Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/06/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDA
Karen 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 Tuesday, November 6, 2012 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring November 2012 through November 2013 as Year of the Natural Areas. B. Proclamation Declaring November as American Music Month. C. Proclamation Declaring November as National Family Caregiver Month. D. Proclamation Declaring November as Alzheimer’s Awareness Month. E. Proclamation Declaring November 10-18 as National Homelessness Awareness Week. 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. 34) N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item. No. 38) 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 30. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of: ! Ordinances on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual. ! 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 ITEMS 6. Second 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. Ordinance No. 107, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 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. 7. Items Relating to Water and Electric Development Fees and Charges for 2013. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. The proposed water increase is a flat 4% across the board to all customer classes. 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. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012. NON- BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS 8. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting and the October 23, 2012 Adjourned Meeting. 9. Second 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, appropriates a $200,000 trail grant received from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. 10. Second 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. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, appropriates a grant received from Great Outdoors Colorado in the amount of $737,597. The funds will be used as part of Fort Collins’ portion of the Poudre River Corridor & Regional Trail Initiative project. 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. 11. Second 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 Page 4 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 growth management areas 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. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, approves the Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document the City and Timnath’s intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. Between First Reading and Second Reading the proposed Amendment has been revised to specifically allow for Timnath to carry out the funding of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects through the Timnath Development Agency. 12. Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project. A. Second 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. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Town of Windsor pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392. 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. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 23, 2012. Page 5 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities. The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $15,457 as the 2010 and 2011 payments for public services and facilities. The Authority requests that the City refund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to fund sorely needed affordable housing-related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort Collins residents. Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT payments to the City. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has remitted the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from Great Outdoors Colorado in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E Project. The City has received the grant payment from Great Outdoors Colorado for the construction of the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E project. Great Outdoors Colorado had awarded the City a Special Opportunity Grant for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail from north of Cathy Fromme Prairie to the Spring Canyon Community Park. Construction of the project was completed this past spring. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. The City Code requires annual adjustments to certain building permit related fees. Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to follow the changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 1.8% and the ENR has increased 1.6%. Additionally the Code is being updated to reference to the most recent amended manual, The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. Staff is working with a consultant who specializes in capital impact fees to re-evaluate the underlying assumptions and formulas used to calculate the City’s fees. A presentation is scheduled for a work session on February 12, 2013 and formal consideration on March 5, 2013. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code Pertaining to Contractor Licenses. Community Development and Neighborhood Services is responsible for the enforcement of the contractor licensing requirements found in Chapter 15 of the City Code. The changes proposed will update the current Code by: • clarifying minimum experience and qualification requirements at the application stage • creating license categories that better align with the adopted residential and commercial building codes • streamlining the application and project verification process • establishing registration requirements for the currently non-licensed category of workers • increasing minimum liability amounts to recognized industry levels. 17. Items Relating to the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. B. Resolution 2012-100 Updating the List of Names for Arterial and Collector Streets. Page 6 This Ordinance amends the City Code relating to naming new arterial and collector streets so that City Council ,rather than the developer, would select the name of the new street. The Resolution will update the current list of names for arterial and collector streets. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2012, Amending Section 2-427 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Transportation Board. The Transportation Board currently consists of eleven members appointed by the City Council, and is one of the larger advisory boards. At the end of 2012, the terms of four members will expire. One of those members is not eligible for reappointment because that member has met the Council- adopted two term limit. Another member is eligible but is not interested in reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes to the size of the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This opportunity was presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the Council reduce the size from eleven to nine members. This Ordinance amends the City Code to reduce the size of the Board to nine members. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code by Designating Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development Projects as Being Subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review. On October 9, 2012, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance amending the Land Use Code (LUC) to require larger multi-family housing developments (50 dwelling units, or 75 bedrooms) to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). A Type 2 review requires that the developer hold a pre-submittal neighborhood meeting. The benefit to the neighborhood meeting is that the public is given an opportunity to provide input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development. In recent months a large amount of multi-family housing developments have been appealed by concerned citizens to Council based on the assertion that the projects are not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. This proposed procedural change seeks to provide more opportunity for the public to participate in the development review process for multi-family housing projects. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best Management Practices and Stream Restoration. The City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Master Plan has been updated to include stormwater quality and stream restoration projects, alongside the already identified stormwater flood control projects. The Master Plan update utilizes results and information obtained from the Stormwater Utility Repurposing program in conjunction with basin and stream specific recommendations obtained from the following two program efforts: A. Basin-Specific Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Selected Plans; and, B. Stream Restoration and Stability Study and Prioritization with the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool. The BMP Selected Plans include recommendations for the treatment of stormwater within portions of the City that developed prior to the adoption of stormwater quality criteria. The majority of the BMP projects include the retrofit of existing stormwater detention ponds to include water quality treatment facilities. Funding for the construction of the identified BMP and stream restoration projects will be drawn from existing stormwater fees. This funding request is included in the current 2013/2014 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process for Environmental Health. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned Property Known as the Maxwell Farm and Related Water Rights Subject to a Conservation Easement and Authorizing a Related Raw Water Transfer Agreement. The Natural Areas Department (NAD) purchased the 137-acre Maxwell Farm, along with 12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water, with the intent of placing it under a conservation Page 7 easement to help conserve a buffer between Fort Collins and Wellington; protect the open space and scenic values adjacent to I-25; and, sell it as an agricultural property with limited development rights. These purposes are supported by the Natural Areas Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan, the Council-adopted master plan for the Department. The land has been leased to Larry Maxwell, the previous owner, for farming and livestock feeding since the initial purchase in 2009. Natural Areas and Utilities have worked out an agreement for the NAD to sell eleven of the twelve NPIC shares to Utilities for approximately 50% of the estimated market value, which is $14,000 per share (based on recent sales information from NPIC). In exchange, Utilities will enter into a raw water transfer agreement with the buyer of Maxwell Farm, and per the terms of the agreement, Utilities will transfer the equivalent of eleven shares of NPIC water on an annual basis to the Maxwell Farm in perpetuity. The advantage to Utilities is that water decreed solely for agricultural use derived from other Utilities-owned NPIC shares, can be substituted for water decreed for municipal use derived from the eleven NPIC shares, which Utilities can use. The buyer will purchase the remaining share of NPIC water as it is a NPIC policy that a farm must own at least some NPIC water in order to receive any rented or transferred water. The single NPIC share to be owned by the buyer will also be tied to the land by the conservation easement agreement. The funds received from the sale of the land and water will be used to conserve additional land and water. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned Property Known as the Vangbo Property Subject to a Conservation Easement. The Vangbo Property was purchased by the Natural Areas Department (NAD) in 2005 with the intent to place a conservation easement on the property to conserve the open space and scenic values along the I-25 corridor and then sell it as an agricultural property with limited development options. These purposes are supported by the Natural Areas Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan, the Council-adopted master plan for the Department. The land is currently leased to Alison Person, a neighboring landowner, for grazing. Staff recommends selling the 105-acre Vangbo property and associated ditch and water rights with a reserved conservation easement to Alison Person for $300,000. The conservation easement does not allow any future development, but does give the landowner the option to request the purchase of one building envelope on the property from a future City Council. The undeveloped portion would remain in agricultural use. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement on City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC. Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC is planning a 39.53 acre residential development called Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD located just north of Bacon Elementary School on South Timberline Road. This development will require the construction of off-site stormwater outfall improvements on adjacent property to the north in order to connect with a stormwater pipe in Kechter Road. The alignment of these improvements will cross the northwest corner of a property owned by the City’s Social Sustainability Department. The City’s 16-acre property was purchased in 2006 as a Land Bank property and is currently leased as a residential/horse property. In order to facilitate the installation of the planned improvements, the developer has requested a 2,346 square foot non-exclusive drainage easement from the City in the northwest corner of the City property adjacent to Kechter Road. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to the Nunn Telephone Company. Nunn Telephone Company (NTC) currently provides telephone and internet services to portions of northwest Weld County and northeast Larimer County. With an increase in demand from their customers for broadband services, NTC has begun upgrading copper based telephone lines to fiber optic broadband lines. NTC has requested a utility easement from the City of Fort Collins across a portion of Meadow Springs Ranch in order to install approximately 7.0 miles of fiber optic line as part of this upgrade project. The proposed easement alignment would follow an abandoned state highway now used by the City as an access road to the City’s property. Page 8 25. Resolution 2012-101 Authorizing a Revocable Permit for Brinkman Construction, Inc. to Access City Property to Complete Mitigation Activities for the Construction of Tilden Street. In 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 030, 2008, authorizing the dedication of a portion of City property located at 2313 Kechter Road as Tilden Street. The property located west of the City property has been planned as the Kechter Crossing development. Tilden Street is located along the property boundary between the two properties. The developer of Kechter Crossing, Brinkman Construction, Inc., plans to begin construction of its development soon, including work within the new right-of-way of Tilden Street. This work will require the relocation of a number of site improvements in the right-of-way areas that are owned by the City. City staff has asked the Developer to relocate and replace a number of these site improvements elsewhere on the City property. The revocable permit will allow the developer access to the City property to perform the requested mitigation activities. 26. Resolution 2012-102 Naming Three Alleys Within the Block Bounded by South College Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street and West Myrtle Street. The Downtown Development Authority has completed a capital improvement project to enhance three public alleys in the aforementioned block. In conjunction with this project, the City of Fort Collins is preparing to name these three alleys. The three proposed names are “Dalzell Alley,” “Corbin Alley,” and “Wattles Alley.” If approved, the alley naming will simplify way-finding for pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, delivery personnel and emergency responders. 27. Resolution 2012-103 Making Findings of Fact and Related Determinations Regarding the Appeal of the August 7, 2012 Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision Regarding the Aspen Heights PDP. On August 16, 2012, the City of Fort Collins Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving Aspen Heights PDP, with one condition ensuring proper landscaping associated with the clubhouse. On August 30, 2012, Mr. Tom Lawton filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision. On October 30, 2012, City Council voted 5 - 0 to modify the Hearing Officer’s decision by requiring the following: 1. It shall be a condition of approval of the PDP that the applicant provide a shuttle bus for use of project residents, with the understanding that if there is insufficient ridership demand to sustain such shuttle bus, then the applicant may apply for a minor amendment to the approved Final Plan to reduce or eliminate the shuttle bus requirements of this condition. 2. It shall be a condition of approval of the P.D.P. that the applicant shall, at the time of submittal of the Final Plan and in consultation with City staff, enhance the design of the naturalized drainage channel transecting the property in such a manner as to provide an increased width and vegetation diversity; and to enhance the regional stormwater detention pond through variation in grading patterns and vegetation diversity, to the extent reasonably feasible. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the Appeal. 28. Postponement of Resolution 2012-099 Adopting a Water Supply and Demand Management Policy to November 20, 2012. At the October 30, 2012 Adjourned Meeting, Council voted to postpone consideration of this Resolution to November 6 to allow time for staff to revise the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, based on Council’s input. There is not adequate time to make these revisions and provide supporting material before the publication of the November 6 agenda. Staff requests postponement of consideration of this Resolution to November 20, 2012. Page 9 29. Routine Deeds. Three quit claim deeds, encompassing 105 easements within the Southwest Enclave Annexation from Poudre Valley REA. These easements were transferred to the City along with the purchase of Poudre Valley REA’s electric systems in the annexation. 30. Routine Easement. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from TAV Property Management, Inc., to install an electric transformer at 504 South College Avenue. END CONSENT 31. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 32. Staff Reports. 33. Councilmember Reports. 34. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items. DISCUSSION ITEMS The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ! Staff presentation (optional) ! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen) ! Council questions of staff on the item ! Council motion on the item ! Council discussion ! Final Council comments ! Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. 35. 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 Page 10 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. 36. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. (staff: Brian Janonis, Lance Smith; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) The 2013 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. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kottwitz). 37. Resolution 2012-104 Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-2 of the Ethics Review Board. (staff: Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest. On October 22, 2012, and October 30, 2012, the Ethics Review Board met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by Mayor Weitkunat. The question submitted by the Mayor is whether, in the Board’s opinion, she would have a conflict of interest in participating in upcoming decisions of either the City Council or the Urban Renewal Authority regarding the possible redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. The Mayor has presented the question because of the proximity of her residence to the redevelopment site. As required by the Code, the Board has forwarded its opinion and recommendations to the full Council for its consideration. Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council agrees with the Board’s opinion and recommendations. 38. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. 39. Other Business. 40. Adjournment. a. Motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m., Thursday, November 8, 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. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, natural areas and conserved land are a valuable resource, vital to the health and well-being of the citizens of Fort Collins and the residents of Colorado; and WHEREAS, November 2012 marks the 20th anniversary of the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is planning a year of celebration, including educational activities and volunteer projects, with the goal of bringing awareness about the importance of natural areas, encouraging citizens to practice stewardship, and to get involved in local natural areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins seeks to connect its citizens with the many ways that natural areas help to make this a world-class community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim November 2012 to November 2013 as the YEAR OF NATURAL AREAS in Fort Collins to celebrate the environmental, economic and community value of natural areas to the City of Fort Collins and its residents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, music, the universal language of peace, is one of the great arts and an outstanding feature of our culture; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of Music Clubs, having as a foremost objective, the promotion of American music, will stage its annual Parade of American Music throughout the month of November; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Federation of Music Clubs and Fort Collins join in encouraging and stimulating interest in American music and the enjoyment and appreciation thereof; and WHEREAS, the Parade of American Music is designed to give our own worthy United States composers recognition, encouragement and support, and to impress upon the public of the United States that it has creative as well as performing musical artists and a musical culture equal to that of other countries. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of Fort Collins, in recognition of the American Composer and in order to encourage native creative musical art, do hereby proclaim November 2012 as AMERICAN MUSIC MONTH and urge all our citizens to join in the observance and share the joy of music. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, across our country, millions of family members, neighbors, and friends provide care and support for their loved ones during times of need; and WHEREAS, with profound compassion and selflessness, these caregivers provide short term comfort and security, facilitate social engagement, and help individuals stay in their homes and communities as long as possible; and WHEREAS, at some time during this year, 1 in 4 adults in Fort Collins, or about 28,800 individuals, are providing care to an adult with limitations in daily activities; and WHEREAS, while this care is given from the heart, the estimated economic value of their unpaid contribution amounts to over 6 million dollars; and WHEREAS, this heroic work is often done while caregivers balance other commitments to their families, jobs and communities; and WHEREAS, we honor the tireless compassion of Americans who heal, comfort, and support our elders and people with disabilities. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim November 2012 as NATIONAL FAMILY CAREGIVER MONTH and urge all citizens this month and throughout the year, to let the quiet perseverance of our family caregivers remind us of the decency and kindness to which we can all aspire. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Alzheimer’s is an incurable and fatal brain disease that causes memory loss, disorientation, decreased judgment, and difficulty speaking; and WHEREAS, more than 5 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease, 72,000 people in Colorado alone, and 227,000 care partners provide unpaid care at home, valued at upwards of $3 billion; and WHEREAS, the care provided by family caregivers helps offset the impact on our community budgets at a time we can ill afford the rising cost of healthcare; and WHEREAS, with early detection and diagnosis, individuals and families can gain access to treatment, medications, enroll in critical research trials, fully participate in planning for the future, and receive help and support from the Alzheimer’s Association of Colorado's Denver office and six other locations around the state; and WHEREAS, we need more individuals and families to know they can get help at no cost from the Alzheimer’s Association and that there is hope on the horizon with advancements in research. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim the month of November 2012 as ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AWARENESS MONTH in Fort Collins. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the week of November 10-18 is recognized across the country as National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week and will be celebrated in Fort Collins to bring more awareness of this nationally recognized issue to the attention of the Fort Collins community; and WHEREAS, every day, taxpayers are being affected by homelessness in Fort Collins due to the use of services like emergency rooms, ambulances and jails, which costs our community millions of dollars a year; and WHEREAS, organizations like the Homeward 20/20, Homeless Day Services Initiative, the Murphy Center, Homelessness Prevention Initiative, the Community Dual Disorder Team, Catholic Charities Northern, and Homeless Gear are working together to lower the homelessness rate in Fort Collins and lessen the impact of this issue on both those experiencing homelessness and those who are indirectly affected; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins and the organizations that exist are working on an 8-year plan to end homelessness by using strategies to prevent people from becoming homeless and helping those who are homeless out of their situation. Raising awareness will help the community realize that homelessness is an issue that affects the community as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby declare November 10-18, 2012, as FORT COLLINS AWARENESS OF HOMELESSNESS WEEK to recognize the needs of those among our community who are without any stable place to go home to. This week symbolically serves witness to the fact that we need to utilize the many talents within our community to most effectively address the systemic needs of our homeless population for the social, ethical and economic well-being of our city. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Matt Robenalt Kathy Cardona AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Second 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 Ordinance No. 107, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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 COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 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: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Brian Janonis Lance Smith AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Items Relating to Water and Electric Development Fees and Charges for 2013. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed water increase is a flat 4% across the board to all customer classes. 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. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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: COPY COPY COPY COPY 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: COPY COPY COPY COPY October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 22 1This 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 16, 2012 -5- ITEM 22 COPY COPY COPY COPY 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 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 $ $24.98 1-inch construction service, flat charge per month $ $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 fourteen dollars and fourteen cents ($14.14). 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 eighteen and nine tenths cents ($2.189) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and fifty-one and six tenths cents ($2.516) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and eighty-nine and four-tenths cents ($2.894) 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 sixteen dollars and sixty-one cents ($16.61). 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 ten and nine tenths cents ($2.109) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and forty-two and four-tenths cents ($ 2.424) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and seventy-eight and nine-tenths cents ($2.789) 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 fourteen dollars and three cents ($14.03) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and sixty-seven cents ($ 4.67) 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 two dollars and three and seven-tenths cents ($2.037) 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 fifty-four and seven-tenths cents ($2.547) 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 Section 26-127 (c) customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on meter size as follows: -3- Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base Charge ¾ $ 12.66 1 35.31 1½ 96.02 2 144.71 3 220.71 4 346.49 6 672.15 8 1187.42 (2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and seventy-six and one-tenth cents ($1.761) 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 twenty and one-tenth cents ($2.201) 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 fifty- three cents ($2.530) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season months of November through April. c Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at three dollars and sixteen and four-tenths cents ($3.164) 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. 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 26-472 (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 five hundred fifty thousandths cents ($0.04550) 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 $ 646.00 $4.71/Foot 4/0 service $ 790.00 $5.51/Foot 350 kCM Service $ 892.00 $7.24/Foot 1/0 Mobile Home Service $505.00 N/A 4/0 Mobile Home Service $624.00 N/A b. ten dollars and two cents ($10.02) 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 seventy-three dollars ($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-nine dollars ($2,169.) per dwelling unit; c. For a multi-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service (nonelectric heat), eight hundred forty-nine dollars ($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 eighteen dollars ($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 conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete cutting and asphalt replacement. -2- Section 2. That Section 26-473 (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 five hundred fifty thousandths cents ($0.04550) per square foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts but excluding the area of dedicated public rights-of-way; and b. forty dollars and eleven cents ($40.11) 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: i. Utility owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be fifty-six dollars and sixty-eight cents ($56.68) per kilovolt- amp (kVA) of service load rating. ii. Customer owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be forty-six dollars and twenty-three cents ($46.23) 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: i. Utility owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be forty-six dollars and twenty-three cents ($46.23) 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. ii. Customer owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be thirty-five dollars and seventy-three cents ($35.73) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the service load rating paid per subparagraph (2)a.ii.above. -3- 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 eighteen cents ($9.18) per foot of primary circuit; b. for three-phase service, a charge of seventeen dollars and ninety-five cents ($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 three hundred dollars ( $1,300.) per transformer; b. for three-phase service, a charge of two thousand three hundred eighty dollars ($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- DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting and the October 23, 2012 Adjourned Meeting. October 16, 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 16, 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. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry recommended removing Item No. 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, from the agenda. Citizen Participation Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed the custody case of her son and alleged various crimes relating to the case. Bill Mullaney supported Stacy Lynne and alleged various crimes relating to her case. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, thanked Council for adopting the Corporation Separation Movement Resolution. Myles Crane, Human Relations Commission ember, announced an elder abuse forum. Dani Grant, 227 Hawks Nest Way, Spokesbuzz Fort Collins, thanked Council, Fort Fund, and the City of Fort Collins for supporting its band swap program. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Weitkunat read a prepared statement regarding the Stacy Lynne custody case. She stated a police investigator and the District Attorney’s Office have concluded that no probable cause exists to merit further action by Fort Collins Police Services against any of the multiple public officials who have been the subject of Ms. Lynne’s complaints. 75 October 16, 2012 CONSENT CALENDAR 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 76 October 16, 2012 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 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. 77 October 16, 2012 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 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. 78 October 16, 2012 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*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds. 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. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known as Daisy Street and Columbine Street. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson. 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. 12. 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. 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. 79 October 16, 2012 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. 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. 22. 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. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports Joel Radke, Mountain Region Director of the National Association of Government Webmasters, presented Jim Thome with the Pinnacle Award for the City’s web page. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Poppaw reported on a recent Fort Collins Symphony Orchestra performance and the Housing Now conference, at which the Fort Collins Housing Authority participated in a charette for affordable housing design. Councilmember Troxell reported on the opening of two new city parks, including Registry Ridge Community Park and Water’s Way. Mayor Weitkunat stated the two new parks represent the 47th and 48th city parks. 80 October 16, 2012 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, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “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 1 st reading of the 2013-14 Biennial Budget. The following table summarizes the Offers not originally included in the Recommended Budget. 81 October 16, 2012 Note: GF = General Fund 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 82 October 16, 2012 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. 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. 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, 83 October 16, 2012 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.” Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, provided an overview of the proposed budget, including the various changes that have been made since the original proposed budget. New additions include the Poudre School District after-school program, the Arts Incubator, and the Great Lawn program. Beckstead detailed the changes in funding which will allow for funding these additional programs. City Manager Atteberry discussed the City’s high credit rating and financial stability. Rob Kagen, Parks and Recreation Boardmember, thanked Council and staff for hard work on the budget. Ann Hutchison, 402 Riddle Drive, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice-President, requested a delay in the adoption of the integrated recycling facility and supported the strong economic health budget items. Pranaya Sathe, Youth Advisory Board Chairperson, supported funding for the after-school program. Irene Vernon, 6709 Poudre Canyon, supported funding for the after-school program. Alex Blackmer, 430 West Myrtle Street, The Atmosphere Conservancy, supported funding for renewable energy programs, the Fort Collins Solar Program, and electric vehicle charging stations. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported funding for the affordable housing funding enhancement, the after-school program, and the extension of Dial-a-Ride to the southeast part of town. Dan Garvin, Colorado Iron and Metal, opposed the integrated recycling facility. Rachel Vernon, 204 North Roosevelt, Northside Atzlan Advisory Board Co-Chair, supported funding for the after-school program. Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride services in the southeast part of town, and questioned the District 1 crime prevention funding. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the integrated recycling facility and funding for electric vehicle charging stations. Roger Hageman, 3501 East Prospect, Hageman Earthcycle, opposed the integrated recycling facility. Angelica Stole, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for the after-school program. Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, Energy Board member, supported funding for feed-through tariffs and solar project. He stated the Board conditionally supports the electric vehicle charging stations. He supported additional recycling options in the city. Robert Hau, 1109 Heatherwood Lane, commended Council and staff on the budget. 84 October 16, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz requested input regarding the Council agenda improvements item. City Manager Atteberry replied that item was included in the initial recommended budget; however, it was not supported by Council and has been removed. City Clerk Nelson replied the software would automate the agenda process for all departments. City Manager Atteberry noted additional work on the item could reduce costs and result in a better product. Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the possibility of having a searchable database relating to Council voting. City Clerk Nelson replied one software product that was researched would provide that service. Councilmember Manvel stated that this item does appear to be a process improvement; however, it is unclear how much staff time the product would save. He stated he would support the item given a lesser cost. Councilmember Kottwitz requested input regarding the integrated recycling facility. City Manager Atteberry stated this facility would not be anti-business. This facility would divert refuse from the landfill and noted its location will hopefully be more centrally located within the city than the county landfill and recycling facility. Lucinda Smith, Interim Director of Environmental Services, noted the current budget offer has to do with land acquisition and basic facility construction. The operation of the facility is envisioned to go to the private sector. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 112, 2012, on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel suggested a type of grant program be applied to the workplace safety initiative fund and requested comment on that suggestion. Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, replied that characterization of the fund is accurate. Additionally, safety audits are conducted which may lead to issues needing to be resolved. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to amend the motion to add offer 25.10 back into the budget. Councilmember Horak questioned the need for including this item as it does not need funding from the budget. Beckstead replied the spending of what comes out of the self-insurance fund requires Council approval and must be part of the spending appropriation. Councilmember Horak questioned the need to have a fund regarding safety as those types of issues should be taken care of preemptively. City Manager Atteberry replied these safety improvements require an appropriation. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the amendment as the budget is a compromise document. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 85 October 16, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding the proposed recycling center and encouraged communication with the private sector prior to Second Reading. She stated she would not support the item unless it is designed to be run by the private sector. She supported expanding Dial-a-Ride service to the southeast part of town and expressed concern regarding the proposed electric vehicle charging stations. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the proposed recycling center is not going to be completely privately run but will be designed to complement existing private facilities. City Manager Atteberry requested staff input regarding the proposed electric vehicle charging stations. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated the electric vehicle charging stations are proposed to aid in relieving range anxiety for electric vehicle drivers and to illustrate that Fort Collins is an electric vehicle-friendly city. Councilmember Horak asked if there is a charge to users of the stations. Catanach replied the funds to pay for the electricity would be covered through the parking fees and is a relatively small amount. Councilmember Horak asked about the park maintenance item being listed as a project. Beckstead replied it will be examined prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Horak asked about connections between the Mason Street Corridor across to the east side of College Avenue. City Manager Atteberry replied the Midtown study, now underway, will address those connections. Councilmember Troxell supported examination of the agenda software topic prior to Second Reading. He supported the electric vehicle charging stations and commended the budget and staff work. Councilmember Horak requested additional context regarding the vehicle charging stations. City Manager Atteberry assured Council that additional context would be provided prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Poppaw commended staff work on the budget. She supported funding southeast Dial-a-Ride service. She encouraged a balance between innovation and basic community needs. Mayor Weitkunat noted this budget allowed for additions rather than cuts due to the voter-approved tax increase. She noted all of the available funds were not allocated and agreed the budget reflects cooperation and compromise. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 86 October 16, 2012 Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2013, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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% 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: 87 October 16, 2012 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: 88 October 16, 2012 1 This 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. 89 October 16, 2012 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. 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: 90 October 16, 2012 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. 91 October 16, 2012 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 92 October 16, 2012 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. 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.” Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, introduced the three ordinances relating to water and electric rates. Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, stated the impact of the proposed rate increases will be a 4.3% increase to the electric fund and a 4% increase to the water fund. The electric increase will vary by customer class and seasonally. The water increase is an across-the- board increase. There are two components to the electric rate increase: 3.83% of the increase is the retail impact of Platte River Power Authority’s wholesale increase and 0.5% increase is for the Fort Collins Solar Program. The water fund increase is due to mitigation efforts and increased treatment costs due to the High Park Fire. The third Ordinance for Council consideration is related to Plant Investment Fees which need to be updated every two years. If approved, the new rates would go into effect January 1, 2013. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated Fort Collins is not in a leadership position in the electric utility field. He questioned the change in utility bills showing only two months of prior usage rather than twelve months. Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, requested information regarding the length of time for the water fund increase and asked about federal rebates being applied to rate categories. Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, stated the Electric Board supports the proposed Ordinances. 93 October 16, 2012 Smith stated the twelve month usage information was removed from the utility bills due to the lack of space on the paper; however, customers using on-line billing have access to the past twenty-four months of billing history. The substation rate is new because no customers have previously been served directly from a substation; that is anticipated to occur in 2013. Councilmember Horak asked what rate those on net metering receive. Janonis replied the net metering rate is the lowest residential summer rate. Councilmember Horak requested commercial rate information be provided prior to Second Reading. Janonis replied it would be provided. Councilmember Manvel asked about the substation rate. Smith replied the customers have a direct connection to the substation and have committed to maintaining the infrastructure from the substation. Councilmember Troxell asked about public outreach to commercial customers. Janonis replied key customer accounts luncheons have occurred three times this year. Councilmember Troxell stated he opposes the tiered rates as they will create higher peaks. He asked when a report will be available regarding the tiered rate program. Smith noted several parameters changed this year, including record heat and the High Park Fire, making the isolation of the impact of the tiered rates difficult. Much of the increases to utility bills were driven by water consumption. Councilmember Manvel noted Utilities did provide data relating to tiered rates and acknowledged those rates were skewed due to abnormal summer conditions. When normalized, the data did not appear to show higher peaks. Councilmember Kottwitz noted her constituents are served by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and asked about potential increases in rates there. She asked about potential federal reimbursement for High Park Fire costs. Janonis replied the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District has experienced extremely high demands and is currently in debt to the City for millions of gallons of water. Some reimbursement will occur in terms of the Fire; it will help with the mitigation and revegetation. However, additional financial impacts remain. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if residential users are subsidizing commercial and industrial users. Janonis replied cost of service studies are conducted for all utilities to ensure no subsidies are occurring. There is a great deal more infrastructure servicing residential customers. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 113, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 114, 2012, on First Reading. 94 October 16, 2012 Councilmember Horak noted the majority of the rate increase is due to the Platte River Power Authority increase. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the rate increase is not being used to fund basic government services. Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern about the return on investment for energy efficiency programs. She stated she agrees with the pass-through vote but is concerned about the rate structure changes and will not support the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 115, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 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, Adopted as Revised The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “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 95 October 16, 2012 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 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. 96 October 16, 2012 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. 97 October 16, 2012 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. 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 98 October 16, 2012 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: 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). 99 October 16, 2012 Table 2: Equipment Location 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: 100 October 16, 2012 • 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. Table 4: Estimated Revenue, Rebate, and Net Revenue for the City of Fort Collins 101 October 16, 2012 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 3 rdelectric year of a 5-year commitment to reduce utility consumption on a “per unit basis,” and are currently at 30% reduction. 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. PUBLIC OUTREACH Negotiations of the planned Avago Technologies expansion and related Business Assistance Package were conducted confidentially.” Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, described the current process used for developing business incentive packages. He detailed the recent improvements to the process and discussed Avago’s contributions to the community. Birks detailed the purpose of the Resolution. Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, opposed the business assistance package. 102 October 16, 2012 Ann Hutchison, 402 Riddle Drive, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice-President, supported the business assistance package. Monte Barry, 415 South Howes, opposed the business assistance package without an exploration of work conditions. Bob Carnahan, 4325 Westbrooke Court, supported the business assistance package. Doug Bettinger, Avago Technologies Chief Financial Officer, supported the business assistance package and discussed Avago’s history in Fort Collins. Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, opposed the business assistance package. Tim Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, suggested the business assistance funds should be used to build up city infrastructure rather than be used to aid Avago. Sharie Grant, 1455 Freedom Lane, Officescapes Northern Division President, supported the business assistance package. Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, supported the business assistance package as being an investment in the community. Greg Woods, 2621 Rigden Parkway, supported the business assistance package. Walt Delish, Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation President, supported the business assistance package. Donna Chapel, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Chairperson, supported the business assistance package. David Palm, 4360 Shadowbrook Court, supported the business assistance package. Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, opposed the business assistance package as a whole, but supported the rebate in manufacturer’s use tax of $1.3 million. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed the business assistance package. Gina Janett, 730 West Oak, opposed the business assistance package. Trudy Haines, 625 Hinsdale Drive, opposed the business assistance package as a whole, but supported the rebate in manufacturer’s use tax of $1.3 million. Sam Solt, 1304 Teakwood Drive, supported the business assistance package. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated payments in lieu of taxes should be considered as a revenue source. David May, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, supported the business assistance package. 103 October 16, 2012 Councilmember Poppaw asked what percentage of the area median income is provided by the 98 jobs which will provide $30,000 incomes. Birks replied he was unsure. Councilmember Poppaw stated the income level is 50% of the area median income. She asked what kind of impact those job additions will have on Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins and expressed concern that area social service programs will be strained. Birks replied staff has focused on evaluating the income against a single average wage. The starting salary for these positions is $30,000 before adding in benefits and the operators tend to supplement incomes with shift premiums and position elevations. Birks stated staff can only speculate on how many of these individuals would require support services. Councilmember Poppaw requested that the Avago team address rumors of existing workforce reductions. Mr. Bettinger replied there are no planned workforce reductions at Avago in Fort Collins. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted a building permit for this expansion was pulled several months ago and asked why this package is being billed as an incentive. Birks replied staff discovered this information today and passed it on to Council immediately. He stated process improvements are being examined. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if there had been any knowledge of the pulled building permit. Birks replied his staff had some knowledge Avago was moving forward in good faith but no one was necessarily aware that building permit was pulled. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson questioned the analysis of the impact of indirect jobs. Birks replied staff is committed to continuous improvement and stated all of the potential revenues should be analyzed. One of the process improvements will be an evaluation of direct impacts as well as indirect impacts, both from revenue and cost perspectives. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how Avago performed in the last incentive package application and questioned why that information was not included in this packet. Birks replied staff is committed to annual audits; however, that has not been completed on the first Avago agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested process improvements for the future but stated he would support the business assistance package as he is supportive of the expansion and retention of local businesses. However, he stated he would not support packages in which the equipment has already been purchased or building permits have already been pulled in the future. Councilmember Manvel suggested the following type of statement should be considered for inclusion: “failure of Avago to substantially retain its existing workforce in addition to the jobs created will lead to a reduction in the City concessions contained in the agreement.” He asked about the accuracy of the statement made by Mr. May indicating that some communities in Colorado do not have manufacturing equipment use taxes and personal property taxes. Birks replied the cities of Loveland, Greeley, and Windsor do not have a use tax on manufacturing equipment, but he is unsure about personal property taxes. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2012-096 as revised on October 16, 2012. 104 October 16, 2012 Mayor Weitkunat requested a description of the revisions. Birks replied the addition is in the directive part of the Resolution and instructs the City Manager to only sign the agreement after the following suggested changes have been made: changing the effective date to June 8, 2012, the date the building permit was pulled, extend the use tax payments out over time as opposed to the way they were conceived in the original agreement, condition any rebate payment on the maintenance of the targeted number of jobs, and also to require Avago to continue to retain the existing workforce in a substantial and reasonable way. Councilmember Poppaw thanked Avago for being a good corporate citizen and respectfully requested that it be mindful of the needs of low-income employees. Councilmember Troxell commended Avago and stated he would support the Resolution. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to amend the Resolution by removing the word “general” from point number four of the agreement, and add the following phrase to the end of the sentence: “define how this will be determined and the consequences of not substantially retaining its existing workforce.” He stated this would define the term “substantially change” and would define consequences for not meeting that requirement. City Attorney Roy stated Council should clarify whether it intends this to be a requirement, the breach of which would have a consequence, or whether it is to be a statement of intent. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the types of jobs will be specified. Councilmember Horak replied the wording should be general enough to allow the City Manager leeway to create a reasonable, enforceable agreement. City Attorney Roy suggested the inclusion of a provision that will help ensure the retention of Avago’s existing workforce, in addition to the jobs created by the project over the term of the agreement. Councilmember Horak replied he would accept that language. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the Avago representatives have any thoughts on the proposed language. Mr. Bettinger replied Avago would be happy to work with the City Manager and the City Attorney’s Office on mutually-agreeable language. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated general statements should never be included in these types of agreements. He opposed the suggested language as it is not enforceable. City Attorney Roy stated it is important that Council understand this Resolution is not the actual agreement, but rather direction to add certain kinds of provisions to the agreement. Given Council’s varying opinions, City Attorney Roy stated the agreement could be negotiated, rewritten, and brought back before Council. Councilmember Horak withdrew his motion to amend, stating he is comfortable allowing the City Manager and Avago to work out an acceptable agreement. Councilmember Horak stated this type of template should be used for business assistance agreements with primary employers into the future. 105 October 16, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz stated Avago is an integral part of the culture of Fort Collins and supported the agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the Resolution and added Fort Collins has not overdone its incentives. He expressed concern regarding some of the process issues. Mayor Weitkunat stated these types of packages are business investment assistance packages and provide investment in the community. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to October 23, 2012, for the purpose of considering Items Relating to the I-25/SH392 Interchange Process, 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, as well as a possible executive session and other items that may be determined at a later date. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 106 October 23, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 23, 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: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Weitkunat. (Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 6:28 p.m.) Councilmembers Absent: Horak, Troxell Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Harris, Roy. Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. 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"). 107 October 23, 2012 • 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. This item was continued by the City Council to this date for First Reading. The version of the fee ordinance being presented to the Council now has an additional provision (Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a)) stating that the fee amounts shown in the spreadsheet in Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a) may be adjusted by the City Manager, either in the event of a successful appeal of a property owner or to reflect new information about the amount of developable square footage contained in a particular CAC property 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 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. 108 October 23, 2012 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. 109 October 23, 2012 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. 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 110 October 23, 2012 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. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 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. 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. “ Rick Richter, Interim City Engineer, discussed the funding and design of the project. The total project cost is just under $27 million, $5.1 million of which was paid for by the Town of Windsor and the City of Fort Collins. Fifty percent of that is to be recovered through the fees to be discussed this evening. Ordinance No. 118, 2012 would adopt the amended intergovernmental agreement which would provide for a community contribution from the Town and the City, eliminate a public improvement fee, and establish the final corridor activity center (CAC) boundaries. Ordinance No. 117, 2012 would establish a special fee to be paid by the property owners within the CAC. The fee has two components: a proximity component and a trip generation component. Richter stated both similar Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading by the Windsor Town Board. Steve Pfister, 2706 Balmoral, property owner in the CAC in Windsor, stated residential property should not be assessed this fee. He requested a friendly amendment that residences should not be assessed the fee. Should residential properties be rezoned and developed as commercial, the fees would then apply. Richter discussed the residential-zoned property and stated the assessment was calculated at approximately $75 per house and those fees were included as part of the assessment. If the size of the CAC is reduced and the same fee amount is desired to be collected, the fee would increase for the other properties. Councilmember Manvel noted the higher-functioning intersection would benefit all area property owners. Richter stated the residential property values will increase as a result of the interchange construction. The increase in property values for the entire CAC area is estimated to be approximately $18 million. Councilmember Manvel requested an estimate of property owner participation. Richter replied there are six properties on the Fort Collins side of the interchange. Four of the six are interested in participating in the agreement. It is estimated that fifty to sixty percent of property owners will participate. 111 October 23, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if new property owners in the future will have to pay in fees if the $2.6 million has already been collected. City Attorney Roy replied that is the correct interpretation as the fee needs to be cost related and the amount recovered cannot exceed the cost incurred. The total contribution of the Town and City is $5.1 million; however, half of that has been recognized to provide a communitywide benefit. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 117, 2012, on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel stated the assessment amount is appropriate given the benefits to area property owners. Mayor Weitkunat stated this project has been a long time in coming and noted the new interchange is a major improvement for both municipalities. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 118, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2012-097 Ratifying the Appointment of Maddy Wawro to the Poudre River Public Library District Board of Trustees, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 20, 2012, the Library Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Larimer County Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson, unanimously recommends the appointment of Kipp Lyons for a four-year term. On September 26, 2012, Mr. Lyons resubmitted a letter of resignation, effective October 15, 2012. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In November 2006, voters approved the formation of the Fort Collins Regional Library District. This name was changed to the Poudre River Public Library District in February 2009. The City Council and County Commissioners formed a Library District Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of two Councilmembers and two Commissioners. The Committee interviewed numerous candidates for the Board of Trustees and recommended seven candidates to the full Council and to the Commissioners for ratification. The candidates were ratified unanimously by both the Council and the Commissioners. 112 October 23, 2012 The intergovernmental agreement between the City, County and District sets out the process for appointing Trustees. It provides that a committee, comprised of two members of Council and two Commissioners, will recommend a candidate for appointment who must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of both the full Council and the Commissioners. The Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson, met on February 20, 2012. The Committee, in part, unanimously recommended to the Council and the Commissioners that Kipp Lyons be appointed for a four-year term, as provided in the Board’s bylaws. At that same meeting, the Committee determined that, should another vacancy occur, applicant Maddy Wawro would be the Committee’s next recommended appointee. That selection has been reconfirmed with the Committee, and this Resolution ratifies the appointment of Maddy Wawro for a term to expire in March 2016.” Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution 2012-097. Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for the Library Board and thanked Ms. Wawro for her upcoming service. Councilmember Poppaw thanked the Library Board for its service. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 2012-098 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Poudre River Public Library District Regarding the Donation to the District of Library Project Funds, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City and the Poudre River Library District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on December 18, 2007, in which the City agreed to use City Library Impact Fee revenue to complete construction, tenant finish, furnishings and purchase of materials for a Southeast Branch Library. The Facility project budget included “General Fund Productivity Savings” funds, which were appropriated to the Facility project, but not spent. A balance of $329,839 remains. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins built Council Tree Library as a capital improvement project with the intention of turning over the building and library operations to the Poudre River Library District. Construction funds were derived from impact fees, donations, and from the City of Fort Collins General Fund through two appropriations. The funds in question were appropriated from the 113 October 23, 2012 General Fund, but not spent. The District has asked the City to give the District the remaining funds to spend on specific improvement projects in Library Park. The Council Finance Committee discussed this item at its 16 meeting and agreed that the proposed improvements would provide a public benefit by creating additional public amenities in Library Park and improving access to the Park and the Main Library. They expressed support for donating the funds for the improvements. The Intergovernmental Agreement specifies that the District may use up to the full amount of the funds for the following projects: (a) Improvements to Peterson Street accessibility and Library entry plaza. This project includes redesign and repaving of the library entry plaza and the addition of pavement adjacent to the curb, making access to the park and library more convenient for the public. This project is estimated to cost $60,000. (b) Widen and upgrade the diagonal walkway (Bench Allée) that runs diagonally from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of Library Park. This project would also include the placement of benches and planters along the edge and stringing decorative lights in the trees along the path. This project is estimated to cost $121,837. (c) Construction of an amphitheater on the northwest side of Library Park for community-scale activities. This project is estimated to cost $148,002. The City will transfer to the District the amount requested for each project at the time the District awards a construction contract for the project. The amount of money the District requests for each project may be more or less than the estimated cost for the project; however, the total funds provided for the three projects will not exceed $329,839. Upon completion, all improvements will be the property of the Library District. The District will grant the City a public access easement over any sidewalk areas that are improved using the City funds, including new sidewalks along Peterson Street and the Bench Allée, that are not already in a public right-of-way. The City currently leases Library Park from the District in exchange for maintaining Library Park in substantially the condition it was in as of the date of the lease. The District is required to fund the increased costs of maintenance for any upgrades, additions or improvements the District wishes to make to Library Park. As long as the Park Lease remains in effect, the City will, at the end of each calendar year, invoice the District for the additional costs of maintenance required by the Approved Projects, and the District will reimburse the City for such costs within sixty (60) days of the date of such invoice. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS General Fund monies that were previously appropriated for a Southeast Branch library will be donated to the Poudre River Library District. If the funds have not been spent in accordance with this Agreement by December 31, 2013, they will revert to the City and the City will have no further obligation to fund the Approved Projects.” 114 October 23, 2012 Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager, stated formerly appropriated funds, which have not yet been used, are being requested by the Library District, to provide additional accessibility and park improvements for the main library. She detailed the plans for the improvements. Shelly Kalkowski, 6575 Rookery Road, Poudre River Public Library District Trustee, supported the continuing partnership between the City and the District regarding the park. She discussed the park’s history. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2012-098. Councilmember Poppaw expressed appreciation for the work that went into this agreement. Councilmember Manvel supported the project and its design and suggested the diagonal walk be a bicycle-free zone. Mayor Weitkunat supported the project and the way in which it connects the Library to the community. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to October 30, 2012, so that the Council may consider any additional business that may come before the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 115 DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Craig Foreman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Second 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, appropriates a $200,000 trail grant received from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 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: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Craig Foreman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second 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 This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, appropriates a grant received from Great Outdoors Colorado in the amount of $737,597. The funds will be used as part of Fort Collins’ portion of the Poudre River Corridor & Regional Trail Initiative project. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 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: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Jon Haukaas Ken Sampley AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second 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 growth management areas 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. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, approves the Fourth Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document the City and Timnath’s intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. Between First Reading and Second Reading the proposed Amendment has been revised to specifically allow for Timnath to carry out the funding of the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects through the Timnath Development Agency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 November, 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 or the Timnath Development Authority (“TDA”) on behalf of Timnath, shall be entitled to a portion of said escrowed funds Page 4 of 7 not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 th Dollars ($250,000.00) to match payments by Timnath, or the TDA on behalf of Timnath, for up to fifty percent (50%) of the costs actually incurred by Timnath or the TDA 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, or the TDA on behalf of Timnath, upon request from the escrow agent in order to allow Timnath or the TDA 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 or TDA payments on invoices for the work described in Section 7.4, and any amounts not applied by Timnath or the TDA for up to fifty percent (50%) of 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. Timnath acknowledges and agrees that, should Timnath arrange for performance by the TDA of any Timnath’s obligations hereunder, Timnath shall continue to be responsible to Fort Collins for full and satisfactory completion of any of such obligations. (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, or the TDA on behalf of 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 or the TDA on behalf of 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, or the TDA on behalf of 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, or the TDA on behalf of 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 or the TDA on behalf of 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. Page 6 of 7 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 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: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter Steve Roy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project. A. Second 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. Second 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 (IGA) with the Town of Windsor pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392. 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. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 23, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 23, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter Steve Roy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3 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. This item was continued by the City Council to this date for First Reading. The version of the fee ordinance being presented to the Council now has an additional provision (Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a)) stating that the fee amounts shown in the spreadsheet in Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a) may be adjusted by the City Manager, either in the event of a successful appeal of a property owner or to reflect new information about the amount of developable square footage contained in a particular CAC property 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 COPY COPY COPY COPY October 23, 2012 -2- ITEM 3 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 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 COPY COPY COPY COPY October 23, 2012 -3- ITEM 3 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. 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 23, 2012 -4- ITEM 3 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 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. 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Property Owner Agreement (Undeveloped Property) 2. Draft Property Owner Agreement (Developed Property) 3. Vicinity Map 4. Powerpoint presentation 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 except to the extent that: (i) the City Manager or the Financial Officer adjusts the amount due for a particular CAC Property pursuant to an appeal taken under subsection (f) of this Section 1; or (ii) the City Manager, upon recommendation of the Financial Officer, increases or decreases the amount due for a particular CAC Property to more accurately reflect the developable square footage of such parcel, and so notifies the affected Property Owner in writing no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date that the first installment of the Proximity Component is due under subsection (d) of this Section 1. 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. 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 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. 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 Page 6 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. (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: Page 7 (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. (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 23rd 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 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 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 23rd 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 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: 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: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Darin Atteberry AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $15,457 as the 2010 and 2011 payments for public services and facilities. The Authority requests that the City refund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to fund sorely needed affordable housing-related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort Collins residents. Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT payments to the City. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has remitted the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On December 16, 1971, the City and the Authority entered into a Cooperative Agreement which provided that the Authority must make annual PILOT payments to the City for the public services and facilities furnished by the City. In 1986, upon request of the Authority, the City Council adopted a resolution which relieved the Authority of its obligation to make the PILOT payments. Based on that resolution, the Authority did not make PILOT payments from 1987 through 1990. The Authority also received a refund from the City of PILOT payments for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. In 1992, the City Council approved a change in the Cooperative Agreement to reinstate the requirement that the Authority pay the annual PILOT payment. The change was done to clarify that PILOT payments are owed to the City and to avoid the possibility that the Department of Housing and Urban Development might require the Authority to return the PILOT payments to the federal government. Since that time, the City has refunded the annual PILOT payments to the Housing Authority. Staff recommends that the 2010 and 2011 PILOT payments of $15,457 be appropriated as unanticipated revenue in the General Fund and remitted to the Authority with the recommendation that the Authority use the funds in the manner consistent with HUD guidelines. The intended use for the funds is affordable housing and related activities. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City received unanticipated revenue from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in the amount of $15,457.00 as 2010 and 2011 payments for public services and facilities. The revenue was placed in the General Fund. This Ordinance will return the funds to the Housing Authority to be used for affordable housing and related activities. 2010 PILOT $ 7,966 2011 PILOT $ 7,491 $15,457 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from the Fort Collins Housing Authority, August 1, 2012. ORDINANCE NO. 119, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, the City has received a payment from the Fort Collins Housing Authority (the “Authority”) of $15,457 in satisfaction of its 2010 and 2011 payments in lieu of taxes (“PILOTs”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the 2010 and 2011 PILOT payments be appropriated by the City Council for expenditure by the Authority to fund affordable housing related activities and to attend to the housing needs of low-income Fort Collins residents; and WHEREAS, said payment of $15,457 was not projected as a revenue source in the 2012 City budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the provision of affordable housing serves an important public purpose and is an appropriate use of these funds; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter 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, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Authority PILOT payment as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General 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 revenue in the General Fund the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($15,457) to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to fund affordable housing and related activities for Fort Collins residents consistent with the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Craig Foreman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue from Great Outdoors Colorado in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has received the grant payment from Great Outdoors Colorado for the construction of the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E project. Great Outdoors Colorado had awarded the City a Special Opportunity Grant for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail from north of Cathy Fromme Prairie to the Spring Canyon Community Park. Construction of the project was completed this past spring. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fossil Creek Trail had ended at Luther Lane since the late 1990s. The recent acquisition of a trail easement north of County Road 38E allowed this trail section to become a reality. A safe crossing of the County Road was critical for the success of the trail segment. The trail underpass provides a safe crossing of the road which can experience up to 7,000 cars per day. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City of Fort Collins had been awarded a grant of $500,000 from Great Outdoors Colorado for the development of the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E. The total cost for this trail section was about $1,200,000. The City’s share of the cost (about $700,000) was available in the Conservation Trust Fund and the Natural Areas Trails Program. The grant will free up Conservation Trust trail funds to provide funding for other needed trail projects. Funding for the annual operation and maintenance cost of the 0.9 mile of new trail is estimated at $8,000 and is available in the approved Park Maintenance budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The new trail on Pineridge Natural Area replaced a heavily used natural surface trail. A new spur trail to the Park replaced an existing trail situated in a drainage that had erosion problems. The unused existing spur trail was rehabilitated and returned to nature. The new Fossil Creek Trail south of Pineridge, crosses Spring Creek at a 90 degree angle to minimize impacts to the Creek. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Board was informed of the project through numerous staff updates and was supportive of the project. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board was also informed of the project through numerous staff updates and was supportive of the project. PUBLIC OUTREACH The trail segment was discussed with residents during the design and construction phases of the project. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 14 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 120, 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 FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL AT COUNTY ROAD 38E PROJECT WHEREAS, Great Outdoors Colorado (“GOCO”) has awarded the City of Fort Collins a grant in the amount of $500,000 for the construction of the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E; and WHEREAS, the grant revenue made possible the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail from north of Cathy Fromme Prairie to Spring Canyon Community Park; and WHEREAS, this project included a trail underpass for a safe crossing of County Road 38E; and WHEREAS, the total cost for this section of trail was approximately $1,200,000, with $500,000 from the GOCO grant and approximately $700,000 from Conservation Trust Funds and the Natural Areas Trails program; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter 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, City staff has determined that the appropriation of grant funds 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 during the fiscal year. WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) for the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: John Voss Jessica Ping-Small AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Code requires annual adjustments to certain building permit related fees. Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to follow the changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 1.8% and the ENR has increased 1.6%. Additionally the Code is being updated to reference to the most recent amended manual, The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. Staff is working with a consultant who specializes in capital impact fees to re-evaluate the underlying assumptions and formulas used to calculate the City’s fees. A presentation is scheduled for a work session on February 12, 2013 and formal consideration on March 5, 2013. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In May 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, which established capital improvement expansion fees for Community Parkland, Police, Fire, and General Government services. The purpose of the fees is to have new development pay a proportionate share of the capital improvements and equipment that will be necessary to provide services to the development. The Code provisions provide for the annual adjustment of the fees to keep up with inflation, using the Denver-Boulder (now Denver-Boulder-Greeley) Consumer Price Index. The City has imposed a Parkland fee for neighborhood parks since 1968. In August 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 105, 1996, which aligned the Neighborhood Parkland fee to the housing size differentials in the Capital Improvement Expansion fee ordinance, and updated the fee schedule to reflect pre-1996 inflation. The Neighborhood Parkland fees were adjusted for inflation in 1997-2007, along with the Capital Improvement Expansion fees. Based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, the inflation level since the last annual adjustment is an increase of 1.8% for 2013. This Ordinance adjusts the fee schedules in Chapter 7.5 and Chapter 23 of the City Code to account for inflation. In the Ordinance, all amounts for the capital improvement expansion fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. The Ordinance increases Street Oversizing Fees by 1.6% to reflect the index published in the Engineering News Record, as well as the average weekday vehicle trips as indicated by The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The 2012 revenue budget in the table below reflects changes in both the rates and volume of building activity. Summary information: Revenue 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fee Type Actual Actual Forecast Comparison Capital Expansion Fees $ 777,353 $ 1,326,962 $ 1,845,000 $ 1,878,000 Neighborhood Parkland Fees 346,749 884,092 1,253,000 1,276,000 Street Oversizing Fees 2,121,165 1,441,107 2,445,000 2,484,000 November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 15 Rate Change 2010 2011 2012 2012 Fee Type Authorized Authorized Authorized Proposed Capital Expansion Fees 0.00% 1.10% 3.80% 1.80% Neighborhood Parkland Fees 0.00% 1.10% 3.80% 1.80% Street Oversizing Fees 0.00% 5.48% 7.55% 1.60% At year-end of 2012, staff estimates that the total available balance in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund will be approximately $15.9 million, the Neighborhood Parkland Fund about $5.6 million, and the Street Oversizing Fund nearly $7.9 million. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 121, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNTS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPANSION FEES CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 7.5 OF THE CITY CODE SO AS TO REFLECT INFLATION IN ASSOCIATED COSTS OF SERVICES WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality having the full right of self-government in local and municipal matters under the provisions of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, among the home rule powers of the City is the power to regulate, as a matter of purely local concern, the development of real property within the City; and WHEREAS, the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows that the rate of future growth and development in Fort Collins will require a substantial expansion in community park, police, fire, and general government facilities, and related capital equipment, if its level of service standards for such facilities are to be maintained; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should contribute its proportionate share of providing such capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has broad legislative discretion in determining the appropriate funding mechanisms for financing the construction of public facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, establishing certain capital improvement expansion fees; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 7.5-18 provides for annual fee increases in the capital improvement expansion fees corresponding to the increases in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers; and WHEREAS, in September 1968, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 038, 1968, which established the original Neighborhood Parkland Fee to fund the acquisition and development of parkland, which ordinance has since been amended on several occasions to adjust the fee and to refine related procedures and requirements; and WHEREAS, with the adoption in August 1993, of Ordinance No. 082, 1993, the City Council directed the City Manager to annually review the Neighborhood Parkland Fee and submit to the Council proposed inflation-related increases based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index; and WHEREAS, the City Code calls for the annual adjustment of all Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, including the Neighborhood Parkland Fee, for inflation; and WHEREAS, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price index for all urban consumers, staff anticipates that the Index will reflect an inflation increase of 1.8 percent since the last annual adjustment of the fees in 2012, effective January 1, 2013. WHEREAS, the City has historically used the Engineering News Record as a reference to determine whether the street oversizing capital improvement expansion fee should be increased to account for rising construction costs; and WHEREAS, based on the Engineering News record, the cost of constructing street improvements has increased 1.6 percent since the last adjustment of the Street Oversizing Capital Improvement expansion fee; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is necessary in the interests of the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, that the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, including the neighborhood Parkland Fee and the Street Oversizing Fee, be increased as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-28(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Community Parkland Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft. and under $ 1,023.001,041.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,451.001,477.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,704.001,735.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,961.001,996.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 2,385.002,428.00 Section 2. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-29(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft. and under $ 74.0075.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 107.00109.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 127.00129.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 145.00148.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 177.00180.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 square. feet.) 157.00160.00 -2- Industrial buildings (per 1,000 square. feet.) 43.0044.00 Section 3. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-30(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft. and under $ 110.00112.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 157.00160.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 183.00186.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 211.00215.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 257.00262.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 square. feet) 225.00229.00 Industrial buildings (per 1,000 square. feet.) 62.0063.00 Section 4. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-31(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft. and under $ 139.00142.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 197.00201.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 231.00235.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 267.00272.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 324.00330.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 square. feet.) 252.00257.00 Industrial buildings (per 1,000 square. feet.) 70.0071.00 Section 5. That Section 7.5-71(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, regarding the Neighborhood Parkland Fee is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.51-71. Collection of neighborhood parkland fee. (b) The amount of the fee established in this Section shall be determined for each dwelling unit as follows: 700 sq. ft. and under $ 920.00937.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,302.001,325.00 -3- 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,531.001,559.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,759.001,791.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 2,142.002,181.00 Section 6. That Section 7.5-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, regarding the Street Oversizing Capital Improvement Fee is hereby amended to read as follows: STREET OVERSIZING CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE SCHEDULE Average Weekday Transportation Vehicle Trips Impact Fee Rate Residential (per housing unit) SF Detached 9.559.57 3,0563,112 per D.U. MF and Other Housing 6.59 2,1092,143 per D.U. per Hotel/Motel 8.709.02 2,7842,931 room Apartment 6.126.65 1,9592,162 per D.U. Retirement Community 3.302.81 1,056914 per D.U. Assisted Living 4.52 1,4471,470 per D.U. Congregate Care Facility 2.152.02 688657 per D.U. Residential Condominium 5.865.81 1,8751,889 per D.U. Duplex 7.18 2,2982,335 per D.U. Townhome 5.86 1,8751,905 per D.U. Mobile Home 4.924.99 1,5751,623 per D.U. Non Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Community/Shopping Center 1000K GLA 32.09 5.986.08 /sq. ft. 500K GLA 38.65 7.207.32 /sq. ft. 200K GLA 54.50 10.1610.32 /sq. ft. 50K GLA 91.65 11.7411.93 /sq. ft. Movie theater 77.7978.06 14.5014.78 /sq. ft. Fitness/racquet club 17.1414.03 3.442.86 /sq. ft. Day care 79.26 6.216.30 /sq. ft. Government office 68.93 13.8114.04 /sq. ft. Post office 86.78 17.39 /sq. ft. Building materials/lumber 39.7145.16 7.408.55 /sq. ft. Specialty retail 40.6844.32 7.588.39 /sq. ft. Discount clubsuperstore 41.8053.15 7.7910.06 /sq. ft. Nursery (garden center) 36.08 7.237.35 /sq. ft. Sit-down restaurant 130.34127.15 16.7016.55 /sq. ft. Fast food with drive-up 496.12 38.8439.46 /sq. ft. Car sales 37.5033.34 7.526.79 /sq. ft. Service station 168.56/pump 13,196.0313,407.17/pump Wholesale tire store 20.36 4.084.15 /sq. ft. -4- Self-service car wash 5.79/stall 453.28460.53 /stall Supermarket 111.51102.24 14.2913.31 /sq. ft. Convenience market with gas 737.99542.60 57.7743.16 /sq. ft. Pharmacy/drugstore 88.16 7.01 /sq. ft. Furniture store 5.06 1.581.61 /sq. ft. Bank 189.9580.87 13.835.98 /sq. ft. Drive-in bank 265.21148.15 20.7611.78 /sq. ft. Insurance building 11.45 2.292.33 /sq. ft. Manufacturing 3.853.82 1.211.22 /sq. ft. Warehousing 4.96 3.56 1.551.13 /sq. ft. Light industrial 6.97 2.182.22 /sq. ft. Mini-warehouse 2.50 0.780.80 /sq. ft. Business park 14.3712.76 4.504.06 /sq. ft. General Office 200K GLA 11.54 3.613.67 /sq. ft. 50K GLA 16.31 5.115.19 /sq. ft. 10K GLA 24.39 7.647.76 /sq. ft. Recreational 3.64/ac 1,1393861,158.09/acre City park 3.66/ac 1,146.121,164.46 /acre Golf course 5.04/ac 1,578.261,603.52 /acre Elementary school 1.021.29/student 319.41410.42 /student Private school (K-8) 2.48/student 789.03 /student Church/synagogue 9.11 2.852.90 /sq. ft. Library 54.0056.24 16.914.47 /sq. ft. Hospital 16.7816.50 5.25 /sq. ft. Nursing home 2.602.37/bed 813.24754.03 /bed Medical clinic 31.45 9.8510.01 /sq. ft.\ *Notes: 1. Rate calculation for each item based on the product of Number of Weekday Trips, Trip Adjustment Factor, and Cost Per Unit of Trip. 2. Italicized building types indicate that high pass-by trip adjustment factor is used when calculating SOS rate. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -6- DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Mike Gebo AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code Pertaining to Contractor Licenses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development and Neighborhood Services is responsible for the enforcement of the contractor licensing requirements found in Chapter 15 of the City Code. The changes proposed will update the current Code by: • clarifying minimum experience and qualification requirements at the application stage • creating license categories that better align with the adopted residential and commercial building codes • streamlining the application and project verification process • establishing registration requirements for the currently non-licensed category of workers • increasing minimum liability amounts to recognized industry levels. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Since 1981, the City of Fort Collins has mandated that contractors are licensed before performing work which requires a building permit. The purpose of this requirement is to establish minimum qualifications, set liability insurance limits, and develop conduct standards for persons engaged in construction, alteration, or repair of buildings, including persons performing specialized trades. The requirement has been amended four times to improve the City’s enforcement abilities and to address the needs of a changing construction industry. Over the past few years the construction industry continued to evolve to where individual contractors have become more specialized in the services they provide their customers. Some contractors only provide repair and restoration services on residential properties while other contractors repair and restore only commercial properties. The City’s current licensing ordinance does not have license categories that easily fit the specialized work being performed. To address this shift, several sub-categories of licenses were developed administratively and are in need of incorporation into the City Code. Additionally, the International Code Consultants (ICC), the code writing body that publishes the adopted building codes, has developed national contractor license exams based around the International Codes. Staff wished to evaluate the ICC exams and move away from being a testing agency. As a result of these changes, staff recognized the need to re-evaluate the Code on several levels. A committee of licensed general contractors, familiar with all aspects of construction was convened for the purpose of reviewing the City’s licensing ordinance and make recommendations for amendments. See Attachment 1 for the list of committee members involved in the review. Purposes for the Review 1. Identify which current licenses do not easily fit within the specialized work being offered, and develop appropriate new classes of licenses. 2. Align all classes of license with the ICC’s exams using the residential and/or commercial building codes. 3. Streamline the application, review, and renewal processes. 4. Develop registration requirements for the specialty trades subcontractors which are currently exempt from licensing. 5. Review the responsibilities of property owner/builders who certify that they will be performing the work and establish enforcement criteria for violations. Key Changes Proposed (Attachment 2) 1. During the next building code review process (currently underway) the review committee will discuss “deconstruction” of buildings, possibly in lieu of demolition. Staff proposes to provide a definition of deconstruction in the contractor license ordinance in order to clarify that licensed contractors only can construct and deconstruct buildings. Deconstruction is really construction in reverse and requires a level of expertise and experience that the license requirement will assure. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 16 2. Staff wanted to re-examine the “exempt specialized trade subcontractor” license classification during this review. For certain types of specialized work, such as roofing or framing, an individual can be classified as an exempt specialized trade subcontractor and would not need to be licensed, provided his work is under direct supervision of a licensed specialized trade contractor. The changes proposed will establish a registration program for this classification of workers and clarify that one exempt specialized trade subcontractor cannot sub-contract to another exempt specialized trade subcontractor. The changes will improve the City’s ability to provide better oversight of this construction group. 3. Owners of commercial buildings can perform limited work on their buildings without a contractor’s license. The proposed changes clarify the type of work that an owner cannot do without a license. Additionally, owners can perform all work on their own primary residence; the proposed changes would specify that owners who hire unlicensed contractors are in violation of the ordinance and subject to penalties of a misdemeanor. 4. Holders of currently active contractor licenses are responsible for keeping informed and knowledgeable on any new adopted codes and local amendments. Staff proposes to eliminate the requirement that contractors must register and attend a City sponsored code amendment training in order to renew a license after the adoption of a new code. The City will continue to provide and film a half-day seminar on new local amendments. Contractors will be allowed to attend the live presentation or view the taping on the City’s website. 5. Applications for contractor licenses require documentation supporting three projects under the direct supervision of the applicant, signed by an individual directly involved in the project. The changes proposed will stipulate that one individual cannot sign all three references. 6. Staff proposes to codify license categories with the DR suffix indicating an individual’s specialty of repairing damaged buildings and structures rather than constructing new buildings. These new categories were added administratively over the past few years and staff proposes to include these categories in the ordinance. 7. Electrical and plumbing contractors are licensed at the state level and are currently addressed in different sections of the City Code. Staff proposes to move these two trades under this section of the code in order to clarify that these trades are subject to the same responsibilities and violations of other contractor license categories. 8. In cases of contractor violations, the building official may bring the contractor before a hearing by the Building Review Board for the purpose of reviewing the contractor’s license. The building official may temporarily revoke the contractor’s license fifteen days prior to the hearing. Staff proposes to increase the revocation time to 45 days prior to the hearing. 9. Owners may perform any work on their own primary residence without needing a contractor’s license. Owners will sign an affidavit that they are acting as their own contractor and agree to hire only licensed tradesmen. The proposed changes clarify that an owner who signs the affidavit and then hires unlicensed contractors is subject the same penalties as contractors, which is considered a misdemeanor with fines of up to $1,000/day/violation. 10. Staff proposes to increase the general liability minimum from $300,000/$600,000 to the industry standard minimum of $1,000,000/$2,000,000. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed changes streamline and clarify the application process and align contractor testing with the National ICC exams. The application and testing review performed by staff remains unchanged. Staff’s involvement with licensing renewal after a code adoption will be reduced to administering only the one live presentation of the new adopted codes and amendments. The registration fees of the “exempt specialty trade subcontractors” are proposed to be $200, valid for two years per company. These fees are the same as currently charged other license categories and are anticipated to cover the cost of administering the registration program. No other impacts are expected. The proposal to streamline the application process by reducing the number of references from five to three may result in a slight benefit to the applicant in terms of time needed to document his work history. The proposal is not anticipated to have any impact on development or construction. November 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 16 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposal to define “deconstruction”, and the resulting requirement that licensed contractors perform deconstruction, reaffirms the City’s goal of promoting sustainability in the built environment. Deconstruction verses demolition will be discussed further with the Code Review Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Affordable Housing Board The City’s liaison to the Affordable Housing Board reviewed and discussed the proposed changes with the Board’s chair and vice-chair. Due to the board’s schedule, there was no need for a formal presentation of the changes as it was agreed that the changes were administrative in nature and had no impact on affordable housing. Building Review Board On August 30, 2012, staff presented the proposed changes to the Board. No concerns were raised during discussion or questions. The Board agreed that the changes were administrative in nature and would have no impact on the construction industry. The Board voted unanimously to support the proposed changes. Fort Collins Housing Authority On September 5, 2012, staff presented the proposed changes to the Housing Authority. No concerns were raised during discussion or questions. The Authority agreed that the changes were administrative in nature and would have no impact on the construction industry. The Authority voted unanimously to support the proposed changes. PUBLIC OUTREACH Home Builders Association (HBA) Northern Colorado On August 14, 2012, staff presented the proposed changes to the HBA. No concerns were raised during discussion or questions. The HBA agreed that the changes were administrative in nature and would have no impact on the construction industry. However, the HBA requested to review the Draft Ordinance Legal Review Pending and received copies on August 16th. No negative feedback has been received from the HBA. Board of Realtors In early August, the Board of Realtors was contacted and asked if it wished to hear a presentation regarding proposed changes to the ordinance. The Board reviewed the significant changes outlined in Attachment 2 and determined that the changes were administrative in nature and would not have any impact on the construction industry. Due to the Board’s schedule, it declined a staff presentation but supported the proposed changes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Contractor License Review Committee members list 2 Key changes proposed 3: Building Review Board minutes from August 30, 2012 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Policy, Planning & Transportation Services Contractor License Committee 2012 Review of City of Fort Collins Code Chapter 15, Article V John McCoy Contractor jmccoy1900@hotmail.com Dick Jefferies Contractor djefferies@q.com Torey Lenoch Contractor & BRB toreylenoch@gmail.com Gary VanDriel Contractor gary@urbanrenewalbuilders.com Asher Haun Contractor & HVAC ahaun@horizonsm.com Alan Cram BRB abcram@msn.com Dwight Sailer Contractor dwight@highcraft.net Jeff Valloric Ft Collins Housing jvalloric@fcgov.com Tom Garton Larimer Cty. CBO gartonta@co.larimer.co.us Jon Tschetter Contractor jon.tschetter@tschetco.com Jeff Richard Contractor & HVAC jeffr@ncagriff.com Jeff Schneider Contractor & BRB jeff@armsteadconstruction.com Delynn Coldiron Staff decoldirion@fcgov.com Sandy Lindell Staff slindell@fcgov.com Angelina Sanchez-Spraque Staff asanchezspraque@fcgov.com Mike Gebo Staff mgebo@fcgov.com ATTACHMENT 1 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Policy, Planning & Transportation Services 2012 Contractor License Overview Proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 15, Article V, Contractors Key Changes Section 15-151- Intent No change Section 15-152- General No change Section 15-153- Definitions A new definition for Deconstruction; In the world of sustainability, projects are likely to be deconstructed, which requires a level of experience in construction in order to safely deconstruct. Only contractors that have the appropriate level of experience will be allowed to deconstruct. Under definition of Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor, added a registration requirement for this group. An Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor is an unlicensed worker or company that performs specialized work such as roofing. They can be unlicensed because they work directly under the full time supervision of a licensed specialized trade contractor. The City proposes that Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractors now register with the City, showing proof of all required insurance and workman’s comp. Section 15-154- License and registration required Included the registration portion as a requirement. In order to require and obtain registration of the Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor. Cleaned-up duplication sections. Now reference one code section that addresses general liability and workers compensation requirements. Specific new requirements for registration of an Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor. Details of the requirements needed in order to register as an Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor. Section 15-155- Exemptions Clarified and removed confusing wording. The change addresses what work, an owner and his unpaid volunteers, can not do without an approved general contractor or specialized trade license. This section is intended for work on the owner’s commercial or rental properties Clarified that an owner can perform any work on his own detached personal primary residence. Section 15-156- Duties of the Building Review Board No change Section 15-157- Supervisor certificates: fees; examination; renewals ATTACHMENT 2 2012 Contractor License Overview - 2 - Clarified that holders of currently active licenses are responsible for keeping informed and knowledgeable on any new adopted codes and local amendments. The City will continue to offer one” live presentation” of the local amendments which will be videotaped when new codes are adopted. No longer require, as part of renewing an active license, attendance at a City sponsored class or video presentation. Contractors that are not knowledgeable of amendments will most likely fail inspections. Section 15-158- Applications; review; issuance Clarified the (3) references documents required for a contractor license application. No longer can the experience reference be signed by just one individual. Section 15-159- Minimum experience, and Section 15-160- License classifications; fees; renewals Describes experience needed for various levels of licenses classification and includes new license types. For general contractors; these sections now codify license types that were created administratively over the years. For each major general contractor license type there is a corresponding DR (Damage Repair/Restoration) classification that limits the license holder to only repairs. For the specialized trade contractors licenses such as roofing, HVAC, and non- structural tenant finish work, they are now separated out into sub-sections for residential or commercial. Electricians and Plumbers were brought over to this section in order to be under the same general requirements as other contractors. Section 15-161- Responsibilities of contractor; supervisor Clarifies contract limits of the Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor. A specialized trade contractor can contract with one level of exempt specialized trade contractors and that the exempt specialized trade contractors can not contract with other exempt specialized trade contractors. This is intended to stop exempt workers from sub-contracting to unknown or non-registered workers. Section 15-162- Disciplinary procedures; violation and penalties Increased the number of days for a license suspension to 45 days. This allows enough time for the next regular scheduled Building Review Board meeting to hear the case; otherwise a special meeting could be needed. Clarifies penalties for owners. Specifies that owners who obtain owner permits and then use unlicensed contractors are subject to the full violation and penalties under the law. Section 15-163- Safety and insurance requirements Increased general liability limits. To the basic industry standards of $1,000,000/ $2,000,000 Section 15-164- Transition provisions Deleted outdated provisions. Deleted items that were needed only for an earlier code adoption and are no longer applicable. ATTACHMENT 3 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Andrea Dunlap Justin Montgomery Torey Lenoch Rick Reider Jeffrey Schneider George Smith EXCUSED ABSENCES: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Administrative Services Manager Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 1. APPROVAL OF JULY 26, 2012 MINUTES: A motion was made by Schneider to approve the July 26, 2012 minutes as written. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Smith, Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Reider, Lenoch Nays: None Abstain: None 2. CONTRACTOR LICENSING ORDINANCE CHANGES Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official, noted that the Contractor Licensing Ordinance revisions would be going before City Council and described the public outreach aspects of the process. Gebo then proceeded to review the proposed changes with the Board. FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting – August 30, 2012 1:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Mike Gebo (416-2618) Chairperson: Alan Cram BRB – August 30, 2012 - Page 2 There was a question as to whether a building owner has the option to deconstruct a building rather than demolish it. Gebo replied that this is currently an option; however, he expects that Council will continue to raise the bar in terms of the sustainability and recycling aspects of the new International Codes. It was noted by a board member that deconstruction costs are much higher and ultimately get passed on to the end user. Gebo noted a change requiring a licensed professional to complete deconstruction on any project. He added that the aspects of what and how much deconstruction will be required are part of another code section. Smith asked if the exemption portion would apply to homeowners, allowing them to deconstruct anything related to their personal residence and associated buildings. Gebo replied in the affirmative. Smith asked if these changes would have any impact on the National Center for Craftsmanship. Gebo replied that a company deconstructing a building would need to be licensed. Smith stated this group is a non-profit and provides a valuable service. Gebo replied that the licensing would ensure that the party in charge of deconstruction has the necessary knowledge base for deconstruction and would require this organization to get a license if they were performing this type of work. Gebo discussed the nominal registration fee for an exempt specialized trade worker and noted the language changes relating to the list of items which cannot be completed except by a licensed contractor. Schneider asked why stairs and landings are included in the exemptions. Gebo replied this section refers to the exterior steps and landings, which are typically poured concrete. He explained that a stair or landing system within a building would require a permit to be pulled by a licensed contractor. Gebo stated he could make that clarification in the language. Gebo discussed the renewal process changes for licensed contractors, which include eliminating the requirement that applicants seeking a renewal must attend a live or taped review of the code changes. He added that it will now be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that they are up to date on current codes and that this would be apparent by City staff based on inspection results. Gebo stated electricians and plumbers licensed through the State have now been brought under the contractor license ordinance. He noted that these requirements had been in separate portions of the City Code. Additionally, he reviewed a change to increase the time prior to a Building Review Board meeting that a contractor license can be suspended, when necessary. Gebo discussed the proposed insurance requirement changes, which increased liability amounts from $300,000 per person to $1,000,000 per person, and from $600,000 per accident to $2,000,000 per accident. Schneider suggested the language be changed from “per person” to “per occurrence” and suggested “per accident” be changed to “aggregate” to be more in keeping with common insurance industry language. Schneider asked if staff is of the opinion that additional applications will come before the Building Review Board as a result of the proposed changes. Gebo replied most applications will be handled administratively; however, any questions will be taken to the Board as is done currently. He did not feel that the changes would increase cases coming before the Board. Dunlap asked if accidents occurring in another jurisdiction are registered with the City of Fort Collins and used as additional information when screening contractors. Gebo stated that this is BRB – August 30, 2012 - Page 3 not done; however, staff does personally contact references provided for contractors to determine if there were issues or concerns on the job they completed. This information is used as part of the approval process. Lenoch made a motion to support the proposed contractor licensing changes. Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Smith, Dunlap, Schneider, Cram, Reider, Lenoch, Montgomery Nays: None Abstain: None ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2012, OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO CONTRACTOR LICENSES WHEREAS, since 1981, the City has required that contractors be licensed before performing work for which a building permit must be issued, the purpose of which requirement is to establish minimum qualifications, set liability insurance limits and develop standards of conduct for persons engaged in construction, alteration or repair of buildings, including persons performing specialized trades; and WHEREAS, in recent years the construction industry has evolved such that contractors have become more specialized in the services they provide, and the City's current licensing ordinance does not have license categories that easily fit the specialized work being performed; and WHEREAS, in order to address this evolution, several subcategories of licenses were developed administratively and should be incorporated into the City Code; and WHEREAS, the International Code Consultants has developed national contractor license examinations based on the International Codes which the City desires to utilize for license examination purposes; and WHEREAS, among other things, the purpose of this Ordinance is to help clarify the minimum experience and qualification requirements of an applicant, create license categories that better align with the adopted residential and commercial building codes, streamline the application and project verification process, establish registration requirements for the currently non-licensed category of workers and increase minimum liability amounts to recognized industry levels; and WHEREAS, in pursuance of these proposed changes, City staff organized a committee of licensed general contractors to act as a "Code Review Committee"; and WHEREAS, City staff conducted significant public outreach, particularly with the Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado and the Board of Realtors without receiving negative feedback from either agency; and WHEREAS, the Code Review Committee has unanimously supported the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Board, Building Review Board and Fort Collins Housing Authority have all supported the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to Chapter 15, Article V regarding contractor licenses are in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 15-153 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition "Deconstruction" which reads in its entirety as follows: Deconstruction shall mean the systematic total removal of building components for the purpose of recycling or re-use. Section 2. That the definition "Exempt specialized trade subcontractor" contained in Section 15-153 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Exempt specialized trade subcontractor shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, other organization or any combination thereof who is registered with the City as an exempt specialized trade subcontractor, which subcontractor is not an employee as defined in this Section, and which subcontractor is paid or otherwise compensated to perform construction or a trade for which a specialized trade contractor license as specified in this Article is required, except that any such subcontractor may perform such work without obtaining a license when such work is exclusively performed pursuant to a direct subcontract with a licensed specialized trade contractor. No subcontractor shall be exempt from the licensing requirements of this Article as an exempt specialized trade subcontractor when such subcontractor works pursuant to a direct subcontract with any of the Classes A, B, C-1, C-2, D-1, D-2 or E general contractors to perform construction regulated under this Article. Section 3. That Section 15-154 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-154. License and registration required. (a) Except as otherwise permitted in this Article, no person may perform construction work or trade as a contractor, including deconstruction work, named in this Article within the City without first obtaining a license and designating an approved supervisor, or register as specified in this Article. No building permits shall be issued to any contractor who has not obtained a license, does not have valid insurance as set forth herein, is delinquent in the payment of the biennial license fee or whose license is expired or has been suspended or revoked. (b) For any construction requiring a licensed contractor, permits shall be issued only to the property owner, or to a licensed contractor or to an authorized representative of such owner or contractoror to the contractor's authorized representative. Should a contractor be released from or abandon such construction project, said contractor shall immediately notify the Building Official, in writing, of -2- such action. No further work shall be done on such project until the Building Official is notified in writing of such intended resumption of work by a licensed contractor. (c) No person shall engage in the business of contracting for the installation of electrical work in the City without registering as an electrical contractor with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. In order to register as required herein, the person must perform the following: (1) Be licensed as a master electrician by the State Electrical Board or have an employee so licensed. The registration required herein shall be valid only as long as the registrant is licensed or employs a person so licensed; (2) Provide worker’s compensation and general liability insurance as specified in Section 15-163; (3) Provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the State Electrical Board for all apprentice and journeyman electricians. (d) No person shall engage in the plumbing trade or business in the City without registering as a plumber with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, and no person shall engage in the business of a plumbing contractor in the City without registering as a plumbing contractor with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. For the purpose of this Section, plumbing contractor means any person who undertakes or offers to undertake for another the planning, laying out, supervising and installing or the making of additions, alterations and repairs to potable water supply and distribution pipes and piping, plumbing fixtures, drainage and vent pipes and building drains, including their respective joints and connections, devices, receptacles and appurtenances. A registered professional engineer who plans or designs plumbing installations shall not be classified as a plumbing contractor. In order to register as a plumbing contractor, the person desiring to engage in such business must do the following: (1) Be licensed as a master plumber by the State Examining Board of Plumbers or have an employee so licensed and registered. The registration as a plumbing contractor shall be valid only so long as the person registered is so licensed and registered or employs a person so licensed and registered; (2) Provide worker’s compensation and general liability insurance as specified in Section 15-163; (3) Pay a registration fee of two hundred dollars ($200) to the City, valid for a period of two years from the date of payment; and -3- (4) Provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the State Examining Board of Plumbers for all apprentice and journeyman plumbers. (e) No person shall engage in the business of an Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor in the City without registering as an Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. In order to register as an Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor, the person desiring to engage in such business must do the following: (1) Register as an individual or as a company listing all employees to be recognized by the registration. (2) List all Specialized Trade Contractors that are under contract with the Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractor. (3) Pay a registration fee of two hundred ($200.) to the City, valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of payment. (4) Provide worker’s compensation and general liability insurance as specified in Section 15-163. Section 4. That Section 15-155 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-155. Exemptions. The parties and conditions described herein shall be exempt from the general requirements specified in this Article: (1) A building owner and any unpaid volunteers or paid workers employed by said owner who perform only minor alterations and repairs to such building, provided that all such work is under the continuous personal supervision of said owner,. For the purposes of this Section, minor alterations and repairs shall not include: and further provided that no building owner, or unpaid volunteer or paid worker employed by said owner, may engage in the following types of work without obtaining the appropriate contractor license: a. Significant structural alterationsAlterations to the primary or secondary structural frame work (except for the repair and replacement of existing windows and doors, provided that such repair or replacement does not create larger openings or greater spans for headers); -4- b. Alterations to fire-resistive assemblies as defined in the building code; c. Alterations to or the installation of electrical, plumbing or mechanical systems, except for fixture replacement and emergency repairs, and except as otherwise permitted in this Article; d. Replacement of more than a total of one (1) square (100 square feet) of roofing; or e. Any nNonstructural construction, alterations or repairs to a building or buildings performed by the building owner(s) and which alterations or repairs are otherwise exempted pursuant to this Section and which involve such elements as concrete slab-on-grade floors, masonry walls that are seventy-two (72) inches or less in height, wood or steel frame systems, and wallboard or by his or her unpaid volunteers or paid workers,; when the total construction value of all work (including the related work done on the project by licensed specialized trade contractors), within any twelve-month period exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000.) for any one (1) such building or collectively exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000.) for all such buildings combinedexceeds two thousand dollars ($2,000.). (2) An owner of a detached single-family dwelling and associated accessory buildings or any unpaid volunteer under the continuous personal supervision of the owner of such buildings who personally performs any construction on the owner's personal residence and associated accessory buildings,An owner of a detached single- family dwelling, and his or her unpaid volunteers working under the continuous personal supervision of the owner, may perform construction work on such dwelling and any associated accessory buildings, provided that the dwelling is the owner’s personal primary residence, and further provided that the owner commences construction of no more than one (1) such new dwelling within any twenty-four- month period. In the event such dwelling is destroyed or damaged, reconstruction thereof shall be exempt from the foregoing time period. Prior to performing any such construction, demolition, or deconstruction the owner must demonstrate sufficient knowledge and proficiency required to perform said construction as determined by the Building Official. (3) An owner or any unpaid volunteer under the continuous personal supervision of the owner of such building who personally demolishes any detached building housing an R-3 occupancy, as defined in the building code, or any building no larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet. (43) An employee of a contractor who is not otherwise regulated under this Article. -5- (54) A partner, owner, or other company official of a licensed contractor who performs on-site construction under the direction of a qualified supervisor. (65) An exempt specialized trade subcontractor registered with the City and under a direct contract with a licensed specialized trade contractor as defined in this Article. (76) Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation, association, other organization or any combination thereof performing specialized construction related to a particular trade which is not otherwise regulated by this Article, including any such trade engaged in one (1) of the following types of construction or installations: plumbing and electrical work regulated elsewhere in this Code; wallboard; nonstructural masonry; nonstructural wood frame systems; finish and trim carpentry; nonstructural concrete floors, sidewalks, stairs, landings, and drives; structural and nonstructural steel systems; siding; ceramic and synthetic tile; counter surfaces and cabinets; flooring and carpet; wall and ceiling finishes; insulation; glazing; windows and doors and associated hardware; rain gutters; fences; above ground manufactured swimming pools and spas; entertainment, data, and communication systems within any building including related wiring supplying not more than fifty (50) volts and which does not require a state electrical license; excavation and grading; landscaping; irrigation systems excluding back-flow prevention devices; sewer lines downstream of any building drain as defined in the Colorado Plumbing Code; elevators and escalators; and radon piping systems. (87) Any person who is, without pay or compensation of any kind, performing construction or a specialized trade regulated under this Article and who is supervised directly by a licensed contractor and supervisor as specified in this Article to ensure that such work conforms to the applicable code(s). Section 5. That Section 15-157 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-157. Supervisor certificate; fees; examinations; renewals. (a) No contractor as defined in this Article shall perform construction, demolition or deconstruction that requires a permit without designating a supervisor to supervise such construction, demolition or deconstruction pursuant to this Article. (b) Prior to issuance of a building permit to the holder of any contractor license specified in this Article, the holder of said license shall possess a supervisor certificate or shall have employed at least one (1) supervisor who has obtained a certificate for the specific class or specialized trade specified in this Article required to perform the scope of construction described on said permit. A supervisor certificate is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of issuance and the biennial fee for such certificate is twenty-five dollars ($25.). Supervisors shall observe reasonable standards of attendance on construction sites as necessary to -6- perform adequate supervision of such construction as further specified in § 15-161 of this Article. (c) Prior to obtaining a supervisor certificate, except as provided otherwise in this Article, an applicant for such certificate shall have passed a written examination administered or approved by the City or the equivalent of such examination as specified hereindetermined by the Building Official. Every applicant who undergoes a written examination administered by the City shall pay a nonrefundable examination fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.) prior to such examination. Any applicant who fails to achieve a minimum score of seventy-five (75) percent shall be entitled to another examination covering the same license class or specialized trade, provided that the applicant shall not be permitted more than two (2) such examinations within any six-month period unless otherwise approved by the Board. Alternatively, an applicant may be granted a third such examination within any six- month period upon the applicant demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Building Official adequate preparation for the examination by successfully completing a class or coursework covering the building code or other code as applicable, or the equivalent thereof as approved by the Building Official. The applicant shall pay a nonrefundable re-examination fee of fifty dollars ($50.) for each subsequent examination covering the same license class or specialized trade. Examinations shall be given at a time and place designated by the Building Official. The written examination for a supervisor certificate may be waived by the Building Official provided that the applicant can prove that he or she has passed a satisfactory written examination equivalent in scope to that administered by the City. (d) A supervisor certificate may be renewed provided that the biennial fee is paid and renewal occurs within sixty (60) days following the anniversary date such certificate was issued, and further provided that the adopted building code or other applicable code over which an examination was administered remains in effect at the time of renewal. When such adopted code over which the renewing certificate holder passed an examination has been substantially revised prior to the time of such renewal, the certificate holder must either pass a renewal examination administered by the Building Official for which no fee shall be assessed for such examination, or provide proof of having successfully completed training covering the current adopted applicable code or the equivalent thereof as approved by the Building Officialattest and certify, on a form provided by the City, that he has received and reviewed a copy of the City's latest amendments, or has attended a City-provided training class. The holder of an expired certificate may be reissued such certificate by submitting a new application and paying all applicable fees as set forth in § 15-158. Such applicant shall not be required to pass an examination as prescribed in Subsection (c) above, provided that the adopted building code or other applicable code over which such applicant passed an examination remains in effect at the time the renewed certificate is obtained. -7- (e) The Building Official may grant a temporary supervisor certificate valid for thirty (30) days without an examination based upon individual extraordinary circumstances and upon finding that any petitioner for such certificate is otherwise qualified. Any person seeking such temporary certificate must submit a written request describing in detail the justification for such certificate and a completed application for a supervisor certificate, including all necessary fees as provided in § 15-158. Section 6. That Section 15-158 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-158. Applications; review; issuance. (a) Prior to being issued any license or certificate specified in this Article, all applicants for such license or certificate shall complete and submit to the Building Official an application containing the following information: (1) The individual applicant's name, the contractor's business name under which license the applicant is associated or will be working, a current mailing address and telephone number, email address and one (1) form of photographic identification of the applicant; (2) A written summary documenting the applicant's relevant experience with at least three (3) separate construction projects and identifying an owner, general contractor, architect, professional engineer or other person involved in each particular construction project who has personal knowledge of the applicant's responsibilities on said projects;Documents verifying that the applicant has acted in the principal role of contractor or primary project supervisor on no less than three (3) separate completed building construction or specialized trade projects. A person other than the applicant must sign such documents, and the same person cannot be the signatory on all three (3) documents. Said signatory shall be a project owner, contractor, architect, or professional engineer directly involved in the construction of said project, and said person shall have worked directly with the applicant. Additionally, said documents shall contain the following information where applicable to the license or contractor certificate sought: a. The total floor area and number of stories (as defined in the building code) of each building in the project; b. The building construction type as defined in the building code; c. The building occupancy classification as defined in the building code; -8- d. The date the project was completed; e. The address, contractor of record and permit number (when applicable) for the project; f. A description of the project which the applicant directly supervised or for which the applicant was the contractor of record, whichever is applicable, in sufficient detail to fully describe the extent of the construction or alteration or specialized trade work. Such description must describe all relevant work, such as that involving the foundation, the exterior structural elements, the interior bearing walls, the nonbearing walls and elements, the electrical systems, the plumbing systems, the mechanical systems, roofing, and any other specialized trade work that may be applicable to the license or certificate sought; g. A complete description of the applicant's position and responsibilities on the project; and h. The signatory's role in the project. (3) The applicant's disclosure of any disciplinary action (whether by the City or any other contractor licensing agency or jurisdiction) taken against any contractorthe applicant or against any licenses currently or previously held by the applicant; and (4) A signed statement by the applicant acknowledging the obligations associated with such license or certificate. (b) All such applications shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable processing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.) for each such application. (c) Subject to the qualification requirements of § 15-159 and subject to any applicable variances which may have been granted by the Board pursuant to § 15-156 and provided further that the applicant has not committed any acts described in § 15- 162 of this Article without the Board having first conducted a hearing and having made a determination regarding the applicant's fitness to be granted a license or supervisor certificate, the Building Official shall issue to the applicant the license or supervisor certificate applied for upon receipt of all of the following: (1) Evidence of a passing score on the applicable written examination or equivalent as specified in this Article; (2) Payment of the applicable fee; (3) Written proof of general liability and workers' compensation insurance as required in this Article; and -9- (4) All documents required to be provided in Subsection (a) above.Documents verifying that the applicant has acted in the principal role of contractor, project supervisor or other primary supervisory role on no less than three (3) separate completed building construction or specialized trade projects. A person other than the applicant must sign such documents. Said signatory shall be a project owner, a contractor, an architect, a professional engineer or other person directly involved in the construction of said project, and said person shall have worked directly with the applicant. Additionally, said documents shall contain the following information where applicable to the license or contractor certificate sought: a. The total floor area and number of stories (as defined in the building code) of each building in the project; b. The building construction type as defined in the building code; c. The building occupancy classification as defined in the building code; d. The date the project was completed; e. The address, contractor of record, and permit number (when applicable) for the project; f. A description of the project which the applicant directly supervised or for which the applicant was the contractor of record, whichever is applicable, in sufficient detail to fully describe the extent of the construction or alteration or specialized trade work. Such description must describe all relevant work, such as that involving the foundation, the exterior structural elements, the interior bearing walls, the nonbearing walls and elements, the electrical systems, the plumbing systems, the mechanical systems, roofing, and any other specialized trade work that may be applicable to the license or certificate sought; g. A complete description of the applicant's position and responsibilities on the project; and h. The signatory's role in the project. Section 8. That Section 15-159 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-159. Minimum experience qualifications. (a) Minimum experience requirements for Classes A, A-DR, B, B-DR, C-1, C-1- DR, C-2, C-2-DR, D-1, D-2, D-DR, and E, ER, and MM general contractor licenses, specialized trade contractor licenses, and associated supervisor certificates as described in § 15-160 are as hereafter provided in this Section. In order to qualify for -10- such minimum experience, all construction and specialized trade installation projects are subject to the Building Official's review and approval for sufficient variety and complexity. All such projects shall have been constructed or installed primarily by the applicant or under the applicant's direct control. The particular license type and respective required minimum documented experience are described as follows: (1) To qualify for a Class A license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of two (2)three (3) entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A license or contractor supervisor certificate is required, and not less than one (1) entire building for which a minimum of a Class A or a Class B license or contractor supervisor certificate is requiredeach of which must have exceeded five (5) stories in height. (2) To qualify for a Class A-DR license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have acted principally in the role of supervisor for the significant structural repair construction on three (3) buildings, each of which must have exceeded five (5) stories in height. (23) To qualify for a Class B license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three (3) entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A or Class B license or supervisor certificate is required. At least one (1) such building described herein shall be classified under the building code as Type I, Type II, or Type III constructioneach of which must have exceeded three (3) stories in height. (4) To qualify for a Class B-DR license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have acted principally in the role of supervisor for the significant structural repair construction on three (3) buildings, each of which must have exceeded three (3) stories in height. (35) To qualify for a Class C-1 license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three (3) entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A, Class B or Class C-1 license or supervisor certificate is required. At least one (1) such building described herein shall be classified under the building code as Type I, Type II or Type III construction of type III, IV, or V construction with one (1) or more buildings being at least three (3) stories in height. (6) To qualify for a Class C-1-DR license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have acted principally in the role of supervisor for the significant structural repair construction on three (3) buildings of Type III, IV, -11- or V construction, with one (1) or more buildings being at least three (3) stories in height. (47) To qualify for a Class C-2 license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three (3) entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A, Class B, Class C-1, or Class C-2 license or supervisor certificate is requiredclassified as Type V construction and of Group R occupancy. At least one (1) such building described herein shall not be less than three (3) stories in height as defined in the building code, or at least one (1) such building shall contain not less that sixteen (16) dwelling units. (8) To qualify for a Class C-2-DR license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have acted principally in the role of supervisor for the significant structural repair construction on three (3) buildings of Type V construction, with one (1) building being at least three (3) stories in height. (59) To qualify for a Class D-1 license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three (3) completed newentire buildings classified as R-3 Occupancies (single-family or townhomes) or the equivalent thereof as determined by the Building Official. (610) To qualify for a Class D-2 license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three (3) completed projects, each with a construction value of not less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.) and each of which entails the significant structural alteration of or the addition to a single-family home or equivalent structure as determined by the Building Officialclassified as additions or alterations to R-3 Occupancies (single-family or townhomes) each project being at least one thousand (1,000) square feet. (11) To qualify for a Class D-DR license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have acted principally in the role of supervisor for the significant structural repair construction on three (3) buildings of Type V Construction classified as R-3 Occupancy (single-family or townhome). (712) To qualify for a Class E (commercial) license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the constructionnon-structural alteration of three (3) entire projects, each of which shall entail, at a minimum, the nonstructural alteration of a building classified by the building code as other than a "Group R or Group U occupancy."be non-residential in use. Each such project shall exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.) in total construction value and at -12- least one (1) such project shall exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.) in total construction value. (13) To qualify for a Class ER (residential) license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the non-structural alteration of three (3) entire residential projects. Each such project must have exceeded fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.) in total construction value and at least one (1) such project must have exceeded thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.) in total construction value. (14) To qualify for a Class MM license or supervisor certificate, the applicant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three (3) entire projects, such as storage sheds, playhouses, greenhouses, gazebos, and unenclosed structures such as carports and patio covers, open porches and decks, each of which must have been associated with a detached single-family dwelling. (815) To qualify for any of the specialized trade contractor licenses or certificates regulated under this Article, the applicant must submit to the Building Official written verification describing experience in such specialized trade as prescribed hereunder: a. An applicant must submit written verification to the Building Official describing not less than five (5)three (3) completed projects which demonstrate that the applicant possesses at least three (3)two (2) years of supervisor experience in the specialized trade applicable to the particular license or contractor supervisor certificate sought for the following specialized trade contractor licenses or certificates: roofing, HVAC, refrigeration, fire-sprinkler systems, special fire extinguishing, flammable fuel facilities, alarm systems, wood frame construction and cast-in-place concrete. b. An applicant must submit written verification to the Building Official describing not less than five (5) completed projects which demonstrate that the applicant possesses at least one (1) year of supervisor experience in the specialized trade applicable to the particular license or contractor supervisor certificate sought for the following specialized trade contractor licenses or certificates: demolition, solar energy, gas piping, signs, WTS, awnings, miscellaneous and minor structures and fireplace appliances. Section 9. That Section 15-160 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-160. License classifications; fees; renewals. -13- (a) The particular contractor license required and corresponding maximum scope of construction authorized under each license is described hereunder. All licenses are valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of issuance and the fee for each license is two hundred dollars ($200.). A license may be renewed, provided that said biennial fee is paid within sixty (60) days following the anniversary date such license was issued. When the license fee is not paid within such sixty-day period, the license shall expire and is not eligible for renewal. The holder of an expired license may be reissued such license by submitting a new application and paying all applicable fees as set forth in § 15-158. The Class A, B, C-1, C-2, D-1, D-2 and E general contractor licenses described in this Section do not authorize the holders thereof to perform the following specialized construction trades: electric, plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, solar energy, alarms, fire-sprinkler systems, special fire extinguishing, gas piping, WTS, and flammable fuel facilities. (b) Plumbers and Exempt Specialized Trade Subcontractors shall pay registration fees in accordance with §15-154. (c) The Class A, A-DR, B, B-DR, C-1, C-1-DR, C-2, C-2-DR, D-1, D-2, D-DR, E, ER, and MM general contractor licenses described in this Section and their employees may perform Specialized Trade Contractor work such as roofing, demolition or deconstruction, framing, and awnings on projects for which permits have been issued to the general contractor. The listed licenses do not authorize the holders thereof or their employees to perform Specialized Trade Contractor work described to the following specialized construction trades: electric, plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, solar energy, alarms, fire-sprinkler systems, special fire extinguishing, gas piping, WTS, and flammable fuel facilities. (1) A Class A general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, or demolish or deconstruct any building or structure in the City that is regulated under the building code, except as otherwise limited by this Article, including the installation of sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter, provided that for said work in the public right-of-way, other requirements prescribed in this Code are met including all work authorized by license types below this level. (2) A Class A-DR Structural Damage Repair/Restoration license holder shall be authorized to make repairs or restoration to structural damage to any building or structure in the City regulated under the building code, including all work authorized by damage repair and restoration license types below this level. (23) A Class B general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, or demolish or deconstruct any building or structure in the City regulated under the building code up to and including five (5) stories in height. A Class B license holder is authorized to perform alterations on -14- buildings over five (5) stories in height, provided that such alterations do not involve the structural frame as defined in the building code and including all work authorized by license types below this level. (4) Class B-DR Structural Damage Repair/Restoration license holder shall be authorized to make repairs or restoration to structural damage to any building in the City regulated under the building code, up to and including five (5) stories in height, and including all work authorized by damage repair and restoration license types below this level. (35) A Class C-1 general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, or demolish, or deconstruct any building or structure in the City that is regulated under the building code and which does not exceed two (2)three (3) stories in height nor more than ten thousand five hundred (10,500) square feet in total floor area. When any such building is classified by the building code as Type VN construction, the maximum allowable area may be that which is specified by the building code. A Class C-1 license holder is authorized to perform alterations on buildings over two (2) stories in height, when such alterations do not involve the structural frame as defined in the building code of construction types III, IV, and V, and including all work authorized by license types below this level. (6) A Class C-1-DR Structural Damage Repair/Restoration license holder shall be authorized to make repairs or restoration to structural damage to any building or structure in the City regulated under the building code that does not exceed three (3) stories in height and limited to construction types III, IV, and V, including all work authorized by damage repair and restoration license types below this level. (47) A Class C-2 general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, or demolish, or deconstruct any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as Type V construction and a Group R or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy that does not exceed three (3) stories in height, including all work authorized by license types below this level, A Class C-2 license holder is authorized to perform any work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license and to construct other ancillary Type V buildings or structures not exceeding five thousand (5,000) square feet in total floor area that are associated with a particular multiple-unit housing project to be constructed by the license holder, provided that such other buildings are limited to functions such as management offices, community and recreation buildings, maintenance buildings and similar uses and including other ancillary Type V buildings or structures that are associated with a particular multi-family housing project, such as management offices, community and recreation buildings, maintenance buildings and similar uses. -15- (8) A Class C-2-DR Structural Damage Repair/Restoration license holder shall be authorized to make repairs or restoration to: (1) structural damage to any building or structure in the City regulated under the building code classified as Type V construction and a Group R or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy which does not exceed three (3) stories in height; and (2) structural damage to other ancillary Type V buildings or structures that are associated with a particular multiple-unit housing project, including all work authorized by damage repair and restoration license types below this level. (59) A Class D-1 general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, alter, repair or demolish, or deconstruct any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 3 occupancy housing not more than two (2) dwelling units, or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy or townhomes (aka single-family attached) as regulated by the International Residential Code, including all work authorized by residential license types below this level. A Class D-1 general contractor license holder is authorized to perform any work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license and to perform alterations and/or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 1 occupancy and Type V construction, provided that any such work does not alter the structural frame as defined in the building code. (610) A Class D-2 general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, demolish or deconstruct residential garages of Group U, Division 1 occupancies up to one thousand (1,000) square feet; construct, demolish or deconstruct additions to detached single family dwellings not exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet in total floor area; to construct additions which do not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area; and perform any structural alterations, demolitions and/or repairs, to any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 3 occupancy housing not more than two (2) dwelling units, or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy; and construct or repair exterior decks of any size associated with single-family and/or multi-family project, including all work authorized by residential license types below this level. A Class D-2 general contractor license holder shall be authorized to perform any work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license and to perform alterations and/or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 1 occupancy and Type V construction, provided that any such work does not alter the structural frame as defined in the building code. (11) A Class D-DR Structural Damage Repair/Restoration license holder shall be authorized to make repairs or restoration to structural damage to any building or structure in the City regulated under the building code as a Group -16- R, Division 3 occupancy housing not more than two (2) dwelling units, or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy or townhomes (aka single-family attached) as regulated by the International Residential Code. (712) A Class E (commercial) general contractor license holder shall be authorized to perform any non-structural alteration work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license and to perform alterations to any building or structure in the City, when such alterations do not include modifications to the structural frame as defined in the building codeto any building or structure in the City, including all work authorized by license types below this level. (13) A Class ER (residential) general contractor license holder shall be authorized to perform any non-structural alteration work to any residential building or structure in the City regulated under the International Residential Code including single-family, duplex, and townhomes (aka attached single- family), including all work authorized by Class MM (Miscellaneous and Minor Structures). (14) A Class MM (Miscellaneous and Minor Structures) general contractor license holder shall be authorized to construct, demolish or deconstruct the following projects associated with detached single family dwellings: detached structures such as shelters, storage sheds, playhouses, greenhouses, and gazebos, unenclosed structures such as open carports, patio covers, open porches, and decks. All such projects shall be limited to one-story buildings or structures not exceeding three hundred (300) square feet in floor area. (bd) A specialized trade contractor license and a specialized trade contractor supervisor certificate shall be required for any contractor performing any specialized trade listed herein. Prior to any specialized trade supervisor being issued a supervisor certificate, the applicant for such certificate shall successfully complete a written examination as provided in § 15-157, or the applicant shall provide proof of equivalent technical qualification as determined by the Building Official. Applicants for a specialized trade contractor license or a specialized trade contractor supervisor certificate shall submit an application and documents verifying that the applicant has acted in the principal role of contractor or primary project supervisor on no less than three (3) separate completed specialized trade projects as set forth under § 15-158 of this Article. Each specialized trade contractor license regulated under this Article is listed and described hereunder with respect to the scope of work authorized by each such license as follows: Alarm systems authorizes the installation, testing, maintenance, and servicing of fire and security alarms as specified in the applicable provisions of the National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA 72 and the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70; including related -17- wiring supplying not more than fifty (50) volts that does not require a state electrical license. Awnings authorizes the erection and attachment of awnings to buildings as regulated under the building code, including such awnings incorporating signage or graphics requiring a sign permit from the City. Cast-in-place concrete authorizes the on-site forming and placement of structural, permanently cast-in-place concrete and reinforcement therein. Demolition authorizes the dismantling or razing of entire buildings and other structures regulated by the building code, excluding such work as deconstruction, partial or interior demolition work associated with alterations. Electricians authorizes the installation of electrical systems as regulated by the State of Colorado. Fire sprinkler system authorizes the installation of automatic fire suppression systems, including standpipes that use pressurized water as the primary extinguishing agent, and which are designed to protect entire buildings, rooms or areas and processes, other than combination potable water/residential fire sprinkler systems regulated under the City fireInternational Residential code. Fireplace appliances authorizes the installation of nonportable listed manufactured fuel-burning fireplace appliances and associated chimneys or vents as regulated under the mechanical code adopted by the City, excluding equipment for industrial processes or for providing primary space heating, ventilation, cooling or water heating; and excluding any building modifications, alterations or additions. Flammable fuel facilities authorizes the installation, alteration or removal of tanks, piping and dispensing equipment for petroleum fuels or other fuels as regulated by the City fire code, including related electrical wiring supplying not more than fifty (50) volts. Gas piping authorizes the installation of piping and fittings for supplying fuel-gas, and the replacement of water heaters as regulated under the mechanical code adopted by the City, when such water heater replacement does not involve alteration of water supply piping or appliance venting. HVAC-C (commercial) authorizes the installation of environmental nonportable heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems including commercial boilers and the related piping, ducts, venting, appliances, controls and electrical wiring (supplying not more than fifty [50] volts), therefor as regulated under the mechanical code adopted by the City, excluding all other electrical and plumbing work requiring a state licenseincluding all work authorized by HVAC-R and HVAC-RR. -18- HVAC-R (residential) authorizes the installation of environmental non-portable heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, including residential boilers and replacement of equipment, for single-family dwelling units including duplex, multi- family and townhomes (aka single-family attached) and the related piping, ducts, venting, appliances, controls and electrical wiring (supplying not more than fifty [50] volts). HVAC-RR (repair and replacement) authorizes the replacement installation of environmental non-portable heating, ventilation, air conditioning equipment and the related piping, ducts, venting, appliances, controls and electrical wiring (supplying not more than fifty [50] volts) associated with the repair or replacement. Miscellaneous and minor structures authorizes the construction, repair or demolition of (a) detached structures such as shelters, storage sheds, playhouses, greenhouses, and gazebos; and (b) unenclosed structures such as open carports, patio covers, open porches, and decks. Any such work is further limited to one-story buildings or structures not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet in floor area and which contain occupancies limited to those classified by the building code as Group R, Division 3; Group S, Divisions 1 and 2; and Group U other than private garages. Plumbers authorizes the installation of plumbing systems as regulated by the State of Colorado. Refrigeration authorizes the installation of nonportable evaporative, absorption and mechanically operated refrigeration equipment, including piping, vessels, controls and electrical wiring (supplying not more than fifty [50] volts) therefor as regulated under the mechanical code adopted by the City, excluding all other electrical and plumbing work requiring a state license. Roofing authorizes the application of nonstructural roof covering and materials as regulated by the building code, including the replacement or repair of sheathing on existing roofs of slopes two (2) inch in twelve (12) inch or steeper. Roofing Plus authorizes the application of nonstructural roof covering and materials as regulated by the building code, including the replacement or repair of sheathing on existing roofs of slopes less than two (2) inch in twelve (12) inch. Signs authorizes the installation and erection of permanent signs requiring a sign permit from the City, excluding electrical work regulated by the City electrical code requiring a state license. Solar energy hydronic authorizes the installation of solar heat collectors, storage tanks and related piping, and related electrical wiring supplying not more than fifty (50) volts. -19- Solar energy PV authorizes the installation of solar heat and photovoltaic collectors, storage tanks and related piping,and related electrical wiring supplying not more than fifty (50) volts and nonpotable water piping, excluding all other electrical and plumbing work requiring a state licensestand alone or utility grid systems. Special fire extinguishing authorizes the installation of fire suppression systems for the protection of specialized hazards such as commercial kitchen equipment, paint booths, flammable liquid facilities and other special applications. Wood frame construction (framing) authorizes the construction of Type IV and Type V structural framing systems as regulated under the building code, including the application of sheathing and siding. WTS authorizes the installation of outdoor wireless telecommunication systems, including related equipment, towers, antennas and the construction of unoccupied minor related buildings housing only equipment, and associated cables and electrical wiring supplying not more than fifty (50) volts that does not require a state electrical license. Section 10. That Section 15-161 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-161. Responsibilities of contractor; supervisor. (a) The contractor of record as authorized by a building permit shall be responsible for all work performed under said permit without substantial departure from the drawings and specifications filed and approved by the City as specified on the permit issued for said construction, unless changes are approved by the City, and shall observe the following standards: (1) The contractor of record shall obey any order or notice issued pursuant to this Articleadopted codes of the City. (2) The contractor of record shall observe generally accepted safety standards. (3) The contractor of record shall employ an approved on-site supervisor as specified in this Article. (4) The contractor of record shall maintain liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance as specified in this Article and provide proof of such insurance to the Building Official. -20- (5) The contractor of record shall provide proof of employment for employees who are performing construction work that is regulated under this Article by providing to the Building Official a copy of the signed Internal Revenue Service "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate (Form W- 4)" for each such employee. (6) The contractor of record shall identify all exempt specialized trade subcontractors under the contractor's supervision when so requested by the Building Official. (7) When the contractor of record is a specialized trade contractor that directly subcontracts work to an exempt specialized trade subcontractor, the specialized trade contractor shall employ a supervisor who, in addition to any other on-site attendance requirements of this Article, shall be readily available and present full-time on the project site where such subcontracted work is being performed to ensure that when completed such work fully conforms to the applicable code(s). (8) The contractor of record shall maintain a current mailing address, and a telephone number, and email address with the Building Official. (9) The contractor of record may proceed with work only after all required permits have been obtained and shall obtain required inspections and authorization to proceed with the work authorized under the permit. (b) All supervisors shall be responsible for the supervision of construction in accordance with the requirements of this Article, and shall observe the following standards: (1) All supervisors shall be on-site and in person on a regular basis, as approved by the Building Official, throughout the entire construction or installation process to supervise the construction or installation work under the responsibility of a licensed contractor without substantial departure from the drawings and specifications filed and approved by the City as specified on the permit issued for said construction, unless changes are approved by the City. Additionally, wWhen the contractor of record is a specialized trade contractor that directly subcontracts work to an exempt specialized trade subcontractor, a supervisor employed by such specialized trade contractor shall be readily available and present full-time on the project site where such subcontracted work is being performed to ensure that when completed such work fully conforms to the applicable code(s). A specialized trade contractor shall directly contract with only one level of exempt specialized trade subcontractor. Exempt specialized trade subcontractors shall not contract with another exempt specialized trade subcontractor. -21- (2) All supervisors shall obey any order or notice issued pursuant to this Articleadopted codes of the City. (3) All supervisors shall observe generally accepted safety standards. (4) All supervisors shall present the supervisor certificate, or proof thereof, during the supervision of a project for which said certificate is required when so requested by the Building Official. (5) All supervisors shall maintain a current mailing address, and a telephone number, and email address with the Building Official. Section 11. That Section 15-162 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-162. Disciplinary procedures; violations and penalties. (a) When the Building Official determines that a license holder or supervisor described in this Article has committed any of the acts outlined in Subsection (d) herein, or when a supervisor fails to provide adequate personal supervision on the work site, the Building Official may order a suspension of all privileges granted under such license or certificate pending a hearing by the Board. Such suspension shall not exceed a period of fifteen (15)forty-five (45) days following the first commission of any such act and shall become effective immediately or when otherwise determined by the Building Official. Such fifteen-dayforty-five (45) day suspension limitation shall not apply to any subsequent commission of any such act. Notification of said suspension shall be in writing and shall be promptly delivered to the certificate holder or an authorized person listed on such license application by certified mail or email to the last known address or by personal delivery. The notification shall state in reasonable detail the essential facts and reasons for said action and shall advise the affected license holder or supervisor of the right to appeal the decision of the Building Official to the Board. A copy of any such suspension shall be placed in the public record of the affected license holder or supervisor. Failure of any such person to receive such notification of suspension shall not invalidate any suspension imposed hereunder. (b) The Building Official shall, upon the verified complaint in writing of any person alleging any of the acts outlined in Subsection (d), convene the Board for the purpose of determining the verity of such complaint and taking appropriate action thereon. Notification shall be served to the affected license or certificate holder as prescribed in Subsection (a) above. (c) In the absence of a personal appearance on behalf of the licensee or certificate holder, or the licensee's or certificate holder's representative, the Board may take -22- action on the matter based on the record. Any member of the City staff or any other party in interest may appear at such meeting and present evidence to the Board. (d) The Board shall have the power to suspend or revoke (or take other disciplinary action on) any license or certificate when the Board determines that a holder thereof has committed any of the following: (1) Knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (3) Failure to comply with any lawful order of the Building Official; (4) Misrepresentation of a material fact in obtaining a building permit, license or supervisor certificate; (5) The authorized holder of a license or supervisor certificate lending of or consenting to the use of such credential by persons other than the holder thereof; (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; (7) Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety; (8) Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate; (9) The act of employing compensated workers who are performing construction or who are working in a trade for which a license or certificate is otherwise required under this Article when such workers are neither employees nor exempt specialized trade subcontractors as defined under this Article; or (10) The act of requesting of repeated inspections by a license holder or supervisor when such inspections are related to construction or trade regulated under this Article and which reveal that the work performed or supervised by said license holder or certificate holder failed to comply with the building code or other applicable code; and such repeated noncompliance -23- occurs in a manner or to an extent that demonstrates that the license holder or supervisor is either negligent, is not providing adequate supervision or is not qualified to perform or supervise the work. (e) When a license or supervisor certificate is revoked, the holder thereof shall not be granted another license or supervisor certificate under this Article without approval of the Board. In deciding whether to approve a new such license or supervisor certificate, the Board shall determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that any disciplinary actions that have been taken against any contractor license or supervisor certificate currently or previously held by the applicant (whether with the City or any other contractor licensing agency or jurisdiction) have resulted in the rehabilitation of the applicant to good and disciplined character for lawful conduct as a licensed contractor or certified supervisor (as applicable). When the Board suspends a license or supervisor certificate, the Board shall state the period and conditions of the suspension. (f) In addition to the suspension or revocation of a license or supervisor certificate by the Board as provided herein, any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Article or any lawful rule or regulation of the Board, or any lawful order of the Building Official, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties set forth in § 1-15 of the Code. (g) Owners who obtain permits for work on their primary residence and hire un- licensed contractors for work which requires a licensed contractor or licensed specialty trade contractors shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this Article and shall be subject to the penalties set forth in § 1-15 of the Code. (gh) Any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, other organization or any combination thereof shall pay an investigation fee to the Building Official when such party performs or causes to be performed construction or a trade for which a contractor license as specified in this Article is required without first obtaining the required license. Such fee shall be equal and in addition to the license fee and shall be paid before the applicable license may be issued. Section 12. That Section 15-163 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-163. Safety and insurance requirements. All laws relating to safety of employees and the public shall be observed at all times by any contractor or exempt specialized trade subcontractor. Every such contractor or exempt specialized trade subcontractor shall maintain workers' compensation insurance as required by state law, and publicgeneral liability insurance in the minimum amounts as follows: three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.)one million dollars ($1,000,000) per person, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.)two -24- million dollars ($2,000,000) per accident and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.)two million dollars ($2,000,000) per accident involving public property. Section 13. That Section 15-164 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-164. Transition provisions. (a) Any holder of a valid contractor license or supervisor certificate prior to the effective date of this Article shall be eligible to maintain the same such license or certificate without additional application fees or examination provided that such license or certificate remains valid throughout the current annual term of such license or certificate. Thereafter, any such contractor license or supervisor certificate shall be subject to renewal provisions as prescribed in this Article. (b) Any person holding a valid specialized trade contractor license prior to the effective date of this Article shall be eligible for the applicable specialized trade supervisor certificate without additional application fees or further written examination, provided that such person is performing the duties of a supervisor and is verified as having passed a written examination or the equivalent as approved by the Building Official. Failure of the license holder by July 1, 2001, to obtain either such supervisor certificate or employ a person who holds such supervisor certificate authorizing the performance of such specialized trades in the City, shall be grounds for imposing the penalties as prescribed under this Article. (c) Any person, firm, partnership, or other organization that holds a current valid home improvement license prior to the effective date of this Article shall be eligible for a miscellaneous and minor structures license and supervisor certificate without additional application fees or written examination throughout the current annual term of such home improvement license. Thereafter, all such licenses and supervisor certificates shall be issued as prescribed in this Article. (d) Any person, firm, partnership, or other organization that is performing one (1) of the specialized trades described under this Article as cast-in-place concrete, fireplace appliances, or awnings in the City shall obtain such applicable license and supervisor certificate by July 1, 2001, or be subject to the penalties prescribed under this Article. Section 14. That Section 15-171 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows and Section 15-172 is hereby renubmered as Section 15-171: Sec. 15-171. Definition of electrical contractors. For the purposes of this Article, electrical contractor means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or combination thereof who undertakes or offers -25- to undertake for another the planning, laying out, supervising and installing or the making of additions, alterations and repairs and the installation of wiring apparatus and equipment for electric light, heat and power. A registered professional engineer who plans or designs electrical installations shall not be considered an electrical contractor. Section 15. That Section 15-305 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows and Section 15-306 is hereby renumbered as Section 15-305: Sec. 15-305. Definitions of plumbers and contractors. As used in this Article, the terms journeyman plumber, master plumber and plumber's apprentice shall have meanings given to them by the state law providing for the licensing of plumbers. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -26- DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. B. Resolution 2012-100 Updating the List of Names for Arterial and Collector Streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends the City Code relating to naming new arterial and collector streets so that City Council ,rather than the developer, would select the name of the new street. The Resolution will update the current list of names for arterial and collector streets. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On October 8, 2012, the City Leadership Team was reviewing suitable names for public alleys that have been improved by the Downtown Development Authority. During that discussion several prominent individual names were suggested but not selected in anticipation of reserving those names for a future collector or arterial street. City Code currently allows Council to add those names to an official list for future consideration by a developer as roads are constructed. Council suggested changing the Ordinance to allow only Council to name the streets, rather than the developer. During this review two names were deemed worthy of consideration for a future arterial or collector street: A.E. Blount and Charles Lauterbach. Staff requests those names be added to the official street name list. In addition, staff recommends adding Ann Azari to the list, as it is customary to honor those who have provided a significant contribution and public service to our community. The rationale for these additions is: • Charles Lauterbach In 1882, Charles Lauterbach was the first to establish a cigar business within Fort Collins on the Vandewark Block of Jefferson Street. Lauterbach touted he obtained the best quality tobacco from the great tobacco mart in Baltimore. His cigars were well-regarded and one of the editors of the Fort Collins Courier even outlined six reasons why Fort Collins smokers should purchase Lauterbach cigars. Lauterbach’s cigar factory would eventually move to 210 Linden Street, where the building still remains. • Ainsworth E. Blount (A.E. Blount) Ainsworth E. Blount was the first farm manager and the first professor of practical agriculture at the new Agricultural College of Colorado. His work at the College lasted fourteen years, beginning in 1879. Blount was famous for his agricultural research and experiments, focusing primarily on small grains. His experiments helped farmers statewide manage their grain practice in Colorado’s unique and arid climate and his work established his reputation as a prominent and scientific agricultural researcher. Years later, Blount’s wife took charge of floral work at the College and helped to beautify the campus grounds. • Ann Azari Ms. Azari was a Councilmember from 1989 to 1993 and Mayor from 1993 to April 1999. She and her husband and five children moved to Fort Collins in 1963. Her community involvement including serving on the boards November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 17 of the Colorado Municipal League, the Downtown Development Authority, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters of Larimer County and the Girl Scouts Council. History of Street Naming since 2000 The last new arterial was Mountain Vista Drive, named when Anheuser-Busch located the brewery here in the mid- 1980s. Four collector streets have been named in the past five years and eight were named between 2000 – 2007, or about an average of one per year. This information was based on the Master Street Plan collector designation. In the spring 2000, Council updated the official list to delete nine names that had been previously selected and added seven new names. Of these seven, five were selected to re-name existing County roads in the southeast quadrant of the city. The Board of County Commissioners then approved an action to continue these newly selected names to the limits of the Growth Management Area. The affected roads were: Changed From: To: County Road 7 Strauss Cabin Road County Road 9 Ziegler Road County Road 11 Timberline Road County Road 32 Carpenter Road County Road 36 Kechter Road In the fall 2003, Council again updated the list add 16 new names. Of these 16, six were selected to re-name existing County roads in the northeast quadrant of the City. Five were arterial streets and one was a state highway. In addition, four names were selected to name new collector streets. Again, the Board of County Commissioners approved the continuation of the newly selected names for the arterials and state highway to logical termination points both inside and outside the Growth Management Area. The affected arterial/minor arterial roads were: Changed From: To: County Road 50 Mountain Vista Drive County Road 52 Richards Lake Road County Road 54 Douglas Road County Road 11 Turnberry Road County Road 9 Giddings Road State Highway One Terry Lake Road In September 2005, four new names were added for selection and 18 names were deleted as duplicates. From this updated list, three collector streets were renamed as: Changed From: To: Coffey Parkway William Neal Parkway Katahdin Drive Charles Brockman Drive Sagebrush Drive Joseph Allen Drive In February 2006, 41 new names were added based on the recommendation from a citizen advisory committee and five names were deleted. In addition, Council took the following specific action to rename a collector street in the southeast quadrant: Changed From: To: Cambridge Avenue Lady Moon Drive On October 16, 2007, Council voted to add Sergeant Nicholas Walsh to the list but did not do so by Resolution. In January 2009, Council deleted three previously selected names (Lady Moon, Council Tree and Montezuma Fuller) and added four new names (Maurice Albertson, Louis Brown Jr., Dr. Karl Carson, and Sergeant Nicholas Walsh). November 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 17 In October 2011, Council adopted a Resolution naming an access drive into Spring Canyon Park in honor of Sergeant Nicholas Walsh. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading and the Resolution. ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 24-91 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGARDING THE NAMING OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS WHEREAS, Section 24-91 of the City Code presently provides for the City Council to establish a list of street names to be used by City staff, developers and others in the naming of arterial and collector streets in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it should be the responsibility of the City Council to select the names of arterial and collector streets in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 24-91 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-91. List of street names. All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council and the naming of such arterial and collector streets shall be done by the City Council by resolution. The list of street names shall be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens of the City or Growth Management Area whom the City Council would like to honor posthumously, and such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the City Council may approve. With respect to citizens of the City whom the City Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of street names, and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall strike names from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION 2012-100 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS UPDATING THE LIST OF NAMES FOR ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS WHEREAS, Section 24-91 of the City Code establishes certain street naming requirements for the naming of arterial and collector streets; and WHEREAS, said Section 24-91 provides that the City Council shall adopt and amend the list of street names by resolution; and WHEREAS, the list of street names has not been updated since January 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain names, having heretofore been used for street-naming purposes, should now be stricken from the list while certain other names should be added to the list. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the list of street names for the naming of new arterial and collector streets as required to be established pursuant to Section 24-91 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby repealed and readopted to read as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1 EXHIBIT "A" STREET NAMES A&M In recognition of the past name of Colorado State University. (See attached) Aggie This is a common name given to A&M university students. Today the Aggie tradition at CSU carries on as the nostalgic nickname. (See attached) Maurice Albertson C.S.U. Professor, Director of Colorado State University Research Foundation, Consultant to UNESCO, and one of the architects of the Peace Corps. Teller Ammons Teller Ammons was one of the youngest men ever to become governor of Colorado in 1936. (See attached biography) D.C. Armitage City Commission of Works, 10-2-13 to 4-10-16 and 4-12-32 to 4-12-38; also was an alderman 4-21-13 to 10-2- 13. John Ayres Having arrived in the 1880 's, the Ayres family is considered to be genuine pioneers. Descendants have contributed to the community over the generations and are in-laws to the Collamers. Ann Azari Councilmember 1989 – 1993; Mayor 1993-1999. She and her husband and five children moved to Fort Collins in 1963. Her community involvement including serving on the boards of the Colorado Municipal League, the Downtown Development Authority, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters of Larimer County and the Girl Scouts Council. Ray Barger Larimer County Sheriff for many years. Bath Immigrant family name and prosperous local merchants. Blehm In recognition of a large family of Volga-Germans that immigrated to the area primarily to work the sugar beet harvest Ainsworth E. Blount First professor of Practical Agriculture at Colorado Agricultural College beginning in 1879, famous for his agricultural research and experiments, focusing on small grains and improving agricultural practices statewide. 2 Jay Bouton City Attorney, alderman eight years; president Board of Education. 18 years; 1870's, 1880's. Rattlesnake Jack Brinkhoff Buried in the Manhattan Cemetery near Livermore, ‘Rattlesnake Jack” was buried there in March 1970 with special permission from Ron Anderson, then of the Forest Service. Anderson reportedly said, "Jack always lived on hard rock - he ought to be put to rest on hard rock." Louis Brown Jr. Highly decorated veteran of U.S. Air Force, Larimer County Administrator, Member of the Poudre School District Board of Education, and member of numerous service organizations including the United Way, Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Karl Carson Fort Collins Mayor from 1968 to 1973, helped found the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado, President of the Fort Collins Symphony, President of the Colorado Municipal League and the Colorado League of Cities and led efforts to build the Lincoln Center, the bike trail system and fluoridated water. Stewart “Stew” Case Born in Fort Collins May 15, 1916. He was influential in starting the Fort Collins Recreational Department. (See attached biography) Stan Case Stan and his wife Lola purchased the historic Arrowhead Lodge in the Poudre Canyon in 1946. (See attached biography) Cherryhurst A historic place name in reference to the farm and orchard owned by Agnes Wright Spring, author and state historian in both Colorado and Wyoming and member of the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame, offered as one of two alternatives for County Road 11. Chief Friday Chief Friday was leader of the Arapahoe in the Cache La Poudre area during settlement. (See attached) Samuel H. Clammer Mayor, 10-27-13 to 4-9-18. Tom Coffey City Manager, 10-1-65 to 6-12-72. Judge Claude Coffin Discoverer of Folsom site in northern Larimer County, City Attorney 8-30-24 to 1-12-25. Major Roy Coffin Discoverer of Folsom site in northern Larimer County. 3 Arthur Collamer Born into a large pioneer family in 1893 and worked a variety of jobs including stage coach driver, he and his family continuously operated the wood lot just around the bend of the “Y” at Highway 287 and Highway One for 115 years. Ralph Coyte Colorado Judge and namesake of the Ralph Coyte Memorial Law Library. (Larimer County Bar Assoc.) Dickerson Alice and Helen Dickerson moved to their grandparent’s 82-acre homestead in the Buckhorn Canyon as very young children. As adults, the sisters made or grew nearly everything they needed. For over 80 years, from the 1910s until their deaths in the 1990s, the Dickerson sisters truly represented our vanishing pioneer heritage. Dreher Three brothers who owned a pickle factory on Riverside Drive, and founded Jax Surplus. Lawrence Durrell* CSU senior faculty member, scientist, very instrumental in starting the Colorado Agricultural Research Foundation which greatly added to the growth of the university, 1940's. J.W.N. (Bill) Fead Bill served on City Council from 1971-1975 and as Mayor from 1974-1975. He was a valued Civil Engineering professor at CSU from 1957 until his retirement in 1995 during which time he played a key role in moving the Department of Civil Engineering into the national spotlight. First Elk Woman First Elk Woman was the Sioux Indian wife of Antoine Janis, the first permanent settler in Larimer County. She was of the Red Cloud family. (See attached biography) JD Forney Prominent Fort Collins industrialist. (See attached biography) Leonard & Katherine Franz Leonard & Katherine Franz Farmed in Fossil Creek area commencing in1882, later bought land on corner of Harmony Road and Timberline Road; sold Harmony/Timberline property in 1917 for construction of the Harmony Store. J. Ray French Fort Collins High School football coach, team won state championships in early 1940s. Frank Ghent Charter member of City Water Board, 1963 to 1967, 4 Chamber of Commerce "Man of the Year" for 1982. George Glover* First Dean of Veterinary Medicine at CSU, turn of the century to 1934. Jack A. Harvey Mayor, 4-14-59 to 4-11-61. Clara Hatton* CSU Senior faculty member, early 1900's. Earl Hodges Fire Department, 1930's to 1950's. Benjamin Hottel Two terms as alderman, instrumental in bringing to Fort Collins its first large industry, the sugar beet factory, 1890's. Miles House City Clerk, 8-16-37 to 12-31-68. Amos Jiron In recognition of an Hispanic family that moved here from the San Luis Valley to work in the sugar beet harvest. Orville P. Kelly Chief of the Fort Collins Police Department for 19 years: 1936-1955. (See attached biography) J.A.C. Kissock Checked and audited city books, two terms City Council, father of Fort Collins sewer system, on City Council 4-11- 67 to 5-13-70. Fred & Viola Kluver President of the Poudre Valley Bank and prominent family known for their philanthropy. Charles Lauterbach Established a cigar factory and retail store on the Vanderwark Block on Jefferson Street and later at 210 Linden Street. Carl & Augusta Levine In recognition of the Levine’s years of dedication to the arts and to the community. (See attached biography) Liston Leyendecker Wrote biography of George Pullman (Pullman Car); resident of Fort Collins. Emma Mallaby North-side grocery store owner. Matsuda In recognition of a prominent farm family and the contributions of Japanese Americans in local agriculture. 5 John & Phyllis Mattingly Long-term Fort Collins residents who, combined, made significant contributions to the local business and social scene. (See attached biography) Hattie McDaniel Hattie McDaniel was an accomplished actress most widely known for her role as “Mammy” in Gone With the Wind. Hattie lived in Fort Collins for a time as a child. Glenn Morris Athletic star at Colorado Agricultural College and 1936 Olympic gold medalist at the Berlin games. (See attached biography) Lyman Nichols An expert in micro writing, Nichols perfected optical instruments that were used in bomb sights by U.S. aircraft in WWII. These sights were credited with helping to shorten the war. Nichols and his wife made their home on Lindenmeier Road on a hill overlooking Long Pond after his retirement in 1951. Norlin In recognition of an early farming family that had a large farm in south Fort Collins. Guy Palmes City Manager, 2-24-39 to 9-15-61. Ralph Parshall Inventor of the “Parshall Flume.” (See attached biography) Grace Espy Patton-Cowles First woman registered voter to Fort Collins - 1894; State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Bill Robb Architect and first community planner; established an architectural firm in 1953 known today as RB&B; served on several boards and commissions, including the city’s first Planning and Zoning Board; designed Saint Luke’s Episcopal and First United Methodist churches and the Old City Hall. Franklin Pierce Rudolph Arrived in Fort Collins in 1906, farmed and built a large home and three silos, road became known as Three Silos Road, now Summit View Drive, descendants still live in the area. Bob Sears Prominent local businessman who founded a successful lumber company. Harry Smiley Manager and volunteer at museum, 6-1-63 to 6-1-70. Pappy Spencer Prospector and burro wrangler (skinner) who kept his burros at Overland Trail and Elizabeth. 6 Elfreda Stebbins First Librarian at Carnegie Library (now museum) Librarian for 28 years 1904 to 1932. Lee Suniga Prominent local citizen who rose from being a migrant worker; accomplished athlete who used baseball to help break down racial barriers. (See attached biography) Ellen Thexton In charge of cultural and performing arts, 7-1-76 to 9-6-83. John & Tom Toliver Prominent local family who founded a successful hardware business and built a large home recognized for its art deco style. T.P. Treadwell Fire Chief, upgraded department 2-1-30 to 8-15-52. Trostel Prominent business man who owned a lumber mill and store. Corky Walt Decorated WWII Army general. C.C. (Clancy) Wanneka Descendant of Colorado homesteaders and graduate of Colorado A&M. C.C. served on the State Board of Agriculture, including four years as president, during years of significant growth for CSU. David Watrous Manager and volunteer at museum, editor of Fort Collins newspaper. Byron White Fort Collins native, attended Wellington schools, All- American football player at C.U., awarded two Bronze Stars in W.W. Two, Rhodes Scholar, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Kennedy in 1962, served as a Supreme Court Justice for 30 years. White Gold The name given to sugar beets in recognition of the economic importance of this commodity. Sergeant Nicholas Walsh Fort Collins citizen who died in the line of duty in the War in Iraq. Earl Wilkinson Moved to Fort Collins in 1924, Served on City Council from 1974 to 1981, Mayor from 1976 to 1977, Community Builder of the Year - 1990, long serving member of numerous organizations including the Jaycees, Chamber of Commerce (president), Platte River Power Authority, Downtown Development Authority, Longs Peak Council of 7 the Boy Scouts, Colorado Municipal League and charter member of the Transportation Advisory Board. *Names given by CSU DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2012, Amending Section 2-427 of the City Code Relating to Membership of the Transportation Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Transportation Board currently consists of eleven members appointed by the City Council, and is one of the larger advisory boards. At the end of 2012, the terms of four members will expire. One of those members is not eligible for reappointment because that member has met the Council-adopted two term limit. Another member is eligible but is not interested in reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes to the size of the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This opportunity was presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the Council reduce the size from eleven to nine members. This Ordinance amends the City Code to reduce the size of the Board to nine members. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At the time of creation in 1992, the Transportation Board consisted of nine members. In August 1995, upon recommendation of the Board, the Council increased the size of the Board to eleven, to provide for more diverse representation on the Board, and to accommodate the Board’s increasing workload. Staff has now identified the opportunity to resize the Board without negatively impacting any current members or the Board's work plan. The idea was presented to the Transportation Board, and, at its October 17, 2012 regular meeting, the Board voted unanimously to reduce the size of the board from eleven to nine members. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 17, 2012, the Transportation voted unanimously to recommend that the Council reduce the size of the Board from eleven to nine members. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Transportation Board Minutes - October 17, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-427 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD WHEREAS, on March 3, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 029, 1992, creating the Transportation Board (the “Board”), which currently consists of eleven members; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that nine members is the appropriate number of members for a board of this nature; and WHEREAS, an opportunity to reduce the number of Board members through attrition exists due to the expiration of four members' terms, only two of whom have applied for reappointment; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on October 17, 2012, the Board considered the possibility of reducing the size of the Board and voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council to reduce the size of the Board by two members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2-427(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-437. Membership; term. (a) The Board shall consist of eleven (11) nine (9) members appointed by the City Council. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Ted Shepard Seth Lorson, Beth Sowder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code by Designating Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development Projects as Being Subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 9, 2012, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance amending the Land Use Code (LUC) to require larger multi-family housing developments (50 dwelling units, or 75 bedrooms) to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). A Type 2 review requires that the developer hold a pre-submittal neighborhood meeting. The benefit to the neighborhood meeting is that the public is given an opportunity to provide input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development. In recent months a large amount of multi-family housing developments have been appealed by concerned citizens to Council based on the assertion that the projects are not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. This proposed procedural change seeks to provide more opportunity for the public to participate in the development review process for multi-family housing projects. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Council directed staff to move forward with a three-phase approach to Land Use Code (LUC) changes for multi-family housing. Phase 1 was adopted by Council on September 18, 2012. The principal purpose for Phase 2 is to address intensity concerns as voiced by concerned citizens and recommended in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. At the October 9 Work Session, City staff presented four potential LUC changes to address these concerns. City Council provided the following feedback: 1. Consider creating a threshold size for multi-family developments that can be reviewed administratively (Type 1) up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms. Any larger must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Council Feedback: City Council directed staff to develop an ordinance and schedule it for Council consideration on November 6, 2012. 2. Consider creating a 30% limit on the amount of 4-bedroom units that can be permitted in multi-family developments. Council Feedback: This option is being forwarded to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) for further evaluation. (See Attachment 1 for more details.) 3. Consider creating a definition of student housing and/or create a university district. Council Feedback: Council agreed with the staff recommendation not to define “student” housing. Council directed that the University District options be moved to the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) process for further vetting. 4. Consider adjusting the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone boundary. Council Feedback: Council agreed with the staff recommendation to leave the TOD boundary in its current location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 19 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with Council’s direction to create a threshold of 50 DUs(Dwelling Units)/75 Bedrooms for multi-family housing projects to be reviewed by Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). PUBLIC OUTREACH The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) has done extensive outreach to stakeholders since summer 2011. Six meetings in September were specifically held in order to hear feedback regarding Phase 2 LUC proposals: 9/6/12 – Affordable Housing Board 9/11/12 – Fort Collins Board of Realtors Governmental Affairs committee 9/14/12 – Planning and Zoning Board 9/18/12 – Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association 9/26/12 – Landmark Preservation Commission 9/27/12 – Building Review Board 10/17/12 – Women’s Commission ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council Work Session Summary, October 9, 2012 2. Letter from Affordable Housing Board 3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, September 20, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 To: City Council From: Affordable Housing Board Date: October 9, 2012 Re: Phase II Multifamily Regulation Changes In our role as advisors to council on matters pertaining to affordable housing, we have reviewed the proposed phase II changes to the multifamily regulations. After review discussion among our board, we have identified two of the proposed phase II code changes as issues that we feel pertain to affordable housing. The first is the 25% limit on 4+ bedroom units in multifamily projects, and the second is the triggering of Planning & Zoning Board (type II) review for multifamily projects with 50 or more units or 75 bedrooms. We make the following recommendations on these two issues: 1. On September 20, 2012 our board voted 5‐0 to support planning staff's recommendation that multifamily units with 4+ bedroom be limited to no more than 25% of the total number of units. This seems to be quite reasonable. In our experience, it is important for families to have some 4+ bedroom units available, but from a management standpoint, we agree that having an overconcentration of this unit type is something to be avoided. We also discussed that we feel it is important to allow at least this 25% and recommend not to reduce the maximum to any less than that, however we feel that up to 30% of this unit type could be appropriate. 2. On September 20, 2012 our board voted 5‐0 to recommend to Council that Planning & Zoning Board (type II) review not be required for multifamily projects with 50 or more units or 75 or more bedrooms. Since many affordable housing projects are above this threshold, this proposed change may have a direct impact on the new supply of affordable housing in our community. It is our belief, and appears to be public perception, that the Type II review could invite more public input into the process as well as lead to delays in the process. These items can financially impact projects either directly through these delays or through required changes to projects that are driven more by political and personal agendas rather than strictly by code. With residential vacancy rates in our community continuing to fall, and affordable housing more in demand than ever, we believe and suggest that the City do everything it can to encourage developers to consider affordable housing projects as a viable economic project. Since margins on these types of projects are typically much smaller than ‘market rate’ projects, requiring a type II review on many of them, whether by perception or reality, may keep many developers from considering them as a viable option. We therefore recommend that Council does not require a type II review for multifamily projects with 50 or more units or 75 or more bedrooms. We appreciate the opportunity to forward our recommendations to Council on this matter. ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 1 ORDINANCE NO. 130, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY DESIGNATING CERTAIN TYPES OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS BEING SUBJECT TO PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REVIEW WHEREAS, on October 8, 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare and present to the City Council an ordinance amending the Land Use Code to require larger multi-family housing developments to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that review by the Planning and Zoning Board is beneficial for an enhanced public project review of larger multi-family housing developments because review by the Planning and Zoning Board also requires the holding of a neighborhood meeting which affords the public an opportunity to provide input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amendments proposed by this Ordinance are in the best interests of the City because they provide more opportunity for the public to participate in the development review process for larger multi-family housing development projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Single-family attached dwellings. 4. Multi-family dwellings (limited to eight [8] or less units per building) containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 2 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 6. Mixed-use dwellings. 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than four (4) tenants. Section 2. That Section 4.5(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Mobile home parks. 2. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a)5 above. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than eight (8) units per building; or, containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 3. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the M-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings on lots containing no more than six thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Single-family attached dwellings. 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Mixed-use dwellings. 3 6. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. Section 4. That Section 4.6(B)(3)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the M-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a) above. 2. Fraternity and sorority houses. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 5. That Section 4.10(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the H-M-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 2. Mixed-use dwellings. 3. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 4. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. 5. Fraternity and sorority houses. 4 Section 6. That Section 4.10(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the H-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes, other than those permitted pursuant to subparagraph (2)(a) above. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 7. That the table contained in Section 4.16(B)(2)A. of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8. That Section 4.17(B)(2)(a) of the Land use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center A. RESIDENTIAL Two-family dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Single-family attached dwellings (up to four [4] units per building) Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. BDR Type 2 Type 2 Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (2) The following uses are permitted in the R-D-R District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Single-family detached dwellings containing no more than eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area, constructed on lots which contain existing dwellings. 3. Two-family dwellings. 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 6. Mixed-use dwellings. 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. Section 9. That Section 4.17(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the R-D-R District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes other than those in 2(a) above. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 10. That Section 4.18 (B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-C District, subject to administrative review: 6 (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 4. Group homes. 5. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. 6. Mixed-use dwellings. Section 11. That Section 4.18(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Fraternity and sorority houses. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 12. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings on lots containing less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Single-family attached dwelling. 7 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. 7. Mixed-use dwellings. Section 13. That Section 4.19(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a)6 above. 2. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 14. That Section 4.20(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following land uses are permitted in the C-C-R District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Group homes. 4. Multi-family dwellings. containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. 5. Mixed-use dwellings. 8 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. Section 15. That Section 4.20(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-R District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached houses located on lots containing no more than six thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Fraternity and sorority houses. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Section 16. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2)A. of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) A. RESIDENTIAL Extra occupancy rental houses with 5 or fewer tenants Not permitted BDR Shelters for victims of domestic violence Not permitted BDR Mixed-use dwellings Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. Not permitted Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Not permitted Type 2 . . . . . . . . . Section 17. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) The following uses are permitted in the C-S District, subject to administrative review: 9 (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings located on lots containing less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.* 2. Two-family dwellings.* 3. Single-family attached dwellings.* 4. Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less.* 5. Group homes.* 6. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants.* 7. Mixed-use dwellings. * Not allowed within two hundred (200) feet of North College Avenue. Section 18. That Section 4.22(B)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-S District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. (ab) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Major public facilities. (bc) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Drive-in restaurants. 2. Large retail establishments. 10 3. Day shelters, provided that they do not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet and are located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of a Transfort route. 4. Outdoor amphitheaters. (cd) Industrial Uses: 1. Recycling facilities. 2. Transport terminals (truck terminals, public works yards, container storage). Section 19. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2)A of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas A. RESIDENTIAL Single-family detached dwellings BDR BDR Two-family dwellings BDR BDR Single-family attached dwellings BDR BDR Multi-family dwellings containing fifty (50) dwelling units or less; and, containing seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less. BDR Type 1 Multi-family dwellings containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units; or, containing more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms. Type 2 Type 2 . . . . . . . . . 11 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley Mark Kempton AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best Management Practices and Stream Restoration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Master Plan has been updated to include stormwater quality and stream restoration projects, alongside the already identified stormwater flood control projects. The Master Plan update utilizes results and information obtained from the Stormwater Utility Repurposing program in conjunction with basin and stream specific recommendations obtained from the following two program efforts: A. Basin-Specific Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Selected Plans; and, B. Stream Restoration and Stability Study and Prioritization with the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool. The BMP Selected Plans include recommendations for the treatment of stormwater within portions of the City that developed prior to the adoption of stormwater quality criteria. The majority of the BMP projects include the retrofit of existing stormwater detention ponds to include water quality treatment facilities. Funding for the construction of the identified BMP and stream restoration projects will be drawn from existing stormwater fees. This funding request is included in the current 2013/2014 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process for Environmental Health. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins updated the Stormwater Master Plans and 100-Year event Floodplain Maps for each of the City’s thirteen (13) drainage basins after the devastating 1997 flood. The Stormwater Drainage Basin Master Plan (a combination of separately completed master plans for all 13 drainage basins), approved by City Council in June 2004, describes the flooding history of each basin, identifies potential problem areas and recommends improvements. The Master Plan: • Recommends cost-effective projects to remove properties from floodplains, reduce risk and reduce street flooding; • Offers guidance for new development in the basins; • Identifies approaches to enhance riparian habitat along stream corridors and improve water quality; and, • Offers broad guidance to stabilize streams where necessary. In 2008, Council directed staff to review the purpose and components of the City’s Stormwater Program. Staff organized the Stormwater Utility Repurposing program review into 14 major components as outlined below: A. Stormwater Purpose Statement B. Best Management Practices (BMP) Policy Update C. Stormwater Criteria Update D. Detention Pond Construction / Landscape Guidelines E. Stormwater Quality GIS Coverage F. Low Impact Development (LID) Demonstration Projects G. LID Policy Review H. Stormwater Quality Sampling Review I. City-Owned BMP Review J. Home Owners Association (HOA) Assistance Program K. Level of Protection Policy L. Rates M. Floodplain Regulations N. Urban Stream Health Assessment November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 20 Information and results from these major components were utilized to update the Stormwater Master Plans to address storm water quality considerations and to include stream restoration and stability projects that will protect the City’s urban watersheds, and preserve the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. The purpose of the Master Plan Update is not to re-evaluate the previously-identified flood control capital improvement projects; but, to identify areas where storm water quality and stream improvements are necessary and identify where they may be incorporated into existing or future flood-control projects. Studies and Results 1. Basin-Specific Stormwater Quality BMP Selected Plans In 2011, the Utilities Stormwater Division contracted with three local engineering consultants to prepare basin-specific water quality Best Management Practices (BMP) selected plans for ten of the City’s master drainage basins: Spring Creek Dry Creek Fox Meadows Old Town Mail Creek Canal Importation Fossil Creek West Vine Foothills McClelland’s Creek Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough were preliminarily evaluated, then removed from further analysis since the majority of these basins are currently undeveloped; they exceed the goal of at least 40% of undeveloped/BMP coverage land. Future development within the two basins will be required to install water quality BMP facilities in accordance with City stormwater criteria. The 40% coverage goal was obtained from the Urban Stream Health Assessment study, performed by CSU in 2010. In all basins, the stormwater quality BMPs were analyzed and sited to meet or exceed the recommended 40% coverage goal. In order to complete the basin-specific BMP selected plans, the following work was performed: • Hydrologic model updates (to include significant urban development since 2002) • Hydrologic sensitivity analyses • Conceptual water quality BMPs • Alternative analysis of BMPs • Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis of the BMP alternatives • Draft Selected Plans • Public outreach process • Stream Restoration MCDA Prioritization • Final Selected Plan. Exhibits of the proposed stormwater quality BMP improvements for each of the ten drainage basins are included as Attachment 1. A map for the Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough basin is also included to display the proposed stream restoration reaches within the basin. The majority of the BMP improvements consist of retrofitting existing stormwater detention ponds to include water quality treatment. Other BMPs include in-pipe mechanical BMPs, and irrigation ditch relocations. Typical pond retrofits include adding new water quality outlets to existing ponds; excavating the sides of existing ponds to achieve additional water quality volume; moving, replanting, or planting new trees; along with close coordination with neighboring properties. 2. Stream Restoration/Stability Study and Prioritization of Stream Restoration Projects In 2011, a study conducted by Colorado State University, on behalf of the Fort Collins Stormwater Division, was authorized to help prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work within the City. Assessments (including field work) were completed between June and October of 2011. The study built upon work completed previously in the Urban Stream Health Assessment Study and specifically investigated the following ten stream sections within the city limits of Fort Collins: November 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 20 Burns Tributary Clearview Channel Foothills Creek Fossil Creek Langs Gulch Mail Creek McClellands Creek Spring Creek Stanton Creek Boxelder Creek (downstream of Vine Drive) The study provided detailed habitat, susceptibility, and baseline geomorphic data for roughly 17 miles of channels across ten streams. The objectives of the study were to: • Perform a geomorphic assessment on a segment-by-segment basis of the ten streams listed above to determine channel evolution stage, channel susceptibility to vertical and lateral erosion, and stream habitat condition; • Use the resulting data to identify geomorphic thresholds that sustain meandering channels and other heterogeneous physical habitats and use this information to assess candidate restoration reaches; and, • Identify and prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work through the development of a Multi- Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) matrix that can be used to select projects that simultaneously improve habitat, reduce susceptibility, and provide the geomorphic conditions that sustain diverse and stable channels. - Issues identified within the study include obstacles to fish passage caused by irrigation diversion structures, dams, and rock grade control structures, which are usually in place to protect existing infrastructure. Other identified issues include severe bank erosion which contributes to poor water quality, unsafe areas for the public, threats to infrastructure such as sewer lines, and the loss of property to the stream. Irrigation flows conveyed through the many of the City’s streams contribute to the bank erosion through sustained, unvarying flows. These irrigation flows also affect the frequency of flows in the streams, negatively affecting aquatic and riparian habitats. 2a. Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool Prioritization of Stream Restoration Projects and associated BMP Installations A MCDA framework for prioritizing stream rehabilitation projects was completed to target areas where the greatest opportunities exist for simultaneously improving habitat and connectivity while stabilizing high-risk, erosion-susceptible reaches. The four major criteria for MCDA scoring were: • Environmental Benefit • Economics • Social Value • Erosion Potential Based upon Triple Bottom Line (TBL) principles, all criteria were given equal weight within the MCDA tool. The MCDA sub-criteria, weights, and reach scores were developed by a multi-discipline team consisting of staff from several City Departments including Utilities, Natural Areas, Environmental Sustainability, and Environmental Planning. A member of the public, representing the Natural Resources Advisory Board also participated in the MCDA tool completion process. The completed MCDA Tool is included as Attachment 2 to this AIS. The stream prioritization results also include the tributary stormwater BMPs that link to the appropriate downstream stream restoration reach. The goal of the stream restoration projects is to restore the City’s streams to a natural state, or as natural state as possible, given the constraints of the urban setting in which they occur. The restoration will be achieved by stopping and repairing stream bank erosion, removing obstacles to fish passage such as grade controls, ensuring good stormwater quality, re-vegetating stream banks, and promoting good stream and watershed management practices. Future stream restoration and stormwater quality BMPs will be implemented according to the project ranking within the finalized MCDA Tool. Projects will be analyzed and designed using the same multi-disciplinary approach utilized in the completion of the MCDA Tool, with input from affected property owners being a crucial part of the design, construction, and maintenance of several of the stream restoration and BMP projects. November 6, 2012 -4- ITEM 20 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Based upon input from Council at the April 24, 2012 Work Session, a percentage of current stormwater fees will be used to fund the completion of the identified stormwater quality BMP and stream restoration projects. Beginning in 2013, Stormwater Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding will be allocated into separate sub-categories in accordance with the following percentages (dollar amounts to be rounded): • 16% Stream restoration and stormwater quality BMPs • 20% Opportunity fund to address unforeseen projects such as development related storm sewers, or cash matches with government entities (i.e. West Vine Basin Stormwater Improvements with Larimer County) • 64% Flood control capital improvement projects (previously 100% of funds) Accordingly, to achieve the goals of the Stormwater Master Plan, Fort Collins Utilities has submitted a $650,000 per year Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) offer for stream restoration/stormwater quality in the 2013/2014 budget process. It should be noted that there is no proposed increase in stormwater fees to construct these additional projects. Staff will continue to investigate additional funding sources such as the utilization of the Natural Resources Department Stream Rehabilitation Funds identified in the 2010 Keep Fort Collins Great Sales Tax package ($250,000 per year); applying for various grant programs such as the Colorado Healthy Rivers Grant Fund, or the EPA Small Watershed Grant Program. Estimated ranges of project costs* for stream restoration and stormwater quality BMPs in the City’s streams and basins are as follows: Boxelder Creek (Stream only) $1,117,800 to $2,353,500 Canal Importation Basin (Stream and BMP) $1,586,000 to $1,816,000 Dry Creek Basin (Stream and BMP) $2,976,900 to $5,111,900 Foothills Creek Basin (Stream and BMP) $2,922,000 to $3,777,000 Fossil Creek Basin (Stream and BMP) $20,605,800 to $26,153,500 Fox Meadows Basin (BMP only) $808,200 Mail Creek (Stream and BMP) $4,837,200 McClellands Creek Basin (Stream and BMP) $5,380,400 to $9,679,900 Old Town Basin (BMP only) $1,539,100 Spring Creek Basin (Stream and BMP) $7,648,700 to $10,157,600 West Vine Basin (Stream and BMP) $2,835,300 to $4,144,700 Total costs range from: $52,257,400 to $70,378,500 * Upper cost ranges are based upon a per linear foot construction cost. Cost ranges are presented due to the fact that not all stream restoration work requires capital construction. Several stream reaches may be rehabilitated through minor construction and watershed/vegetation management. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The health of the City’s physical environment will be positively affected as a result of the Master Plan Update. Water quality throughout the City will be greatly improved, while several of the eroding banks within the City’s waterways will be repaired and stabilized. Wildlife habitat will be improved and new riparian habitat will be planted along the streams. Impediments to the passage of fish throughout the streams will be removed, allowing for a greater number and diversity of aquatic species along the streams. Excessive sediment and pollutants will be removed from the streams as a result of the installation of new stormwater quality BMPs in basins that currently have no stormwater quality treatment. The projects in the Plan will also serve to protect existing infrastructures such as sanitary sewers, preventing potential sewage spills in the City’s natural streams. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. November 6, 2012 -5- ITEM 20 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Master Plan Update was presented to boards and City Council on previous occasions. They include: 1. Water Board – January 19, 2012 2. Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) - February 22, 2012 3. Water Board – April 19, 2012 4. City Council Work Session – April 24, 2012 5. NRAB – September 19, 2012 6. Water Board – September 20, 2012 The Stormwater Master Plan Update was presented to both the NRAB and the Water Board on September 19 and September 20, 2012, respectively. The Plan Update was unanimously recommended for adoption by both Boards. Draft minutes from both meetings are included as Attachments 3 and 4. PUBLIC OUTREACH The public outreach process for the Stormwater Master Plan Update has been ongoing since June 2011, and has included the following elements: • Basin-specific focus group meetings for affected stakeholders such as CSU, Poudre School District, home owners associations (HOA), various City departments, and the Downtown Development Authority. • Website explaining the Master Plan Update – fcgov.com/stormwater-plan - 170 unique hits as of September 25. • Article in the City News flyer – included in Utility Bills to all Utilities customers directing customers to the Master Plan website • Booth at the New West Fest – direct contact with over 250 people, with several thousand people stopping to look at the booth signage • Online survey of 674 citizens about general stormwater issues within the City, including water quality and stream restoration • Facebook update directing City followers to the Master Plan website • Twitter update directing City followers to the Master Plan website The conceptual BMP alternatives were presented for initial public review and input through a series of Focus Group meetings in summer 2011. Representatives from City departments, homeowners associations, management companies for existing BMP facilities, large businesses and institutions (i.e., Colorado State University), and interested citizen groups (i.e., Save the Poudre). The future public outreach process for the individual stormwater quality and stream restoration projects identified in the Master Plan Update will include the following elements; • Project-specific meetings and/or Open Houses for affected stakeholders such as HOAs, individual property owners, City departments, and interested organizations • Website explaining the individual project, the project schedule, and ways for the public to provide feedback and comments • Mailers to potentially affected stakeholders informing them of Open House times and topics • Ongoing social media updates The projects will be presented and discussed with all affected parties through a collaborative outreach process where all participants will be allowed the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback and potentially affect the final design of the project. A Public Engagement Plan, which details the current and ongoing outreach process for the update and for future projects, is included as Attachment 5. The Public Engagement Plan was submitted to City Council for review in June 2012. In an online Stormwater survey conducted by Fort Collins Utilities in August 2012, over 90% of the 674 respondents indicated that protecting and improving water quality is important to them. The reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff was ranked second in importance only second to maintaining existing stormwater infrastructure. 75% of November 6, 2012 -6- ITEM 20 respondents also felt that the City’s streams have become more polluted over the last 20 years. Fort Collins Utilities will use the results of the survey to guide and inform our future public outreach efforts regarding the specific projects identified within the Master Plan Update. ATTACHMENTS 1. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Selected Plans for 11 Drainage Basins 2. Stream Rehabilitation Project Prioritization Results (MCDA Tool) 3. Excerpt from Draft Water Board Meeting Minutes 4. Draft Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 5. Public Engagement Plan • h ‘ cL r Legend Canal Importation Basin WQ Not Evaluated Water Drains Into Irrigation System Proposed BMP Basin Type Proposed Water Quality Pond Proprietary Mechanical BMP Flood Control and Water Quality Flood Control Only Water Quality Only 4’ Proposed Improvement 1 Undeveloped Area Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements I i Village West Pond Retrofit Existing Pond to accomodate Water Quality Volume .—;- ri ,, ‘ ! 1, —• Outlet To Accomodate Water Qualfty Volume Pond ; Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements . 4’ -I f Proposed Wallenberg Pond Construct Pond to accomodate j Water Quality Volume Manchester Pond Construct Proprietary Mechanical BMP at pond outlet. CD r L’ •‘ Cityof CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 ANdERSoN CoNsulTiNq ENqiNEERS, INC. Fort ColLins MANAGEMENT I Civil Water Resources • Environmental p ROPOSED CON D IT I ON S BMP MAP Feet S Attachment 1 - Page 1 —V b?’” —jProposedStreamRest ___-—‘ Habitat Improvements A Proposed Stream Restoration and - Habitat Improvements on and .4), : a’ .• City of COOPER SLOUGH BASIN ANdERSON CoNsuLTiNq ENqINEERs, INC. Fort ColLins PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION • W -E I Water Resources • Environmental AN D HAB I TAT I M PROVEMENTS Legend Cooper Slough Subbasins Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 S Feet Attachment 1 - Page 2 Dry Creek Master Plan Water Quality Conceptual Alternatives TerryLake Road Pond Ratio fit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality. Volume : ) TArry L.A. Pheasant Rige Pond Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume ‘i . F,, • . IA’ I I Lindenmeier Lake Water Quality Treatment provided in Existing Lindenmeler Lake Spalding Lane Pond a Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Waler Quality Volume • ‘. •.-• .• •4 .. •-•-•‘ L /1 ‘i Proposed Adriel Hills Pond • Buyout Property and place Water Quality Pond - I ,i. I , Dry Creek Basin Boundary Proposed BMP Basin Type ECCO Regional Water [Quality Pond .- * I, ““ •Qi -,i ,‘ *I•-’• ,• .• -i;- — I Y c 4 -• ‘AYREs ASSOCIATES D1C3 Channel nprovements Flood Control Only FOOTHILLS BASIN Master Plan Water Quality Concepetual Alternatives I : sç 1! - ., .--- ., Lake . Waler Sherwood Quality Treatment A. provided In Existing Lake Sherwood :: ‘2 •,l• /_ Soulhmoor Village Pond • Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume .1 : :T. 5.- ts ‘i 4 L.k, Sherwood : -1 i11 . C a — t r:, . -7 1 • . . I . ,.c .. • r- . —. •h .r.’ Wev$!—.._ Foothills Basin Boundary Proposed BMP Basin Type Wince L.ke Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Flood Control and Water Quality HhSchooiPondj Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality I . -. - I Volume Collindale PUn Pond L —. • Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality - - J Proposed Improvements None 4 Proposed Conceptual Water Quality Alternatives Proposed Water Quality Pond Undeveloped Area 4 _‘;- : - , Fossil Creek Basin Proposed BMP Basin Type Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Flood Control and Water Quality r Proposed Improvements 4; Proposed Selected Plan Water Quality Alternatives . Ditch Diversion Natural Area Proposed Stream Restoration .d. and Habitat Improvements -_ .i. City of Fort CoLLins Er1GIr1EJIrlG, IhC Fossil Creek Basin Selected Plan - Water Quality Improvements V.] 1: E HARMONY RD r IL ‘, -v BrookwoodlApplewooel E,tge Pond it Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume - NMD, LCC #2 Canal Diversion System (Via Mall Creek Ditch) ;•t _. Doo Meadow Pond New Pond for Water Quality VolumJ KECHTER RD Proposed St,esm P ---n - — Habitat Improvemet E TRILBY U) 1:, [ \ South Lems v/Cementer Pond L New Pond for Water Quality Volume I __--V. L ; . 1. rn E Co RD 30 Attachment 1 - Page 5 • d: •e rW 14 e. >Ivir - Woodland Park Pond • Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate [Water Quality Volume p.. ‘1 It - -4 - j. 1 ;êt. ‘4’. ii ., I —I 4 :,. . - . ,firox Meadows Pond — Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume t ,. -‘: Collindaie Golf Course -: Source Control BMPs j - ‘, .. (see reporttexl) A 0 HORSiTOOTH RD •,1 I Stone Ridge Pond - Alternative to FCRIF) location (EDit!)) —. Sunstone VIIlae Regional Pond } Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume _ ___ • I Fox Meadows Basin Proposed BMP Basin Type Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Flood Control 4 ., ( A Proposed Conceptual Water Quality Alternatives Proposed Water Quality Pond Undeveloped Area Water —“-—- Stream - Canal Parks Natural Area Proposed Stream Restor and Habitat Improvements Water Mail Creek Master Plan Quality Conceptual Plan I” :f FTroulman Pond • Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality — ‘. L Volume - _1- •.‘ .•.--, ••7--’’_ ‘ : Woodridge Pond Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume Larkborough Pond • Retrofit Existing Pond 10 accommodate Water Quality _VoIt,nm I: I T Mail Creek Basin Boundary Fairway Pond I . Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume Proposed BMP Basin Type Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Flood Control and Water Quality Proposed Improvements AYRES ASSOCIATES I None 1 0 LXJ I IXE 7 (Ill) ,.. es’- ‘ C accommodate ‘d - - Willow Springs Pond / Retmfit Existing Pond to accommodate Waler Quality Volume ] ‘44 . • - 4,; VV$ 7 4 — .V* 1 t 1i VVV-VwV •SV S -v KECHTER RD Proposed Stream Restoration 1 and Habitat improvements i V --:* - dV• V Harmony Crossing Pond 1 •--Vo Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume _J 0 V it trotit Existing Pond to accommodate - Water Quality Volume / k. - p V V L V RetrofitEXdngPondto Water Quaii Volume 19 I 1 Preston Jr High Pond V Retrofit Water Quality Existing Volume Pond to accommodate I - J 1 C z C C-) (I) (I) D - Legend Old Town Basin Proposed BMP Basin Type Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Proposed Improvements • Existing Outfall — ——— Storm/Sewer Line Stream/Canal ,‘_-. -- Propose Lemay WQ Pond • Construct Pond to accomodate Water Quality Volume - ‘s• ., .,l ‘, 1 : HowesStreetWQ • Retrofit Existing Pond to accomodate Water Quality Volume : tidal! NaturalArea ii • Retrofit Existing Ponds to accomodate Water Quality Volume 0 V . Proposed Water Quality Pond Proprietary Mechanical BMP Flood Control and Water Quality - r • ANdERsoN C0N5ULTINq ENqirlEERs, INc. Cityof OLD TOWN BASIN 0 750 1,500 3,000 Fort ColLins MANAGEMENT W E I Civil • Waler Resources • Enviromnenia/ P R OP OS ED CON D IT10N B M P MAP Feet S I 1_ I Attachment 1 - Page 9 I - —_:: Kensington Pond • Retrofit Existing Pond To Accomodate Water Quality Volume - ,_ i’-’ •‘:,•. , i.’. Proposed Centre Ave Pond • Construct Pond ToAccomodate Water Quality Volume 1 s ,. Proposed CSU Ropes Pond • Construct Pond To Accomodate Water Quality Volume -. : f Proposed Stream esrc Habitat Improvements E r - “ j_;, “V I Rossborough Park Pond • Install Water Quality Outlet To Accomodate Water Quality Volume Water Quality Volume • -• ‘-•i p L Z r,’, ç ‘,.‘ < • •_;• - = Spring Canyon Park Pond (Optional) • Retrofit Existing Pond To Accomodate Water Quality Volume -y nd I I. Ii U n:. fr c Proposed Taft and Horsetooth Pond • Construct Pond To Accomodate Water Quality Volume - Proposed Edora Pond Construct Pond To Accomodate Water Quality Volume -•.•• Hoiywood - Irish Pond Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume z.’ • L West New Vine Pond Regional for Water Pond Qualify Volume r 1-V’ z -J w > 0 • r-’” I • r ! ‘I I:. -. I 5•5 b 1:, 5 1’ HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 4 54 .5.. i Westland Pond - •New Pond for Water Quality Volume W MULBERRY ST S - •qC- ,/ • Proposed Stream Restoration -• 1s and Habitat rCanyonCreek Improvements along • . S 4 — J WestVineBasin 4 I 0 -IS -J z F U (sr Proposed BMP Basin Type if C (Q)N F$Ff CoLLins IhC. W ELIZABETH ST _q•S- 1 • •55 F — 1. S. S Overall Reach Creek Name Rank Reach Subreach Score Length (ft) Location Associated BMPs Notes Fossil 1412.9 2250 Upstream of Lemay through Fossil Park Design needs to incorporate Mail Creek 1‐1 Spring 2152.5 810 Between RR tracks and Riverside Mail 3312.5 980 Directly north of Meadow Passway Construct all proposed improvemnts in Mail Creek BMP Selected Plan* Mail 4112.3 3240 Confluence with Fossil Creek, northwest from Fossil Park Dependent on Fossil Creek 4‐1 design Fossil 5112.3 1120 Between RR tracks and Trilby Rd Spring 6 Remove Edora Dam 2.2 NA Along north side of Edora Park, west of Riverside Ave Spring 7162.2 780 Between Riverside Ave and Edora Dam Construct new Edora Park Pond Should be constructed at same time as Edora Dam removal. Spring 8322.1 1040 Directly west of Lemay Ave Fossil 9212.0 1880 North of Trilby Rd partway through Paragon Point open space Construct new WQ Pond in Prairie Dog Meadow NA Spring 10 Reconnect to Poudre 1.9 NA From confluence with Poudre River through Cattail Chorus NA Fossil 11 9 1 1.9 2130 From Applewood Estates pond through neighborhood to Shields Fossil 12 8 1 1.8 2020 From RR tracks through open space to Applewood Estates pond Stanton 13 1 1 1.8 4630 From confluence with Fossil Creek to Carpenter Rd Construct new WQ Pond at Lemay Ave and Carpenter Road Mail 14 2 1 1.8 1370 Between Mail Creek Ln and Meadow Passway Boxelder 15 3 3 1.8 1180 Directly west of I‐25 crossing Will need to be completed in conjunction with Boxelder Regional improvements. Fossil 16 3 1 1.8 1130 Runs southeast partly through the gold course Reach is through the golf course Spring 17 5 1 1.8 1590 Just east of Stover St to just southwest of Stuart St Retrofit Woodwest Detention Pond and Retrofit CSU Vet Hospital Pond* Spring 18 1 4 1.7 870 Between Timberline Rd detention Pond and RR tracks Fossil 19 3 2 1.7 1210 From Lemay Ave southeast partly through the golf course Reach is through the golf course Overall Reach Creek Name Rank Reach Subreach Score Length (ft) Location Associated BMPs Notes Spring 26 4 1 1.6 1550 Just west of Lemay Ave to just east of Stover St Boxelder 27 6 1 1.6 1330 Through private property south of Vine Dr Spring 28 2 1 1.5 1070 Between Edora Dam and Welch St Should be designed and possibly constructed at same time as Edora Dam removal. Spring 29 1 3 1.5 1180 Between Prospect Rd and Timberline Rd Foothills 30 1 1 1.5 1470 Between confluence with FCRID and Chase Dr McClellands 31 7 1 1.5 From White Willow Dr west through HOA open space Retrofit Willow Springs Pond Mail 32 3 2 1.5 1490 From Fairway Estates dam south through HOA open space Retrofit Fairway Estates Pond This reach is tied to the proposed flow control on Fairway Dam McClellands 33 6 1 1.5 Through Stetson Creek HOA open space Primarliy land management issues Burns 34 1 1 1.4 1780 From confluence with Fossil Creek north to Shields St Boxelder 35 3 1 1.4 2860 Directly north of Prospect Rd through provate property Will need to be completed in conjunction with Boxelder Regional improvements Fossil 36 6 1 1.4 2410 Through HOA open space along Fossil Creek Pkwy Foothills 37 2 1 1.4 1530 Between Chase Dr and Rigden Pkwy Retrofit Fort Collins High School Pond Primarliy land management issues Boxelder 38 1 4 1.4 Through open space south of Prospect Rd Coordinate with Natural Areas McClellands 39 3 1 1.4 1250 Between Ziegler Rd and Corbett Dr through HOA open space Retrofit Preston Junior High School Pond Coordinate with HOA for drop structure improvements Spring 40 3 1 1.4 1600 Between Welch St and Lemay Ave Spring 41 5 2 1.4 1890 From just SW of Stuart St to RR tracks west of College Retrofit Kensington Pond and Construct new Centre Ave Pond* McClellands 42 4 1 1.3 630 Between Corbett Dr and Rabbit Creek Rd through HOA open space Retrofit Harmony Crossing Pond Overall Reach Creek Name Rank Reach Subreach Score Length (ft) Location Associated BMPs Notes Boxelder 51 1 1 1.2 1770 From confluence with Poudre River north adjacent to BE Sanitation USGS gage location, Coordinate with Natural Areas Boxelder 52 6 3 1.2 1450 Through private property south of Vine Dr McClellands 53 5 1 1.2 2200 Through private property SE of Stetson Creek neighborhood Dependent on McClellands Reach 5‐2 and outfall from Kechter Crossing Spring 54 1 2 1.2 580 Through open space directly north pf Prospect Rd Boxelder 55 5 3 1.1 1880 Through private property north of Mulberry St Boxelder 56 6 2 1.0 1460 Through private property south of Vine Dr Clearview 57 1 1 1.0 360 Between Avery Park pond and Castlerock Dr Foothills 58 3 B 0.7 From Horsetooth Rd NE through HOA property to Power Trail Retrofit Southmoor Village Pond Clearview 59 3 D 0.6 Between Taft Hill Rd and Hillcrest Dr Foothills 60 2 C 0.6 Between Rigden Pkwy and Power Trail Retrofit Collindale PUD Pond and Retrofit Parkwood East Pond* 3 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 20, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Stormwater Master Plan Update (Attachments available upon request). Stormwater and Floodplain Manager Ken Sampley introduced the item and introduced Stormwater Master Planning Manager Mark Kempton. Mr. Kempton began the presentation by discussing the key results that will be achieved by updating the Master Plan. These include integrating flood control and water quality projects into one comprehensive plan, a prioritized listing of stream rehabilitation projects, and a prioritized listing of retrofitted stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) projects. The Master Plan was originally presented to the Water Board in January, and again in April. It was presented at a City Council Work Session in April. Staff has also presented it to the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB). The Master Plan Updates will be finalized using data, information, and results from two separate program efforts: Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plans and the Stream Restoration and Stability Study. Mr. Kempton showed a map outlining the Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plan for different areas of the City. He also presented a map showing the proposed Canal Importation (CI) Basin Management for the Village West Pond. The proposed BMPs include excavating the pond and providing a new water quality outlet, maintaining the existing pond invert, and moving and/or replanting trees. This requires close interaction with affected neighbors. A board member expressed concern about potential flooding in the area as it relates to the Horsetooth Dams. Mr. Kempton stated the ponds would be inundated and have no flood attenuation effects in the unlikely event of a Horsetooth dam break. He also stated it is not staff’s intent to remove all existing trees and vegetation for existing pond areas, but to work closely with adjacent property owners to save and/or relocate as many trees as possible within the pond footprint. Mr. Kempton presented the goal for the Stream Restoration and Stability Study: Prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work on 10 streams within the City of Fort Collins in coordination with the Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plans. Mr. Kempton identified some problems that resulted from the study, including obstacles to fish passage and erosion problems. Erosion problems are present with Clearview Channel, Fossil Creek near Lemay Avenue, Spring Creek, and Stanton Creek. Irrigation flows are transported through several of the City’s natural streams. These drastically alter the natural flow regime – high, sustained flows cause erosion. Diversion structures and dams impede fish passage and habitat connectivity. Mr. Kempton presented information on the Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool. This is used to assess and prioritize stream rehabilitation and associated BMP projects. This provides a meaningful way to prioritize projects, and rates the importance of environment, social, and economic benefits to the project. The MCDA Working Group consisted of Utilities, Natural Resources, Sustainability, Planning, and a member of the Natural Resources Advisory Board. ATTACHMENT 3 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Completion of the MCDA Tool included videos of each stream reach linked in Google Earth and a three hour field visit to representative reaches. 12 people evaluated 17 miles of stream in three separate meetings. The top four results from the MCDA Tool include: Fossil Creek west of Lemay Avenue Mail Creek by Werner Elementary School Spring Creek just east of Riverside Avenue Mail Creek near Fossil Creek Mr. Kempton presented before and after pictures from the stream restoration project on McClellands Creek during April and August 2012. Mr. Kempton presented information on the Public Outreach Process. This included a booth at New West Fest, Facebook and Twitter updates, a website (www.fcgov.com/stormwater-plan), and Utility bill mailers. Mr. Kempton outlined the Funding Considerations for the project. These include Flood Control Projects currently identified and funded using existing stormwater fees. Currently there is no dedicated stormwater funding source for Stream Rehabilitation/BMP projects. Mr. Kempton presented the Project Schedule: July – September 2012 (Public Outreach) August 2012 (Complete stream rehabilitation prioritization using the MCDA tool) September 2012 (Present results to NRAB and Water Board) November 2012 (Present results to City Council) 2013/2014 (Implement stream restoration and/or BMP projects) Next steps in the process include developing a new Stream Restoration Program. This includes Public Outreach, Irrigation Flow Management, Design, Capital Projects, Monitoring, Maintenance, and Planning and Zoning. The new program also includes vegetation management and riparian buffer standards. Staff recommends approval of the Stormwater Master Plan Update. Highlights from the discussion: A board member expressed appreciation for staff’s efforts on the project. The board member is impressed with the work completed thus far. A board member expressed concern about the amount identified for restoration and BMPs. The board member questioned if other departments will share in the maintenance costs. Mr. Haukaas stated staff will leverage funds where they can, such as partnering with Natural Areas or Homeowner Associations. Grant funding is also a possibility. The estimated numbers are based on today’s priorities and needs. More specific project details will come later and will be adjusted after bonds are paid and debt is reduced. A board member questioned the cost for a rehabilitated stream reach. Mr. Kempton stated this depends on the design. Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Mr. Sampley stated the item will be presented to Council on November 6, 2012. He encouraged members of the Water Board to attend. Board Member Brunswig moved that the Water Board recommend approval and adoption of the Stormwater Master Plan Update. Board Member Eccleston seconded the motion. ATTACHMENT 4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT TITLE: STORMWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE – STREAM RESTORATION AND STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LEAD: UTILITIES ‐ STORMWATER MASTER PLANNING OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Variable depending on Phase BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Does the public and directly affected parties agree with the stream restoration and stormwater quality goals and methods outlined in the master plan update? KEY STAKEHOLDERS: Fort Collins residents, HOAs, Poudre School District, CSU, Larimer County, various City of Fort Collins Departments, irrigation ditch companies, and private landowners. TIMELINE: June 2012‐June 2017 and on through the implementation of all master plans in 2050 ‐ ongoing until initial projects are completed over a 5‐year period PHASE 1: Inform Timeframe: June‐August 2012 Key Messages: Inform City residents and other governmental entities about the proposed update to the stormwater master plan including: o Effects of urbanization – increased stormwater runoff can result in life‐safety risks, damage to public and private property, erosion and impacts on waterways and natural areas, pollution of creeks and the Poudre River; o Original Stormwater Master Plans (circa 2003) focused primarily on flood control projects that addressed life‐safety and reduced property damage; o Increased emphasis in last 10 years (including Federal Mandates) on quality of stormwater runoff and its impact on rivers, creeks, water supply, etc. and why it is important to have healthy streams; o Key Updated master plan elements include; Maintain original listing of flood control projects Identified stream reaches that need to be restored Identified locations where BMPs are needed to improve stormwater quality (i.e. existing stormwater detention pond areas to be retrofitted to capture pollutants and provide water quality treatment) No increase in stormwater fees proposed Developed proposed multi‐pronged funding approach for CIP portion of stormwater fees 20% of CIP funds for opportunity projects 64% of CIP funds for flood control projects (and associated BMP retrofits) 16% of CIP funds for restoration of stream reaches (and associated BMP retrofits) o Restore streams to provide quality wildlife habitat and stable stream banks o Address irrigation ditch flows in the streams that cause bank erosion and degrade wildlife habitat o Address public safety issues such as high, steep banks and eroding culverts or bridges. 1 ATTACHMENT 5 Tools and Techniques Public open houses Focus Group meetings Web & fcgov.com Social media News releases Utility bill insert City Works program PHASE 2: Involve/Collaborate Timeframe: January 2013 – December 2017 Key Messages: Same as Phase 1 and how can we mitigate impacts to affected property owners while still achieving the stream restoration and stormwater quality goals of the individual projects Prioritized listing of CIP projects (flood control with BMP retrofits, stream restoration with BMP retrofits, opportunity/city development/adequate public facilities) and proposed funding Estimated timeframes, milestones for the first 3‐5 years Tools and Techniques Individual meetings with affected property owners regarding the proposed projects Neighborhood open houses PHASE 3: Inform Timeframe: January 2013 – December 2017 Key Messages: Continue to inform and remind city residents about the ongoing implementation of the original stormwater master plan, the water quality and stream restoration update to the master plan and inform residents about the general functions and benefits of the Stormwater Department. Prioritized listing of CIP projects (flood control with BMP retrofits, stream restoration with BMP retrofits, opportunity/city development/adequate public facilities) and proposed funding Estimated timeframes, milestones for the first 3‐5 years Maintain overall listing of total stormwater CIP project needs, Tools and Techniques Same as Phase 1 New flood markers along Spring Creek and the Cache la Poudre River New signage along restored sections of stream explaining the functions and benefits of the stream corridors Highlighting stream restoration success stories in City News and on the City website 2 ORDINANCE NO. 125, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 26-543 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO UPDATE THE STORMWATER MASTER DRAINAGE PLANS TO INCLUDE BASIN-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND STREAM RESTORATION WHEREAS, Section 26-543 of the City Code adopted a master drainage plan for drainage basins in and affecting the City, to be used as the basis for City storm drainage capital improvements planning and determinations related to storm drainage impacts and requirements for developments in the city; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2010, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 030, 2010, amending Section 26-492 of the City Code so as to declare that the purpose of the City Stormwater Utility is to provide an integrated, sustainable stormwater management program that reflects the community’s values of protecting and restoring the City’s watersheds, including the Cache la Poudre River and its tributaries; and WHEREAS, the environmental benefits identified in Section 26-492 include preserving the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, enhancing stormwater quality, and preserving riparian habitat; and WHEREAS, in order to identify areas in which stormwater quality and stream improvements are needed to promote these benefits, and identify opportunities to incorporate such improvements into existing and future flood control projects, City staff has completed extensive analysis and assessment of these concerns in cooperation with Colorado State University; and WHEREAS, based on such review, staff has prepared for Council consideration basin- specific water quality best management practices and stream restoration and stability improvements in the form of updates to the existing City drainage master plan (the “2012 Updates”), and WHEREAS, the conceptual basis for the 2012 Updates was presented to the Council for consideration at its work session on April 24, 2012, and staff has incorporated the input provided by the Council at that time in the 2012 Updates; and WHEREAS, the 2012 Updates were presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Board (“NRAB”) on September 19, 2012, and at that time the NRAB voted unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt them; and WHEREAS, the 2012 Updates were also presented to the Water Board on September 20, 2012, and at that time the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt them; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2012 Updates will promote the purposes of the Stormwater Utility and advance the holistic and integrated management of stormwater in Fort Collins. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 26-543(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-543. Master drainage plans. (a) Master drainage plans are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Article for the following stormwater basins of the City: (1) McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan Update, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated November 2000 and revised March 2003. (2) East Harmony Portion of McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan Update, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated August 1999 and revised July 2001. (3) Foothills Basin, prepared by URS Corporation, Inc., dated April 2003. (4) Dry Creek Master Plan, prepared by URS Corporation, Inc., dated December 2002. (5) West Vine Master Plan, prepared by URS Corporation Inc., dated November 2002. (6) Spring Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated June 2003. (7) Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Master Drainageway Planning Restudy, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated February 2003. (8) Old Town Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated September 2003. (9) Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan Update, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated December 2002 and revised February 2003. (10) Mail Creek Master Plan, prepared by URS Corporation, Inc., dated April 2003. (11) Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan, prepared by Ayres Associates, Inc., dated August 2001. (12) Boxelder/Cooper Slough Basin, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated December 2002 and revised November 2003. -2- (13) Canal Importation Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 2001. (14) Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan, prepared by PBS&J, Inc., dated October 2006. (1) Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough Basin: a.. Boxelder/Cooper Slough Basin, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated December 2002 and revised November 2003; b. Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan, prepared by PBS&J, Inc., dated October 2006; and c. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 2012. (2) Cache la Poudre River Basin: a. Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan, prepared by Ayres Associates, Inc., dated August 2001. (3) Canal Importation Basin: a. Canal Importation Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 2001; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Canal Importation Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 2012. (4) Dry Creek Basin: a. Dry Creek Master Plan, prepared by URS Corporation, Inc., dated December 2002; b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Dry Creek Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Ayres Associates, dated October 2012. (5) Foothills Basin: a. Foothills Basin, prepared by URS Corporation, Inc., dated April 2003; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Foothills Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Ayres Associates, dated October 2012. (6) Fossil Creek Basin: -3- a. Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Master Drainageway Planning Restudy, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated February 2003; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Fossil Creek Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated October 2012. (7) Fox Meadows Basin: a. Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan Update, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated December 2002 and revised February 2003; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Fox Meadows Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated October 2012. (8) Mail Creek Basin: a. Mail Creek Master Plan, prepared by URS Corporation, Inc., dated April 2003; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Mail Creek Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Ayres Associates, dated October 2012. (9) McClellands Creek Basin: a. McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan Update, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated November 2000 and revised March 2003; b. East Harmony Portion of McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan Update, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated August 1999 and revised July 2001; and c. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the McClellands Creek Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc., dated October 2012. (10) Old Town Basin: a. Old Town Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated September 2003; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Old Town Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 2012. (11) Spring Creek Basin: a. Spring Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated June 2003; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the Spring Creek Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, -4- prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 2012. (12) West Vine Basin: a. West Vine Master Plan, prepared by URS Corporation Inc., dated November 2002; and b. Stormwater Quality and Stream Restoration Update to the West Vine Basin Stormwater Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Mark Sears Tawnya Ernst, Donnie Dustin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned Property Known as the Maxwell Farm and Related Water Rights Subject to a Conservation Easement and Authorizing a Related Raw Water Transfer Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Natural Areas Department (NAD) purchased the 137-acre Maxwell Farm, along with 12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water, with the intent of placing it under a conservation easement to help conserve a buffer between Fort Collins and Wellington; protect the open space and scenic values adjacent to I-25; and, sell it as an agricultural property with limited development rights. These purposes are supported by the Natural Areas Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan, the Council-adopted master plan for the Department. The land has been leased to Larry Maxwell, the previous owner, for farming and livestock feeding since the initial purchase in 2009. Natural Areas and Utilities have worked out an agreement for the NAD to sell eleven of the twelve NPIC shares to Utilities for approximately 50% of the estimated market value, which is $14,000 per share (based on recent sales information from NPIC). In exchange, Utilities will enter into a raw water transfer agreement with the buyer of Maxwell Farm, and per the terms of the agreement, Utilities will transfer the equivalent of eleven shares of NPIC water on an annual basis to the Maxwell Farm in perpetuity. The advantage to Utilities is that water decreed solely for agricultural use derived from other Utilities-owned NPIC shares, can be substituted for water decreed for municipal use derived from the eleven NPIC shares, which Utilities can use. The buyer will purchase the remaining share of NPIC water as it is a NPIC policy that a farm must own at least some NPIC water in order to receive any rented or transferred water. The single NPIC share to be owned by the buyer will also be tied to the land by the conservation easement agreement. The funds received from the sale of the land and water will be used to conserve additional land and water. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Maxwell Farm, near County Road 56 and I-25 (approximately two miles north of Fort Collins), is one of 10 farms conserved in the Wellington Community Separator through individual and combined efforts of the NAD, Larimer County and the Natural Resources Conservation Service since 2002. The seller, Larry Maxwell, was not willing or able to sell a conservation easement, so NAD purchased the property with the intent to resell the property with a conservation easement to limit residential or commercial development on the site. The water rights acquired are 3 augmented irrigation wells, 12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company Water, and one East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) water tap. The site improvements consist of an irrigation sprinkler pivot, a house, numerous out buildings, hay storage sheds, silage pit, loafing sheds and corrals that are in poor to fair condition. In October 2012, NAD closed on the purchase of Larry Maxwell’s house (0.83 acre parcel) which is surrounded on two sides by the farm and an additional ELCO water tap for $130,000 to resolve access and water service issues. This purchase will save the City in excess of $35,000 in costs to resolve access and water service issues and increased the value of the farm sale by $100,000, resulting in a net cost savings to the City and increased conservation value. Within the existing approximately 12-acre building envelope, there will be two primary home sites and one secondary home site. Staff recommends that Council approve the sale of the entire Maxwell property with a conservation easement, which restricts any further development, along with the following water rights: two ELCO water taps, one share of North Poudre Irrigation water, which is tied to the land via the conservation easement, and three irrigation wells. The partial mineral rights are to be retained by the City. Staff recommends that Council approve both the sale to Utilities of eleven of the twelve NPIC shares purchased with this property for approximately 50% of the estimated market value and the Raw Water Transfer Agreement for the perpetual use of 11 shares of North Poudre Irrigation water. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 21 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Natural Areas Department will recoup $700,000 from the sale of the property and $154,000 from the sale of the NPIC shares to Utilities. The total $854,000 in revenues will be used for additional conservation efforts.. The approximate fair market price of $700,000 for the sale of this agricultural land and its improvements with a conservation easement is based upon recent land appraisals in the area and discussions with an appraiser who recently appraised three nearby farms for the NAD. The land and water rights were acquired for $1,530,000 in two separate transactions: 136 acres and NPIC water in 2009 and 0.83 acres in 2012. The cost to conserve the 137 acres by removing the potential industrial, commercial and all but two residential development rights and tying the water rights to the property is $676,000. The economic health of Fort Collins and northern Larimer County will be positively impacted by this sale. The buyer is a local farmer/rancher and conducts business in and around Fort Collins. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The conservation easement will conserve the agricultural values of the property and scenic values along I-25, and help maintain the open space buffer between the City and Wellington. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its September 12, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the sale of the Maxwell Farm with a conservation easement and the associated water rights. At its January 19, 2012 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the purchase of the 11 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company water from the Natural Areas Department at approximately 50% of the current value and to approve the Raw Water Transfer Agreement for the purpose of delivering water annually to the Maxwell Farm as a part of a conservation easement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, September 12, 2012 3. Water Board minutes, January 19, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 2 Maxwell Farm Conservation Easement Water Use Agreement (Attachments available upon request). Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnik introduced the item and stated it was presented at the October 2011 Water Board meeting. In 2009, the Natural Areas program purchased Maxwell Farm along with 12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water with the intent of placing a conservation easement on the farm. Utilities will purchase a portion of the shares from Natural Areas and provide agriculture (ag) water as part of a Raw Water Transfer Agreement. The price of the NPIC shares has increased slightly and staff is seeking the board’s approval of the higher price. Board discussion: For the benefit of the new members, Vice Chairperson Balderson requested a short explanation of a conservation easement. Natural Areas Program Manager Mark Sears stated that a conservation easement removes a portion of the development rights on a piece of property. Natural Areas would like to restrict development on the site and allow for future development of agricultural related structures, as they would like it to remain a viable farm in the future. Mr. Sears stated that a fixed price was presented at the October meeting. Currently, there is a price range of $12,000 to $16,000 per share. The price presented to Council will be within this range. How is the price set? NPIC tracks the market value of the shares. For the benefit of the new members, a board member asked for clarification on the difference between agricultural water and multiple use water. Ms. Smolnik stated the NPIC shares have three components. The early ag and seasonal ag components of the share must remain for use within the NPIC system. The Multiple Use component of the share is comprised of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water. This water is available for municipalities to use. Both parties benefit because Utilities will purchase the shares at half price and in exchange, an equivalent amount of water will be provided back to Maxwell Farm as part of the conservation easement. Does this model only work if one department within the City is selling to another department within the City? Also, would this model work outside of the Natural Areas Program? Ms. Smolnik stated this is something that could be considered. Do ag users rely on CBT water during low flow years? Ms. Smolnik stated they do. Utilities would substitute the ag portion from more of the Utilities’ owned shares to make up the difference. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Board Member Eccleston moved that the Water Board support the Utilities proposed purchase of eleven shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company water from the Natural Areas Program at approximately 50 percent of the current value and to support the Utilities entering into a Raw Water Transfer Agreement for the purpose of delivering water annually to Maxwell Farm as part of a conservation easement. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. Water Board 1/19/12 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 126, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MAXWELL FARM AND RELATED WATER RIGHTS SUBJECT TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING A RELATED RAW WATER TRANSFER AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain real property known as the Maxwell Farm, located in Larimer County, Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City purchased 136 acres of the Property, including twelve shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water, in 2009, and the remaining .83 acres of the Property in October, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property as part of the Wellington Community Separator and to protect the view from I-25, with the intent of eventually selling the Property subject to a conservation easement that would maintain the agricultural and open space values of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Department is proposing to sell the Property and related water rights, including two ELCO water taps, one share of NPIC water and three irrigations wells, for $700,000, subject to a reserved conservation easement that would limit future commercial and residential development on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Department is also proposing to sell the remaining eleven shares of NPIC water associated with the Property to the City’s Water Utility for $154,000, which price is approximately one-half of the fair market value of the shares; and WHEREAS, in exchange for the conveyance of the NPIC shares to the Utility, the Utility would enter into an agreement with the proposed buyer of the Property that would allow the NPIC shares to continue to be used for the benefit of the Property in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, City staff is in the process of negotiating with the proposed buyer of the Property conservation easement terms and conditions subject to which the Property would be conveyed, as well as the terms and conditions of the water agreement; and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed conservation easement and the proposed water agreement, both dated October 26, 2012, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (respectively, the “Conservation Easement” and the “Raw Water Transfer Agreement”); and WHEREAS, under the proposed Raw Water Transfer Agreement the owner of the Property would be responsible for paying any assessments and other charges due to NPIC for the eleven shares of NPIC water delivered to the Property, but the owner would not have to pay any fees or charges to the City for use of the water; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 3 of the City Charter states that the City Council shall establish by ordinance rates, fees or charges for water, electricity or other utility services furnished by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement and the conveyance of eleven shares of NPIC water to the Water Utility in exchange for the execution of the Raw Water Transfer Agreement, all as provided herein, are in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Property on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance and subject to the Conservation Easement in substantially the form for the same dated October 26, 2012, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary corrections to the legal description of the Property, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property to be conveyed. Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds that the execution of the Raw Water Transfer Agreement is for the betterment of the Water Utility, will be beneficial to the rate payers of the Water Utility, and is for the benefit of the citizens of Fort Collins. Section 4. That the Utilities Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the Raw Water Transfer Agreement in substantially the form for the same dated October 26, 2012, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, together with such additional terms and conditions as the Utilities Executive Director, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- Page 1 of 2 General Warranty Deed Maxwell Farm Legal Description PARCEL I: THE N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EXCEPT A STRIP OF LAND OFF THE WEST END OF SAID LAND AND BEING 25 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PARCELS OF LAND AS CONVEYED BY DEEDS RECORDED JUNE 29, 1949 IN BOOK 877 AT PAGE 28, RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1965 IN BOOK 1276 AT PAGE 259, AND RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1971 IN BOOK 1471 AT PAGE 674, IN THE RECORDS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL II: THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; EXCEPTING THOSE PARCELS OF LAND AS CONVEYED BY DEEDS RECORDED JANUARY 11, 1909 IN BOOK 237 AT PAGE 256, NOVEMBER 16, 1911 IN BOOK 304 AT PAGE 390, SEPTEMBER 28, 1917 IN BOOK 359 AT PAGE 501, JANUARY 10, 1918 IN BOOK 364 AT PAGE 99, MAY 26, 1949 IN BOOK 874 AT PAGE 177, AND JANUARY 7, 1965 IN BOOK 1276 AT PAGE 259 IN THE RECORDS OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL III: A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6 TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER AS BEARING NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 25 WHICH POINT BEARS SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES WEST 233.01 FEET FROM THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16 AND RUNS THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES EAST 131.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY Page 2 of 2 General Warranty Deed 25; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 277.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 131.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 275.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Mark Sears Tawnya Ernst AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned Property Known as the Vangbo Property Subject to a Conservation Easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Vangbo Property was purchased by the Natural Areas Department (NAD) in 2005 with the intent to place a conservation easement on the property to conserve the open space and scenic values along the I-25 corridor and then sell it as an agricultural property with limited development options. These purposes are supported by the Natural Areas Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan, the Council-adopted master plan for the Department. The land is currently leased to Alison Person, a neighboring landowner, for grazing. Staff recommends selling the 105-acre Vangbo property and associated ditch and water rights with a reserved conservation easement to Alison Person for $300,000. The conservation easement does not allow any future development, but does give the landowner the option to request the purchase of one building envelope on the property from a future City Council. The undeveloped portion would remain in agricultural use. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The 105-acre Vangbo Property, located on the east side of I-25 near Prospect Road, was purchased in 2005. At the time, the property was identified as part of the Timnath Community Separator and was also selected for conservation to protect the view from I-25. The seller resided out of state and had no interest in selling the City a conservation easement, so Natural Areas purchased the property with the intent to resell the property with a conservation easement placed on it to limit commercial and residential development on the site. The property has been historically used for irrigated agriculture and is currently a smooth brome grass pasture/hay field with a few scattered cottonwood trees and a large wet meadow. Irrigation infrastructure exists to irrigate the property via the Sand Dike Lateral. The property has one irrigation well and four shares of Sand Dike Ditch Rights. The City intends to include a 1/2 share of Lake Canal Reservoir water rights in the sale to enable Ms. Person to rent more water which will help sustain the vegetation on the site. These water and ditch rights are of nominal financial value but are beneficial for maintaining the agricultural uses on the property. This property was being leased by Ms. Person as a pasture and hay field to help support her commercial horse stable prior to NAD's purchase of the property. NAD has continued leasing the property to Ms. Person since 2005. Also in 2005, NAD acquired a conservation easement from Ms. Person on her 35-acre horse stable property. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The sale of this property will generate $300,000 in revenue which will be used to conserve additional land and water. The sale price is the approximate fair market sale price of this agricultural land and its minor improvements with a conservation easement that precludes all development. The value is based upon recent land appraisals of similar properties and discussions with an appraiser who recently appraised a similar conservation easement for NAD. This land was purchased in 2005 for $1,417,500; the cost to conserve this 105 acres by removing the potential residential and commercial development rights from this I-25 frontage road property is $1,117,500. The economic health of Fort Collins and northern Larimer County will be positively influenced by this sale. The Vangbo property will continue to be an integral part of the successful operation of the Mountain View Stables, a popular local horse boarding stable owned by Ms. Person. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 22 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The conservation easement will conserve the agricultural and scenic values along I-25. The property will continue to be irrigated, hayed and grazed using a managed rotational system that will allow periods of rest from grazing to promote the regrowth of vegetation and to protect the wet meadow. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its September 12, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the sale of the Vangbo Property and associated ditch/water rights to Ms. Person. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, September 12, 2012 E PROSPECT RD SE FRONTAGE RD INTERSTATE 25 SB INTERSTATE 25 NB SW FRONTAGE RD MCLAUGHLIN LN EXIT 268 SE ENTER 268 SW MEADOWAIRE DR ARBEE LN UNNAMED 100214 SW FRONTAGE RD City Limits © Growth Management Area Parcels 1 inch = 750 feet CITY OF Vangbo FORT Property COLLINS 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,50F0eet ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE VANGBO PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain real property known as the Vangbo Property, located in Larimer County, Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property, which is approximately 105 acres in size, was purchased in 2005 by the City’s Natural Areas Department as part of the Timnath Community Separator and to protect the view from I-25, with the intent of eventually selling the Property subject to a conservation easement that would maintain the agricultural value of the Property; and WHEREAS, Natural Areas staff is proposing to sell the Property and related water rights, including the McLaughlin Well, four shares of Sand Dike Ditch rights, and a one-half share of Lake Canal Reservoir rights, for $300,000, subject to a reserved conservation easement that would limit future commercial and residential development on the Property; and WHEREAS, City staff is in the process of negotiating with the proposed buyer of the Property conservation easement terms and conditions subject to which the Property would be conveyed; and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed conservation easement, dated October 26, 2012, is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (the “Conservation Easement”); and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Vangbo Property subject to the Conservation Easement as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Property on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance and subject to the Conservation Easement in substantially the form for the same dated October 26, 2012, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary corrections to the legal description of the Property, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk RET Form Version 3/16/07 - 13 - Vangbo Property Legal Description DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement on City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC is planning a 39.53 acre residential development called Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD located just north of Bacon Elementary School on South Timberline Road. This development will require the construction of off-site stormwater outfall improvements on adjacent property to the north in order to connect with a stormwater pipe in Kechter Road. The alignment of these improvements will cross the northwest corner of a property owned by the City’s Social Sustainability Department. The City’s 16-acre property was purchased in 2006 as a Land Bank property and is currently leased as a residential/horse property. In order to facilitate the installation of the planned improvements, the developer has requested a 2,346 square foot non-exclusive drainage easement from the City in the northwest corner of the City property adjacent to Kechter Road. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Mail Creek Crossing PLD is a proposed residential development in the beginning stages of the County’s planning review process. The development will be annexed into the City after county development approval. The development, consisting of 39.53 acres, is located just north of Bacon Elementary School and south of the Kechter Crossing development on Kechter Road. To provide stormwater outfall for the development, the plans for Mail Creek Crossing PLD show a stormwater pipe extending north from the property, through the Kechter Crossing development via Tilden Street, and then connecting with a pipe in Kechter Road. The majority of the stormwater pipe will be within Tilden Street right-of-way; however, it will need to cross a portion of the City’s property to connect to a line within Kechter Road. The City property located at 2313 Kechter Road was purchased in 2006 as part the of the City’s Land Bank program. The City Real Estate Services Department manages this 16-acre property as a residential rental property until the property is ready to be developed. The location of the proposed easement is located in the northwest corner of the property which is currently used by the City’s tenant as horse pasture. The stormwater pipe to be installed on the City property consists of a 15-inch diameter pipe as approved by City Utilities staff. This pipe has been sized to accommodate additional flows when the City property develops in the future. The timing of the stormwater pipe installation corresponds with the construction of the Kechter Crossing development. Since the majority of the alignment for Mail Creek Crossing’s stormwater outfall will lie within Tilden Street, the developers for both developments have agreed to install the pipe prior to the construction of the road. This will avoid tearing up the newly constructed road improvements. After installation of the stormwater pipe is complete, the City’s property will be restored and reseeded. Affordable Housing staff has reviewed the easement request and believes that conveyance of the requested easement will not interfere with the City’s intended use of the Property as part of the Land Bank program. The size of the pipe to be installed has also been designed to accommodate future flows from the City’s property, thus avoiding the costs to upgrade the pipe when the City property develops in the future. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Real Estate Services reviewed appraisal information and sales comparable information for the City’s property to prepare a value estimate for the requested easement. The estimated just compensation for the drainage easement and fee for staff time for processing the easement request is $2,690. November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 23 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Development and Easement Location Detail 3 Site Aerial and Photograph Tilden Street ZEPHYR RD S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 RABBIT CREEK RD KECHTER RD Conveyance Easement Location of Drainage Map ± Kechter Crossing Development Location Drainage City Property Easement Boundary Location Attachment 1 Mail Creek Crossing Development Tilden Street Location Attachment 3 Site Aerial and Photograph ORDINANCE NO. 128, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY TO CLOUD PEAK RANCH, LLC WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property located at 2313 Kechter Road in Fort Collins, Colorado, identified in the County records as parcel number 86080-00-913 (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, the City Property is approximately 16 acres in size and is managed by the City’s Real Estate Services Department as part of the Land Bank Program; and WHEREAS, Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 39.53 acre development south of the City Property called Mail Creek Crossing PLD/PD (the “Development”); and WHEREAS, in order to provide stormwater drainage for the Development, the Developer is requesting a 2,346 square foot drainage easement across the City Property for the installation and maintenance of new stormwater drainage improvements (the “Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Improvements would be sized appropriately in order to sufficiently accommodate stormwater drainage flows from the Development as well as future flows from the City Property after it is developed; and WHEREAS, the proposed easement would cross a portion of the northwest corner of the City Property as shown on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and WHEREAS, the Developer has agreed to pay the City $2,690 as compensation for the Easement and for City staff’s time to process this request; and WHEREAS, City staff has not identified any negative impacts to the City Property resulting from the grant of the Easement and related work; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Easement on the City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Easement to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easement. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Jason Graham Ron Russell, Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to the Nunn Telephone Company. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nunn Telephone Company (NTC) currently provides telephone and internet services to portions of northwest Weld County and northeast Larimer County. With an increase in demand from their customers for broadband services, NTC has begun upgrading copper based telephone lines to fiber optic broadband lines. NTC has requested a utility easement from the City of Fort Collins across a portion of Meadow Springs Ranch in order to install approximately 7.0 miles of fiber optic line as part of this upgrade project. The proposed easement alignment would follow an abandoned state highway now used by the City as an access road to the City’s property. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) is owned by the City of Fort Collins and is managed by the Water Reclamation and Biosolids (WR&B) Division as a site for land application of biosolids. NTC has requested an easement for placing fiber optic cable across approximately 7.0 miles of MSR. The easement route will primarily be located 15 feet east of the centerline of abandoned Highway 87, following the shoulder of the road. The highway was abandoned by the Colorado Department of Transportation after I-25 was completed and has since been used by the City as an access road across MSR. The asphalt surface of the old highway has since deteriorated and some portions are now gravel. NTC has determined that it is unable to use its old original easements along I-25 for the new upgraded cables due to new rules regarding the separation of cables from the roadway. It was determined by the Colorado Department of Transportation that the right-of-way of I-25 was not wide enough to accommodate the new lines and comply with the new rules. NTC has also been in negotiations with property owners adjacent to I-25; however, their negotiations have been unsuccessful as the owners do not want to allow the fiber optic cable on their property. NTC feels it has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives to the proposed route. NTC is the only wireline telecommunications service provider for the customers along this route. According to NTC, other telecommunication service providers in the area include wireless carriers (AT&T and Verizon) and long-haul transport providers. The long-haul transport providers have cable that passes through the area, but do not provide service to the local homes and businesses. Installation of the fiber optic cable will involve a system of cutting narrow slots along the alignment, laying a section of cable in the slot and then replacing and compacting the soil to its previous state. There are three gullies where the cable route will deviate from the road shoulder. At one of these gullies the cable will be buried beneath the road surface. At the other two gullies, the cable route will leave the road shoulder to cross the gulley and rejoin the road on the gully’s other side. The easement alignment will also have two spurs to access neighboring properties. One spur will follow an existing ranch road and the other will cross a pasture in an area where other easements already exist. NTC will restore the areas disturbed after its work is complete. After reviewing NTC’s easement proposal and visiting a site where NTC recently installed cable, WR&B believes the easement would cause minimal lasting disturbance. City staff provided NTC with a list of terms for approval of the proposed easement which have been reviewed and accepted by NTC. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Real Estate Services reviewed value information for Meadows Springs Ranch to prepare a compensation value estimate for the requested easement. Along with the value of the easement, NTC will be required to compensate the City for staff time for processing the easement, as well as, a WR&B fee. The estimated total compensation is $6,000, November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 24 but the final compensation will be calculated prior to transfer of the easement deed, with any additional costs after the transfer of the deed being paid by NTC within 30 days. In addition, NTC will be required to restore the affected areas including fences, gates, road surfaces, and drainage. NTC has also agreed to provide the City with a connection for internet services for the headquarters building at MSR. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Utilities staff has reviewed the easement proposal from Nunn Telephone Company and found the easement will cause minimal environmental disturbance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On October 18, 2012, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council authorize the conveyance of a utility easement on the City property to Nunn Telephone Company ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2 Easement Alignment Photos 3 Gully and Spur Location Photos 4 NTC Easement Proposal 5 NTC Easement Terms 6 Excerpt of Minutes from October 18, 2012 Water Board Meeting Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2 Photos of Abandoned Highway 87 Photo 1. Highway 87 at gate to Meadow Springs Ranch. Location is approximately 0.6 miles north of Larimer County Road 92. Photo 2. Highway 87 approximately 3.8 miles north of Larimer County Road 92. Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 Photo 3. Highway 87 approximately 5.4 miles north of Larimer County Road 92. Photo 4. Highway 87 at north entrance to Meadow Springs Ranch, approximately 6.3 miles north of Larimer County Road 92. Attachment 3 Page 1 of 3 Photos Where Easement Will Leave Road Shoulder to Cross Gullies Photo 1. Approximately 1.9 miles north of Larimer County Road 92, the cable will be placed beneath the road in order to cross this gulley. Photo 2. Approximately 2.5 miles north of Larimer County Road 92, the easement will leave the road shoulder to cross this bridged gulley. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 3 Photo 3. Approximately 4.9 miles north of Larimer County Road 92, the easement will leave the road shoulder to cross a second bridged gulley. Photos of Easement Spurs Photo 1. A 0.3 mile spur of the easement will follow this road to a dwelling located on property neighboring Meadow Springs Ranch. Attachment 3 Page 3 of 3 Photo 2. A 0.2 mile spur of the easement will be routed near other easements that cross the pasture to I-25 seen in the distance. Attachment 4 Page 1 of 2 Proposal of Nunn Telephone Company to The City of Fort Collins For a Telecommunications Easement Nunn Telephone Company provides telephone and internet services to approximately 600 subscribers in northwest Weld County and a small portion of northeast Larimer County. As part of the modernization of Nunn’s telecommunications facilities, the company has been actively upgrading from copper based telephone lines to fiber optic broadband lines. The demand for broadband access to homes, businesses and government buildings has caused Nunn Telephone Company to seek out new and robust connections to neighboring companies and networks, and to provide connectivity to all homes and businesses in its service territory. Nunn Telephone Company proposes the construction of buried fiber optic cable across property belonging to the City of Fort Collins, along the route once occupied by Highway 87 from Larimer County Road 92 to the state line. Two spurs from this route will enable Nunn Telephone to reach customers in the area. As the roadbed is still usable, though rough in many areas, Nunn proposes to place the cable at the edge of the established roadway. This area was previously disturbed by the construction of the old highway and offers a route that will have a negligible impact on the appearance and uses of the surrounding lands. The construction process involves the use of a Caterpillar D9, similar to a bulldozer. The “Cat” is fitted with a steel blade, approximately 2” in width and 10 feet long. This blade is pulled into the ground, creating a narrow slot four feet deep. As the machine moves along, a plastic duct, or pipe, is placed at the bottom of the slot. The slot collapses in on itself as the machine moves forward, and smaller machines follow the cat to compact the soils back to the original state. While the plow slot is only a few inches wide, the entire process disturbs surface plants in an area the width of the Cat, about 10 ft. wide. At widely spaced intervals, typically a mile apart, a hand hole is placed along the route to enable access to the duct. Hand holes are 2 ft x 3 ft in size, and 3 ft. from top to bottom. Normally the hand hole is buried so that only the top is visible. Once the duct and hand holes are in place, fiber optic cable is pulled into the duct and spliced together. The disturbed soils are reseeded to encourage a quick recovery along the route. Once the fiber is placed in the buried duct, the need for access and maintenance is very limited. In the unlikely event that the cable is cut or damaged, the repair would involve unearthing the cable, making the repair, and restoring the site. Nunn is specifically requesting a corridor 10 ft. wide, located 15 ft. east of the centerline of the existing roadbed. Although the duct containing the cable is only 2” wide, a 10 ft. corridor is requested to allow for access by vehicle in case it is necessary to access the cable. There are two existing bridges along this route, and in these cases Nunn Telephone Company proposes to go around the bridge, placing the cable in the ground across the gullies. Attachment 4 Page 2 of 2 Nunn Telephone Company’s objectives are to provide connections to several customers with homes or businesses along I-25, and to reach other networks at the stateline. The existing customers are currently served with old technology using copper telephone cable. Nunn originally proposed updates to the original easements, placing the new fiber along the same route. Several properties have changed hands over the years since the original cables were placed, and new rules affecting the use of the Interstate highway right-of-way have been imposed by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Nunn Telephone Company has spent more than a year working with the small handful of property owners adjacent to the interstate, and has found that the private property owners do not want to allow the fiber optic cable on their property. CDOT has indicated that current rules prohibit new placement of cables due to new requirements for separations of cables from the roadway. Nunn Telephone Company has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives to the proposed route. Nunn Telephone Company is obligated by the Colorado Public Utilities Service and the Federal Communications Commission to serve all homes, businesses and government facilities located within Nunn’s exchange boundary. Nunn Telephone Company is the only wireline telecommunications service provider for the customers along this route. Other telecommunication service providers in the area include wireless carriers (AT&T and Verizon) and long-haul transport providers. The long-haul transport providers have cable that pass through the area, but do not provide service to the local homes and businesses. Nunn Telephone Company is not aware of any other wireline telecommunication service providers that have plans to serve this area. Attachment 5: Page 1 of 2 Conditions for City of Fort Collins Approval of Nunn Telephone Company Easement Proposed at Meadow Springs Ranch Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) is owned by the City of Fort Collins and is managed by the Water Reclamation and Biosolids (WR&B) Division. Nunn Telephone Company (NTC) must accept the conditions listed below in order to receive WR&B Division approval of the proposed fiber-optic cable (cable) easement on MSR. Additional conditions may be added as the easement proposal goes through the City’s review process and ultimately is approved or denied by City Council. NTC will supply WR&B Division with a detailed written description of how the cable will be installed in the easement. The description will include type of equipment to be used, depth of cable placement, and expected width of the disturbed area. If possible, NTC will refer WR&B Division staff to a site where NTC has recently installed cable so that the expected amount of disturbance can be directly observed by WR&B Division staff. NTC and its contractors must minimize impact on the affected land by managing their activity to limited area and visibility of disturbed land. Activity will be restricted to designated areas. The easement will follow the old highway that runs from County Road 92 to the northeast entrance of MSR (easement route is red on attached map). When possible, the cable will be placed along the road shoulder. NTC must minimize damage to intact asphalt portions of the road. There are at least four relatively short portions of the easement where the cable route will not be able to follow the road shoulder. One is a draw that the road crosses via a culverted berm. At this draw, the best placement for the cable is the middle of the road. There are two other bridged draws for which the cable will need to be routed off the road, down into the draw, and then back to the road. At the northern end of the requested easement, the cable route will leave the road and go east across pasture for a short distance to I-25. Other easements cross the pasture in this area. The NTC easement will be routed near the existing easements in the pasture. NTC must restore affected areas, including fences, gates, road surface and drainage, to a condition that is equal or better than the condition prior to disturbance caused by NTC activity. Appropriate measures for restoration of disturbed vegetation will be determined by consultation with the city Natural Areas Department. NTC must minimize interference with City and grazing association operations at MSR. NTC must provide the WR&B Division with adequate advance notification for all work performed on the easement including post-installation maintenance and inspection. NTC will be responsible for satisfactory restoration of any damage caused by post- installation maintenance and inspection of the installed cable. NTC must provide detailed documentation that the requested easement on MSR is the only reasonable alternative for routing the cable. Attachment 5: Page 2 of 2 NTC must document a need for their service in the area accessed by the cable. Is there reasonable potential there will be customers to use the service? Are there other telecommunication service providers who already operate in the area or plan to in the future? WR&B Division will require cash compensation of $3700.00 for the value of the easement land. NTC must also pay the administrative costs associated with processing and managing the easement. The administrative costs will be from several City departments who will be involved with processing the easement proposal. At a minimum, the departments involved will include WR&B, Natural Areas, Real Estate Services, and City Attorney’s Office. Fees assessed for costs associated with processing the easement request and approval process, overseeing construction activities, and managing the easement following construction will be based on estimated actual costs of the service provided. NTC must provide WR&B Division with full payment for the easement and administrative costs prior to transfer of the easement deed. If additional administrative costs occur after transfer of the deed, NTC will pay those costs within 30 days of being notified. NTC will be responsible for damages not acceptably reclaimed as determined by acceptable appraisal techniques. Granting an easement conveys a property right and must be approved by City Council. Water Board will review the easement proposal and provide City Council with a recommendation regarding approval. WR&B and Real Estate Services staff will work with NTC during the application process. City staff will make a recommendation to Water Board and City Council regarding approval of the easement proposal. Attachment 6: Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, October 18, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Nunn Telephone Company Request for Fiber-Optic Cable Easement on Meadow Springs Ranch (Attachments available upon request). Technical Services Supervisor Ron Russell introduced the item and introduced Water Reclamation and Biosolids Manager Jason Graham and Real Estate Specialist Lindsay Kuntz. Meadow Springs Ranch is managed by the Water Reclamation and Biosolids Division (WR&B) as a site for biosolids application. Biosolids are the treated residuals from the wastewater treatment process. These are applied to the ranch as fertilizer. The ranch is also a site for several research projects. WR&B works closely with Natural Areas on conservation issues. Mr. Russell presented a map showing the location of Meadow Springs Ranch. The ranch is located north of Fort Collins. Proposed Easement Nunn Telephone Company is upgrading their copper system to fiber optic cable to offer broadband service to their customers. Since other cable routes were denied, they request an easement on Meadow Springs Ranch. The easement will align with abandoned Highway 87, and will be approximately 7 miles by 10 feet wide. There will be a 15 feet offset from the center of Highway 87. Mr. Russell presented a map showing the proposed easement. Installation Process Mr. Russell described the installation process. This includes a caterpillar-pulled implement that will create a slot 2 inches wide by 4 feet deep. The cable duct is placed as a slot is created. The slot closes behind the implement as the caterpillar moves forward. More equipment will follow to compact the disturbed soil. Surface Disturbance Mr. Russell described the surface disturbance with the project. The vegetation will be distributed the width of the caterpillar. Access vaults will be placed at 1 mile intervals. Seeding is not expected to be necessary. Natural Areas recommended the vegetation naturally reseed the disturbed area. A seed mix is not recommended because there would be variations with the existing vegetation. Conclusion The easement route is on previously disturbed land. The easement will not interfere with City activities at Meadow Springs Ranch. The disturbed vegetation will recover in time. Highlights from the discussion: A board member asked if abandoned Highway 87 is used by Meadow Springs Ranch. Yes, it is used as a ranch road. A board member asked if any landowners have issues with the proposed easement. Mr. Russell stated he is not aware of any issues. The easement will not affect many homeowners. Attachment 6: Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, October 18, 2012 Page 2 of 2 A board member asked if there will be any opportunities for restoration of the old asphalt. Staff has asked that Nunn Telephone Company not disturb the asphalt that is in good condition. The board member expressed concern about old asphalt in a natural area. This is not a concern since there is a 15 foot offset. A board member asked if the 10 foot easement width is both a construction and a permanent easement. Yes, it is for both. A board member asked about easement pop-outs at the vaults. The vaults will be within the 10 foot easement. A board member asked about the seeding. If it does not take, who pays for the new seeding? Utilities will have to work with Natural Areas. Also, as part of the agreement with Nunn Telephone Company, there are terms for reseeding. Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Board Member Eccleston moved the Water Board recommend that City Council consider approval of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of the proposed Nunn Telephone Company easement. Board Member Garner seconded the motion. ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE UTILITY EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY TO THE NUNN TELEPHONE COMPANY WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property located in Larimer County and Weld County, Colorado, known as Meadow Springs Ranch (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, the City Property is managed by the City’s Water Reclamation and Biosolids Division as a site for land application of biosolids; and WHEREAS, Nunn Telephone Company (NTC) is requesting a ten foot wide utility easement across the City Property for the installation and maintenance of new telecommunication improvements that will serve their customers in portions of northeast Larimer County and northwest Weld County; and WHEREAS, the proposed easement will follow the shoulder of an existing access road on the City Property with the exception of two spurs leading to nearby customers, as shown on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and WHEREAS, NTC has agreed to pay the City $6,000 as compensation for the Easement and for City staff’s time to process this request; and WHEREAS, City Utilities staff has not identified any negative impacts to the City Property resulting from the grant of the Easement and related work; and WHEREAS, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Easement conveyance at its regular meeting on October 18, 2012; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interest of the City and, with respect to real property that is part of the City's water or utility systems, that the disposition will not materially impair the viability of the particular utility system as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Easement on the City Property to NTC as provided herein is in the best interest of the City, will not impair the City's wastewater utility system, and will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Easement to NTC on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary corrections to the legal description of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easement. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Pg. 1 EXHIBIT “A” Telecommunications Easement from City of Fort Collins to Nunn Telephone Company This Exhibit A describes three parcels of land included as part of this easement PARCEL “A” A parcel of land, five feet either side of a line generally running parallel to and 15 ft. east of the centerline of a private road extending northward from Larimer County Road 92 to the Colorado-Wyoming state line, situated in T11N R68W, T11N R67W and T12N R67W and more particularly described as follows: (NOTE: APPROXIMATE DISTANCES/BEARINGS SUBJECT TO FIELD VERIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR) BEGINNING at the southeast corner of Section 13, T11N, R68W, thence west 1,793 ft. along the south line of said Section 13, thence due north 30 feet to a point located on the north right-of-way line of Larimer County Road 92 and approximately 52 ft. east of the centerline of an existing private road, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N63⁰10’W 35 ft. to a point on the east edge of said private road; Thence N26⁰50’E 2,902 ft. to a fence, Thence N26⁰50’E 1,228 ft. to a point on the east line of Section 13, Thence N26⁰50’E 254 ft., Thence 901 ft. along a curve to the left which curve has a central angle of 15 degrees and whose chord bears N21⁰53’E 899ft., Thence N11⁰47’E 3,499 ft., Thence 549 ft. along a curve to the right, which curve has a central angle of 13 degrees and whose chord bears N18⁰26’’E 544 ft., Thence N23⁰34’E 1,679 ft., Thence N25⁰22’E 1000 ft., Thence 790 ft. along a curve to the left which curve has a central angle of 38 degrees and whose chord bears N7⁰17’E 785 ft., Thence N11⁰47’W 222 ft. to a bridge, Thence N34⁰00’ E 20 ft., Thence N11⁰47’W 260 ft., Thence N68⁰00’W 20 ft., Thence N11⁰47’W 1998 ft., Thence 535 ft. along a curve to the right, which curve has a central angle of 24 degrees and whose chord bears N1⁰26’W 529 ft., Thence N12⁰24’E 3,628 ft., Thence 442 ft. along a curve to the right, which curve has a central angle of 18 degrees and whose chord bears N20⁰43’E 441 ft., Pg. 2 Thence N28⁰13’E 1,777 ft. to a gate and fence, also known as “POINT A”, Thence N28⁰13’E 3,770 ft., to a bridge Thence N80⁰00’E 20 ft., Thence N28⁰13’E 60 ft., Thence N20⁰00’W 20 ft., Thence N28⁰13’E 3,146 ft., Thence 468 ft. along a curve to the right, which curve has a central angle of 15 degrees and whose chord bears N34⁰23’E 466 ft., Thence N43⁰07’ 2,318 ft., Thence 2,278 ft. along a curve to the left which curve has a central angle of 43 degrees and whose chord bears N23⁰22’E 2,245 ft., To a point on the Colorado-Wyoming state line, a total distance of 33,819 ft., more or less; PARCEL “B” A parcel of land, five feet either side of a line generally running parallel to and 5 ft. south of an existing fenceline situated in the NE¼ Section 31, T12N, R67W and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Section 31, T12N, R67W, thence west 1,158 ft. along the north line of said Section 31, thence south 695 feet to a point located on the east side of an existing private road, said point being referenced in PARCEL “A” as “POINT A” and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 5 ft., Thence S50⁰00’E 1,530 ft. to the east line of said Section 31, a total distance of 1,535 ft., more or less PARCEL “C” A parcel of land, five feet either side of a line generally running parallel to and 15 ft. north of an existing aerial powerline situated in the SW¼SE¼ Section 20, T12N, R67W and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southeast corner of Section 20, T12N, R67W, thence north 1,093 ft. along the east line of said Section 20, thence west 2,430 feet to a point located 15 ft. east of the centerline of an existing private road and 15 ft. north of an existing aerial power line crossing said road and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S54⁰27’E 618 ft., Thence S70⁰16’E 335 ft. to a point five feet west of the west right-of-way line of Interstate 25, Thence parallel to and five feet west of the west right-of-way line of Interstate 25 on a bearing of N20⁰ 53’E a distance of 422 ft; a distance of 1,375 ft., more or less. DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-101 Authorizing a Revocable Permit for Brinkman Construction, Inc. to Access City Property to Complete Mitigation Activities for the Construction of Tilden Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 030, 2008, authorizing the dedication of a portion of City property located at 2313 Kechter Road as Tilden Street. The property located west of the City property has been planned as the Kechter Crossing development. Tilden Street is located along the property boundary between the two properties. The developer of Kechter Crossing, Brinkman Construction, Inc., plans to begin construction of its development soon, including work within the new right-of-way of Tilden Street. This work will require the relocation of a number of site improvements in the right-of-way areas that are owned by the City. City staff has asked the Developer to relocate and replace a number of these site improvements elsewhere on the City property. The revocable permit will allow the developer access to the City property to perform the requested mitigation activities. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City property located at 2313 Kechter Road was purchased in 2006 as part the of the City’s Land Bank Program. The City Real Estate Services Department manages this 16-acre property as a residential rental property and will continue to do so until the property is ready to be developed in the future. Tilden Street runs along the west boundary of the property where the existing driveway is located. Site improvements located within the new right-of-way include fencing, a small shed, and gates. City staff has met with the developer and the City’s current tenant at the property to evaluate the new right-of-way alignment and the affected site improvements. The developer has prepared a Mitigation Plan outlining the items that were identified that need to be relocated and replaced. The developer will also be required to install new driveway improvements to connect to the new road. As part of the terms of the revocable permit, the developer will be required to restore the City property after the work is completed, as well as, maintain access for the City’s tenant at all times. All work occurring on the property will be coordinated with City staff and the City’s tenant. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS All mitigation activities on the City property will be done at the developer’s cost. No additional fees will be charged for the revocable permit given the work has been requested by the City for the benefit of the City and the City’s tenant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Mitigation Activities Summary Tilden Street ZEPHYR RD S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 RABBIT CREEK RD KECHTER RD KECHTER RD Revocable Construction Permit Location to Brinkman Map ± Kechter Crossing Development Location Tilden City Property Street Location Boundary Attachment 1 Revocable Permit Area Attachment 2: Mitigation Activities Summary Kechter Crossing Development Mitigation Activities on City Property at 2313 Kechter Road • Driveway Connection - Provide new driveway connection for residence located on City Property. Driveway width shall be wide enough to accommodate large trucks and horse trailers used by City’s tenant. • Fence Relocation – Relocate all fences within Tilden Street right of way to a location 2 feet behind the right of way line. The existing fencing material may be reused provided that the materials are in good condition and any damage done to the fence during the relocation is repaired or replaced. • Horse Pasture Alley Relocation – Relocate alley fencing in south pasture to provide pasture access as shown on Mitigation Plan. • Temporary Fencing – Temporary fencing acceptable to the City shall be provided to keep the tenants horses safe and secure and out of the Permit Area during construction and establishment of the native grasses in the area disturbed. • Shed Relocation – Relocate existing lean-to shed on south end of property. The existing shed material may be reused provided that the materials are in good condition. Should the materials not withstand relocation, the developer will provide a new replacement lean-to structure. • Relocate gates and horse water trough as shown on Mitigation Plan. • Construct new passage over existing ditch as shown on Mitigation Plan. • Disturbed areas must be restored upon completion of all mitigation activities. RESOLUTION 2012-101 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING A REVOCABLE PERMIT FOR BRINKMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO ACCESS CITY PROPERTY TO COMPLETE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TILDEN STREET WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property located at 2313 Kechter Road in Fort Collins, Colorado, identified in the County records as parcel number 86080-00-913 (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, the City Property is approximately 16 acres in size and is managed by the City’s Real Estate Services Department as part of the Land Bank Program; and WHEREAS, Brinkman Construction, Inc., (the “Developer”) is constructing a development adjacent to the City Property known as Kechter Crossing (the “Development”); and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2008, the City Council passed Ordinance 030, 2008 authorizing the dedication of a strip of property on the west boundary of the City Property as right-of-way for Tilden Street as part of the Development; and WHEREAS, the Developer plans to construct improvements to Tilden Street as part of the Development; and WHEREAS, as a condition of dedicating the right-of-way, City staff has asked the Developer to relocate and install elsewhere on the City Property a number of City-owned site improvements currently within the Tilden Street right-of-way as shown on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Mitigation Plan”); and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested a revocable permit to access the City Property to complete the activities outlined on the Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, the permit area would be in the location labeled “Permit Area” on Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest for the Developer to complete the requested activities; and WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to permit the use or occupancy of any street, alley, or public place, provided that such permit shall be revocable by the City Council at its pleasure, whether or not such right to revoke is expressly reserved in such permit. 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 the granting of a revocable permit, as described herein, is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to grant a revocable permit to Brinkman Construction, Inc., on terms and conditions consistent with this Resolution, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, including any necessary corrections to the description of the Permit Area, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Permit Area. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-102 Naming Three Alleys Within the Block Bounded by South College Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street and West Myrtle Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Downtown Development Authority has completed a capital improvement project to enhance three public alleys in the aforementioned block. In conjunction with this project, the City of Fort Collins is preparing to name these three alleys. The three proposed names are “Dalzell Alley,” “Corbin Alley,” and “Wattles Alley.” If approved, the alley naming will simplify way-finding for pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, delivery personnel and emergency responders. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Now that the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has completed its alley improvement project, the three subject public alleys are attractive, brighter, safer and more heavily traveled. The next step is to provide names for these alleys. This will help the public navigate the urban area and contribute to an overall sense of direction. Naming these alleys is consistent with past practice: Trimble Court, Tenney Court, Old Firehouse Alley, Whitton Court, Seckner Alley and Montezuma Fuller Alley. In 2011, the DDA conducted an alley naming process that resulted in names that proved to be unacceptable to City Council. The primary dissatisfaction at that time was that the three names offered bore no relationship to the locality and did not contribute to a unique sense of place. Review of the request to name these three alleys has followed the Current Planning Department’s procedures for street naming. Since the alleys are below the classification of arterial and collector streets, the names do not need to be derived from the approved list of names established by City Code Section 24-91, although one name, Franklin Corbin, is on this list. All directly affected property owners have been notified. Poudre Fire Authority and all affected utilities, City departments, and various mapping agencies have been notified. All respondents indicated that there are no problems or concerns with the proposed names. The outreach process included a mailing to all property owners within the defined block. Community Development and Neighborhood Services staff worked with a citizen advisory committee to establish a methodology, brainstorming and selection of potential alley names. Committee members included: Wayne Sundberg – local historian, board member of the Forney Antique Car Museum in Denver; Carol Tunner – local historian and former historic preservation planner and board member of the Fort Collins Trolley; Clyde Canino – owner (36 years) of restaurant located within the historic Corbin House. Jim Hansen – professor emeritus of history at CSU and author of a two-volume history of Colorado Agricultural College, Colorado A & M and Colorado State University. Patricia Canino – CSU graduate (Recorder of the Committee’s meetings) The committee established three basic themes around which to organize the naming effort. These three themes were: • Local Fort Collins History • Local Colorado State University ( Colorado Agricultural College and Colorado A & M) History • Native Landscape November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 26 After much brainstorming, the list of potential names was narrowed down based on criteria relating to historic or ecological significance, with particular attention paid to the degree to which the name could be associated with the physical place. Then three names per theme were selected as follows: Theme – Local Fort Collins History • Franklin Corbin – Prominent local businessman (lumber and autos) who, in 1906, constructed the Corbin House at 613 South College Avenue which is now designated as a local historic landmark and houses Canino’s Italian Restaurant. • Harper Goff – Local artist and Disney employee who designed Main Street at Disneyland which he modeled after downtown Fort Collins. • Robert Dalzell – Early landowner who was the first, among others to follow, to donate a portion of his farm for the establishment of Colorado Agricultural College. Theme – Colorado State University • Ralph Parshall – Professor of Engineering and Inventor of the Parshall Flume, a water distribution measuring device that is still in use today around the world. • Grace Espy Patton-Cowles – Active suffragist and first woman registered to vote in Fort Collins – 1894; State Superintendent of Public Instruction. • Ruth Jocelyn Wattles – Associate Professor of English, the first official historian of the College and director of the Drama Club. After retiring from the College, she would become director of her own establishment, the Town and Gown Theatre. Theme – Native Landscape • Goldenrod • Waxflower • Snowberry Staff presented this preliminary information to the Leadership Planning Team on Monday, October 8, 2012. As a result of the discussion, the following names are recommended: North-South Alley Robert Dalzell - “Dalzell Alley” Northern East-West Alley Franklin Corbin - “Corbin Alley” Southern East-West Alley Ruth Jocelyn Wattles - “Wattles Alley” FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The cost of installing the street signs will be borne by the City’s Street Department. The cost of stamping the names into decorative concrete pavers will be borne by the DDA. There are no negative financial impacts to City as the cost of installing new street signs is considered extremely minor. The overall economic health of the City will be enhanced with improved alleys that will benefit the safety and mobility of business owners, employees, customers and the general public. Maintenance of the alleys will be on par with the other improved downtown alleys and funded through the existing contract between the DDA and the City’s Parks Department. Finally, the improvements may provide a catalyst for private property owners to re-invest and upgrade their properties. One private property owner has already made a significant improvement to its parking lot with new pavement, landscaping and lighting. November 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 26 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no environmental impacts associated with the naming of these three alleys. With regard to the physical improvements, the environmental impacts are positive. The enhanced alleys improve drainage, encourage multi- modal travel, and are beautified with new landscaping. Overall aesthetics are upgraded. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The DDA has been informed of this most current alley naming process and the three recommended names. At the conclusion of the unsuccessful alley naming effort in 2011, the DDA Board’s recommendation / direction was to allow the City’s Planning Department to proceed as the lead agency. Consequently, there is no formal recommendation from the DDA Board. PUBLIC OUTREACH The City mailed letters to all owners of property within the defined block describing the selected names, providing a brief biography of each name and the time, date and location of the November 6, 2012 City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Biographies of the selected names Robert Dalzell Robert Dalzell deeded the first land in 1871, 30 acres, to the twelve trustees authorized to begin managing property and erecting buildings for Colorado’s land grant college to be known as the Agricultural College of Colorado. The establishment of land grant colleges was by a federal legislation known as the Morrill Act. Adopted in 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln, the Morrill Act granted States and Territories tracts of the federal domain by which to fund colleges dedicated to the agricultural and mechanical arts in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes. In 1870, Colorado’s territorial government enacted legislation locating an agricultural college at Fort Collins but the establishment of the college was by no means assured. Dalzell’s contribution was a significant catalyst and other land donations soon followed enabling Fort Collins to solidify its selection as the site of the college and ward of competing towns. Of all the land donors for the agricultural college, Robert Dalzell is the only one not honored by a street name. His name appears on the pioneer monument located near the site of Old Main within one block of the north‐south alley. Franklin Corbin Franklin Corbin was the son of pioneer Twilford Corbin who came to Fort Collins in 1880. Franklin Corbin was a prominent and wealthy individual in the early history of Fort Collins, being the head of the Corbin‐Black‐Wilson Lumber Company and the Hawthorne‐Corbin Motor Company. In 1906, Franklin Corbin constructed an impressive residence along College Avenue south of the original Fort Collins town site. This house, a brick American Foursquare is located at 613 South College Avenue and is representative of the Eclectic Movement Prairie Style. In 1995, the house was designated as a local historic landmark and now houses Canino’s Italian Restaurant and is within sight of the northern east‐ west alley. Ruth Jocelyn Wattles Ruth Jocelyn Wattles, a native Coloradoan, arrived at Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical College (Colorado A & M) in 1918 as an associate professor of English. Known as “R.J.,” she was the director of the Drama Club described as one of the most vital extracurricular organizations ever to function at the College. She actively encouraged community theater in Fort Collins and established the faculty summer drama company. As head of the Drama Club, she helped the College host a variety of popular and well‐ attended drama performances, drawing audiences from throughout the entire region. In addition, the Drama Club made annual tours performing throughout the state including towns where the plays were translated in Spanish. Later she would become director of her own establishment, the Town and Gown Theatre. Particularly notable was her work in assembling a large collection of plays – some 10,000 in all – and making them available on loan to groups throughout the state. She supplied 200 to 300 of these scripts annually, mainly to high schools and 4‐H clubs and, as a result, did much to stimulate local theatrical activity in Colorado. ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 2012-102 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS NAMING THREE ALLEYS WITHIN THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, WEST LAUREL STREET, SOUTH MASON STREET AND WEST MYRTLE STREET WHEREAS, following extensive public outreach and the favorable recommendation of the Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority, City staff has brought to the City Council for its consideration proposed names for three alleys within the block bounded by South College Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street and West Myrtle Street; and WHEREAS, the naming of the alleys within this block does not implicate the requirements of Section 24-91 of the City Code pertaining to the naming of collector and arterial streets because the alleys do not qualify as collector or arterial streets; and WHEREAS, City staff, working with a citizen advisory committee, has proposed that the alleys be named with a focus on local history and Colorado State University; and WHEREAS, the names that have been suggested to the City Council are "Dalzell Alley," "Corbin Alley," and "Wattles Alley"; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the names recommended for the alleys in this block are appropriate and in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the alleys within the block bounded by South College Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street and West Myrtle Street be named “Dalzell Alley”, “Corbin Alley” and “Wattles Alley” as more particularly shown on the map attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CC COLORADO STATE CSU UNIVERSITY S MASON ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST W MYRTLE ST Alleyways College, Mason, of block Myrtle, bounded Laurel by ± 1 inch = 108.333333 feet Dalzell Corbin Wattles EXHIBIT A DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-103 Making Findings of Fact and Related Determinations Regarding the Appeal of the August 7, 2012 Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision Regarding the Aspen Heights PDP. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 16, 2012, the City of Fort Collins Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving Aspen Heights PDP, with one condition ensuring proper landscaping associated with the clubhouse. On August 30, 2012, Mr. Tom Lawton filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision. On October 30, 2012, City Council voted 5 - 0 to modify the Hearing Officer’s decision by requiring the following: 1. The applicant must provide a shuttle bus for use of project residents, with the understanding that if there is insufficient ridership demand to support the need for the shuttle bus, the applicant may apply for a minor amendment to the approved Final Plan to reduce or eliminate this shuttle bus requirement. 2. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall, at the time of submittal of the Final Plan and in consultation with City staff: (a) enhance the design of the naturalized drainage channel transecting the property in such a manner as to provide an increased width and/or vegetation diversity provided that such enhancement does not unduly diminish the capacity of the channel to carry the anticipated stormwater flow; and (b) enhance the wetland mitigation area through increased size and/or vegetation diversity. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the Appeal. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Appellants’ Notices of Appeal were based on allegations that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. At the October 30, 2012 hearing on the matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the appellants and the applicants. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Regarding the issue of whether or not the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, Council offered a motion to determine that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code subject to two conditions. This motion had the effect of modifying the Hearing Officer’s decision by adding the two aforementioned requirements. City Council voted 5 – 0 to approve the motion thus modifying the decision of the Hearing Officer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-103 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RELATED DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE AUGUST 16, 2012 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN HEIGHTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on August 16, 2012, the City's Administrative Hearing Officer (the "Hearing Officer") approved a project development plan for the project known as Aspen Heights Project Development Plan (the "PDP"); and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2012, a Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision was filed with the City Clerk by Tom Lawton (the "Appellant"); and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2012, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties-in-interest and, after discussion, upheld the decision of the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-57(g) provides that no later than the date of its regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-57(g) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. 2. That the Hearing Officer conducted a fair hearing in approving the PDP. 3. That the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land Use Code in approving the PDP. 4. That the City Council's determination to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must provide a shuttle bus for use of project residents, with the understanding that if there is insufficient ridership demand to support the need for the shuttle bus, the applicant may apply for a minor amendment to the approved Final Plan to reduce or eliminate this shuttle bus requirement. b. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall, at the time of submittal of the Final Plan and in consultation with City staff: (a) enhance the design of the naturalized drainage channel transecting the property in such a manner as to provide an increased width and/or vegetation diversity provided that such enhancement does not unduly diminish the capacity of the channel to carry the anticipated stormwater flow; and (b) enhance the wetland mitigation area through increased size and/or vegetation diversity. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Donnie Dustin Kevin Gertig AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28 SUBJECT Postponement of Resolution 2012-099 Adopting a Water Supply and Demand Management Policy to November 20, 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the October 30, 2012 Adjourned Meeting, Council voted to postpone consideration of this Resolution to November 6 to allow time for staff to revise the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, based on Council’s input. There is not adequate time to make these revisions and provide supporting material before the publication of the November 6 agenda. Staff requests postponement of consideration of this Resolution to November 20, 2012. DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Ellen Switzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29 SUBJECT Routine Deeds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Three quit claim deeds, encompassing 105 easements within the Southwest Enclave Annexation, from Poudre Valley REA. These easements were transferred to the City along with the purchase of Poudre Valley REA’s electric systems in the annexation. FINANCIAL IMPACTS No fees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of these deeds. ATTACHMENTS 1. Southwest Enclave Annexation - Phase 3 Location Map. DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Patti Teraoka AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 30 SUBJECT Routine Easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from TAV Property Management, Inc., to install an electric transformer at 504 South College Avenue. FINANCIAL IMPACTS TAV Property Management, Inc., will be reimbursed $10.00. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this easement. ATTACHMENTS 1. TAV Property Management, Inc., Location Map. DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Peter Barnes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 35 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 November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 35 advertise on the billboard, thereby increasing his business and creating a parking problem for the tenants of his other 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 3, 16, and 17 on Attachment 3). 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. November 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 35 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. November 6, 2012 -4- ITEM 35 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. November 6, 2012 -5- ITEM 35 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 West 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, with attachments, 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 ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit 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 3 1 1 2 ATTACHMENT 3 2 3 4 ATTACHMENT 3 3 5 6 ATTACHMENT 3 4 7 8 ATTACHMENT 3 5 9 10 ATTACHMENT 3 6 11 11 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 12 12 Prospect Station ATTACHMENT 3 7 13 14 ATTACHMENT 3 8 15 16 ATTACHMENT 3 9 17 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 ATTACHMENT 7 1 1 City Council Meeting November 6, 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 Background Information • Existing off-premise sign is in the BNSF railroad ROW • Sign location is in conflict with the guideway alignment for the MAX BRT project • Sign is proposed to be relocated 70 feet west • Sign code was amended in 1994 to prohibit new off- premise signs • Relocating the sign requires a variance to Section 3.8.7(P) of the Land Use Code • City Engineering Department filed variance application to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) • ZBA granted variance on August 9, 2012 ATTACHMENT 7 2 3 4 ATTACHMENT 7 3 5 6 ATTACHMENT 7 4 7 The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing by Considering Evidence Relevant to its Finding Which Was Substantially False or Misleading: •“The ZBA further considered the facts that were misleading in that the 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.” 8 The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing by Considering Evidence Relevant to its Finding Which Was Substantially False or Misleading (continued): • The verbatim transcript contains no mention or discussion of the existing sign having only one used or usable face or that the relocated sign might have two. Slides presented to the ZBA show the existing single-face sign and a mock-up in the new location with two faces. ATTACHMENT 7 5 9 The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing by Ignoring Its Previously Established Rules of Procedure • The Notice of Appeal does not contain any specific assertions as to how the ZBA ignored its established rules of procedure. 10 The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing by Exceeding Its Authority and Jurisdiction – Section 2.10.2(H) Section 2.10.2(H) reads as follows: (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: ATTACHMENT 7 6 11 Section 2.10.2(H) - continued (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; 12 Section 2.10.2(H) - continued (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 ATTACHMENT 7 7 13 Section 2.10.2(H) - continued (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). 14 The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing by Exceeding its Authority and Jurisdiction – Sec. 2.10.2(H) - continued • The Board granted a variance from an Article 3 standard and found that it would not be detrimental to the public good. • The Board found that the proposal satisfied the ‘nominal, inconsequential standard’ • There was no discussion as to whether or not the granting of the variance would result in a change of use. ATTACHMENT 7 8 15 The Board Failed to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code – Section 2.10.2(H) • “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 City staff and the ZBA focused on preserving tax payer dollars, Sec. 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.” 16 The Board Failed to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code – Section 2.10.2(H) - continued • The Board granted the variance after finding that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that it satisfied the ‘nominal, inconsequential standard in Section 2.10.2(H)(3) of the LUC. ATTACHMENT 7 9 17 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)? DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Lance Smith Steve Catanach AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 36 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2013 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. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kottwitz). City Council has requested a comparison of rates, which has been provided as Attachment 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 16, 2012 (w/o attachments) 2. Rate Comparison charts COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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: COPY COPY COPY COPY 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: COPY COPY COPY COPY October 16, 2012 -3- ITEM 22 1This 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY October 16, 2012 -5- ITEM 22 COPY COPY COPY COPY 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. COPY COPY COPY COPY 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 2 Small Commercial (GS and GS25) Comparison: Small Commercial Rate Comparison -- January 2012 Data (Non-Summer) 2000 kWh, 10 kW per month Source Data: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 FORT MORGAN MOON LAKE GUNNISON FORT COLLINS 2012 FORT COLLINS 2013 LONGMONT GLENWOOD SPRINGS LOVELAND LYONS CENTER XCEL ENERGY COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN HOLY CROSS HIGHLINE JULESBURG YUMA Y‐W ELECTRIC HOLYOKE FOUNTAIN FLEMING DELTA WHITE RIVER POUDRE VALLEY HAXTUN YAMPA VALLEY EA LA PLATA DELTA‐MONTROSE MOUNTAIN PARKS MORGAN COUNTY K C ELECTRIC HIGH WEST ENERGY UNITED POWER FREDERICK EMPIRE EA SANGRE DE CRISTO GRAND VALLEY RPL GUNNISON COUNTY SAN LUIS VALLEY SAN MIGUEL INTERMOUNTAIN BURLINGTON SAN ISABEL GRANADA WHEATLAND SPRINGFIELD Attachment 2 Large Commercial (GS50) Comparison: Large Commercial Rate Comparison -- January 2012 Data (Non-Summer) 45000 kWh, 130 kW per month Source Data: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 FORT MORGAN GUNNISON MOON LAKE LONGMONT FORT COLLINS 2012 LOVELAND FORT COLLINS 2013 GLENWOOD SPRG HOLY CROSS FLEMING HIGHLINE XCEL ENERGY CENTER FOUNTAIN COLORADO SPRG DELTA YUMA GUNNISON COUNTY K C ELECTRIC DELTA‐MONTROSE Y‐W ELECTRIC HOLYOKE YAMPA VALLEY MOUNTAIN PARKS MORGAN COUNTY ASPEN INTERMOUNTAIN LA PLATA FREDERICK UNITED POWER WHITE RIVER GRAND VALLEY GRANADA BURLINGTON SAN LUIS VALLEY POUDRE VALLEY EMPIRE EA WHEATLAND SE COLORADO SAN ISABEL HIGH WEST ENERGY BLACK HILLS ENERGY TRI‐COUNTY LA JUNTA SPRINGFIELD SANGRE DE CRISTO Attachment 2 Industrial (GS750) Comparison: Industrial Rate Comparison -- January 2012 Data (Non Summer) 1900000 kWh, 3000 kW per month Source Data: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 FT MORGAN LONGMONT FORT COLLINS 2012 LOVELAND FORT COLLINS 2013 XCEL ENERGY COLORADO SPRG EMPIRE TRI‐COUNTY WHITE RIVER GLENWOOD SPRG GRAND VALLEY Y‐W ELECTRIC DELTA‐MONTROSE LA PLATA SAN LUIS VALLEY HIGH WEST ENERGY MOUNTAIN PARKS K C ELECTRIC INTERMOUNTAIN GUNNISON CO HIGHLINE FOUNTAIN CENTER UNITED POWER MORGAN COUNTY YAMPA VALLEY POUDRE VALLEY YUMA BLACK HILLS ENERGY RATON LAS ANIMAS Coop/REA Investor Municipal Fort Collins Industrial Rate Comparison -- July 2012 Data (Summer) 1900000 kWh, 3000 kW per month Source Data: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 FT MORGAN LONGMONT Attachment 2 Residential Comparison: Electric Rate Comparison ‐ 700 kWh per Month $55.76 $57.25 $57.25 $60.31 $64.95 $64.95 $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 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-nine one- hundreds cents ($0.0259). (3) Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as follows: a. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and sixty-eight one-hundredths cents ($ 0.0568). b. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: seven and twenty-six one-hundredths cents ($0.0726). c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.1042). (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: five and five one-hundredths cents ($0.0505). b. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and forty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.0543). c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and twenty-six one-hundredths cents ($0.0626). (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) percent of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as determined by the Federal Housing Authority); and -2- 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. 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-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0259). 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: three and twenty one-hundredths cents ($0.0320). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: seven and twenty-six one-hundredths cents ($0.0726). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and forty-two one-hundredths cents: ($0.01042). -3- 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 seventy-six one-hundredths cents ($0.0276). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and forty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.0543). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and twenty-six one-hundredths ($0.0626). 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-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0259). 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: three and fourteen one-hundredths cents ($0.0314). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: four and one one-hundredth cents ($0.0401). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.1042). d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: -4- 1. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and five one-hundredths cents ($0.0505). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and forty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.0543). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and twenty-six one-hundredths cents ($0.0626). 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-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0259). 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 five one-hundredths cents ($0.0205). 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: two and sixty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0262). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.1042). 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 seventy-six one-hundredths cents ($0.0276). -5- 2. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and forty-three one-hundredths cents ($0.0543). 3. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and twenty-six one-hundredth cents ($0.0626). e. In lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero- tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. (6) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no rate established under this Subsection shall reflect a discount exceeding an amount consistent with the use of one hundred fifty (150) kilowatt hours per month for the operation of electrical durable medical equipment or, if applicable, an additional amount consistent with the use of three hundred fifty (350) kilowatt hours per month for air conditioning. (7) A decision that an applicant does not qualify to participate in this program for a medical or financial reason may be appealed to the Utilities Executive Director, who shall, prior to making his or her decision, and as he or she deems appropriate, confer with one (1) or more medical or financial experts in reviewing such appeal. (e) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a premium of two and four tenths cents ($.0.024) 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. Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. (p) Net metering (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) (3)(a). -6- 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 fifty cents ($2.50). (3) Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and ninety-one one- hundredths cents ($0.0291). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and eighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and seventy-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0377). 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 -two and four-tenths cents ($0.024) 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 one dollar and twenty two cents ($1.22) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess -7- of the contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and sixty-seven cents ($3.67) 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. 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: 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 6 of the Land Use Code. (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) Fixed charge, per account: -8- 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 eighty-nine one-hundredths cents $0.0289). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: one and forty one- hundredths cents ($0.0140). 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-four one- hundredths cents ($0.0184). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and eighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and seventy-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0377). 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. -9- (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 ($0.024) 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. 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). (2) Demand charge, per kilowatt: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: seven dollars and sixty-four cents ($7.64). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: four dollars and thirty-eight cents ($4.38). 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-four one- hundredths cents ($0.0184). -10- (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and eighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and seventy-seven one- hundredths cents ($0.0.0377). 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 two and four-tenths cents ($0.024) 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 thirty-five cents ($4.35) 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 and five cents ($13.05) 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. Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. -11- 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: eleven and eighteen cents ($11.18). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and eighty cents ($7.80). 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 sixty-five cents ($5.65). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and eighty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0388). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and seventy-seven one- hundredths cents ($0.0377). 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 two and four-tenths cents ($0.024) per kilowatt hour. The -12- 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 fifty-nine cents ($4.59) 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 seventy-six cents ($13.76) 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 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-seven cents ($0.97) 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 ninety-two cents ($2.92) 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 -13- 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. 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 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: eleven and one cent ($11.01). -14- b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: seven dollars and sixty-nine cents ($7.69). 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 seventy- three cents ($5.73). b. All additional kilowatts: three dollars and forty-two cents ($3.42). (4) Energy charge, per kilowatt-hour: a. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August: three and eighty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0382). b. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: three and seventy-one one- hundredths cents ($0.0371). 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 ($0.024) 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. -15- a. The monthly standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and fifty-eight cents ($3.58) 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 seventy-four cents ($10.74) 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 (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following: (1) The excess circuit charge shall be seventy-six cents ($0.76) 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 twenty-nine cents ($2.29) 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. -16- (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. 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 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. -17- (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 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 -18- 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 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. -19- (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 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 -20- 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 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: -21- 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. (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. 26-471. Special area floodlighting, schedule FL. (e) Payment of charges. Due dates and delinquency procedures shall be as set forth in Section 26-713. Section 10. That renumbered Section 26-472 (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -22- Sec. 26-472. 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 forty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0642). (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. 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 -23- DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Steve Roy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 37 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-104 Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-2 of the Ethics Review Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest. On October 22, 2012, and October 30, 2012, the Ethics Review Board met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by Mayor Weitkunat. The question submitted by the Mayor is whether, in the Board’s opinion, she would have a conflict of interest in participating in upcoming decisions of either the City Council or the Urban Renewal Authority regarding the possible redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. The Mayor has presented the question because of the proximity of her residence to the redevelopment site. As required by the Code, the Board has forwarded its opinion and recommendations to the full Council for its consideration. Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council agrees with the Board’s opinion and recommendations. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ethic Review Board minutes, October 22 and 29, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 2012-104 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING ADVISORY OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 2012-2 OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, the City Council has established an Ethics Review Board (the “Board”) consisting of three members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Board is empowered under Section 2-569 of the City Code to render advisory opinions and recommendations regarding actual or hypothetical situations of Councilmembers or board and commission members of the City; and WHEREAS, the Ethics Review Board met on October 22, 2012 and October 30, 2012, to consider whether Mayor Karen Weitkunat has a conflict of interest in participating in decisions of the City Council and/or the Urban Renewal Authority Board pertaining to the possible redevelopment of the Foothills Mall; and WHEREAS, the Board has issued an advisory opinion with regard to this matter; and WHEREAS, Section 2-569(e) of the City Code provides that all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Board be placed on the agenda for the next special or regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt such opinions and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the opinion and recommendations of the Board and wishes to adopt the same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Opinion No. 2012-2 of the Ethics Review Board, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A,” has been submitted to and reviewed by the City Council, and the Council hereby adopts the opinion and recommendations contained therein. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of November A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk LOVELAND COLO SPRINGS FORT COLLINS 2012 XCEL ENERGY FORT COLLINS 2013 TRI‐COUNTY EMPIRE EA WHITE RIVER Y‐W ELECTRIC GRAND VALLEY DELTA‐MONTROSE LA PLATA SAN LUIS VALLEY HIGH WEST ENERGY MOUNTAIN PARKS K C ELECTRIC ASSN GUNNISON COUNTY FOUNTAIN HIGHLINE EA INTERMOUNTAIN UNITED POWER MORGAN COUNTY POUDRE VALLEY YUMA YAMPA VALLEY BLACK HILLS ENERGY RATON LAS ANIMAS Coop/REA Investor Municipal Fort Collins RATON LAS ANIMAS TRINIDAD LAMAR Coop/REA Investor Municipal Fort Collins Large Commercial Rate Comparison -- July 2012 Data (Summer) 45000 kWh, 130 kW per month Source Data: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 FORT MORGAN GUNNISON MOON LAKE LONGMONT ESTES PARK LOVELAND COLORADO SPRG FORT COLLINS 2012 GLENWOOD SPRG HOLY CROSS FORT COLLINS 2013 HIGHLINE FOUNTAIN DELTA HAXTUN YUMA GUNNISON COUNTY K C ELECTRIC DELTA‐MONTROSE Y‐W ELECTRIC HOLYOKE XCEL ENERGY MOUNTAIN PARKS MORGAN CO ASPEN LA PLATA WRAY INTERMOUNTAIN YAMPA VALLEY FREDERICK UNITED POWER WHITE RIVER GRANADA GRAND VALLEY SAN LUIS VALLEY WHTLAND FLEMING POUDRE VALLEY EMPIRE SAN MIGUEL SE COLORADO TRI‐COUNTY BURLINGTON BLACK HILLS ENERGY SAN ISABEL HIGH WEST ENERGY LA JUNTA SPRINGFIELD SANGRE DE CRISTO TRINIDAD LAS ANIMAS RATON LAMAR Coop/REA Investor Municipal Fort Collins LA JUNTA LAMAR RATON TRI‐COUNTY HOLLY TRINIDAD BLACK HILLS ENERGY SE COLORADO LAS ANIMAS Coop/REA Investor Municipal Fort Collins Small Commercial Rate Comparison -- July 2012 Data (Summer) 2000 kWh, 10 kW per month Source Data: Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 FT MORGAN MOON LAKE GUNNISON LONGMONT GLENWOOD SPRG LOVELAND COLORADO SPRG FORT COLLINS 2012 FORT COLLINS 2013 ASPEN FOUNTAIN JULESBURG YUMA HOLY CROSS HOLYOKE DELTA ESTES PARK WHITE RIVER POUDRE VALLEY HIGHLINE WRAY Y‐W ELECTRIC LA PLATA YAMPA VALLEY DELTA‐MONTROSE MOUNTAIN PARKS HAXTUN MORGAN COUNTY FLEMING K C ELECTRIC GRAND VALLEY HIGH WEST ENERGY UNITED POWER XCEL ENERGY FREDERICK EMPIRE SANGRE DE CRISTO LAMAR GUNNISON CO SAN LUIS VALLEY INTERMOUNTAIN SAN MIGUEL WHTLAND SAN ISABEL TRI‐COUNTY GRANADA SPRINGFIELD LA JUNTA BURLINGTON RATON TRINIDAD HOLLY BLACK HILLS ENERGY SE COLORADO LAS ANIMAS Coop/REA Investor Municipal Fort Collins Coordinate with HOA for drop structure improvements Boxelder 43 4 1 1.3 1410 Directly east of I‐25 crossing through private property Will need to be completed in conjunction with Boxelder Regional improvements Boxelder 44 1 3 1.3 2340 Through open space south of Prospect Rd Coordinate with Natural Areas Boxelder 45 5 1 1.3 770 Through private property north of Mulberry St Spring 46 1 1 1.2 520 From entrance to Cattail Chorus NA west to bike trail crossing Dependent on connection of Spring Creek to Poudre River Fossil 47 7 1 1.2 2610 Between College and RR tracks through natural area Retrofit Brookwood/Applewood Estates Pond Dependent on drop structure removal in Reach 6‐ 2 Spring 48 7 1 1.2 820 From entrance to Hill Pond west through open space Retrofit Spring Canyon Pond and Construct new Taft/Horsetooth Pond* Boxelder 49 1 2 1.2 1270 Through open space south of Prospect Rd Coordinate with Natural Areas Boxelder 50 5 2 1.2 1240 Through private property north of Mulberry St 2 Spring 20 6 2 1.7 1150 Between Centre Ave and Hillpond Retrofit Rossborough Park Pond and Retrofit Wagon Wheel Pond* Coordinate with CSU/Horticulture Center McClellands 21 7 2 1.7 From RR tracks west of Timberline Rd east through neighborhood Retrofit Miramont Pond and Retrofit Oakridge Pond* Fossil 22 6 2 1.7 3530 From College Ave east through HOA open space Drop structure removal and irrigation structure needs to be included in this reach. McClellands 23 5 2 1.6 Through Stetson Creek HOA open space Fossil 24 2 2 1.6 3430 Through Paragon Point HOA open space Clearview 25 2 1 1.6 1440 Between Castlerock Dr and Taft Hill Rd Retrofit Deerfield Ponds 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Flood Control Only I Water Quality Only •S7S - iSS .f 44 •n: •5,4•5 5.1 .. 1i — 1 ;‘ : S ______ •5545• 5.-. ..-- 5 ‘S Flood Control and Water Quality 5* Proposed Improvements • /\Proposed Selected Plan ProposediWater Quality Improvements Proposed Habitat Proposed, Improvements West Vine Basin Selected Plan - Water Quality & Habitat Improvements Natural Area Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements w+i - - 0 •-. --- i., 2640 Feet •.‘ TmcnU.1251flTW’ Attachment 1 - Page 11 ‘- ‘- rP! CSU Vet Hospital Pond f V • Retrofit Existing Pond To Accomodate Water Quality Volume — 1 • LL J- comodate Woodwest Detention Pond Construct Proprietary Mechanical BMPAt Pond Outlet. Proposed BMP Basin Type Legend ifI Spring Creek Basin WQ Not Evaluated Water Drains Into Irrigation System Proposed Water Quality Pond Proprietary Mechanical BMP Flood Control and Water Quality Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Proposed Improvement Undeveloped Area Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements r--S ANdERsoN CoNsu[TiNq ENqiNEERs, INc. City of MANAGEMENT W E Civil • IVater Resources • Environmental Fort CoLLins SPRING CREEK BASIN 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 PROPOSED CONDITI0N B M P MAP Feet S ‘5- Attachment 1 - Page 10 I— Cl, A V V I McClellands Creek Basin Proposed BMP Basin Type Flood Control Only Water Quality Only Flood Control and Water Quality Proposed Improvements Proposed Selected Plan Water Quality Alternatives Natural Area 4 Vi -- •VV . r-c , . ‘I -3 Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements V JVC!IN Ft cowns EricIhEEIr-1G, IHC. I r McClellands Creek Basin Selected Plan - Water Quality Improvements 4- Attachment 1 - Page 8 FeBI NOIP Imege 200’I Attachment 1 - Page 7 and Water Quality —4 Proposed Selected Plan Lf°J Water Quality Alternatives FPLPciLd New Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume Proposed Improvements CO RD 40 a -z _.& , L r. S -- ,.‘.--, _,. - •r’ ill •# ‘-‘• - ‘ Golden Meadow Pond 7. • Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Quality Volume I t Cityof i[(C(i Fort ColLins Er1GIrlEEIhG, IhC 0 HARMONY RD I * - Hewiitt-Packard Ponds _-“ Retrofit Existing Pond to accommodate Water Qusilty Volume Fox Meadows Basin Selected Plan - Water Quality Improvements I N H “v-’ L S 2,000 Feet Attachment 1 - Page 6 Water -“--—-- Stream - Canal Parks Proposed Stream Restoration and Habitat Improvements 5 1r NAPIr9o.2OO9 Attachment 1 - Page 4 Water Quality Only Flood Control and Water Quality Proposed Improvements None - . I / Proposed Conceptual !ffd Water Quality Alternatives A Proposed Water Quality Pond Undeveloped Area Water -r---- Stream - Canal Parks Existing Proposed Natural Area 0 0 Ore Attachment 1 - Page 3