HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/01/2012 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ADATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the April 3 and April 17, 2012 Regular Meetings.
April 3, 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, April 3, 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 Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy, Daggett.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Rick Price, 1925 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the lack of a strategic plan for the
City’s bicycle program and encouraged budgeting for outcomes offers supporting the Bike Safety
Plan and Bicycle Ambassador Program.
Anne Lance, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center Executive Director, announced April
as the “Month of the Young Child” and discussed the need for affordable early childhood education
in the community.
Leah Grossman, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center Infant Teacher, discussed the need
for affordable early childhood education in the community.
Bev Thurber, Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Executive Director, thanked Council for
declaring the Month of the Young Child and discussed the need for affordable early childhood
education in the community.
Vicky Hays, Poudre River Public Library District Early Literacy Librarian, discussed the need for
affordable early childhood education in the community.
Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at Colorado State
University and presented an informal petition he had circulated in his neighborhood.
Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheely Dr, expressed concern regarding development in and around the Sheely
Historic District and supported an overlay zoning district.
304
April 3, 2012
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern regarding three new student housing
developments near her neighborhood and stated the West Central Neighborhood Plan includes
protections for neighborhoods, but needs to be revised. She expressed concern that two promised
parks were not constructed.
Deb Applin, 1608 Sheely, expressed concern regarding the density of developments proposed near
the Sheely Historic District.
Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the density and intensity
of student housing developments on the south side of Colorado State University.
Frank Johnson, Sheely Addition resident, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium and asked how
the massive traffic impact on Prospect between College and Shields will be addressed; how the
stadium would affect the City sewer system; and how security for surrounding neighborhoods will
be addressed during games.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw requested responses to Mr. Johnson’s questions regarding the traffic,
utility, and security impacts from CSU and asked if the Transportation Master Plan has prepared for
the stadium. City Manager Atteberry replied he would present the questions to CSU and stated the
Transportation Master Plan did not anticipate a new stadium.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the speakers who discussed the Month of the Young Child and
early childhood education.
Councilmember Troxell requested an examination of the impacts of student housing on surrounding
neighborhoods.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked the speakers who discussed early childhood education. He stated
City staff presented some questions to CSU regarding the stadium and asked if those questions can
be publically divulged. He asked if CSU is proposing any kind of environmental impact study
regarding the proposed stadium or if the City would be requesting such a study. He requested an
analysis of the West Central Neighborhood Plan and a report relating to whether the Plan has been
honored and how it will be honored in the future, and requested information regarding planned
parks. City Manager Atteberry replied he could not speak to whether CSU is planning impact
studies and stated Deputy City Manager did provide a public list of questions to CSU regarding the
stadium. He stated he would follow up on the questions relating to the West Central Neighborhood
Plan.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the speakers who discussed early childhood education.
Councilmember Troxell stated he submitted questions regarding the stadium and has yet to receive
a response. He asked if citizen questions submitted to City officials have been passed on to CSU.
City Manager Atteberry replied questions have been passed on to appropriate CSU officials.
305
April 3, 2012
Councilmember Horak requested that Council receive regular updates regarding adopted Plans and
Policies and how they interconnect. City Manager Atteberry replied he will look at the master
database regarding review periods for adopted Plans.
Councilmember Horak suggested the list of questions proposed to CSU be placed on the City’s
webpage. City Manager Atteberry stated that will be completed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Redistricting.
The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be
based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City
Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than
a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than
one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the
population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved
problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions
to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of
contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City
Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame,
due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on March 20, 2012, will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk
to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather
than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication
of the census data.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation
District.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, authorizes
conveyance of a non-exclusive permanent easement to Boxelder Sanitation District to install
rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery
Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder
Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized
expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was
no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
306
April 3, 2012
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not
be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for
completion of the project in 2012
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent
dollars previously appropriated in 2011
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into
individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2012 Adopted City Budget.
Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund;
therefore, funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and the dedicated
funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Any unspent
funds and excess revenue lapses into fund reserves at year-end. These reserves then need
to be appropriated into the following year’s budget to use the funds for their intended
purpose. The purpose of these appropriations is land conservation, construction of public
improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit
the citizens of Fort Collins.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
This Ordinance appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum
Exhibit Capital Project.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate
approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson;
Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the
City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the
Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs
with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use
tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6
million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less
that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000.
307
April 3, 2012
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest
rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is
included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial
rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. 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.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
Over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City
organizational titles and department names that are included in the Code. Changes in the
titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the Code, as well as various
department names have changed, but not been reflected in relevant Code sections. This
Ordinance makes these housekeeping changes. No substantive changes are included in the
Ordinance.
In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no
longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms
are updated in the Ordinance.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the
Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD)
holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I
(north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who
reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their
parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This amendment to the easement grants
permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to
make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right
for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this
opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement
capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection
with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer.
The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer (the “Project”) is a road
improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of
Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, City Council passed Ordinance No. 085, 2010,
308
April 3, 2012
authorizing the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property
interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move
forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff
determined that additional right of way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed
on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has
contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new
acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation
(“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this
acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous
acquisitions for the Project. It is required that City staff obtain authorization to use eminent
domain proceedings for this additional acquisition since it was not included in Ordinance
No. 085, 2010.
16. Items Relating to State Grants for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
A. Resolution 2012-021 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement
(CDAG #12-FNL-01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado
Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of Equipment and Improvements Pertaining to
the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
B. Resolution 2012-022 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement
(CDAG #12-FNL-I01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado
Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of an Intern Position Pertaining to the Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
Resolution 2012-021 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the
State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $400,000. This State
Aviation Discretionary Grant will be used to match the FAA 2012 Entitlement Grant for
Design Services for the capital construction project that will be completed in 2013 and an
additional Snow Removal Equipment, a Utilities Master Plan, a Runway Weather Instrument
System and an Airport Service Vehicle.
Resolution 2012-022 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the
State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $14,560. This second
State grant will fund 50% of the Airport’s Intern Program for 12 months.
17. Routine Easement.
Easement Deed and Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Line from Hyde Living Trust, to grant
a sanitary sewer easement at no cost to the City for the purpose of a new City-owned
sanitary sewer line that will serve three nearby residences, located at 2500 North Overland
Trail.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Redistricting.
309
April 3, 2012
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation
District.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2012 Adopted City Budget.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection
with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew Item No. 11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard
Company in Support of the Building 6 Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
Councilmember Horak withdrew Item No. 8, First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
310
April 3, 2012
Staff Reports
Bob Glancy, National Weather Service, presented Mike Gavin, Office of Emergency Management,
and the City with a Storm Ready recognition award.
Police Chief John Hutto discussed his goal of creating community forums and announced the first
forum to be held April 19, 2012 at Dunn Elementary School.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel discussed a presentation by Blair Levin from the Aspen Institute.
Councilmember Troxell encouraged City Manager Atteberry to pursue the concepts presented by
Mr. Levin.
Councilmember Horak reported a search firm has been hired for a new Platte River Power Authority
(PRPA) General Manager and announced wholesale rates will increase approximately 10% to its
member cities, partly due to the increase in coal costs. He reported on a Poudre River Trail tour and
discussed the future of the Poudre River Trail connections and a GOCO grant request.
Councilmember Poppaw asked why PRPA has an interest in the Windy Gap project if it is selling
water. Councilmember Horak replied PRPA is selling water due to requests; it is not marketing the
water. He stated he would request additional information regarding the Windy Gap issue.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on the Poudre River Trail tour and discussed the Airport Steering
Committee meeting.
Ordinance No. 025, 2012,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures
were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known
vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be
completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of
the project in 2012
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars
previously appropriated in 2011
311
April 3, 2012
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual
fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies.
Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows:
General Fund $1,083,767
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $ 349,719
Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $ 106,102
Recreation Fund $ 51,000
Cemetery Fund $ 50,000
Transportation Services Fund $ 44,000
Light and Power Fund $ 49,366
Water Fund $ 143,340
Storm Water Fund $ 21,228
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
GENERAL FUND
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
1. Historic Preservation Grant Support - $50,500 General Fund, $25,000 Keep Fort Collins
Great Fund
This request is for reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $75,500 for Historic
Preservation grant matching funds, and for hourly staff support for grant management and
development project review. City matching funds provide a significant source of preservation
monies; for every $1 of City funds, the City typically receives $4 in grant funding. In addition to
assisting with development project review, in 2011 one part-time hourly staff assisted the 0.8
Historic Preservation Planner in managing seven different grant projects totaling $1,123,100 in
direct funding. Due to the grant funding cycle for State Historic Fund and Certified Local
Government grants, these grant monies were not fully expended in 2011. Monies requested for
reappropriation comprise the matching funds for these 2012 grants and are needed to continue these
projects.
Economic Development
2 Transportation Utility Analysis - $145,500
During the development of the 2011-2012 budget and through the discussions regarding Keep Fort
Collins Great, the community requested that the City consider developing a Transportation Utility
to fund basic transportation related programs and services. This funding will be used to bring in
outside resources to help in the development of the Transportation Utility concept, the financial
model, identification of programs to be funded, and more. Funds were not expended in 2011
because other operational priorities delayed the start of this project and the issuance of an RFP for
outside consulting services to complete the project. Given the 2010 voter approval of the new sales
tax, the urgency of this project was somewhat diminished from its original schedule.
312
April 3, 2012
Environmental Services
3. Air Quality Monitoring Equipment - $4,500
This funding was approved in 2011 for continuing operation of the City’s fine-particle air pollution
monitor. The monitor provides hourly fine-particle readings (particulate matter smaller than 2.5
micrometers in diameter, or PM2.5). Operation, maintenance, and data quality assurance and
reporting are efficiently provided through a partnership with Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division and Larimer County Health Department. Full funding for services was not billed in 2011.
The final invoice was received in January 2012. These funds are needed to fund that final invoice
for 2011 services.
4. Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study - $9,874
This project was approved in the 2011-2012 budget to reduce lung-cancer risks by increasing the
rate of radon mitigation among homeowners with high radon test results. CSU researchers in social
marketing and epidemiology will carry out the Study, to determine the mitigation rate and barriers,
and to scientifically test interventions to increase the mitigation rate. City Council approved
$10,000 for the Study, or 23%, with the balance to be secured from outside grants. The State Indoor
Radon Grant program has since contributed $21,525, or 50%, leaving an unfunded balance of
$11,525. This reappropriation request is for $9,874 to substantially complete the project budget,
making the overall project funded nearly half-and-half by Colorado and Fort Collins.
5. Zero Interest Loan for Air Quality - $8,197
Each year, $30,000 is appropriated for zero interest loans for citizens to remove or upgrade old
wood stoves or install radon mitigation systems. For most of 2011, loan applications were halted
while the City developed a way to address new federal restrictions on loan processing. This
prevented usage of the majority of the funds in 2011. This request is to carry over $8,197 of 2011
funding to support zero interest loans for air quality.
6. Environmental Services Copier Maintenance - $4,700
In 2011, the copier maintenance costs for Natural Resources work group located at 215 North
Mason were shared between General Fund and the Natural Areas Fund in order to serve staff from
both divisions. With the separation of Natural Areas into a new department and new location, the
Environmental Services Department will need to fund all of the copier maintenance costs in 2012.
This request is to allocate a portion of the unspent 2011 funding to cover the gap in copier
maintenance costs for Environmental Services.
7. Sustainability Strategic Plan - $6,600 General Fund, $3,300 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
A multi-day sustainability strategic planning charrette was conducted in February 2012 with
approximately 40 City staff participating. The goal was to develop a preliminary Sustainable
Strategic Plan that would identify priority project areas, potential collaborations, and integrated
BFO offer ideas. These preliminary goals were accomplished but additional resources are needed
to flesh out a more comprehensive Strategic Plan. Unspent resources from several program areas
313
April 3, 2012
are being requested to support continued work on a Sustainability Strategic Plan for the remainder
of 2012.
8. Waste Reduction and Recycling - $18,709
This funding was approved to help the community make progress in meeting the adopted goal of
diverting 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal. Communitywide education and outreach
projects are implemented through this program to encourage involvement in recycling and
composting, re-use, and source reduction and contribute to less trash being generated. In 2011,
$55,000 was dedicated to a Waste Stream Study that was awarded to a consulting firm in September,
2011 and $39,468 was ear-marked for conducting two Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Collection Events for the public. These funds will be used to conduct advertising and public
involvement activities that raise awareness of recycling and reduction opportunities in Fort Collins,
complete the Waste Stream Study in 2012, and help pay for the HHW event scheduled for June 2,
2012.
9. Waste Innovations Program - $100,987
The money comes from landfill tipping fees paid by City departments, and is intended to pay for
innovative waste diversion projects. These projects are solicited from the Utilities, Streets, Parks
Maintenance, and Forestry Departments to be applied to the City’s street sweeping, debris clearing,
and excavation work that generate specific types of “industrial” waste. During 2011, only limited
expenditures were made, including large-diameter tree trunk and limb grinding by the Forestry
Department, and to investigate establishing a compost site for departments’ use. Departments that
initiated waste diversion investigations in 2011, such as drying/screening soil that gets excavated
during water main break occurrences, and small-scale composting approaches, are still working
to finalize proposals to the Waste Innovation Program for money to purchase more permanent,
larger-scale equipment in 2012 that will enable the City to divert more of its own waste stream from
landfill disposal.
Human Resources
10. Performance Based Pay - $18,000
The City implemented a uniform employee performance assessment process in 2007 and tied 2008
employee pay increases to overall job performance. Each year, staff has evaluated the process and
made changes based on the previous year’s experience and the availability of budget dollars to fund
employee pay increases. Financial limitations have created challenges in implementing
performance based pay as it was originally designed. These funds will be used to hire a consultant
to evaluate the current performance based pay process. The desire to utilize external experts to
assist with this project was expressed late in 2011. This request is to use the unspent 2011 budget,
originally allocated for performance management, to be reappropriated for 2012.
11. Learning/Organizational Development - $40,000
During the 2011-2012 BFO cycle, funding was approved for design and implementation of several
employee programs, such as on-boarding, supervisory summit and supervisory development. When
the Leadership Development Programs (Lead 1.0 and Lead 4.0) were subsequently funded with
314
April 3, 2012
Keep Fort Collins Great dollars, deployment of those leadership programs became the higher
priority. Both of these programs were newly designed and a collaborative effort with Poudre School
District and Larimer County, which presented a variety of challenges to overcome. As the priorities
for the Learning Division shifted, design and implementation of the other employee programs
stopped due to resource constraints regarding staff and time. This request is for the reappropriation
of $40,000 for consultative services and resources to redesign and implement supervisory summit
and on-boarding processes for the organization.
Parks
12. Fourth of July - $5,000
In 2011, $30,000 was donated by Poudre Valley Health Systems for the 4th of July celebration.
Only $25,000 was spent. Therefore, $5,000 is requested for reappropriation in 2012 for this year’s
celebration.
13. Storm Clean Up - $4,000
In 2011, the Parks Division received $19,000 for storm clean up. Only $7,051 was spent in 2011.
In 2012, $4,000 is requested for reappropriation to cover chipper rental costs to complete the clean
up.
14. Lifecycle Funding - $9,206 General Fund, $18,584 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
In 2011, lifecycle funding of $27,790 was anticipated to be spent on replacement of the Rolland
Moore playground restroom. Due to the need for additional funding, this project will now be
completed in 2012.
Planning, Development, and Transportation Administration
15. PDT Administration - $10,000
PDT Administration identified funds in the 2011 budget for service area reorganization facilitation.
A scope of work could not be finalized prior to year end to select a vendor and encumber these
funds. The need for facilitation is crucial to address the service unit’s key vacancies and
reorganization issues, and there are not funds available in the 2012 budget. PDT Administration
is requesting $10,000 be reappropriated from the unspent 2011 budget for organizational
facilitation and training in 2012.
Advance Planning
16. Homebuyer Assistance Program - $119,948
Affordable Housing funds for the Homebuyer Assistance Program could not be encumbered without
a contract and the funds cannot be contracted until all monies are available to issue an Homebuyer
Assistance loan. These funds are requested for reappropriation for the Homebuyer Assistance
Program.
315
April 3, 2012
The following three requests (17, 18, & 19) were approved in 2011; Affordable Housing funds
lapsed as no contracts were signed. Contracts are now ready and the funds are requested for
reappropriation to complete the programs.
17. Habitat for Humanity - $82,500
Funds for Habitat for Humanity were approved in November 2011 by City Council. These funds
need to be reappropriated for the purchase of land.
18. Fort Collins Housing Authority - $97,524
The Fort Collins Housing Authority - Legacy Senior Apartments were approved by City Council in
November 2011. The amount could not be encumbered without a contract. This project is in
Development Review and in order to proceed with the project these funds need to be reappropriated.
19. Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland - $120,000
Funding for Housing Authority of Loveland was approved by City Council in November 2011. Staff
is waiting for contracts to be signed so they can proceed with this program. This is a countywide
program administered by the City of Loveland. All monies from Fort Collins are used for Fort
Collins projects.
Police Services
20. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - $21,878
The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) collects a monthly fee from all county
telephone users. This fee is used to purchase and maintain equipment and train users to process
E911 phone calls and dispatch appropriate emergency services providers for the Poudre Emergency
Communications Center/Fort Collins Police Services. LETA uses a formula to determine the annual
budget for each emergency services dispatch center based on its number of dispatchers and the
number of E911 phone calls received in the center. The formula takes into consideration any
unspent balance from the prior year allotment and these funds were unspent due to staffing
shortages, training needs and equipment replacement schedules, etc. Any funds remaining from the
2011 allocation must be used for LETA specified purchases during 2012. The amount from the 2011
LETA funding to be reappropriated for use in 2012 is $21,878.
21. Computer Automated Dispatch System - $99,712
In October 2011, approximately $1.7million was appropriated for hardware upgrade and
replacement of the countywide computer aided dispatch/records and jail management system
(CAD/RMS). The process was delayed due to the need for Police Services to hire a project
manager. There was also some delay on the vendor’s part in producing the specifications and
hardware requirements for the upgrade. The 18 month CAD/RMS upgrade project will kick off in
April 2012. The funds will be spent in 2012 as the equipment is ordered and installed.
316
April 3, 2012
City Manager
22. Performance Excellence Program - $81,432
These funds will be used to pay for contractual services for the Performance Excellence program.
Staff’s work on the organizational strategic plan has been completed and the ongoing work toward
developing systems for performance improvement and measurement will continue throughout 2012.
Funds were originally appropriated for this program in 2011, but were not spent until later in the
year due to other priorities. These reappropriated funds will provide organizationwide continued
contractual support for the program.
23. Internal Focus Groups - $5,000
The internal service focus groups are intended to provide a data collection tool to evaluate the
service provided to internal customers by City departments. The initial concept for this tool was to
develop an online survey to collect internal services data. However, after meeting with the City’s
Strategic Issues Team (SIT), the decision was made to conduct focus groups to obtain initial
qualitative information on internal services. An outside consultant was used to conduct the focus
groups and provide an analysis of the results. Normally, this is funded bi-annually; however, staff
is seeking remaining funding for additional work in 2012.
Finance
24. Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements - $20,000
At the completion of each Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process feedback is gathered from the
various constituents involved in it as part of a continuous improvement process. There are two
areas of improvement planned that require consulting services and were not completed in 2011. The
first of those is assisting Results Teams and Sellers with the performance measures in the Request
for Results and Offers, respectively. This aligns with Citywide efforts around operational excellence
and performance measurement. The second area for improvement is with relative offer
prioritization. Staff has done a good job prioritizing offers within each Outcome, but this
enhancement will enable staff to take a systematic, data driven approach to looking at all Offers
across all Outcomes. This item reappropriates $20,000 for these BFO improvements.
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT (KFCG) FUND
Requests in the amount of $46,884 are included in the General Fund descriptions (Items 1, 7, and
14 listed above).
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
25. Design Assistance Program - $20,848
This item requests the reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $20,848 for the Design
Assistance Program. Program policies and procedures were developed for this program during
2011 and monies offered to potential recipients starting in late June. Because the program was in
effect for only a portion of 2011, all available funds were not expended. $19,152 of the $40,000
available was paid in 2011. Staff is requesting that the balance of $20,848 be made available for
317
April 3, 2012
2012 Design Assistance Program efforts, in addition to the $40,000 that has been budgeted in 2012
for this purpose.
Environmental Services
26. Unified Carbon Accounting System - $4,296
Two KFCG offers were approved to increase the City’s transparency and rigor of environmental
data reporting. One provided funds for a new Environmental Data Analyst staff position and
another provided funding for a unified carbon accounting database. This reappropriation request
is to use remaining non-personnel dollars to increase the support for further needed enhancements
for the City’s unified carbon accounting system, GEMS (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management
System).
27. Healthy Sustainable Homes (HSH) - $6,000
The HSH Program (formerly called “Volunteers for Sustainable Homes”) provides direct personal
assistance to help residents improve indoor air quality to ease asthma and/or COPD, a health
concern shared by 26% of area residents. Volunteers train to become Sustainability Masters and
then provide in-home assessment and recommendations. Homeowners voluntarily request the
service and then make voluntary in-home changes. 2011 funds were used to compile materials, train
volunteers and begin in-home assessments. Remaining funds will be used to continue program
marketing and outreach.
28. Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting - $19,947
This funding was approved to develop efficient, innovative improvements to the City’s physical plant
and operational procedures. These improvements focus on reducing costs, reducing energy and
water use, and reducing the City’s environmental and carbon footprint. Projects are evaluated by
an interdepartmental team using a triple bottom line approach, however, projects with the best
return on investment are given priority. The Innovation Fund is not a new idea; many communities
and organizations have implemented similar funds over the last decade. In fact, Poudre School
District (PSD) has its own version, which has helped the District save millions of dollars in
operational costs while significantly reducing environmental impacts. The remaining funds are
intended for Senior Center lighting improvements approved, but not implemented in 2011.
29. Sustainability Outreach and Education - $8,923
This funding was approved to increase outreach and education on internal and external
sustainability. Sustainability outreach efforts focus on empowering individuals to improve their
environmental and carbon footprint. The areas of particular focus are educational displays and
training and the remaining funds will be used for these purposes.
30. Commercial Recycling Outreach and Incentive Programs - $3,168
This funding provides services and programs that augment the City’s overall waste reduction and
recycling program, as part of achieving the goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste from
the landfill. Specifically, this new effort focuses on getting more commercial and multi-family
318
April 3, 2012
generators to start recycling or composting programs. For these customers, specialized educational
material, site analyses, and financial incentives help encourage them to sign up for recycling or
composting services. Unspent funds from 2011 are being requested to support the newly initiated
recycling rebate program.
31. Eco Industrial Center - $16,517
A contract for $69,000 was signed with a consulting firm to conduct a real estate analysis for
locations to establish a new recycling center, and to design it as an operational facility that expands
the City’s recycling drop-off site capacity. The final report was completed in February 2012.
Remaining funds will be used to pay for final invoices on this consulting project, and to pay for any
additional reporting/investigations needed to answer questions about the feasibility of constructing
a new, expanded recycling drop-off site in Fort Collins.
32. Earth Tub Composting Vessels - $3,540
This funding contributes to the operations of a demonstration site for composting food waste using
a contained, “in-vessel” system. As a pilot project, the Earth Tubs provide an opportunity for the
City to evaluate a waste diversion strategy applicable for small local districts such as the Old Town
area; several local restaurants and City buildings participate in this pilot food waste composting
project.
Human Resources
33. Learning/Organizational Development - $12,200
Following the approval of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot measure, City Council allocated a
portion of the 11% of the ”other community priorities” for Executive Leadership Development
(Lead 4.0) in the amount of $109,950. Implementation of the program was delayed due to: (1)
Executive leader schedules; (2) the Police Chief recruitment process;and (3) the effort to
collaborate with Larimer County and Poudre School District for their participation. The program
is now well underway; the reappropriation of $12,200 is requested to complete the Lead 4.0 pilot
program. Funds will be used to continue professional business coaching and specific competency-
based training.
Natural Areas
34. Stream and River Rehabilitation and Restoration - $10,528
The remaining balance of this $250,000 Keep Fort Collins Great line item will be used to further
the City’s stream restoration and rehabilitation efforts. Funds were expended in 2011 on several
projects, including improvements at Fossil Creek, and McMurry Natural Area; planning for
additional implantation in 2012; and, development of an ecological model of the Poudre River.
Stream rehabilitation and restoration projects are often complex and require several years of
planning and permitting; thus, it is expected that this particular fund will carryover monies on a
regular basis.
319
April 3, 2012
Engineering
35. Skyway Transit Stop and Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements - $4,157
This project will provide accessibility from Foothills Gateway to the existing Transfort bus stop at
Skyway Drive and South College Avenue. Specifically, this project will construct a concrete
sidewalk along the south side of Skyway Drive from Gateway Center Drive to South College Avenue.
The preliminary design has been completed. Final design and construction will be in 2012. The
total project cost is $157,000.
36. Drake – Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements - $14,000
The Drake/Redwing project is a pedestrian safety project intended to better serve users of the Mason
Trail. Right-of-way issues involving CSU and the BNSF railroad delayed the project in 2011.
Completion is anticipated within the month.
37. Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs - $23,868
This request will allow for improvements to sidewalk and ramps in various locations within the City.
Street Oversizing
38. Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program - $141,909
These funds are designated to cover the City’s portion of the arterial and collector roadways built
as part of developments. Approximately $152,691 was spent in 2011 on replacing traffic signals
on arterial streets. The balance will be used in 2012 for construction of Turnberry Road, done in
conjunction with the developer’s contribution.
Parking Services
39. Parking Services - $12,934
Parking Services received KFCG funding for long-needed maintenance projects for the Old Town
Parking Structure. The majority of the projects identified for 2011 were completed, but work on the
entry/exit area redesign could not be completed until 2012. The remaining balance of $12,934 is
needed to complete the architectural work on the entry/exit area redesign.
CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND
40. Art-in-Public-Places - $106,102
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $106,102 in the Cultural
320
April 3, 2012
Services Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue into
2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these
projects, including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, North College Improvements and other
miscellaneous projects.
RECREATION FUND
41. Security Camera Installation - $51,000
In 2011, $200,000 from Recreation reserves was appropriated for various improvements and life-
cycle replacements at the different Recreation facilities. A project that did not get completed in
2011 was installation of security cameras at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan
Community Center, and EPIC, leaving $51,000 in unused, appropriated funds. Recreation has been
coordinating with Transfort to “piggy-back” with a similar project in order to receive cost savings;
however Transfort was not ready to sign a contract by year end 2011. Installation of security
cameras is a high priority for safety and security of both employees and citizens using the facilities;
therefore, Recreation is requesting reappropriation of $51,000 for this project in 2012.
CEMETERY FUND
42. New Cemetery Management Computer System - $50,000
The process was initiated in 2011 to purchase a new cemetery management system. The bid process
was not completed before the end of 2011. Therefore, funding will need to be reappropriated in
2012 to cover the cost of the new system.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
43. Parking Services - $44,000
Parking Services has a comprehensive service agreement for the access and revenue control systems
for the two parking structures. Funds were budgeted in 2011 for this expense and the renewal was
due in November. However, the vendor was still determining final costs for upgrades required for
credit card systems so a Purchase Order could not be issued and paid prior to the end of the year.
The vendor has continued to cover maintenance during the interim and will be sending an invoice
for the renewal in February. The cost of the service agreement is $44,000.
LIGHT AND POWER FUND
44. Residential Solar Rebates - $26,000
This item reappropriates $26,000 in the Light and Power Fund for residential customer solar
rebates. Due to construction delays for seven residential solar electric rebate applicants, projects
which were approved in 2011 will not be completed until 2012. The rebates range from $3,500 to
$3,750 per customer. The Utilities is requesting reappropriation of 2011 funds in order for these
solar rebate incentives to be paid in 2012.
321
April 3, 2012
45. Art-in-Public-Places - $23,366
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $23,366 in the Light and
Power Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue
in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue
these projects including the Transformer Cabinet Mural project.
WATER FUND
46. Art-in-Public-Places - $143,340
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $143,340 in the Water Fund
to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP
funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects
including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Linden Street Pocket Park.
STORM WATER FUND
47. Art-in-Public-Places - $21,228
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $21,228 in the Stormwater
Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012.
As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these
projects including the Flood Markers, Manhole Covers and the Storm Drain Markers.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations by $1,898,522. A total of $1,083,767 is requested
for reappropriation in the General Fund and $814,755 is requested from various other City funds.
Reappropriation requests represent amounts budgeted in 2011 that could not be encumbered at
year-end. The appropriations are from 2011 prior year reserves. “
Councilmember Horak expressed concern regarding a $145,500 appropriation for a Transportation
Utility Analysis, which he understood would not been needed if ballot initiative Keep Fort Collisn
Great passed. City Manager Atteberry replied this addressed the revenue diversification issue. Ann
Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager, replied the budget offer is being continued because the
322
April 3, 2012
revenue diversification issues were expected to remain, and Council had wanted to continue to
discuss the Transportation Utility Fee.
Councilmember Manvel asked if it makes sense to move forward with this study rather than look
at other revenue diversification strategies. City Manager Atteberry replied it should be done in the
context of other diversification strategies.
Councilmember Horak stated this is premature and he does not want the funds appropriated for this
particular use.
City Manager Atteberry stated, should this not be approved, an offer will return in the future,
perhaps within a greater context of revenue diversification.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2012, on First Reading, deleting the reference to the Transportation Utility Analysis. Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use
Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex
Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved
by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw;
Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard
Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The
additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The
City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab
equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax
rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On May 18, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution approving a Business Investment Agreement
(“Agreement”) between the City and Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”) for the Building 6 Annex
Expansion. HP expanded operations at the Harmony Road facility, including construction of an
Engineering Focused Lab by retrofitting 40,000 square feet of the Building 6 Annex. The additional
operations created over 100 jobs with an annual average wages of $90,000. The expansion included
two phases totaling $64.4 million in construction and equipment investment.
The Agreement includes two performance based investments: (1) a one-time Use Tax rebate on the
lab equipment purchased at installation; and (2) a Personal Property Tax rebate on the same lab
323
April 3, 2012
equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect
if the expansion did not occur. The total investment package has a value of $1.6 million over ten
years. During the same time period the City will receive $2.0 million in revenues net of the
investments made through the agreement.
HP has completed the expansion and submitted an application for Use Tax rebate under the terms
of the Agreement. The Agreement authorized a Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement of $600,000.
After thorough review by the City’s Sales Tax department, the application requests $241,193 in Use
Tax rebate.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Ordinance will have the following impacts on the City of Fort Collins finances:
• $241,193 of General Fund Reserves will be appropriated for the purpose of remitting a Use
Tax rebate to HP. The Use Tax was received in a prior year and is now held in reserves.
• The Sales Tax Department has validated that HP remitted at least $241,193 of Use Tax
through the purchase of eligible equipment as indicated in the Agreement.
Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Regional Economist at Colorado State
University prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of HP’s planned expansion. The following
summarizes that analysis:
Construction Benefits/Impacts
• Direct Employment and Income – Based on a $34.4 million budget for retrofit, the
proposed expansion will directly support approximately 336 construction jobs during the
construction phase earning an average wage of $52,300 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional
Economist).
• Spin-off Employment and Income – The construction jobs will support approximately 207
spin-off jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $35,600 (Source:
IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist).
• Total Employment – The project will support a total of 543 direct and spin-off jobs during
construction, with an average annual compensation of $45,900(Source: IMPLAN, CSU
Regional Economist).
• Construction Use Tax – Based on an investment of $34.4 million in retrofit, the City will
receive approximately $620,000 in construction use tax. The calculation assumes 60 percent
of the investment is in materials and 40 percent in labor. (Source: Insight Fiscal Impact
Model; CSU Regional Economist)
Operations Benefits/Impacts
• Direct Employment and Income – Per HP, 100 positions will be created after the retrofit
of Building 6, earning an average wage of $90,000. Total payroll including benefits is
approximately $12.6 million (based on an assumption of 40 percent of gross pay in benefits).
324
April 3, 2012
• Spin-off Employment and Income – Based on the anticipated job growth supported by the
expansion of Research and Laboratory space at HP, the 100 direct jobs will support an
additional 124 spin-off positions in Larimer County with an average wage of approximately
$32,900 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist).
• Total Employment – The proposed expansion will support a total of 224 direct and spin-off
jobs (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist).
• On-going Real Property Taxes – Based on a $24 million investment in Building 6, it is likely
the Real Property Taxes will increase after completion. This increase in value could
generate an additional $88,000 annually in property tax revenue to the City or $880,000
over ten years.
• On-going Use Tax – Assuming HP replaces 50 percent of the $30 million investment in
equipment over the next ten years, this could result in an additional $450,000 in equipment
use tax revenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The HP retrofit will impact the environment in the following ways:
• An existing building on the HP Harmony Campus will be retrofit for a productive use
allowing 100 new jobs to be added to the community without consuming additional raw land.
The stated goal of the facility is to develop an Engineering Focused Laboratory with a
“sustainable data center” and provide additional energy efficiency improvements.
• HP has and remains a strong ClimateWise partner. Energy Efficiency projects to-date have
included lighting upgrades, chiller plant expansion and upgrade, air handling unit upgrades,
a building tune-up, and ice thermal storage. The total power savings equals 6.2 million
Kilowatt Hours annually and a reduction in demand of 1,641 kilowatts.
• Annual water consumption will increase by 8.0 million gallons as a result of cooling
operations. A great deal of this water will not enter the waste water system due to
evaporative loss.
• Annual electricity consumption will increase by 10.67 megawatts.”
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a
previously declared conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to see individual incentives become performance-
based.
Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, stated the level of sophistication relating to incentives can be
elevated in the future. A natural evolution is to add additional accountability into these types of
incentives, including demonstrable proof as to the number of jobs being created.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated budget offers would be involved in the 2013-2014
budget to aid in increasing the transparency and visibility of these kinds of incentive programs.
325
April 3, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested statements indicating job creation numbers should not be
provided without evidence. Birks agreed and City Manager Atteberry replied data from Hewlett
Packard will be provided to Council.
Birks noted this addition has created one of the first data centers that is being operated in a more
efficient environment.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 028, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial
of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments
Located at 1305-1319 South Shields Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January, 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd, (Appellant) submitted two stand-
alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B)
of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible
for local landmark designation, and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure
(Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319
South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated
outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately ten units per building.
On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand-Alone Modification
of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicant, the public
and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of
standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s
Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because
it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly
interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone
modification of standards requests.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The existing buildings at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street are over fifty years old. Therefore, the
proposal to demolish these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code,
commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” In November 2011, pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services
(CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the
326
April 3, 2012
house at 1319 South Shields and the outbuildings at 1305 South Shields Street were not individually
eligible for local landmark designation. The residence at 1305 South Shields Street was reviewed
by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair on three separate occasions, in September, November,
and December, 2011, and each time the dwelling was unanimously determined to be individually
eligible for local landmark designation.
Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed
demolition of the dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the
Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration. At this Preliminary
Hearing, the Appellant did not discuss or provide any alternatives to demolition, and a mutually
agreeable solution to demolition of the home was not identified. The Commission moved that the
application proceed to a LPC Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing would be scheduled after the
receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property.
For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with
all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. As conceptually proposed,
the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate
either that the plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South
Shields Street by incorporating the building in his proposal; or by providing evidence that the
applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the Code provision and that
no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or
minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellant chose
to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions:
1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff,
and unanimously voted (6-0) to deny the modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and
3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code.
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
327
April 3, 2012
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The
Appellant, who was the applicant before the Planning and Zoning Board, alleges that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of
standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code.
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered
Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading.
The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination
of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated
to be blatantly incorrect...”
The Appellant maintains that the Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly
misleading. In support, the Appellant cites the November 9, 2011 staff report to the Landmark
Preservation Commission; the initial determination of eligibility; the State of Colorado, Cultural
Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by the historic preservation firm
HistoryMatters, LLC. The Appellant asserts these contained false information and that the Board
relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 1305
South Shields structure. The Appellant further details other aspects of these materials, as well as
information from a separate report provided by the Appellant, referenced as the Rogue Architects
Report, in support of this assertion.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not receive nor did they discuss the November 9, 2011 staff
report prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Board did
not discuss any information contained in said report in connection with its decisions on the
modifications of standard request.
Similarly, none of the three determinations of eligibility were provided to the Planning and Zoning
Board. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, provides that the
determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with Chapter
14 of the Municipal Code. The applicable provisions of Chapter 14 provide for the determination
of eligibility to be made by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or, in the case of conflicting
determinations, by the Landmark Preservation Commission. In this instance, three separate
determinations of eligibility were made for the building at 1305 South Shields Street. On each
occasion, the CDNS Director and LPC Chair determined that the building is individually eligible
for local landmark designation.
The factual information that the house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation was provided to the Board on page 3 of the staff
report on the modifications of standards. This information was also verbally relayed to the Board
at the hearing, as documented in the transcript of the meeting (Transcript, pg.15).
The HistoryMatters, LLC report, commissioned by private citizens, was sent to the Planning and
Zoning Board electronically on February 16, 2012, at the same time as electronic copies of the
Appellant’s Rogue Architecture and Gebau reports were sent. The Planning and Zoning Board did
328
April 3, 2012
not review or consider any of these reports in making its decisions on the modifications of standards
(transcript, pg.15). The transcript of the February 16, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
reflects that, when asked about the relevancy of these documents to the Board’s consideration, the
Appellant, Mr. Charles Bailey stated, “The fact of relevancy of these documents is that, again, we’re
not asking for a declaration that the home isn’t eligible, these are just supporting materials that
were part of the slide show.”…. and, “But the Gebau report and the Rogue report, you know, were
not asking that your decision hinge on those reports.” (Transcript, pg.15).
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the
Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not
detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan, West Central
Neighborhood Plan, and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility
of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would
be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of
retaining the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street outweigh the benefits to the community
of additional student housing at this location.
The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good
because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant
modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code
(LUC) Sections are as follows:
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard
If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark …, then to the maximum extent feasible,
the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and
adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design
shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic
property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or
(b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must
be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether
on the development site or adjacent thereto
Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition
A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation … may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion
of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible,
attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the
standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is
not feasible.
329
April 3, 2012
In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E),
the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or
more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with.
LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that:
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and
that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact
that the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City
Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project
practically infeasible.
The staff report to the Board notes that, “while providing for infill and redevelopment as well as
student housing is a goal of City Plan… providing for the protection of historic resources is also
required.” The Planning and Zoning Board’s discussion at the Hearing did not specifically cover
policy documents such as City Plan as they relate to the requested modification. In its denial of the
two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make
specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of
Appeal.
The Appellant states that granting the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because
the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressing policies from the West
Central Neighborhood Plan as established in three Maps, one Policy and three Housing
Objectives.
On page 3 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant references WCNP Map 4- Zoning District Map.
This map was not part of the record and the Planning and Zoning Board did not take the WCNP
Map 4 into consideration when moving to deny the two modifications based on the fact that they are
detrimental to the public good.
As the staff report states on page 2, providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student
housing is a goal of the West Central Neighborhood Plan; however, providing for the protection of
historic resources is also required. In terms of the public good, the staff report to the Board notes
that, “the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked
to the identity and heritage of an area and its people and a modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and
(E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street
could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it could weaken the sense of
heritage and area identity.”
330
April 3, 2012
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the
two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the
cited West Central Neighborhood Plan Maps, Policies or Housing Objectives referenced in the
Notice of Appeal.
The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public
good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property.
In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested
modification of standard.
The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter
14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of
individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Additionally, the State
of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form that the Appellant references
on page 4 of the Notice of Appeal was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, as the
Planning and Zoning Board has no ability to consider, make, or change a determination of
eligibility. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that
the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the
process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the
residence at 1305 South Shields Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of
the Municipal Code.
The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood
definition of “substantial.”
Section 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code gives the Director authority to interpret or define words, terms
and phrases not explicitly defined in LUC Section 5.1.2. The definition of substantial, as stated in
the staff report, was determined using Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)
pursuant to LUC Section 5.1.1. The definition provided by staff to the Board was “considerable in
amount, value or worth.” In context with the complete modification criteria of subsection
2.8.2(H)(2) (below), the definition of the word substantial was appropriately interpreted by staff and
subsequently the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2.8.2(H)(2) states,
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such
a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the
two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the
word substantial nor did they make any specific findings in relation to the word substantial.
331
April 3, 2012
The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the
requested modification of standard and demolition of the Property substantially alleviates
existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and
benefits important community needs.
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the
two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted
city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project
in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2).
SUMMARY
The house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation pursuant to the process and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
When a building that has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished
or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards
contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section
3.4.7 requirements and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the
submittal of a Project Development Plan, which was heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant
a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land
Use Code. The Board moved to deny both of the request for modifications based on their
determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good.”
Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett stated this appeal was filed prior to the adoption of Ordinance
No. 131, 2011, which amended the appeal procedure. Daggett added that new evidence is only
admissible in certain circumstances: evidence that is presented to support or oppose a claim that the
Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to its decision that was substantially false
or grossly misleading and evidence offered in response to questions of Councilmembers during this
proceeding. Only parties-in-interest are allowed to participate in this hearing. Council may opt to
uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board’s denials, or may remand all or part of
the decisions back to the Board for re-hearing or further consideration of specific matters.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she took part in a site visit to the property, along with Councilmembers
Horak and Ohlson.
Courtney Levingston, City Planner, stated the Planning and Zoning Board denied two modification
requests relating to the demolition of the house at 1305 South Shields Street, which was determined
to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Levingston described the conceptual plan
for development of the site.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, described the demolition alteration review
process. As conceptually proposed, the Carriage House Apartments project does not comply with
two sections of the Land Use Code for Historic and Cultural Resources and the applicant has,
therefore, requested modifications of standard. Following the Board’s denial of said modifications,
the appellant filed a notice of appeal with the City Clerk’s Office citing grounds that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code.
McWilliams and Levingston discussed the allegations in the appeal.
332
April 3, 2012
Appellant Presentation
Charles Bailey, Catamount Properties, appellant, introduced attorney Jeff Johnson, and historic
architectural specialists, Jim Burshoff from Oz Architects and Juan Luna from Rogue Architects.
He requested consideration of three key elements: review of the Planning and Zoning Board’s
decision and findings, definition of public good, and a final determination based on facts. He stated
plans have not been submitted, given the potential of the historical aspect preventing the project.
Mr. Bailey discussed the history of the area on Shields Street and pointed out the lack of historical
features of the house at 1305 South Shields Street. He discussed a report from Rouge Architects
which was received by the Planning and Zoning Board at the night of its hearing and noted it was
presented late due to the nature of the modification request at that hearing; there was no request to
deny the historical designation of the structure at that hearing.
Mr. Bailey discussed the errors, in his opinion, of the Historitecture Report relied upon by staff to
conclude that the structure is individually eligible for historical designation. He stated this home
has no historical integrity or significance and should not be eligible for designation.
Mr. Bailey discussed the policies in various City Codes and Plans which are supportive of his
proposed project.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted Mr. Bailey provided copies of a highlighted document of
record and stated the Code requires any new written materials be submitted by noon the Wednesday
prior to the Council meeting. She recommended that Council consider whether or not it will accept
the documents at this point. The attorney for the opponents did not have any objection to the
submission of the material and Council opted to accept the highlighted documents.
Opponent Presentation
Sandra Quackenbush, 1308 Bennett Road, discussed the development process and historical
designation process to this point.
Dave Taylor, 1302 Bennett Road, addressed City Code provisions and stated the Planning and
Zoning Board provided a fair hearing and correctly and fairly applied Land Use Code provisions.
He requested the Planning and Zoning Board decision be upheld.
Andrew Bantham, 1214 Bennett Road, supported the Planning and Zoning Board denial of the
modification requests and suggested the applicant is attempting to circumvent the development
process by requesting that he not have to comply with certain Land Use Code sections.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Bailey introduced Bev Carlson, the property owner at 1305 South Shields Street. She opposed
the historical designation of the home and stated her rights have been disregarded with regard to her
desire to sell the property.
Jeff Johnson, attorney for Mr. Bailey, stated the appellants are not circumventing the development
process, but rather implementing it in the only way allowed to challenge the fundamental decision
of the Director of Neighborhood Services and the Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson.
333
April 3, 2012
He stated the applicant believes this project enhances the public good and is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. Additionally, the project satisfies the requirements to
grant the modification.
Opponent Rebuttal
Mr. Bantham stated the neighborhood supports student housing but stated it is not the only goal
which should be supported by the development process. He requested Council uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Council Discussion
Mayor Weitkunat commended both sides on their presentations and requested input from Deputy
City Attorney Daggett regarding the purview of Council regarding this decision. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied there are two types of questions before Council: the first relates to the
hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Board. Assuming Council finds the Board hearing
to be fair with a proper process, Council would then move to the question of whether or not the
Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Troxell stated the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) application contained
incorrect information; parts of the justification for declaring this property to be historic are
inaccurate.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the Planning and Zoning Board hearing could be considered
unfair as they may or may not have been presented with accurate information, and asked if this
process is part of the appeal process for the Landmark Preservation Commission. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied the Land Use Code specifically references the Chapter 14 process and
states that a structure that is determined to be eligible for historic designation is considered to be
eligible for the purposes of the Land Use Code. Chapter 14 does not specify an administrative
appeal process for determinations made relating to eligibility for landmark designation; therefore,
the process in Chapter 14 and the Land Use Code becomes the process by which those issues are
tackled.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if property owners can reapply or go through the Planning and
Zoning Board with the same property once it has been determined to be eligible. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied this project actually had three different reviews at the Chapter 14 level,
all of which resulted in determination of individual eligibility. There is no limit in Chapter 14 on
eligibility review and the Land Use Code has limits on resubmissions of ODPs and PDPs in terms
of timing, but does not address resubmission in terms of modifications.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the referenced preliminary and final hearings. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied the preliminary hearing process is a process in which the LPC attempts to
work with the applicant to come up with ideas which may result in a mutually agreeable outcome.
If that does not occur, the project continues through the process and the LPC provides a final review
of an approved plan. That review cannot undo the Land Use Code approval.
Councilmember Manvel asked why no development plan has been submitted. McWilliams replied
the process would typically involve a preliminary hearing with the LPC to discuss alternatives that
would meet the different Code standards and would allow the applicant to develop the project. If
334
April 3, 2012
a solution is not found, the applicant can develop plans and submit them for approval. At that point,
the plans would return to the LPC. The LPC could then approve the project as submitted, opt for
a maximum of a 45-day postponement to create a solution among neighbors, or state that the
property has such significance it should be considered for landmark designation against a property
owners’ desire. In that case, Council would make the final decision. Any decision made by the LPC
in its final hearing is appealable to Council. Council makes the final decision regarding all landmark
designations, based on recommendation from the LPC.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted the process referenced in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code
is an eligibility process, not the actual designation process.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the decision is not being appealed in terms of the property’s
eligibility for designation. McWilliams replied, once the building is found to be individually
eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, the applicant would develop plans.
Councilmember Troxell stated that presupposes that the eligibility is valid. McWilliams confirmed
that is what the applicant maintained; however, the eligibility of the property was reviewed on three
separate occasions, the first two of which were based solely on the property’s architectural merits,
its rarity in Fort Collins, and the age of additions or alterations. The fact that Mr. Carlson had lived
in the building was not brought forth at all until the third determination of eligibility. The report
presented by the neighborhood group was present for the third determination of eligibility.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the structure has been determined to be eligible for historic designation.
The applicant chose to go before the Planning and Zoning Board to request a stand-alone
modification of standard. The Board had to first determine whether or not the granting of that
modification would impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code or substantially alleviate
an existing and defined problem. Council must now determine whether or not the Board properly
applied the Code.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Manvel noted the Planning and Zoning Board was making its decision with the
given that the property was eligible for designation, and agreed the hearing was fair.
Councilmember Troxell agreed the hearing was fair; however, he stated the process with the LPC
is flawed and lacks checks and balances.
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 Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from 3.4.7(B) of
the Land Use Code.
335
April 3, 2012
Councilmember Kottwitz requested Council examine the process regarding the LPC. City Manager
Atteberry stated he has already met with staff regarding that issue and he will return to Council with
additional information.
Councilmember Troxell stated the LPC process is flawed but supported the motion regarding the
modification of standard.
Councilmember Horak stated he could not yet agree the process if flawed. Councilmember Troxell
replied the application for this property represents 1301 South Shields as part of the justification as
to why it should be applicable for historical designation; therefore the Planning and Zoning Board
decisions have been based on flawed materials that have gone through the LPC.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the motion but agreed the LPC process needs to be
reviewed.
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 Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from Section
3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Poppaw requested that staff prepare information regarding an unused medicine
disposal site and place the item on the six month planning calendar. The discussion should include
all pharmaceutical and personal care products.
Councilmember Kottwitz agreed and suggested possibly partnering the event with the hazardous
waste disposal day.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed and requested an examination of all possible options.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
336
April 17, 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, April 17, 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, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated the order of the agenda has been changed and Item #23
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two
Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715
Remington Street will be considered after Items #24 and 25.
Citizen Participation
Karen Miller, 4407 Hummingbird Drive, suggested Hughes Stadium could be refurbished rather
than CSU constructing a new stadium.
Judy Rodriguez, 525 East Stuart, asked about the future plans for Hughes Stadium.
John Hurst, PO Box 999, discussed Resolution 2006-126 regarding Front Range Village and stated
the public should be informed of the PIF via placards at registers.
Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU.
Chase Eckert, Associated Students of Colorado State University Governmental Affairs Director,
discussed the increase in Transfort ridership for CSU students.
Carl Patton, 619 Skysail Lane, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU and suggested
Council read a statement compiled by the SOS Hughes group.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU and
questioned the future of Hughes Stadium.
337
April 17, 2012
Sandy Lemburg, 6851 Poudre Canyon, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU and
suggested Council pass a non-binding resolution opposing the stadium.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, requested that Council question Dr. Frank about CSU’s plans
for additional student housing and the way in which those plans may be affected by the proposed
stadium.
Thomas Sneider, 416 West Swallow, urged Council to ask Dr. Frank if he is willing to make a
commitment that private funding will pay for the impact of the stadium on City infrastructure.
Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, stated a representative from IKON stated the City will not
be responsible for funding infrastructure improvements.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat stated Council has a meeting next Tuesday, April 24, with Dr. Frank, CSU
President.
City Manager Atteberry stated staff will review the possibility of a placard requirement at Front
Range Village.
Councilmember Troxell thanked Mr. Eckert for his service at ASCSU and recognized CSU students
for the positive impact they have on the community.
City Manager Atteberry expressed appreciation for Mr. Eckert and the ASCSU group.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and March 20, 2012, Regular
Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior
year’s reserves for expenditures authorized in 2011 by Council but which could not be
completed by the end of 2011. This Ordinance was amended on First Reading to remove
the request of $145,500 for a Transportation Utility Analysis.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2012 Adopted City Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior
year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of land conservation, construction
of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs
to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins.
338
April 17, 2012
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
Ordinance No. 027, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012,
appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital
Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public
Finance at 2.15% interest rate. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444.
Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012
lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for
the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. 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.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, updates titles and
terminology used in the City Code to correspond with current City organizational titles and
department names. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition,
certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer
consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are
updated in the Ordinance.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the
Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD)
holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I
(north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who
reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their
parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes an amendment to the easement to grant
permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to
make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right
for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this
opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement
capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE.
339
April 17, 2012
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to
Conifer.
The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer is a road improvement
project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on
the north. In 2010, Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorized the use of eminent domain
proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests
were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the
upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right-of-way area containing
approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a
planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open
to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) facility and the Project is partially funded by CDOT,
this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous
acquisitions for the Project. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 3, 2012.
14. Resolution 2012-023 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 812 North Shields
for Up to Two Years.
In 2000, the City purchased the property located at 812 North Shields as part of the
Operations Services Master Plan. Leasing of the property has been continual from the time
of purchase. Staff recommends that the City continue to lease this site.
15. Resolution 2012-024 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of
Traffic Signals Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.
The City has a long-standing contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) to maintain traffic control devices within the City’s Growth Management Area.
This update increases the amount that CDOT pays the City for maintenance of signs and
pavement markings to more accurately reflect actual costs incurred by the City. Under this
new contract, the amount paid to the City by CDOT will increase from $193,440 to
$217,568 annually. The contract is for 5 years.
16. Resolution 2012-025 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16,
2012, Planning and Zoning Board Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning
the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street.
On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to deny the Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standards was filed by
Charles A. Bailey with Catamount Properties, Ltd.
On April 3, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a
Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
340
April 17, 2012
17. Resolution 2012-026 Making an Appointment to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board
of Commissioners.
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw’s term on the Fort Collins Housing Authority expires on May
1, 2012. Councilmember Poppaw has expressed a desire to be reappointed. This Resolution
will reappoint Councilmember Poppaw to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners until May 1, 2017.
18. Resolution 2012-027 Making an Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of
Selena Paulsen. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz
reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending Todd Galbate to fill
the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2012 Adopted City Budget.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to
Conifer.
26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
341
April 17, 2012
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to
Establish a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow
for On-Bill Utility Financing.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 034, 2012,
Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical
Assistance Program for Electric Customers, Option C Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance
for customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical
equipment in their home. Staff is presenting three options for consideration by Council. Fort
Collins Utilities is seeking direction on the program details and approval from the City Council to
implement this program. Specifically, staff is asking City Council to determine the scope of the
program and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the establishment of the program.
The program is focused on reducing the cost associated with the additional electrical needs of those
with life support equipment in their household. Options for other medical equipment and air
conditioning needed to improve the quality of life for those with immune compromising diagnoses
are also being presented for consideration.
• Option A limits coverage to electrical life support and mobility durable medical equipment.
The maximum discount is $12.50 per month.
• Option B extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment. The maximum
discount is $12.50 per month.
• Option C extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment and includes a
discount for customers whose medical needs require air conditioning. The maximum
discount during non-summer months is $12.50 per month. The maximum discount during
summer months is $41.73 per month.
The key differences between the three options are shown in the Ordinance in bold-face type.
342
April 17, 2012
Fort Collins Utilities is recommending the implementation of Option C with an income limitation
as a pilot program to be implemented by June 1, 2012 when the higher seasonal tiered rates become
effective. Based on 2012 participation and costs of the program for the remainder of the year, the
program can be adjusted prior to the 2013 cooling season for any necessary changes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On December 6, 2011, Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the Residential Class
Electric Rates. The new rates support the conservation values of the City through a tiered rate
structure and include a seasonal variation to reflect the higher cost of energy during the summer.
In the discussion leading up to the vote to adopt the Ordinance, Council requested Fort Collins
Utilities to develop a program so as not to impose any additional economic hardship on those
customers who may have sufficient monthly energy usage attributed to medical equipment to be
pushed into the second or third tiers. The Pilot Medical Assistance Program is the result of that
request.
The program could include an income limitation to focus the program on those most in need of
economic assistance. It could also include a component with an air conditioning allowance during
the cooling season (June – August) for those with medical conditions adversely affected by hotter
summer temperatures.
Research indicated there are a number of discount programs for customers with medical issues
around the country. Comparisons of the programs in the western region of the United States served
as a basis for the development of this program. Please see Attachment 2 for a table comparing the
programs at other utilities. In addition, outreach for this program has involved review by the
Energy Board and meetings with patient advocacy groups and physicians.
In determining a reasonable household income ceiling, the Area Median Income (AMI) used by the
Federal Housing Authority provided an independent source of income information based on the
number of people in a household. The AMI is specifically formulated for Larimer County and
factors in local costs of living. Without more detailed information than the median income, it was
necessary to take some portion of this AMI as the program is designed to help those customers who
will see the tiered rate increase as a substantial economic hardship. The income table included in
the draft application shows the income ceiling as 60% of the Larimer County AMI. This level of
income is close to 185% of the federal poverty level and is higher than that used for many other
income-based social assistance programs.
A certain level of fraud prevention is recommended for this program. The application requires the
customer to sign an affidavit allowing for Fort Collins Utilities to request documentation to verify
income qualifications, if the pilot program has an income ceiling. The application also requires a
signed affidavit from a physician verifying the need for durable medical equipment which requires
electricity or the need for a temperature controlled household for those customers with certain
immune compromising diagnoses. The lawful presence affidavit is required by Colorado state law
because participation in the program is considered a local public benefit.
An appeal process will be included in the program for those customers who are experiencing a
financial hardship due to their medical needs or whose medical condition requires air conditioning,
yet fall outside the scope of the program. The Utilities Executive Director will have the authority
343
April 17, 2012
to consult a medical professional as a hearing officer for medical appeals of a decision that any
electrical medical equipment does not meet established criteria. The Utilities Executive Director
will have the authority to allow an exception to the established financial criteria.
Staff is providing Council with three options for the program. Attachment 1–Program Options
summarizes the options, including the pros and cons and the associated costs of each option. Based
on City Council’s direction and adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading, staff will return with
the specific program for Council to consider adopting on Second Reading on May 1. If adopted,
staff anticipates implementation of the program before June 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is difficult to estimate the anticipated enrollment in this program and the enrollment depends on
what is included in the adopted program. This is because the program may potentially be more
comprehensive than other programs reviewed by staff. In addition, data on the prevalence of
certain diseases in Fort Collins is not available. For these reasons it is recommended that we
consider this program to be a pilot program from June 2012 through May 2013. Once the program
has been implemented, enrollment and costs will be better understood so any changes necessary to
continue the program or better meet these customers’ needs can be brought back to City Council
by the second quarter of 2013. The revenue shortfall in 2012 associated with this program will be
accommodated within the Light & Power Reserves for 2012 and 2013.
While it is hard to estimate the economic impacts of a new program, this program is not increasing
electric rates for customers at this time and is providing a reduction for the eligible customers.
Thus, it is not expected that this program will have any substantial economic impact on the
community as a whole but it will provide some relief for customers participating in the program.
It is expected that the savings seen by these customers will be spent elsewhere within the local
community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This program has minimal negative environmental impacts. This program in conjunction with the
new tiered rate structure has the potential to help customers be more aware of their personal energy
usage and may be an opportunity in the future to expand on energy efficiency education programs.”
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, stated this item was postponed from
March 6 to allow for additional community outreach. Since the initial discussion before Council,
staff has spoken with citizens, physicians, and patient advocacy groups, and has presented the item
to the Energy Board and Senior Advisory Board. He discussed the three options available for
Council consideration and stated staff is recommending this program proceed as a pilot program to
be reviewed in one year.
Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson, stated the Energy Board supported Option C with an
income limitation.
Dolores Kueffler, Fort Collins Program Manager for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
supported Option C.
344
April 17, 2012
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the wording of the options.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council received a revised Ordinance which includes two provisions that
define the terms electrical durable medical equipment and healthcare common procedure coding
system.
Councilmember Manvel asked why the discounts are being given at the bottom rather than at the
top tier. Smith replied the recommended program gives all customers the same incentive to
conserve.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the cost estimates for implementing the pilot program. Patty
Bigner, Utilities Customer Relations Manager, replied this program will be absorbed into the
existing customer service function and it is not anticipated that the program will require additional
staffing or cost.
Councilmember Manvel suggested deleting or changing the wording regarding tiered rates on the
program application form. City Attorney Roy suggested referencing the general rate increase as the
justification for the program rather than the tiered rate structure.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Option C
of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, as amended by removing the reference to the tiered rates in the second
Whereas clause, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he does not support the tiered rate structure and can therefore not
support the item.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 033, 2012,
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for
On-Bill Utility Financing, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance revises language in Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide
financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy
projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on-bill
financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate
Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line. The primary goal of
the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These
upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources, reduce our environmental footprint, promote
local economic health by investing in our built environment and improve the health, comfort and
safety of our homes.
345
April 17, 2012
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 for the 2012 budget to provide $300,000 for on-
bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the City Code and additional details of
the pilot program. Funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for
Outcomes process.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Policy Alignment
The proposed pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort
Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan. The Program will
be a valuable addition to Utilities’ efficiency and renewable energy programs which foster
sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local contractors and investment in the built
environment and improved home comfort, health and safety.
Specific Council Policy references:
• Development of On-Bill Financing is a near-term priority action item (#35) within Plan Fort
Collins.
• Energy Policy objectives which align with On-bill Financing include:
N Promote sustainable practices in homes and businesses by supporting increased
efficiency in existing buildings.
N Strive to invest climate improvement monies locally in programs that have long-term
positive impacts.
History
Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan Program (ZILCH) since the early 1980s.
The Program was very successful for many years. However, in recent years the Program saw
relatively little activity. The recent national mortgage crisis resulted in changes to the requirements
for local government entities to be able to originate loans for home improvements. As a result, the
Zero Interest Loan Program was suspended in early 2011. The Program restarted in fall 2011
under a model where the loans are unsecured. The On-Bill Financing Program will supersede the
energy and water efficiency aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program. The air quality related
aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program, with funding from the Environmental Services
Department, will be continued under a revised administrative model that is currently being
developed.
Home Efficiency Program Description
Utilities began offering the Home Efficiency Program to customers in 2010, with a goal of providing
a comprehensive and best practices approach to improving the performance of existing homes. The
Home Efficiency Program elements guide homeowners with:
• Low-cost audits which prioritize home improvement measures to address the barrier of
“what to do”
• Participating contractor lists which address the barrier of “who to call”
• Rebates which partially address the “first cost” barrier
346
April 17, 2012
• Installation standards and verification which address the barrier of “is it done right”
Since January 2010, the Home Efficiency Program has:
• Completed over 1,100 audits
• Supported efficiency improvement projects in over 375 homes
• Trained over 100 individuals from 40 contracting companies
• Received ratings from customers of over 95% “extremely satisfied” with the audit,
contractor and rebate aspects of the Program
The On-Bill Financing Program will be integrated into the Home Efficiency Program and provide
the financing mechanism for homeowners to implement recommendations from the audit using the
established contractors and installation standards of the Home Efficiency Program.
Pilot Program Summary
The objective of the On-Bill Financing Program element is to increase the number of residential
efficiency and renewable energy projects by addressing the up-front cost barrier via on-bill
financing. Key aspects of the Program include:
• Simple application and approval processes
• Financing 100% of project costs
• Repayment of loans on the utility bill
Specific elements of the Program include:
• Eligible properties are single family homes and townhomes, both owner occupied and rental
properties with the owner as applicant.
• Project types are based on existing definitions within utility programs and include energy
efficiency (e.g., insulation, furnace, AC, windows), water supply line replacement/repair and
renewable energy (e.g., solar PV and wind)
• Direct Program expenses will be recovered via fees and interest rates
• On-Bill Financing will replace the existing Zero Interest Loan Program.
The proposed Program is based on selecting best practices from on-bill programs in Kansas,
Kentucky, South Carolina and Oregon and loan parameters from a successful Fannie Mae and
Pennsylvania energy improvement loan program. Together with the proven components of Fort
Collins Home Efficiency Program, an On-Bill Financing Program element will further support
customers who choose to improve the efficiency of their homes.
347
April 17, 2012
Pilot Program Details
Description Details
Customer
eligibility
Energy projects – Utilities electric customer
Water projects – Utilities water customer
Project
eligibility
Home Efficiency Program
• 23 types of projects based on rebate categories
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/energy-
efficiency/home-efficiency-program/rebates
Renewable energy rebate requirements
• http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/renewables/solar-
rebates
Water supply line replacement/repair (similar to Zero Interest Loan Program)
Not carried over from Zero Interest Loan Program
• Air quality projects, high efficiency clothes washers
Rental
properties
Owner is applicant and note holder
Owner options for payment mechanism:
• Owner receives separate loan payment bill from Utilities, or
• Tenants may make payments depending on lease type and if utility
account is in tenant’s name (requires notification and acknowledgement
by tenant)
Applicant
qualification
Varies with loan amount and credit score (2 tiers)
• Utility bill payment history
• Credit score
• Income
Loan details Amount: $1,000 to $15,000
Term: 3 to 10 years
Interest: prime plus 2-5%
Application fee ($25)
Origination fee ($150)
Risk
mitigation
and security
Chapter 26 utility service – permanent lien and disconnect provisions
Recorded lien (provides notification for title search)
Loan qualification track record
Payments
and Payoff
Payments on utility bill
Payoff on loan completion or property sale
Pilot Program Administration
The pilot program will be administered collaboratively by Utilities staff and a third party (to be
selected). Due to the state and federal requirements related to mortgage origination, Utilities will
seek a third party to complete several of the steps in the loan process. The table below represents
a simple overview of steps and likely split of responsibilities between Utilities and the third party.
348
April 17, 2012
Loan Process
Responsible Party
Utilities 3rd Party
Efficiency Audit required X
Application: project approval based on preliminary rebate
application and contractor estimate XX
Application: Bill payment history, credit score, income X X
Project verification X
Loan origination X
Contractor payment X
Set up loan within billing system X
Recording of obligation X
Loan payment servicing X
Pilot Program: Next Steps
Utilities has several tasks that need to be completed prior to being able to offer the pilot On-Bill
Financing Program to customers. The goal is to be ready to offer this service to customers by June
1. These steps include:
• Finalize testing of billing system
• Document/finalize internal business processes and 3rd party resources
• Document accounting procedures
• Integrate financing options with existing Home Efficiency Program outreach and marketing
plans
On-bill financing has great potential to increase efficiency and renewable energy projects in the
community. It is the intent of this 2012 pilot program to prove the concept in Fort Collins with a
limited scope of building, project types and available funds. Future expansion of the Program could
include the small commercial sector and additional projects types (e.g., expanded water
conservation measures, both indoor and outdoor).
The structure of the pilot, especially the loan parameters, is based on successful programs with
extended track records. This structure was chosen because it is scalable, both in administrative and
financial terms. The long-term vision is to attract capital to the loan fund so that the funding is not
limited to what Fort Collins Utilities can provide, either through reserves or ratepayer funds.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject
to bringing the necessary changes in City Code and additional details of the pilot program, which
are presented here. This funding for the 2012 pilot is coming from Utilities reserves. Utilities
expects to also have available approximately $30,000 in remaining Zero Interest Loan funds from
the 2012 adopted budget which can be utilized by the pilot program. Based on 2011 efficiency
project rebate requests, it is expected that this level of funding will support 50 to 75 efficiency
projects.
349
April 17, 2012
The On-Bill Financing Program element will add to the positive economic impact of the Home
Efficiency Program. There are currently 40 participating contractors working with the Program,
with over 100 individuals going through training for best practices installation standards. Retrofit
projects in 2011 represented an investment (by homeowners, supported by rebates) of approximately
$1.2 million towards improving existing home efficiency. Utility bill savings from improved homes
also results in additional spending on local goods and services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The On-Bill Financing Program supports the City’s goals for energy use reduction through
efficiency, carbon emissions reduction from improving the efficiency of the built environment and
increasing local renewable energy production. Homes are seeing 5-50% (15% on average) energy
reductions as a result of improvements made through the Home Efficiency Program. The
opportunity for on-going participation in the Program is many thousands of homes. The On-Bill
Financing Program is expected to be a very effective approach to reaching these homes in the
coming years.
The Home Efficiency Program also directly addresses indoor environmental air quality. The audit,
installation standards and project verification testing specifically address combustion safety of
natural gas appliances and educate homeowners on other aspects of indoor air quality.“
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, commended John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services
Manager, and Jessica Ping-Small, Sales Tax Manager, for their work on the proposed program. He
noted the detailed implementation work will occur following Council adoption.
John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services Manager, stated Council previously appropriated $300,000
for an on-bill utility financing program, subject to staff returning with a proposed structure and
details. Tonight’s item will set the parameters of the proposed pilot program and make revisions
to Chapter 26 of the City Code to establish financing and the servicing of loans as a utility service.
Phelan detailed the specifics of the proposed program and noted the program will not be subsidized.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested loans, not giveaways, should be subsidized.
Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson, stated the Energy Board supported this program.
Fred Kirsch, Fort Collins resident, Community for Sustainable Energy member, thanked staff for
its work on the item and stated this will be an example for other programs throughout the state.
Mayor Weitkunat requested that staff address the loan cap written into the document. Beckstead
replied the loan cap is within the range of home equity loans and car loans. The range of 3% to 6%
interest will not deter customers from using the program.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the rate range. Beckstead replied the range was set for
flexibility.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the application and origination fees. Beckstead replied they
will be used on a trial basis during the pilot program and can be revisited at its conclusion. Phelan
350
April 17, 2012
replied the application fee is a one-time payment and the origination fee can be included in the loan
financing.
Councilmember Troxell asked about cost estimates for the pilot year. Phelan replied the $300,000
in capital funding is expected to fund approximately 50 to 75 of the typical home efficiency
improvement projects. Beckstead noted staff’s commitment is to complete this pilot program, and
potentially beyond, without adding any incremental resources to the program.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the objectives and goals of the pilot program. Phelan replied
staff would like to see a substantial increase in the number of projects.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council has received a revised version of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 033, 2012, as revised, on First Reading.
Councilmembers Manvel and Troxell thanked Mr. Kirsch and other citizens for keeping this issue
at the forefront.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, 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.)
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012
Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex
located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to
the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice
of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources,
General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of
structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the
preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places
and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially
designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that
is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is
designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within
an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop
the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three
existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register
351
April 17, 2012
Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation, and constructing one multi-family building with 42 units in their place.
On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification
of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E).
After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all
five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of
Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board
for two of these Modifications of Standard requests.
The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because
it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly
interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone
Modifications of Standards requests in question.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on
three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the
boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the
District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fifty years
old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as
intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was
found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing
element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National
Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With
the exception of the two “intrusion” properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of
Remington Street are designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two of these
other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort
Collins Landmarks.
The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty
years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14,
Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.”
In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal
Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark
Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was
not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711
Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711
Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation.
Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make
it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel
School neighborhood context.
As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January
11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of
the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the
Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to
352
April 17, 2012
an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not
identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC
Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans
for the redevelopment of the property.
For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with
all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard
pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code’s applicability
to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for
applicability. The Code states:
“If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation…, [or] (2) is officially
designated as a…state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then
to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall
provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The
development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively
used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the
development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of
any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.”
As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to
the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State
Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by
providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with
the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to
comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken.
Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five Modifications of
Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject
of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions:
1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff,
and voted to deny the requests for modifications of standards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code (5-1).
353
April 17, 2012
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The
Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two
stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use
Code.
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered
Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading.
The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of
eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be
blatantly incorrect...”
The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was
substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at
711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not
meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the
February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, “…references to certain City
policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car
subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the
allegedly eligible property…”; and cite a letter from Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the
Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for
the 711 Remington structure.
• The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711
Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standards requests,
as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of
eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing
Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register
of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was
determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and
during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board.
• The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion
to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was
made in the Board’s discussion of the first of the five modification of standard requests, that
to Standard 4.9(D)(1) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did state in
354
April 17, 2012
reference to the proposed PDOD process that she hoped that it would encourage creativity,
including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15.)
• In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and
Zoning Board did not consider references to “…potentially thousands of possible project
designs that preserve the … property….” The only reference to the number of potential
alternative designs occurs on page 47 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter
states, “I think the other thing that I would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we
were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no
feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and
to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven’t
been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated.”
• In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and
Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants’ attorney,
Mr. Johnson did read out loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the
Transcripts from the Hearing make it clear that the Board did not discuss this information
or consider it in making its motion.
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the
Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not
detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code
zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that
modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The
question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711
Remington Street and maintaining the character of the existing Laurel School National and State
Register Historic District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at
this location.
The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good
because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
• On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board)
grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These
Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows:
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard
If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the
State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local
or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is
located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum
355
April 17, 2012
extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the
preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of
any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development
site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies
under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent
thereto.
Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition
A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of
Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision
maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the
site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the
preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible.
In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E),
the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or
more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with.
LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that:
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such
a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
Some of the City Plan policies listed on page 3 of the Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed
project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, “Relationship to City
Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant
asserts.”
Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, “the granting of two modifications, one to Section
3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the
proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18).
The Planning and Zoning Boards’ discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan
policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial of the two stand
356
April 17, 2012
alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific
findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal.
C. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not
detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of
exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and
apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard.
• The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a
determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012.
Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the
determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with
the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility
for the residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in
that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially
alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially
addresses and benefits important community needs.
• The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing
denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language
referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any
statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2).
SUMMARY
The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as
well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to
be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures
contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel
School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to be individually
eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development
plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As
proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a
modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on
February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings
outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request
for modifications (5-1), including the two that are the subject of this appeal, based on their
determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good.”
Assistant City Attorney Daggett reviewed the appeal procedure and noted this appeal will be heard
under the procedure in place prior to the recent appeal procedure changes. She stated Council can
opt to uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board’s original denials, or remand all
or part of the decisions back to the Board for rehearing or further consideration of specific matters.
357
April 17, 2012
Courtney Levingston, City Planner, discussed the Remington Annex project and the requested
modifications of standard. She stated the property at 711 Remington Street, one of the three homes
proposed to be demolished as part of this project, was determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed the City’s demolition/alteration review
process. She stated this block of Remington Street contains ten other historically designated
properties in addition to 711 Remington Street. She stated the appellant asserts the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence substantially false and
grossly misleading and also asserts that the building at 711 Remington is not eligible for local
landmark designation. McWilliams noted the Board did not consider the eligibility of the building
at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modification requests as that it is not
within the Board’s purview.
Levingston stated the appellant also asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when it denied the two modification
requests. The appellant maintains the two modification requests are not detrimental to the public
good and the project would advance the public good because it substantially addresses adopted plans
and policies. Levingston stated Council must consider whether or not the Planning and Zoning
Board failed to hold a fair hearing and whether or not the Board failed to property interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
Mayor Weitkunat noted several Councilmembers visited the site with staff on April 12.
Councilmember Horak stated at the site visit he asked why the property would be eligible for local
landmark designation, and was given a brief answer by staff.
Appellant Presentation
Jeff Johnson, attorney for the appellants, stated the relocation of the structure at 711 Remington
Street is the crux of the appeal. He stated the appellant would like Council to grant the modification
to allow the relocation of the structure with the condition that the site to which the building will be
relocated is suitable to the City. Relocation of the structure will allow for investment in the block
face to allow for an appropriate transition between the commercial zone district and the NCM zone,
and will substantially address needs outlined in City plans and policies. If the relocation is granted,
the project is not approved, and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 will still apply.
Robin Bachelet, Appellant, discussed the student housing projects she and her husband have built
near CSU and requested Council support relocation of the structure at 711 Remington Street. Ms.
Bachelet stated the conceptual review of the project resulted in a comment from Karen McWilliams
noting the properties at 705 and 715 Remington are not eligible, and the property at 711 Remington
is probably not eligible. She stated the conceptual review comments did not indicate these
properties are located in the Laurel Historic District or are part of a national historic district. Ms.
Bachelet described the conflicting comments received from staff regarding eligibility and whether
or not the Landmark Preservation Commission would be involved. Ms. Bachelet read portions of
a letter from Dr. Koziol, an historic preservation expert, opposing the eligibility of the structure at
711 Remington.
358
April 17, 2012
Ms. Bachelet stated there are twelve intrusion properties surrounding her property on Remington,
and only 18 of the 100 dwellings studied on Remington Street are owner-occupied.
Opponent Presentation
Rick Zier, attorney representing parties-in-interest in opposition to the appeal, discussed the
neighborhood and surrounding historical properties. He outlined the opposition arguments
supporting the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to deny the modifications of standard, stating
the two modifications would be detrimental to the public good as they would weaken the sense of
identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and overall
neighborhood context. Mr. Zier stated a structure’s location makes it historic and relocating it
would change the authenticity of the Historic District.
Marcy Riser, 622 Remington Street, stated relocation would destroy the integrity of the property and
negatively impact the Historic District. She requested Council uphold the denials of the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Appellant Rebuttal
Christian Bachelet, Appellant, stated the properties have been neglected for years and noted they
had plans that included the structure which were not feasible projects. Mr. Bachelet expressed
concern there is no avenue available to refute eligibility and noted there was no disclosure citing
eligibility when they purchased their property.
Mr. Johnson stated the property lacks exterior integrity and significance. The proposed project
encourages the Land Use Code by renewal and innovation, encourages patterns of land use
development through infill, encourages appropriate development within transit corridors, and fosters
a more rational relationship between the commercial properties and the historic district. Mr.
Johnson noted three of the Landmark Preservation Commission members supported relocation of
the structure. He stated the applicant has created six different building plans and has appeared
before the Landmark Preservation Commission twice to attempt to find a solution to the issue.
Opponent Rebuttal
Mr. Zier stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not rely on false or grossly misleading evidence
and did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code and requested the Board’s decision be
upheld.
Council Discussion
Councilmember Troxell asked about the alleged changing determinations made by Ms. McWilliams.
McWilliams replied the comments attributed to her from the Conceptual Review were summary
comments and were corrected at the time the comments were provided to the applicant, six months
prior to the purchase of the property. McWilliams read the summary and corrected comments.
Councilmember Troxell requested input regarding the ability to refute a determination of eligibility.
McWilliams replied the appellants can refute the eligibility determination by providing substantive
new information and requesting a new determination or, by working through the process and
359
April 17, 2012
continuing to the Landmark Preservation Commission final hearing; at which time, any decision of
the Commission is directly appealable to Council.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Troxell stated the applicant is using the mechanism at its disposal and he is unsure
as to why the applicant cannot get a fair hearing of the issue.
Councilmember Horak agreed there are some issues regarding eligibility which need to be addressed
within the City organization; however, this hearing is not the appropriate time to deal with that issue.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern the current processes regarding eligibility are detrimental
to the City.
Councilmember Manvel stated the process has been followed and the Board conducted a fair and
complete hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7(B). Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7(E).
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council was limited by the appeal process in terms of what issues can be
addressed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the schedule to address these process
issues moving forward. Deputy City Manager Jones replied a memo will be delivered to Council
within a week outlining the problem statements, scope of work, public involvement, and schedule
for meeting dates.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed that the historic preservation process needs clarification and stated
historic preservation within the community has been too relaxed.
360
April 17, 2012
Councilmember Troxell agreed and stated efforts should be sharpened with respect to what
properties should be preserved. McWilliams replied a recent assessment resulted in suggestions for
achieving more predictability in the historic preservation process.
Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use
Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved
by City Council on May 18, 2010 by Resolution 2010-029. The Resolution approved an agreement
between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the
Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an
annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and
a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance,
adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012 by a 6-0 vote (Poppaw withdrew) appropriates $241,193
in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000.”
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a conflict
of interest.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 028, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
361