City Clerk, within 18 months after the decennial publication of the U.S. Census, recommend district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous Council district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 2, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 2, 2012 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance will amend Section 7-87(b) of the City Code to enact language that is consistent with the original intent that the City Clerk, within 18 months after the decennial publication of the U.S. Census, recommend district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous Council district. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On April 3, 2012, Council adopted Ordinance No. 023, 2012, amending Section 7-87 of the City Code relating to redistricting (adjusting Council district boundaries). The purpose of the amendment was to extend the time period within which the City Clerk must recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous district. The end of the period was extended from 12 months after the official decennial publication of the United States Census to 18 months after the publication of the Census. Staff recently discovered that the language in the original provision adopted in June 2011, as well as the amended language adopted in April 2012, called for the City Clerk to make a recommendation “not less than” the specified number of days, rather than “not more than” as was originally intended. This Ordinance corrects the mistake, making it clear that the Clerk’s recommendation must occur not more than (within) 18 months after the official decennial publication of the Census. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 105, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO REDISTRICTING WHEREAS, by the approval of the voters at the regular City election held April 5, 2011, Article II, Section 1 of the City Charter was amended to change the method for adjusting City Council district boundaries; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011 the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 063, 2011, amending Section 7-87 of the City Code; WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendment was to require that the City Clerk make a recommendation to the City Council, within one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City, as to whether any district boundary changes are necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than ten (10) percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous Council district; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 023, 2012, amending Section 7-87 of the City Code so as to extend the timeframe for making this recommendation from one year to 18 months, since the one-year timeframe previously established did not give the City Clerk adequate time to formulate the recommendation; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 063, 2011 and No. 023, 2012 incorrectly state that the City Clerk must make the recommendation to the City Council regarding district boundary changes not less than eighteen (18) months after the official decennial publication of the United States Census; and WHEREAS, the word “less” should be changed to the word “more” so that the language is consistent with the intent of this provision and with the actions that have been taken by the City Clerk since June 7, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 7-87(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-87. Redistricting; notice. . . . (b) Not more than eighteen (18) months after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a ten-percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous district. . . . Section 2. That the City Clerk's recommendation regarding the adjustment of the City Council district boundaries as reflected in Ordinance No. 73, 2012, is ratified, approved and confirmed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Marc Virata AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known as Daisy Street and Columbine Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Daisy Street and Columbine Street are located between City Park Avenue and Bluebell Street, north of Plum Street. The property that both Daisy Street and Columbine Street serve is currently going through the development review process and is in the stages of final review. All lots adjacent to these two short street stubs have been included within the District at Campus West development proposal. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 2, 2012, will vacate the public right-of-way to allow the parcels and the streets to be replatted to accommodate the multifamily development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 2, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 2, 2012 STAFF: Marc Virata AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known as Daisy Street and Columbine Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Daisy Street and Columbine Street have existed since 1956. The City has not found any record that would indicate that the street right-of-way has been dedicated to the City by plat or separate document, but the City believes that under the doctrine of “common law dedication” it is the legitimate owner of the streets. The roads are improved with curb, sidewalk and asphalt and have been maintained by the City. All lots adjacent to these two short street stubs have been included within the District at Campus West development proposal that was approved by administrative hearing on May 7, 2012 and upheld on July 17, 2012 after an appeal to overturn the approval of the administrative hearing of said project was heard at City Council. The property owner of the adjacent lots (the District at Campus West developer) has requested that Daisy Street and Columbine Streets be vacated to allow the parcels and the streets to be replatted to accommodate the multifamily development. Vacations of public right-of-way are governed by City Code Section 23-115, which provides for an application and review process prior to submission to the City Council for formal consideration. The process includes review by potentially affected utility agencies, City staff, emergency service providers, and affected property owners in the vicinity of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated. This review process was followed in connection with this proposal, and based on comments received; the City Engineer has recommended that the vacation be approved. All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and they report no objections to the vacation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The property that both Daisy Street and Columbine Street serve is currently going through the development review process and is in the stages of final review. The proposed development does not need the public streets and adequate access to the parking garage will be provided by a driveway off of the adjacent public street (Plum Street). Because there are existing homes that take access off of these roadways (the existing homes will be removed with the development), and the need to vacate Daisy Street and Columbine Street is only needed if the development project proceeds forward, the Ordinance has provisions in which the vacation of the right-of-way does not become effective until it is recorded and such recordation should occur at the same time as the subdivision plat is recorded. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS If the roads are vacated the City will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of these two short streets. As such they can be eliminated from the City’s maintenance program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH A memorandum requesting input was sent to the utility providers and potentially impacted departments. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ORDINANCE NO. 106, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VACATING THE CITY’S INTEREST IN THE STREETS KNOWN AS DAISY STREET AND COLUMBINE STREET WHEREAS, over the years, the City has recognized Daisy Street and Columbine Street as streets belonging to the City even though they have not actually been dedicated to the City as rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, because of the City’s long recognition of Daisy Street and Columbine Street as streets belonging to the City, the City believes that a “common law dedication” of the rights- of-way for Daisy Street and Columbine Street has occurred and that the City has thereby acquired an ownership interest that can be the legitimate subject of a vacation ordinance; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC has requested that the City vacate the rights-of-way for Daisy and Columbine Streets in connection with its application for approval of The District at Campus West PDP; and WHEREAS, said rights-of-way are no longer necessary or desirable to retain for street purposes; and WHEREAS, pertinent City agencies and private utility companies have been contacted and reported no objection to the proposed vacation, provided that an access, emergency access, drainage, and utility easement be reserved unto the City; and WHEREAS, the right of the residents of the City of Fort Collins will not be prejudiced or injured by the vacation of said street rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City shall have no duty to maintain the existing roadways after the Ordinance becomes effective; and WHEREAS, conditions should be included in this Ordinance in order to ensure that the vacation of the foregoing streets occurs only if The District at Campus West PDP is developed in a timely manner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Daisy Street and Columbine Street rights-of-way, more particularly described on Exhibits "A" and “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby vacated, abated and abolished, reserving the same unto the City as an access, emergency access, drainage, and utility easements; provided, however, that: (1) this vacation shall not take effect until this Ordinance is recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; (2) this Ordinance shall be recorded concurrently with the subdivision plat for that development known as “The District at Campus West”; and (3) if this Ordinance is not so recorded by August 21, 2015, then this Ordinance shall become null and void and of no force and effect. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 2, 2012 STAFF: Craig Foreman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Grant for the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road Project. A. Resolution 2012-094 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Grant Agreement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from Colorado Parks and Wildlife in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates a $200,000 trail grant received from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. The project involves a new trail from Lemay Avenue, east along the north side of Trilby Road, to a planned underpass of Trilby, just west of the location where Fossil Creek goes under the road. The trail will then proceed south to connect with the Fossil Creek Trail, which was constructed north of Carpenter Road in 2012. A spur trail will travel east along the north side of Trilby Road to connect to the Power Trail. The total length of new trail will be about one mile. Resolution 2012-094 authorizes the City Manager to enter into the grant agreement. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This section of the Fossil Creek Trail was included in the City’s Parks and Recreation Policy Plan in 1996 and 2008. The trail segment on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area is shown on the Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan that was completed in 2005. Obtaining the Colorado Parks and Wildlife funds will make construction of the trail underpass possible in 2013. Without this grant, the project would have been phased in over a few years as City funding allows. The layout of the trail has been discussed with affected City staff and area residents. The trail placement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area has been coordinated with the Natural Resource staff. Construction of the project is scheduled for 20113. Pursuant to the grant agreement, the City has until September 2014 to complete the project. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City has been awarded a grant of $200,000 from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the development of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. The total cost for this trail section is estimated at $890,000. The City’s share of the cost ($690,000) is available in the Conservation Trust Fund and the Natural Area trail program. The awarding of this grant will provide funding and will allow City funds to be used for other needed trail projects. Funding for the annual operation and maintenance cost of the one mile of new trail is estimated at $8,000 and is included in the 2013-2014 Parks trail maintenance offer. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The new trail on the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area will be located on the west edge of the natural area near the residential units away from Stanton Creek and its more sensitive environment. October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Board has been informed of the project over the past year through staff updates. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board was informed of the project over the past year through staff updates. The Boards were supportive of this project. PUBLIC OUTREACH The trail project was discussed with the community during the 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update and is listed on the City’s trail development web page. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 2012-094 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOR THE FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL AT EAST TRILBY ROAD WHEREAS, in October, 2010, the City’s Park Planning staff applied for a Non- Motorized State Trails Program Grant from the State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife (the “State”); and WHEREAS, in 2012 the State approved the City’s grant application and awarded the City a $200,000 trail grant funded by the National Park Service (the “Grant”) for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is estimated to be approximately $890,000; and WHEREAS, the City’s share of the Project Cost, approximately $690,000, is available in the Conservation Trust Fund and the Natural Area trail program; and WHEREAS, in order to receive the Grant funds, the City must enter into a grant agreement with the State; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements, such as a grant agreement, to provide any function, service or facility, under Article II, Section 16 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins and Section 29-1-203, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the grant agreement, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (the “Grant Agreement”), requires the City to complete the Project by December 31, 2014; to comply with applicable federal regulations; to make certain reports to the State; and to provide, upon request, proof of the City’s authority to enter into the Grant Agreement; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council approve the Grant Agreement as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into the Grant Agreement with the State obligating the City to use the $200,000 in Grant proceeds for the construction of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road, in substantially the form of agreement that is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and that the terms of the Grant Agreement are approved together with such other terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the best interests of the City. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 108, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FROM COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE IN THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND FOR THE FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL AT EAST TRILBY ROAD WHEREAS, the City is expanding and furthering the connectivity of the City’s master trail system for use by the public in recreation and transportation; and WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $200,000 (the “Grant”) from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road; and WHEREAS, the project involves the construction of a new, one-mile trail running east from Lemay Avenue along the north side of Trilby Road to a planned underpass of Trilby just west of the location where Fossil Creek goes under Trilby Road; and WHEREAS, the new trail will connect with the Fossil Creek Trail and the Power Trail; and WHEREAS, the trail placement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area has been coordinated with the Natural Resources staff and has been discussed with affected area residents; and WHEREAS, the total project will cost is estimated to be $890,000 and is funded from the following sources: Colorado Parks and Wildfire grant ($200,000), the Conservation Trust Fund ($340,000) and the Natural Areas fund ($350,000); and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the grant as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Conservation Trust Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) for expenditure in the Conservation Trust Fund for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Craig Foreman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2012, Appropriating a Grant from Great Outdoors Colorado for the City’s Portion of Larimer County’s Poudre River Corridor and Regional Trail Initiative Grant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Great Outdoors Colorado has awarded a grant to Larimer County for its Poudre River Corridor & Regional Trail Initiative project. Larimer County is the lead agency for the grant application that includes the City of Fort Collins, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, and the City of Greeley. The grant request includes open space acquisitions, trail easements, and trail development along the Poudre River from Fort Collins to Greeley. The total grant project cost is $8,074,826, with the Great Outdoors Colorado grant being in the amount of $5,098,150. The City of Fort Collins portion of the project is $1,558,880, with the Great Outdoors Colorado grant amount being $737,597. The City’s portion of the project involves a new trailhead parking lot along Strauss Cabin Road, extending the 10-foot wide concrete Poudre River Trail to the west side of I-25, an overpass of I-25 and short trail connection to Timnath’s trail east of I-25. The total length of new trail will be about 0.5 of a mile. The trail placement on Arapaho Bend Natural Area has been coordinated with the Natural Areas staff. Construction of the project is scheduled to start in 2013. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City’s Parks and Recreation Policy Plan in 1996 and 2008 shows the Poudre River Trail connection to Timnath. The trail segment on Arapaho Bend Natural Area is shown on the Cache la Poudre River Natural Area Management Plan that was completed in 2011. Obtaining the Great Outdoors Colorado funds will make the trail overpass possible by 2015. Without this grant, the project would have had to be phased over several years as City trail funding would allow. Pursuant to the grant agreement, the City has until September 2015 to complete the project. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City has been awarded a grant of $737,597 from Great Outdoors Colorado for the development of the Poudre River Trail connection to Timnath. The total cost for this trail section, overpass of I-25, and trailhead parking lot is estimated at $1,558,880. The City’s cost share of $821,283 is available in the Conservation Trust Fund, the Natural Areas Paved Trails Fund, and the Natural Areas Public Improvement Fund. The awarding of this grant will provide funding and allow City funds to be used for other needed trail projects. Funding for the annual operation and maintenance cost of the 0.5 mile of new trail, overpass and trailhead parking lot is estimated at $10,000 and is included in the 2014 Park Maintenance and the Natural Areas Maintenance budget offers. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The new trail on the Arapaho Bend Natural Area will be located to minimize impacts to the natural area and the Poudre River’s more sensitive environment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 13 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Board was informed of the project over the past year through staff updates. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board also was informed of the project numerous times over the past year through staff updates. Both Boards are supportive of the project. PUBLIC OUTREACH The trail connection to Timnath was discussed with the community during the 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Update. The connection is frequently noted in news articles about future trail segments. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ZIEGLER RD MAIN ST INTERSTATE 25 E HARMONY RD STRAUSS CABIN RD E HORSETOOTH RD E COUNTY ROAD 38 S COUNTY ROAD 5 INTERSTATE 25 GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD BNSF RAILROAD Larimer & Regional County's Trail Poudre Initiative River Grant Corridor Map A L e g e n d Major Roads Poudre River Natural Area Prop. Concrete Trails © Proposed Trail Connection Timnath Proposed Lot and Restroom Parking PAREA ARAPAHO NATURAL BEND Proposed Trail Overpass I-25 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 109, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FROM GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO IN THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ PORTION OF LARIMER COUNTY’S POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR AND REGIONAL TRAIL INITIATIVE WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $737,597 (the “Grant”) from Great Outdoors Colorado (“GOCO”) for the City’s portion of Larimer County’s Poudre River Corridor and Regional Trail Initiative, an initiative that includes the City of Fort Collins, the Town of Timnath, the Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley; and WHEREAS, the grant request includes open space acquisitions, trail easements, and trail development along the Poudre River from Fort Collins to Greeley; and WHEREAS, the City’s portion of the project will involve the construction of a new trailhead parking lot along Strauss Cabin Road, the extension of the Poudre River Trail on the west side of I-25, an overpass of I-25 and a short, 0.5 mile trail connection to Timnath’s trail, east of I-25; and WHEREAS, the trail placement on Arapaho Bend Natural Area has been coordinated with the Natural Resources staff; and WHEREAS, the total project cost is estimated to be $8,074,826 with the GOCO grant covering $5,098,150 of that total cost; and WHEREAS, the City’s portion of the project cost is $1,558,880 and is funded from the following sources: GOCO grant ($737,597), the Conservation Trust Fund ($471,283) and the Natural Areas Fund ($350,000); and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authroizes the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the grant as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Conservation Trust Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN DOLLARS ($737,597) for expenditure in the Conservation Trust Fund for the City’s portion of Larimer County’s Poudre River Corridor and Regional Trail Initiative. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Jon Haukaas Ken Sampley AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2012, Approving a Fourth Amendment to the Fort Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management, and Related Issues, Eliminating Original Terms Related to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Establishing the Terms of Cost Sharing for Design Engineering of Substituted Improvements in the Boxelder Basin. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 17, 2009, the City of Fort Collins (City) and the Town of Timnath (Timnath) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) regarding annexations, growth management, and related issues. The IGA resolved certain differences that had arisen between the City and Timnath concerning a variety of planning and growth management issues. The IGA sets forth provisions for the funding, design and construction of the Boxelder Overflow Project. The IGA has been amended three times since for items such as the extension of deadlines for approval of the respective GMA’s and the deletion of all references to Timnath’s possible purchase of the Vangbo property. The parties have determined that development of the Boxelder Overflow Project originally contemplated by Timnath as described in the Intergovernmental Agreement is neither feasible nor desirable, and have further identified a mutually beneficial alternative approach to address flood impacts in the Boxelder Creek Basin as it impacts Timnath and Fort Collins, referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. In order to move forward cooperatively to further investigate, conceptually plan and preliminarily design the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, the parties desire to apply toward those Projects a portion of the funds previously paid into an escrow account by Fort Collins in accordance with Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The City and Timnath are entering into this Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document their intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In February 2009, Council adopted Ordinance No. 011, 2009, approving an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath regarding Growth Management Areas (GMAs) for the two communities and associated issues authorizing the disposition of certain properties (the “Intergovernmental Agreement”). On February 17, 2009, the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed by both parties. In February 2010, the City and Timnath approved a First Amendment to the IGA which extended deadlines imposed by the IGA to afford Timnath and Larimer County adequate time to resolve their differences regarding GMA concerns and come to agreement regarding the Timnath/Fort Collins GMA boundary. In addition, Timnath was granted an extension of Article 6 of the IGA regarding an option to purchase the Vangbo property. In February 2011, a Second Amendment to the IGA was approved to extend the deadline for the parties to amend their GMA boundaries and to delete all references to Timnath’s possible purchase of the Vangbo property. A Third Amendment to the IGA was approved by both the City and Timnath in February 2012 agreeing to an additional one-year extension of the period of time (until February 12, 2013) within which the Fort Collins and Timnath GMA boundaries will be amended. Timnath has also agreed that, within the same period of time, it will actively pursue Larimer County approval of its own GMA with a western boundary that is consistent with the IGA. At the time of execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement, Timnath intended to construct the Boxelder Overflow Project, as defined in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Article 7 of the IGA set forth the provisions for the project, the purpose of which was to mitigate existing and anticipated overflow from the Boxelder Creek which may have resulted from the blockage of two box culverts previously installed by the Colorado Department of Transportation under Interstate Highway 25. October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 14 Additionally, the Article sets the following conditions: (a) Grant of an easement for the project through the Arapaho Bends Natural Area (b) Agreement that Fort Collins will support Timnath’s application to FEMA for the project (c) An agreement for 50% cost sharing with Fort Collins’ Contribution not to exceed $2,000,000 (d) Establishment of a schedule for the appropriation of these funds by Fort Collins which were placed in escrow for the project and the methods for which the funds may be dispersed (e) Providing Timnath sole control and decision-making authority for the Project, and (f) Clarifying that nothing in this Section or elsewhere in the Agreement would in any way or manner be construed as an admission of liability by Fort Collins for any claims arising or related to any aspect of the project or conditions leading up to it. The parties have since determined that development of the Boxelder Overflow Project originally contemplated by Timnath as described in the IGA is not feasible nor desirable, and have further identified a mutually beneficial alternative approach to address flood impacts in the Boxelder Creek Basin as it impacts Timnath and Fort Collins, referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. In order to move forward cooperatively to further investigate, conceptually plan and preliminarily design the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, the parties desire to apply toward those Projects a portion of the funds previously paid into an escrow account by Fort Collins in accordance with Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement. The City and Timnath are entering into this Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document their intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. Accordingly, the parties have developed a general plan for storm drainage improvements to significantly reduce the 100-Year stormwater runoff within both the Boxelder Creek Drainage Basin and the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin that contribute to the flooding potential in Boxelder Creek, which is expected to include the following conceptual elements, referred to together as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects and are to be constructed concurrently: (a) East Side Detention Facility/Gray Lakes Reservoirs: 1. Construction of an earthen embankment (dam) and un-gated outlet to create detention storage upstream of County Road 50. (b) Boxelder Creek and Boxelder Creek / Larimer and Weld Canal Crossing: 1. Construction of a side spill weir crossing of the Larimer and Weld canal to allow Boxelder Creek storm runoff to continue downstream (south). 2. Boxelder Creek drainageway improvements adjacent to and upstream (east) of Interstate Highway 25 (c) Boxelder Creek and Prospect Road West of I-25: 1. Flood conveyance, bed and bank stabilization, stream restoration and associated improvements on Boxelder Creek from I-25 to just downstream of Prospect Road; and 2. Culvert/bridge crossing(s) of Prospect Road. (d) Cache la Poudre Overflow: 1. Construction of a side-flow spillway structure on Boxelder Creek, just downstream of Prospect Road; and 2. Construction of an outfall channel and swale to convey flows to an existing oxbow of the Poudre River. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Fort Collins agreed to appropriate and place into escrow funds totaling $2,000,000 by the terms of the original IGA (i.e., the “Fort Collins Contribution” to the original project). To date, Fort Collins has placed $1,800,000 into escrow in accordance with said provisions of Article 7. Fort Collins will place the remaining $200,000 into escrow in February 2013 in accordance with the provisions and schedule outlined in the original Intergovernmental Agreement. Accordingly, Fort Collins and Timnath agree that Timnath shall be entitled to a portion of said escrowed funds not to exceed $250,000 to match payments by Timnath for up to 50% of the costs actually incurred by Timnath to proceed with the work described in Section 7.4. Disbursement in the amount of $250,000 shall be available upon execution of this amendment by both Fort Collins and Timnath and shall be released to Timnath upon request from the escrow agent in order to allow Timnath to proceed with the work described in Section 7.4. The parties agree to direct the escrow agent managing said funds to disburse said funds in a manner consistent with this provision. The parties October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 14 acknowledge that said funds are intended as a match only to Timnath payments on invoices for the work described in Section 7.4, and any amounts not applied by Timnath for up to 50% of its costs for the same shall be returned to Fort Collins upon final completion of the work and final payment under the related contract for services with BBRSA. Fort Collins shall be entitled to review all invoices and other documentation related to said contract in order to verify the use of funds in accordance with this Amendment. The remaining escrowed Fort Collins funds in the amount of $1,750,000, together with such remaining amounts as are not disbursed as described above shall be applied toward the remaining design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, permitting and construction of the components of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, but only in the form of equal match to funds contributed by Timnath. The total cost for construction of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects has not yet been determined, but it is understood that it may exceed the total amount of funds in escrow plus the matching funds provided by Timnath. Final determination of the design of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, and the costs and cost-sharing associated with the completion of said Projects, shall be agreed upon under a future Amendment to this Agreement. It is the intent of the parties that the performance of the requirements outlined in this IGA fully satisfies any obligation that Fort Collins may have to Timnath to contribute to the management of storm drainage waters flowing from Boxelder Creek insofar as such waters or the floodplain related thereto, may affect property within Timnath’s municipal boundaries or within the TGMA. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The IGA noted that the location, size and impacts of any Boxelder stormwater improvements built on and in the vicinity of the Arapaho Bend Natural Area east of Interstate Highway 25 shall be minimized to the extent reasonably possible and that activity and improvements shall be sensitive to the natural features of the affected property. Any area impacted by construction activities shall be restored to pre-construction natural conditions to the extent reasonably possible, using native vegetation. As a result of the replacement of the Boxelder Overflow Project originally identified in the IGA with the proposed Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation projects, there will be a reduction in environmental impacts to Boxelder Creek, including the Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Construction of upstream stormwater improvements at the East Side Detention Facility and the Boxelder Creek/Larimer and Weld Canal Crossing will eliminate the need to construct a larger channel south of Prospect Road originally contemplated as part of the original Boxelder Overflow Project improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 110, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE FORT COLLINS-TIMNATH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING COOPERATION ON ANNEXATION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED ISSUES, ELIMINATING ORIGINAL TERMS RELATED TO THE BOXELDER OVERFLOW PROJECT AND ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF COST SHARING FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING OF SUBSTITUTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BOXELDER BASIN WHEREAS, on February 17, 2009, Timnath and Fort Collins entered into an intergovernmental agreement relating to annexation, growth management and related issues, which agreement resolved certain differences that had arisen between the parties regarding a variety of planning and growth management issues (the “Intergovernmental Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the parties have previously entered into three amendments modifying dates for completion of certain actions related to their growth management areas, and other matters addressed in the Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, in addition to addressing the above-described matters, the Intergovernmental Agreement also provided for funding assistance from Fort Collins in the form of payments to an escrow account to be disbursed in reimbursement to Timnath for a portion of Timnath’s costs in completing a project Timnath had planned to undertake in order to construct specified channels and other improvements to convey and redirect certain Boxelder Creek basin stormwater flows, referred to as the Boxelder Overflow Project; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined that development of the Boxelder Overflow Project, as originally contemplated by Timnath and as described in the Intergovernmental Agreement, is neither feasible nor desirable, and have identified a mutually beneficial alternative approach for mitigating the risk of flooding in the Boxelder Creek Basin as it impacts Timnath and Fort Collins, referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects; and WHEREAS, the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects would result in significantly reduced flood elevations along Cooper Slough in the City and in the vicinity of and below the Interstate 25 - Prospect Road interchange; and WHEREAS, City Stormwater staff recommends that the City pursue the cooperative development of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, in light of the benefits of that project for City Stormwater Utility and City Stormwater ratepayers; and WHEREAS, in order to move forward cooperatively to further investigate, conceptually plan and preliminarily design the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, the parties desire to apply toward those Projects a portion of the funds previously paid by Fort Collins into an escrow account in accordance with Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, accordingly, Timnath and Fort Collins staffs have negotiated modifications to the Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document the intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities of Timnath and Fort Collins with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Fourth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Fourth Amendment”) and desires to authorize the execution of the Fourth Amendment so as to allow the shared funding of final design engineering for the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the cooperative funding of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects will benefit and advance the interests of the City Stormwater Utility and City Stormwater ratepayers. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into a Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management and Related Issues in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- FOURTH AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management and Related Issues) THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made and entered into this ____ day of October, 2012, by and between THE TOWN OF TIMNATH, COLORADO, a Colorado home rule town (hereinafter referred to as “Timnath”), and THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Fort Collins”). RECITALS WHEREAS, on February 17, 2009, Timnath and Fort Collins entered into an intergovernmental agreement relating to annexation, growth management and related issues, which agreement resolved certain differences that had arisen between the parties regarding a variety of planning and growth management issues (the “Intergovernmental Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2010, the parties executed a First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement which extended the periods of time within which Fort Collins was to amend the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“FCGMA”) and Timnath was to provide written notice to Fort Collins of its intent to exercise its option to purchase the Vangbo Property, as those terms are defined in the Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2011, the parties executed a Second Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement, which extended the period of time within which Fort Collins was to amend the FCGMA; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2012, the parties executed a Third Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement, which extended until February 12, 2013, the period of time within which both parties will amend the boundaries of their growth management areas; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined that development of the Boxelder Overflow Project originally contemplated by Timnath as described in the Intergovernmental Agreement is not feasible nor desirable, and have further identified a mutually beneficial alternative approach to address flood impacts in the Boxelder Creek Basin as it impacts Timnath and Fort Collins, referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects; and WHEREAS, in order to move forward cooperatively to further investigate, conceptually plan and preliminarily design the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, the parties desire to apply toward those Projects a portion of the funds previously paid into an escrow account by Fort Collins in accordance with Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the parties are entering into this Fourth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement so as to clarify and document their intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 7 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions Added. Article 1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement is hereby amended to add the following new definitions: “Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority” or “BBRSA” shall mean the regional stormwater authority formed by agreement of the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, Fort Collins and the Town of Wellington, Colorado entitled Intergovernmental Agreement for Stormwater Cooperation and Management by and between them and dated August 20, 2008. “Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority Master Plan” shall mean the master plan for improvements in the Boxelder Creek Stormwater Basin adopted by and incorporated by reference as part of the intergovernmental agreement that established the BBRSA. “Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects” shall mean the general plan for storm drainage improvements to significantly reduce the 100-Year stormwater runoff within both the Boxelder Creek Drainage Basin and the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin that contribute to the flooding potential in Boxelder Creek, which is expected to include the conceptual elements identified in Section 7.1. “East Side Detention Facility” shall mean that particular stormwater detention facility described in Subsection 7.2(a), and work required to design, engineer and construct the same. 2. Article 7 Superseded and Replaced. Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: ARTICLE 7 BOXELDER CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECTS 7.1 Boxelder Overflow Project not Feasible nor Desirable. At the time of execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement, Timnath intended to construct the Boxelder Overflow Project, as defined in the Intergovernmental Agreement. The parties agree and hereby acknowledge that the Boxelder Overflow Project is not feasible or desirable, based on additional review by the parties, and further agree that Timnath will not proceed with said Project. Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement provided for execution of a mutually agreeable easement on Fort Collins property (the Boxelder Easement) if required for the Boxelder Overflow Project, and further required Fort Collins to pay the total amount Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) into escrow in specified installments, for use for reimbursement of Timnath for up to fifty percent of Timnath’s incurred costs in the design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Boxelder Overflow Project. Fort Collins has placed funds in the total amount of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000) into escrow in accordance with said provisions of Article 7. Fort Collins will place the remaining Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) into escrow in February 2013 in accordance with the provisions and schedule outlined in the original Intergovernmental Agreement. 7.2 Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. The parties agree and hereby acknowledge that it is in the best interest of both Fort Collins and Timnath to work cooperatively to design and construct projects along Boxelder Creek and its associated flow paths to mitigate the impacts of flooding for the mutual benefit of the parties as well as the region. Accordingly, the parties have developed a general plan for storm drainage improvements to significantly reduce the 100-Year stormwater runoff within both the Boxelder Creek Drainage Basin and the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin that contribute to the flooding potential in Boxelder Creek, which is expected to include the following conceptual elements, which are together referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects and are to be constructed concurrently: (a) East Side Detention Facility/Gray Lakes Reservoirs: 1. Construction of an earthen embankment (dam) and un-gated outlet to create detention storage upstream of County Road 50. (b) Boxelder Creek and Boxelder Creek / Larimer and Weld Canal Crossing: 1. Construction of a side spill weir crossing of the Larimer and Weld canal to allow Boxelder Creek storm runoff to continue downstream (south). 2. Boxelder Creek drainageway improvements adjacent to and upstream (east) of Interstate Highway 25 (c) Boxelder Creek and Prospect Road West of I-25: 1. Flood conveyance, bed and bank stabilization, stream restoration and associated improvements on Boxelder Creek from I-25 to just downstream of Prospect Road; and 2. Culvert/bridge crossing(s) of Prospect Road. (d) Cache la Poudre Overflow: 1. Construction of a side-flow spillway structure on Boxelder Creek, just downstream of Prospect Road; and 2. Construction of an outfall channel and swale to convey flows to an existing oxbow of the Poudre River. 7.3 Cost Sharing. (a) The parties agree and hereby acknowledge that it is in the best interests of both Fort Collins and Timnath to cooperate in making use of a portion of the funds deposited by Fort Collins under Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement to match expenditures by Timnath for the design, engineering, and permitting of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, as specified in this Section and in Section 7.4. Accordingly, Fort Collins and Timnath agree that Timnath shall be entitled to a portion of said escrowed funds not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 th Dollars ($250,000.00) Page 4 of 7 to match payments by Timnath for up to fifty percent (50%) of the costs actually incurred by Timnath to proceed with the work described in Section 7.4. Disbursement in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 th Dollars ($250,000.00) shall be available upon execution of this amendment by both Fort Collins and Timnath and shall be released to Timnath upon request from the escrow agent in order to allow Timnath to proceed with the work described in Section 7.4. The parties agree to direct the escrow agent managing said funds to disburse said funds in a manner consistent with this provision. The parties acknowledge that said funds are intended as a match only to Timnath payments on invoices for the work described in Section 7.4, and any amounts not applied by Timnath for up to fifty percent (50%) of its costs for the same shall be returned to Fort Collins upon final completion of the work and final payment under the related contract for services with BBRSA.Fort Collins shall be entitled to review all invoices and other documentation related to said contract in order to verify the use of funds in accordance with this Amendment. (b) It is the intent of the parties that the remaining escrowed Fort Collins funds in the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 th Dollars ($1,750,000.00), together with such remaining amounts as are not disbursed under Section 7.3(a), shall be applied toward the remaining design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, permitting and construction of the components of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, but only in the form of equal match to funds contributed by Timnath for said purposes. (c) The total cost for construction of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects has not yet been determined but it is understood that it may exceed the total amount of funds in escrow plus the matching funds provided by Timnath. (d) Final determination of the design of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, and the costs, and cost-sharing, associated with the completion of said Projects, shall be agreed upon under a future Amendment to this Agreement. 7.4 Timnath to Contract for Services. The Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects are included in the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority Master Plan. BBRSA has initiated preliminary design engineering for said Projects, but continuation of this design engineering is necessary in order to determine actual design and related costs and to allow said Projects to proceed. (a) Timnath shall contract with the BBRSA for the following services: 1. Preparation of the Feasibility Study and Final Application for a Colorado Water Conservation Board loan to BBRSA for the East Side Detention Facility which consists of the Gray Lakes Stormwater Detention Facility and accompanying improvements; 2. Complete the conceptual design of the Middle Basin (Boxelder Creek / Larimer and Weld Crossing), including modeling and collaboration with the Lake Canal Ditch Company to determine the acceptable crossing structure to accomplish the goals of the BBRSA Master Plan; 3. Initiate Final Design efforts (including Phase II of the geotechnical investigation - seismic site, seepage and stability analysis) for the East Side Detention Facility in order to prepare estimated costs for use in a loan application to the Colorado Water Conservation Board to be submitted no later than December 1, 2012; and 4. Initial coordination, meetings and preparation for United States Army Corps of Engineers permitting and coordination with the Colorado Office of the State Engineer. (b) The work described in Subsection 7.4(a) is intended to allow BBRSA to maintain an efficient design, submittal and construction schedule focused on an expedited completion of the East Side Detention Facility in a timely manner with a targeted completion by the end of 2014. (c) Timnath shall work with BBRSA and Fort Collins to develop an appropriate plan for payment to BBRSA of amounts required to complete the foregoing work. (d) As part of its contractual arrangements with BBRSA, Timnath shall require that BBRSA maintain appropriate documentation and make any reports, data or design deliverables produced for BBRSA available to the parties for review and use in connection with the Boxelder Creek Mitigation Projects and this Fourth Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement. 7.5 Satisfaction of Obligations. It is the intent of the parties that the performance of the requirements of this Article 7 fully satisfies any obligation that Fort Collins may have to Timnath to contribute to the management of storm drainage waters flowing from Boxelder Creek insofar as such waters or the floodplain related thereto, may affect property within Timnath’s municipal boundaries or within the TGMA. Accordingly, Timnath has released Fort Collins and its officers, employees, agents and assigns, from any and all claims or causes of action of any kind whatsoever for any monetary damages or for any other remedy at law or in equity arising from, connected with or in any way related to the flow, blockage or diversion of storm waters from Boxelder Creek, the installation, operation and maintenance of culverts and other storm water facilities related to that portion of I-25 that is adjacent to the TGMA, or the determination of rainfall standards for areas within Timnath’s municipal boundaries or the TGMA, insofar as such claim or cause of action is based upon any acts or omission of Fort Collins or any of its officers, employees, agents or assigns, on or before the Effective Date. The parties acknowledge and agree that, in the 1980’s, at Fort Collins’ request, the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOT) installed two additional box culverts under I-25 at a location that would, if the culverts were opened, allow a substantially greater volume of storm runoff to flow from Boxelder Creek under I-25 and into portions of the Fort Collins GMA and municipal limits and that such increased flows could do considerable damage to property within such area and that, in order to properly manage and contain such flows, extensive new storm water facilities must be constructed. Accordingly, both parties agree that no officer, employee, agent Page 6 of 7 or assign, shall attempt, directly or indirectly, at any time after the execution of this Agreement, to persuade CDOT to take any action that would reasonably be expected to result in the opening of said culverts, until such time as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, or other stormwater improvements satisfactory to the parties, are complete. In addition, if a third party takes, or attempts to take, any such action prior to the completion of said projects, Timnath agrees to support Fort Collins’ opposition to such action by providing a letter to CDOT to that effect upon the request of Fort Collins. 7.6 No Admission of Liability. Nothing in this Article or elsewhere in this Agreement shall in any way or manner be construed as an admission of liability by Fort Collins or its officers or employees for any claim or damages arising from or in any way related to the lack of construction of the Boxelder Overflow Project, construction of the Boxelder Flood Mitigation Projects, the overflow of waters from Boxelder Creek, FEMA’s designation of certain areas within the TGMA as being within a floodplain, or any related matters, nor shall anything herein be construed as a waiver of any defenses, limitations and immunities established pursuant to the Colorado Government Immunity Act (SS24-10-101, et seq. C.R.S.), the United States and Colorado Constitutions, or under the common law or laws of the State of Colorado or of the United States, including but not limited to Section 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. No Further Modification. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Intergovernmental Agreement is unmodified and shall continue in full force and effect. 4. Binding Agreement. Both Timnath and Fort Collins intend that this Amendment shall be binding upon them. 5. Amendments. This Amendment may only be amended, changed, modified or altered in writing, signed by both parties hereto. 6. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 7. Jointly Drafted; Rules of Construction. The parties hereto agree that this Amendment was jointly drafted, and, therefore, waive the application of any law, regulation, holding or rule of construction providing that ambiguities in an agreement or other document will be construed against the party drafting such agreement or document. 8. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Intergovernmental Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. THE TOWN OF TIMNATH, COLORADO By: ____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________ Town Attorney THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By: ____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________ City Attorney DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Jason Holland AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-095 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Crossing Annexation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Kechter Road, approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Kechter Crossing is adjoining and immediately west of a parcel of land owned by the City of Fort Collins for the City’s Affordable Housing Land Bank. This annexation is not associated with the Kechter Farm development, which is located southeast of the Kechter Crossing Annexation. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, and west. The City land bank property to the west is zoned L-M-N. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November 20, 2012; not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The Kechter Crossing Annexation gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the City of Fort Collins Land Bank Property, also known as Kechter Annexation No. 3, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. The Kechter Crossing property was reviewed by Larimer County staff and has received final approval for development by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners as a 75 lot residential neighborhood. The Petitioner and Larimer County coordinated and cooperated with the City of Fort Collins on development approvals in anticipation of this Petition for Annexation. The Kechter Crossing 75 lot single-family development is approved pursuant to a County Development Agreement dated September 18, 2012, by and between the Petitioner, Larimer County, and the City of Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins is a party to the County Development Agreement in anticipation of this Petition for Annexation. City staff reviewed the Final Development Plan Documents for the Kechter Crossing property in anticipation of this Petition for Annexation. In addition to the County Development Agreement, the Petitioner and the City of Fort Collins have executed and recorded a City Development Agreement. The City Development Agreement also anticipates the timely annexation of the property into the City of Fort Collins. At the time of annexation, the City Development Agreement shall supersede the County Development Agreement. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request on October 18, 2012. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of the First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November 20, 2012. PUBLIC OUTREACH There was no public outreach for this Initiating Resolution as this Resolution simply accepts the Annexation Petition and provides a schedule for upcoming Council hearings with a schedule and notification requirements that comply with State Statutes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Structure Plan Map 4. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Map RL LMN LMN LMN UE UE UE LMN MMN BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel S TIMBERLINE RD OLD MILL RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE WHITE WILLOW DR E COUNTY ROAD 36 STETSON CREEK DR ROCK CREEK DR KECHTER RD CHANDLER ST COUNTRY SQUIRE WAY RABBIT CREEK RD COPPER CREEK DR Kechter Vicinity Crossing Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± Legend City Limits - Area City Limits - Outline Annexation - Area Kechter Site Location Crossing Annexation Annexations Kechter 1, 2 & 3 Kechter Farm ATTACHMENT 1 BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel RL LMN LMN UE LMN UE UE LMN MMN S TIMBERLINE RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE OLD MILL RD WHITE WILLOW DR KECHTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 RABBIT CREEK RD Kechter Crossing 1 inch = ± 600 feet City of Fort Collins Zoning Map Legend City Zoning ZONE NCM Limited Commercial Service Commercial Employment Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Public Open Lands River Conservation Urban Estate LowWaterBodies Density Residential (RL) Kechter Farm Kechter Proposed Crossing Zoning: Annexation L-M-N Annexations Kechter 1, 2 & 3 ATTACHMENT 2 Fossil Reservo Cre © Kechter Structure Crossing Plan Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) KECHTER RD E CR 36 S TIMBERLINE RD 1 inch = 0.3 miles ZIEGLER RD Crossing Site - Kechter Annexation Annexation - Area KFeacrhmter (under review) ATTACHMENT 3 INTERSTATE 25 E HARMONY RD S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 E TRILBY RD KECHTER RD ZIEGLER RD CARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 7 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COUNTY ROAD 11 STRAUSS CABIN RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 S TIMBERLINE RD ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 0 ©7M5iles 0.25 0.5 0. CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Amended: September 19, 2006 Adopted: March 28, 1998 City Limits Growth Management Area Loveland GMA Fossil Creek Project Area Resource Management Area Unified Development Plan Needed Parcels Natural Areas Water Proposed Trail Existing Trail Master Street Plan Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes Interstate Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA > Potential Grade Sep Rail Crossing R Potential Interchange Future Land Use Commercial Corridor District Neighborhood Commercial District Employment District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods RESOLUTION 2012-095 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE KECHTER CROSSING ANNEXATION WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Kechter Crossing Annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Kechter Crossing Annexation, more particularly described as follows: Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block 1, Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block 2, Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Block 3, Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 4, Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, Block 5, Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, Block 6, Lots 1 through 2, inclusive, Block 7, Lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Block 8, Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 9, Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, Block 10, Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 11, Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 12, Common Area A, Common Area B, Common Area C, Common Area D, Outlot A, and Outlot B, inclusive, Kechter Crossing PLD, Being a Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Feldman M.R.D. #97- EX1094, County of Larimer, State of Colorado Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition for the Kechter Crossing Annexation and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal Annexation Act. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th day of October A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2 NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Kechter Crossing Annexation, said Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice. That, on November 20, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may desire. The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District. 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. Dated this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012. _______________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Patti Teraoka AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT Routine Easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, to install an electric transformer to provide additional capacity, located at Lot 27, Block 111, east of Mason between Mountain Avenue and Oak Street. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority will be reimbursed $5,412. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this routine easement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Easement Location Map. DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Darin Atteberry Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2013, and Ending December 31, 2014; and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Fiscal Year 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Annual Appropriation Ordinance is presented for First Reading. This Ordinance sets the City Budget for the two- year period (2013–14) which becomes the City’s financial plan for the next two fiscal years. This Ordinance sets the amount of $483,445,062 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Including the 2013 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $193,666 and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) of $1,038,682 the total City operated appropriations amount to $484,677,410. This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION For the fifth time the City has used a budgeting process called Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). This process is a recommended best practice by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). It is a systematic process driven by goals and performance, to provide information that relates budgeting to planning and results. Its purpose is to better align the services delivered by the City with the things that are most important to the community. The 2013-14 City Manager’s Recommended Budget was delivered to Council in August. The Recommended Budget strengthens key services related to transportation, police, fire, parks and recreation and other community priorities such as the environment, economic development and social sustainability, delivering on the commitment made to voters who approved the Keep Fort Collins Great sales tax increase in 2010. The budget also and makes smart, long-term investments in the future, with investments in the Poudre River, North College, and FortZED. City Council reviewed the Recommended Budget during four Council Work Sessions. In addition, citizens have been able to provide input to Councilmembers through two public hearings and an online feedback tool. From these discussions and additional information provided by staff, City Council has provided direction and guidance for changes to be incorporated into 1st reading of the 2013-14 Biennial Budget. The following table summarizes the Offers not originally included in the Recommended Budget. Note: GF = General Fund October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 21 To fund these Offers requires a combination of funding sources. The first prudent place to evaluate is Offers that have a lower priority and, thus, should not be funded or can have their amounts reduced. The table below lists Offers that were eliminated or modified. The gap between Offers funded per Council direction and Offers eliminated or modified is addressed by other funding sources. As the table below indicates, the gap was addressed by utilizing funds available in the Sales and Use (S&U) Tax reserves, increasing the Sales Tax forecast from 2.20% and 2.05% to 2.70% and 2.55% for 2013 and 2014 respectively, increasing the Use Tax forecasts by $500K in each year of the budget, and utilizing General Fund reserves. Of the available $6.5M Sales and Use Tax reserve being transferred to the General Fund via the annual Clean-up Ordinance, only $700K has been used in this budget. The increase of both the Sales and Use Tax forecasts is based on the strong results we continue to see through the end of the third quarter of 2012 and the anticipation of slightly higher growth rates in 2013 and 2014. Lastly, the use of General Fund reserves comes from anticipated contribution to General Fund balance based upon actual 2012 revenue results greater than forecast. The combination of the above table results in the following summarized changes between the recommended budget and the amounts included in First Reading of the 2013-14 Biennial Budget. Additionally, in final preparation it was determined that the Benefits Programs and Services Offer was originally overstated and indicated a use of Benefit fund reserves greater than actually required. This has been recalculated and the significantly reduced expense is reflected in the summary table below. The $1.2 million will remain in the Benefits fund reserves and has no impact on services or other Offers. October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 21 This annual Appropriation Ordinance sets the amount of $483,445,062 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Including the 2013 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $193,666 and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) of $1,038,682 the total City operated appropriations amount to $484,677,410. Below is a summary of the proposed 2013-14 City budget: City Budget (in $ million) Adopted 2013 Adopted 2014 Operations $431.3 $440.4 Debt Service 21.2 20.5 Capital 32.2 27.6 Total City Operated Appropriations * $484.7 $488.5 Less Urban Renewal Authority (URA) (1.0) (1.8) Less General Improvement District (GID) (0.2) (0.2) Total City of Fort Collins Appropriation $483.5** $486.5 * This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances. ** Delta due to rounding to $K FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance sets the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2013 in the amount of 483,445,062. The Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Budget contains multiple offers that will have positive environmental impacts, particularly those funded by the Environmental Health Result Area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Budget on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH In preparation for First Reading of the 2013-14 Budget, there were two public hearings, as well as an online tool whereby citizens could vote for the Offers for programs and services most important to them. The data from the online tool was presented to Council for their review. Additionally, during the budget development there was a citizen on each of the Result Teams and two public open houses were conducted to gain citizen input. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation 1 1 Agenda Item # 21 City of Fort Collins 2013-2014 Biennial Budget October 16, 2012 Council Meeting 2 This budget moves the City from a mindset of austerity to investment ATTACHMENT 1 2 3 Keep Fort Collins Great has allowed us to strengthen our core services and improve customer service 4 With increased stability, we can now focus on our community’s future, new possibilities, and our obligation to the next generation 3 5 Even with these smart investments, we still have long-term needs and challenges, namely the expiration of major funding sources 6 Offers Funded per Council Direction Offers Funded per Council Direction 2013 Amount 2014 Amount Funding - Offer 50.5 Poudre School District After-Hours Program $ 66,894 $ 66,894 GF - Reductions & Sales Tax - Offer 6.8 KFCG: Support Arts Incubator of the Rockies 50,000 60,000 GF - Reductions & Sales Tax - Offer 9.7 Environmental Services Operations 37,000 37,000 GF - Reductions & Sales Tax - Offer 81.16 Park Rangers for City Parks and Trail 179,661 141,863 GF - Increased Sales Tax - Offer 236.1 Community Garden Outreach Program 112,961 53,925 GF - Increased Sales Tax - Offer 103.1 The Great Lawn (at $250K) 250,000 - GF - Increased Use Tax - Offer 107.4 Great Green Street / Reshaping Streets - 450,000 GF - Increased Use Tax - Offer 105.25 Mulberry Bridge Design 500,000 250,000 BCC & GF - Use Tax & ($65K) - Offer 101.2 COP Debt Refinancing Payments 403,000 391,000 GF - Reserves - Offer 105.26 I25 / 392 Signage 100,000 - GF - Reserves Total Offers Funded per Council Direction $516 1,699,$ 1,450,682 4 7 Eliminations and Modifications Eliminations and Modifications 2013 Amount 2014 Amount Funding Offers Unfunded per Council Direction - Offer 194.5 Learning Specailist $ (79,068) $ (84,176) General Fund - Offer 25.10 Workplace Safety Initiative Fund (100,000) (100,000) Self Insurance Fund - Reserves - Offer 68.3 Council Agenda Improvements (115,000) (15,000) General Fund Offers Reduced per Staff Recommendation - 111.1 Utilities Knowledge Transfer (100,000) (100,000) Utility Funds - Offer 194.2 Collaborative Leadership Development (56,080) (18,080) General Fund Total Eliminations and Modifications $ (450,148) $ (317,256) 8 Changes to Funding Assumptions Summary of Changes Changes to Funding Assumptions 2013 Amount 2014 Amount Notes - Reduce GF offers $ 250,148 $ 117,256 - Available BCC (Changed Integrated Recycling Facility) 448,000 237,000 Used General Fund Reserves - Increase Sales Tax forecast 272,000 272,000 0.5% increase in both years - Increase Use Tax forecast 500,000 500,000 Available for 1-Time Programs - General Funds Reserves 503,000 391,000 Total Changes to Funding Assumptions $000 1,723,$ 1,400,000 Summary of Changes 2013 Amount 2014 Amount Notes - Recommended Budget Total Appropriations $ 483,077,664 $ 490,389,409 - Offers Funded per Council Direction 1,699,516 1,450,682 - Eliminations and Modifications Subtotal (450,148) (317,256) - Recalculated Offer 196.1 Benefits Programs and Services (677,042) (1,383,838) No impact on funding - Shift of Offer 105.18 NRRC Overpass to 2013 1,200,000 (1,200,000) - Other miscellaneous changes (transfers, non GF COPs, etc.) (172,580) (402,204) Proposed Budget Total Appropriations $410 484,677,$ 488,536,793 5 9 2013-14 Biennial Budget • Balanced and fiscally prudent budget that addresses multiple community and Council priorities • Strengthens key services related to transportation, police, fire, parks & recreation • Enhances community priorities such as the environment, economic development and social sustainability • Continues the commitment made to voters who approved the Keep Fort Collins Great sales tax increase in 2010 • Includes smart, long-term investments in the future including the Poudre River, North College Avenue and FortZED ORDINANCE NO. 112, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013; ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2013, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014; AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 WHEREAS, the City Manager has, prior to the first Monday in September, 2012, submitted to the City Council a proposed budget for the next ensuing budget term, along with an explanatory and complete financial plan for each fund of the City, pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 2, of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, within ten days after the filing of said budget estimate, the City Council set September 18th and October 2nd , 2012, as the dates for the public hearings thereon and caused notice of such public hearings to be given by publication pursuant to Article V, Section 3, of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, the public hearings were held on those dates and persons were given the opportunity to appear and object to any or all items and estimates in the proposed budget; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 4, of the City Charter requires that, before the last day of November of each fiscal year, the City Council adopt the budget for the ensuing term by ordinance and appropriate such sums of money as the Council deems necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during the ensuing fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 5, of the City Charter provides that the annual appropriation ordinance shall also fix the tax levy upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the City, such levy representing the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the City; and WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter permits the City Council to fix, establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for water and electricity, and for other utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay into the General Fund in lieu of taxes on account of the City-owned utilities such amount as may be established by City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. Budget a. That the City Council has reviewed the City Manager's 2013-2014 Recommended Budget, a copy of which is on file with the office of the City Clerk, and has approved certain amendments thereto. b. That the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget, as amended by the Council, is hereby adopted, in accordance with the provisions of Article V, Section 4, of the City Charter and incorporated herein by reference; provided, however, that the comparative figures contained in the adopted budget may be subsequently revised as deemed necessary by the City Manager to reflect actual revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year 2012. c. That the adopted budget, as amended, shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk and identified as "The Budget for the City of Fort Collins for the Fiscal Years Ending December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2014, as Adopted by the City Council on November 20, 2012." Section 2. Appropriations. That there is hereby appropriated out of the revenues of the City of Fort Collins, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013, the sum of FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FORTY FIVE THOUSAND SIXTY TWO DOLLARS ($483,445,062) to be raised by taxation and otherwise, which sum is deemed by the City Council to be necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during said budget year, to be divided and appropriated for the following purposes, to wit: GENERAL FUND $112,765,370 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Golf $2,884,456 Light & Power Operating Total .......................................118,816,167 Capital Projects: Art in Public Places 2,000 Computerized Maintenance Mgmt. System 381,129 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 100,000 Electric Substation Improvements 200,000 Capital Projects Total ................................. 683,129 Total Light & Power ................................................119,499,296 -2- Storm Drainage Operating Total ........................................10,692,091 Capital Projects: Art in Public Places 23,129 Boxelder Authority 255,000 Computerized Maintenance Mgmt. System 239,463 Drainage & Detention System Replacement 262,870 Stormwater Basin Improvements 1,400,000 Stormwater Developer Repays 100,000 Stormwater Master Plan 225,000 Stream Restoration & Best Mgmt. Practices 650,000 Capital Projects Total .................................3,155,462 Total Storm Drainage ................................................13,847,553 Wastewater Operating Total........................................18,399,807 Capital Projects: Art in Public Places 33,563 Collection System Replacement 1,629,838 Computerized Maintenance Mgmt. System 239,462 Drake Water Reclamation Facility Impr. 150,000 Mulberry Bridge Sewer Relocation 560,000 Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility Impr. 60,500 Sludge Disposal Improvements 199,800 Water Reclamation Replacement 1,166,500 Capital Projects Total ................................ 4,039,663 Total Wastewater....................................................22,439,470 Water Operating Total ........................................25,926,541 Capital Projects: Art in Public Places 43,937 Cathodic Protection 552,000 Computerized Maintenance Mgmt. System 239,463 Distribution System Replacement 1,780,708 Dual System Design with Colorado State Univ. 100,000 Engineering Distribution System Replacement 800,000 Halligan Reservoir Enlargement 190,000 High Park Fire Water Mitigation 987,953 Mulberry/Poudre Water Main 200,000 Source of Supply Replacements 550,000 Water Meter Replacement & Rehabilitation 800,000 Water Production Replacement Program 521,000 Water Supply Development 100,000 -3- Capital Projects Total ................................ 6,865,061 Total Water ...................................................... 32,791,602 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $191,462,377 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Benefits $20,923,638 Data & Communications 8,310,682 Equipment 10,706,119 Self Insurance 3,151,406 Utility Customer Service & Administration 14,663,067 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $ 57,754,912 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Capital Improvement Expansion $ 3,025,353 Capital Leasing Corporation 4,653,344 Cemeteries 579,374 Conservation Trust Operating Total - Administration ............................ 281,436 Capital Projects: Fossil Creek Trail ............................ 40,000 Hughes Stadium Disc Golf Course ............... 70,000 Open Space Acquisition ...................... 270,000 Trail Acquisition & Development .............. 145,500 Parks Maintenance .......................... 735,154 Capital Projects Total ...................................1,260,654 Total Conservation Trust...............................................1,542,090 Cultural Services & Facilities ..............................4,003,169 Capital Projects: Arts in Public Places ........................ 90,990 Total Cultural Services & Facilities ......................................4,094,159 General Employees' Retirement .........................................3,227,950 Keep Fort Collins Great Operating Total ........................................20,604,884 Capital Projects: City Bridge Program........................1,700,000 Fort Collins Bike Program .................... 217,950 Trail Acquisition & Development .............. 153,000 Capital Projects Total .................................. 2,070,950 -4- Total Keep Fort Collins Great ..........................................22,675,834 Museum ............................................................1,181,420 Natural Areas........................................................9,681,563 Neighborhood Parkland Operating Total - Administration ............................ 416,160 Capital Projects: Golden Meadows Park ....................... 100,000 Lee Martinez Park Addition .................... 50,000 New Site Acquisition ........................ 457,521 New Park Site Development................... 170,000 Richards Lake .............................. 300,000 Side Hill Neighborhood Park .................. 200,000 Soft Gold Neighborhood Park .................. 75,000 Capital Projects Total .................................. 1,352,521 Total Neighborhood Parkland ...........................................1,768,681 Perpetual Care ......................................................... 20,145 Recreation ..........................................................6,726,230 Sales and Use Tax ...................................................12,294,000 Street Oversizing .....................................................2,601,384 Timberline/Prospect SID #94 ............................................. 65,534 Transit Services .................................................... 10,157,400 Transportation Services.............................................. 24,472,002 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT SERVICE FUNDS .................$108,766,463 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND General City Capital Projects: Block 32 Redevelopment ...................$ 135,000 Downtown Poudre River Improvements ......... 175,000 East Community Park .......................1,700,000 Great Lawn at the Gardens .................... 250,000 I-25 Interchange Design ...................... 100,000 I-25/392 Project - Signage .................... 100,000 Integrated Recycling Facility .................. 448,000 Lemay/Vine Grade Separated Crossing ........... 50,000 City Bridge Project - Mulberry Bridge ........... 500,000 Natural Areas Office Building ................. 440,000 Natural Resources Research Center Overpass ....1,200,000 North College-Conifer/Willox Improvements ....1,940,000 Railroad Crossing Replacement ................ 100,000 Southeast Community Park.................... 500,000 Total General City Capital Projects ......................................7,638,000 -5- Building on Basics Operating - Administrative Charge ............................. 45,013 Capital Projects: Bicycle Program Plan Implementation ........... 125,000 Intersection Improvements & Traffic Signals ..... 780,000 Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements ......... 300,000 Senior Center Expansion ....................3,044,559 Timberline Rd-Drake to Prospect Improvements . . 763,368 Total Building on Basics Capital Projects......................5,012,927 Total Building on Basics ...............................................5,057,940 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND................................... $ 12,695,940 TOTAL CITY FUNDS ...............................................$483,445,062 Section 3. Mill Levy a. That the 2013 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all the taxable property within the City of Fort Collins as of December 31, 2012, shall be 9.797 mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide for payment during the aforementioned budget year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the City. b. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 9.797 mills to the County Assessor and the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law, as required by Article V, Section 5, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -6- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -7- DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Brian Janonis Lance Smith AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2013. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following monthly rate increases are recommended for 2013: Service % Annual Increase Water 4.0% Electric 4.33% The proposed water increase is a flat 4% across the board to all customer classes. The electric rate increases which average 4.33% are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.35% to 5.33%. The proposed changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages and will vary by season. Electric development fees are proposed to decrease an average of 2.4% for residential and decrease an average of 1.6% for commercial development. There are no changes in the monthly rates for wastewater or stormwater services being proposed for 2013. With the rate changes contained in the proposed Ordinances, a typical single family customer’s monthly utility bill will increase $5.01 in the summer from $162.96 to $167.97 and $2.95 from $131.03 to $133.98 in non-summer months. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The recommended 2013 rate increases reflect the rates and revenues that are proposed in the City Manager’s Recommended 2013-2014 Budget. All proposed rates would be effective for meter readings on or after January 1, 2013. A. Monthly Water Rates - First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. Staff proposes a 4% water rate increase. The need for this increase is due to the High Park Fire. The increase is a flat across the board increase to all rate classes. With the proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer’s monthly bill will increase 4% as shown in the following table: October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 22 The High Park Fire in June 2012 affected the watershed serving Fort Collins Utilities on the Cache Le Poudre. Initial estimates of costs associated with stabilizing the soil suggest it could cost Fort Collins Utilities up to $10 million. With the City of Greeley and the Tri-districts also being affected by the fire, inter-governmental coordination of these erosion control efforts have reduced the estimated cost for soil stabilization by Fort Collins Utilities to $4-5 million. Fort Collins Utilities continues to work with federal agencies to determine if any federal funds exist to reimburse Fort Collins Utilities for these efforts. At this time Fort Collins Utilities cannot be assured of any federal funds in 2013, yet the mitigation efforts need to continue in the spring of 2013. There was an increase in demand for water during the hot, dry 2012 summer which is not expected to continue into 2013. The longer term trend of decreasing demand due to conservation efforts has resulted in operating revenues remaining at the same level over the last 5 years even with the recent rate increases (3% in 2007, 2010 and 2011 and 6% in 2012). Some revenue growth is expected in 2012 over 2011 due to higher demand. However, it is not sufficient to maintain water rates at the 2012 levels given the uncertainty around the weather and the anticipated increase in operating and maintenance costs associated with the High Park Fire. The vast majority of the costs of operating the water system are fixed and do not vary based on customer demand. However, the High Park Fire has affected the metal content in water taken from the Cache Le Poudre resulting in higher variable treatment costs for the foreseeable future. This rate increase is not related to Halligan Reservoir which is to be funded from the Water Rights Reserve. The Water Rights Reserve is funded by developers’ cash-in-lieu-of water rights payments and is restricted to the purchase of water rights and water storage only. A new rate class is being proposed for service to commercial customers with an average daily use in excess of 2.0 million gallons. B. Monthly Electric Rates - First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. Fort Collins wholesale and retail electric rates are among the lowest in the region and nation. This will continue to be true following the 4.33% electric rate increase proposed for 2013. The 4.33% increase is the system annual average and will not be applied to all customer rate classes. Based on a cost-of-service study the proposed rates vary by rate class and season as follows: October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 22 1T his is a new rate class proposed for 2013 The 4.33% overall annual increase consists of a 3.83% increase for purchased power from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) and a 0.5% increase for the new Fort Collins Solar Program, which is included in the City Manager’s Recommended Budget. Platte River’s 2013 purchase power rate increase is due to several key factors: • Reduced surplus sales • Increased fuel costs • Increased renewable energy costs The higher increases for the commercial rate classes are due to purchased power costs being a higher percentage of total costs for these rate classes. A new rate class is being proposed for service to industrial customers connected directly to a substation. Customers who qualify for this rate class do not share in the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the distribution infrastructure between the substations and meters. The renewable energy purchased from PRPA is increasing from $0.019 per kilowatt-hour to $0.024 per kilowatt-hour. This increase is due to the higher costs of purchasing Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) with the associated energy compared to purchasing RECs that are not bundled with the associated energy. Maintenance and decommissioning costs for some of the Vestas turbines at Medicine Bow are also accounted for in the price increase. Staff is also proposing to delete the Code duplication and clarify the terms of payment for each rate class by referring all rate classes to Section 26-713. October 16, 2012 -4- ITEM 22 Monthly Utility Bill Summary The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family residential customer during the summer: The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family residential customer during the non-summer months: The average non-summer utility bill is expected to be $142.80 in 2013 and the average utility bill in the Summer is expected to be $183.51 in 2013, or 29% higher than the non-summer bill. The following two charts compare Fort Collins Utilities’ monthly utility bill to others along the Front Range in 2012 at non-summer rates and then at summer rates. October 16, 2012 -5- ITEM 22 October 16, 2012 -6- ITEM 22 C. Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Development Fees - First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. City Code requires staff to present water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees to Council for approval no less than every other year. These fees were last changed in 2011 effective on January 1, 2012. No changes are recommended for 2013 for water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees. Electric Development Fees Electric development fees are also required to be approved by City Council no less than every second year although historically staff has recommended annual changes. The current electric development fees were approved by Council in 2011 and were effective January 1, 2012. There is a small decrease in fees recommended for 2013. Electric development fees recover both actual on-site costs (building site charges) and allocated off-site costs (electric capacity charges) to serve commercial or residential development. These fees are adjusted annually to reflect changes in costs of labor and materials. While some costs continue to increase, an adjustment to the development fee model used to calculate the fees has resulted in a decrease in costs of approximately 2% for most developments. The table below shows the changes for a typical single family lot and a model commercial development. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The rates are projected to increase 2012 annual operating revenues of the Water Fund by 4% and the Light and Power Fund by 4.33%. The projected revenue from the rate increases is included in the City Manager’s Recommended 2013- 2014 budget projections. The increases are necessary to fund purchased power, the Fort Collins Solar Program, and to ensure treated water quality is not diminished as a result of the High Park Fire. The proposed rate ordinances will increase costs for a typical residential customer by $5.01 in the summer from $162.96 to $167.97 and $2.95 from $131.03 to $133.98 in non-summer months. Utility programs can help customers to reduce their water and electric use and to lessen the financial impact of the rate increases. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Funding from the proposed electric rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue programs and services aimed at meeting the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Accurate seasonal price signals may delay/ avoid the need for additional peak electric generation. Water rates provide funding for conservation programs and environmental regulatory compliance. October 16, 2012 -7- ITEM 22 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its September 20, 2012 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed 2013 water. The Energy Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed 2013 electric increase at its October 4, 2012 meeting. The draft Board minutes are attached. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in the Coloradoan on September 30, 2012, and a mailing was sent city electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with state requirements. Commercial customers have been advised of the proposed increases. Staff plans to conduct outreach to all customers following adoption of the Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS 1. Water Board minutes, September 20, 2012 2. Electric Board minutes, October 5, 2012 3. Powerpoint presentation Attachment 1 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 20, 2012 Water Rate Discussion/Review and Provide Recommendation on 2013 – 2014 Utilities Budget (Attachments available upon request). Utilities Financial Operations Manager Ellen Switzer introduced the item. This item was also discussed at the Work Session on September 6, 2012. Ms. Switzer presented information on the Budget Assumptions. These include the following:  Inflation estimated at 0 percent in 2013  Inflation estimated at 3 percent in 2014  2.25 percent salary increases in 2013  2 percent salary increases in 2014 Ms. Switzer presented information on Rates and Fees Highlights. These include the following:  No increases for stormwater utility rates  Water rates are proposed to increase 4 percent in 2013 and 2014 due to the High Park Fire  Wastewater rates will not increase in 2013 and are proposed to increase 3 percent in 2014  Plant Investment Fees are updated biennially with no increase expected in 2013. Ms. Switzer presented information on the 2013 – 2014 Proposed Water Budget, including graphs outlining the budget summary and the water fund revenues for water, wastewater, and stormwater. She also presented information on 10 year rate projections for all Utilities (electric, water, wastewater, and stormwater). In summary, reserve policies for all funds are met, debt coverage is met for all funds, and small annual levelized increases will be necessary for Water and Wastewater. Staff recommends support for the City Manager’s Recommended Budget and recommends approval for the proposed rate increases. A board member asked for the total budgeted amount for water, wastewater, and stormwater. Ms. Switzer stated the budget breakdown is as follows: $28 million for water, $20 million for wastewater, and $14 million for stormwater. Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Manager’s Recommended Budget be adopted by City Council for the 2013-14 Biennial Budget. Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Malers moved that due to the unexpected costs of the High Park Fire, the Water Board recommend that City Council adopt the proposed 4 percent water rate increase in 2013. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. Attachment 1 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 20, 2012 Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Attachment 2 Excerpt from Unapproved Energy Board Minutes, October 4, 2012 Page 1 of 3 2013 Light and Power Budget and Rate Recommendations (Attachments available upon request). Mr. Catanach introduced the item and introduced Utilities Financial Operations Manager Ellen Switzer. Ms. Switzer presented background information on the City’s Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. City Council identifies key outcomes. These include transportation, safe community, economic health, environmental health, culture, parks, and recreation, neighborhood livability, and high performing government. The budget is developed around these themes. The BFO process includes the following steps:  Sellers develop Budget Offers  Results Teams review the offers and meet with sellers  Drilling Platforms developed by Results Team  Budget Lead Team reviews, tweaks, and develops the Recommended Budget. The team consists of the City Manager, his direct reports, and members of the City’s budget staff.  Council adopts final budget with their changes. Ms. Switzer presented information on the budget assumptions:  Inflation estimated at 2 percent per year  2.5 percent salary increases in 2013 and 2 percent salary increases in 2014  Growth projections at approximately 0.7 percent per year (either through new customers or increased usage) Ms. Switzer presented information on revenues for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 budget and presented a graph showing revenue comparison. She also presented a graph showing the breakdown between industrial, commercial, and residential customers. A board member asked what happens to the interest earnings from reserves. Ms. Switzer stated the earnings are available to be appropriated based on projected revenues. Ms. Switzer presented information on electric rates and fees. 2013 electric rates are increasing 4.33 percent. This includes a Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) pass through of approximately 3.83 percent. 2014 rates are increasing 3.5 percent. This includes a PRPA pass through of approximately 3 percent. She presented a graph showing the percent increase by customer class for 2013 electric rates and a chart showing the impact on a typical residential customer from 2012 to 2013. There is a new substation rate proposed for 2013 for customers served directly from the substation. The rate does not include distribution costs. There is also an increase in the Green Energy Program Premium from 1.9 cents to 2.4 cents per kWh. This is a direct pass through from PRPA. A board member asked what drives the increase from PRPA. Ms. Switzer stated they have been asked to buy more renewable energy credits that include the delivery of the power. Mr. Catanach also stated that some of the contracts have escalation clauses. There will be no changes in rate forms. Average electric development fees will decrease slightly for single family residential and commercial customers. Attachment 2 Excerpt from Unapproved Energy Board Minutes, October 4, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Ms. Switzer presented information on expenditures. The 2012 original budget is $112.8 million. The 2013 recommended budget is $119.6 million. The 2014 recommended budget is $124.9 million. Ms. Switzer presented a graph showing the Light and Power Fund Budget Summary from 2012 to 2014. She noted purchase power will increase the most because of the PRPA rate increases. The increase also includes upgrades to current infrastructure. Light and Power Operations will increase slightly. The Energy Services budget will remain approximately the same. Ms. Switzer presented information on the City Manager’s Recommended Budget Funded Offers:  Purchase Power of $80.3 million (2013) and $80.4 million (2014) with a 5.1 percent PRPA rate increase.  System additions and replacements to continue existing programs.  Light and Power Operations funding also includes one full time employee (FTE) for maintenance of the telecommunication systems and radios. This position is necessary because the Information Technology (IT) Department will no longer provide this service.  Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). PILOT is 6 percent of the Operating Revenue.  Energy Services funding includes a .5 FTE staffing increase.  Customer Service and Admin (CSA) funding (this provides services to all Utilities). Light and Power pays 40.4 percent of joint utilities expenses.  Solar Programs include Small Scale Community Renewables (rebates), the Solar Garden, and Fort Collins Solar Program (FIT).  Capital Projects include Computerized Maintenance Management System, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Substations. Unfunded offers include the following:  Utilities Service Center expansion and improvements (this will be addressed outside the BFO process)  Design software for Light and Power Engineering staff Ms. Switzer presented a graph showing Light and Power Revenues and Expenditures. Summary  Most requested offers funded  Moderate rate increases  Will continue to draw down Light and Power reserves  Reserve policies met  Debt coverage met Staff recommends the Energy Board support the City Manager’s Recommended Budget and proposed rate increase. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member asked for an explanation between the PRPA pass through rate increases of 3.83 percent for 2013, 3 percent for 2014, and the 5.1 percent PRPA rate increase listed under Purchase Power. Ms. Switzer stated purchase power costs are not 100 percent of the budget. Other expenditures have to be recovered as well. Attachment 2 Excerpt from Unapproved Energy Board Minutes, October 4, 2012 Page 3 of 3  A board member asked if the Utilities-scale solar and biomass projects were funded. Mr. Catanach responded these offers were funded and will be part of a purchase power agreement. This would occur during the next budget cycle.  A board member asked if the offers would meet the City’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) goal. Mr. Catanach stated these offers would only meet half of the goal. Utilities would work with PRPA during the 2015 budget cycle to meet the remaining part of the goal.  A board member noted there is no mention of the 2014 increase in the suggested board motion. Ms. Switzer stated that typically staff would ask for a recommendation for the 2014 rate increase next year.  A board member asked if the board should make a recommendation on the design software. Mr. Catanach stated this is not necessary at this time. If this became necessary, it would be during the mid-year budget adjustment. Vote on the motion: Yeas: Behm, Cunniff, Kronkosky, Moore, O’Neill, Plate, Rothe, and Wolley. Nays: None. The motion carried. Vote on the motion: Yeas: Behm, Cunniff, Kronkosky, Moore, O’Neill, Plate, Rothe, and Wolley. Nays: None. The motion carried. Vice Chairperson Rothe moved that the Energy Board recommend that City Council adopt the proposed 4.33 percent electric rate increase in 2013 and the revisions to the Electric Development Fees. Board Member Moore seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Rothe moved that the Energy Board recommend that City Council adopt the City’s Manager Recommended 2013-2014 Budget for the Light and Power Fund. Board Member Wolley seconded the motion. 1 1 2013 Utility Rates and Fees Ordinances First Reading October 16, 2012 2 3 Ordinances – Effective January 1, 2013 • Monthly Water Rates • Monthly Electric Rates • Electric Development Fees ATTACHMENT 3 2 3 Monthly Utility Rate Increases • Electric – by customer class – within classes – seasonally • Water – across the board to all customers Utility Average Annual Increase Electric 4.3% Stormwater 0.0% Water 4.0% Wastewater 0.0% 4 Electric Rate Increase • Two components in 4.33% increase + 3.83% retail impact from PRPA’s 5.0% increasefor wholesale purchased power + 0.5% for the Fort Collins Solar Program • New Substation Service Rate Class • Fort Collins Electric Rates remain among the lowest in the state and nation 3 5 Rate Increases Vary by Rate Class & Season Proposed 2013 Electric Rate Increases By Class and Season 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Residential Residential Demand Small Commercial Small/medium Commercial Medium Commercial Large Commercial Substation Rate System % Increase Over 2012 Non‐Summer Summer Annual 6 Water Rate Increase • Fund fire mitigation efforts and increased treatment costs • Slow use of reserves and maintain debt coverage 4 7 Monthly Residential Utility Bills Current Estimated $ % 2012 2013 Increase Increase Electric 700 kWh/mo Wastewater 4,800 gal/mo WQA Stormwater 8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff Water 15,000 gal/mo Total Estimated Average Monthly Utility Bill $162.96 $167.97 $5.01 3.1% Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill SUMMER $51.33 $14.26 $66.49 $69.46 $2.97 4.5% $30.88 $30.88 $0.00 0.0% $14.26 $0.00 0.0% $53.37 $2.05 4.0% Current Estimated $ % 2012 2013 Increase Increase Electric 700 kWh/mo Wastewater 4,800 gal/mo $30.88 $30.88 $0.00 0.0% WQA Stormwater 8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff Water 5,000 gal/mo Total Estimated Average Monthly Utility Bill $131.03 $133.98 $2.95 2.2% $25.58 $26.60 $1.02 4.0% Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill WINTER $62.24 $1.93 3.2% $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0% $60.31 8 Regional Rate Comparison Electric Rate Comparison ‐ 700 kWh per Month $55.76 $57.25 $57.25 $60.31 $64.95 $64.95 5 9 Regional Rate Comparison Water Rate Comparison Average Residential Use January & July $14.02 $14.16 $20.16 $25.57 $26.59 $27.80 $18.70 $31.31 $38.41 $31.69 $32.32 $42.12 $43.84 $51.32 $53.37 $63.40 $54.30 $59.30 $91.11 $93.51 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 Loveland Longmont Boulder Ft. Collins ‐ 2012 Ft. Collins ‐ 2013 Greeley Denver Windsor Aurora Co.Sprs $/Mo. for Residential Customer Avg Jan. 5,000 Gal. Avg July 15,000 Gal. 10 Plant Investment Fees • By Code, PIF/ Electric Development Fees are to be adjusted at least biennially – PIFs were updated in 2012 • Proposed Change in 2013 – Electric Development Fees: • Residential -2.4% • Commercial -1.6% 6 11 Next Steps • October 30, 2012 City Council Work Session – Utility Bills and Conservation Programs Review • November 6, 2012 City Council Agenda –2nd reading of these 3 ordinances • January 1, 2013 – 2013 rates effective 12 Questions? ORDINANCE NO. 113, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE WATER RATES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Section 26-118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, requires that the City Manager analyze the operating and financial records of the water utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City Council the user rate fees to be in effect for the following year; and WHEREAS, the Poudre watershed was damaged by the 2012 High Park fire and will result in additional operating and capital costs for treatment and mitigation; and WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed water rates, fees and changes for 2013 at its September 20, 2012 meeting and recommended approval of the rate changes by an unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following water use rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2013 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of two new definitions which read in their entirety as follows: Average daily demand shall mean the annual total water demand divided by the number of days in the year. Peaking factor shall mean the ratio of the highest amount of water delivered in a single day for the year to the average daily demand for that year. Section 2. That Section 26-126 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-126. Schedule A, flat rates for unmetered construction water use. For residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter size greater than one (1) inch, no flat unmetered water service will be provided. For residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter size of one (1) inch or less, the following flat rates will apply per month until the permanent meter is set: ¾-inch construction service, flat charge per month $24.02 $24.98 1-inch construction service, flat charge per month $45.80 $47.63 Section 3. That Section 26-127 (a) Residential Rates and that Section 26-127 (b) Nonresidential Rates of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates. (a) Residential Rates. (1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit. a. Base Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall pay a base monthly charge of thirteen dollars and sixty fourteen dollars and fourteen cents ($13.6014.14). b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows: For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and ten and five-tenths eighteen and nine tenths cents ($2.1052.189) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and forty-one and nine-tenths fifty-one and six tenths cents ($2.4192.516) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and seventy-eight and three-tenths eighty-nine and four-tenths cents ($2.7832.894) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. (2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units. a. Base Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall pay a base monthly charge of fifteen dollars and ninety-seven sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents ($15.9716.61). b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows: -2- For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and two and eight-tenths ten and nine tenths cents ($2.0282.109) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and thirty-three and one-tenth forty-two and four-tenths cents ($2.331 2.424) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and sixty-eight and two-tenths seventy-eight and nine-tenths cents ($2.6822.789) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. (3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units. a. Base Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units shall pay a base monthly charge of thirteen dollars and forty-nine fourteen dollars and three cents ($13.4914.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and forty-ninesixty-seven cents ($ 4.494.67) for the second and each additional dwelling unit. b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and ninety-five and nine-tenths two dollars and three and seven- tenths cents ($1.9592.037) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and forty-four and nine-tenths fifty-four and seven-tenths cents ($2.4492.547) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge. (b) Nonresidential Rates. (1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in Subsection 26-127 (c) customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on meter size as follows: -3- Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base Charge ¾ $ 12.1712.66 1 33.9535.31 1½ 92.3396.02 2 139.14144.71 3 212.22220.71 4 333.16346.49 6 646.30672.15 8 1,141.751187.42 (2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and sixty-nine and three-tenths seventy-six and one- tenth cents ($1.6931.761) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and eleven and six-tenthstwenty and one-tenth cents ($2.1162.201) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge. (3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and forty- three and three-tenths fifty-three cents ($2.4332.530) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at three dollars and four and two-tenths sixteen and four-tenths cents ($3.0423.164) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer excess quantity charge. Meter Size (inches) Specified Amount (gallons per month) ¾ 100,000 1 300,000 1½ 625,000 2 1,200,000 3 1,400,000 4 2,500,000 Section 4. That Sections 26-127 (c) and (d) are renumbered as 26-127 (d) and (e) respectively and that a new section 26-127 (c) of the City Code is added as follows: -4- (c) High Volume Industrial Rates. 1. High volume industrial rates apply to any customer with an Average daily demand in excess of 2,000,000 gallons per day. The specific rate for any qualifying customer shall be based upon the applicable peaking factor for that customer as follows: Peaking Factor Monthly charge per thousand gallons 1.00-1.09 $1.430 1.10-1.19 1.490 1.20-1.29 1.550 1.30-1.39 1.600 1.40-1.49 1.660 1.50-1.59 1.710 1.60-1.69 1.770 1.70-1.79 1.830 1.80-1.89 1.880 1.90-1.99 1.940 > 2.00 2.000 Section 5. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect in for meter readings on or after January 1, 2013. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -6- ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority costs are increasing due to reduced wholesale market prices and surplus sales, increased costs of coal, and increased operating costs for aging plants; and WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority will increase the City’s wholesale cost of power approximately 5.1% in 2013; and WHEREAS, the City’s increased wholesale power costs will require a 3.83% increase in the City’s electric rates; and WHEREAS, the City Manager’s recommended 2013 budget includes an appropriation of $500,000 for the Fort Collins Solar Program; and WHEREAS, the cost of the Solar Program will require a 0.5% rate increase; and WHEREAS, the Energy Board considered the proposed electric rates, fees and changes for 2013, at its October 4, 2012 meeting and recommended approval of the rate changes by an unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the following electric rate adjustments for all billings issued with meter readings on or after January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise electric rates, fees and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Sections 26-464(c), (d), (e), (m) and (p) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48). (2) Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and fifty-six-hundredths fifty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.02560.0259). (3) Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as follows: a. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and thirty-one sixty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0531 0.0568). b. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and eighty-nine seven and twenty-six one- hundredths cents ($0.06890.0726). c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and five forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.10050.1042). (4) Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: a. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: four and eighty-two five and five one-hundredths cents ($0.04820.0505). b. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and twentyforty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.05200.0543). c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and three twenty-six one-hundredths cents ($0.06030.0626). (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Medical assistance program. (1) The rates described in Subsection (c) above shall be discounted for those electric customers to whom this rate schedule applies and who apply for such discount, as long as: a. the applicant's annual household income falls below sixty (60) -2- percent of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as determined by the Federal Housing Authority); and b. the application is accompanied by a certified, signed statement from a licensed physician that electrical durable medical equipment used at the residential premises is medically necessary and that such medical equipment has been assigned a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System number; and/or c. A certified, signed statement from a licensed physician that air conditioning at the residential premises is medically necessary for a resident thereof who, in the absence of the air conditioning, may suffer medical deterioration due to a severe immune-compromising medical condition, including, but not limited to, multiple sclerosis, quadriplegia, paraplegia, scleroderma or hemiplegia; and d. the application is accompanied by a sworn affidavit from the applicant verifying that all information contained in the application, including, if applicable, the representation that air conditioning will be operational at the applicant's address during the summer billing months, is true and correct. (2) Applications for rate discounts under this Section must be submitted annually in accordance with an administratively established schedule. (3) The discounted rates for customers with electrical durable medical equipment only shall be calculated as follows: a. Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48). b. Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt hour: two and fifty-six fifty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.02560.0259). c. Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. The energy demand charge shall be billed as follows: 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: two and ninety-fivethree and twenty one- hundredths cents ($0.02950.0320). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and eighty-nine seven and twenty-six one- hundredths cents ($0.06890.0726). -3- 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and five forty-two one-hundredths cents: ($0.10050.1042). d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: two and sixty-onetwo and seventy-six one- hundredths cents ($0.02610.0276). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and twentyforty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.05200.0543). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and three twenty-six one-hundredths ($0.06030.0626). e. In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (4) The discounted rates for customers with medical needs requiring air conditioning only shall be calculated as follows: a. Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48). b. Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt hour: two and fifty-six fifty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.02560.0259). c. Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as follows: 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: two and ninety-twothree and fourteen one- hundredths cents (0.0292$0.0314). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: three and seventy-sevenfour and one one- hundredths cents ($0.03770.0401). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: -4- ten and five forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.10050.1042). d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: four and eighty-two five and five one- hundredths cents ($0.04820.0505). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and twenty forty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.05200.0543). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and three twenty-six one-hundredths cents ($0.06030.0626). e. In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (5) The discounted rates for customers with electrical durable medical equipment and medical needs requiring air conditioning shall be calculated as follows: a. Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48). b. Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt hour: two and fifty-six fifty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.02560.0259). c. Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as follows: 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: one and eighty-ninetwo and five one- hundredths cents ($0.01890.0205). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: two and forty-fivesixty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.02450.0262). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: -5- ten and five forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.10050.1042). d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: two and sixty-oneseventy-six one-hundredths cents ($0.02610.0276). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and twentyforty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.05200.0543). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and three twenty-six one-hundredth cents ($0.06030.0626). e. In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.05) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (6) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no rate established under this Subsection shall reflect a discount exceeding an amount consistent with the use of one hundred fifty (150) kilowatt hours per month for the operation of electrical durable medical equipment or, if applicable, an additional amount consistent with the use of three hundred fifty (350) kilowatt hours per month for air conditioning. (7) A decision that an applicant does not qualify to participate in this program for a medical or financial reason may be appealed to the Utilities Executive Director, who shall, prior to making his or her decision, and as he or she deems appropriate, confer with one (1) or more medical or financial experts in reviewing such appeal. (e) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths two and four tenths cents ($.0190.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. (m) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. (p) Net metering -6- (5) The customer-generator’s consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in SubsectionSubparagraph (c) (3)(a). Section 2. That Sections 26-465 (c), (d), (f) and (m) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-465. Residential demand service, schedule RD (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: seven dollars and twenty-four cents ($7.24). (2) Demand charge, per kilowatt: two dollars and forty-three fifty cents ($2.432.50). (3) Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and eighty-eightninety- one one-hundredths cents ($0.02880.0291). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-twoeighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.03720.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-five seventy- seven one-hundredths cents ($0.03550.0377). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-two and four-tenths cents ($.0190.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to -7- increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) The monthly standby distribution charge shall be one dollar and twenty-one twenty two cents ($1.211.22) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and sixty-three sixty-seven cents ($3.633.67) per kilowatt. (2) In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (m) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 3. That Sections 26-466 (b), (c), (d), and (n) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-466. General service, schedule GS. (b) Applicability. (1) This schedule applies to individual commercial and industrial services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's distribution system; and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in existence prior to January 1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living quarters are served through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five (5) horsepower may be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule applies to an individual single or three-phase service with an energy-only meter and for demand metered services with an average metered demand of not greater than twenty-five (25) kilowatts. (2) This schedule does not apply to single-family, individually metered residential units unless: -8- a. the energy delivered to such a unit is also used for commercial or business use and the commercial/business energy use comprises more than 50% of the total energy use for the unit; and b. the unit is not eligible for a home occupation license as specified in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: a. Single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and sixty- eight cents ($3.68). b. Single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: ten dollars and eighty-three cents ($10.83). c. Three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: five dollars and fifty-nine cents ($5.59). d. Three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: thirteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($13.24). (2) Demand charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: two and sixty-seveneighty-nine one-hundredths cents $0.02670.0289). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: one and thirty-nineforty one- hundredths cents ($0.01390.0140). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: One and eighty-one eighty- four one-hundredths cents ($0.01810.0184). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-twoeighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.03720.0388). -9- b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-five seventy- seven one-hundredths cents ($0.03550.0377). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (6) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-tenthstwo and four-tenths cents ($.0190.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. (n) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 4. That Sections 26-467 (c), (d), (f), and (o) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-467. General service 25, schedule GS25. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: a. Single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and sixty- eight cents ($3.68). b. Single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: ten dollars and eighty-three cents ($10.83). c. Three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: five dollars and fifty-nine cents ($5.59). d. Three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: thirteen dollars and twenty-four cents ($13.24). -10- (2) Demand charge, per kilowatt: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: seven dollars and sevensixty-four cents ($7.077.64). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: four dollars and thirty- sixthirty-eight cents ($4.364.38). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: one and eighty-oneeighty- four one-hundredths cents ($0.01810.0184). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-two eighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.03720.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-fiveseventy- seven one-hundredths cents ($0.03550.0377). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths two and four-tenths cents ($.0190.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) The monthly standby distribution charge shall be four dollars and twenty- seven thirty-five cents ($4.274.35) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. -11- This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be twelve dollars and eighty-one thirteen dollars and five cents ($12.8113.05) per kilowatt. (2) In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (o) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 5. That numbered Section 26-468 (c), (d), (f), (g), (k) and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-468. General service 50, schedule GS50. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: twenty-one dollars and two cents ($21.02). An additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.) may be assessed if telephone communication service is not provided by the customer. (2) Coincident demand charge, per kilowatt: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: ten dollars and thirty-sixeleven dollars and eighteen cents ($10.3611.18). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and seventy- sixeighty cents ($7.767.80). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Distribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: five dollars and fifty- twosixty-five cents ($5.525.65). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: -12- a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-twoeighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.03720.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and fifty-fiveseventy- seven one-hundredths cents ($0.03550.0377). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths two and four-tenths cents ($.0190.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) Standby distribution charge. a. The monthly standby distribution charge shall be four dollars and forty-eightfifty-nine cents ($4.484.59) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be thirteen dollars and forty-fourseventy-six cents ($13.4413.76) per kilowatt. b. In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (2) Standby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by the -13- utility under Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs, as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer as a standby generation and transmission charge. (g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) The excess circuit charge shall be ninety-fiveninety-seven cents ($0.950.97) per contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month. For any metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the excess circuit charge shall be two dollars and eighty-fiveninety-two cents ($2.852.92) per kilowatt. (2) In the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit charge. (k) The distribution facility demand charge used by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the electric distribution system, including customer service and administrative functions, and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand (kW) of a customer's monthly electric use. Under the utility's billing system, cost recovery is based on a twelve-month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve-month use patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings. (1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not be less than seventy (70) percent of the highest distribution facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11) months. (2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines that the calculation described in Paragraph (1) above does not recover the customer's share of the actual distribution facilities costs, the customer's distribution facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing calendar designed to fully recover said customer's share of the distribution facilities costs. (r) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 6. That numbered Sections 26-469 (c), (d), (f), (g), (k) and (s) of the Code of the -14- City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-469. General service 750, schedule GS750. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: sixty-one dollars and ninety-six cents ($61.96). a. Additional charge for each additional metering point: fifty-four dollars and seventy-four cents ($54.74). b. An additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.) for each metering point may be assessed if telephone communication service is not provided by the customer. (2) Coincident demand charge, per kilowatt: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: ten dollars and twentyeleven dollars and one cents ($10.2011.01). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and sixty- foursixty-nine cents ($7.647.69). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Distribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: a. First seven hundred fifty (750) kilowatts: five dollars and forty- fourseventy-three cents ($5.445.73). b. All additional kilowatts: three dollars and twenty-fiveforty-two cents ($3.253.42). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and sixty-seveneighty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.03670.0382). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and forty-nineseventy- one one-hundredths cents ($0.03490.0371). -15- c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths two and four-tenths cents ($.0190.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. (f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) Standby distribution charge. a. The monthly standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and fortyfifty-eight cents ($3.403.58) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be ten dollars and twentyseventy-four cents ($10.2010.74) per kilowatt. b. In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (2) Standby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by the utility under the Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs, as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer as a standby generation and transmission charge. (g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand -16- (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) The excess circuit charge shall be seventy-twoseventy-six cents ($0.720.76) per contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month. For any metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the excess circuit charge shall be two dollars and seventeentwenty-nine cents ($2.172.29) per kilowatt. (2) In the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit charge. (k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facilities demand charge used by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the electric distribution system, including customer service and administrative functions, and it is based on a per-unit rate tied to the peak demand (kW) of a customer's monthly electric use. Under the utility's billing system, cost recovery is based on a twelve-month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve-month use patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings. (1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the highest distribution facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11) months. (2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines that the calculation described in Paragraph (1) above does not recover the customer's share of the actual distribution facilities costs, the customer's distribution facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing calendar designed to fully recover the customer's share of the distribution facilities costs. (s) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date. Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 7. That Section 26-470 through 26-474 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall be renumbered as Sections 26-471 through 26-475 respectively. Section 8. That a new Section 26-470 shall be adopted to read as follows: Sec. 26-470. Substation service, schedule SS. (a) Availability. The Substation service, schedule SS shall be available within the -17- corporate limits of the City and the suburban fringe. (b) Applicability. This schedule applies to customers served directly from a City substation who do not utilize any part of the City’s electric distribution circuits to receive service. This schedule applies only to individual services with an average metered demand of seven hundred fifty (750) kilowatts or greater. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: sixty-one dollars and ninety-six cents ($61.96). (2) Coincident demand charge, per kilowatt: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: ten dollars and eighty-four cents ($10.84). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and fifty-seven cents ($7.57). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (3) Distribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: two dollars and fifty-four cents ($2.54). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and seventy-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0377). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and sixty-six one- hundredths cents ($0.0366). c. The meter reading date shall generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. (5) In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of two and four-tenths cents ($.024) per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance -18- the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council- adopted policy applicable to the utility. (e) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) Standby distribution charge. a. The monthly standby distribution charge shall be two dollars and twenty-eight cents ($2.28) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be six dollars and eighty-three cents ($6.83) per kilowatt. b. In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of the new contract period will become the current billing month and such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby service. (2) Standby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by the utility under the Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs, as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer as a standby generation and transmission charge. (f) Service charge. Service charges and connection fees shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b). (g) Conservation assistance, rebates and incentives. The utility may establish programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers in order to reduce energy consumption or system peak demands consistent with Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility. Such programs may include financial or technical assistance, incentives or rebates and shall be consistent with program objectives approved by the Utilities Executive Director. (h) Coincident demand. The coincident demand for any month shall be the customer's sixty-minute integrated kilowatt demand recorded at the hour coincident with the monthly system peak demand for Platte River Power Authority. The monthly system peak demand for Platte River Power Authority shall be the maximum coincident sum of the measured demands for the participating -19- municipalities recorded during the billing month. (i) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facilities demand charge used by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the City’s electric system including customer service and administrative functions, and it is based on a per-unit rate tied to the peak demand (kW) of a customer's monthly electric use. Under the utility's billing system, cost recovery is based on a twelve- month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve-month use patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings. (1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the highest distribution facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11) months. (2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines that the calculation described in Paragraph (1) above does not recover the customer's share of the actual distribution facilities costs, the customer's distribution facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing calendar designed to fully recover the customer's share of the distribution facilities costs. (j) Interruptible service. Interruptible service may be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions described in a special services agreement between the customer and the utility. (k) Power factor adjustment. Power factor shall be determined by using watt and volt-ampere reactive measurements collected by the electric meter at the point of service. The power factor calculated from such measurements shall be the basis of billing adjustment until satisfactory correction has been made. Review shall be conducted on a monthly basis by the utility. If the power factor falls below ninety- percent lagging, a power factor adjustment may be made by increasing the coincident and distribution facilities demand by one (1) percent for each one (1) percent or fraction thereof by which the power factor is less than ninety-percent lagging. This adjustment shall be based on the power factor at the time of maximum demand as recorded during the billing period. (l) Service rights fee in certain annexed areas. A fee for defraying the cost of acquisition of service rights from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (PVREA) shall be charged for each service in areas annexed into the City after April 22, 1989, if such area was previously served by PVREA. The service rights fee will be collected monthly for a period of ten (10) consecutive years following the date of acquisition by the City of electric facilities in such area from PVREA. If service was previously provided by PVREA, the fee shall be twenty-five (25) percent of charges for electric -20- power service. For services that come into existence in the affected area after date of acquisition, the fee shall be five (5) percent of charges for electric power service. In the event that the City Council has determined that a reduction of the service rights fee is justified in order to mitigate the economic impacts to a lot or parcel of land at the time of annexation of said lot or parcel of land, the service rights fee charged pursuant to this Subsection may be reduced by the City Council pursuant to a schedule set forth in the ordinance annexing said parcel or lot. The service rights fee charged pursuant to this Subsection shall not be subject to the charge in lieu of taxes and franchise otherwise required in this Subsection. (m) Special services. Special services or complex service arrangements that are beyond those required for service under this rate schedule may be arranged by a written services agreement that the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and enter into on behalf of the utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and conditions for any special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable. Any special services agreement modifying the rates, fees or charges for said services from those set forth in this Article shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Section 6 of Article XII of the Charter. (n) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3: Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (v) below, and the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection. (o) Commodity delivery. If the electric utility authorizes the delivery of electric capacity or energy utilizing the utility's distribution system under mandatory provisions of state or federal law, a credit will be applied to the customer's monthly electric bill based upon the electric utility's displaced costs as credited to the utility by its supplier of electric energy. Capacity, energy, standby capacity, backup capacity and special services shall be delivered, metered, billed, dispatched and controlled in accordance with a special services agreement with the electric utility. (p) Contract period. The applicant shall take electric service under this or any -21- other applicable schedule which is in effect during the term of the contract subject to adjustment from time to time by the City Council. All contracts under this schedule shall be for twelve (12) months with automatic renewal on a year-to-year basis. The contract may be terminated at the end of the term upon the giving of one (1) year's advance written notice to the City or may be terminated upon the giving of one (1) year's advance written notice to the City in the event of vacation of the premises or a change in ownership or tenant occupancy status. (q) Payment of charges. Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. (r) Rules and regulations. Service supplied under this schedule is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the electric utility rules and regulations as approved by the City Council. Copies may be obtained from the Utility's Customer Service Office. (s) Net metering. (1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing electric energy exclusively with a qualifying facility using a qualifying renewable technology when the generating capacity of the customer-generator's qualifying facility meets the following two (2) criteria: a. the qualifying facility is sized to supply no more than one hundred twenty (120) percent of the customer-generator's average annual electricity consumption at that site, including all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer-generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way; and b. the rated capacity of the qualifying facility does not exceed the customer-generator's service entrance capacity. (2) The energy generated by an on-site qualifying facility and delivered to the utility's electric distribution facility shall be used to offset energy provided by the utility to the customer-generator during the applicable billing period. (3) The customer-generator and electric service arrangements shall be subject to the requirements and conditions described in the City of Fort Collins Utility Services Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System. (4) A customer-generator who receives approval from the electric utility to obtain net metering service shall be subject to the monthly rates described above for this rate schedule. -22- (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c) of this Section. Section 9. That renumbered Section 26-471 (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-470471. Special area floodlighting, schedule FL. (e) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date. Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 10. That renumbered Section 26-472 (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-471472. Traffic signal service, schedule T. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates (including a six-and-zero-tenths-percent charge in lieu of taxes and franchise) are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: seventy-three dollars and sixteen cents ($73.16). (2) Charge, per kilowatt-hour: six and eighteen oneforty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.06180.0642). (3) Service extensions and signal installations made by the utility shall be paid for by the City General Fund, subject to material and installation costs at the time of installation. Section 11. That all amendments to Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 3 pertaining to subsections entitled “Payment of charges” herein are effective 10 days after adoption of this ordinance on second reading and that the remaining amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect for all bills issued with meter readings on or after January 1, 2013. -23- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -24- ORDINANCE NO. 115, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires that the electric development fees be reviewed annually by the City Manager and that the fees be presented to the City Council for approval no less than biennially; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 143, 2011, which established the electric development fees now in effect; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the following adjustments to the electric development fees and charges for all invoices paid on or after January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise electric development fees and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-473 (b) and (c), “Residential electric development fees and charges” of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-473. Residential electric development fees and charges. (b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, dwelling charge and systems modification charge, to be determined as follows: (1) The site footage charge shall be the combined total of: a. four and nine five hundred fifty thousandths cents ($0.049500.04550) per square foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts but excluding the area dedicated public rights-of-way; and Secondary Service Size Charge (up to 65 feet) Plus Per Foot Charge For Each Foot Over 65 1/0 service $ 642.00646.00 $4.654.71/Foot 4/0 service $ 821.00790.00 $5.825.51/Foot 350 kCM Service $ 818.00892.00 $6.547.24/Foot 1/0 Mobile Home Service $503.00505.00 N/A 4/0 Mobile Home Service $646.00624.00 N/A b. ten dollars and eight two cents ($10.0810.02) per lineal foot of the developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway. (2) The dwelling unit charge shall be as follows: a. or a single-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (nonelectric heat), one thousand two hundred eighty-oneseventy- three dollars ($1,281.1,273.) per dwelling unit; b. For a single-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), two thousand one hundred sixty-fivesixty-nine dollars ($2,165.2,169.) per dwelling unit; c. For a multi-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (nonelectric heat), eight hundred fifty-four forty-nine dollars ($854.849.) per dwelling unit; d. For a multi-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), one thousand five hundred nineteeneighteen dollars ($1,519.1,518) per dwelling unit. (3) A system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system modifications will be included in the calculated ECF. (c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for any new or modified residential service shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the related construction or modification. The BSC shall be based upon the current rates as of the time of issuance of the building permit. The BSC shall be the total of the secondary service charges, and any additional charges, determined as follows: (1) The secondary service charge shall be as follows: (2) Actual special costs to the utility of installation of secondary service resulting from site conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such -2- conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete cutting and asphalt replacement. Section 2. That Section 26-474 (b) and (c), “Nonresidential electric development fees and charges” of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-474. Nonresidential electric development fees and charges. (b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, kVA service charge and systems modification charge, to be determined as follows: (1) The site footage charge shall be the combined total of: a. four and ninefive hundred fifty thousandths cents ($0.049500.04550) per square foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts but excluding the area of dedicated public rights-of- way; and b. thirty-eightforty dollars and thirtyeleven cents ($38.3040.11) per lineal foot of the developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway. (2) The kVA service charge shall be determined as follows. a. For customer electric loads served by the utility the kVA service charge shall be: 1. Utility owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be fifty-nine fifty-six dollars and foursixty-eight cents ($59.0456.68) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating. 2. Customer owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be forty-eightforty-six dollars and fifty-ninetwenty-three cents ($48.5946.23) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating. b. For the utility to receive customer generation in excess of the customer’s electric service provided by the utility, the following KVA service charge will also apply: 1. Utility owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be forty-eightforty-six dollars and fifty-nine twenty-three cents ($48.5946.23) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the service load rating as paid per subparagraph (2)a.i. above. Such ratings shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director. -3- 2. Customer owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be thirty-eight thirty-five dollars and nine seventy-three cents ($38.0935.73) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the service load rating paid per subparagraph (2)a.ii.above. Such ratings shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director. (3) A system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system modifications will be included in the calculated ECF. (c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for extending primary circuitry to the transformer for any new or modified nonresidential service shall be invoiced and paid in the same manner and at the same time as the ECF is invoiced and paid pursuant to Subsection (a) of this Section. The BSC shall be the total of the primary circuit charge, transformer installation charge and any additional charges, determined as follows: (1) The primary circuit charge for service from the utility source to the transformer shall be as follows: a. for single-phase service, a charge of nine dollars and fifteeneighteen cents ($9.159.18) per foot of primary circuit; b. for three-phase service, a charge of eighteenseventeen dollars and zeroninety-five cents ($18.17.95) per foot of primary circuit. (2) The transformer installation charge shall be as follows: a. for single-phase service, a charge of one thousand twothree hundred seventy-eight dollars ( $1,278.1,300.) per transformer; b. for three-phase service, a charge of two thousand three hundred eighty-five dollars ($2,385.2,380.) per transformer. (3) Actual special costs to the utility of installation of service resulting from site conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete cutting and asphalt replacement. Section 3. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect for all invoices paid on or after January 1, 2013. -4- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Jason Licon Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2012, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2013 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $803,600, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each City), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2013 Airport budget and totals $401,800. This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $702,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2013 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,405,000, will be used to complete major Airport improvements, such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, located approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown Fort Collins, just west of Interstate 25 on Earhart Road. The Airport is operated as a joint venture between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-making and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport. The Airport’s mission is to provide a safe and efficient air transportation airport facility to the general public and aviation community by providing airport facilities that meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety standards and to implement a plan that ensures the efficient development of the Airport to meet the needs of the Fort Collins and Loveland communities. Airport revenues cover operating costs and capital projects. Each city contributes equal funding for Airport operating and capital costs. Airport development and improvement funds are also received, for eligible projects, from the FAA and the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. The annual operating costs for 2013 for the Airport are $803,600, and the City of Fort Collins contribution is $401,800. In addition, the Airport Manager is recommending additional capital expenditures and has identified the following funding sources: FAA Entitlement Grant $1,000,000 State Grant 305,000 Airport Revenues 100,000 Total $1,405,000 The additional capital expenditures will be to continue aircraft parking apron phase two improvements and for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development, $1,405,000. Thus, the City of Fort Collins appropriation for the capital expenditures identified above is $702,500 (50% of the total). FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance appropriates the City’s 50% share ($1,104,300) of the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2013 for Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport budget. The City of Loveland manages the Airport’s budget and finances; however, ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 23 since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50% portion of the Airport budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation 10/11/2012 1 Fort Collins City Council Meeting October 16, 2012 Airport Budget • The proposed 2013 budget is $803,600 – $435,890 is total for personnel cost for 5.5 FTE – $36,700 for supplies • Office, computer, fuel, paint, electrical, landscaping, safety, building, etc. – $331,010 for purchased services • Utilities, support services, training, meetings, insurance, vehicle maintenance, assessments, postage, etc. ATTACHMENT 1 10/11/2012 2 Historical Airport Operational Expenses Airport Operational Expenses • Expenses have increased due to airport growth and regulatory requirements • Regulations regarding airport safety and security have become more burdensome requiring additional staffing and funding • Allegiant’s decision will have little effect on required regulatory compliance 10/11/2012 3 Projected Budgetary Shortfall For 2013 • Commercial air service revenues account for 37% of airport operational revenues • This amounts to $295,000 annually for daily operational income • Another $185,000 in passenger facilities charges (PFC) will be lost until the gap is filled – PFC funding helps pay for local matches on Federal and State grants as well as local projects – PFC funds are use restricted similar to Federal and State Grants, therefore are classified as capital expenditures – Grant match is estimated at $100,000 in 2013 and $50,000 in 2014 Revenue Breakdown 2014 Account Description Budgeted Amount Revenue Reduction Impact Without Commercial Air Service in 2013 Without Commercial Air Service in 2014 Interest On Investments 17,900.00 - - - Gain/Loss On Investments - - - - PFC Interest On Investments - - - - PFC Gain/Loss On Investments - - - - Miscellaneous 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 1,500.00 Cash Over/Short - - - - Bad Debt Collections - - - - Bad Debt Writeoff - - - - Contributions - - - - Airport Commissions 3,000.00 - 3,000.00 3,000.00 ARFF Standby Fees 13,400.00 13,400.00 - - ID Badges 1,800.00 - 1,800.00 1,800.00 Contribution - Loveland 85,000.00 - 85,000.00 85,000.00 Contribution - Fort Collins 85,000.00 - 85,000.00 85,000.00 Terminal 500.00 - 500.00 500.00 Fbo Rent 57,000.00 - 57,000.00 57,000.00 Gas & Oil Commissions 135,000.00 28,670.00 106,330.00 106,330.00 T-Hanger Rental 90,000.00 - 90,000.00 90,000.00 Land Lease 125,000.00 - 125,000.00 125,000.00 Parking 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - State Aircraft Fuel Tax 50,000.00 - 50,000.00 50,000.00 Landing Fees 28,000.00 28,000.00 - - Terminal Lease 25,000.00 25,000.00 - - Passenger Facility Charge 185,000.00 185,000.00 - - Contribution - FAA 1,000,000.00 - 1,000,000.00 150,000.00 Contribution - State Of CO 400,000.00 - 400,000.00 400,000.00 2,503,100.00 480,070.00 2,005,130.00 1,155,130.00 2013 10/11/2012 4 Year FAA Grant # (date) FAA Amount Granted State Grant # State Match Amount Granted Additional State Granted Airport Match FAA Expense (PFC Funds Used) Airport Match State Expense Airport Actual Operating Budget Cities Contribution to Operations PFC Collected ‐ Actual* Non PFC Revenue Airline Related* 2003 AIP18 (2003‐2005) $ 200,055.00 03‐18‐12/9 $ 7,555.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 11,114.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,006,217.82 $ 120,000.00 $ 11.68 2004 04‐13‐13/10 $ 17,013.00 $ 8,710.00 $ ‐ $ 2,177.00 $ 1,134,374.62 $ 120,000.00 $ 22,956.78 $ 176,964.22 2005 AIP19 (2005) $ 1,150,000.00 05‐14‐14/11 $ 30,263.00 $ 31,500.00 $ ‐ $ 7,875.00 $ 1,180,045.97 $ 120,000.00 $ 147,780.57 $ 191,701.43 2006 AIP20 (2006) $ 4,700,000.00 06‐12‐15/12 $ 121,776.00 $ 128,183.00 $ 121,776.00 $ 37,045.00 $ 1,208,678.14 $ 120,000.00 $ 145,374.85 $ 176,350.15 2007 AIP21 (2007) $ 1,000,000.00 07‐18‐16/3 $ 26,316.00 $ 223,684.00 $ 26,316.00 $ 55,921.00 $ 1,225,915.43 $ 120,000.00 $ 96,316.60 $ 186,238.40 2008 AIP22 (2008) $ 741,606.00 08‐FNL‐01 $ 19,501.00 $ 127,600.00 $ 19,501.00 $ 31,900.00 $ 1,757,442.31 $ 170,000.00 $ 135,649.90 $ 177,250.10 AIP23 (2008) $ 258,394.00 08‐FNL‐01 $ 6,799.00 $ ‐ $ 6,799.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 08‐FNL‐02 $ 131,500.00 $ 32,875.00 2009 AIP24 & 25 (2009) $ 1,000,000.00 09‐FNL‐01 $ 26,316.00 $ 223,684.00 $ 26,316.00 $ 55,921.00 $ 1,667,181.28 $ 170,000.00 $ 139,255.19 $ 191,676.00 AIP26 ARRA (2009 $ 549,000.00 2010 AIP27 & 28 (2010) $ 1,000,000.00 10‐FNL‐01 $ 26,316.00 $ 221,731.00 $ 26,316.00 $ 55,432.00 $ 774,300.09 $ 170,000.00 $ 139,518.59 $ 256,517.41 10‐FNL‐I10 $ 14,650.00 $ 14,650.00 2011 AIP29 $ 6,661,218.00 11‐FNL‐01 $ 175,295.00 $ 224,705.00 $ 299,295.00 $ 44,444.00 $ 740,210.00 $ 170,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 267,612.41 Sub‐Totals $ 17,260,273.00 $ 457,150.00 $ 1,347,947.00 $ 537,433.00 $ 341,240.00 $ 10,694,365.66 $ 1,280,000.00 $ 1,006,864.16 $ 1,624,310.12 Capital Expenditures 2003‐2011 % Operating Expenditures 2003‐2011 % Total FAA $17,260,273.00 86.5% Airport Generated $9,414,365.66 88.1% Total CDOT $1,805,097.00 9.1% Cities Contributions $1,280,000.00 11.9% Total PFC $537,433.00 2.7% Total Cities $341,240.00 1.7% TOTAL AIRPORT OPERATING $10,694,365.66 100.0% TOTAL $19,944,043.00 100% TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 2003‐2011 % 2003 10,307 FAA $ 17,260,273.00 56.3% 2004 31,928 CDOT $ 1,805,097.00 5.9% 2005 34,669 PFC $ 537,433.00 1.8% 2006 32,847 OWNER CAPTIAL $ 341,240.00 1.1% 2007 28,315 NON OWNER OPERATING $ 9,414,365.66 30.7% 2008 31,094 OWNER OPERATING (NON AIRPORT FUNDS) $ 1,280,000.00 4.2% 2009 31,079 2010 35,671 TOTAL AIRPORT EXPENDITURES $ 30,638,408.66 100% 2011 44,999 ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF 2013 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS FOR THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, in 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland (the “Cities”) agreed to establish a regional general aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and WHEREAS, the Airport is operated as a joint venture between the Cities, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-making and management, and assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated May 16, 2000, between the Cities for the joint operation of the Airport (the “IGA”), the Airport Manager is responsible for preparing the Airport’s annual operating budget and submitting it to the Cities for their approval; and WHEREAS, the Airport Manager has submitted for City Council consideration a 2013 Airport operating budget totaling $803,600 and the City’s share is $401,800; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to authorize the City of Loveland to appropriate the City’s share of the necessary funds for operating costs of the Airport, totaling $401,800, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Airport Manager recommends the following capital improvements for 2013, totaling $1,405,000, that are not included in the 2012 Airport operating budget: Taxiway Improvements and Utility Master Planning and Design Engineering $1,405,000 WHEREAS, funding for the 2013 capital improvements has been identified as follows: FAA Entitlement Grants $ 1,000,000 State Grant 305,000 Airport Revenues 100,000 Total $ 1,405,000 WHEREAS, the City’s 50% share of the 2013 capital improvement costs is $702,500; and WHEREAS, under the IGA, the City’s share of existing and unanticipated Airport revenue will be held and disbursed by the City of Loveland as an agent on behalf of the Cities since the City of Loveland provides finance and accounting services for the Airport; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b), of the City Charter, any expense or liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2013 Airport operating budget. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of FOUR HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($401,800) to be expended to defray the operating costs of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of SEVEN HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($702,500) to be used for 2013 capital improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Josh Birks, Bruce Hendee SeonAh Kendall AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-096 Approving an Agreement Between the City and Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing, Inc., to Provide Business Investment Assistance for Phase Two of the Building Four Retrofit. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution considers a Business Investment Agreement between the City and Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing, Inc. (Avago Technologies). The Avago Technologies project will consist of building out the remaining 12,160 square feet space in Building #4 and making substantial equipment purchases on their Fort Collins campus, representing an investment of approximately $165 million and 135 new jobs. The Agreement provides two investments: (1) a use tax rebate (expected to span two years) on manufacturing equipment purchased as part of the expansion; and (2) a personal property tax rebate on the same equipment for ten years. The City of Fort Collins’ Business Investment Agreement requires Avago Technologies to meet several performance metrics: (1) the continued operations of Building #4 for manufacturing for a minimum duration of the rebated years, (2) purchase certain equipment that add substantial value to the Fort Collins property, and (3) the creation of 135 new jobs at their Fort Collins campus. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur within the City. In terms of evaluating the investment agreement, the ratio of private investment to total public investment is $27:$1. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION NOTE: The Economic Health Office (EHO) recognizes the need for continued improvement of the process of developing economic assistance packages. To that end, EHO has made several refinements to the process and agreements in the past nine months. However, these improvements are not sufficient alone. The EHO plans to develop a complete framework to guide the economic assistance process, specifically tax rebates. The framework will include improved evaluation criteria, an enhanced economic impact analysis model (including both revenues and costs), and refined performance measures. Tentatively, the EHO plans to present a draft framework to City Council at the January 22, 2013 work session. In the meantime, the EHO will continue to improve the process and agreements where feasible while working through the projects in the pipeline. The City of Fort Collins does not enter into Business Investment Agreements lightly. In the last 7 years, the Economic Health Office (EHO) has brought forth three Business Investment Agreements. The EHO anticipates bringing forth two similar packages – the current Avago Technologies agreement before Council and another one in the near future. Negotiations with company representatives started in early 2012. Avago Technologies reviewed three sites – Fort Collins, CO, Texas, and Singapore. The collaboration between with city, county and state has allowed Fort Collins to stay competitive within the site selection process. City staff reviewed City Plan as its guiding principal in negotiations. City Plan policy EH 1.1 reiterates the importance of supporting the enhancement of the community’s economic base and job creation by focusing on retention, expansion, incubation and recruitment efforts that bring jobs and import income or dollars to the community, particularly businesses in the adopted Target Industry Clusters. Avago Technologies is a vital employer in the Technology (Chip R&D) Cluster. The importance of business support and talent management is also reiterated in the newly adopted Economic Health Strategic Plan. As stated in the previous paragraph, the total assistance package includes collaboration between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, and the State of Colorado. The City of Fort Collins’ total investment package has a value of approximately $4.5 million, with the overall investment package valued at approximately $5.9 million. City Council is being asked to consider the City of Fort Collins’ portion of the incentive package of approximately $4.5 million. Of the City’s approximately $4.5 million incentives proposed, $1.3 million is presently allowable through the existing manufacturing use tax rebate (MUTR) policy. The 1.5 percent rebate allowable through the MUTR policy is subject to annual review and subsequent approval by the City’s Financial Officer per City code. The additional $2.6 million in manufacturing use tax rebates and $629,100 of personal property tax rebates (over a 10-year period) need City Council approval. The State of Colorado’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) has earmarked $337,500 in Strategic Funds and $116,800 in Colorado First Training grants. The Larimer County October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 24 Commissioners are reviewing the request for $930,100 on personal property tax rebates over 5 years. Larimer County is expected to make their decision after approval from the City of Fort Collins City Council. Over the next 10 years, the company’s investment will directly generate an estimated $2.6 million in tax revenues after the rebates for the City of Fort Collins. This revenue includes the sales and use tax on construction materials, real and personal property taxes on the new building and equipment, and additional sales tax revenues over the rebated period generated by the direct and indirect jobs created by the expansion. The diversified jobs (from technicians to engineers) created by Avago Technologies will assist in alleviating some of the skills mismatch identified in the Economic Health Strategic Plan. In addition, the ripple effects of the expansion through spin-off jobs as employees spend their paychecks in the region on food, clothing, and other goods and services. In 2006, the City of Fort Collins commissioned a study to evaluate the geographic concentration and interconnectedness of companies within the community in order to determine potential industry clusters. The study identified several existing and emerging industry clusters. The identified clusters were modified into five targeted industry clusters, which became the focus of job creation activities. These clusters included: Clean Energy, Bioscience, Technology (Hardware & Software), Water Innovation, and Uniquely Fort Collins. On August 17, 2010, the City of Fort Collins adopted a Resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager to continue to support the following: participating in the formation and development of cluster initiatives relating to the identified targeted industries of the City; working with regional partners and local business entities to develop strategic plans for the clusters, and; supporting the advancement of the plans as they are implemented for the purpose of primary job retention, expansion, and creation. In June 2012, the City of Fort Collins adopted the Economic Health Strategic Plan (EHSP) as a continuous evolution of the previous economic planning efforts. The EHSP has identified four goals as the pillars of the plan: 1. Facilitate a stronger support network for existing employers, new businesses, and small business; 2. Enhance the innovation ecosystem and the economy that supports companies at all stages and aligns with City goals; 3. Create a system for talent development, retention and recruitment that responds to and anticipates employers’ needs; 4. Develop community assets and infrastructure necessary to support the region’s employers and talent. This Resolution addresses the Economic Health Office’s goal of facilitating a stronger support network for existing employers, new businesses, and small business by diversifying the employment and tax base of the community. In addition, the EHSP acknowledges the negative economic and community impact of a primary employer closing or relocating outside of the City of Fort Collins. COMPANY BACKGROUND Avago Technologies has a 50-year history of innovation dating back to its origin within Hewlett-Packard Company (HP). The company began as HP's components division back in the early 1960s, and thrived there for three decades. When HP spun off Agilent Technologies in 1999, the company became Agilent's Semiconductor Products Group (SPG) and expanded into new markets and applications. In late 2005, SPG was acquired by several private equity partners and Avago Technologies was founded. Avago Technologies is a leading global supplier of analog interface components for wireless, wireline, and industrial applications. Over the years, Avago has assembled a team of over 2,000 design and product engineers, and maintains highly collaborative design and product development resources around the world that have resulted in the development of numerous innovative technologies. Avago Technologies currently employs approximately 700 people in Fort Collins. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE The City of Fort Collins’ Economic Health Office (EHO) does not use a “one size fits all” approach when it comes to Business Investment Agreements. The request for tax incentives involves a multi-step process. After initial contact/request and investigation, the EHO drafts a package based on detailed information from the company in regard to estimated costs for expansion and/or relocation, estimated new jobs, etc. After development of the Business Investment Agreement, the Economic Health Director and staff present the information to the Economic Advisory Commission and the Council Finance Committee for their feedback and recommendations. After feedback and recommendations from these committees, the Business Investment Agreement is presented to City Council for their consideration. October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 24 The Business Investment Agreement being offered to Avago Technologies is consistent with both the EHSP and the City Council directives: • The proposed Business Investment Agreement rebates tax revenues generated by the project; without the project these revenues would not be received by the City. • The EHSP clearly identifies business retention and expansion as a principal goal for the City’s job creation efforts over business attraction; the proposed expansion supports this goal. • City Plan calls for creating a diversity of jobs that enables citizens and businesses to thrive; the proposed expansion provides an array of jobs and salary ranges. Most importantly, the expansion creates much needed high-tech manufacturing jobs. It should be noted that Council has not yet approved the proposed Business Investment Agreement, but if approved, expenditures are expected to occur in 2013-14. The EHO is responsible for putting in a Budget Offer for this project. If that Offer is bought, the appropriation (authorization to spend up to that amount) will be complete. However, Council will still be required to authorize the Business Investment Agreement and appropriation. Revenue expected to be budgeted for this deal is being budgeted in 2013-14 in an isolated funding source account. Payments would only be made up to a maximum of the offer amount and would be dependent upon the deal specific revenue received. PROJECT OVERVIEW Avago Technologies plans on building out the remaining 12,160 sq ft of clean room space in Building #4 and making substantial equipment purchase on their Fort Collins campus. The initial package was submitted to Avago Technologies confidentially. The final assistance package includes additional estimated assistance incentives from both the State of Colorado and Larimer County. These incentives will ultimately require the approval of their respective groups. In the case of the State Strategic Funds, the Colorado Economic Development Commission earmarked $337,500 for this project on March 8, 2012. Additionally, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) have earmarked $116,800 in Colorado First training grants on March 23, 2012. A formal application from Avago Technologies will be required to finalize both of these state incentives. The Larimer County Commissioners will review the request for personal property tax rebate assistance. The City of Fort Collins’ Economic Health Office has met with the Larimer County Manager and Assistant Manager to discuss the process and timeline for the assistance package. In May 2012, the Economic Health Director gave an initial presentation to the Larimer County Commissioners and the Commissioners asked that this be brought forth after City of Fort Collins City Council approval. Since Larimer County has a new County Manager, on June 6, 2012, the Economic Health Director has had a follow-up discussion with County Manager Hoffmann about Avago Technologies Business Assistance Package. The City of Fort Collins uses a variety of local investments to assist primary employers with expansion efforts. The total value of the proposed investment package is approximately $5.9 million and includes local, county and state investments (approximately $4.6 million in local investment, $930,100 in county investment, and $454,300 in state investment). Of the City’s approximate $4.5 million proposed incentives, $1.3 million is presently allowable through the existing MUTR policy. The 1.5 percent rebate allowable through the MUTR policy is subject to annual review and subsequent approval by the City’s Financial Officer per City code. The additional $2.6 million in manufacturing use tax rebates and $629,100 of personal property tax rebates (over a 10-year period) need City Council approval. The use tax rebate includes a rebate for a full 3.0 percent, and will disqualify Avago Technologies for additional manufacturing use tax rebate on the same equipment. This results in an approximate $3.9 million savings on the proposed equipment costs. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur within the City. The ratio of private investment to overall total public investment is $27:$1. The package includes the following items shown in Table 1: October 16, 2012 -4- ITEM 24 Table 1: Business Assistance Package Overview It should be noted that the Business Investment Agreement is a performance-based offer. Avago Technologies must make certain equipment purchases adding substantial value to their Fort Collins property (Table 2), maintain manufacturing operations for at least the duration of the rebated years, and meet certain job creation criteria (Table 3) in order to receive their rebates. The Agreement includes a payback mechanism by Avago Technologies if performance requirements are not met. The City of Fort Collins has modeled the job creation criteria on the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade’s (OEDIT) Strategic Fund. OEDIT’s requirements state that “each net new permanent FTE jobs shall be in addition to Grantee’s existing employees/positions in Colorado….and shall be maintained for at least one year after such employee’s hire date…” Avago Technologies will work cooperatively with the Economic Health Office to verify jobs created (The Economic Health Offices’ Jobs Creation Performance Standards can be found in Exhibit D of the Business Investment Agreement). Table 2: Equipment Location Table 3: Anticipated Jobs October 16, 2012 -5- ITEM 24 The proposed expansion is anticipated to add 135 jobs including: • 10 Engineers with a starting pay of $100,000 annually; • 22 Technicians with a starting pay of $60,000 annually; • 5 Professional level support staff (e.g., procurement engineers, finance, facility support) with a starting pay of $70,000 annually; and • 98 Hourly Operators with a starting pay of $30,000 annually (base salary calculation does not include benefits or overtime and shift premiums). • For a combined annual income of approximately $5.6 million. Furthermore, Avago Technologies will work cooperatively with the City of Fort Collins’ Sales Tax Department, which is responsible for audits of the submitted use tax rebates. Avago Technologies will provide a second schedule as part of their monthly use tax returns that reflect estimated monthly manufacturing equipment expenditures for this project. The purpose of the second schedule is to allow the Sales Tax Department to isolate revenues collected that are earmarked for rebate to the company. The City of Fort Collins and Avago Technologies agree that this separate second schedule is an estimate and will need to be adjusted at the end of the year. The estimated monthly manufacturing equipment expenditure schedule would be due by the end of each month. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Jon Roberts, Managing Director, and Caroline Alexander, Consultant, of TIP Strategies prepared a Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Avago Technologies planned clean room expansion (Attachment 2). The following summarizes the expected revenue to the City of Fort Collins generated by the expansion: • The combined Personal and Real Property taxes generated over a 10 year period will result in $1.2 million revenue collected by the City of Fort Collins. • Construction activity will generate 129 construction jobs and 144 equipment installation jobs during the duration of the project. These initial jobs are expected to generate another 127 spillover jobs across the economy. • Construction will generate an additional $462,000 in sales and use tax revenues on materials and likely infuse $18.1 million in earnings into the regional economy. • The 135 direct new jobs created for this clean room build-out will support an additional 135 spinoff jobs. An average salary for the 135 direct new jobs created is estimated at $41,500, with 37 of the 135 new jobs starting at a salary at or above $60,000 and 98 of the new jobs starting at a salary of $30,000 or more. The 135 direct new job average salaries do not include healthcare and other benefits provided by Avago Technologies to their employees. • The Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis recognizes that addition sales tax and property tax revenue will be generated by the spin-off jobs; however, the analysis provides a conservative estimate of economic impact and does not estimate these revenues. The proposed Business Investment Agreement outlines the expected expenditures anticipated by the City of Fort Collins: • All of the estimated $3.9 million in use tax revenue collected on the purchase of the manufacturing equipment will be rebated (note: Avago Technologies will not be eligible for additional MUTR on the same equipment from this expansion); • Half of the estimated $1,258,200 in annual Personal Property Tax revenue collected on equipment will be rebated for ten years for a total of approximately $629,100 (Attachment 5); • Avago Technologies will take advantage of the Integrated Design Assistance offered by the City of Fort Collins for a savings of $12,500. Note: other direct costs for infrastructure improvements (such as streets and utilities) were upgraded during the original construction of Building #4, which are now sunk costs. Net impact of the Business Investment Agreement is approximately $2.6 million in new revenue to the City of Fort Collins or a $27:$1 comparison of private investment to total public investment ratio, as shown in Table 4. October 16, 2012 -6- ITEM 24 Table 4: Estimated Revenue, Rebate, and Net Revenue for the City of Fort Collins ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Avago Technologies anticipates an additional usage of 2 MW of electric power at build out and about 30M gal of water, but that will come back to a 16M gal once the new system is running (estimated 3 month spike). Water is essential to the operations of Avago Technologies’ Fort Collins facility as it is used in many of the processes, as well as the cooling towers. The total usage will still be below Avago Technologies peak of several years ago. Existing infrastructure is already in place to support these increases. City staff has determined Avago’s usage of overall City electricity is 5% and water is approximately 3%. In addition, Avago Technologies continually works with the City of Fort Collins’ Utilities and Integrated Design Assistance program to improve energy efficiencies. Furthermore, Avago Technologies g. Avago Technologies is a Platinum ClimateWise partner with the City of Fort Collins, the Environmental Protection Agency Gold “Environmental Leaders,” and a charter member of the Colorado Industrial Energy Council group sponsored by the Governor’s office. Avago Technologies is currently in their 3rd year of a 5-year commitment to reduce electric utility consumption on a “per unit basis,” and are currently at 30% reduction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Negotiations of the planned Avago Technologies expansion and related Business Investment Agreement were conducted confidentially. The Economic Health Office presented the Business Investment Agreement before the Council Finance Committee on June 18, 2012 and was asked to review and clarify information in regard to the environmental impact and direct costs associated with Project Beta. The request for clarification has been addressed in this agenda item summary. The Economic Advisory Commission was first introduced to the project under the code name “Project Beta” on May 16, 2012. The Economic Advisory Commission had a second discussion in regard to Project Beta on June 20, 2012 and unanimously passed 6-0 their support of the assistance package (Attachment 3). The commission believes that the Avago Technology’s investment creates financially attractive employment and the resulting skills add to our community’s technical exposure for other companies engaged in this technology segment. Furthermore, this awareness enhances the quality of Northern Colorado’s employer portfolio for prospecting and closing other high quality companies’ interest in the region. October 16, 2012 -7- ITEM 24 PUBLIC OUTREACH Negotiations of the planned Avago Technologies expansion and related Business Assistance Package were conducted confidentially. ATTACHMENTS 1. Local Employment Investment Package, Project Beta: Incremental Clean Room Expansion, prepared by City of Fort Collins, updated August 8, 2012 (This item is no longer confidential) 2. Fiscal and Economic Impact for Project Beta, Jon Roberts and Caroline Alexander, TIP Strategies, June 1, 2012 3. Economic Advisory Committee minutes, June 20, 2012 4. Schedule of Rebates, City of Fort Collins Finance Department, July 9, 2012 5. Avago Building 4 Expansion Context Map 6. Avago Building 4 Expansion Location Map 7. Statement of Request, Avago Technologies 8. Powerpoint presentation Economic Health Office 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com LOCAL EMPLOYMENT INVESTMENT PACKAGE Project Beta: Incremental Clean Room Expansion Prepared for: Ted Kevranian, Director Travel, Real Estate & Workplace Services Avago Technologies, 350 West Trimble Road, San Jose, CA 95131 Steve Wolley Avago Technologies 4380 Ziegler Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: Economic Health Office City of Fort Collins August 2, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Investment Package Overview ................................................................................................. 1 Final Build-Out Building #4 .................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 3 Final Build-Out Building #4 .................................................................................................... 3 Manufacturing Investments ....................................................................................................... 4 Equipment Use Tax Rebate .................................................................................................. 4 Personal Property Tax Rebate .............................................................................................. 5 Expedited Development Review ........................................................................................... 6 Utility Investments ..................................................................................................................... 6 Integrated Design Assistance Program ................................................................................. 6 Additional Circuit Capacity .................................................................................................... 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 Investment Package Overview The City of Fort Collins uses a variety of local investments to assist primary employers with expansion efforts. The City does not employ a one size fits all approach to developing investment packages. Instead, the City chooses to work collaboratively with each primary employer and build a package that is specific to the individual needs. This approach is designed to result in a better outcome for all parties. Staff will seek City Council approval once Avago Technologies has made a decision regarding the expansion project, since a portion of this package is contingent upon City Council approval. This offer includes estimated incentives from both the State of Colorado and Larimer County. These incentives will ultimately require the approval of their respective groups. In the case of the State Strategic Funds, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) earmarked funds for this project on March 8, 2012. In addition, on March 23, 2012, the OEDIT have earmarked $116,800 over three years in Colorado First Job Training Grants. A formal application will be required to finalize the incentive. The County Commissioners will review the request for Personal Property Tax assistance after Avago indicates they are moving ahead with the project. On May 8, Larimer County Commissioners discussed potential participation in the project. The Commissioners were generally supportive of the opportunity and directed staff to bring the item forward for formal consideration. At this time, the Commissioners have not scheduled the item for consideration. The City of Fort Collins City Council will consider the incentive package on August 21, 2012. The total value of the package as shown is approximately $6 million, summarized below: Final Build-Out Building #4  $337,500 in State of Colorado Strategic Funds, earmarked by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade on March 8, 2012;  $116,800 in Colorado First job training grants over a 3 year period; earmarked by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade on March 23, 2012;  Approximately $3.9 million in Equipment Use Tax rebate on the initial manufacturing tool purchases associated with the project;  Up to $930,100 in County Personal Property Tax savings on manufacturing equipment over a 5 year period;  Up to $628,900 in City Personal Property Tax savings on manufacturing equipment over a 10 year period;  Expedited review and commitment by City Staff to Avago’s desired timeline;  New electric capacity valued at approximately $97,200 for 2.0 MVA; and  Free Integrated Design Assistance valued at $12,500 to improve operating efficiencies. 2 Table 1 Investment Package Overview One Time Investments Total State: Strategic Fund (Earmarked March 8, 2012) $2,500 / Job 135 Jobs $337,500 State: CO First Job Training Grants (Earmarked March 23, 2012) $116,800 City: Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $3,882,200 Utilities: Value of Additional Capacity $97,200 Utilities: Integrated Design Assistance $12,500 Total One Time $4,446,200 On-Going Investments Duration Total County: Personal Property Tax Rebate 5 Years $ 930,100 City: Personal Property Tax Rebate 10 Years $ 628,900 Total On-Going $1,559,000 Grand Total All Investments $6,005,200 Source: City of Fort Collins - Economic Health Build-Out Building #4 3 Project Description Avago Technologies is seriously considering building incremental clean room space at the Fort Collins site to support new business. The incremental expansion under consideration consists of building out the remaining space in Building #4 of the campus. The City of Fort Collins has based their analysis of potential business investments upon the following project characteristics: Final Build-Out Building #4  Build-out approximately 12,500 square feet of clean room space in Building #4;  Approximately $20.00 million in construction costs;  Approximately $130 million in manufacturing tools and installation cost;  Approximately $15 million in equipment installation1;  An additional 30.0 million gallons in annual water use or an increase of 15 percent; and  An additional 2.0 megawatts (MW) of electric capacity. Furthermore, the proposed expansion is anticipated to add approximately 135 jobs including:  10 Engineers with a starting pay of $100,000 annually;  22 Technicians with a starting pay of $60,000 annually;  5 Professional level support staff (e.g. procurement engineers, finance, facility support) with a starting pay of $70,000 annually; and  98 Operators with a starting pay of $30,000 annually.  For a combined annual income of approximately $5.6 million. Finally, construction of the expansion is anticipated to support additional jobs during the construction period:  Approximately 120 jobs at an average salary of $52,000 per year  An additional 80 spin off jobs earning an average salary of $35,000; and  Approximately 130 jobs associated with the placement and commissioning of manufacturing equipment at an average salary of $52,000 for a period of four to six months. 1 Assumes installation cost represent approximately 10.5 percent of estimated manufacturing tool costs. 4 Manufacturing Investments Equipment Use Tax Rebate The proposed expansion project includes approximately $129.5 million in manufacturing tool purchases. These purchases typically require a use tax payment of $3.9 million based on a 3.0 percent tax rate; however, City policy currently rebates up to half of the use tax. The proposed investment package includes a rebate for the full 3.0 percent. This results in an approximate $3.9 million savings on the proposed project costs. The full rebate for the project will require City Council approval. Table 2 Equipment Use Tax Rebate Item Factor Building #4 Estimated Equipment Cost $129,405,000 Local Use Tax Charge 3.0% $3,882,150 Less: Use Tax Rebate to Avago $1,941,075 Less: Council Rebate to Avago $1,941,075 Use Tax Due $0 Source: City of Fort Collins - Economic Health 5 Personal Property Tax Rebate The proposed investment package includes a rebate of Personal Property Tax for the City portion of the personal property tax on manufacturing equipment. The rebate on installed equipment will include 50 percent of the Personal Property Tax related to the proposed expansion project for a 10 year period. This equals approximately $628,900 over a 10 year period, depending on depreciation schedules. Table 3 Personal Property Tax Rebate, Reflects Depreciation – City Factor 29% 9.797 50% Item Estimated Total Equipment Cost $129,405,000 Year 1 $ 32,203,000 $ 315,500 $ (157,700) $ 157,800 Year 2 $ 20,599,000 $ 201,800 $ (100,900) $ 100,900 Year 3 $ 10,950,000 $ 107,300 $ (53,600) $ 53,700 Year 4 $ 9,605,000 $ 94,100 $ (47,100) $ 47,000 Year 5 $ 9,419,000 $ 92,300 $ (46,100) $ 46,200 Year 6 $ 9,602,000 $ 94,100 $ (47,000) $ 47,100 Year 7 $ 9,393,000 $ 92,000 $ (46,000) $ 46,000 Year 8 $ 9,170,000 $ 89,800 $ (44,900) $ 44,900 Year 9 $ 8,885,000 $ 87,000 $ (43,500) $ 43,500 Year 10 $ 8,599,000 $ 84,200 $ (42,100) $ 42,100 Value of Rebate $ 628,900.00 Source: City of Fort Collins - Economic Health Building #4 Assessed Value Annual Property Tax Charge Less: Property Tax Rebate City Annual Property Tax The proposed investment package contemplates a rebate of Personal Property Tax for the County portion of the personal property tax on manufacturing equipment. The County has indicated it would entertain a rebate for up to 50 percent of the tax due for a period of up to 5 years. The final decision on any rebate from the County lies with County Commissioners. The potential value of the rebate is approximately $930,100 over a 5 year period, depending on depreciation schedules. Table 4 Estimated Personal Property Tax Rebate, Reflects Depreciation – County Factor 29% 22.472 50% Item Estimated Total Equipment Cost $129,405,000 Year 1 $ 32,203,000 $ 723,700 $ 361,850 $ 361,850 Year 2 $ 20,599,000 $ 462,900 $ 231,450 $ 231,450 Year 3 $ 10,950,000 $ 246,100 $ 123,050 $ 123,050 Year 4 $ 9,605,000 $ 215,800 $ 107,900 $ 107,900 Year 5 $ 9,419,000 $ 211,700 $ 105,850 $ 105,850 Value of Rebate $ 930,100.00 Source: City of Fort Collins - Economic Health Less: Property Tax Rebate County Annual Property Tax Building #4 Assessed Value Annual Property Tax Charge 6 Expedited Development Review The City will commit to an expedited building permit application process for the final build-out of Building 4. The City will assign a single project manager to assist in moving the project through review and is committed to working with Avago to achieve their desired timeline. Utility Investments Integrated Design Assistance Program The Utilities Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) offers financial incentives and free technical support to those interested in delivering high-performance buildings that exceed building code requirements for energy performance. Owners, architects, engineers, site designers, maintenance personnel, energy consultants and others work together early in the process to create a design that integrates components to achieve optimal building performance. IDAP is available for new commercial buildings and major renovations. These buildings typically:  Cost less to operate  Reduced environmental impacts  Higher levels of occupant satisfaction Additional Circuit Capacity As defined in our proposed contract revision Avago will have adequate capacity to support the new expansion. It is our understanding that the additional load will be approximately 2MW. If this were a greenfield development where the customer would have to purchase the capacity the cost would be $97,180. Building 4 has four bus sections with 4 mains. Assuming the 2.0 MVA of new load would occupy one of the bus sections, we could supply this with one of the circuits currently dead-ended in a vault just outside Building 4. This would require a new primary metering cabinet. MEMORANDUM 106 East 6th Street, Suite 550 Austin, Texas 78701 PH 512.343.9113 FAX 512.343.9190 www.tipstrategies.com t heory into practice 512.343.9113 | www.tipstrategies.com | 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 550, Austin, TX 78701 To: Josh Birks, Director of Economic Health City of Fort Collins From: Jon Roberts, Managing Director Caroline Alexander, Consultant, TIP Strategies Date: June 1, 2012 Subject: Fiscal and Economic Impact of Project Beta Project Background In Project Beta, a company is considering building incremental clean room space at their Fort Collins location. To complete this build-out, they plan to invest $165 million over an 8 month period. Upon completion of the expansion, they expect to hire 136 new employees by 2014. The average salary of these new employees will be $43,897. Summary of Impact Over the next 10 years, the company’s investment will directly generate an estimated $7.0 million in tax revenues for the City of Fort Collins. This revenue includes the use tax on new equipment, the sales & use tax on construction materials, and the real and personal property taxes on the new building and equipment from 2013 to 2022. This investment will also directly generate an estimated $6.1 million in tax revenues for Larimer County, which includes the sales & use tax on construction materials and the real and personal property taxes on the new building and equipment from 2013 to 2022. In addition, the direct and indirect jobs created by the expansion will generate additional sales tax revenues for the City and the County. A conservative estimate for the sales tax revenues generated from 2013 to 2022 would be $919,187 for the City of Fort Collins and $195,341 for Larimer County. (See Fiscal Impact section for a discussion of assumptions used in this estimate). Using an input-output model, we estimated the economic impact of both the construction of the new clean room and the addition of 136 jobs. The construction phase of the project is expected to create 400 jobs (initial, direct, indirect, and induced). Although these jobs are temporary, they are likely to infuse $18.1 million in earnings into the regional economy, or $45,235 per job. The continued operations of the new clean room are expected to create an additional 270 jobs (initial, direct, indirect, and induced) and $20.4 million in earnings or $75,774 per job. Fiscal Impact: City of Fort Collins Larimer County Sales & Use Tax Revenues on Construction Materials (2012) $462,000 $72,000 Use Tax Revenues on New Equipment (2012) 3,900,000 n/a Real Property Taxes (2013-2022) 574,514 1,314,926 Personal Property Taxes (2013- 2022) 2 | P a g e Fiscal Impact The $165 million expansion will create additional tax revenues for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. The largest fiscal impacts on the City and County budget will be in the following forms:  Sales & Use tax on construction materials in 2012  Use tax on new equipment in 2012  Real property taxes on the improvements to the property  Personal property taxes on the new equipment  Sales tax on retail purchases made by new employees We used the INSIGHT Model developed by Arthur Andersen and customized for the State of Colorado by Investment Management Analysis to estimate the fiscal impacts for both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. City of Fort Collins Construction Materials. The company plans to spend $20 million on the construction of the new clean room. We assumed that 60% of the construction budget will be spent on materials, 10% on soft costs, and 30% on labor. From this assumption, we estimate that $12 million will be spent on construction materials subject to the City’s sales & use tax of 3.85%. This yields an estimated $462,000 in revenues. New Equipment. The company plans to spend $130.0 million on purchasing new equipment for the expansion. This purchase will be subject to a use tax of 3.00%, after the rebate of 0.85% on manufacturing equipment. This yields an estimated $3,900,000 in revenues. Real and Personal Property. The INSIGHT Model assumes the market value of the additional real property will be assessed at the construction cost of $20 million and that these improvements to the property will appreciate at a rate of 0.2% going forward. The model also assumes the value of equipment subject to the personal property tax will be $130 million and will depreciate over an economic life of 10 years. The assessment ratio for both real and personal property is 29% and the City’s property tax mill levy is 9.797. Over a 10-year period from 2013 to 2022, this yields $574,514 in real property taxes and $2,075,730 in personal property taxes. Construction Budget: $20,000,000 x % spent on Materials 60% = $ spent on Materials $12,000,000 x Sales & Use Tax Rate 3.85% = Estimated Revenues $462,000 Purchase of Equipment $130,000,000 x Use Tax Rate 3.00% = Estimated Revenues $3,900,000 Assumptions & Inputs: Assessed Value of Real Property 2012 $20,00,000 Assessment Ratio 29% Real Estate Improvement Assessed Value Growth Rate (Industrial Class 3219) 0.2% City Property Tax Mill Levy 9.797 Assessed Value of Personal Property 2012 $130,000,000 Period in Years (2013 – 2022) 10 Average Economic Life in Years 10 Tax Revenues: Real Property Taxes $574,514 Personal Property Taxes on Equipment $2,075,730 3 | P a g e Retail Sales. Using the estimated number of jobs created (direct, indirect, and induced), we calculated an estimate of the increase in sales tax the City of Fort Collins could experience as a result of the increased employment. If the workers directly employed in the expansion of the facility and those workers supported by the expansion spend 35% of their gross income on taxable items and make 55% of their purchases within the City of Fort Collins, the City would receive $919,187 over 10 years. To understand the sensitivity of the City’s sales tax revenues to the assumptions regarding spending, we performed an analysis of the variability of City revenues. The 2010 Survey of Consumer Expenditures shows that consumers, on average, spent almost 33% of their gross income on taxable items. Rounding this up to 35%, we used this as the mid-point for the ratio of taxable expenditures to gross income. The 2010 ratio of Fort Collins Net Taxable Sales to Larimer Counties is 54%. Rounding this up to 55%, we used this as the mid-point for Fort Collins’ share of retail sales. This analysis shows that if the actual ratios were to vary +/- 5%, the sales tax revenues of Fort Collins could vary between $716,250 and $1,146,000. If 2010 consumption patterns continue, the sales tax revenues will likely be around $900,000. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: SALES TAX REVENUES % of Income Used for Taxable Purchases 30% 35% 40% % of Retail Sales Spent within City 50% $716,250 $835,625 $955,000 55% $787,875 $919,187 $1,050,500 60% $859,500 $1,002,750 $1,146,000 Other Tax Benefits. The City will also collect taxes on materials purchased by the company to support operations and on residential property of the additional employees that choose to live in Fort Collins. However, we do not have enough information at this time to make reasonable estimates of these other revenue sources. Larimer County Construction Materials. The company plans to spend $20 million on the construction of the new clean room. We assumed that 60% of the construction budget will be spent on materials, 10% on soft costs, and 30% on labor. From this assumption, we estimate that $12 million will be spent on construction materials subject to the County’s sales & use tax of 0.60%. This yields an estimated $72,000 in revenues. Real and Personal Property. The INSIGHT Model assumes the market value of the additional real property will be assessed at the construction cost of $20 million and that these improvements to the property will appreciate at a rate of 0.2% going forward. The model also assumes the value of equipment subject to the personal property tax will be $130 million and will depreciate over an economic life of 10 years. The assessment ratio for both real and personal property is 29% and the County’s property tax mill levy is assumed to be 22.423, which was the median value of mill levy between 2001 and 2011. Over a 10-year period from 2013 to 2022, this yields $1,314,926 in real property taxes and $4,750,851 in personal property taxes. Assumptions & Inputs: Employee Hiring Period in Years 3 Percent of Income Spent on Taxable Goods 35% Average Earnings per Job (Direct) $43,897 Percent of Retail Sales Spent within City 55% Average Earnings per Job (Indirect & Induced) $32,760 City Sales Tax Rate 3.85% Tax Revenues: Sales Tax $919,187 Construction Budget: $20,000,000 x % spent on Materials 60% = $ spent on Materials $12,000,000 x Sales & Use Tax Rate 0.60% = Estimated Revenues $72,000 4 | P a g e Retail Sales. Using the estimated number of jobs created (direct, indirect, and induced), we calculated an estimate of the increase in sales tax the County could experience as a result of the increased employment. If the workers directly employed in the expansion of the facility and those workers supported by the expansion spend 35% of their gross income on taxable items and make 75% of their purchases within Larimer County, the County would receive $190,738 over 10 years. To understand the sensitivity of the County’s sales tax revenues to the assumptions regarding spending, we performed an analysis of the variability of City revenues. The 2010 Survey of Consumer Expenditures shows that consumers, on average, spent almost 33% of their gross income on taxable items. Rounding this up to 35%, we used this as the mid-point for the ratio of taxable expenditures to gross income. For the mid-point of % of retail sales spent in the County, we assumed 75%. This analysis shows that if the actual ratios were to vary +/- 5%, the sales tax revenues of Larimer County could vary between $156,273 and $238,130. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: SALES TAX REVENUES % of Income Used for Taxable Purchases 30% 35% 40% % of Retail Sales Spent within City 70% $156,273 $182,318 $208,364 75% $167,435 $195,341 $223,247 80% $178,597 $208,364 $238,130 Other Tax Benefits. The County will also collect taxes on materials purchased by the company to support operations and on residential property of the additional employees that choose to live in Larimer County. However, we do not have enough information at this time to make reasonable estimates of these other revenue sources. Assumptions & Inputs: Assessed Value of Real Property 2012 $20,00,000 Assessment Ratio 29% Real Estate Improvement Assessed Value Growth Rate (Industrial Class 3219) 0.2% County Property Tax Mill Levy (Median Value 2001 – 2011) 22.423 Assessed Value of Personal Property 2012 $130,000,000 Period in Years (2013 – 2022) 10 Average Economic Life in Years 10 Tax Revenues: Real Property Taxes $1,314,926 Personal Property Taxes on Equipment $4,750,851 Assumptions & Inputs: Employee Hiring Period in Years 3 Percent of Income Spent on Taxable Goods 35% Average Earnings per Job (Direct) $43,897 Percent of Retail Sales Spent within City 75% Average Earnings per Job (Indirect & Induced) $32,760 County Sales Tax Rate 0.60% Tax Revenues: Sales Tax $190,738 5 | P a g e Economic Impact To understand the impact of the company’s expansion on Fort Collins’ economy, we used a well-established method known as input/output (I/O) modeling. By using regionalized statistics regarding how industries buy goods and services from each other, as well as estimates of interregional trade flows, consumer and government spending, and more, I/O models predict how changes in certain industries will create ripple effects in other industries. More specifically, these “what if” scenarios predict the impacts (or “outputs,” in terms of new jobs or higher earnings) in various regional industries as a result of increasing or decreasing jobs, sales, or earnings in other regional industries (the “inputs”). The results are presented as initial, direct, indirect, and induced effects. The “initial” effect represents the change in jobs as a result of the expansion, and therefore does not include ripple effects. The “direct” effect represents the new input purchases by the initially changed industry. This is the first round of impacts (see "Indirect"). This change is due to inter-industry effects. The “indirect” effect is the subsequent ripple effect in further supply chains resulting from the direct change. This is the second round of impacts (see "Direct") and also due to inter-industry effects. The “induced” effect represents change due to the impact of the new earnings created by the initial, direct, and indirect changes. These earnings enter the economy as employees spend their paychecks in the region on food, clothing, and other goods and services. In other words, this figure represents the income effects on inter-industry trade. We ran the model for both the construction phase and operations. Construction. The company plans to invest $20 million in the construction of the new clean room and an additional $15 million in equipment installation costs. This $35 million investment is expected to create 129 construction jobs and 144 equipment installation jobs during the duration of the project. These initial jobs are expected to generate another 127 jobs across the economy. The sectors that will experience the largest increases in employment will be Construction (133 jobs), Retail Trade (21 jobs), Healthcare (19 jobs), Accommodation & Food Services (15 jobs), and Professional & Technical Services (13 jobs). This investment is also expected to increase earnings in the region by $18.1 million, or $45,235 per job. Operations. The company plans to hire 136 workers to operate the new facility between 2012 and 2014. These 134 new jobs are expected to produce an additional 136 jobs in other sectors of the regional economy. The sectors that will experience the largest increases are expected to be Manufacturing (139 jobs), Healthcare (25 jobs), Retail Trade (22 jobs), Accommodation & Food Service (16 jobs), and Professional & Technical Services (8 jobs). This investment is also expected to increase earnings in the region by $20.4 million or $75,774 per job. Initial Construction Jobs 129 Initial Installation Jobs 144 Direct / Indirect / Induced Jobs 127 Total Change in Jobs 400 Total Change in Earnings $18,107,190 Earnings per Job $45,235 Initial Semiconductor Jobs 136 Direct / Indirect / Induced Jobs 134 Total Change in Jobs 270 Total Change in Earnings $20,439,595 Earnings per Job $75,774 6 | P a g e Assumptions and Sources The following table lists the assumptions made and the sources of the data that formed the basis of those assumptions. Assumptions & Inputs: Source: % of Construction Budget Spent on Materials INSIGHT Model default value Sales & Use Tax Rate City of Fort Collins, Larimer County Assessed Value of Real Property 2012 Value of Investment in Construction (2012) Real Estate Value Growth Rate Larimer County Tax Assessor, TIP Calculation Assessed Value of Personal Property 2012 Value of Investment in New Equipment (2012) Average Economic Life in Years Larimer County Tax Assessor Assessment Ratio Larimer County Tax Assessor City Property Tax Mill Levy City of Fort Collins County Property Tax Mill Levy (2013 – 2022), Median Value 2001 - 2011 Larimer County, TIP Calculation Period in Years (2013 – 2022) City of Fort Collins Employee Hiring Period in Years The company Average Earnings per Job (Initial) The company Average Earnings per Job (Direct, Indirect & Induced) EMSI Percent of Income Spent on Taxable Goods Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, TIP Calculation Percent of Retail Sales Spent within City Colorado Department of Revenues, TIP Calculation Percent of Retail Sales Spent within County INSIGHT Model default value Input-Output Model EMSI INSIGHT Model Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade ATTACHMENT 3 Investment R&D Wafer Fab Mfg Equipment 135,953,000 *Subject to Use Tax and Personal Property Tax General & Test Mfg Equipment 8,452,000 *Subject to Use Tax and Personal Property Tax Leashold Improvements 12,545,000 *Subject to Personal Property tax Only Real Property 7,455,000 *Not subject to any tax but a cost associated with the project Total Investment 164,405,000 Estimated Labor 15,000,000 *Labor number is included in the above equipment numbers, but is deducted for the Use Tax as it is not subject to Use Tax Year Taxes are Paid 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Use Tax Estimated that 20% of the Use Tax is payable in 2013 and 80% in 2014 Totals Use Tax Collected 776,430 3,105,720 3,882,150 Use Tax Rebate Paid 776,430 3,105,720 3,882,150 Personal Property Tax Personal Property Collected 315,496 201,814 107,278 94,101 92,274 94,067 92,027 89,837 87,041 84,240 1,258,175 Persontal Property Rebate Paid 157,748 100,907 53,639 47,051 46,137 47,033 46,014 44,918 43,520 42,120 629,087 Total Taxes Paid 776,430 3,105,720 ‐ 315,496 201,814 107,278 94,101 92,274 94,067 92,027 89,837 87,041 84,240 5,140,325 Total Taxes Rebated ‐ 776,430 3,105,720 157,748 100,907 53,639 47,051 46,137 47,033 46,014 44,918 43,520 42,120 4,511,237 Avago Project Beta ATTACHMENT 4 ³I ³I !"`$ S TIMBERLINE RD STRAUSS CABIN RD ZIEGLER RD KECHTER RD E TRILBY RD E HORSETOOTH RD MAIN ST E DRAKE RD E COUNTY ROAD 38 S COUNTY ROA D 5 S LEMAY AVE S COLLEGE AVE S MASON ST E HARMON Y RD 0 0.25 0.5 Printed: August 10, 2012 AvagoMiles Technologies Context Building Map 4 Expansion Railroad Lines ± Site !"`$ ³I ÕZYXW ÉZYXW City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 5 Bldg 4 Bldg 6 Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 Bldg 5 ZIEGLER RD E HARMONY RD Avago400Feet Technologies Site Building Map 4 Expansion 0 200 Printed: August 10, 2012 Building 4 ± ATTACHMENT 6 Avago Technologies, Inc. 350 West Trimble Road San Jose, CA 95131 www.avagotech.com October 9, 2012 Economic Health Office Josh Birks, Economic Health Director City of Fort Collins, 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Avago Technologies is a leading global supplier of analog interface components for wireless, wireline, and industrial applications. Avago is asking the City of Ft. Collins for tax incentives of approximately $4.6 million related to a planned $165 million expansion of its FBAR wireless products manufacturing facilities in Ft. Collins. Avago currently employs approximately 700 people in Ft. Collins and has paid about $ 7.5 million in taxes so far in 2012 to the city, county, and state. In addition, Avago spent approximately $35 million with more than 100 Colorado suppliers last year. The expansion of the Ft. Collins facilities would create approximately 135 permanent jobs, with healthcare and other benefits in the area, as well as 250 construction jobs over the 6-10 month duration of the project. In addition we estimate that there would likely be many additional permanent spinoff jobs created in the area as well. The addition of these jobs will benefit the local economy and result in additional revenue for the City of Ft. Collins and for Larimer County. Avago and preceding organizations have been an employer in, and contributor to, the Ft. Collins area since 1978. Avago supports a number of community activities and programs that benefit the Fort Collins area, including an annual United Way Campaign for Larimer County including various fund raising and community service activities. In addition, Avago has a charitable gift-matching program in which it will match employees’ charitable donations of up to $350 per employee, per year. Avago’s green environment initiatives include being a member of the Climate Wise program since its inception, being a charter member of the Governor’s Industrial Energy Challenge, and being a Gold Leader of the Environmental Protection Agency. Avago is a global company with many engineering and manufacturing sites and contractors. We believe it makes sense to create these new manufacturing jobs in Ft. Collins close to the related engineering staff, and we believe this is the right time to invest for the future, but this expansion is being done at a time of great uncertainty in the global economy. Hence, Avago needs to look for all possible ways to defray the upfront cost and minimize our risk. Other locations were considered, but we are proud of our long- standing affiliation with Ft. Collins and of our Ft. Collins employees and we are seeking to further develop and improve that relationship with the successful expansion of our manufacturing facilities here. The Ft. Collins City Council has been, and continues to be, responsive to the needs to businesses in the area, fostering a business friendly environment and we look forward to continuing to work with the council. ATTACHMENT 7 10/10/2012 1 1 Avago Technologies: Incremental Clean Room Expansion Presented by: Josh Birks Economic Health Director 2 Process Overview Develop Assistance Council Action Company Desire Proposal Primary Jobs Average Wages Unique Workforce Competitive Environment Council Vote Initial Screening Vetting • EAC •CFC Understanding • Public benefit • “but for” test ATTACHMENT 8 10/10/2012 2 3 Public Benefit – Retention of a local company – Preserving the Advanced Manufacturing Industry – 135 new jobs with varying degrees of skills needed • Alleviating the skills mismatch • Providing healthcare and other benefits – Overarching positive supply chain impact – Increased tax revenue • Approx. $2.6 million net revenue $27:$1 private investment to total public investment ratio 4 Company History • 50-year history of innovation dating back to origins within Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) • Employs approx. 700 employees at the Fort Collins site • Strong supporter of community activities • Green environment initiatives – ClimateWise Platinum Partner – Charter member of the Colorado Industrial Energy Council – EPA Gold “Environmental Leader” 10/10/2012 3 5 Company Investment • Building 4 Build-Out – $20 million construction cost (12,160 SF) – $130 million manufacturing tools – $15 million equipment installation • 135 new jobs – Varied jobs (skill sets, degrees, pay rates, etc.) – Healthcare and other benefits (overtime, shift premiums, etc.) 6 Location 10/10/2012 4 7 Overview of Business Investment Upfront Investments Total State: Strategic Fund (Earmarked March 8, 2012) $2,500 / Job 135 Jobs $337,500 State: CO First Job Training Grants (Earmarked March 23, 2012) $116,800 City: Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $3,882,200 Utilities: Integrated Design Assistance $12,500 Total One Time $4,349,000 On-Going Investments Duration Total County: Personal Property Tax Rebate 5 Years $ 930,100 City: Personal Property Tax Rebate 10 Years $ 629,100 Total On-Going $1,559,200 Grand Total All Investments $5,908,200 Source: City of Fort Collins - Economic Health Build-Out Building #4 8 Net Revenues over Rebate Period Total Estimated Total Net Revenue Revenue Rebate over Rebate Period On-Going Investments Use Tax Rebate Allowable by Code (2 years)* $1,319,050 $1,319,050 $0 Additional Use Tax Rebate Requested for Consideration (2 years)* $2,563,100 $2,563,100 $0 Personal Property Tax Rebate (10 years)* $1,258,200 $629,100 $629,100 Real Property Tax Rebate $574,500 $0 $574,500 Construction Use Tax $462,000 $0 $462,000 Sales Tax $919,200 $0 $919,200 Total On-Going $7,096,050 $4,511,250 $2,584,800 * Annual year-to-year estimated schedule of rebates are provided 10/10/2012 5 9 Tax Collection/Rebate Schedule 10 New Jobs Created • Diversified jobs alleviating skills mismatch • Average starting salary $41.5K – Base salary calculation does not include healthcare benefits or overtime and shift premiums New Jobs Title Starting Salaries 98 Operators (hourly) $30,000 5 Professional Support Staff $70,000 22 Technicians $60,000 10 Engineers $100,000 135 Total New Jobs $5.6M 10/10/2012 6 11 Performance Metrics • Requirements – Maintenance of manufacturing operations for a minimum duration of rebated years – Purchase of equipment adding substantial value to the Fort Collins facility – Creation of jobs associated with the project RESOLUTION 2012-096 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES WIRELESS (USA) MANUFACTURING, INC., TO PROVIDE BUSINESS INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PHASE TWO OF THE BUILDING FOUR RETROFIT WHEREAS, Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing, Inc., (“Avago”) will be modifying a building located on its business campus by retrofitting approximately 12,160 square feet for use as a Fbar clean room facility (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project will enable the City to better maintain and attract high-paying primary jobs in the City; and WHEREAS, Avago estimates that it will invest over $165 million in the Project; and WHEREAS, Avago anticipates that the Project will create approximately 135 jobs paying an annual average salary of $41,481 which would provide significant economic development benefit to the community at large; and WHEREAS, according to preliminary estimates, Avago will also pay City fees and taxes related to the construction of the Project in the approximate amount of $462,000; and WHEREAS, City staff has been working with Avago to discuss ways in which the City can provide financial assistance to the Project that will enhance the likelihood that the Project will be pursued; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared for City Council's consideration a proposed agreement between the City and Avago (the “Agreement”), which Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions upon which financial assistance will be provided to Avago by the City and is attached as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Project is anticipated to increase annual property tax revenue for the City by approximately $1,258,100 in total over the ten-year term of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that providing financial assistance to the Project is in the best interests of the City and will serve the important public purposes of increasing employment in the City, stabilizing and improving the long term tax base of the City and providing additional economic development benefits to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that providing financial assistance to Avago, upon the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement, is in the best interests of the City and serves the important public purposes of increasing employment within the City, stabilizing and improving the long-term tax base of the City, and promoting economic development within the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City, in substantially the form contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to such modifications and additions as may be deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, in order to protect the interests of the City or to further the purposes of the Agreement or this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th day of October A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk BUSINESS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES BUILDING 4 RETROFIT FOR NEW FBAR CLEAN ROOM FACILITY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of _________, 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipal corporation (the “City”), and Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“AVAGO”). RECITALS WHEREAS, AVAGO is the owner of property located at 4380 Ziegler Road in the City that is more fully described in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, AVAGO has previously committed to redeveloping the Property by retrofitting the building on the Property known as Building 4 and identified on Exhibit A as BLDG 4 so as to include a new 10,000 square foot expansion wafer fabrication facility within that building to be completed in 2012, which is the subject of that certain Business Incentive Agreement For Economic Development Related to AVAGO Technologies Building 4 Retrofit authorized by the City Council in Resolution 2011-066, adopted by the Council on July 19, 2011 (the “New Wafer Fabrication Facility Agreement”); and WHEREAS, AVAGO has in addition committed to redeveloping the Property by retrofitting Building 4 to also include a new 12,160 square foot expansion Fbar Clean Room Facility within Building 4 to be fully completed and operational by the end of 2014 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project will consist of a construction expansion and remodel in addition to an investment in equipment; and WHEREAS, Project will enable the City to better maintain its place as the regional business center of Northern Colorado in the face of competing facilities that could otherwise draw significant employment opportunities out of the Fort Collins community; and WHEREAS, AVAGO estimates that the total investment in the Project will be more than $ 165 million (including both construction and equipment purchases) and that the completion of the Project will result in the creation of approximately 135 net new jobs earning salaries ranging from approximately $30,000 to $100,000 annually, and with an annual average salary of $41,481, and that will provide significant economic benefit to the community at large; and WHEREAS, the City’s Economic Health Office has concluded that the Project will generate a substantial increase in tax revenue for the City, including approximately (i) $ 462,000 EXHIBIT A 2 in construction use tax; and (ii) $1,258,200 in new personal property tax in the first ten years; and WHEREAS, according to the Economic Health Office, the Project will prevent high- paying primary jobs from leaving Fort Collins to other sites in Northern Colorado and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, according to the Economic Health Office, the Project will bring a type of worldwide cell phone process manufacturing to the City that has previously occurred primarily off-shore; and WHEREAS, AVAGO has requested that the City enter into a business investment agreement for economic development related to the Project; and WHEREAS, based on AVAGO’s representations that the Project will (i) be a high quality Fbar clean room facility that will be owned and operated by AVAGO, (ii) generate new primary jobs, and (iii) have a reasonable expectation of long-term operations in the City; and WHEREAS, in order to encourage the Project, the City Council has determined, through the adoption of Resolution 2012-___ on _______, 2012, that it is in the best interests of the City to provide a package of financial assistance for the Project consisting of two components: the rebate of new City use tax revenues generated by the Project and the rebate of City personal property tax on new Eligible Equipment installed as part of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined, through the adoption of Resolution 2012-__ that providing the financial assistance described in this Agreement to AVAGO will serve the important public purposes of increasing employment in the City, stabilizing and improving the long term tax base of the City, and providing additional economic development benefits to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows. SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS Application for Use Tax Rebate means the application process for a use tax rebate using City approved forms consistent with the form attached as Exhibit B. AVAGO means AVAGO Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Building 4 means that building located at 4380 Ziegler Road, Building 4. 3 Certificate of Occupancy has the same meaning as set forth in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Charter means the Home Rule Charter of the City. City means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipal corporation. Code means the Code of the City of Fort Collins. County Assessor means the Larimer County Assessor. Development Agreement means that agreement required when plans, profiles and specification have been approved by the City pursuant to the Land Use Code. Eligible Equipment means new manufacturing equipment and electronic equipment that is installed or delivered to the Property and incorporated into the Project no later than December 31, 2014, and that is necessary for operation of the Fbar Clean Room Facility, including research and development equipment, manufacturing equipment, and general and test manufacturing equipment. Due to manufacturing flow and other space constraints, up to twenty percent (20%) of the Eligible Equipment by assessed value may be installed outside of the new Fbar Clean Room Facility; however, all Eligible Equipment must be identified at the time of purchase as, and be documented as necessary for the Fbar Clean Room Facility to the satisfaction of the City, and must be newly installed and located within AVAGO’s facilities at 4380 Ziegler Road, in Fort Collins, Colorado within the time periods required in this Agreement. Fbar Clean Room Facility and Facility mean the approximately 12,160 square foot Fbar clean room facility to be developed, constructed and installed in Building 4 beginning in 2012 and to be fully completed and operational in 2014, to expand on existing clean room facilities located in Building 4. Land Use Code means the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program or Program means the program for generally available limited rebate of use taxes for manufacturing equipment, as described in Chapter 8 of the Code. New Wafer Fabrication Facility means that certain new 10,000 square foot expansion wafer fabrication facility to be completed by AVAGO in Building 4 in 2012, which is the subject of that certain Business Incentive Agreement For Economic Development Related to AVAGO Technologies Building 4 Retrofit authorized by the City Council in Resolution 2011-066, adopted by the Council on July 19, 2011. Project means AVAGO’s retrofit of existing Building 4 by the development of an additional 12,160 square feet for use as an Fbar Clean Room Facility (separate and apart from the wafer fabrication facility that is the subject of the New Wafer Fabrication Facility Agreement and the 4 existing clean room operation located in Building 4) and other improvements that provide significant energy savings and represented on Exhibit A as Area of Work, pursuant to such building permit as may be issued by the City for the same, and shall include construction as well as acquisition and installation of the Eligible Equipment required to increase Fbar production to a rate of 12,000 wafers per month, including acquisition and installation of all Eligible Equipment as defined herein. Project Personal Property means the initial investments in Eligible Equipment and leasehold improvements made by AVAGO as part of the Project. Use Tax Rebate means the rebate of use taxes to AVAGO described in Section 3 of this Agreement. The Use Tax Rebate as described herein is intended to be in lieu of, and not a duplication of, the Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program, which Program AVAGO agrees it is not entitled to participate in for the Eligible Equipment. SECTION 2. REPRESENTATIONS AND COVENANTS 2.1. The City represents and covenants that: 2.1.1. The City is a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. 2.1.2. There is no litigation or administrative proceeding pending or, to the knowledge of the City, threatened, seeking to question the authority of the City to enter into or perform this Agreement. 2.1.3. The City reasonably believes that it has the authority to enter into the Agreement, and, assuming such authority, the City Council has properly and regularly authorized the City to enter into the Agreement. 2.2. AVAGO represents and covenants that: 2.2.1. AVAGO is a corporation, duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, is authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or, to its knowledge, the laws of the State of Colorado. 2.2.2. AVAGO has the power and legal right to enter into the Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action, which Agreement will be enforceable against AVAGO in accordance with its terms. 2.2.3. The consummation of transaction contemplated by this Agreement will not violate any provision of the governing documents of AVAGO or, to its knowledge, constitute a default or result in the breach of any term or provision of any contract or agreement to which AVAGO is a party or by which it is bound. 5 2.2.4. To its knowledge, there is no litigation, proceeding, or investigation contesting the power of authority of AVAGO with respect to the Project or this Agreement, and AVAGO is unaware of that any such litigation, proceeding, or investigation has been threatened. 2.2.5. AVAGO will submit a Site Plan to the City in accordance with all applicable procedures set forth in the Land Use Code. AVAGO will redevelop the Property with appropriate care and diligence and cause the Project to be constructed in a manner consistent with the Site Plan, as approved in accordance with the Land Use Code. 2.2.6. In redeveloping the Property and Building 4, AVAGO will comply with all applicable zoning and land use requirements and other applicable federal, state, county, and City statutes, rules, regulations and ordinances. 2.2.7. AVAGO intends to operate, or cause to operate, in Building 4 a new, high quality Fbar Clean Room Facility for a period of not less than ten years following the earlier date of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or December 31, 2013. 2.2.8. AVAGO will cooperate with the City in taking reasonable actions to defend against any litigation brought by a third party concerning the Project or this Agreement. SECTION 3. PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF USE TAXES 3.1. AVAGO shall pay to the City all use taxes due from AVAGO for its initial Eligible Equipment investment associated with the Project and retrofit of Building 4 to develop and equip the Fbar Clean Room Facility. 6 3.2. To the extent permitted by the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado and the Charter, including but not limited to, applicable prohibitions on multiple fiscal year obligations and the condition all obligations be contingent upon the appropriation of funds sufficient and intended therefore by the City Council of the City, in its sole discretion, the City agrees to rebate to AVAGO a portion of the use Taxes paid by AVAGO for Eligible Equipment for the Project as generally shown on the Estimated Payment Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Payment Schedule”) under the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3.3 below and all subparagraphs thereunder (the “Use Tax Rebate”). If, as presently contemplated by the parties, the contingencies described in those paragraphs are satisfied, and subject to the legal limitations as noted above, the City will rebate to AVAGO up to one hundred percent (100%) of City use taxes paid for the Eligible Equipment for the period beginning the effective date of this Agreement and ending December 31, 2013, as described in Section 3.3, subject to a limit on the total use tax rebate amount for the Project, of Three Million Eight Hundred Eighty Two Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($3,882,200) (the “Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement”). 3.3. The Use Tax Rebates here under shall be conditioned upon the full and timely payment by AVAGO to the City of all use taxes due and owing from AVAGO. If this contingency has not been satisfied or is no longer satisfied as of the date set forth for payment of any Use Tax Rebate hereunder, no such Use Tax Rebate, or any subsequent Use Tax Rebate or other incentive payment provided in this Agreement, will be paid. AVAGO shall not be eligible for a rebate for any use tax paid on any Eligible Equipment unless it has accurately designated and identified the Eligible Equipment on a separate schedule as part of the use tax submission for such Eligible Equipment. Such separate schedule may not include equipment that is not Eligible Equipment associated with the Fbar Clean Room Facility as defined in this Agreement. 3.3.1. In order to be eligible for any Use Tax Rebate hereunder, AVAGO shall submit an Application for Use Tax Rebate no later than March 31, 2013, for rebate of City use taxes paid on Eligible Equipment between the effective date of this Agreement and December 31, 2012. Any such Application (and each such Application for Use Tax Rebate submitted pursuant to this Section 3.3) must identify each item of Eligible Equipment in a manner consistent with, and corresponding to, the manner in which such item of Eligible Equipment was designated and identified in connection with the payment of use taxes for said item. The City’s Use Tax Rebate to AVAGO for 2012 use taxes hereunder will be due and payable no later than June 30, 2013 (the “First Payment”). 3.3.2. In the event AVAGO submits an Application for Use Tax Rebate for the rebate of City use taxes paid on Eligible Equipment during 2013, on or before March 31, 2014, the related Use Tax Rebate will be due and payable to AVAGO no later than June 30, 2014 (the “Second Payment”). 7 3.3.3. In the event AVAGO submits a verified statement identifying any items of Eligible Equipment that have been received and installed as part of the Project by AVAGO, but have not yet been finally commissioned and accepted by AVAGO (the “Carryover Eligible Equipment”) on or before December 31, 2014, and then AVAGO submits an Application for Use Tax Rebate for the rebate of City use taxes paid on the Carryover Eligible Equipment on or before March 31, 2015, the related Use Tax Rebate for use taxes that have been paid on the Carryover Eligible Equipment will be due and payable no later than June 30, 2015 (the “Final Payment”). No prepaid use taxes for Eligible Equipment not yet delivered to and installed as part of the Project as of the end of 2014 shall be eligible for rebate hereunder. 3.3.4. In the event that the City determines that AVAGO is not in full compliance with the job creation performance standards set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the City may reduce the amount of any Use Tax Rebate paid during the period of such non-compliance by the percentage of shortfall from the job creation target then applicable. 3.4. The City, in its sole discretion, may pre-pay all or any portion of the Use Tax Rebate, without penalty. 3.5. AVAGO assumes the entire risk that the Project will be unable to begin operations and and pay use tax on Eligible Equipment by December 31, 2014, so as to qualify for the Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement, and further assumes all risk associated with legal contingencies limiting the City’s obligation to make any payments in future fiscal years and conditioning all future fiscal year obligations on the City’s discretionary appropriation of funds therefor. 3.6. It is not the parties’ intent that AVAGO be paid or entitled to any interest or penalty on use taxes paid by AVAGO, or any penalty or interest on Use Tax Rebate payments delayed or withheld by the City. 3.7. In addition to limit of the Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement, the parties further acknowledge and agree that the Use Tax Rebate for any Eligible Equipment will not at any time be allowed to exceed the amount of City use tax actually paid to the City on such Eligible Equipment. AVAGO further acknowledges and agrees that the City is in no way responsible for the amount of City use tax actually paid or collected for the Eligible Equipment or any other equipment or corporeal property of AVAGO. 8 3.8. The parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement do not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or provision. The commitment of the City to pay the Use Tax Rebate under this Agreement is from year to year only and does not constitute a mandatory payment obligation of the City in any fiscal year beyond the present fiscal year. This Agreement does not directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment of a Use Tax Rebate beyond those for which funds have been appropriated as of the date of this Agreement. The City Manager (or any other officer or employee at the time charged with the responsibility of formulating budget proposals) shall make a good faith effort to include in the budget proposals and appropriation ordinances proposed to the City Council, in each year prior to expiration of this Agreement, amounts sufficient to meet the City’s commitments hereunder, subject to the conditions and contingencies set forth herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties expressly acknowledge that the decision as to whether to appropriate such amounts is in the discretion of the City Council. SECTION 4. PAYMENT AND REBATE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES 4.1. AVAGO shall pay to the City all personal property taxes due from AVAGO Project Personal Property associated with the Project and retrofit of Building 4 to develop and equip the Fbar Clean Room Facility. 4.2. To the extent permitted by the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado and the Charter, including but not limited to, applicable prohibitions on multiple fiscal year obligations and the condition all obligations be contingent upon the appropriation of funds sufficient and intended therefore by the City Council of the City, in its sole discretion, the City agrees to rebate to AVAGO a portion of the City personal property taxes paid for the Project Personal Property under the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 4.3 below (the “Personal Property Tax Rebate”). If, as presently contemplated by the parties, the contingencies described in paragraph 4.3 are satisfied as to each of the ten payments provided for therein, and subject to the legal limitations as noted above, the City will rebate to AVAGO up to the amount shown on the Payment Schedule defined below, of City personal property taxes actually paid for the Project Personal Property in the increments and for the time periods described therein, subject to a limit on the total amount of Personal Property Tax Rebate to be paid by the City of Six Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($629,100 in total, and a limit on each annual payment of One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Dollars ($157,700). 4.3. The payments of Personal Property Tax Rebates referenced in paragraph 4.2 above will be made by the City to AVAGO as follows: 9 4.3.1. AVAGO has supplied a 10 year schedule of estimated personal property taxes to be paid in calendar years 2015 through 2024 for the Project Personal Property (“Payment Schedule”) associated with the Project as described in this Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit C. This Payment Schedule also provides the basis for a schedule of personal property tax rebate payments. 4.3.2. At its option, AVAGO may, no later than December 31, 2014, submit one updated 10 year schedule of estimated personal property taxes to be paid in calendar years 2015 through 2024 for Project Personal Property installed during the Project (“Revised Payment Schedule”), subject to the City’s review and written approval, in its reasonable discretion. If a Revised Payment Schedule has been approved, it shall upon approval become the operative schedule for the purposes of this Agreement, and shall thenceforth replace the Payment Schedule originally attached hereto. If no such Revised Payment Schedule is submitted and approved by December 31, 2014, then no revision to the Payment Schedule shall be made, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 4.3.3. The annual Personal Property Tax Rebate contemplated by this Section will be paid by December 31 of each year, with the first such annual payment scheduled for 2015 as set forth in the Payment Schedule. 4.3.4. AVAGO expressly agrees that no portion of the Personal Property Tax Rebate will be paid if, at the time specified for payment, the City determines that AVAGO has not received a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project on or before December 31, 2013, and thereafter continuously operated the Fbar Clean Room Facility as described in this Agreement. 4.3.5. The City may reduce the amount of any Personal Property Tax Rebate paid during any period non-compliance with any of the following requirements, by the percentage of shortfall from full compliance with each such requirement: (a) AVAGO shall have actually paid to the City personal property taxes equal to or greater than two (2) times the combined total of all Personal Property Tax Rebates scheduled to be paid by the City to AVAGO for that year under the New Wafer Fabrication Facility Agreement and this Agreement; (b) AVAGO shall have actually paid to the City since the effective date of the New Wafer Fabrication Facility Agreement total personal property taxes equal to or greater than two (2) times the combined total of all Personal Property Tax Rebates actually paid to date, including the then pending Personal Property Tax Rebate, under the New Wafer Fabrication Facility Agreement and this Agreement,; and 10 (c) AVAGO shall have met the most recent job creation target applicable as described in Exhibit D. 4.4. The City reserves the right to modify the Payment Schedule in the event that material change to the City’s mill levy or personal property tax assessment methodology would make the Payment Schedule provided herein inconsistent with the parties’ intent that the Personal Property Tax Rebate not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the amount of personal property tax actually collected by the City for the Eligible Equipment installed and operating as part of the Facility. 4.5. The parties agree that the City may, at its option, require AVAGO to make available to the City all documents that verify the purchase of Project Personal Property installed in Building 4, or in the Fbar Clean Room Facility whether or not as part of the Project, including the County Assessor’s certification of value. The City agrees that, except as otherwise provided by law or applicable court order, such documents constitute privileged information and confidential financial data within the meaning of the Colorado Open Records Act, and, to the extent permitted by law, the City shall deny the right of inspection of such documents to any third party without the consent of AVAGO. 4.6. The City, in its sole discretion, may pre-pay all or any portion of the Personal Property Tax Rebate, without penalty. 4.7. AVAGO assumes the entire risk that the Project will be unable to begin and maintain operations at the levels sufficient to generate the level of personal property tax identified above, and the risk that all or any portion of the Personal Property Tax Rebate may be forfeited unless the requirements of this Agreement have been satisfied. AVAGO further assumes all risk associated with legal contingencies limiting the City’s obligation to make any payments in future fiscal years and conditioning all future fiscal year obligations on the City’s discretionary appropriation of funds therefor. 4.8. It is not the parties’ intent that AVAGO be paid or entitled to any interest or penalty on personal property taxes paid, or any penalty or interest on Personal Property Tax Rebate payments delayed or withheld by the City. 11 4.9. The parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement do not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or provision. The commitment of the City to pay the Personal Property Tax Rebate described in this Agreement is from year to year only and does not constitute a mandatory payment obligation of the City in any fiscal year beyond the present fiscal year. This Agreement does not directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment of any Personal Property Tax Rebate beyond those for which funds have been appropriated as of the date this Agreement. The City Manager (or any other officer or employee at the time charged with the responsibility of formulating budget proposals) shall make a good faith effort to include in the budget proposals and appropriation ordinances proposed to the City Council, in each year prior to expiration of this Agreement, amounts sufficient to meet the City’s commitments hereunder, subject to the conditions and contingencies set forth herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties expressly acknowledge that the decision as to whether to appropriate such amounts is in the discretion of the City Council. SECTION 5. CITY’S RIGHT TO WITHHOLD OR OFFSET PAYMENTS 5.1. AVAGO agrees to comply with all City codes, ordinances, resolutions and regulations, and to pay all taxes, fees and expenses due to the City under the Code, the City’s Land Use Code or this Agreement, subject to any variances or modifications of standards that may be granted to AVAGO under the Code or the City's Land Use Code, and to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. If AVAGO is in violation of the provisions of the Code, the City’s Land Use Code, this Agreement or the Development Agreement, the City will provide written notice to the Developer of such violation, and allow the AVAGO a period of ninety (90) days in which to cure such violation. The City may thereafter withhold any payment of Use Tax Rebate or Personal Property Tax Rebate due to AVAGO under this Agreement until such time as the violations are cured or abated. 5.2. In addition to the foregoing, the City, at its option, may, after the notice and after the expiration of the cure period if such violations have not been cured or abated, apply any Use Tax Rebate or Personal Property Tax Rebate that would otherwise be payable to AVAGO under this Agreement to any unpaid amounts theretofore due and payable to the City by AVAGO under this Agreement, the Code, the Land Use Code, or the Development Agreement, in which event AVAGO will be credited with the full amount of any such payments. SECTION 6. RECORDS AND AUDITS 6.1. AVAGO must keep true, accurate and complete records of all equipment installed and operated in Building 4 and identifying and document all equipment and Project Personal Property installed or operated in the Fbar Clean Room Facility, whether or not as part of the Project, which records will be available for inspection by the City without unreasonable delay and without City expense. AVAGO agrees that the City has the right, through its duly 12 authorized agents or representatives, to examine all such records upon ten (10) days notice at all reasonable times, for the purpose of determining the accuracy and propriety of the financial representations which have been made by AVAGO as well as the right to inspect and inventory the Project Personal Property in or associated with the Fbar Clean Room Facility in order to confirm that the same is in place and in use as required in connection with any rebate hereunder. This right of review and inspection terminates upon termination of the later of the City's payments of Use Tax Rebate as provided in Section 3 of this Agreement and the payments of Personal Property Tax Revenues as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement. In the event that the City becomes the custodian of any such records which may contain trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information, and are so marked, the City will, to the extent permitted by law, protect the confidentiality of such information and deny any request for inspection of such records. 6.2. The City will keep, or cause to be kept, true, accurate and complete records of all calculations relating to the Use Tax Rebate; the Personal Property Tax Rebate and such other calculations, allocations and payments required by this Agreement, and will make such records available for inspection by AVAGO upon ten (10) days notice at all reasonable times, to the extent permitted by law. SECTION 7. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT 7.1. The qualifications of AVAGO to accomplish the objectives of the City hereunder are of particular concern to the City. Therefore, no voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of AVAGO shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein and AVAGO will not assign all or any part of this Agreement, except either: 7.1.1. with the prior written approval of the City Council, in its sole discretion; or 7.1.2. as collateral to a lender in connection with the financing of the Project. 7.2. AVAGO must notify the City within fifteen (15) days of any and all changes whatsoever in the identity of the parties in control of AVAGO, or the degree thereof, of which it or any of its officers have been notified or otherwise have knowledge or information. SECTION 8. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; REMEDIES 8.1. Default or an event of default by AVAGO mean one or more of the following events: 8.1.1. Any representation or warranty made in this Agreement by AVAGO was materially inaccurate when made or shall prove to be materially inaccurate; 13 8.1.2. AVAGO assigns or attempts to assign this Agreement in violation of Section 7 of this Agreement; or 8.1.3. AVAGO fails to substantially observe or perform any other material covenant, obligation or agreement required under this Agreement. 8.2. In order to exercise any remedy for default hereunder, upon the occurrence of any event of default, the City shall provide written notice to AVAGO. AVAGO must immediately proceed to cure or remedy such default, and in any event, such default shall be cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, or such longer time as the City and AVAGO agree in writing. Upon the failure of AVAGO to so cure any such default, the City shall have all remedies available to it, in law or in equity, excluding specific performance. 8.3. Default or an event of default by the City shall mean one or more of the following events: 8.3.1. Any representation or warranty made in this Agreement by the City was materially inaccurate when made or shall prove to be materially inaccurate; or 8.3.2. perform any nonmonetary, material covenant, obligation or agreement required of it under this Agreement. 8.4. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, AVAGO will provide written notice to the City. The City must immediately proceed to cure or remedy such default, and in any event, such default shall be cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, or such longer time as the City and AVAGO agree in writing. Upon the failure of the City to so cure any such default, AVAGO will have all remedies available to it, in law or in equity excluding specific performance. 14 SECTION 9. NOTICES 9.1. All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective upon mailing, deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the intended recipient as follows. Any party can change its address by written notice to the other given in accordance with this paragraph. 9.1.1. City of Fort Collins: City of Fort Collins Attention: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue, PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 9.1.2. With a copy to: City of Fort Collins Attention: City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue, PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 9.1.3. AVAGO: AVAGO Technologies Attention: General Counsel 350 W. Trimble Road San Jose, California 95131 9.1.4. With a copy to: Steve Wolley AVAGO Technologies 4380 Ziegler Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80525 SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS 10.1. Binding Effect. This Agreement inures to the benefit of and is binding upon the City and AVAGO and AVAGO’s assignees which are permitted pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement. 10.2. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The City is not obligated or liable under the terms of this Agreement to any person or entity not a party hereto except any assignee permitted pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement. Further, the City is not bound by any contracts or conditions that AVAGO may negotiate with third parties related to the Project. 10.3. Interpretation, Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement is being executed and delivered and is intended to be performed in the State of Colorado, and the laws of Colorado govern the validity, construction, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement. Exclusive jurisdiction and venue for resolution of any dispute arising hereunder will be in the Larimer County, Colorado District Court. 15 10.4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the whole agreement of the parties concerning financial assistance by the City for the Project. Although it is anticipated there will be at least one other agreement governing general development issues related to the Project, there are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein exist with respect to the financial assistance package. This Agreement supersedes all provisions, communications, representations, or agreement, either verbal or written, between the parties with respect to the financial assistance package. 10.5. Waiver of Breach. A written waiver by either party to this Agreement of the breach of any term or provision of this Agreement will not operate or be construed as a waiver or any subsequent breach by another party. 10.6. Article and Section Captions. The captions of the articles and sections of this Agreement are set forth only for the convenience and reference of the parties and are not intended in any way to define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement. 10.7. City and AVAGO Not Partners. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement, the City is not a member, partner, or joint venturer of AVAGO, and the City shall not be responsible for any debt or liability of AVAGO or its contractors or agents. AVAGO is not responsible for any debt or liability of the City or their contractors or agents. 10.8. Severability. If any portion or portions of this Agreement are determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement will not be affected thereby and will remain in full force and effect as if such illegal or unenforceable portion or portions did not exist. If all or any portion of the payments required by the terms of this Agreement are determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final non-appealable judgment, to be contrary to public policy or otherwise precluded, and if the decision of such court clearly indicates how the payments may be made differently and in a manner that is legal, valid and enforceable, then the Parties will utilize their reasonable, best, good faith efforts to promptly restructure and/or amend this Agreement in accordance with such court decision, or to enter into a new agreement, to assure, to the extent legally permissible, that all payments are made to AVAGO as contemplated by this Agreement. 10.9. Originals. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed original but all of which constitute one and the same Agreement. 10.10. Joint Draft. The parties agree they drafted this Agreement jointly with each having the advice of legal counsel and an equal opportunity to contribute to its content. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and AVAGO have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a municipal corporation By: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: Deputy City Attorney AVAGO TECHONOLOGIES WIRELESS (USA) MANUFACTURING INC. a Delaware corporation By: Name and title State of ) )ss. County of ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _________ day of 2012, by as Avago Technologies Wireless (USA) Manufacturing Inc., a Delaware corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 17 EXHIBIT A 18 City of Fort Collins Economic Development - Use Tax Rebate Application 2010 Company Name Mailing Address Contact Person Project Information: Date Project Operations began in Fort Collins Briefly describe project operations? 2008 property tax valuation 2009 property tax valuation Employee Information: Rebate Information: Signature of Taxpayer Title Date A claim by an agent must be accompanied by power of attorney. Number of full time equivalent employees as of January 1, 2010 __________________ Median Annual Wage ______________ Number of full time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2010 _______________ Median Annual Wage ______________ Number of temp., seasonal & contract employees as of 12/31/10 ____________ Median Annual Wage ______________ I hereby authorize the City to review and consider sales and use tax records, vendor records, contract and other information available regarding the company's eligibility for a rebate under this program. I further authorize the City to release to the public information contained in this application, as well as information regarding any rebates issued to the company under this rebate program. I declare under penalty of perjury that this claim (including any accompanying schedules and statements) has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is true and made in good faith for the stated purpose. Further, I represent and warrant that I have the necessary authority to execute this application on behalf of the company, and to make the above certifications, authorizations, and declaration. I certify that the company requesting this rebate is in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations for the manufacturing facility located in Fort Collins. I also certify that the company is current with all City of Fort Collins contractual, payment and sales and use tax obligations. 2009 personal property tax valuation _____________________ Square footage of Project facility _________________________ The following information is mandatory for the rebate process. All financial information contained in this application will be confidential. Who is your natural gas provider? ___________________________ Annual Gas Consumption ______________ Purchase price of Eligible Equipment purchased in 2010: __________________________________ Amount of rebate requested: ____________________________________ EXHIBIT B Phone Number __________________________ Fort Collins License Number ______________ 2008 personal property tax valuation _____________________ Square footage of entire Fort Collins facility _________________________________ EXHIBIT C Investment R&D Wafer Fab Mfg Equipment 135,953,000 *Subject to Use Tax and Personal Property Tax General & Test Mfg Equipment 8,452,000 *Subject to Use Tax and Personal Property Tax Leashold Improvements 12,545,000 *Subject to Personal Property tax Only Real Property 7,455,000 *Not subject to any tax but a cost associated with the project Total Investment 164,405,000 Estimated Labor 15,000,000 *Labor number is included in the above equipment numbers, but is deducted for the Use Tax as it is not subject to Use Tax Year Taxes are Paid 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Use Tax Estimated that 20% of the Use Tax is payable in 2013 and 80% in 2014 Totals Use Tax Collected 776,430 3,105,720 3,882,150 Use Tax Rebate Paid 776,430 3,105,720 3,882,150 Personal Property Tax Personal Property Collected 315,496 201,814 107,278 94,101 92,274 94,067 92,027 89,837 87,041 84,240 1,258,175 Persontal Property Rebate Paid 157,748 100,907 53,639 47,051 46,137 47,033 46,014 44,918 43,520 42,120 629,087 Total Taxes Paid 776,430 3,105,720 ‐ 315,496 201,814 107,278 94,101 92,274 94,067 92,027 89,837 87,041 84,240 5,140,325 Total Taxes Rebated ‐ 776,430 3,105,720 157,748 100,907 53,639 47,051 46,137 47,033 46,014 44,918 43,520 42,120 4,511,237 Avago Project Beta 20 EXHIBIT D Job Creation Performance Standards As requested by the City, a condition of receipt of any Use Tax Rebate payment and any Personal Property Tax Rebate payment provided in the Business Investment Agreement for Economic Development Related to Avago Technologies Building 4 Retrofit for New Fbar Clean Room Facility, AVAGO must comply with each of the following: 1. Reporting Requirements: AVAGO must comply with all reporting requirements that are or would be imposed in connection with State of Colorado Strategic Fund participation (earmarked by the Economic Development Commission, “Project Beta,” dated March 8, 2012). If requested by the City in order to determine or confirm job creation performance as required hereunder, AVAGO shall provide to the City related data, records or verification of the same. 2. Job Creation Requirements: AVAGO must create net new permanent full-time equivalent jobs in Fort Collins in the numbers and no later than December 31 of the specified calendar years as set forth below (the “job creation targets”). Net new cumulative job creation is to be measured against the April 29, 2012 baseline of net permanent full-time jobs in Fort Collins: Year Cumulative Jobs Anticipated Salaries 2013 Not less than 20 2014 Not less than 100 2015 Not less than 135 Total 135 $5.6M Avago Project Beta Projected Jobs DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter Steve Roy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25 SUBJECT Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, Establishing a Special Fee to Be Paid by the Owners of Property Within Close Proximity to the Reconstructed Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Windsor (the “IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”). The IGA states that, by March 31, 2011, the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the fee requirements identified in the IGA. City Council has adopted several resolutions extending this deadline, the most recent extension being to October 16, 2012. Ordinance No. 117, 2012, will establish the specifics of a special fee to be paid by the Property Owners near the interchange. The fee includes two parts and is summarized as follows: • The first part of the fee is in proportion to the anticipated appreciation in property value as a result of the interchange improvements. This amount has been determined from an appraisal report prepared by a licensed MAI appraiser (the "Foster Study"). • The second part of the fee is based on the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of the properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties. Based on negotiation with the Property Owners, the City and Town have created a second option for Property Owners. Property Owners signing an agreement with the City would be permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the modified IGA first approved by City Council on December 21, 2010, now revised to be consistent with the implementation of the fees as described above. Similar ordinances will be presented for consideration to the Windsor Town Board on October 22, 2012. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council and the Windsor Town Board held five joint work sessions to discuss the I-25 and State Highway 392 Interchange Improvements, System Level Study (1601 Process), and design. The System Level Study for this interchange was approved by the CDOT Transportation Commission on January 21, 2009. This approval, along with a signed IGA, has allowed the Project to move into the final design phase. The accelerated design process for this Project was completed in January 2010. The accelerated design process made this Project “shovel ready,” thereby enhancing the possibility of obtaining funding for construction. The design followed the intent of the guiding principles adopted by the City Council and the Town Board in August 2008, specifically the community character guiding principle that states: “The I-25/392 Interchange is an important ‘gateway’ feature for both Fort Collins and Windsor. It is viewed as Fort Collins’ southern gateway and the main October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 25 gateway into the Town of Windsor. The design of the Interchange, sensitivity to view sheds and associated land development, shall enhance the gateway concept.” The total construction and right of way cost for the Project was estimated at $27.5 million. On May 20, 2010, the Colorado Transportation Commission authorized the allocation of $20 million for the construction of the Interchange. CDOT had previously identified $2.5 million of state FASTER funds to be used for right of way acquisition. The funding gap of $5 million has been met by the local communities. On December 21, 2010, City Council adopted Resolution 2010-077 authorizing the Mayor to execute the IGA. The primary purposes of the IGA are to set forth the respective financial contributions of the City of Fort Collins and Windsor related to the reconstruction of the Interchange, to provide for orderly land use and development within the area immediately surrounding the Interchange, to ensure that the property owners most directly benefitted by the Interchange improvements proportionally share in the cost of the improvements, and to provide for a revenue sharing formula between the City of Fort Collins and Windsor. The IGA establishes a Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) around the Interchange, within which certain land uses have been agreed upon by the parties and a fee will be imposed to reimburse the City of Fort Collins and Windsor for their financial contributions to the construction of the Interchange and to help fund the construction and maintenance of improvements and services within the CAC. Staffs of the Town of Windsor and the City have continued to engage the public and the affected property owners regarding the implementation of the provisions of the IGA; and the documents accomplishing the final implementation of the provisions of the IGA are now complete. Under the IGA, the City and the Town have agreed to impose a fee upon the owners of properties located within the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”), because such properties are located in close proximity to the Interchange and will especially benefit from the reconstruction of the Interchange, and because the development or redevelopment of those properties will add more traffic to the Interchange. In recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to approximately 50% of the total amount expended by the City and the Town for the Improvements. In order to fairly apportion the amount to be recovered from the Property Owners, the City and the Town commissioned a study by a licensed MAI appraiser to determine the amount of appreciation in value that will be experienced by the Benefitted Properties. The study (the “Foster Study”) was completed and submitted to the City and the Town and is attached to the amended IGA. The Foster Study indicates that the appreciation in value the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the reconstruction of the Interchange will be more than sufficient to support the imposition of a fee in the total amount of 50% of the local share of the cost of the Improvements. The City and Town staff recommend that the fee be apportioned not only according to the anticipated appreciation in value that the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the construction of the Interchange, but also according to the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of such properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties. Staff further recommends that, upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Property Owners should immediately begin paying that portion of the fee that reflects the appreciation in value of their properties since the amount of that appreciation can be immediately determined on the basis of the Foster Study, and that the balance of each Property Owner’s fee should be deferred until the development or redevelopment of the Benefitted Properties, since the nature of the developed use of each such property, and the resulting increase in vehicular trips, will not be known until that point in time. In response to concerns expressed by some of the Property Owners about the authority of the City and the Town to impose the fee, staff of the City and the Town have negotiated an agreement that would give Property Owners who sign the agreement the ability to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped. Under the agreement, the amount of the fee would also be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on the fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. In exchange, the agreement would also contain a waiver of any claims against the City and the Town related to the fee. Some but not all of the Property Owners have expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the imposition of the fee and extend the period of time within which the Property Owners may elect to enter into the proposed agreement with the City and the Town upon the terms and conditions described above. October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 25 Both the Ordinance and the Property Owner agreements contain a provision whereby the City will cease collecting the fee once the City and the Town have received $2.6 million in fee revenues, plus interest at the rate of 3.05% per annum from the effective date of the Ordinance. Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement that revises the IGA to be consistent with the above fees and agreements. Similar ordinances will be presented for consideration to the Windsor Town Board on October 22, 2012. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Project Cost Design & Right of Way State Funding $ 2.35 million Federal Funding $ 1.68 million Construction Federal Funding $18.34 million Fort Collins $ 2.30 million Windsor $ 2.30 million Enhancements $ 0.50 million Total Project Cost $26.97 million The approval of the First Amended IGA and the proposed assessment ordinance will allow the City to recover 50% of the amounts the City has appropriated for the construction of the I-25 Interchange and local improvements in the Interchange area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In 2008 the Fort Collins City Council and the Windsor Town Board adopted Joint Principles by resolution; the environmental sustainability language below was part of those Principles. Environmental Sustainability/Resource Protection: Ensure that interchange improvements occur in such a way that it minimizes environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible and protects the physical and natural environment in and around the interchange including but not limited to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. Subsequently, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor have jointly agreed that the Project will mitigate wetland impacts at a 3:1 ratio, this meaning that the estimated 0.4 acres of impacts from the Project will be mitigated with the creation of 1.2 acres of new wetlands. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff of both municipalities held several stakeholder meetings, most recently on April 21, 2011, August 10, 2011, and October 27, 2011, as well as numerous individual meeting with stakeholder representatives. October 16, 2012 -4- ITEM 25 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Property Owner Agreement (Undeveloped Property) 2. Draft Property Owner Agreement (Developed Property) 3. Vicinity Map 4. Powerpoint presentation - 1 - AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE 25/COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE (UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY) THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”) and ________________________ (referred to hereinafter collectively as the “Property Owner”). RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“the IGA”) concerning the funding and construction of improvements to the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“the Interchange”) and related enhancements (the “Local Enhancements”), collectively referred to herein as the “Improvements;” and WHEREAS, in recognition of the special benefit that properties in close proximity to the Interchange will realize from the construction of the Improvements, including the increased capacity that the reconstruction and expansion of the Interchange will provide, the IGA states that a fee will be imposed by the City and the Town upon such property owners to recoup at least a portion of the funding that the City and the Town have contributed to make the Improvements possible (the “Local Share”); and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the Local Share; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of a parcel of undeveloped real property in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange; and WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner have informally agreed on the amount and methodology for the assessment of the above-referenced fee, and by the terms of this Agreement desire to formally agree to same. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1. “Agreement” means this Agreement and its attachments. ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 - 1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.3. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that area described on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.4. “Development” shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 5.1.2 of the City’s Land Use Code. 1.5. “Development Proposal” means any proposal to develop the Property under the applicable laws and regulations of the City or Larimer County. 1.6. “Effective Date” means January 1, 2013. 1.7. “Fee” means the fee to be paid by the Property Owner under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.8. “Foster Study” means that document with attachments prepared by Foster Valuation, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.9. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange. 1.10. “Interchange Improvements” means those improvements to the Interchange which constitute the Project. 1.11. “Improvements” means the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. 1.12. “Local Enhancements” means improvements to and near the Interchange that are being constructed and maintained by the Town and/or City and that are not part of the Project. 1.13. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392. 1.14. “Property” means that certain real property described on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein. 1.15. “Redevelopment Proposal” means any application for the redevelopment of the Property. 1.16. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado. SECTION 2. ASSESSMENT OF FEE 2.1 Assessment of Fee. The Property Owner agrees that there shall be a Fee assessed against the Property in the amount of $________ to help defray the costs of the Improvements, which amounts represents the Property Owners’ share of the cost of both the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. The Property Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the Fee is fair and reasonable in view of the special benefit that the Property will receive from the Improvements, and the increased amount of - 3 - vehicular traffic that the future use of the Property will likely contribute to the Interchange. 2.2 Payment of Fee. The entire amount of the Fee shall be payable in full as a condition of the issuance of the first building permit for any improvements to be constructed pursuant to an approved Development proposal for the Property; provided, however, that in the event the approved development proposal and the subsequently issued building permit are for less than the entire Property, the amount of the Fee shall be proportionally reduced to reflect the amount of Property for which the building permit is issued, related to the entire Property. 2.3 Interest on assessed amount. Interest on the amount of the Fee shall begin to accrue on a compounded basis two (2) years after the Effective Date; provided, however, that there shall be no interest due in the event that the Fee is paid in full during the first two-year period. Once interest commences, it shall accrue at the rate of 2.35% per annum for a period of eight (8) years. Thereafter, interest shall accrue at the rate of 3.05% and shall continue at that rate until the Fee, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full. Once a year during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Property Owners shall have the right to prepay all or a portion of the Fee, including accrued interest thereon, by sending a written request to the City for a statement of accrued interest to date. 2.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary, in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Agreement or under the provisions of Ordinance No. _____, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), equals or exceeds the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus interest accrued at the rate of 3.05% from the effective date of the Ordinance, all CAC Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to make the payments to the City under this Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of the Fee may remain unpaid. SECTION 3. ONLY FEE TO BE ASSESSED It is understood and agreed that the City and Town shall, for a period of at least twenty-five (25) years from the Effective Date, assess no further fees or other charges upon the Property Owner related to the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude the City from charging development fees and costs generally applicable in the City and unrelated to the Improvements. In the event that this Section 3, or any part thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then the Property Owner shall be entitled, during the term of this Agreement, to offset any and all amounts paid pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement against any new fee or other charge related to the Improvements. SECTION 4. NON-SIGNING PROPERTY OWNERS The City and the Property Owner acknowledge that there are a number of other property owners within the CAC who may choose not to sign this Agreement, although they have been afforded - 4 - an opportunity to do so, and that the governing bodies of the City and Town have each enacted an ordinance within their respective jurisdictions imposing a separate fee upon such property owners for the purpose of recovering their fair share of the cost of the Improvements (the “Ordinance”). In the event that the City for any reason is unable to collect any portion of the fee imposed by the Ordinance upon such other property owners, that failure shall not increase the amount of the Fee due from the Property Owner under this Agreement, and the Property Owner shall not be liable to the City for any portion of the other property owners’ share of the cost of the Improvements. SECTION 5. WAIVER AND RELEASE In consideration of the concessions and compromises made by the City and reflected in this Agreement, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents and assigns from, and waives, any and all present and future liability, claims, causes of action, losses, costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever arising from or in any way relating to the construction of the Improvements, including but not limited to the creation of the CAC benefit area, the findings of the Foster Study, the methodology used by the City to calculate the Fee, or the assessment of the Fee. Specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event that the fee imposed by the Fort Collins City Council under Ordinance No. 117, 2012, is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, agrees not to seek a refund of any payments made by the Property Owner under this Agreement, either directly from the City or through the commencement of legal proceedings. SECTION 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the assessment of fees for the Improvements. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by the City and the Property Owner. 6.2. Severability. Except as provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision of this Agreement and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision was never part of this Agreement. 6.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered within the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability. 6.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective - 5 - legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and sent via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be: If to the City: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 With a copy to City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 If to the Property Owner: 6.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement. 6.7. Authorization. The Parties affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made. 6.8. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. 6.9. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 6.10. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. - 6 - 6.11. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. - 7 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROPERTY OWNER By: ___________________________________ - 8 - Legal Description goes here - 1 - AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE 25/COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE (DEVELOPED PROPERTY) THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”) and ________________________ (referred to hereinafter collectively as the “Property Owner”). RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“the IGA”) concerning the funding and construction of improvements to the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“the Interchange”) and related enhancements (the “Local Enhancements”), collectively referred to herein as the “Improvements;” and WHEREAS, in recognition of the special benefit that properties in close proximity to the Interchange will realize from the construction of the Improvements, including the increased capacity that the reconstruction and expansion of the Interchange will provide, the IGA states that a fee will be imposed by the City and the Town upon such property owners to recoup at least a portion of the funding that the City and the Town have contributed to make the Improvements possible (the “Local Share”); and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the Local Share; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of a parcel of developed real property in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange; and WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner have informally agreed on the amount and methodology for the assessment of the above-referenced fee, and by the terms of this Agreement desire to formally agree to same. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1. “Agreement” means this Agreement and its attachments. ATTACHMENT 2 - 2 - 1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.3. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that area described on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.4. “Effective Date” means January 1, 2013. 1.5. “Fee” means the fee to be paid by the Property Owner under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.6. “Foster Study” means that document with attachments prepared by Foster Valuation, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.7. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange. 1.8. “Interchange Improvements” means those improvements to the Interchange which constitute the Project. 1.9. “Improvements” means the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. 1.10. “Local Enhancements” means improvements to and near the Interchange that are being constructed and maintained by the Town and/or City and that are not part of the Project. 1.11. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392. 1.12. “Property” means that certain real property described on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein. 1.13. “Redevelopment” shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 5.1.2 of the City’s Land Use Code. 1.14. “Redevelopment Proposal” means any application for the redevelopment of the Property. 1.15. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado. SECTION 2. ASSESSMENT OF FEE 2.1 Assessment of Fee. The Property Owner agrees that there shall be a Fee assessed against the Property in the amount of $____________ to help defray the costs of Improvements, which amount represents the Property Owner’s share of the cost of both the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. The Property Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the Fee is fair and reasonable in view of the special benefit that the Property will receive from the Improvements, and the increased amount of vehicular traffic that the use of the Property will likely contribute to the Interchange. 2.2 Payment of Fee. The entire amount of the Fee shall be payable as a condition of the issuance of the first building permit for any improvements to be constructed pursuant to - 3 - an approved Redevelopment Proposal for the Property, but only if the amount of traffic that will be generated by the Property, as redeveloped under such Redevelopment Proposal, will increase by at least thirty-five percent (35%) the current volume of traffic on Property as of the Effective Date. In order that the projected increase in traffic generation under the Redevelopment Proposal may be determined for the purpose of this provision, the Redevelopment Proposal shall include a traffic study if deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer of the City. 2.3 Interest on assessed amount. Interest on the amount of the Fee shall begin to accrue on a compounded basis two (2) years after the Effective Date; provided, however, that there shall be no interest due in the event that the Fee is paid in full during the first two-year period. Once interest commences, it shall accrue at the rate of 2.35% per annum for a period of eight (8) years. Thereafter, interest shall accrue at the rate of 3.05% and shall continue at that rate until the Fee, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full. Once a year during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Property Owners shall have the right to prepay all or a portion of the Fee, including accrued interest thereon, by sending a written request to the City for a statement of accrued interest to date.’ 2.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary, in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Agreement or under the provisions of Ordinance No. ___, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), equals or exceeds the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus interest accrued at the rate of 3.05% from the effective date of the Ordinance, all CAC Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to make payments to the City under this Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of the Fee may remain unpaid. SECTION 3. ONLY FEE TO BE ASSESSED It is understood and agreed that the City and Town shall, for a period of at least twenty-five (25) years from the Effective Date, assess no further fees or other charges upon the Property Owner related to the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude the City from charging development fees and costs generally applicable in the City and unrelated to the Improvements. In the event that this Section 3, or any part thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then the Property Owner shall be entitled, during the term of this Agreement, to offset any and all amounts paid pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement against any new fee or other charge related to the Improvements. SECTION 4. NON-SIGNING PROPERTY OWNERS The City and the Property Owner acknowledge that there are a number of other property owners within the CAC who may choose not to sign this Agreement, although they have been afforded an opportunity to do so, and that the governing bodies of the City and Town have each enacted an ordinance within their respective jurisdictions imposing a separate fee upon such property owners for the purpose of recovering their fair share of the cost of the Improvements (the “Ordinance”). In the event that the City for any reason are unable to collect any portion of the - 4 - fee imposed by the Ordinance upon such other property owners, that failure shall not increase the amount of the Fee due from the Property Owner under this Agreement, and the Property Owner shall not be liable to the City for any portion of the other property owners’ share of the cost of the Improvements. SECTION 5. WAIVER AND RELEASE In consideration of the concessions and compromises made by the City and reflected in this Agreement, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents and assigns from, and waives, any and all present and future liability, claims, causes of action, losses, costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever arising from or in any way relating to the construction of the Improvements, including but not limited to the creation of the CAC benefit area, the findings of the Foster Study, the methodology used by the City to calculate the Fee, or the assessment of the Fee. Specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event that the fee imposed by the Fort Collins City Council under Ordinance No. 117, 2012, is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, agrees not to seek a refund of any payments made by the Property Owner under this Agreement, either directly from the City or through the commencement of legal proceedings. SECTION 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the assessment of fees for the Improvements. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by the City and the Property Owner. 6.2. Severability. Except as provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision of this Agreement, and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision was never part of this Agreement. 6.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered within the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability. 6.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and sent via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being - 5 - deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be: If to the City: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 With a copy to City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 If to the Property Owner: 6.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement. 6.7. Authorization. The Parties affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made. 6.8. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. 6.9. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 6.10. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.11. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. - 6 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROPERTY OWNER By: ___________________________________ - 7 - Legal Description goes here [_ I-25 & 392 Interchange COUNTY ROAD 5 KECHTER 4TH MAIN MASON COUNTY ROAD 7 COUNTY ROAD 3 COUNTY ROAD 30 BOARDWALK BOYD LAKE 71ST 66TH COUNTY ROAD 36 COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTY ROAD 13 FAIRGROUNDS COUNTY ROAD 11 COUNTY ROAD 11C TROUTMAN PRIVATE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD 34E 65TH TIMBERLINE COUNTY ROAD 30 COUNTY ROAD 3 COUNTY ROAD 30 S SHIELDS ST INTERSTATE 25 S COLLEGE AVE E TRILBY RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 E COUNTY ROAD 30 S LEMAY AVE S TIMBERLINE RD E HARMONY RD CARPENTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 KECHTER RD ZIEGLER RD W TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 38 STATE HIGHWAY 392 W HARMONY RD MAIN ST STRAUSS CABIN RD S COUNTY ROAD 3F S COUNTY ROAD 7 S US HIGHWAY 287 S L EMAY AVE E COUNTY ROAD 32 ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 S TIMBERLINE RD Legend Fort Collins City Limits Growth Management Area E 1 1 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Council Meeting October 16, 2012 2 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE PROJECT COST Design & Right of Way State & Federal Funding $ 4.03 million Construction Federal Funding $18.34 million Fort Collins $ 2.30 million Windsor $ 2.30 million Enhancements $ 0.50 million Total Project Cost $26.97 million ATTACHMENT 4 2 3 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE • Construction amount funded by Fort Collins and Windsor $5.1 million • 50% to be recovered thru fees ($2.6 million) 4 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE KEY ELEMENTS OF 2010 IGA • Design standards for future development • Upfront cost-sharing contributions (City and Town) • Establishment of the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) • Revenue sharing from future development in the CAC 3 5 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Ordinance No. 118, 2012 Adopts the First amended intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Windsor 6 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE FIRST AMMENDED IGA • Provides for a community contribution from the City and Town, reducing the amount to be recovered thru a “special fee” • Eliminates Public Improvement Fee (“PIF”) • Includes enhancement costs in the fee to be paid by the owners of property 4 7 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE FIRST AMMENDED IGA (cont.) • Establishes final CAC boundaries in accordance with Foster Study • Calls for a fee to be paid by the owners of property 8 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Ordinance No. 117, 2012 • Establishes the fee to be paid by the owners of property within the CAC 5 9 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE SPECIAL FEE • Proximity Component – Properties in the CAC will benefit from the reconstruction of the Interchange – Amount of Proximity Component based on the Foster Study • Trip Generation Component – Properties will add more traffic to the Interchange – Determined by the number of vehicular trips generated by each property times $7.75 per trip 10 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE FEE PAYMENT • The Proximity Component of the fee will be payable in equal quarterly installments, with interest, beginning March 31, 2013 thru March 31, 2020 • The Trip Generation Component for developed properties will also be payable in equal quarterly installments, with interest, beginning March 31, 2013 thru March 31, 2020 • The Trip Generation Component for undeveloped properties will be added to the quarterly payments 90 days after the date of the final approval of any development proposal and will be payable over seven years. 6 11 I-25 & SH 392 INTERCHANGE FEE PAYMENT • For properties currently in the County: – The first installment of the Proximity Component will be due 90 days after annexation and will be payable in quarterly installments over seven years. – For developed properties and properties with an approved development plan, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component will also begin 90 days after annexation and payable over seven years. – For undeveloped properties, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component will be payable 90 days after approval of a development proposal and will be payable over seven years 12 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE PAYMENT BY AGREEMENT • Property Owners may elect to pay the fee thru a written agreement with the City instead of under the Ordinance • Under the Agreement: – No interest will be due on the principal amount of the fee for the first two years – A reduced interest rate will charged for the first 8 years – For undeveloped properties, payment of the fee and interest will be deferred until the first building permit 7 13 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE PAYMENT BY AGREEMENT • Under the Agreement: – For developed properties, payment of the fee will not be required until redevelopment of the property increases trips generated by 35% – Any Property Owner electing to enter into the agreement must notify the City Manager on or before November 30, 2012, and the agreement must be approved by the City Council on or before December 31, 2012. 14 I-25/392 INTERCHANGE FEE REVENUES CAPPED Under both the Ordinance and the Agreement, the City would cease collecting the fee from Property Owners once the City and the Town have received $2.6 million in fee revenues, plus interest at the rate of 3.05% per annum 8 15 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Questions? 16 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 117, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE TO BE PAID BY THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RECONSTRUCTED INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 25 AND STATE HIGHWAY 392 WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) and the Town of Windsor, Colorado, (the “Town”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (the “Original IGA”) concerning, among other things, the reconstruction of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “Interchange); and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council has, by adoption of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, approved a First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “First Amended IGA”) restating and reaffirming those provisions of the Original IGA that the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the reconstruction of the Interchange was made possible by a combination of federal, state and local funding, totaling approximately $25 million, with the City and the Town jointly contributing approximately $4.6 million; and WHEREAS, the City and the Town have committed to expend an additional $500,000 to defray the costs of certain local enhancements to the Interchange (the “Local Enhancements”); and WHEREAS, the construction of the Interchange improvements and the Local Enhancements (collectively, the “Improvements”) is nearing completion; and WHEREAS, the City and the Town are home rule municipalities that, under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, have the authority to enact fees to recover the cost of providing infrastructure or services to properties within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court has affirmed this authority in several separate decisions of the Court, including Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1989), and E-470 Public Highway Authority v. The 455 Company, 3 P.3d 18 (Colo. 2000); and WHEREAS, under the First Amended IGA, the City and the Town have agreed to impose a fee upon the owners of properties located within the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”), which is shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, because such properties (the “Benefitted Properties”) are located in close proximity to the Interchange and will especially benefit from the reconstruction of the Interchange, and because the development or redevelopment of those properties will add more traffic to the Interchange; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have Page 2 concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the total amount expended by the City and the Town for the Improvements; and WHEREAS, in order to fairly apportion the amount to be recovered from the property owners, the City and the Town have commissioned a study by a licensed MAI appraiser to determine the amount of appreciation in value that will be experienced by the Benefitted Properties, which study (the “Foster Study”) has been completed and submitted to the City and the Town and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the Foster Study indicates that the appreciation in value the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the reconstruction of the Interchange will be more than sufficient to support the imposition of a fee in the total amount of 50% of the local share of the cost of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Town staff have recommended that the fee be apportioned not only according to the anticipated appreciation in value that the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the construction of the Interchange, but also according to the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of such properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties; and WHEREAS, during staff’s outreach to the property owners, some of the property owners have questioned the legal validity of the proposed fee and have expressed an intention to challenge the imposition of the same through the commencement of legal proceedings; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid the expense of litigation, the staff of the City and the Town have attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement with the property owners and have proposed that, in exchange for the release of any such claims, the property owners signing the settlement agreement would be permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement; and WHEREAS, some but not all of the property owners have expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the City to proceed with the imposition of the fee and to extend the period of time within which the property owners may elect to enter into a settlement agreement with the City and the Town upon the terms and conditions described above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 3 Section 1. Special fee. (a) Findings. The foregoing recitals are hereby adopted by the City Council as findings in support of the adoption of this Ordinance. (b) Definitions. The following definitions, together with the defined terms contained in the foregoing recitals, shall be applicable to the provisions of this Ordinance: (1) CAC Property shall mean a parcel of real property within the CAC. (2) Developed Property shall mean a CAC Property for which a development proposal has been approved as of the effective date of this Ordinance, either by the City or by Larimer County prior to annexation of the property to the City, whether or not any improvements have been constructed on such property. (3) Development Proposal shall mean an application for the development of an Undeveloped Property. (4) Foster Study shall mean that document, with attachments, prepared by Foster Valuation Company, LLC and attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. (5) Local Contribution shall mean the total contributions of the City and the Town to the reconstruction of the Interchange and the construction of the Local Enhancements, in the approximate amount of Five Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,100,000.00). (6) Property Owner shall mean and include the current and any future fee owner of a CAC Property. (7) Redevelopment Proposal shall mean an application for the redevelopment of a Developed Property. (8) Undeveloped Property shall mean a vacant CAC Property for which no development or redevelopment proposal plan of development has been approved as of the effective date of this Ordinance, either by the City or Larimer County prior to the annexation of the property to the City. (c) Imposition of the fee. (1) There is hereby established a special fee that shall be imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance upon the owners of all CAC Properties. Said fee shall consist of a Proximity Component and a Trip Generation Component. The Proximity Component of the fee is intended to reflect the relative benefit derived by each CAC Property from the construction of the Improvements, as determined Page 4 by the Foster Study, while the Trip Generation Component of the fee is intended to reflect the relative traffic impacts of each CAC Property. a. The Proximity Component of the fee for all Developed and Undeveloped Properties shall be in the amounts shown in the following spreadsheet. These amounts represent each CAC Property’s proportionate share of the sum of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Seventy-five Dollars ($1,275,000.00), which is one-half of the Property Owners’ share of the Local Contribution. b. The amount of the Trip Generation Component shall be calculated by identifying the number of vehicular trips per day that each CAC property, as developed or redeveloped, generates or will generate, using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, as amended, and by multiplying that number by seven and seventy-five one-hundreths dollars per trip, which amount has been determined by dividing the remaining one-half of the Property Owners’ share of the Local Contribution by the estimated total number of trips generated in the CAC. (d) Payment of the fee. (1) For CAC properties currently located within the City limits. a. The Proximity Component of the fee shall be payable in equal quarterly installments, with the first such installment due and payable on or before March 31, 2013, and the last such installment due and payable on or before March 31, 2020. GROSS DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEE ZONE A 86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 297,910 $0.28 $82,892 $41,446 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 186,550 $0.28 $51,907 $25,953 ZONE B 86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 578,912 $0.21 $120,810 $60,405 ZONE B - 1 86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 336,499 $0.21 $70,222 $35,111 ZONE C 86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 955,151 $0.12 $110,736 $55,368 86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 587,429 $0.12 $68,104 $34,052 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 596,500 $0.12 $69,156 $34,578 86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 81,404 $0.12 $9,438 $4,719 86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 681,468 $0.12 $79,006 $39,503 86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,708,402 1,576,365 $0.12 $182,757 $91,379 Larimer County Parcel # OWNER PROXIMITY COMPONENT OF FEE Page 5 b. The Trip Generation Component of the fee shall also be payable in equal quarterly installments. For Developed Properties, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component shall be due and payable on or before March 31, 2013, and the last such installment shall be due and payable on or before March 31, 2020. For Undeveloped Properties, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component shall be due and payable ninety (90) days after the date of the City’s final approval of any Development Proposal for such property, and the last installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. (2) For CAC Properties currently within unincorporated Larimer County. a. For Developed Properties, and for Undeveloped Properties for which a development proposal has been approved by Larimer County between the effective date of this Ordinance and the effective date of the annexation of the property to the City, both the Proximity Component and the Trip Generation Component of the fee shall be payable in equal quarterly installments within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the annexation, and the last such installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. The Trip Generation Component shall be based upon the approved development plan that exists as of the date of the annexation. b. For Undeveloped Properties for which no development proposal has been approved prior to the date of annexation, the first installment of the Proximity Installment of the Fee shall be due and payable within ninety (90) days of the effective date of annexation, and the last installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. The first installment of the Trip Generation Component shall be due and payable ninety (90) days after the date of the City’s final approval of any Development Proposal for such property, and the last installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. c. For the purposes of this Subsection (d)(2), the effective date of annexation shall be as provided in C.R.S. Section 31-12-113. (3) Interest on the foregoing payments shall accrue at the rate of three and five one-hundreths percent (3.05%) per annum from the effective date of this Ordinance until the principal amount of such payments has been paid in full. (4) Notwithstanding any provision of this Ordinance that may be construed to the contrary, in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Ordinance or under agreements executed pursuant to Section 2 of this Ordinance, equals or exceeds the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus interest on said amount from the effective date of this Ordinance at the rate of three and five one-hundreths (3.05%), all CAC Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to pay the fee imposed by this Ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of said fee may remain unpaid. Page 6 (e) Unpaid charges a lien. If any amount due and payable to the City under the provisions of this Ordinance is not paid on or before the due date specified in the billing notice sent to the Property Owner by the Financial Officer, penalty interest shall accrue and be payable on such amount at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, and the entire unpaid balance, plus interest and collection costs, if any, shall constitute a perpetual lien on the CAC Property to which the fee applies. (f) Appeals. Property Owners may appeal to the Financial Officer in writing at any time the question of whether properties owned or occupied by them are being charged the proper fee under the provisions of this Ordinance. The burden shall be on the appellant to provide substantial, competent evidence that the CAC Property that is the subject of the appeal is not being charged the proper fee. The Financial Officer may hold a hearing on the appeal in his or her discretion, and may consider other competent evidence provided by City staff. The Financial Officer‘s written decision shall be mailed to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The appellant may appeal the Financial Officer’s decision to the City Manager pursuant to Division 3 of Chapter 2 of the City Code. (g) Fee not an impact fee or development charge subject to state regulation. It is the intention of the City Council that the fee imposed under the provisions of this Ordinance not be construed as an impact fee or development charge within the meaning of Section 29-20-104.5, C.R.S. but a special fee imposed under the home rule authority of the City. Accordingly, to the extent that any of the provisions of said Section 29-20-104.5 may conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. (h) Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Article or the validity of this Article as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision. Section 2. Payment by agreement. (a) In lieu of paying the fee imposed by this Ordinance according to the terms and conditions contained in Section 1 above, Property Owners may elect to pay the fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of a written agreement with the City, which agreement shall include the following provisions: (1) No interest accrue or be due on the principal amount of the fee for the first two years following the execution of the agreement; thereafter, interest will accrue at the rate of 2.35% for the first eight years and at the rate of 3.05% for each additional year until the fee, together with accrued interest, is paid in full. Page 7 (2) Payment of the full amount of the fee, and all interest due thereon, will be deferred, in its entirety, for Undeveloped Properties in the CAC until the first building permit is issued for such properties pursuant to an approved Development Proposal for the property. (3) Payment of the fee will not be required for Developed Properties in the CAC unless the amount of traffic that will be generated by such property, as redeveloped under a Redevelopment Proposal, will increase by at least thirty-five percent (35%), as compared to the amount of traffic generated by the current use of the property. (4) The total amount of the fee will be capped at the amount stated in the agreement. (b) No such agreement may be entered into by the City unless the Property Owner electing to enter into the same notifies the City Manager in writing of his or her desire to do so on or before November 30, 2012, and the agreement is approved by the City Council on or before December 31, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Page 8 PLACEHOLDER FOR Exhibit A CAC - Map Page 9 PLACEHOLDER FOR Exhibit B – Foster Study E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW Fossil Creek Reservoir 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Miles © I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center Land Use Commercial Employment Residential Natural Resource Buffer I-25 Setback Wetlands Boundaries CAC Fort Collins GMA Windsor GMA Parcels Proposed Interchange Redesign Interchange Footprint Right of Way Changes CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: February 24, 2011 EXHIBIT A W. West Foster, MAI, CRE, SR/WA ♦ Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA Jon M. Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA ♦ Christine Antonio ♦ Michael Smith Certified General Real Estate Appraisers ♦ 910 54th Avenue, Suite 210, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Phone (970) 352-1117 ♦ FAX (970) 323-2753 October 3, 2012 Mr. Rick Richter Capital Projects Manager Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 John P. Frey, Esq. Frey McCargar & Plock, LLC The Historic Harmony Mill 131 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 Reimbursement Study- Revised October 3, 2012 Dear Mr. Richter and Mr. Frey: At your request, I am submitting my revised appraisal consulting report, which involves a reimbursement study prepared to estimate an equitable manner to assess property owners within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and the Windsor GMA who benefit from the capital improvement project proposed to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange. Scope of the Assignment City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor officials have committed to fund approximately $2.3 million as their share of the proposed interchange construction costs and an additional $250,000 for interchange enhancements. This study is to determine a fair and equitable manner for the two municipalities to assess property owners and be reimbursed based on the estimated influence the project is to have on the value of those properties in proximity to the project. The study involves making a determination of which properties within the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor growth management areas in proximity to the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are EXHIBIT B Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 2 October 3, 2012 being benefitted from the proposed interchange improvements and to what extent the properties are enhanced by the proposed access enhancements. The properties within the two growth management areas in proximity to the interchange were studied to formulate an opinion as to the extent they are estimated to benefit from the proposed interchange improvements. The areas of influence are reduced typically based on the diminished proximity to the interchange. The conclusion was reached that when confined to properties within both communities' growth management areas, the sites within the corridor activity center (CAC) boundary were those deemed to possess the most influence from the interchange improvements. The initial focus of my investigation was to study the influences on land value in proximity to newly developed interstate highway interchanges. The four interchanges that had the most significant and relevant data were in the Denver Metropolitan area. The two interchanges where the most significant data were found included the recently constructed Interstate 25 and 144th Avenue interchange and the Interstate 25 and 136th Avenue interchange. Data in proximity to the E-470 and East Smoky Hill Road interchange and the E-470 and the South Gartrell Road interchange were also studied. These data were then utilized to estimate the extent to which the land around this interchange would increase in value after the interchange improvements are made. Based on the data gathered at the four interchanges mentioned, it was concluded that there are four areas of influence, which I have labeled Value Enhancement Zones A through D. On the attached I25 - State Highway 392 Interchange Value Enhancement Zones map, Zones A and A-1 are highlighted in red, Zones B and B-1 are in orange, Zone C is shown in pale green, and Zone D is highlighted in darker green. Zones A and A-1 feature the best proximity to the interchange and, in my opinion, will benefit the greatest from the interchange improvements. Zone A consists of commercially-zoned land. Zone A-1 consists of commercial lots on the east side of Interstate 25 straddling Colorado State Highway 392. Based on the investigation of data surrounding the four interchanges discussed above, Zone A prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 3 October 3, 2012 Zones B and B-1 are slightly farther removed from the interchange, but still possess strong influence for potential commercial uses. Zone B consists strictly of vacant commercially-zoned land. The Zone B-1 parcel consists of a commercial site on the west side of Interstate 25 north of Colorado State Highway 392 that has been significantly improved with buildings. Zone B prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the inter- changes were nearing completion on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot. Zone C is farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility. Zone C prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot. Zone D is yet farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are also influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility due to the interchange improvements. Zone D prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot. The preceding data are generated from newly developed interchanges where none previously existed. The value increases at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are not expected to be quite as dramatic. Value Enhancement Fee Estimates Each property within the four primary zones discussed above is shown in the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet and is identified by Larimer County assessor's parcel number and ownership as indicated in county records. The gross land area has been calculated using the best available information; and the non-developable areas have been calculated using City of Fort Collins Geographical Information System (GIS) data, which then results in a developable land area calculation per square foot. The value enhancement fees will be assessed based on developable land area per square foot at the time the sites are developed or when the sites are redeveloped. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 4 October 3, 2012 At the newly constructed interchanges studied, the Zone A prices increased on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Since no interchanges existed before, these average increases are greater than what would be expected at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 when the interchange improvements are completed since that interchange already exists. Using 25 to 50 percent of the $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot estimated value after the interchange improvements are made results in a forecast increase from $1.88 to $3.75 per square foot for Zones A and A-1. There are 1,576,345 square feet of developable land area in Zones A and A-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zone A category will be from just over $2.9 million to nearly $6 million. In Zones B and B-1 prices increased on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot at the interchanges studied. Again, since an interchange already exists at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $1.16 to $2.32 per square foot within Zones B and B-1. There are 4,333,889 square feet of developable land area in Zones B and B-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zones B and B-1 will be from $5.0 to nearly $10.1 million. Land prices in Zone C at the interchanges studied increased on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot due to the new interchange construction. Again, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.94 to $1.88 per square foot within Zone C. There are 6,682,600 square feet of developable land area in Zone C. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $6.3 to nearly $12.6 million. At the interchanges studied, land prices in Zone D increased on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot as a result of the new interchange being constructed. As with the preceding zones analyzed, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.53 to $1.06 per square foot within Zone D. There are 9,320,291 square feet of developable land area in Zone D. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $4.9 to nearly $9.9 million. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 5 October 3, 2012 It is clear from the data gathered at the four interchanges studied that the improvements proposed at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange will enhance property values within the CAC at a minimum of $19.1 million, which is greater than the $2.55 million being assessed. Exhibit A: I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Map Exhibit B: Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet Exhibit C: Qualifications of W. West Foster Exhibit D: Certification E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW F o s s i l C r e e k R e s e r v o i r 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Miles © I25 - State Value HWY Enhancement 392 Interchange Zones Value Zone Enhancement A Zone Zone B C Zone No Use D Areas Boundaries CAC Fort Windsor Collins GMA GMA Parcels Wetlands Proposed Interchange Interchange Footprint Redesign Right of Way Changes CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: August 10, 2011 GROSS NON-DEV DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL PROXIMITY OWNER LAND AREA LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEES COMPONENT OF FEE REMARKS ZONE A 86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 347,609 297,910 $0.28 $82,892 $41,446 NWQ of I-25 and SH 392 Interchange 86154-05-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,410 0 73,410 $0.28 $20,426 $10,213 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,324 0 73,324 $0.28 $20,402 $10,201 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-001 BANK OF CHOICE 55,889 0 55,889 $0.28 $15,551 $7,775 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 74,479 0 74,479 $0.28 $20,723 $10,362 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-007 BUSINESS PARK I OF 392 49,185 0 49,185 $0.28 $13,686 $6,843 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 0 186,550 $0.28 $51,907 $25,953 Prime SW Quadrant of I-25 and SH 392 ZONE A-1 86154-05-003 KHUONG HUONG TANG, et al 26,196 0 26,196 $0.28 $7,289 $3,644 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-004 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 36,568 0 36,568 $0.28 $10,175 $5,087 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-006 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 60,807 0 60,807 $0.28 $16,919 $8,460 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-002 MICHAEL I. MAXWELL, et al 55,178 0 55,178 $0.28 $15,353 $7,677 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-001 THE BAILEY COMPANY 43,963 0 43,963 $0.28 $12,233 $6,116 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-001 SCHRADER PROPERTIES, LLC 66,211 0 66,211 $0.28 $18,423 $9,211 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-002 TACO JOHNS INTERNATIONAL INC 49,223 0 49,223 $0.28 $13,696 $6,848 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-003 FORMER TCE, LLC 100,887 0 100,887 $0.28 $28,071 $14,036 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-004 WESTGATE HOSPITALITY LLC 96,118 0 96,118 $0.28 $26,744 $13,372 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-47-001 MEYERS 4701 LLC 152,444 0 152,444 $0.28 $42,417 $21,208 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-003 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS 78,003 0 78,003 $0.28 $21,704 $10,852 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot ZONE B 86154-06-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 772,886 21,283 751,603 $0.21 $156,848 $78,424 I-25 Frontage in NEQ of interchange 86150-00-014 YEAGER, NANCY L TRUSTEE 786,783 53,648 733,135 $0.21 $152,994 $76,497 North side of SH 392 east of Bus. Park 86154-08-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 653,873 242,410 411,463 $0.21 $85,866 $42,933 East of Frontage Rd. N. of SH 392 86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 0 578,912 $0.21 $120,810 $60,405 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393 86221-47-002 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 995,327 85,593 909,734 $0.21 $189,847 $94,924 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 86220-00-003 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 1,324,499 711,956 612,543 $0.21 $127,828 $63,914 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 ZONE B - 1 86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 71,223 336,499 $0.21 $70,222 $35,111 I-25 Frontage N of SH 392 in NWQ of interchange ZONE C 86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 71,728 955,151 $0.12 $110,736 $55,368 Frontage on west side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 352,269 587,429 $0.12 $68,104 $34,052 Frontage on east side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86154-06-003 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 126,260 85,128 41,132 $0.12 $4,769 $2,384 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-004 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 317,882 15,897 301,985 $0.12 $35,011 $17,505 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-005 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 291,695 0 291,695 $0.12 $33,818 $16,909 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-006 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 37,858 0 37,858 $0.12 $4,389 $2,195 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86150-00-017 JBT ASSOCIATES, LLC 1,767,708 236,095 1,531,613 $0.12 $177,569 $88,784 West Side of LC Road 5 N. of SH 392 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 444,571 596,500 $0.12 $69,156 $34,578 South of SH 392; West of Wetlands 86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 163,264 81,404 $0.12 $9,438 $4,719 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 221,691 681,468 $0.12 $79,006 $39,503 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,708,402 132,037 1,576,365 $0.12 $182,757 $91,379 Farther South of SH 392 West of I-25 ZONE D 86220-00-004 WINDSOR GOLD COAST LLC 2,544,953 224,297 2,320,656 $0.05 $107,619 $53,809 Farther South of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-021 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,555,303 501,653 1,053,650 $0.05 $48,862 $24,431 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-016 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,030,219 419,817 610,402 $0.05 $28,307 $14,153 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-011 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,045,838 486,358 559,480 $0.05 $25,945 $12,973 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-001 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,444,331 381,052 1,063,279 $0.05 $49,309 $24,654 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-002 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 94,626 69,233 25,393 $0.05 $1,178 $589 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-015 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 1,625,207 469,646 1,155,561 $0.05 $53,588 $26,794 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 86150-00-020 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 3,452,929 921,059 2,531,870 $0.05 $117,414 $58,707 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 21,913,125 $2,550,000 $216,111 ATTACHMENT ONE - VALUE ENHANCEMENT ZONE ANALYSIS September 2012 Foster Valuation Company LLC QUALIFICATIONS OF W. WEST FOSTER Education M.S. Degree in Regional Economics, Colorado State University. B.S. Degree in General Business, Colorado State University. All of the basic courses required for the MAI designation given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; Course III (Rural Properties); Course IV (Litigation Valuation); Course VI (Real Estate Investment Analysis); Course VII (Industrial Valuation); Course 520 (Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis); Course 550 (Advanced Applications); and all Litigation courses offered in the Professional Development Program. This partial list of courses was all given by the Appraisal Institute or its predecessor organizations. Principles of Real Estate Engineering, The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions, and several relocation courses, given by the International Right of Way Association. Management and Leasing of Shopping Centers, by the Institute of Real Estate Management. Advanced Ranch Appraisal, by the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Seminars: Computer-Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling, Subdivision Appraisal, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, plus numerous real estate seminars given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and later by the Appraisal Institute. Memberships and Designations Appraisal Institute: Designated Member (MAI) 1982 to 1986 - National Division of Curriculum 1986 to 1987 - National committee to write The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th Edition 1987 to 1991 - Board of Examiners, General Demonstration Appraisal Reports 1987 to 1994 - Regional Member, Review and Counseling Division 1991 to 1994 - Regional Representative, Region II 1992 to 2008 - Contributor to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th through 13th Editions 1995 - National Vice Chair, Review and Counseling Division 1995 - Vice Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 to 1997 - Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 - National Chair, Ethics Administration Division 1997 to 2008 - National Chair, Professional Ethics and Counseling Committee American Society of Real Estate Counselors: Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) 1994 - Vice Chair, Colorado Chapter 1995 - Chair, Colorado Chapter International Right of Way Association: Senior Right of Way Professional (SR/WA) Northern Colorado Commercial Association of Realtors Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: State of Colorado, #CG00001795 Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser, April 1981 to present, specializing in valuation and counseling with respect to a variety of nonresidential properties. Robert J. Mitchell, MAI, & Associates: Fee Appraiser, March 1976 to March 1981, specializing in rural and income property valuation. Qualified in District and Federal Courts as an Expert Valuation Witness. CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal consulting assignment. 8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. No one provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing this certification. 11. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 12. As of the date of this appraisal consulting report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I estimate the reimbursement amounts to be based as shown on the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis, as of October 3, 2012, to be as shown in the attached: ORDINANCE NO. 118, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, on January 3, 2011, the City of Fort Collins (the "City") and the Town of Windsor (the "Town") entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Original Agreement") setting forth certain understandings between the City and the Town with regard to the development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement anticipated the future adoption of ordinances and resolutions by the City and the Town necessary to implement the provisions of that Agreement; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the Original Agreement, staff of the City and the Town have developed a number of proposed changes to the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are of sufficient substance to require a full amendment of the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the changes recommended by staff are in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved by the City Council, with such changes in form or substance as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 1 FIRST AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”), and the Town of Windsor, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “Town”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and the Town are situated on opposite sides of Interstate 25 and are both committed to planned and orderly development; to regulating the location and activities of development which may result in increased demand for services; to providing for the orderly development and extension of urban services; to simplifying governmental structure when possible; to promoting the economic vitality of both municipalities; to protecting the environment; and to raising revenue sufficient to meet the needs of their citizens; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“the Original Agreement”) setting forth certain understandings between the City and the Town with regard to the development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement anticipated the future adoption of ordinances and resolutions by the City and the Town necessary to implement the provisions of that Agreement; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the Original Agreement, the City and the Town have agreed upon a number of changes to the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the changes agreed to are of sufficient substance to require a full amendment of the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, this First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement (‘this Agreement”) reflects the changes agreed to by the City and the Town as well as restating and reaffirming those provisions of the Original Agreement which the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Constitution, Section 29-20-101 et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the home rule charters of both the City and Town authorize the City and the Town to enter into mutually binding and enforceable agreements regarding the joint exercise of planning, zoning and related powers as those powers are exercised in the provisions of this Agreement. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 14 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows. SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1. “Agreement” means this First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement and attachments hereto. 1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.3. “CDOT” means the Colorado Department of Transportation. 1.4. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that joint planning area referred to above and more fully described on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.5. “Developable Land” means that portion of each parcel of real property within the CAC upon which buildings, infrastructure or other improvements may lawfully be constructed, taking into consideration the physical characteristics of the property and all applicable state and local laws and regulations. 1.6. “Development Proposal” means an application for the development of a parcel of land within the CAC. 1.7. “Effective Date” means the date that the last party signs this Agreement, or ten days after the final approval by the last governing board of the City or Town. 1.8. “Enhanced Improvements” means any improvements within the vicinity of the Interchange that are deemed necessary or appropriate by the governing bodies of the City and the Town, which improvements shall be constructed and maintained by the City and the Town. 1.9. “Foster Study” means the report prepared by Foster Valuation Company, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” 1.10. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange. 1.11. “Original Agreement” means the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Town dated January 3, 2011. 1.12. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392. Page 3 of 14 1.13. “Property Owner” shall mean and include the current and any future fee owner of a CAC property. 1.14. “Property Tax Increment” means the net new revenue generated by property taxes on real property located within the boundaries of the CAC, using as the baseline a base rate of 9.797 mils, as applied to the assessed valuation developed by Larimer County as of the Effective Date. 1.15. “Redevelopment Proposal” means an application for the redevelopment of a previously developed parcel of land within the CAC. 1.16. “Sales Tax Increment” means the net new sales tax revenues generated by sales within the boundaries of the CAC, using as the baseline a base rate of 2.25% and the amount of tax revenue received in the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the Effective Date. 1.17. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado. SECTION 2. CONFIGURATION OF THE CAC For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties have agreed upon the boundaries of the CAC and those boundaries are more fully described on Exhibit “A” to this Agreement. SECTION 3. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 3.1. Permitted uses. Pursuant to the Original Agreement, the Parties have by ordinance adopted approved land uses for the CAC. Except by written agreement approved by both Parties, the Parties hereby agree that for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the date of the execution of this Agreement, neither Party shall repeal or otherwise amend their respective ordinances adopting these land uses. 3.2. Applicable Standards. Pursuant to the Original Agreement, the Parties have lawfully adopted standards and guidelines for development of the properties in the CAC, including, but not limited to, the standards contained in the Northern Colorado Regional I-25 Corridor Plan (2001). These standards and guidelines are referred to herein collectively as the CAC Design Standards. Except by written agreement approved by both Parties, these CAC Design Standards shall remain in full force and effect for a term of twenty-five (25) years. 3.3. Review and Approval of Site Specific Development Proposals. 3.3.1 In order to promote and maintain the commitments of the City and Town with regard to development within the CAC, the Parties hereby jointly agree to the following review process for Development or Redevelopment Proposals for property within the CAC. Page 4 of 14 a. Neither the City nor Town shall, without the prior written consent of the other Party, approve the construction of any improvements within the CAC which are inconsistent with the CAC Design Standards. b. Plans and specifications for any Development or Redevelopment Proposal on land located within the CAC that are received by either Party after the Effective Date shall, no later than thirty (30) business days prior to taking action, be submitted by the Party having jurisdiction over the proposal to the other Party for review and comment; provided, however, that the Parties may mutually agree to a shorter or longer review and comment period. c. Such plans and specifications shall include a brief written description of the Development or Redevelopment Proposal and the surrounding vicinity, development maps and graphics, and renderings of all proposed improvements. d. The receiving Party shall review the materials and respond to the other Party with written comments within the aforementioned thirty (30) business days. Each party agrees that it shall use its best efforts to provide comments in a timely fashion. However, the Parties expressly agree that any delay in submitting comments shall not require the delay of hearings or decisions by the party having jurisdiction over the Development Proposal. e. The Parties shall designate a single point of contact for the communication of materials and comments contemplated by this Section. f. The review and comment provided for herein is intended to be cooperative in nature, and is not intended to be binding upon the party having jurisdiction to grant, modify, or deny a Development or Redevelopment Proposal and shall not preclude the approval of any such proposal that is consistent with the CAC Design Standards and the provisions of this Agreement. 3.3.2. Notice of Incentives. In the event that either Party extends, or agrees to extend, to any applicant for approval of a Development or Redevelopment Proposal within the CAC, any financial or other incentives in connection with such Development or Redevelopment Proposal, such Party shall provide the other Party with a detailed description of such financial or other incentives prior to the formal approval of the same, excluding only such information as is proprietary in nature. The provision and funding of any such incentives shall be the sole responsibility of the Party having jurisdiction over the Development or Redevelopment Proposal, unless the Parties agree to the contrary in a written amendment to this Agreement. Page 5 of 14 SECTION 4. COST SHARING 4.1. Funding of the Project. 4.1.1 The Project, which is now nearing completion, has been constructed, managed, and in large part funded by CDOT. Each of the Parties has appropriated the necessary amounts to complete the funding of the Project pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Parties and CDOT dated January 3, 2011. In addition to this contribution to the funding of the construction of the Project, the City and the Town have also appropriated funds for the construction of the Enhanced Improvements. The Enhanced Improvements shall not include enhanced wetland mitigation on the west side of Interstate 25. The City may, in its discretion, pay for the cost of such enhanced wetland mitigation, and the Town shall have no obligation to help fund such mitigation. 4.1.2 The Parties have agreed to recover an amount not to exceed Fifty Percent (50%) of the actual contribution made by the City and the Town for the construction of the Project and the Enhanced Improvements from the Property Owners in the CAC. The City and the Town shall each adopt ordinances authorizing such recovery and establishing fees and appropriate methodologies for such recovery. 4.1.3 There shall be no further contributions to the Project by the Parties except by a written agreement approved by the governing bodies of both Parties. 4.2. CAC Fee Revenue Fund. 4.2.1 The Parties shall, within sixty (60) days after collecting any fee revenues from Property Owners as described in Section 4 of this Agreement, deposit such revenues into a CAC Fee Revenue Fund (“Fee Revenue Fund”) to be established and administered by one of the Parties pursuant to a written administrative agreement approved by the Town Manager and the City Manager, which agreement shall include a provision whereby the Parties will equitably share the costs incurred in administering the Fee and managing the Fee Revenue Fund. The amounts deposited into the Fee Revenue Fund shall be disbursed annually to the Parties in equal amounts, without regard to whether the properties that generated the Fee revenues are located with the territorial limits of the City or the Town. Such disbursements shall continue until the City and the Town have been fully reimbursed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Agreement. 4.2.2 Either Party may elect to forego the collection of all or any portion of the fee revenues due from a particular Property Owner in exchange for the Property Owner's provision of a reciprocal benefit to such Party, which benefit may include, but need not be limited to, the setting aside or Page 6 of 14 dedication to the public of a portion of the developable land within the parcel for purposes such as wetlands, open space, parks or other improvements or amenities. In the event that either party elects to forego the collection of any fee revenue pursuant to this provision, such Party shall nonetheless pay into the Fee Revenue Fund the full amount of the Fee that would have been due from the Property Owner had such election not been made. SECTION 5. REVENUE SHARING 5.1. Terms and Conditions. The Parties shall, pursuant to the following terms and conditions, share the Property Tax Increment and Sales Tax Increment generated by properties and businesses located within the boundaries of the CAC. 5.1.1 All tax revenues generated by the Property Tax Increment and Sales Tax Increment shall be deposited by each Party in a separate account and shall not be intermingled with any other funds of that Party. 5.1.2 Sixty-five percent (65%) of the Property and Sales Tax Increment revenues generated in the CAC shall be retained by each Party for use as that Party sees fit. The remaining thirty-fix percent (35%) of such revenues shall be transferred to the other Party within sixty (60) days of December 31 of each year. Annual statements showing calendar year total receipts of all such revenues from each of the Property Owners and retailers within the CAC shall be shared with the other Party within thirty (30) days of December 31 of each year, and the Parties agree that these statements are being disclosed solely for tax-related purposes and are therefor to remain confidential. 5.1.3 Any interest earned on deposits in the account described in Section 5.1.1 above shall remain the property of the Party that collected the revenue upon which the interest was earned and shall not be shared. 5.1.4 The share distribution shall begin on the Effective Date. 5.1.5 Any increase or decrease in the sales or property tax rates of either the City or the Town shall not affect the Property Tax Increment or the Sales Tax Increment due from the City or the Town for the revenue sharing purposes of this Section. 5.1.6 In the event either the City or the Town creates one or more exemptions from sales taxes or property taxes, and such exemption(s) results in a reduction in the amount of revenue collected by such Party in the CAC, the Party creating the exemption(s) shall include the exempted amount in its calculation of the amount of Property and Sales Tax Increment revenue that is due to the other Party under this Section as if the exemption(s) had not been created. Page 7 of 14 5.1.7 To the extent permitted by law, this sharing of revenues shall continue in perpetuity. 5.2. Cooperation in Attracting New Development. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they may need to cooperate in an effort to attract desirable development. Nothing herein shall preclude the Parties from entering into a subsequent agreement modifying the within Section and creating incentives for development in the CAC beneficial to both Parties. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, an agreement to reduce or eliminate the revenue sources identified in this Section. Any such agreement shall be in writing and set forth the terms under which a modification of this Section will occur. 5.3. Bonding. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to restrict either Party from being able to utilize its sixty-five percent (65%) share of the Property Tax Increment revenue and Sales and Use Tax Increment revenue as collateral or use in underwriting any bond, note, debenture, or other municipal borrowing. SECTION 6. INSPECTION OF RECORDS. The City and the Town shall each have the right to inspect and audit the tax revenue and fee collection records of the other pertaining to this Agreement. If any discrepancy is discovered, the auditing Party shall provide written notice, including a copy of the audit report, to the other Party. Any amount due must be paid within thirty (30) days following the written notice or the Parties must engage in negotiations regarding the discrepancy. If a mutual agreement is not reached in sixty (60) days, the provisions of Section 8 below will apply. To the extent permitted by law, all tax and revenue collection information which is obtained by and pursuant to the inspection and audit provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed privileged, confidential and proprietary information and is being disclosed solely for tax-related purposes, including the calculation of revenue sharing payments pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties agree that they will not disclose any information to any person not having a legitimate need-to-know for purposes authorized by this Agreement. The period of limitation for the recovery of any funds payable under this Agreement shall be three (3) years from the date on which the payment is due. Upon the expiration of this period of limitation and any action for collection or recovery of unpaid revenue sharing funds shall be barred. Each Party and its authorized agents may, upon thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the other, audit the other’s records of those taxes and fees which are collected within the CAC and which are being shared pursuant to this Agreement. Page 8 of 14 SECTION 7. ANNEXATION 7.1. Amendment of Growth Management Area Boundaries. In order to promote ongoing cooperation and collaboration between the Parties with respect to land use planning on both sides of Interstate 25, and to further the purposes contained in C.R.S. Section 31-12-102 of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, the Parties agree that Interstate 25 shall become the boundary between the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“FCGMA”) and the Windsor Growth Management Area (“WGMA”). Accordingly, after the Effective Date, neither Party shall annex, or accept any petition to annex, property within the other Party’s growth management area as amended in accordance with this provision. Nor shall either Party annex, or accept any petition to annex, or include within its growth management area, the right of way for Interstate 25 adjacent to the other Party’s growth management area without the prior written consent of the other Party. Any future amendments to the contiguous boundaries of the FCGMA and the WGMA shall be made only if agreed upon in writing by both Parties. 7.2. County Approval of GMA Boundary Amendments. Both Parties have heretofore entered into intergovernmental agreements with Larimer County that establish the growth management areas of the Parties, which agreements provide for, among other things, the way in which development applications for properties within the FCGMA and the WGMA will be processed by Larimer County. Accordingly, in order to ensure the cooperation of Larimer County in implementing the provisions of this Section, each Party shall, within one (1) year of the Effective Date, seek the approval of Larimer County to amend its agreement with Larimer County so as to reflect the amendments to the FCGMA and WGMA required hereunder. However, the failure of Larimer County to approve either or both such amendments shall not affect the obligation of the Parties to refrain from annexing territory within the FCGMA, the WGMA or the right of way for Interstate 25 as required in Section 7.1 above. 7.3. Effect on Prior Annexation Agreements. The provisions of this Section shall supersede and take precedence over any conflicting provisions contained in those certain agreements between the Parties entitled “Intergovernmental Agreement (Regarding Annexations East of Interstate Highway 25)” and “Intergovernmental Agreement (Regarding Annexations in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area Adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir), both of which are dated June 28, 1999. SECTION 8. MEDIATION/ARBITRATION 8.1. Enforceability of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that agreements between municipalities for the purposes set forth herein are mutually binding and enforceable. The parties likewise acknowledge that the unique nature of agreements between municipalities often require equally unique remedies to ensure compliance with the provisions of such agreements while preserving the obligations of the parties to one and other and promoting the continued existence and effectiveness of such agreements. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement to provide enforcement remedies through a Page 9 of 14 combination of alternative dispute methodologies including mediation and binding arbitration, and thereby eliminate the necessity of judicial enforcement of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude either party from seeking judicial enforcement of any mediation agreement reached between the parties or binding arbitration order entered as a result of the alternate dispute methodologies set forth herein. 8.2. Mediation/Arbitration Process in General. Should either party fail to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, the other party, after providing written notification to the non-complying party, and upon the failure of the non-complying party to achieve compliance within forty five (45) days after said notice, the issue of non-compliance shall be submitted to mediation and thereafter, assuming no resolution has been reached through the mediation process, shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The mediation and binding arbitration processes shall in accordance with the provisions hereinafter set forth. These mediation and arbitration provisions shall be in addition to questions of non- compliance as aforesaid, apply to all disagreements or failure of the parties to reach agreement as may be required by the terms of this Agreement. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, the creation of joint land use designs and standards, approval or rejection of Development Proposals, and disputed matters concerning shared revenues. 8.3. Sharing of Costs. All costs of the mediation/binding arbitration process shall be divided equally between the Parties. 8.4. Mediation Process. The dispute resolution process shall commence with the appointment of a mediator who shall be experienced in matters of local government and the legal obligations of local government entities. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) days of the commencement of the process, each party shall within five (5) days appoint an independent third party, and the third parties so appointed shall select a mediator within fifteen (15) days of their appointment. Mediation shall be completed no later than sixty (60) days after a mediator is selected by the parties or by the independent third parties. The procedures and methodology for mediation shall be determined by the mediator, but shall be in compliance with applicable law. 8.5. Binding Arbitration Process. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement through the mediation process, the matter in dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The parties agree that the order resulting from the arbitration process shall be deemed a final and conclusive resolution of the matter in dispute. The parties shall agree on the appointment of an arbitrator who shall be experienced in matters of local government and the legal obligations of local government entities. It is understood and agreed that the parties may agree upon the appointment of that person who conducted the mediation portion of this process as the arbitrator, but are not bound to do so. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator within fifteen (15) days, each party will appoint an independent third party, and the third parties so appointed shall select a mediator within fifteen (15) days of their appointment. Arbitration shall be completed no later than ninety (90) days after an arbitrator is selected by the parties or by Page 10 of 14 the independent third parties. The procedures and methodology for binding arbitration shall be determined by the arbitrator, but shall be in compliance with applicable law. SECTION 9. CONTINGENT ON APPROPRIATIONS The obligations of the City and Town do not constitute an indebtedness of the City or Town within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or provision. The obligations of the City and Town for payment of the Sales Tax Increment under this Agreement shall be from year to year only and shall not constitute a mandatory payment obligation of the City or Town in any fiscal year beyond the present fiscal year. This Agreement shall not directly or indirectly obligate the City or Town to make any payments of Sales Tax Increment beyond those appropriated for any fiscal year in which this Agreement shall be in effect. The City and Town Manager (or any other officer or employee at the time charged with the responsibility of formulating budget proposals) is hereby directed to include in the budget proposals and appropriation ordinances submitted to the City Council and the Town Board, in each year prior to expiration of this Agreement, amounts sufficient to meet its obligations hereunder, but only if it shall have received such amounts in the form of Sales Tax Increment, it being the intent, however, that the decision as to whether to appropriate such amounts shall be at the discretion of the City Council and Town Board. SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS 10.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the sharing of (1) costs for the Project; and (2) net new tax revenues generated with the CAC boundaries. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by the Parties. 10.2. Severability. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by the courts to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision of this Agreement and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision was never part of this Agreement. 10.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered with the State of Colorado and the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability. 10.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado. 10.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and Page 11 of 14 sent via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be: If to the City: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 With a copy to City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 If to the Town: Town Manager Windsor Town Hall 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 With a copy to Town Attorney c/o Town Manager Windsor Town Hall 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 10.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement. 10.7. Authorization. The signatories to this Agreement affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made. 10.8. Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor the City or Towns’ rights, obligations or duties may be assigned or transferred in whole or in part by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party. 10.9. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. Page 12 of 14 10.10. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the undersigned Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 10.11. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 10.12. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Approved as to Form: CITY OF FORT COLLINS ________________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk TOWN OF WINDSOR ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Town Clerk Page 13 of 14 PLACEHOLDER FOR Exhibit A – Map Page 14 of 14 PLACEHOLDER FOR Exhibit B –Foster Study E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW Fossil Creek Reservoir 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Miles © I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center Land Use Commercial Employment Residential Natural Resource Buffer I-25 Setback Wetlands Boundaries CAC Fort Collins GMA Windsor GMA Parcels Proposed Interchange Redesign Interchange Footprint Right of Way Changes CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: February 24, 2011 EXHIBIT A to the Amended IGA W. West Foster, MAI, CRE, SR/WA ♦ Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA Jon M. Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA ♦ Christine Antonio ♦ Michael Smith Certified General Real Estate Appraisers ♦ 910 54th Avenue, Suite 210, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Phone (970) 352-1117 ♦ FAX (970) 323-2753 October 3, 2012 Mr. Rick Richter Capital Projects Manager Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 John P. Frey, Esq. Frey McCargar & Plock, LLC The Historic Harmony Mill 131 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 Reimbursement Study- Revised October 3, 2012 Dear Mr. Richter and Mr. Frey: At your request, I am submitting my revised appraisal consulting report, which involves a reimbursement study prepared to estimate an equitable manner to assess property owners within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and the Windsor GMA who benefit from the capital improvement project proposed to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange. Scope of the Assignment City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor officials have committed to fund approximately $2.3 million as their share of the proposed interchange construction costs and an additional $250,000 for interchange enhancements. This study is to determine a fair and equitable manner for the two municipalities to assess property owners and be reimbursed based on the estimated influence the project is to have on the value of those properties in proximity to the project. The study involves making a determination of which properties within the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor growth management areas in proximity to the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are EXHIBIT B to the Amended IGA Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 2 October 3, 2012 being benefitted from the proposed interchange improvements and to what extent the properties are enhanced by the proposed access enhancements. The properties within the two growth management areas in proximity to the interchange were studied to formulate an opinion as to the extent they are estimated to benefit from the proposed interchange improvements. The areas of influence are reduced typically based on the diminished proximity to the interchange. The conclusion was reached that when confined to properties within both communities' growth management areas, the sites within the corridor activity center (CAC) boundary were those deemed to possess the most influence from the interchange improvements. The initial focus of my investigation was to study the influences on land value in proximity to newly developed interstate highway interchanges. The four interchanges that had the most significant and relevant data were in the Denver Metropolitan area. The two interchanges where the most significant data were found included the recently constructed Interstate 25 and 144th Avenue interchange and the Interstate 25 and 136th Avenue interchange. Data in proximity to the E-470 and East Smoky Hill Road interchange and the E-470 and the South Gartrell Road interchange were also studied. These data were then utilized to estimate the extent to which the land around this interchange would increase in value after the interchange improvements are made. Based on the data gathered at the four interchanges mentioned, it was concluded that there are four areas of influence, which I have labeled Value Enhancement Zones A through D. On the attached I25 - State Highway 392 Interchange Value Enhancement Zones map, Zones A and A-1 are highlighted in red, Zones B and B-1 are in orange, Zone C is shown in pale green, and Zone D is highlighted in darker green. Zones A and A-1 feature the best proximity to the interchange and, in my opinion, will benefit the greatest from the interchange improvements. Zone A consists of commercially-zoned land. Zone A-1 consists of commercial lots on the east side of Interstate 25 straddling Colorado State Highway 392. Based on the investigation of data surrounding the four interchanges discussed above, Zone A prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 3 October 3, 2012 Zones B and B-1 are slightly farther removed from the interchange, but still possess strong influence for potential commercial uses. Zone B consists strictly of vacant commercially-zoned land. The Zone B-1 parcel consists of a commercial site on the west side of Interstate 25 north of Colorado State Highway 392 that has been significantly improved with buildings. Zone B prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the inter- changes were nearing completion on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot. Zone C is farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility. Zone C prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot. Zone D is yet farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are also influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility due to the interchange improvements. Zone D prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot. The preceding data are generated from newly developed interchanges where none previously existed. The value increases at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are not expected to be quite as dramatic. Value Enhancement Fee Estimates Each property within the four primary zones discussed above is shown in the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet and is identified by Larimer County assessor's parcel number and ownership as indicated in county records. The gross land area has been calculated using the best available information; and the non-developable areas have been calculated using City of Fort Collins Geographical Information System (GIS) data, which then results in a developable land area calculation per square foot. The value enhancement fees will be assessed based on developable land area per square foot at the time the sites are developed or when the sites are redeveloped. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 4 October 3, 2012 At the newly constructed interchanges studied, the Zone A prices increased on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Since no interchanges existed before, these average increases are greater than what would be expected at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 when the interchange improvements are completed since that interchange already exists. Using 25 to 50 percent of the $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot estimated value after the interchange improvements are made results in a forecast increase from $1.88 to $3.75 per square foot for Zones A and A-1. There are 1,576,345 square feet of developable land area in Zones A and A-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zone A category will be from just over $2.9 million to nearly $6 million. In Zones B and B-1 prices increased on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot at the interchanges studied. Again, since an interchange already exists at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $1.16 to $2.32 per square foot within Zones B and B-1. There are 4,333,889 square feet of developable land area in Zones B and B-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zones B and B-1 will be from $5.0 to nearly $10.1 million. Land prices in Zone C at the interchanges studied increased on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot due to the new interchange construction. Again, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.94 to $1.88 per square foot within Zone C. There are 6,682,600 square feet of developable land area in Zone C. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $6.3 to nearly $12.6 million. At the interchanges studied, land prices in Zone D increased on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot as a result of the new interchange being constructed. As with the preceding zones analyzed, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.53 to $1.06 per square foot within Zone D. There are 9,320,291 square feet of developable land area in Zone D. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $4.9 to nearly $9.9 million. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 5 October 3, 2012 It is clear from the data gathered at the four interchanges studied that the improvements proposed at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange will enhance property values within the CAC at a minimum of $19.1 million, which is greater than the $2.55 million being assessed. Exhibit A: I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Map Exhibit B: Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet Exhibit C: Qualifications of W. West Foster Exhibit D: Certification E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW F o s s i l C r e e k R e s e r v o i r 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Miles © I25 - State Value HWY Enhancement 392 Interchange Zones Value Zone Enhancement A Zone Zone B C Zone No Use D Areas Boundaries CAC Fort Windsor Collins GMA GMA Parcels Wetlands Proposed Interchange Interchange Footprint Redesign Right of Way Changes CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: August 10, 2011 GROSS NON-DEV DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL PROXIMITY OWNER LAND AREA LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEES COMPONENT OF FEE REMARKS ZONE A 86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 347,609 297,910 $0.28 $82,892 $41,446 NWQ of I-25 and SH 392 Interchange 86154-05-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,410 0 73,410 $0.28 $20,426 $10,213 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,324 0 73,324 $0.28 $20,402 $10,201 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-001 BANK OF CHOICE 55,889 0 55,889 $0.28 $15,551 $7,775 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 74,479 0 74,479 $0.28 $20,723 $10,362 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-007 BUSINESS PARK I OF 392 49,185 0 49,185 $0.28 $13,686 $6,843 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 0 186,550 $0.28 $51,907 $25,953 Prime SW Quadrant of I-25 and SH 392 ZONE A-1 86154-05-003 KHUONG HUONG TANG, et al 26,196 0 26,196 $0.28 $7,289 $3,644 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-004 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 36,568 0 36,568 $0.28 $10,175 $5,087 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-006 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 60,807 0 60,807 $0.28 $16,919 $8,460 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-002 MICHAEL I. MAXWELL, et al 55,178 0 55,178 $0.28 $15,353 $7,677 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-001 THE BAILEY COMPANY 43,963 0 43,963 $0.28 $12,233 $6,116 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-001 SCHRADER PROPERTIES, LLC 66,211 0 66,211 $0.28 $18,423 $9,211 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-002 TACO JOHNS INTERNATIONAL INC 49,223 0 49,223 $0.28 $13,696 $6,848 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-003 FORMER TCE, LLC 100,887 0 100,887 $0.28 $28,071 $14,036 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-004 WESTGATE HOSPITALITY LLC 96,118 0 96,118 $0.28 $26,744 $13,372 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-47-001 MEYERS 4701 LLC 152,444 0 152,444 $0.28 $42,417 $21,208 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-003 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS 78,003 0 78,003 $0.28 $21,704 $10,852 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot ZONE B 86154-06-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 772,886 21,283 751,603 $0.21 $156,848 $78,424 I-25 Frontage in NEQ of interchange 86150-00-014 YEAGER, NANCY L TRUSTEE 786,783 53,648 733,135 $0.21 $152,994 $76,497 North side of SH 392 east of Bus. Park 86154-08-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 653,873 242,410 411,463 $0.21 $85,866 $42,933 East of Frontage Rd. N. of SH 392 86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 0 578,912 $0.21 $120,810 $60,405 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393 86221-47-002 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 995,327 85,593 909,734 $0.21 $189,847 $94,924 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 86220-00-003 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 1,324,499 711,956 612,543 $0.21 $127,828 $63,914 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 ZONE B - 1 86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 71,223 336,499 $0.21 $70,222 $35,111 I-25 Frontage N of SH 392 in NWQ of interchange ZONE C 86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 71,728 955,151 $0.12 $110,736 $55,368 Frontage on west side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 352,269 587,429 $0.12 $68,104 $34,052 Frontage on east side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86154-06-003 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 126,260 85,128 41,132 $0.12 $4,769 $2,384 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-004 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 317,882 15,897 301,985 $0.12 $35,011 $17,505 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-005 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 291,695 0 291,695 $0.12 $33,818 $16,909 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-006 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 37,858 0 37,858 $0.12 $4,389 $2,195 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86150-00-017 JBT ASSOCIATES, LLC 1,767,708 236,095 1,531,613 $0.12 $177,569 $88,784 West Side of LC Road 5 N. of SH 392 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 444,571 596,500 $0.12 $69,156 $34,578 South of SH 392; West of Wetlands 86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 163,264 81,404 $0.12 $9,438 $4,719 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 221,691 681,468 $0.12 $79,006 $39,503 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,708,402 132,037 1,576,365 $0.12 $182,757 $91,379 Farther South of SH 392 West of I-25 ZONE D 86220-00-004 WINDSOR GOLD COAST LLC 2,544,953 224,297 2,320,656 $0.05 $107,619 $53,809 Farther South of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-021 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,555,303 501,653 1,053,650 $0.05 $48,862 $24,431 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-016 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,030,219 419,817 610,402 $0.05 $28,307 $14,153 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-011 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,045,838 486,358 559,480 $0.05 $25,945 $12,973 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-001 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,444,331 381,052 1,063,279 $0.05 $49,309 $24,654 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-002 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 94,626 69,233 25,393 $0.05 $1,178 $589 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-015 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 1,625,207 469,646 1,155,561 $0.05 $53,588 $26,794 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 86150-00-020 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 3,452,929 921,059 2,531,870 $0.05 $117,414 $58,707 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 21,913,125 $2,550,000 $216,111 ATTACHMENT ONE - VALUE ENHANCEMENT ZONE ANALYSIS September 2012 Foster Valuation Company LLC QUALIFICATIONS OF W. WEST FOSTER Education M.S. Degree in Regional Economics, Colorado State University. B.S. Degree in General Business, Colorado State University. All of the basic courses required for the MAI designation given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; Course III (Rural Properties); Course IV (Litigation Valuation); Course VI (Real Estate Investment Analysis); Course VII (Industrial Valuation); Course 520 (Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis); Course 550 (Advanced Applications); and all Litigation courses offered in the Professional Development Program. This partial list of courses was all given by the Appraisal Institute or its predecessor organizations. Principles of Real Estate Engineering, The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions, and several relocation courses, given by the International Right of Way Association. Management and Leasing of Shopping Centers, by the Institute of Real Estate Management. Advanced Ranch Appraisal, by the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Seminars: Computer-Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling, Subdivision Appraisal, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, plus numerous real estate seminars given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and later by the Appraisal Institute. Memberships and Designations Appraisal Institute: Designated Member (MAI) 1982 to 1986 - National Division of Curriculum 1986 to 1987 - National committee to write The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th Edition 1987 to 1991 - Board of Examiners, General Demonstration Appraisal Reports 1987 to 1994 - Regional Member, Review and Counseling Division 1991 to 1994 - Regional Representative, Region II 1992 to 2008 - Contributor to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th through 13th Editions 1995 - National Vice Chair, Review and Counseling Division 1995 - Vice Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 to 1997 - Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 - National Chair, Ethics Administration Division 1997 to 2008 - National Chair, Professional Ethics and Counseling Committee American Society of Real Estate Counselors: Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) 1994 - Vice Chair, Colorado Chapter 1995 - Chair, Colorado Chapter International Right of Way Association: Senior Right of Way Professional (SR/WA) Northern Colorado Commercial Association of Realtors Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: State of Colorado, #CG00001795 Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser, April 1981 to present, specializing in valuation and counseling with respect to a variety of nonresidential properties. Robert J. Mitchell, MAI, & Associates: Fee Appraiser, March 1976 to March 1981, specializing in rural and income property valuation. Qualified in District and Federal Courts as an Expert Valuation Witness. CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal consulting assignment. 8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. No one provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing this certification. 11. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 12. As of the date of this appraisal consulting report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I estimate the reimbursement amounts to be based as shown on the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis, as of October 3, 2012, to be as shown in the attached: DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Peter Barnes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals Decision to Approve a Variance to Allow the Existing Off-premise Sign (Billboard) Located in the BNSF Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road to Be Removed and Reinstalled at a New Location Within the Same Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 9, 2012, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered Appeal #2714, submitted by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department. This Appeal was for a variance to Section 3.8.7(P) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), which prohibits the construction of new off-premise signs. The variance was requested in order to allow the existing off-premise sign in the BNSF Railroad right of way on the north side of Prospect Road to be relocated within the railroad right of way 70 feet west of its current location. The sign’s current location is in direct conflict with the guideway alignment for the MAX BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) project. The ZBA unanimously approved the variance request as authorized by Section 2.10.1 of the LUC. On August 23, 2012, Richard L. Anderson (the Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk. The Appellant alleges that the ZBA: A. Failed to conduct a fair hearing in that: 1. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading; 2. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; 3. The Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction. B. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Sign Code was amended in 1994 to prohibit the construction of new off-premise signs (aka billboards) anywhere in the city. Existing off-premise signs were grandfathered in due to protection afforded them by the Federal Highway Beautification Act. The sign that is the subject of this appeal was constructed pursuant to a sign permit issued prior to 1994 and falls within the scope of the Federal Highway Beautification Act. The City of Fort Collins has purchased an easement within the BNSF Railroad right of way on the east side of the tracks for the proposed MAX BRT guideway alignment. At the current location, the existing off-premise sign is in direct conflict with the proposed guideway alignment. Removing the sign without relocating it will require monetary compensation, as required by the Federal Highway Beautification Act. The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, requesting a variance to relocate the existing sign within the railroad right of way, 70 feet west of its current location. Removing an existing off-premise sign and reconstructing it in a different location is equivalent to the construction of a new off- premise sign; therefore, a variance is needed, even though the new location is on the same property. The setback distance from Prospect Road at the new location will remain unchanged from the Prospect Road setback at the sign’s current location. The appellant, Richard Anderson, owns the two commercial properties at 200 and 220 West Prospect Road, directly west of the Railroad right of way. Mr. Anderson testified at the August 9, 2012 ZBA meeting that he had concerns with billboards in general and with the effect that the relocation of the subject sign might have on the value of his property. In particular, he was concerned about the impact to his two properties if his tenant at 200 West Prospect decided to advertise on the billboard, thereby increasing his business and creating a parking problem for the tenants of his other October 16, 2012 -2- ITEM 26 building (lines 19 – 39, page 5 and lines 1 – 2, page 6 of the verbatim transcript, Attachment 5). Mr. Anderson is appealing the decision of the ZBA. ACTION OF THE ZBA ZBA Appeal #2714 originally appeared on the July 12, 2012 ZBA agenda, but was postponed to the August 9, 2012 hearing. After testimony from the staff, the applicant, and the public, the ZBA unanimously approved the variance request on August 9, 2012 to allow the sign to be moved 70 feet west of its current location. THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the ZBA fail to conduct a fair hearing? 2. Did the ZBA fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On August 23, 2012, Richard L. Anderson filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk. The appeal alleges that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Section 2.10.2(H). A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing Allegation: The ZBA considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading. Mr. Anderson states in the Notice of Appeal, “The ZBA further considered the facts that were misleading in that information presented reflected that the signage was to be continued in substantially the same form as it currently or has historically existed. The current sign has only one used/usable sign face (viewable by eastbound traffic). It is understood that there is intent to significantly increase the impact of the sign by allowing signage on both sides of the pole (viewable from both east and west). The proposed signage would have a substantially greater impact than the existing signage.” Staff Response The staff report provided to the ZBA and the verbatim transcript of the hearing contain no mention of the existing sign having only one used or usable face or that the relocated sign might have two. However, the slides contained in the staff’s Powerpoint presentation for the ZBA meeting show that the existing sign has only one face and that a mock-up of the relocated sign at the new location shows sign faces on both sides of the sign (see slides 5, 18, and 19 on Attachment 7). The motion-maker moved to approve the variance based on the nominal, inconsequential standard of the LUC, noting that “It’s on the same property, it’s the same sign, it’s moving west.” (Lines 14 - 17, page 12, and lines 11 - 23, page 13 of the verbatim transcript, Attachment 5). Since there was no discussion during the hearing about the number of faces of the existing sign or of the proposed, relocated sign, it’s difficult to determine that the board members considered evidence which was grossly misleading or that they “understood that there is an intent to significantly increase the impact of the sign…” as stated by Mr. Anderson. Allegation: The ZBA substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. Another fair hearing argument raised by Mr. Anderson is that the ZBA ignored previously established rules of procedure. However, the Appeal does not contain any specific assertions as to how the ZBA ignored its established rules of procedure. Staff Response There are no specific assertions to respond to. October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 26 Allegation: The ZBA exceeded its authority and jurisdiction. The Appellant argues that the Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in granting the variance but presents no specific argument in support of that assertion, other than referencing Section 2.10.2 – Step 8 of the Land Use Code, which reads as follows: Section 2.10.2 Variance Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant; (2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or (3) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2) or (3). Staff Response It is possible that the Appellant is arguing that a “new sign” could not be authorized by variance because the granting of such a variance would be a “use variance” or a “change in use” which would conflict with the standards in the aforementioned Section 2.10.2(H). However, that Section and other Sections of 2.10 only prohibit the Board from authorizing certain types of “changes in use” and there’s no mention at all of a prohibition against “use variances”. ZBA Appeal #2714 was presented before the Board as a request for a variance from the requirement of Land Use Code Section 3.8.7(P), which prohibits the construction of any new off-premise sign. Since all of the permitted and prohibited uses in the Land Use Code are contained in the Article 4 zone district standards, and not in Article 3, the variance request was not for a variance to any of the use standards in Article 4, but was rather a request only for relief from Section 3.8.7(P) of the Land Use Code. Section 3.8.7(A)(1) of the Land Use Code states that “Signs shall be permitted in the various zone districts as accessory uses in accordance with the regulations contained in this Section.” Additionally, Section 3.8.1, “Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses”, lists signs as an accessory use. All zone districts in Article 4 authorize “accessory uses”. The property in question is located in the CC – Community Commercial zone district wherein “accessory uses” are listed as a permitted use (Section 4.18(B)(1)(a)2.). Staff believes that the construction of this billboard on the other side of the railroad track does not constitute a “use variance” since the sign is classified as an accessory use, which is a permitted use. Similarly, it is not a change in use since the current use is an accessory use sign and the proposed use is an accessory use sign. City Council must determine whether or not the ZBA exceeded its authority or jurisdiction by granting the variance on the basis of any violation of Section 2.10.2(H) regarding uses. October 16, 2012 -4- ITEM 26 B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code and Charter, Specifically Land Use Code Section 2.10.2(H). Allegation: The ZBA based its granting of the variance on the desire to save the City money. The appellant argues that “The purpose for the ZBA’s granting of the subject variance can be explained in no other way than a desire to save the City money. While it is certainly laudable that the that City staff and the ZBA focused on preserving taxpayer dollars, Section 2.10.2 does not allow the ZBA to grant a variance on the basis that there will be a positive impact on the public coffers.” Staff response On the question of the proper interpretation of the Land Use Code, Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code is the section that is referenced in the Notice of Appeal. This section sets forth the standards by which the ZBA is to make a determination as to whether or not a variance application can be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. In order to approve a variance, the Board must find that the application satisfies one or more of the following criteria: 2.10.2(H)(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant; 2.10.2(H)(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or 2.10.2(H)(3) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The record reflects that the Board granted the variance after finding that it would not be detrimental to the public good to grant the variance and that the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. (Beginning on line 14, page 12 of the verbatim transcript and continuing to the end, Attachment 5). The Appellant argues that the Board based its granting of the variance solely on the desire to save money for the City (first paragraph on Page 1 of the Appellant’s attachment to the Notice of Appeal). The record shows that there was discussion at the ZBA hearing regarding the requirement to compensate the sign owner in the event the sign is required to be removed and not allowed to be relocated. The staff report and the City Engineering Department’s justification statement that were presented to the board also contained references to monetary compensation. However, the record shows that no further discussion regarding such compensation occurred just prior to the motion to approve the variance or during discussion on the motion and the actual vote. The Board granted the variance upon the finding that it would not be detrimental to the public good to do so, and that the granting of the variance fit the nominal and inconsequential requirement of Land Use Code Section 2.10.2(H)(3). The Council should examine the findings and motion of the Board in granting of the variance to determine if the decision to approve the variance was on the basis of saving money or on the finding that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that it satisfied the nominal and inconsequential standard in Sec. 2.10.2(H)(3) of the LUC. SUMMARY The appellant alleges that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. October 16, 2012 -5- ITEM 26 The Staff Report presented to the Board concluded that the variance request satisfied one or more of the standards necessary for the granting of a variance as required in Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The ZBA unanimously approved ZBA Appeal #2714 after finding that the variance request satisfied the nominal, inconsequential standard in Section 2.10.2(H)(3) of the Land Use Code. Council should review the record to determine whether or not the Board held a fair hearing and whether or not the Board properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in approving the variance to allow the existing off-premise sign at 190 W. Prospect Road to be relocated 70 feet to the west. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Hearing and Notice of Site Visit. 2. Notice of Appeal, Richard L. Anderson, filed August 23, 2012. 3. Staff Report Provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Hearing held August 9, 2012. 4. Materials Submitted by City of Fort Collins Engineering Department, Applicant, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. Verbatim Transcript of the Zoning Board of Appeals August 9, 2012 Hearing of ZBA Appeal #2714. 6. Site Visit Summary, October 1, 2012. 7. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Council, including slides that were presented to the ZBA at the August 9, 2012 Hearing ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on October 16, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the enclosed appeal of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals made on August 9, 2012, regarding Approval of a Zoning Variance for 190 West Prospect. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearing held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly encouraged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk’s Office (970-221-6515) or the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department (970-221-6750). Appeal Guidelines are available online at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff’s response to the Notice of Appeal, will be available to the public on October 11, after 2:00 p.m. in the City Clerk’s Office and on the City’s website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. 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 the City Clerk’s Office at 970-221-6515 (TDD 970-224-6001) for assistance. _________________________________ Wanda Nelson, City Clerk Notice Mailed: September 21, 2012 cc: City Attorney Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Appellant/Applicant NOTE: See other side for Site Visit Notice NOTICE OF SITE INSPECTION An appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision of August 9, 2012, regarding the Approval of a Zoning Variance for 190 West Prospect will be heard by the Fort Collins City Council on October 16, 2012. Pursuant to Section 2-55 of the City Code, members of the City Council will be inspecting the site of the proposed project on October 1, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.. Notice is hereby given that this site inspection constitutes a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public, including the appellants and all parties-in-interest. The site is located at 190 West Prospect, Fort Collins, Colorado. A ny Councilmember who inspects the site, whether at the date and time above, or independently shall, at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or conversations they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their determination of the appeal. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City Clerk’s Office at (970) 221-6515. _________________________________ Wanda Nelson, City Clerk Notice Mailed: September 21, 2012 cc: City Attorney Community Development & Neighborhood Services Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Appellant/Applicant The purpose of the site inspection is for the City Council to view the site and to ask related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining site conditions. There will be no opportunity during the site inspection for the applicant, appellants, or members of the public to speak, ask questions, respond to questions, or otherwise provide input or information, either orally or in writing. Other than a brief staff overview and staff responses to questions, all discussion and follow up questions or comments will be deferred to the hearing on the subject appeals to be held on October 16, 2012. NOTE: See other side for Public Hearing Notice ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal, filed August 23, 2012 ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report Provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing held August 9, 2012 Attachment 3 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Appeal #2714 – 190 W. Prospect Road Zoning Board of Appeals Variance, August 9, 2012 ZBA Hearing (Continued from July 12, 2012 Hearing) APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Engineering Department OWNER: BNSF Railroad ZONE DISTRICT: CG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance to Section 3.8.7(P) - Off-premise sign. Section 3.8.7(P) - The sign code prohibits the construction of new off-premise signs. Moving an existing off-premise sign and reconstructing it in a different location is equivalent to the construction of a new off-premise sign. The variance requested will allow the existing off-premise sign in the railroad right of way on the north side of Prospect Road to be relocated within the railroad right of way 70 feet west of its current location. The setback distance from Prospect Road at the new location will remain unchanged from the Prospect Road setback at the sign’s current location. The existing billboard location is in conflict with the proposed guideway alignment for the MAX BRT project (Aka Mason Corridor Project). The relocation is necessary in order to construct the project. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code was amended in 1994 to prohibit the construction of new off- premise signs (aka billboards). Existing off-premise signs were grandfathered in due to protection afforded them by the Federal Highway Beautification Act. The Zoning Variance – Appeal #2714 August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Page 2 sign that is the subject of this appeal was constructed pursuant to a sign permit issued prior to 1994. The City of Fort Collins has purchased an easement within the BNSF right of way on the east side of the tracks for the proposed MAX BRT guideway alignment. At the current location, the existing off-premise sign is in direct conflict with the proposed guideway alignment. Removing the sign without relocating it will require monetary compensation as required by the Federal Highway Beautification Act. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance and finds that:  The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public good.  The guideway location within the railroad right of way must be within the guideway easement and the right of way must accommodate the safe movement of both the trains and the MAX busses. Retrofitting the right of way to accommodate both transportation modes is an exceptional situation unique to this property and results in an involuntary ‘taking’ of the sign. While economic reasons are usually not considered as satisfying the hardship criteria, the cost to taxpayers to purchase the sign if a variance isn’t approved would be very substantial. In this instance, staff believes that the combination of the exceptional situation unique to the property and the monetary cost if a variance is not approved results in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties upon the applicant and therefore satisfies the criteria for a hardship variance.  The proposed location of the sign results in a setback from Prospect Road that is the same setback as at its current location. Since there is already an off-premise sign within the railroad right of way, and since the reconstructed sign will be the same structure as the existing one and will not be located closer to the street, staff finds that the variance will not diverge from the standards of the code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. The sign is simply being moved from one location to another on the same property. Zoning Variance – Appeal #2714 August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance to Section 3.8.7(P) in order to allow the existing off-premise sign to be removed and to be relocated to the location shown on the site plan submitted with this variance application. ATTACHMENT 4 Materials submitted by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department, Applicant, to the Zoning Board of Appeals 1 Attachment 4 Petitioner’s Justification Statement City of Fort Collins Engineering Department ZBA Appeal #2714 – 190 W. Prospect Road MAX BRT Billboard Code Variance Request - Project Narrative Variance Requested A variance from the sign code standard for billboard relocation is being requested due to the MAX BRT project for two (2) billboard signs located at 290 West Horsetooth Road and 190 West Prospect Road leased by CBS Outdoor, owned by Nextmedia. Background The MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is a proposed north-south BRT system in the central core of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The MAX BRT is located just west of and parallel to College Avenue (US 287), one of the busiest arterials within the City and the entire North Front Range region. The project corridor extends from Cherry Street on the north, to approximately ¼ mile south of Harmony Road, with a total length of five miles. The BRT System is proposed within an exclusive guideway for 2.8 miles, with the remaining 2.2 miles intermixed with street traffic on portions of McClelland Drive and Mason Street. Along the entire length of the corridor, the MAX BRT runs parallel to and on the east side of the existing Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway tracks. Along the project corridor, the City of Fort Collins purchased an easement within the BNSF right of way on the east side of the tracks for the proposed MAX BRT guideway alignment. At the location of Horsetooth and McClelland, there is an existing billboard that is in direct conflict with the proposed guideway alignment. Due to existing field conditions, the project team is requesting a variance in order to relocate an existing billboard sign located in the City of Fort Collins purchased easement. The project team believes that a variance request to the standard is reasonable and warranted. The project is requesting two (2) variances for two (2) signs with similar conditions. Each sign variance request is being presented independently for consideration by The Board. City Staff will be representing the business owners, with their written consent, to convey the overall project needs and answer detailed questions about the alternatives and analysis that went into this variance request. Exceptional Physical Conditions The existing billboards are located on the east side of the tracks within a one (1) square foot envelope in the purchased City of Fort Collins easement and is in direct conflict with the guideway alignment, guardrail and Bus Operations, and will need to be relocated to the west side of the BNSF right of way to eliminate the conflict with the guideway. CBS Outdoor is the lease holder of the one (1) square foot envelope with BNSF, and NextMedia is the owner of the sign. Negotiations with BNSF, CBS Outdoor and NextMedia concluded with agreed upon locations of 2 the billboard signs that was amicable to all parties. The new proposed approximate location for the 190 West Prospect Road billboard will be 70 feet west, and will not move north/south from its current location (i.e. sign will move due west) within the BNSF right of way. The new proposed approximate location for the billboard located at 290 West Horsetooth Road will be 123 feet west, and will not move north/south from the current location (i.e. sign will move due west) within the BNSF right of way. The proposed location will have no significant impacts on surrounding properties in that it will slightly vary from its current location. The existing sign code states billboards are no longer allowed in the City of Fort Collins. However, the need for the sign relocation is due to the City’s MAX BRT project, and not by the owner’s request. CBS Outdoor has expressed that if the billboard is forced to meet current code and be removed, they will seek legal action and monetary damages. With the approval of this variance, the project team would like to minimize cost to the project and to the City. There are no alternative locations on the property to relocate this sign that will meet all party’s criteria with the intent of the advertising on the billboard. Due to the above mentioned exceptional physical constraints, a variance is requested to allow for the existing billboard sign to be relocated 70 feet west of its current location within the BNSF right of way for190 West Prospect Road billboard and 123 feet west of its current location within the BNSF right of way for 290 West Horsetooth Road. ATTACHMENT 5 Verbatim Transcript of the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing August 9, 2012 HEARING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, August 9, 2012 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Appeal #2714 – 190 W. Prospect Road Zoning Board of Appeals Variance Meeting time: 8:30 a.m., August 9, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Bello, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Peter Bohling Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Bob Long Marcha Hill, Staff Support Dana McBride John McCoy 2 1 CHAIRMAN MICHAEL BELLO: Could we have the next appeal please? 2 MS. MARCHA HILL: Appeal 2714, address, 190 West Prospect Road, petitioner, City 3 of Fort Collins, zoning district CG, Section 3.87(P), description, this appeal was postponed from 4 the July 12, 2012 ZBA meeting, the variance will allow the existing billboard that is located in 5 the railroad right-of-way on the north side of Prospect Road to be relocated seventy feet 6 of…seventy feet west of its current location. The setback distance from Prospect Road at the 7 new location will remain unchanged from the Prospect Road setback at the sign’s current 8 location. The existing billboard location is in conflict with the proposed guideway alignment for 9 the MAX BRT project, also known as the Mason Corridor project. The relocation is necessary in 10 order to construct the project. For justification, see the petitioner’s letter in the staff packet. 11 MR. PETER BARNES: Okay, this is the same variance that the Board just considered 12 and approved, just in a different location. This one is on West Prospect, west of College 13 Avenue. As you can see, the train was kind enough to be crossing the street when we took this 14 aerial…and that clearly illustrates the railroad right-of-way, which is right here. The existing 15 sign that, again, is in the way of the guideway, is located here, on the north side of Prospect. 16 Again, there is an off-premise sign, similar to this one, on the south side of Prospect. The 17 proposal is to move this sign from its current location to a location over here to the west, and 18 again it would be at the same setback distance from Prospect. This is the existing sign. I should 19 point out this building you see in the background will be removed as part of the Mason Corridor 20 project; it’s also in the way. This is the…again, the building I was just referencing. Here you 21 see the off-premise sign that’s on the south side of Prospect street. This is a mock-up of the 22 proposed sign location. I do want to clarify that the frame you see here, out of PVC, is five by 23 ten; the sign is actually six by twelve. But, this is where it would be located on this particular 24 relocated site. This is looking to the east, its current location, and then its new location. This is 25 the one on the south side. I don’t have any other comments at this time. 26 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, is there any questions of staff, or the applicant in this case? 27 Okay, seeing none. Anybody in the audience would like to addres…? 28 MS. CAROLYNNE WHITE: Mister Chairman, members of the Board, Carolynne White 29 again, 410 17th Street in Denver. Just reiterate our previous comments, it’s the same situation. 30 Thank you. 31 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Board? Okay, 32 seeing none. Board discussion? Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. 33 MR. RICHARD ANDERSON: I’m not sure I can talk and listen at the same time, but I’m 34 going to try it. My name is Richard Anderson, you need my address, is that right? 35 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Please. Yes. 3 1 MR. ANDERSON: What information? 2 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Your address please. Your address. 3 MR. ANDERSON: I live at 1229 Harris Drive, which is outside the City limits off of 4 Shields Street, just along the river. And what else? 5 CHAIRMAN BELLO: That’s all, thank you. 6 MR. ANDERSON: I find myself very conflicted this morning because I’ve been waffling 7 back between not saying anything and saying too much. And that’s because information is…I 8 became aware that there was going to be this hearing about a month ago, or a little better, and 9 was here last month when it was postponed. And I…what the background for this need in 10 piecemeal and as I made evaluations for myself about which way I would go, I learned quite a 11 bit. But, a lot of times, what I learned one day, and when I investigated further, what I learned 12 the next day made me want to shift. And, I want to tell you that I’m sure that there are people 13 here who will feel that I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, and I am, but it’s not 14 because…I don’t…I had a strong opinion about this from the beginning, and my opinion was 15 negative. The reason for that was there was a slight error in what the first letter said that kind of 16 set me off. I got the letter that there was going to be this meeting coming up, and what it was. I 17 got it late on a Saturday night, and I just didn’t read it, didn’t open it. On Sunday morning, I 18 opened it up and I glanced at it and I thought, this is pretty strange because I could just visualize, 19 if you follow those directions, where this pole is supposed to go, and it goes in the middle of my 20 parking lot. Not quite in the middle. And that’s…that made me get up and go over and see if I 21 could step that off. And, I could step it off, and that’s about where it would have been. Now, I 22 don’t have any grudges about that at all, I understand mistakes can occasionally be made, but it 23 did kind of jar me a little bit, that I was going to be giving up my rights if I don’t do something. 24 So, I pointed that out, and those corrections were made, and what you hear here is a corrected 25 version. 26 I want to tell you a little bit about myself. I think that I would like to share with you 27 something about my history in Fort Collins as a reason for my fluctuation a little bit here, and 28 would be a reason of where…for where I come down today, which is in the negative side. I 29 came to Fort Collins in 1957 with my wife and two children, one of whom is here today. She’s 30 the in between child, and then our son was born here in Fort Collins the next year. My daughter, 31 Gail, is the only one that lives in Fort Collins today. My wife is now deceased. We own the 32 property as trusts, through trusts. I’m trustee for both of us. I came to teach at the high school, 33 there was only one high school in 1957, the one that now belongs to the University, where they 34 do all of the arts and…there’s another word for something there and I forget. 35 (**Unintelligible remarks from Mr. Anderson and another audience member.) 4 1 MR. ANDERSON: I’m being advised. She says I’m not speaking to the issue. I’m 2 giving you background to let you know how I’m going to speak to the issue. The house that we 3 bought was, two years before we bought it, was outside the City limits. And that was on 4 Prospect, it was east Prospect. I experienced, by owning the house, what happened as a result, 5 the fact that it was making a shift from being in the County to being in the City, and we got 6 sidewalks and changes made. And, the City of Fort Collins, I began to have great respect for in 7 that they planned ahead…how things were to look. And, as…eventually, I began to feel that the 8 City is the place that you look to the future. It’s how these things are going to…what Fort 9 Collins is going to look like in the years to come. And, that’s, I think, where the billboards were 10 a factor, eventually. The City decided that there should be no more billboards in the city, except 11 those…only those that were already in place. And, I think that that’s reasonable. At one 12 point…we purchased the property which is where…SoWan here is the owner of the sushi 13 restaurant on the property that we’re addressing. I call that property kind of an island, because it 14 was…you’re talking about changes in the…what Fort Collins looks like, an island was built 15 there. There was fill brought in because normally that was…originally, by nature, that was a 16 wash…that’s where the overflow of high water came down and joined Spring Creek. The 17 property is essentially a hundred and fifty square…a hundred and fifty feet in each direction, it’s 18 a square. It’s not very bit, and at one time…when we purchased it, there were two building 19 there, one…there were two different, actually two different parcels of ground involved, but I 20 don’t think that makes much difference to you. But, they can’t be…they can’t function as two 21 separate units. They have to be together because it’s so small, they share parking and so on. The 22 principal building there that you’re looking at…this is the bigger…the biggest one and the 23 newest one, is formerly a 7-11 store. It was built after we came to Fort Collins. When we came 24 to Fort Collins, this…that side of College Avenue on Prospect, I’m not even sure it was asphalt. 25 It was in a development stage, and, in a way, the gentleman that developed that, was not…he 26 didn’t have a long-term idea about how things should look, or what they should look like in the 27 future. It needed to be just what he was thinking about doing at the moment. And, he built one 28 building in two stages and then he built the 7-11 in one stage. 29 And, when we had the big…the flood of Spring Creek, the one that washed through 30 campus and came down, one of the people that got washed out was a lady that owned a pizza 31 place, and she came to me, and she knew that I had a rather transitory tenant in that building, and 32 she asked if I would rent it to her so she could continue her business because the other building 33 was to be torn down. So, we took her on, and that caused a need for a…it’s a change of use 34 because it went into being a restaurant instead of what it had been previously. And, in that 35 change of use, I was closely guided by a…by the City, in doing a lot of adjusting, a lot of 36 changing, and brought around to fit into the image, the forward looking image, look into the 37 future with the City, of what things would look like. And I got to be the starting movement in 38 that area for that. I’ve put in…well, the City had it put in, but I paid for it, the first stretch of 39 sidewalk that existed on…well, the whole mile of east of…or west of College Avenue. And, 40 while I balked at that a little at the time, it didn’t seem…I learned a lot. And, the landscaping 5 1 that you see there…there’s cars at the end, landscaping back this way, the sidewalk that’s there, 2 the grass with the trees in it…all those were prescribed by the City and I respect them for that, 3 although I felt pretty irritated at the time. I have a different perspective. 4 So, I’m going to tell you a little bit about how I feel about SoWan’s operation there. 5 SoWan is from Korea. His wife just got home yesterday with two children, from Korea. SoWan 6 is…he’s the finest tenant I have ever had in that building, and I’ve had quite a few. And, he fits 7 in with the new look of the…the hedge, the grass. He put a wrought iron face on the building, 8 and people can eat outside, and they can dream that they’re in France. It feels different than it 9 ever did before. I don’t know if it feels like they’re in Korea or not, but…when they get their 10 food it does, because it’s very good. He took the lights…he wanted to change the lights a while 11 ago in the, inside the restaurant. We had fans, big fans, we had three of them in a row. And he 12 asked if it was alright if he took those out and put in different ones. And, we did. And when he 13 got done, I went back in there one day, and I said, SoWan, I like the new ambiance. And, we’ve 14 had difficulty, sometimes, understanding each other’s language. And, so he asked me what 15 ambiance meant, and I told him. The next time I went in, he said, how do you like the ambiance 16 today? But, it fits in, what he’s done there, inside and out. And, the outside, he’s got those 17 flowers and everything, it’s beautiful. Gail, no more. Am I offending you? Or am I going…am 18 I over the hill here on this? 19 Okay, what I want to tell you is that I think that the reasons that the City had for drawing 20 a line on billboards several years ago, I think, I think that’s proper, and I don’t think that meshes 21 in at all with the ambience that’s there. It interferes with it, as a matter of fact. Advertising is 22 based upon the ability to get attention, and people driving down Prospect right now, they don’t 23 see anything except…you have to take out the figures that are there, the people that are there. 24 You don’t see anything else, except the pretty part. You know, this is a nice place. Now we’re 25 going to have a sign there that is good for the business that exists…one of their locations, right 26 now, it’s Jax, the sign is for Jax. It’s pretty far away from the premises, and that’s a kind of an 27 encroachment, not on the ground, but it’s an encroachment on the air because it’s up so much 28 higher. And, I think it has significant…it suggests a significant problem for me in trying to 29 evaluate what that’s going to do to the value of the property, in a way. It makes it nice. SoWan 30 will get more business if he gets his…if he should decide to have his sign up there. But, actually, 31 we don’t have any parking place for the business that we have now, altogether. Yesterday, for 32 example, there were three or four…there were three of us there, and then SoWan, when he 33 dropped his family off, came over, and he had to…I don’t know if he parked across the street 34 finally. There was no place else to park. So, having that sign there is only going to do two 35 things, it’s going to probably increase his business somewhat, but it is also going to raise the 36 temperature of my other tenants in the other building, and they could be moving out 37 because…there was already some problems with parking because it’s so tight. It’s only a 38 hundred and fifty square. And, it also, I think, would have consequences on if I was…if I was 39 prepared to sell the property, or my heirs, I think it would have a considerable impact 6 1 upon…once it became a problem with me, I can’t pass it on to somebody else without their being 2 aware of that. I think that’s probably too much, my daughter is right. 3 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, thank you, appreciate that. Thank you. Would anybody 4 else like to address the Board? Okay, Board discussion. 5 BOARDMEMBER DANA MCBRIDE: This is a lot more complicated than it first 6 appeared. So, it states in the Petitioner’s letter that CBS Outdoor, the leaseholder, and 7 NextMedia, the owner of the sign, were in agreement about the location, but it doesn’t say 8 anything about the property owner. So, that’s really curious that everybody…the City’s good 9 with it, BNSF is good with it, NextMedia is good with it, CBS is good with it, with no mention 10 of the property owner. 11 MR. BARNES: The property owner is BNSF. 12 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Yeah, it’s in the right-of-way. 13 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Of where the sign is going to go? 14 MR. BARNES: Yes, where that sign is proposed, see here, that is on the BNSF Railroad 15 property. 16 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: It is. 17 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Within the five foot setback. 18 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Okay, alright, I guess I was confused as to whose 19 property the sign was actually on. 20 CHAIRMAN BELLO: So, Peter, let me ask a question. If the sign wasn’t replaced, 21 would it then…would the City…I guess, what obligations does the City have to relocate the sign, 22 and if they didn’t, would there be any remuneration to the sign company? 23 MR. BARNES: This sign is…falls under the ambit of the Federal Highway 24 Beautification Act, which means that if the City requires a sign to come down, without allowing 25 it to be replaced, then the City would have to pay compensation. What that amount would be, 26 we don’t know, don’t have a hard number on it. It would be very substantial, and that would be 27 a cost to the taxpayers, because it would come out of the project funds, it would be an additional 28 cost. So, that’s the option. It gets removed and there’s…I don’t know all the negotiations that 29 would go into coming up with an amount for that, whether it’s eminent domain or whatever it is, 30 but there would be some value assigned to that, to the cost of removal of the sign, without 31 replacing it. 32 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Is there anybody here that could give us a ballpark of what that 33 would…what that value is? 7 1 BOARDMEMBER BOB LONG: The way they do it…I’m an appraiser, and I can’t value 2 that sign…what they do is they take the income for a period of time and then capitalize that. So, 3 if you take the income, you know, and come up with an overall rate, they could define it. But, as 4 Peter said, it’s generally a pretty big number. 5 CHAIRMAN BELLO: So do we, Carolynne would you? 6 MS. WHITE: Mister Chairman, we haven’t done a precise valuation of this sign, but I 7 can tell you it would be exactly as Commissioner Long said, it’s in the neighborhood of a couple 8 hundred thousand dollars. 9 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Couple hundred thousand, okay. 10 MS. WHITE: It’d be a pretty significant number. 11 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Thank you, that helps, thank you. 12 BOARDMEMBER LONG: I guess, you know, I’m very sympathetic of Mr. Anderson’s 13 concerns, you know…I’m not a big proponent of billboards throughout the city, but, you know, 14 my issue is, they’ve kept it on their property, and they have an existing right, and it becomes 15 grey when we ask them to move it. But, I don’t believe, you know, I don’t believe…I think 16 moving it from here to here does meet the standards of minimal and inconsequential. The 17 adjacent property owner is obviously the most affected, but it doesn’t really…it’s not 18 significantly harming to the public good, so. It’s there and it has to move. 19 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Typically, of other variance requests we’ve had, we’ve always 20 asked, you know, what relationship…what discussions have been with the neighbor. Has the 21 City talked to Mr. Richardson with regard to this location? 22 MR. TERRY TYRELL: We’ve had quite a few conversations, both NextMedia and the 23 City, with Mr. Anderson. Met with him on site several times. He’s met with Peter a few times, 24 so we…and some of that was due to the erroneous nature of the first submittal, so trying to 25 explain that and remedy some of his concerns. 26 CHAIRMAN BELLO: And there was consideration for moving it further to the north, 27 potentially, or…? 28 MR. TYRELL: Based on recommendations from Peter on meeting the criteria set forth 29 by the City Codes, it was our understanding that this was the best location. 30 MR. BARNES: I think Mr. Bello was asking about, if there were considerations moving 31 it north, not closer to the street, moving it further away. 8 1 MR. TYRELL: So, we vetted quite a few locations for this particular sign, to remedy…as 2 you can understand, there’s quite a few stakeholders involved here, and unfortunately, this was 3 the best location that fit the parameters most efficiently. 4 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Thank you. 5 BOARDMEMBER JOHN MCCOY: Peter, the sign complies with all current Codes? 6 MR. BARNES: That’s correct, the permit was issued for this sign in 1985 and, like I say, 7 they’re exempt from…we have regulations in the Code that deal with what happens with respect 8 to non-conforming signs that are on-premise, but those triggers that trigger removal or whatever 9 don’t apply to this particular sign. But, as far as its location from College…from Prospect, it’s 10 okay. 11 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: So, the new location…it doesn’t require a variance either? 12 MR. BARNES: Right, the existing sign complied, the new sign complies. We haven’t 13 changed any of those regulations since the…those particular regulations, since 1985. 14 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Okay, thanks Peter. 15 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Carolynne, can I ask you one more question? Was there any 16 consideration for maybe making the sign a little smaller? Or is that not something that would 17 meet your criteria or needs? 18 MS. WHITE: You know, I might have to ask my client to come up and answer that with 19 more particularity, but generally, in the sign business, there are certain standard sizes, and the 20 paper or vinyl that’s posted comes in a standard size. It costs a lot more to make it a non- 21 standard size. 22 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, that helps. Thank you very much. Well, what do you guys 23 think? 24 (**UNINTELLIGIBLE BOARD DISCUSSION.) 25 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: I mean, there’s impacts all around here to the neighbor. 26 So, the sign meets the Code, but the fact that it’s…it wouldn’t meet the Code if it were a new 27 sign, obviously, is that correct? 28 MR. BARNES: Well, we don’t allow new off-premise signs. When we banned off- 29 premise signs in ’94, the intent was that we didn’t want any additional ones. We didn’t want 30 them to continue to proliferate like they were in the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s. 31 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: So, calling this an existing sign that’s moved as opposed 32 to a new sign is sort of the essence of what makes this allowable in the eyes of the City. 9 1 MR. BARNES: That’s correct. 2 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Okay, and so, to me that’s a little bit of a stretch to say 3 that this isn’t a new sign. It certainly is for the people that own the property on the other side of 4 the tracks. So, I have a little problem with the City calling this something different than what it 5 appears to be. 6 MR. BARNES: Well, we are calling it a new sign, that’s why the variance is required. 7 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Oh, okay, so it is a new sign. So, if it’s a new 8 sign…okay, then it requires a variance, okay. 9 CHAIRMAN BELLO: But the tricky part is the Federal…is it Federal Highway Act, you 10 said? 11 MR. BARNES: Federal Highway Beautification Act. 12 CHAIRMAN BELLO: That says there’s compensation if we remove it, because… 13 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: They’re due compensation, and I can understand 14 that too. 15 MR. BARNES: Right, and we were involved in a lengthy lawsuit in the ‘80’s regarding 16 that Federal Highway Beautification Act. We argued, unsuccessfully, that an amortization 17 period, or a compliance period, satisfied the just compensation requirements. That went all the 18 way to the Colorado Supreme Court, and we ultimately lost, and said no, it’s a monetary value 19 regardless of what length of amortization you might give the sign. So, as a result of that, there 20 would have to be some sort of amount agreed on. 21 CHAIRMAN BELLO: So, it seems to me, our decision has to be based on whether we 22 feel compensation for this sign is in the public’s good, or in the citizens’ of Fort Collins’ good, 23 because they’re going to end up paying for it, basically. So, that’s where...I think that’s the basis 24 of our decision. 25 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Well, the whole thing is…push came to shove 26 apparently, when NextMedia indicated that they would sue the City if, you know, their sign was 27 removed. And, apparently, because of the Beautification Act, they’re within their rights. 28 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Maybe I can add a little bit to that. 29 There’s been talk about how much money this will cost. Generally, we don’t care too much 30 about that when we grant variances. And, you have analyzed the prior variance on a different 31 basis, that it was not detrimental to the public good, and that it was nominal and inconsequential. 32 I don’t know if this one is or not; if it isn’t, you can use the hardship standard to see if you 33 think…as is in your staff report, no one argued equal to or better than that I can recall in the staff 34 report or anywhere. A little advice on detrimental to the public good, I think that when 10 1 something is detrimental to the public good, that’s a threshold decision for you. If you think it’s 2 detrimental to the public good, then you don’t even need to go to the next analysis, you just can’t 3 grant a variance that’s detrimental to the public good. It doesn’t matter whether it’s one person 4 or ten people that come and speak to you, I don’t think, when you decide if it’s detrimental to the 5 public good. It’s not so much the number of people that come before you explaining how it’s 6 detrimental, it’s the message. One person can carry a message just as well as a number of 7 people. So, the message is, this sign is detrimental, as I heard it at least, to Mr. Anderson’s 8 business. And then I got a little confused…it might be detrimental because it causes the business 9 to be too successful and they overflow the parking lot. There was also, I think, a comment made 10 about how signs are just…shouldn’t be part of the City’s thought process. Signs are ugly, or 11 something to that effect…you heard the entire testimony. 12 On the other side of it is the BRT system. I don’t think the BRT is going to stop because 13 you don’t grant a variance. If you don’t grant the variance, the BRT will still happen and the 14 billboard will not be there. It might have to be purchased, but it won’t be there. So, in your 15 analysis of what’s detrimental to the public good, or what’s beneficial to the public good, you 16 need to take all of that into account to decide that question. And, I’m glad it’s your question and 17 not mine to decide. Then you can go on to the question of whether it’s nominal in the context of 18 the neighborhood, or whether you think there’s a hardship. 19 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Well, okay, I hear what you’re saying, and I guess the question in 20 my mind is, when we consider detrimental to the public good, why shouldn’t we consider the 21 compensation associated with this to the citizens of the community, which is the public, in this 22 case. 23 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: So, that’s the flip side, I guess, of detrimental 24 to the public good. The granting of the variance would be beneficial to the public good, the 25 City’s public good, because it wouldn’t have to buy the sign. 26 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Right, exactly. 27 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: But that’s not the question you have to 28 answer. You don’t have to approve a variance if you find it’s beneficial to the public good. 29 You have to deny a variance if you find it’s detrimental to the public good, that’s the only thing 30 the Code requires. 31 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Right, but there’s two public goods here, there’s the individual lot 32 owner, and there’s the citizens of Fort Collins. So, one way is beneficial to one, and the other 33 way is…is detrimental to one, and the other way is detrimental to the other. 34 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: And that’s the point I was trying to make, if 35 it’s beneficial to a number…if it’s beneficial to the public good, and not detrimental to the public 36 good…there might be different publics, public goods. We don’t care if it’s beneficial in that one 11 1 finding, we care that it not be detrimental. Now, the question about the public good, in my 2 thinking, is, is one person’s business the public, or is that a private good? If it’s affecting a 3 neighborhood, a lot of area, and maybe in some of the testimony you heard, you might say, well, 4 the sign would be better gone, just from a general standpoint. But, if it pertains just to one 5 business, you have to decide if that’s public good or private good, or if it spreads beyond, 6 because, like I say, one person can carry a message for a neighborhood. That help or did that just 7 confuse? 8 CHAIRMAN BELLO: I think it helps. It helps. 9 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: So, I still have a question about whether the 10 discussions…there were discussions, is it Mr. Richardson? 11 MR. TYRELL: Anderson, Richard Anderson. 12 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Was there discussions between the City and Mr. 13 Anderson about alternative locations for the sign? I’m not sure who answered that question. 14 MR. TYRELL: Yes, yes, we had many meetings with Mr. Anderson, and we looked at 15 alternative locations, and we felt that the current location was, once again, agreeable to all parties 16 to the best interest that we could make it. So, we looked at quite a few different opportunities, 17 locations, and situations. And, Mr. Anderson, please, if you don’t feel that that’s accurate, please 18 elaborate. 19 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: I guess the question is, is there an alternative location 20 that would be acceptable to Mr. Anderson as well as NextMedia? 21 MR. BARNES: Well, you’ve got multiple parties, you’ve got Burlington Northern who 22 has a say in it, you’ve got CBS Signs, who own the easement for the sign, and NextMedia, and 23 the City. 24 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Help me understand the relationship between the…CBS you said, 25 and NextMedia? 26 MR. BARNES: Well, correct me if I’m wrong, I think CBS owns the easement where the 27 sign is actually located within the railroad right-of-way. 28 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: So you really have two property owners, I mean, 29 an easement is a property right, so you have multiple property owners. 30 MS. WHITE: That’s correct, BNSF retains CBS to manage many of its easements and 31 leases for billboards, and then NextMedia owns the sign. The added point I was just going to 32 make is that BNSF is not represented here today, but as the property owner, their wishes and 33 desires about where they were willing to relocate the sign played a significant role in the 12 1 discussions of possible alternative locations. And, it’s my understanding that this location that is 2 the one before you today is the location that BNSF was the most comfortable with. 3 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: I guess my question is, if we deny this, is it 4 automatically…what would happen if we did deny this? Is there any way of knowing what 5 would happen? 6 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Can you ever know? 7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: If you deny it, it might be appealed to the City 8 Council. 9 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Let them deal with it. 10 CHAIRMAN BELLO: But, the appeal would have to be the City. The applicant would 11 have to be the City. 12 MR. BARNES: That’s right. 13 CHAIRMAN BELLO: That’d be interesting. 14 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: I’ll go ahead and make a motion, because I do feel that, for 15 the motion, and I’m going to need some help…but, in my opinion, that it’s not detrimental to the 16 public good, and it’s nominal and inconsequential. It’s on the same property, it’s the same sign, 17 it’s moving west. 18 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, can I…I just want to clarify one thing, though. 19 I’m…forget your name, I’m sorry…Paul, I’m sorry, Paul, thanks. Paul’s comment about the 20 public can be one person is throwing me for a loop here I guess, to a certain degree. And 21 because I…I mean, I look at the public as more of a general, not as an individual. And, I guess 22 the definition is…is this a private owner or is this the pubic? And I’m having a conflict with 23 that. 24 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Let me correct that then, I think one person 25 can carry a message to you that something’s detrimental to the public interest. 26 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Oh, okay, okay, that… 27 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Or, I think ten people can come to you and 28 explain how something is detrimental to a private interest, and that’s not public. That’s not a 29 public question. So, you get to decide if it’s detrimental to the public interest. 30 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Public…or not, okay, that helps. Thank you very much. That 31 makes a difference. 32 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: I’ll second the motion. 13 1 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: Are we okay with that motion, the way it was 2 stated? 3 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: You included in your motion it’s not 4 detrimental to the public good and it’s nominal and inconsequential when considered in the 5 context of the neighborhood, and then there was… 6 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: I might have left those last few words off, but…the intent 7 is there. 8 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I think it wouldn’t hurt for you…we have a 9 form, just make sure we include all the necessary language that’s in the Land Use Code about the 10 nominal and inconsequential part of that motion, the last part of the motion. 11 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Yeah, so I’m looking at paragraph four, the proposal as 12 submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and 13 inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to 14 advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 15 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: That covers it, thank you. 16 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Thanks. 17 MR. BARNES: I think it would help, though, you did mention earlier, John, about 18 because it’s going to be located on the same property, it’s the same sign, and it’s not going any 19 further south. 20 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Yeah, it’s just moving west. 21 MR. BARNES: Okay, so can those comments be incorporated? 22 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Yeah, I would like that included, that’s my thinking in 23 terms of why it’s nominal and inconsequential. 24 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, second? 25 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Second. 26 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, roll call please. 27 MS. HILL: McCoy? 28 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Yes. 29 MS. HILL: McBride? 30 BOARDMEMBER MCBRIDE: Yes. 14 1 MS. HILL: Bello? 2 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Yes. 3 MS. HILL: Long? 4 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Yes. 5 MS. HILL: Bohling? 6 BOARDMEMBER PETER BOHLING: Yes. 7 CHAIRMAN BELLO: Okay, Appeal number 2714 has been approved. Thank you. 8 ATTACHMENT 6 Site Visit Summary October 1, 2012 ATTACHMENT 6 190 West Prospect Road City Council Site Inspection Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision October 1, 2012 Members of City Council were invited to inspect the site at 190 West Prospect Road in conjunction with the appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to approve the relocation of an off-premise sign. City Council is scheduled to consider the appeal at their October 16, 2012 meeting. City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson Councilmember Wade Troxell City Staff Present: Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor Noah Beal, Zoning Inspector Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Terry Tyrrell, MAX Project Consultant for City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Others Present: Sandy Helzar, Representing the Office of Brad March, Attorney for Richard Anderson, the Appellant The site inspection began at 3:40 p.m. in the parking lot of 200 West Prospect Road. The parking lot is directly west of the BNSF Railroad right of way located at 190 West Prospect Road which is the subject property of the appeal to City Council. Staff pointed out the existing billboard which is located in the BNSF railroad right of way and explained that the variance request submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) was to allow the billboard to be relocated seventy feet west of its current location. The proposed location of the BRT guideway was also explained, illustrating why the subject sign needs to be removed from its current location. A Councilmember asked if it’s appropriate for the City to be the applicant to the ZBA or to represent itself at the Council appeal hearing and the answer was yes. The site inspection attendees then walked to 190 W. Prospect to better view the billboard and the railroad right of way. 2 A Councilmember stated that it appears that a lot of trees will be removed in order to accommodate the guideway. This was confirmed by staff. A Councilmember asked what allows the sign to be moved. Staff answered with an overview of the ordinance prohibiting new off-premise signs, explaining that removing the sign and reconstructing it in another location was equivalent to constructing a new sign, which is something that can only be done if a variance is granted by the ZBA. In response to a Councilmember question about the results of the ZBA hearing, staff explained that the variance was approved. A Councilmember asked why the ZBA didn’t put a condition on the variance approval that the relocated sign be lower than it currently is? Staff replied that the ZBA can place conditions on variances but chose not to add any for this one. A Councilmember asked if the City Council could put conditions on it and the answer was yes. A Councilmember asked if the relocated sign will be an electronic digital sign and the answer was no. There were questions about the existing building directly east of the railroad right of way and it was explained that the building will be demolished as part of the Mason Corridor project. There were additional observations regarding the loss of trees that will occur in the Corridor, and it was clarified that the shrubs and trees on the west side of the railroad property where the sign is proposed to be relocated to are on Mr. Anderson’s property and would not be removed to accommodate the project or the sign. A Councilmember asked who is responsible to take the sign down and it was explained that it would be done by the City and its project contractors. A Councilmember asked if the relocated sign would be taller than it currently is? Staff replied that it is proposed to be the same height above the street as it currently is and will be setback the same distance from the street as it currently is. A Councilmember asked why the City staff and ZBA didn’t just say ‘no’ with regard to granting a variance. Staff explained that the merits of a variance application need to be examined for compliance with the criteria in the Land Use Code for granting of a variance. If it’s found that the request complies with the criteria, then the variance may be approved. In this specific case, the staff and the ZBA concluded that the request to relocate the sign complied with one or more of the code requirements. It was explained that staff recommended approval to the ZBA based on the ‘nominal and inconsequential’ standard and also on the ‘hardship’ standard, but that the ZBA’s motion to approve the variance was based solely on the ‘nominal and inconsequential’ standard as reflected in the verbatim transcript. A Councilmember asked what the financial impact would be if the sign can’t be relocated. Staff replied that the record reflects that there was discussion at the ZBA hearing regarding the issue of monetary compensation and that a representative of 3 NextMedia told the ZBA that it would be in the neighborhood of a couple hundred thousand dollars. It was further explained that Brad March stated the cost to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars in his Notice of Appeal. A Councilmember asked if there will be sign faces on both sides of the billboard. Staff replied that there’s no mention of that in the verbatim transcript, but pointed out that the existing sign structure was constructed in a manner to accommodate a sign on the east side of the sign, and that NextMedia’s plans would include that possibility based on a NextMedia slide which was included in the powerpoint presentation presented to the ZBA and which is also included in the City Council packet. A Councilmember asked if there has been any compensation offered to adjacent property owners. Staff replied that the transcript might contain a reference to meetings between the various parties and it would be a question to be asked at the Council hearing when other parties would be present to respond. The site inspection concluded at about 4:00 p.m. ATTACHMENT 7 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council, including slides that were presented to the ZBA at the August 9, 2012 Hearing ATTACHMENT 7 1 1 City Council Meeting October 16, 2012 Appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeal’s August 9, 2012 decision to approve Appeal #2714 for the relocation of an off-premise sign at 190 West Prospect Road. 2 Questions Council Needs to Address 1. Did the Zoning Board of Appeals fail to conduct a fair hearing in that: - The board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading; - The board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; - The board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction? 2. Did the Zoning Board of Appeals fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code - Section 2.10.2(H)? ATTACHMENT 7 2 3 4 ATTACHMENT 7 3 5 6 ATTACHMENT 7 4 7 8 ATTACHMENT 7 5 9 10 ATTACHMENT 7 6 11 12 ATTACHMENT 7 7 13 13 MAX – Bus Rapid Transit  5 Mile Corridor Guideway (Exclusive and Mixed Traffic) 13 Station Locations Bike Trail Overpass Underpass New South Transit Center Park and Ride Maintenance Facility Expansion 14 14 Prospect Station ATTACHMENT 7 8 15 16 ATTACHMENT 7 9 17 18 ATTACHMENT 7 10 19 20 Questions Council Needs to Address 1. Did the Zoning Board of Appeals fail to conduct a fair hearing in that: - The board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading; - The board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; - The board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction? 2. Did the Zoning Board of Appeals fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code - Section 2.10.2(H)? Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Gerry Horak, District 6 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. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING October 16, 2012 (after the Regular Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 4, 2012 and September 18, 2012 General Improvement District No. 1 Meetings. 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2013; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 2 minute presentation; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $273,523 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2013. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $38,769. The total 2013 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $312,292. Recommended appropriations for 2013 projects and expenditures will be $193,666. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 3 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 4, 2012 and September 18, 2012 General Improvement District No. 1 Meetings. September 4, 2012 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 A regular meeting of the General Improvement District No. 1 was held on Tuesday, September 4, 2012, at 9:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Boardmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Weitkunat. Boardmembers Absent: Troxell Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Eckman. Ordinance No. 063, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District Fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System, Adopted on First Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID) Fund for final design, fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was completed in 2009, and this appropriation provides funding to implement the system. The funds will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A background memo is attached to provide additional background on the GID and the sign system project (Attachment 2). This request represents a reappropriation of funds first approved by the GID Board in November 2011. That original appropriation lapsed at year-end due to lack of a contract as required to encumber the monies. The reasons staff brought that original appropriation forward were: (1) to reaffirm GID Board support for the project; (2) to cover the possibility that the funds might be needed to support initiation of the contractor selection process; and (3) the lack of harm if the funding were to lapse. In late 2011, staff evaluated project staffing, work programs, and possible approaches to issuing a Request for Proposals from sign contractors and resolution of those issues extended into 2012. A Request For Proposals was been issued, and proposals have been received from sign companies. 121 September 4, 2012 The appropriation will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual, which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009. That manual spells out parameters for a new sign system, and recommends the formation of a staff team to administer the system. Objectives of the sign system are to: • Build awareness of Downtown by announcing its presence along main thoroughfares. • Lead visitors to main Downtown entries and clarify the arrival sequence. • Guide visitors to public parking garages and lots, and make the garages more user- friendly, reducing common discomforts about using public garages. • Help visitors navigate the area and find destinations, in cars or on bikes, and then on foot once parked. • Add a sense of welcome in support of the overall image. • Enhance the identity and perception of Downtown as an interesting and desirable place with distinctive, helpful graphics. • Build awareness of attractions in and around downtown by highlighting key destinations that may not be immediately obvious. • Allow for flexibility and updating of signs over time. NEXT STEPS AND SCHEDULE The main steps in proceeding to completion, with target dates, are: • Select contractor team August 9 - September 7 • Finalize scope, schedule and contract September 10 - September 25 • Define phasing packages and installation responsibilities of City Sign Shop and Contractor September 26 - October 19 • Develop final messaging and construction drawings for Phase 1 installation October 22 - November 30 • Fabricate and install Phase 1 December 3, 2012 - January 24, 2013 • Develop final messaging and construction drawings, fabricate and install remainder of sign system February-March 2013 • Begin ongoing sign system program administered by a staff team Ongoing Target dates shown above are subject to confirmation with a contractor. The schedule will also be subject to weather, given the winter target dates for installations. 122 September 4, 2012 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The appropriation of $500,000 for this project is from the GID No. 1 Fund reserve balance, which was $1,100,000 at the end of 2011. Installation of the sign system will create the need for ongoing maintenance, replacements, additions and updates. A conceptual estimate of cost for this, for planning purposes, is $5,000- $6,000 per year for materials in 2012 dollars. The division of responsibility for ongoing funding of staff time, between the City General Fund and GID No. 1, will be determined in annual budget processes. The system is intended to enhance the downtown area as a business and commercial area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The parking signage included in the system is partly intended to reduce trolling for parking in the Downtown. The system is intended to support getting vehicles parked efficiently, thereby reducing emissions and congestion, and encouraging pedestrian use in the downtown area. PUBLIC OUTREACH A sign system has consistently been a prominent, highly supported project in extensive public participation in the following planning efforts: • Downtown Plan (1989) • Downtown Strategic Plan (2004) • UniverCity Connections Transit and Mobility Task Group Report (2008) • Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual (2009).” Clark Mapes, City Planner, discussed the appropriation. He stated the appropriation was originally made in late 2011; however, a sign contractor is only now being hired and that appropriation expired with the new year. Vice-President Ohlson asked why this project has taken so long. Mapes replied various aspects have been in process since 2009 and budget cuts and other priorities have prevented the project from occurring previously. Boardmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 063, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Kottwitz, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 123 September 4, 2012 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary 124 September 18, 2012 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 A regular meeting of the General Improvement District No. 1 was held on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, at 8:44 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Boardmembers: Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weitkunat. Boardmembers Absent: Horak Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Eckman. Ordinance No. 063, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District Fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System, Adopted on Second Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 Fund for final design, fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was completed in 2009 and this appropriation provides funding to implement the system. The funds will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop.” Vice-President Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 063, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary 125 DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 4 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2013; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Appropriation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sum of $273,523 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2013. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $38,769. The total 2013 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $312,292. Recommended appropriations for 2013 projects and expenditures will be $193,666. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The recommended appropriations for this amount are as follows: Projects: • $115,000 to be used for holiday lighting in the downtown core area • $26,000 to be used for capital improvements in the downtown area for projects yet to be determined Other expenses: • $15,356 for staffing • $11,500 for the Larimer County Treasurer’s fee for collecting the property tax • $23,000 for the property tax rebate program • $2,500 for estimated electrical costs for downtown lighting and water • $310 for miscellaneous expenses FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2013 at $193,666. This item also sets the General Improvement District No. 1 mill levy, which will generate about $273,523 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2013. Additional 2013 revenue for the GID No. 1 includes auto specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest which are projected to be $38,769 in 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. GID No. 1 Boundary map ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 064 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013; DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the taxable property in the GID and recommends that a levy of 4.924 mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID is required during 2013 to pay the cost of operating the GID; and WHEREAS, staff estimates a levy of 4.924 mill will result in $279,523 of revenue; and WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years, so that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and WHEREAS, additional revenue is collected by the GID from such sources as the automobile ownership tax, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings and that revenue for 2013 is anticipated to be $38,769; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting as the ex-officio Board of Directors of the GID, to appropriate the necessary funds for operating costs and capital improvements of the GID for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, as follows: Section 1. That, for the purpose of providing the necessary funds to meet the expenses to be incurred in the General Improvement District No. 1 in 2013, 4.924 mills is hereby levied upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the General Improvement District No.1 as of December 31, 2012. Section 2. That the Secretary of the General Improvement District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to certify such levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County as provided by law. Section 3. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, hereby appropriates out of the revenues of General Improvement District No. 1 for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013 the sum of ONE HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SIX DOLLARS ($193,666) to be raised by taxation and additional revenue to be expended for the authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Gerry Horak, District 6 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. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEETING October 16, 2012 (after the General Improvement District No. 1 Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2013; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 2 minute staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2013. The total amount will be used in the future to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA DATE: October 16, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 3 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2013; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2013. The total amount will be used in the future to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2009, the City annexed Phase 3 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The area annexed included the entire Larimer County Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (“GID No.15”). A map of the GID No. 15 is attached. The County organized GID No. 15 in 1997. Pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., since the annexation involved the entire improvement district, GID No.15 became a City-operated district and Council acts as the ex officio board of directors of the district. Under state law, the City is required to set the mill levy for the district and to certify the amount of the levy to Larimer County. This ordinance continues the establishment, as in years past, of a levy of 10.0 mills. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance sets the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 mill levy, which will generate about $24,615 at 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Boundary map W TRILBY RD S COLLEGE AVE W SKYWAY DR CONSTELLATION DR MARS DR VENUS AVE ARAN ST ORBIT WAY DEBRA DR H OLYOKE C T P O L A R I S DR S T A R W A Y S T AV O NDALE R D RAMA H D R N E P T U N E D R GALA X Y W A Y URANUS ST F LA G L E R R D ORDINANCE NO. 003 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY WHEREAS, the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (the “GID”) was created by Larimer County in 1997 and annexed into the City by phase three of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in 2009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., and Section 37-25-609, C.R.S., as a result of the annexation of the entire GID into the City, the GID is now a district of the City and the City Council is to act as the ex-officio board of directors of the GID; and WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the taxable property in the GID and recommends establishing a levy of 10.0 mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID for 2013; and WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 10.0 mills will result in $24,615 of revenue; and WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15, as follows: Section 1. That the 2013 mill levy rate for taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the GID shall be 10.0 mills. Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 10.0 mills to the County Assessor and the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado as provided by law. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor , Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary IDALIA DR Y U M A CT I D A L I A CT RICK DR SOLAR CT M E R C U R Y D R W SATURN DR F O S S IL CREST DR E TRILBY RD E SATURN DR G A L A X Y CT E SKYWAY DR PLATEAU CT AURORA WAY LEO CT OR I O N CT PLUTO CT SUNDOWN CT FL A G L E R RD General Improvement Skyview South District No. 15 Legend General Improvement District #15 Parcels 1 inch = 600 feet ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 3 2,075,730 4,750,851 Retail Sales from Additional Jobs (2013-2022) 919,187 195,341 Total $7,931,431 $6,333,118 Economic Impact: Construction (One-Time): Change in Jobs 400 Change in Earnings $18,107,190 Operations (On-Going): Change in Jobs 270 Change in Earnings $20,439,595 ATTACHMENT 2 Total 280,909 * Passenger Facility Charges Collected ‐ $4.50/passenger ** Non PFC Airline Revenue: Parking, Terminal Use Fees, Guaranteed Fuel Purchases, ARRF Fees, Terminal Concessionaire Rent Passenger Enplanements Fort Collins ‐ Loveland Airport 2003‐2011 Total Expenditures & Funding Source Analysis CAPITALOPERATINGCHARGES PASSENGER FACILITY Planned Actions • The airport over the next quarter will be looking for ways to reduce expenses • Air service development has taken a priority, and total cost is yet to be determined – Is key to financial sustainability as outlined in the adopted airport business plan – The airport will utilize the Small Community Air Service Development Grant to fund a significant portion of air service development costs – Without commercial service, total airport revenues will fall to 46% or $1.15 million by 2014 from $2.5 million • Plan to return to council with a proposal after financial review is complete and steps are taken to cut costs where able $69.46 $70.54 $77.99 $80.77 $82.96 $‐ $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 Longmont Loveland '12 Winter Loveland '12 Summer FC '12 Winter FC '13 Winter FC '12 Summer FC '13 Summer Xcel ‐ Winter Co. Sprs Xcel ‐ Summer P.V.REA $/Month Residential Rural Lands Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas Printed: May 17, 2011 Fossil Land Creek Use Framework Reservoir Plan Area Crossing Site - Kechter Annexation ATTACHMENT 4 N DE R ST N HOWES ST JEFFERSON ST J E R O M E S T MAIN ST COLORADO ST HO F FM A N MI L L RD P A S C A L S T WALNUT ST O V A L D R S SHERWOOD ST E MOUNTAIN AVE ENDICOTT ST 11TH ST SYCAMORE ST MU L L E I N DR EAST DR E LAUREL S T FRONTAGE RD PINE ST WOO D L AW N DR LESSER DR BEL L F L OWE R D R WEST DR OLD MAIN DR E MAGNOLIA ST LILAC LN MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY PENNOCK PL MARTINEZ ST ELM S T TENNEY CT LINCOLN AVE LOPEZ CT EASTDALE DR TRUJILLO ST LINDE N C ENTER DR BAUM ST S SHERWOOD ST E LAUREL ST FRONTAGE RD N LEMAY A V E N MASON ST Downtown Development Authority Boundary Map Legend Parcels Downtown Development Authority Boundary 1 inch = 1,320 feet . Amended: April 1, 2008 Printed: 1/20/2011 ATTACHMENT 5