Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/23/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. ADJOURNED MEETING October 23, 2012 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project. (staff: Rick Richter, Steve Roy; 10 minute staff presentation; 20 minute discussion) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, Establishing a Special Fee to Be Paid by the Owners of Property Within Close Proximity to the Reconstructed Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Windsor (the “IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”). The IGA states that, by March 31, 2011, the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the fee requirements identified in the IGA. City Council has adopted several resolutions extending this deadline, the most recent extension being to October 16, 2012. Ordinance No. 117, 2012, will establish the specifics of a special fee to be paid by the Property Owners near the interchange. The fee includes two parts and is summarized as follows: October 23, 2012 • The first part of the fee is in proportion to the anticipated appreciation in property value as a result of the interchange improvements. This amount has been determined from an appraisal report prepared by a licensed MAI appraiser (the "Foster Study"). • The second part of the fee is based on the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of the properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties. Based on negotiation with the Property Owners, the City and Town have created a second option for Property Owners. Property Owners signing an agreement with the City would be permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the modified IGA first approved by City Council on December 21, 2010, now revised to be consistent with the implementation of the fees as described above. Similar ordinances will be presented for consideration to the Windsor Town Board on October 22, 2012. This item was continued by the City Council to this date for First Reading. The version of the fee Ordinance being presented to the Council now has an additional provision (Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a)) stating that the fee amounts shown in the spreadsheet in Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a) may be adjusted by the City Manager, either in the event of a successful appeal of a property owner or to reflect new information about the amount of developable square footage contained in a particular CAC property 4. Resolution 2012-097 Ratifying the Appointment of Maddy Wawro to the Poudre River Public Library District Board of Trustees. (staff: Wendy Williams; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) On February 20, 2012, the Library Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Larimer County Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson, unanimously recommends the appointment of Kipp Lyons for a four-year term. On September 26, 2012, Mr. Lyons resubmitted a letter of resignation, effective October 15, 2012. 5. Resolution 2012-098 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Poudre River Public Library District Regarding the Donation to the District of Library Project Funds. (staff: Wendy Williams; 5 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion) The City and the Poudre River Library District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on December 18, 2007, in which the City agreed to use City Library Impact Fee revenue to complete construction, tenant finish, furnishings and purchase of materials for a Southeast Branch Library. The Facility project budget included “General Fund Productivity Savings” funds, which were appropriated to the Facility project, but not spent. A balance of $329,839 remains. 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. a. Motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 30, 2012. u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz Wade Troxell Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, Executive Director Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, Secretary The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING October 23, 2012 (after the Adjourned Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar consists of Items 3 through 6. This Calendar is intended to allow the Urban Renewal Board to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of resolutions of no perceived controversy. 3. Resolution No. 042, Adopting Amendments to the Bylaws of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will be asked to create formal Rules of Procedures for governing the conduct of Board meetings. By doing so, it creates a redundancy in the existing URA Bylaws because the Bylaws also contain a small section regarding meeting order. Staff recognized this redundancy and consequently reviewed the Bylaws and found other, minor inaccuracies. Therefore, several amendments to the Bylaws are proposed for consideration and are considered housekeeping in nature. 4. Resolution No. 043 Adopting Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Meetings of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. Resolution No. 043 creates formal Rules of Procedure for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board. The purpose of the document is to provide a clear structure for meetings, and would establish the order of business, time and length of meetings, procedures for citizen comment and Commissioner question/debate, and the basic rules of order. October 23, 2012 5. Resolution No. 044, Establishing a Board Finance Committee and Appointing Committee Members. This Resolution establishes an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Finance Committee. This committee of the URA Board would consist of the same members that serve on the Council Finance Committee. Having a separate committee allows the URA Finance Committee to discuss all matters related the URA, including receiving and discussing privileged and confidential URA information. ***END CONSENT*** ***DISCUSSION ITEMS*** 6. Resolution No. 045 Adopting Updated Policies and Procedures for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. The Resolution makes several changes to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA) Policies and Administrative Procedures document. This document provides guidance to the Board, staff, and community stakeholders when considering whether to provide tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to a project in a URA Plan area. Revisions to the existing 2010 policies have been discussed over the past year at several Board work sessions. Only select changes are being brought forward at this time; remaining controversial changes will be postponed until additional benchmarking research is completed. 7. Resolution No. 046 Adopting a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The Resolution for consideration would adopt a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy to be used by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in cases where a URA-assisted project results in the displacement of residents and/or businesses, or the URA intends to acquire real property. The Policy is based on federal and state regulations, and provides a uniform process by which relocation services and financial assistance is offered, and/or real property is acquired. 8. Consideration of Pulled Consent Items. 9. Other Business. 10. Adjournment. Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION October 23, 2012 after the Urban Renewal Authority Meeting 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies. (staff: Ken Waido; 1 hour discussion) City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the community’s housing stock, encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing units, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents displaced through the closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities. The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the strategic plan would be to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are located inside the City limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City Charter. The strategic plan under development will deal with more than just the relocation of low- income residents displaced by redevelopment. The expanded scope of the project will investigate optional techniques to preserve and stabilize some mobile home parks to reduce economic pressures to convert the parks to other uses. In cases where a mobile home park is subjected to redevelopment and the displacement of park residents, the project will develop relocation assistance requirements to be covered by the park/property-owner and/or developer of the redevelopment activity. 3. Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis. (staff: Aaron Iverson; 45 minute discussion) This purpose of this agenda item is to brief City Council on the status of the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis . City Council was provided with an update memo in February discussing the start and intent of the study. Since that time, the project team looked at existing conditions, modeled future traffic conditions, developed a vision and goals for the study, conducted the first public outreach, and began the development of future concepts for Harmony Road. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter Steve Roy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3 SUBJECT Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, Establishing a Special Fee to Be Paid by the Owners of Property Within Close Proximity to the Reconstructed Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Windsor (the “IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”). The IGA states that, by March 31, 2011, the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the fee requirements identified in the IGA. City Council has adopted several resolutions extending this deadline, the most recent extension being to October 16, 2012. Ordinance No. 117, 2012, will establish the specifics of a special fee to be paid by the Property Owners near the interchange. The fee includes two parts and is summarized as follows: • The first part of the fee is in proportion to the anticipated appreciation in property value as a result of the interchange improvements. This amount has been determined from an appraisal report prepared by a licensed MAI appraiser (the "Foster Study"). • The second part of the fee is based on the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of the properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties. Based on negotiation with the Property Owners, the City and Town have created a second option for Property Owners. Property Owners signing an agreement with the City would be permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the modified IGA first approved by City Council on December 21, 2010, now revised to be consistent with the implementation of the fees as described above. Similar ordinances will be presented for consideration to the Windsor Town Board on October 22, 2012. This item was continued by the City Council to this date for First Reading. The version of the fee ordinance being presented to the Council now has an additional provision (Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a)) stating that the fee amounts shown in the spreadsheet in Section 1. - Special Fee, subparagraph (c)(1)(a) may be adjusted by the City Manager, either in the event of a successful appeal of a property owner or to reflect new information about the amount of developable square footage contained in a particular CAC property BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council and the Windsor Town Board held five joint work sessions to discuss the I-25 and State Highway 392 Interchange Improvements, System Level Study (1601 Process), and design. The System Level Study for this interchange was approved by the CDOT Transportation Commission on January 21, 2009. This approval, along with a signed IGA, has allowed the Project to move into the final design phase. The accelerated design process for this October 23, 2012 -2- ITEM 3 Project was completed in January 2010. The accelerated design process made this Project “shovel ready,” thereby enhancing the possibility of obtaining funding for construction. The design followed the intent of the guiding principles adopted by the City Council and the Town Board in August 2008, specifically the community character guiding principle that states: “The I-25/392 Interchange is an important ‘gateway’ feature for both Fort Collins and Windsor. It is viewed as Fort Collins’ southern gateway and the main gateway into the Town of Windsor. The design of the Interchange, sensitivity to view sheds and associated land development, shall enhance the gateway concept.” The total construction and right of way cost for the Project was estimated at $27.5 million. On May 20, 2010, the Colorado Transportation Commission authorized the allocation of $20 million for the construction of the Interchange. CDOT had previously identified $2.5 million of state FASTER funds to be used for right of way acquisition. The funding gap of $5 million has been met by the local communities. On December 21, 2010, City Council adopted Resolution 2010-077 authorizing the Mayor to execute the IGA. The primary purposes of the IGA are to set forth the respective financial contributions of the City of Fort Collins and Windsor related to the reconstruction of the Interchange, to provide for orderly land use and development within the area immediately surrounding the Interchange, to ensure that the property owners most directly benefitted by the Interchange improvements proportionally share in the cost of the improvements, and to provide for a revenue sharing formula between the City of Fort Collins and Windsor. The IGA establishes a Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) around the Interchange, within which certain land uses have been agreed upon by the parties and a fee will be imposed to reimburse the City of Fort Collins and Windsor for their financial contributions to the construction of the Interchange and to help fund the construction and maintenance of improvements and services within the CAC. Staffs of the Town of Windsor and the City have continued to engage the public and the affected property owners regarding the implementation of the provisions of the IGA; and the documents accomplishing the final implementation of the provisions of the IGA are now complete. Under the IGA, the City and the Town have agreed to impose a fee upon the owners of properties located within the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”), because such properties are located in close proximity to the Interchange and will especially benefit from the reconstruction of the Interchange, and because the development or redevelopment of those properties will add more traffic to the Interchange. In recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to approximately 50% of the total amount expended by the City and the Town for the Improvements. In order to fairly apportion the amount to be recovered from the Property Owners, the City and the Town commissioned a study by a licensed MAI appraiser to determine the amount of appreciation in value that will be experienced by the Benefitted Properties. The study (the “Foster Study”) was completed and submitted to the City and the Town and is attached to the amended IGA. The Foster Study indicates that the appreciation in value the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the reconstruction of the Interchange will be more than sufficient to support the imposition of a fee in the total amount of 50% of the local share of the cost of the Improvements. The City and Town staff recommend that the fee be apportioned not only according to the anticipated appreciation in value that the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the construction of the Interchange, but also according to the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of such properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties. Staff further recommends that, upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Property Owners should immediately begin paying that portion of the fee that reflects the appreciation in value of their properties since the amount of that appreciation can be immediately determined on the basis of the Foster Study, and that the balance of each Property Owner’s fee should be deferred until the development or redevelopment of the Benefitted Properties, since the nature of the developed use of each such property, and the resulting increase in vehicular trips, will not be known until that point in time. In response to concerns expressed by some of the Property Owners about the authority of the City and the Town to impose the fee, staff of the City and the Town have negotiated an agreement that would give Property Owners who sign the agreement the ability to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped. Under the agreement, the amount of the fee would also be capped at the amount estimated in the October 23, 2012 -3- ITEM 3 agreement, and no interest would accrue on the fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. In exchange, the agreement would also contain a waiver of any claims against the City and the Town related to the fee. Some but not all of the Property Owners have expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the imposition of the fee and extend the period of time within which the Property Owners may elect to enter into the proposed agreement with the City and the Town upon the terms and conditions described above. Both the Ordinance and the Property Owner agreements contain a provision whereby the City will cease collecting the fee once the City and the Town have received $2.6 million in fee revenues, plus interest at the rate of 3.05% per annum from the effective date of the Ordinance. Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement that revises the IGA to be consistent with the above fees and agreements. Similar ordinances will be presented for consideration to the Windsor Town Board on October 22, 2012. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Project Cost Design & Right of Way State Funding $ 2.35 million Federal Funding $ 1.68 million Construction Federal Funding $18.34 million Fort Collins $ 2.30 million Windsor $ 2.30 million Enhancements $ 0.50 million Total Project Cost $26.97 million The approval of the First Amended IGA and the proposed assessment ordinance will allow the City to recover 50% of the amounts the City has appropriated for the construction of the I-25 Interchange and local improvements in the Interchange area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In 2008 the Fort Collins City Council and the Windsor Town Board adopted Joint Principles by resolution; the environmental sustainability language below was part of those Principles. Environmental Sustainability/Resource Protection: Ensure that interchange improvements occur in such a way that it minimizes environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible and protects the physical and natural environment in and around the interchange including but not limited to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. Subsequently, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor have jointly agreed that the Project will mitigate wetland impacts at a 3:1 ratio, this meaning that the estimated 0.4 acres of impacts from the Project will be mitigated with the creation of 1.2 acres of new wetlands. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. October 23, 2012 -4- ITEM 3 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff of both municipalities held several stakeholder meetings, most recently on April 21, 2011, August 10, 2011, and October 27, 2011, as well as numerous individual meeting with stakeholder representatives. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff of both municipalities held several stakeholder meetings, most recently on April 21, 2011, August 10, 2011, and October 27, 2011, as well as numerous individual meeting with stakeholder representatives. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Property Owner Agreement (Undeveloped Property) 2. Draft Property Owner Agreement (Developed Property) 3. Vicinity Map 4. Powerpoint presentation - 1 - AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE 25/COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE (UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY) THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”) and ________________________ (referred to hereinafter collectively as the “Property Owner”). RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“the IGA”) concerning the funding and construction of improvements to the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“the Interchange”) and related enhancements (the “Local Enhancements”), collectively referred to herein as the “Improvements;” and WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, the City Council later approved a First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “First Amended IGA”) restating and reaffirming those provisions of the Original IGA that the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the special benefit that properties in close proximity to the Interchange will realize from the construction of the Improvements, including the increased capacity that the reconstruction and expansion of the Interchange will provide, the IGA states that a fee will be imposed by the City and the Town upon such property owners to recoup at least a portion of the funding that the City and the Town have contributed to make the Improvements possible (the “Local Share”); and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the Local Share; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of a parcel of undeveloped real property in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange; and WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner have informally agreed on the amount and methodology for the assessment of the above-referenced fee, and by the terms of this Agreement desire to formally agree to same. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 - SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1. “Agreement” means this Agreement and its attachments. 1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.3. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that area described on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.4. “Development” shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 5.1.2 of the City’s Land Use Code. 1.5. “Development Proposal” means any proposal to develop the Property under the applicable laws and regulations of the City or Larimer County. 1.6. “Effective Date” means January 1, 2013. 1.7. “Fee” means the fee to be paid by the Property Owner under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.8. “Foster Study” means that document with attachments prepared by Foster Valuation, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.9. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange. 1.10. “Interchange Improvements” means those improvements to the Interchange which constitute the Project. 1.11. “Improvements” means the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. 1.12. “Local Enhancements” means improvements to and near the Interchange that are being constructed and maintained by the Town and/or City and that are not part of the Project. 1.13. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392. 1.14. “Property” means that certain real property described on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein. 1.15. “Redevelopment Proposal” means any application for the redevelopment of the Property. 1.16. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado. SECTION 2. ASSESSMENT OF FEE - 3 - 2.1 Assessment of Fee. The Property Owner agrees that there shall be a Fee assessed against the Property in the amount of $________ to help defray the costs of the Improvements, which amounts represents the Property Owners’ share of the cost of both the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. The Property Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the Fee is fair and reasonable in view of the special benefit that the Property will receive from the Improvements, and the increased amount of vehicular traffic that the future use of the Property will likely contribute to the Interchange. 2.2 Payment of Fee. The entire amount of the Fee shall be payable in full as a condition of the issuance of the first building permit for any improvements to be constructed pursuant to an approved Development proposal for the Property; provided, however, that in the event the approved development proposal and the subsequently issued building permit are for less than the entire Property, the amount of the Fee shall be proportionally reduced to reflect the amount of Property for which the building permit is issued, related to the entire Property. 2.3 Interest on assessed amount. Interest on the amount of the Fee shall begin to accrue on a compounded basis two (2) years after the Effective Date; provided, however, that there shall be no interest due in the event that the Fee is paid in full during the first two-year period. Once interest commences, it shall accrue at the rate of 2.35% per annum for a period of eight (8) years. Thereafter, interest shall accrue at the rate of 3.05% and shall continue at that rate until the Fee, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full. Once a year during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Property Owners shall have the right to prepay all or a portion of the Fee, including accrued interest thereon, by sending a written request to the City for a statement of accrued interest to date. 2.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary, in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Agreement or under the provisions of Ordinance No. _____, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), equals or exceeds the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus interest accrued at the rate of 3.05% from the effective date of the Ordinance, all CAC Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to make the payments to the City under this Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of the Fee may remain unpaid. SECTION 3. ONLY FEE TO BE ASSESSED It is understood and agreed that the City and Town shall, for a period of at least twenty-five (25) years from the Effective Date, assess no further fees or other charges upon the Property Owner related to the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude the City from charging development fees and costs generally applicable in the City and unrelated to the Improvements. In the event that this Section 3, or any part thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then the Property Owner shall be - 4 - entitled, during the term of this Agreement, to offset any and all amounts paid pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement against any new fee or other charge related to the Improvements. SECTION 4. NON-SIGNING PROPERTY OWNERS The City and the Property Owner acknowledge that there are a number of other property owners within the CAC who may choose not to sign this Agreement, although they have been afforded an opportunity to do so, and that the governing bodies of the City and Town have each enacted an ordinance within their respective jurisdictions imposing a separate fee upon such property owners for the purpose of recovering their fair share of the cost of the Improvements (the “Ordinance”). In the event that the City for any reason is unable to collect any portion of the fee imposed by the Ordinance upon such other property owners, that failure shall not increase the amount of the Fee due from the Property Owner under this Agreement, and the Property Owner shall not be liable to the City for any portion of the other property owners’ share of the cost of the Improvements. SECTION 5. WAIVER AND RELEASE In consideration of the concessions and compromises made by the City and reflected in this Agreement, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents and assigns from, and waives, any and all present and future liability, claims, causes of action, losses, costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever arising from or in any way relating to the construction of the Improvements, including but not limited to the creation of the CAC benefit area, the findings of the Foster Study, the methodology used by the City to calculate the Fee, or the assessment of the Fee. Specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event that the fee imposed by the Fort Collins City Council under Ordinance No. 117, 2012, is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, agrees not to seek a refund of any payments made by the Property Owner under this Agreement, either directly from the City or through the commencement of legal proceedings. SECTION 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the assessment of fees for the Improvements. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by the City and the Property Owner. 6.2. Severability. Except as provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision of this Agreement and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision was never part of this Agreement. 6.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered within the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability. - 5 - 6.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and sent via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be: If to the City: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 With a copy to City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 If to the Property Owner: 6.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement. 6.7. Authorization. The Parties affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made. 6.8. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. 6.9. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the - 6 - Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 6.10. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.11. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. - 7 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROPERTY OWNER By: ___________________________________ - 8 - Legal Description goes here - 1 - AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE 25/COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE (DEVELOPED PROPERTY) THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”) and ________________________ (referred to hereinafter collectively as the “Property Owner”). RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“the IGA”) concerning the funding and construction of improvements to the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“the Interchange”) and related enhancements (the “Local Enhancements”), collectively referred to herein as the “Improvements;” and WHEREAS, in recognition of the special benefit that properties in close proximity to the Interchange will realize from the construction of the Improvements, including the increased capacity that the reconstruction and expansion of the Interchange will provide, the IGA states that a fee will be imposed by the City and the Town upon such property owners to recoup at least a portion of the funding that the City and the Town have contributed to make the Improvements possible (the “Local Share”); and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the Local Share; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of a parcel of developed real property in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange; and WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner have informally agreed on the amount and methodology for the assessment of the above-referenced fee, and by the terms of this Agreement desire to formally agree to same. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1. “Agreement” means this Agreement and its attachments. ATTACHMENT 2 - 2 - 1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.3. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that area described on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.4. “Effective Date” means January 1, 2013. 1.5. “Fee” means the fee to be paid by the Property Owner under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.6. “Foster Study” means that document with attachments prepared by Foster Valuation, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.7. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange. 1.8. “Interchange Improvements” means those improvements to the Interchange which constitute the Project. 1.9. “Improvements” means the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. 1.10. “Local Enhancements” means improvements to and near the Interchange that are being constructed and maintained by the Town and/or City and that are not part of the Project. 1.11. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392. 1.12. “Property” means that certain real property described on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein. 1.13. “Redevelopment” shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 5.1.2 of the City’s Land Use Code. 1.14. “Redevelopment Proposal” means any application for the redevelopment of the Property. 1.15. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado. SECTION 2. ASSESSMENT OF FEE 2.1 Assessment of Fee. The Property Owner agrees that there shall be a Fee assessed against the Property in the amount of $____________ to help defray the costs of Improvements, which amount represents the Property Owner’s share of the cost of both the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements. The Property Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the Fee is fair and reasonable in view of the special benefit that the Property will receive from the Improvements, and the increased amount of vehicular traffic that the use of the Property will likely contribute to the Interchange. 2.2 Payment of Fee. The entire amount of the Fee shall be payable as a condition of the issuance of the first building permit for any improvements to be constructed pursuant to - 3 - an approved Redevelopment Proposal for the Property, but only if the amount of traffic that will be generated by the Property, as redeveloped under such Redevelopment Proposal, will increase by at least thirty-five percent (35%) the current volume of traffic on Property as of the Effective Date. In order that the projected increase in traffic generation under the Redevelopment Proposal may be determined for the purpose of this provision, the Redevelopment Proposal shall include a traffic study if deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer of the City. 2.3 Interest on assessed amount. Interest on the amount of the Fee shall begin to accrue on a compounded basis two (2) years after the Effective Date; provided, however, that there shall be no interest due in the event that the Fee is paid in full during the first two-year period. Once interest commences, it shall accrue at the rate of 2.35% per annum for a period of eight (8) years. Thereafter, interest shall accrue at the rate of 3.05% and shall continue at that rate until the Fee, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full. Once a year during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Property Owners shall have the right to prepay all or a portion of the Fee, including accrued interest thereon, by sending a written request to the City for a statement of accrued interest to date.’ 2.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary, in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Agreement or under the provisions of Ordinance No. ___, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), equals or exceeds the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus interest accrued at the rate of 3.05% from the effective date of the Ordinance, all CAC Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to make payments to the City under this Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of the Fee may remain unpaid. SECTION 3. ONLY FEE TO BE ASSESSED It is understood and agreed that the City and Town shall, for a period of at least twenty-five (25) years from the Effective Date, assess no further fees or other charges upon the Property Owner related to the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude the City from charging development fees and costs generally applicable in the City and unrelated to the Improvements. In the event that this Section 3, or any part thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then the Property Owner shall be entitled, during the term of this Agreement, to offset any and all amounts paid pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement against any new fee or other charge related to the Improvements. SECTION 4. NON-SIGNING PROPERTY OWNERS The City and the Property Owner acknowledge that there are a number of other property owners within the CAC who may choose not to sign this Agreement, although they have been afforded an opportunity to do so, and that the governing bodies of the City and Town have each enacted an ordinance within their respective jurisdictions imposing a separate fee upon such property owners for the purpose of recovering their fair share of the cost of the Improvements (the “Ordinance”). In the event that the City for any reason are unable to collect any portion of the - 4 - fee imposed by the Ordinance upon such other property owners, that failure shall not increase the amount of the Fee due from the Property Owner under this Agreement, and the Property Owner shall not be liable to the City for any portion of the other property owners’ share of the cost of the Improvements. SECTION 5. WAIVER AND RELEASE In consideration of the concessions and compromises made by the City and reflected in this Agreement, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents and assigns from, and waives, any and all present and future liability, claims, causes of action, losses, costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever arising from or in any way relating to the construction of the Improvements, including but not limited to the creation of the CAC benefit area, the findings of the Foster Study, the methodology used by the City to calculate the Fee, or the assessment of the Fee. Specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event that the fee imposed by the Fort Collins City Council under Ordinance No. 117, 2012, is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, agrees not to seek a refund of any payments made by the Property Owner under this Agreement, either directly from the City or through the commencement of legal proceedings. SECTION 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the assessment of fees for the Improvements. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by the City and the Property Owner. 6.2. Severability. Except as provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision of this Agreement, and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision was never part of this Agreement. 6.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered within the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability. 6.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and sent via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being - 5 - deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be: If to the City: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 With a copy to City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 If to the Property Owner: 6.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement. 6.7. Authorization. The Parties affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made. 6.8. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. 6.9. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 6.10. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 6.11. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. - 6 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROPERTY OWNER By: ___________________________________ - 7 - Legal Description goes here [_ I-25 & 392 Interchange COUNTY ROAD 5 KECHTER 4TH MAIN MASON COUNTY ROAD 7 COUNTY ROAD 3 COUNTY ROAD 30 BOARDWALK BOYD LAKE 71ST 66TH COUNTY ROAD 36 COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTY ROAD 13 FAIRGROUNDS COUNTY ROAD 11 COUNTY ROAD 11C TROUTMAN PRIVATE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD 34E 65TH TIMBERLINE COUNTY ROAD 30 COUNTY ROAD 3 COUNTY ROAD 30 S SHIELDS ST INTERSTATE 25 S COLLEGE AVE E TRILBY RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 E COUNTY ROAD 30 S LEMAY AVE S TIMBERLINE RD E HARMONY RD CARPENTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 KECHTER RD ZIEGLER RD W TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 38 STATE HIGHWAY 392 W HARMONY RD MAIN ST STRAUSS CABIN RD S COUNTY ROAD 3F S COUNTY ROAD 7 S US HIGHWAY 287 S L EMAY AVE E COUNTY ROAD 32 ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 S TIMBERLINE RD Legend Fort Collins City Limits Growth Management Area E 1 1 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Council Meeting October 23, 2012 2 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE PROJECT COST Design & Right of Way State & Federal Funding $ 4.03 million Construction Federal Funding $18.34 million Fort Collins $ 2.30 million Windsor $ 2.30 million Enhancements $ 0.50 million Total Project Cost $26.97 million ATTACHMENT 4 2 3 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE • Construction amount funded by Fort Collins and Windsor $5.1 million • 50% to be recovered thru fees ($2.6 million) 4 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE KEY ELEMENTS OF 2010 IGA • Design standards for future development • Upfront cost-sharing contributions (City and Town) • Establishment of the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) • Revenue sharing from future development in the CAC 3 5 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Ordinance No. 118, 2012 Adopts the First amended intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Windsor 6 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE FIRST AMMENDED IGA • Provides for a community contribution from the City and Town, reducing the amount to be recovered thru a “special fee” • Eliminates Public Improvement Fee (“PIF”) • Includes enhancement costs in the fee to be paid by the owners of property 4 7 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE FIRST AMMENDED IGA (cont.) • Establishes final CAC boundaries in accordance with Foster Study • Calls for a fee to be paid by the owners of property 8 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Ordinance No. 117, 2012 • Establishes the fee to be paid by the owners of property within the CAC 5 9 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE SPECIAL FEE • Proximity Component – Properties in the CAC will benefit from the reconstruction of the Interchange – Amount of Proximity Component based on the Foster Study • Trip Generation Component – Properties will add more traffic to the Interchange – Determined by the number of vehicular trips generated by each property times $7.75 per trip 10 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE FEE PAYMENT • The Proximity Component of the fee will be payable in equal quarterly installments, with interest, beginning March 31, 2013 thru March 31, 2020 • The Trip Generation Component for developed properties will also be payable in equal quarterly installments, with interest, beginning March 31, 2013 thru March 31, 2020 • The Trip Generation Component for undeveloped properties will be added to the quarterly payments 90 days after the date of the final approval of any development proposal and will be payable over seven years. 6 11 I-25 & SH 392 INTERCHANGE FEE PAYMENT • For properties currently in the County: – The first installment of the Proximity Component will be due 90 days after annexation and will be payable in quarterly installments over seven years. – For developed properties and properties with an approved development plan, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component will also begin 90 days after annexation and payable over seven years. – For undeveloped properties, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component will be payable 90 days after approval of a development proposal and will be payable over seven years 12 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE PAYMENT BY AGREEMENT • Property Owners may elect to pay the fee thru a written agreement with the City instead of under the Ordinance • Under the Agreement: – No interest will be due on the principal amount of the fee for the first two years – A reduced interest rate will charged for the first 8 years – For undeveloped properties, payment of the fee and interest will be deferred until the first building permit 7 13 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE PAYMENT BY AGREEMENT • Under the Agreement: – For developed properties, payment of the fee will not be required until redevelopment of the property increases trips generated by 35% – Any Property Owner electing to enter into the agreement must notify the City Manager on or before November 30, 2012, and the agreement must be approved by the City Council on or before December 31, 2012. 14 I-25/392 INTERCHANGE FEE REVENUES CAPPED Under both the Ordinance and the Agreement, the City would cease collecting the fee from Property Owners once the City and the Town have received $2.6 million in fee revenues, plus interest at the rate of 3.05% per annum 8 15 I-25 & SH392 INTERCHANGE Questions? 16 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 117, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE TO BE PAID BY THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RECONSTRUCTED INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 25 AND STATE HIGHWAY 392 WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) and the Town of Windsor, Colorado, (the “Town”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (the “Original IGA”) concerning, among other things, the reconstruction of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “Interchange); and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council has, by adoption of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, approved a First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “First Amended IGA”) restating and reaffirming those provisions of the Original IGA that the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the reconstruction of the Interchange was made possible by a combination of federal, state and local funding, totaling approximately $25 million, with the City and the Town jointly contributing approximately $4.6 million; and WHEREAS, the City and the Town have committed to expend an additional $500,000 to defray the costs of certain local enhancements to the Interchange (the “Local Enhancements”); and WHEREAS, the construction of the Interchange improvements and the Local Enhancements (collectively, the “Improvements”) is nearing completion; and WHEREAS, the City and the Town are home rule municipalities that, under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, have the authority to enact fees to recover the cost of providing infrastructure or services to properties within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court has affirmed this authority in several separate decisions of the Court, including Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1989), and E-470 Public Highway Authority v. The 455 Company, 3 P.3d 18 (Colo. 2000); and WHEREAS, under the First Amended IGA, the City and the Town have agreed to impose a fee upon the owners of properties located within the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”), which is shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, because such properties (the “Benefitted Properties”) are located in close proximity to the Interchange and will especially benefit from the reconstruction of the Interchange, and because the development or redevelopment of those properties will add more traffic to the Interchange; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have Page 2 concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the total amount expended by the City and the Town for the Improvements; and WHEREAS, in order to fairly apportion the amount to be recovered from the property owners, the City and the Town have commissioned a study by a licensed MAI appraiser to determine the amount of appreciation in value that will be experienced by the Benefitted Properties, which study (the “Foster Study”) has been completed and submitted to the City and the Town and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the Foster Study indicates that the appreciation in value the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the reconstruction of the Interchange will be more than sufficient to support the imposition of a fee in the total amount of 50% of the local share of the cost of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Town staff have recommended that the fee be apportioned not only according to the anticipated appreciation in value that the Benefitted Properties will experience as a result of the construction of the Interchange, but also according to the relative impacts that the development or redevelopment of such properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the developed use of the properties; and WHEREAS, during staff’s outreach to the property owners, some of the property owners have questioned the legal validity of the proposed fee and have expressed an intention to challenge the imposition of the same through the commencement of legal proceedings; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid the expense of litigation, the staff of the City and the Town have attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement with the property owners and have proposed that, in exchange for the release of any such claims, the property owners signing the settlement agreement would be permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement; and WHEREAS, some but not all of the property owners have expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the City to proceed with the imposition of the fee and to extend the period of time within which the property owners may elect to enter into a settlement agreement with the City and the Town upon the terms and conditions described above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 3 Section 1. Special fee. (a) Findings. The foregoing recitals are hereby adopted by the City Council as findings in support of the adoption of this Ordinance. (b) Definitions. The following definitions, together with the defined terms contained in the foregoing recitals, shall be applicable to the provisions of this Ordinance: (1) CAC Property shall mean a parcel of real property within the CAC. (2) Developed Property shall mean a CAC Property for which a development proposal has been approved as of the effective date of this Ordinance, either by the City or by Larimer County prior to annexation of the property to the City, whether or not any improvements have been constructed on such property. (3) Development Proposal shall mean an application for the development of an Undeveloped Property. (4) Foster Study shall mean that document, with attachments, prepared by Foster Valuation Company, LLC and attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. (5) Local Contribution shall mean the total contributions of the City and the Town to the reconstruction of the Interchange and the construction of the Local Enhancements, in the approximate amount of Five Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,100,000.00). (6) Property Owner shall mean and include the current and any future fee owner of a CAC Property. (7) Redevelopment Proposal shall mean an application for the redevelopment of a Developed Property. (8) Undeveloped Property shall mean a vacant CAC Property for which no development or redevelopment proposal plan of development has been approved as of the effective date of this Ordinance, either by the City or Larimer County prior to the annexation of the property to the City. (c) Imposition of the fee. (1) There is hereby established a special fee that shall be imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance upon the owners of all CAC Properties. Said fee shall consist of a Proximity Component and a Trip Generation Component. The Proximity Component of the fee is intended to reflect the relative benefit derived by each CAC Property from the construction of the Improvements, as determined Page 4 by the Foster Study, while the Trip Generation Component of the fee is intended to reflect the relative traffic impacts of each CAC Property. a. The Proximity Component of the fee for all Developed and Undeveloped Properties shall be in the amounts shown in the following spreadsheet except to the extent that: (i) the City Manager or the Financial Officer adjusts the amount due for a particular CAC Property pursuant to an appeal taken under subsection (f) of this Section 1; or (ii) the City Manager, upon recommendation of the Financial Officer, increases or decreases the amount due for a particular CAC Property to more accurately reflect the developable square footage of such parcel, and so notifies the affected Property Owner in writing no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date that the first installment of the Proximity Component is due under subsection (d) of this Section 1. These amounts represent each CAC Property’s proportionate share of the sum of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Seventy-five Dollars ($1,275,000.00), which is one-half of the Property Owners’ share of the Local Contribution. b. The amount of the Trip Generation Component shall be calculated by identifying the number of vehicular trips per day that each CAC property, as developed or redeveloped, generates or will generate, using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, as amended, and by multiplying that number by seven and seventy-five one-hundreths dollars per trip, which amount has been determined by dividing the remaining one-half of the Property Owners’ share of the Local Contribution by the estimated total number of trips generated in the CAC. (d) Payment of the fee. (1) For CAC properties currently located within the City limits. GROSS DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEE ZONE A 86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 297,910 $0.28 $82,892 $41,446 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 186,550 $0.28 $51,907 $25,953 ZONE B 86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 578,912 $0.21 $120,810 $60,405 ZONE B - 1 86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 336,499 $0.21 $70,222 $35,111 ZONE C 86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 955,151 $0.12 $110,736 $55,368 86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 587,429 $0.12 $68,104 $34,052 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 596,500 $0.12 $69,156 $34,578 86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 81,404 $0.12 $9,438 $4,719 86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 681,468 $0.12 $79,006 $39,503 86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,708,402 1,576,365 $0.12 $182,757 $91,379 Larimer County Parcel # OWNER PROXIMITY COMPONENT OF FEE Page 5 a. The Proximity Component of the fee shall be payable in equal quarterly installments, with the first such installment due and payable on or before March 31, 2013, and the last such installment due and payable on or before March 31, 2020. b. The Trip Generation Component of the fee shall also be payable in equal quarterly installments. For Developed Properties, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component shall be due and payable on or before March 31, 2013, and the last such installment shall be due and payable on or before March 31, 2020. For Undeveloped Properties, the first installment of the Trip Generation Component shall be due and payable ninety (90) days after the date of the City’s final approval of any Development Proposal for such property, and the last installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. (2) For CAC Properties currently within unincorporated Larimer County. a. For Developed Properties, and for Undeveloped Properties for which a development proposal has been approved by Larimer County between the effective date of this Ordinance and the effective date of the annexation of the property to the City, both the Proximity Component and the Trip Generation Component of the fee shall be payable in equal quarterly installments within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the annexation, and the last such installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. The Trip Generation Component shall be based upon the approved development plan that exists as of the date of the annexation. b. For Undeveloped Properties for which no development proposal has been approved prior to the date of annexation, the first installment of the Proximity Installment of the Fee shall be due and payable within ninety (90) days of the effective date of annexation, and the last installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. The first installment of the Trip Generation Component shall be due and payable ninety (90) days after the date of the City’s final approval of any Development Proposal for such property, and the last installment shall be due and payable no later than seven (7) years thereafter. c. For the purposes of this Subsection (d)(2), the effective date of annexation shall be as provided in C.R.S. Section 31-12-113. (3) Interest on the foregoing payments shall accrue at the rate of three and five one-hundreths percent (3.05%) per annum from the effective date of this Ordinance until the principal amount of such payments has been paid in full. (4) Notwithstanding any provision of this Ordinance that may be construed to the contrary, in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Page 6 Ordinance or under agreements executed pursuant to Section 2 of this Ordinance, equals or exceeds the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus interest on said amount from the effective date of this Ordinance at the rate of three and five one-hundreths (3.05%), all CAC Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to pay the fee imposed by this Ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of said fee may remain unpaid. (e) Unpaid charges a lien. If any amount due and payable to the City under the provisions of this Ordinance is not paid on or before the due date specified in the billing notice sent to the Property Owner by the Financial Officer, penalty interest shall accrue and be payable on such amount at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, and the entire unpaid balance, plus interest and collection costs, if any, shall constitute a perpetual lien on the CAC Property to which the fee applies. (f) Appeals. Property Owners may appeal to the Financial Officer in writing at any time the question of whether properties owned or occupied by them are being charged the proper fee under the provisions of this Ordinance. The burden shall be on the appellant to provide substantial, competent evidence that the CAC Property that is the subject of the appeal is not being charged the proper fee. The Financial Officer may hold a hearing on the appeal in his or her discretion, and may consider other competent evidence provided by City staff. The Financial Officer‘s written decision shall be mailed to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The appellant may appeal the Financial Officer’s decision to the City Manager pursuant to Division 3 of Chapter 2 of the City Code. (g) Fee not an impact fee or development charge subject to state regulation. It is the intention of the City Council that the fee imposed under the provisions of this Ordinance not be construed as an impact fee or development charge within the meaning of Section 29-20-104.5, C.R.S. but a special fee imposed under the home rule authority of the City. Accordingly, to the extent that any of the provisions of said Section 29-20-104.5 may conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. (h) Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Article or the validity of this Article as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision. Section 2. Payment by agreement. (a) In lieu of paying the fee imposed by this Ordinance according to the terms and conditions contained in Section 1 above, Property Owners may elect to pay the fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of a written agreement with the City, which agreement shall include the following provisions: Page 7 (1) No interest accrue or be due on the principal amount of the fee for the first two years following the execution of the agreement; thereafter, interest will accrue at the rate of 2.35% for the first eight years and at the rate of 3.05% for each additional year until the fee, together with accrued interest, is paid in full. (2) Payment of the full amount of the fee, and all interest due thereon, will be deferred, in its entirety, for Undeveloped Properties in the CAC until the first building permit is issued for such properties pursuant to an approved Development Proposal for the property. (3) Payment of the fee will not be required for Developed Properties in the CAC unless the amount of traffic that will be generated by such property, as redeveloped under a Redevelopment Proposal, will increase by at least thirty-five percent (35%), as compared to the amount of traffic generated by the current use of the property. (4) The total amount of the fee will be capped at the amount stated in the agreement. (b) No such agreement may be entered into by the City unless the Property Owner electing to enter into the same notifies the City Manager in writing of his or her desire to do so on or before November 30, 2012, and the agreement is approved by the City Council on or before December 31, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 23rd day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW Fossil Creek Reservoir 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Miles © I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center Land Use Commercial Employment Residential Natural Resource Buffer I-25 Setback Wetlands Boundaries CAC Fort Collins GMA Windsor GMA Parcels Proposed Interchange Redesign Interchange Footprint Right of Way Changes CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: February 24, 2011 EXHIBIT A W. West Foster, MAI, CRE, SR/WA ♦ Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA Jon M. Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA ♦ Christine Antonio ♦ Michael Smith Certified General Real Estate Appraisers ♦ 910 54th Avenue, Suite 210, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Phone (970) 352-1117 ♦ FAX (970) 323-2753 October 3, 2012 Mr. Rick Richter Capital Projects Manager Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 John P. Frey, Esq. Frey McCargar & Plock, LLC The Historic Harmony Mill 131 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 Reimbursement Study- Revised October 3, 2012 Dear Mr. Richter and Mr. Frey: At your request, I am submitting my revised appraisal consulting report, which involves a reimbursement study prepared to estimate an equitable manner to assess property owners within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and the Windsor GMA who benefit from the capital improvement project proposed to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange. Scope of the Assignment City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor officials have committed to fund approximately $2.3 million as their share of the proposed interchange construction costs and an additional $250,000 for interchange enhancements. This study is to determine a fair and equitable manner for the two municipalities to assess property owners and be reimbursed based on the estimated influence the project is to have on the value of those properties in proximity to the project. The study involves making a determination of which properties within the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor growth management areas in proximity to the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are EXHIBIT B Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 2 October 3, 2012 being benefitted from the proposed interchange improvements and to what extent the properties are enhanced by the proposed access enhancements. The properties within the two growth management areas in proximity to the interchange were studied to formulate an opinion as to the extent they are estimated to benefit from the proposed interchange improvements. The areas of influence are reduced typically based on the diminished proximity to the interchange. The conclusion was reached that when confined to properties within both communities' growth management areas, the sites within the corridor activity center (CAC) boundary were those deemed to possess the most influence from the interchange improvements. The initial focus of my investigation was to study the influences on land value in proximity to newly developed interstate highway interchanges. The four interchanges that had the most significant and relevant data were in the Denver Metropolitan area. The two interchanges where the most significant data were found included the recently constructed Interstate 25 and 144th Avenue interchange and the Interstate 25 and 136th Avenue interchange. Data in proximity to the E-470 and East Smoky Hill Road interchange and the E-470 and the South Gartrell Road interchange were also studied. These data were then utilized to estimate the extent to which the land around this interchange would increase in value after the interchange improvements are made. Based on the data gathered at the four interchanges mentioned, it was concluded that there are four areas of influence, which I have labeled Value Enhancement Zones A through D. On the attached I25 - State Highway 392 Interchange Value Enhancement Zones map, Zones A and A-1 are highlighted in red, Zones B and B-1 are in orange, Zone C is shown in pale green, and Zone D is highlighted in darker green. Zones A and A-1 feature the best proximity to the interchange and, in my opinion, will benefit the greatest from the interchange improvements. Zone A consists of commercially-zoned land. Zone A-1 consists of commercial lots on the east side of Interstate 25 straddling Colorado State Highway 392. Based on the investigation of data surrounding the four interchanges discussed above, Zone A prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 3 October 3, 2012 Zones B and B-1 are slightly farther removed from the interchange, but still possess strong influence for potential commercial uses. Zone B consists strictly of vacant commercially-zoned land. The Zone B-1 parcel consists of a commercial site on the west side of Interstate 25 north of Colorado State Highway 392 that has been significantly improved with buildings. Zone B prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the inter- changes were nearing completion on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot. Zone C is farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility. Zone C prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot. Zone D is yet farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are also influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility due to the interchange improvements. Zone D prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot. The preceding data are generated from newly developed interchanges where none previously existed. The value increases at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are not expected to be quite as dramatic. Value Enhancement Fee Estimates Each property within the four primary zones discussed above is shown in the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet and is identified by Larimer County assessor's parcel number and ownership as indicated in county records. The gross land area has been calculated using the best available information; and the non-developable areas have been calculated using City of Fort Collins Geographical Information System (GIS) data, which then results in a developable land area calculation per square foot. The value enhancement fees will be assessed based on developable land area per square foot at the time the sites are developed or when the sites are redeveloped. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 4 October 3, 2012 At the newly constructed interchanges studied, the Zone A prices increased on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Since no interchanges existed before, these average increases are greater than what would be expected at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 when the interchange improvements are completed since that interchange already exists. Using 25 to 50 percent of the $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot estimated value after the interchange improvements are made results in a forecast increase from $1.88 to $3.75 per square foot for Zones A and A-1. There are 1,576,345 square feet of developable land area in Zones A and A-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zone A category will be from just over $2.9 million to nearly $6 million. In Zones B and B-1 prices increased on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot at the interchanges studied. Again, since an interchange already exists at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $1.16 to $2.32 per square foot within Zones B and B-1. There are 4,333,889 square feet of developable land area in Zones B and B-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zones B and B-1 will be from $5.0 to nearly $10.1 million. Land prices in Zone C at the interchanges studied increased on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot due to the new interchange construction. Again, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.94 to $1.88 per square foot within Zone C. There are 6,682,600 square feet of developable land area in Zone C. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $6.3 to nearly $12.6 million. At the interchanges studied, land prices in Zone D increased on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot as a result of the new interchange being constructed. As with the preceding zones analyzed, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.53 to $1.06 per square foot within Zone D. There are 9,320,291 square feet of developable land area in Zone D. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $4.9 to nearly $9.9 million. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 5 October 3, 2012 It is clear from the data gathered at the four interchanges studied that the improvements proposed at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange will enhance property values within the CAC at a minimum of $19.1 million, which is greater than the $2.55 million being assessed. Exhibit A: I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Map Exhibit B: Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet Exhibit C: Qualifications of W. West Foster Exhibit D: Certification E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW F o s s i l C r e e k R e s e r v o i r 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Miles © I25 - State Value HWY Enhancement 392 Interchange Zones Value Zone Enhancement A Zone Zone B C Zone No Use D Areas Boundaries CAC Fort Windsor Collins GMA GMA Parcels Wetlands Proposed Interchange Interchange Footprint Redesign Right of Way Changes CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: August 10, 2011 GROSS NON-DEV DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL PROXIMITY OWNER LAND AREA LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEES COMPONENT FEE REMARKS ZONE A 86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 347,609 297,910 $0.28 $82,892 $41,446 NWQ of I-25 and SH 392 Interchange 86154-05-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,410 0 73,410 $0.28 $20,426 $10,213 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,324 0 73,324 $0.28 $20,402 $10,201 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-001 BANK OF CHOICE 55,889 0 55,889 $0.28 $15,551 $7,775 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 74,479 0 74,479 $0.28 $20,723 $10,362 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-007 BUSINESS PARK I OF 392 49,185 0 49,185 $0.28 $13,686 $6,843 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 0 186,550 $0.28 $51,907 $25,953 Prime SW Quadrant of I-25 and SH 392 ZONE A-1 86154-05-003 KHUONG HUONG TANG, et al 26,196 0 26,196 $0.28 $7,289 $3,644 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-004 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 36,568 0 36,568 $0.28 $10,175 $5,087 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-006 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 60,807 0 60,807 $0.28 $16,919 $8,460 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-002 MICHAEL I. MAXWELL, et al 55,178 0 55,178 $0.28 $15,353 $7,677 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-001 THE BAILEY COMPANY 43,963 0 43,963 $0.28 $12,233 $6,116 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-001 SCHRADER PROPERTIES, LLC 66,211 0 66,211 $0.28 $18,423 $9,211 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-002 TACO JOHNS INTERNATIONAL INC 49,223 0 49,223 $0.28 $13,696 $6,848 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-003 FORMER TCE, LLC 100,887 0 100,887 $0.28 $28,071 $14,036 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-004 WESTGATE HOSPITALITY LLC 96,118 0 96,118 $0.28 $26,744 $13,372 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-47-001 MEYERS 4701 LLC 152,444 0 152,444 $0.28 $42,417 $21,208 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-003 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS 78,003 0 78,003 $0.28 $21,704 $10,852 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot ZONE B 86154-06-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 772,886 21,283 751,603 $0.21 $156,848 $78,424 I-25 Frontage in NEQ of interchange 86150-00-014 YEAGER, NANCY L TRUSTEE 786,783 53,648 733,135 $0.21 $152,994 $76,497 North side of SH 392 east of Bus. Park 86154-08-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 653,873 242,410 411,463 $0.21 $85,866 $42,933 East of Frontage Rd. N. of SH 392 86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 0 578,912 $0.21 $120,810 $60,405 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393 86221-47-002 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 995,327 85,593 909,734 $0.21 $189,847 $94,924 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 86220-00-003 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 1,324,499 711,956 612,543 $0.21 $127,828 $63,914 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 ZONE B - 1 86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 71,223 336,499 $0.21 $70,222 $35,111 I-25 Frontage N of SH 392 in NWQ of interchange ZONE C 86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 71,728 955,151 $0.12 $110,736 $55,368 Frontage on west side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 352,269 587,429 $0.12 $68,104 $34,052 Frontage on east side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86154-06-003 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 126,260 85,128 41,132 $0.12 $4,769 $2,384 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-004 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 317,882 15,897 301,985 $0.12 $35,011 $17,505 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-005 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 291,695 0 291,695 $0.12 $33,818 $16,909 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-006 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 37,858 0 37,858 $0.12 $4,389 $2,195 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86150-00-017 JBT ASSOCIATES, LLC 1,767,708 236,095 1,531,613 $0.12 $177,569 $88,784 West Side of LC Road 5 N. of SH 392 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 444,571 596,500 $0.12 $69,156 $34,578 South of SH 392; West of Wetlands 86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 163,264 81,404 $0.12 $9,438 $4,719 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 221,691 681,468 $0.12 $79,006 $39,503 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,708,402 132,037 1,576,365 $0.12 $182,757 $91,379 Farther South of SH 392 West of I-25 ZONE D 86220-00-004 WINDSOR GOLD COAST LLC 2,544,953 224,297 2,320,656 $0.05 $107,619 $53,809 Farther South of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-021 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,555,303 501,653 1,053,650 $0.05 $48,862 $24,431 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-016 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,030,219 419,817 610,402 $0.05 $28,307 $14,153 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-011 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,045,838 486,358 559,480 $0.05 $25,945 $12,973 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-001 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,444,331 381,052 1,063,279 $0.05 $49,309 $24,654 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-002 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 94,626 69,233 25,393 $0.05 $1,178 $589 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-015 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 1,625,207 469,646 1,155,561 $0.05 $53,588 $26,794 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 86150-00-020 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 3,452,929 921,059 2,531,870 $0.05 $117,414 $58,707 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 21,913,125 $2,550,000 $216,111 ATTACHMENT ONE - VALUE ENHANCEMENT ZONE ANALYSIS September 2012 Foster Valuation Company LLC QUALIFICATIONS OF W. WEST FOSTER Education M.S. Degree in Regional Economics, Colorado State University. B.S. Degree in General Business, Colorado State University. All of the basic courses required for the MAI designation given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; Course III (Rural Properties); Course IV (Litigation Valuation); Course VI (Real Estate Investment Analysis); Course VII (Industrial Valuation); Course 520 (Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis); Course 550 (Advanced Applications); and all Litigation courses offered in the Professional Development Program. This partial list of courses was all given by the Appraisal Institute or its predecessor organizations. Principles of Real Estate Engineering, The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions, and several relocation courses, given by the International Right of Way Association. Management and Leasing of Shopping Centers, by the Institute of Real Estate Management. Advanced Ranch Appraisal, by the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Seminars: Computer-Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling, Subdivision Appraisal, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, plus numerous real estate seminars given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and later by the Appraisal Institute. Memberships and Designations Appraisal Institute: Designated Member (MAI) 1982 to 1986 - National Division of Curriculum 1986 to 1987 - National committee to write The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th Edition 1987 to 1991 - Board of Examiners, General Demonstration Appraisal Reports 1987 to 1994 - Regional Member, Review and Counseling Division 1991 to 1994 - Regional Representative, Region II 1992 to 2008 - Contributor to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th through 13th Editions 1995 - National Vice Chair, Review and Counseling Division 1995 - Vice Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 to 1997 - Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 - National Chair, Ethics Administration Division 1997 to 2008 - National Chair, Professional Ethics and Counseling Committee American Society of Real Estate Counselors: Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) 1994 - Vice Chair, Colorado Chapter 1995 - Chair, Colorado Chapter International Right of Way Association: Senior Right of Way Professional (SR/WA) Northern Colorado Commercial Association of Realtors Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: State of Colorado, #CG00001795 Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser, April 1981 to present, specializing in valuation and counseling with respect to a variety of nonresidential properties. Robert J. Mitchell, MAI, & Associates: Fee Appraiser, March 1976 to March 1981, specializing in rural and income property valuation. Qualified in District and Federal Courts as an Expert Valuation Witness. CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal consulting assignment. 8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. No one provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing this certification. 11. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 12. As of the date of this appraisal consulting report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I estimate the reimbursement amounts to be based as shown on the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis, as of October 3, 2012, to be as shown in the attached: ORDINANCE NO. 118, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, on January 3, 2011, the City of Fort Collins (the "City") and the Town of Windsor (the "Town") entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Original Agreement") setting forth certain understandings between the City and the Town with regard to the development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement anticipated the future adoption of ordinances and resolutions by the City and the Town necessary to implement the provisions of that Agreement; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the Original Agreement, staff of the City and the Town have developed a number of proposed changes to the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are of sufficient substance to require a full amendment of the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the changes recommended by staff are in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved by the City Council, with such changes in form or substance as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 23rd day of October, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of November, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 1 FIRST AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”), and the Town of Windsor, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “Town”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and the Town are situated on opposite sides of Interstate 25 and are both committed to planned and orderly development; to regulating the location and activities of development which may result in increased demand for services; to providing for the orderly development and extension of urban services; to simplifying governmental structure when possible; to promoting the economic vitality of both municipalities; to protecting the environment; and to raising revenue sufficient to meet the needs of their citizens; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“the Original Agreement”) setting forth certain understandings between the City and the Town with regard to the development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement anticipated the future adoption of ordinances and resolutions by the City and the Town necessary to implement the provisions of that Agreement; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the Original Agreement, the City and the Town have agreed upon a number of changes to the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, the changes agreed to are of sufficient substance to require a full amendment of the Original Agreement; and WHEREAS, this First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement (‘this Agreement”) reflects the changes agreed to by the City and the Town as well as restating and reaffirming those provisions of the Original Agreement which the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Constitution, Section 29-20-101 et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the home rule charters of both the City and Town authorize the City and the Town to enter into mutually binding and enforceable agreements regarding the joint exercise of planning, zoning and related powers as those powers are exercised in the provisions of this Agreement. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 14 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows. SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following definitions shall apply: 1.1. “Agreement” means this First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement and attachments hereto. 1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1.3. “CDOT” means the Colorado Department of Transportation. 1.4. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that joint planning area referred to above and more fully described on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.5. “Developable Land” means that portion of each parcel of real property within the CAC upon which buildings, infrastructure or other improvements may lawfully be constructed, taking into consideration the physical characteristics of the property and all applicable state and local laws and regulations. 1.6. “Development Proposal” means an application for the development of a parcel of land within the CAC. 1.7. “Effective Date” means the date that the last party signs this Agreement, or ten days after the final approval by the last governing board of the City or Town. 1.8. “Enhanced Improvements” means any improvements within the vicinity of the Interchange that are deemed necessary or appropriate by the governing bodies of the City and the Town, which improvements shall be constructed and maintained by the City and the Town. 1.9. “Foster Study” means the report prepared by Foster Valuation Company, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” 1.10. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange. 1.11. “Original Agreement” means the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Town dated January 3, 2011. 1.12. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392. Page 3 of 14 1.13. “Property Owner” shall mean and include the current and any future fee owner of a CAC property. 1.14. “Property Tax Increment” means the net new revenue generated by property taxes on real property located within the boundaries of the CAC, using as the baseline a base rate of 9.797 mils, as applied to the assessed valuation developed by Larimer County as of the Effective Date. 1.15. “Redevelopment Proposal” means an application for the redevelopment of a previously developed parcel of land within the CAC. 1.16. “Sales Tax Increment” means the net new sales tax revenues generated by sales within the boundaries of the CAC, using as the baseline a base rate of 2.25% and the amount of tax revenue received in the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the Effective Date. 1.17. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado. SECTION 2. CONFIGURATION OF THE CAC For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties have agreed upon the boundaries of the CAC and those boundaries are more fully described on Exhibit “A” to this Agreement. SECTION 3. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 3.1. Permitted uses. Pursuant to the Original Agreement, the Parties have by ordinance adopted approved land uses for the CAC. Except by written agreement approved by both Parties, the Parties hereby agree that for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the date of the execution of this Agreement, neither Party shall repeal or otherwise amend their respective ordinances adopting these land uses. 3.2. Applicable Standards. Pursuant to the Original Agreement, the Parties have lawfully adopted standards and guidelines for development of the properties in the CAC, including, but not limited to, the standards contained in the Northern Colorado Regional I-25 Corridor Plan (2001). These standards and guidelines are referred to herein collectively as the CAC Design Standards. Except by written agreement approved by both Parties, these CAC Design Standards shall remain in full force and effect for a term of twenty-five (25) years. 3.3. Review and Approval of Site Specific Development Proposals. 3.3.1 In order to promote and maintain the commitments of the City and Town with regard to development within the CAC, the Parties hereby jointly agree to the following review process for Development or Redevelopment Proposals for property within the CAC. Page 4 of 14 a. Neither the City nor Town shall, without the prior written consent of the other Party, approve the construction of any improvements within the CAC which are inconsistent with the CAC Design Standards. b. Plans and specifications for any Development or Redevelopment Proposal on land located within the CAC that are received by either Party after the Effective Date shall, no later than thirty (30) business days prior to taking action, be submitted by the Party having jurisdiction over the proposal to the other Party for review and comment; provided, however, that the Parties may mutually agree to a shorter or longer review and comment period. c. Such plans and specifications shall include a brief written description of the Development or Redevelopment Proposal and the surrounding vicinity, development maps and graphics, and renderings of all proposed improvements. d. The receiving Party shall review the materials and respond to the other Party with written comments within the aforementioned thirty (30) business days. Each party agrees that it shall use its best efforts to provide comments in a timely fashion. However, the Parties expressly agree that any delay in submitting comments shall not require the delay of hearings or decisions by the party having jurisdiction over the Development Proposal. e. The Parties shall designate a single point of contact for the communication of materials and comments contemplated by this Section. f. The review and comment provided for herein is intended to be cooperative in nature, and is not intended to be binding upon the party having jurisdiction to grant, modify, or deny a Development or Redevelopment Proposal and shall not preclude the approval of any such proposal that is consistent with the CAC Design Standards and the provisions of this Agreement. 3.3.2. Notice of Incentives. In the event that either Party extends, or agrees to extend, to any applicant for approval of a Development or Redevelopment Proposal within the CAC, any financial or other incentives in connection with such Development or Redevelopment Proposal, such Party shall provide the other Party with a detailed description of such financial or other incentives prior to the formal approval of the same, excluding only such information as is proprietary in nature. The provision and funding of any such incentives shall be the sole responsibility of the Party having jurisdiction over the Development or Redevelopment Proposal, unless the Parties agree to the contrary in a written amendment to this Agreement. Page 5 of 14 SECTION 4. COST SHARING 4.1. Funding of the Project. 4.1.1 The Project, which is now nearing completion, has been constructed, managed, and in large part funded by CDOT. Each of the Parties has appropriated the necessary amounts to complete the funding of the Project pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Parties and CDOT dated January 3, 2011. In addition to this contribution to the funding of the construction of the Project, the City and the Town have also appropriated funds for the construction of the Enhanced Improvements. The Enhanced Improvements shall not include enhanced wetland mitigation on the west side of Interstate 25. The City may, in its discretion, pay for the cost of such enhanced wetland mitigation, and the Town shall have no obligation to help fund such mitigation. 4.1.2 The Parties have agreed to recover an amount not to exceed Fifty Percent (50%) of the actual contribution made by the City and the Town for the construction of the Project and the Enhanced Improvements from the Property Owners in the CAC. The City and the Town shall each adopt ordinances authorizing such recovery and establishing fees and appropriate methodologies for such recovery. 4.1.3 There shall be no further contributions to the Project by the Parties except by a written agreement approved by the governing bodies of both Parties. 4.2. CAC Fee Revenue Fund. 4.2.1 The Parties shall, within sixty (60) days after collecting any fee revenues from Property Owners as described in Section 4 of this Agreement, deposit such revenues into a CAC Fee Revenue Fund (“Fee Revenue Fund”) to be established and administered by one of the Parties pursuant to a written administrative agreement approved by the Town Manager and the City Manager, which agreement shall include a provision whereby the Parties will equitably share the costs incurred in administering the Fee and managing the Fee Revenue Fund. The amounts deposited into the Fee Revenue Fund shall be disbursed annually to the Parties in equal amounts, without regard to whether the properties that generated the Fee revenues are located with the territorial limits of the City or the Town. Such disbursements shall continue until the City and the Town have been fully reimbursed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Agreement. 4.2.2 Either Party may elect to forego the collection of all or any portion of the fee revenues due from a particular Property Owner in exchange for the Property Owner's provision of a reciprocal benefit to such Party, which benefit may include, but need not be limited to, the setting aside or Page 6 of 14 dedication to the public of a portion of the developable land within the parcel for purposes such as wetlands, open space, parks or other improvements or amenities. In the event that either party elects to forego the collection of any fee revenue pursuant to this provision, such Party shall nonetheless pay into the Fee Revenue Fund the full amount of the Fee that would have been due from the Property Owner had such election not been made. SECTION 5. REVENUE SHARING 5.1. Terms and Conditions. The Parties shall, pursuant to the following terms and conditions, share the Property Tax Increment and Sales Tax Increment generated by properties and businesses located within the boundaries of the CAC. 5.1.1 All tax revenues generated by the Property Tax Increment and Sales Tax Increment shall be deposited by each Party in a separate account and shall not be intermingled with any other funds of that Party. 5.1.2 Sixty-five percent (65%) of the Property and Sales Tax Increment revenues generated in the CAC shall be retained by each Party for use as that Party sees fit. The remaining thirty-fix percent (35%) of such revenues shall be transferred to the other Party within sixty (60) days of December 31 of each year. Annual statements showing calendar year total receipts of all such revenues from each of the Property Owners and retailers within the CAC shall be shared with the other Party within thirty (30) days of December 31 of each year, and the Parties agree that these statements are being disclosed solely for tax-related purposes and are therefor to remain confidential. 5.1.3 Any interest earned on deposits in the account described in Section 5.1.1 above shall remain the property of the Party that collected the revenue upon which the interest was earned and shall not be shared. 5.1.4 The share distribution shall begin on the Effective Date. 5.1.5 Any increase or decrease in the sales or property tax rates of either the City or the Town shall not affect the Property Tax Increment or the Sales Tax Increment due from the City or the Town for the revenue sharing purposes of this Section. 5.1.6 In the event either the City or the Town creates one or more exemptions from sales taxes or property taxes, and such exemption(s) results in a reduction in the amount of revenue collected by such Party in the CAC, the Party creating the exemption(s) shall include the exempted amount in its calculation of the amount of Property and Sales Tax Increment revenue that is due to the other Party under this Section as if the exemption(s) had not been created. Page 7 of 14 5.1.7 To the extent permitted by law, this sharing of revenues shall continue in perpetuity. 5.2. Cooperation in Attracting New Development. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they may need to cooperate in an effort to attract desirable development. Nothing herein shall preclude the Parties from entering into a subsequent agreement modifying the within Section and creating incentives for development in the CAC beneficial to both Parties. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, an agreement to reduce or eliminate the revenue sources identified in this Section. Any such agreement shall be in writing and set forth the terms under which a modification of this Section will occur. 5.3. Bonding. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to restrict either Party from being able to utilize its sixty-five percent (65%) share of the Property Tax Increment revenue and Sales and Use Tax Increment revenue as collateral or use in underwriting any bond, note, debenture, or other municipal borrowing. SECTION 6. INSPECTION OF RECORDS. The City and the Town shall each have the right to inspect and audit the tax revenue and fee collection records of the other pertaining to this Agreement. If any discrepancy is discovered, the auditing Party shall provide written notice, including a copy of the audit report, to the other Party. Any amount due must be paid within thirty (30) days following the written notice or the Parties must engage in negotiations regarding the discrepancy. If a mutual agreement is not reached in sixty (60) days, the provisions of Section 8 below will apply. To the extent permitted by law, all tax and revenue collection information which is obtained by and pursuant to the inspection and audit provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed privileged, confidential and proprietary information and is being disclosed solely for tax-related purposes, including the calculation of revenue sharing payments pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties agree that they will not disclose any information to any person not having a legitimate need-to-know for purposes authorized by this Agreement. The period of limitation for the recovery of any funds payable under this Agreement shall be three (3) years from the date on which the payment is due. Upon the expiration of this period of limitation and any action for collection or recovery of unpaid revenue sharing funds shall be barred. Each Party and its authorized agents may, upon thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the other, audit the other’s records of those taxes and fees which are collected within the CAC and which are being shared pursuant to this Agreement. Page 8 of 14 SECTION 7. ANNEXATION 7.1. Amendment of Growth Management Area Boundaries. In order to promote ongoing cooperation and collaboration between the Parties with respect to land use planning on both sides of Interstate 25, and to further the purposes contained in C.R.S. Section 31-12-102 of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, the Parties agree that Interstate 25 shall become the boundary between the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“FCGMA”) and the Windsor Growth Management Area (“WGMA”). Accordingly, after the Effective Date, neither Party shall annex, or accept any petition to annex, property within the other Party’s growth management area as amended in accordance with this provision. Nor shall either Party annex, or accept any petition to annex, or include within its growth management area, the right of way for Interstate 25 adjacent to the other Party’s growth management area without the prior written consent of the other Party. Any future amendments to the contiguous boundaries of the FCGMA and the WGMA shall be made only if agreed upon in writing by both Parties. 7.2. County Approval of GMA Boundary Amendments. Both Parties have heretofore entered into intergovernmental agreements with Larimer County that establish the growth management areas of the Parties, which agreements provide for, among other things, the way in which development applications for properties within the FCGMA and the WGMA will be processed by Larimer County. Accordingly, in order to ensure the cooperation of Larimer County in implementing the provisions of this Section, each Party shall, within one (1) year of the Effective Date, seek the approval of Larimer County to amend its agreement with Larimer County so as to reflect the amendments to the FCGMA and WGMA required hereunder. However, the failure of Larimer County to approve either or both such amendments shall not affect the obligation of the Parties to refrain from annexing territory within the FCGMA, the WGMA or the right of way for Interstate 25 as required in Section 7.1 above. 7.3. Effect on Prior Annexation Agreements. The provisions of this Section shall supersede and take precedence over any conflicting provisions contained in those certain agreements between the Parties entitled “Intergovernmental Agreement (Regarding Annexations East of Interstate Highway 25)” and “Intergovernmental Agreement (Regarding Annexations in the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area Adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir), both of which are dated June 28, 1999. SECTION 8. MEDIATION/ARBITRATION 8.1. Enforceability of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that agreements between municipalities for the purposes set forth herein are mutually binding and enforceable. The parties likewise acknowledge that the unique nature of agreements between municipalities often require equally unique remedies to ensure compliance with the provisions of such agreements while preserving the obligations of the parties to one and other and promoting the continued existence and effectiveness of such agreements. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement to provide enforcement remedies through a Page 9 of 14 combination of alternative dispute methodologies including mediation and binding arbitration, and thereby eliminate the necessity of judicial enforcement of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude either party from seeking judicial enforcement of any mediation agreement reached between the parties or binding arbitration order entered as a result of the alternate dispute methodologies set forth herein. 8.2. Mediation/Arbitration Process in General. Should either party fail to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, the other party, after providing written notification to the non-complying party, and upon the failure of the non-complying party to achieve compliance within forty five (45) days after said notice, the issue of non-compliance shall be submitted to mediation and thereafter, assuming no resolution has been reached through the mediation process, shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The mediation and binding arbitration processes shall in accordance with the provisions hereinafter set forth. These mediation and arbitration provisions shall be in addition to questions of non- compliance as aforesaid, apply to all disagreements or failure of the parties to reach agreement as may be required by the terms of this Agreement. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, the creation of joint land use designs and standards, approval or rejection of Development Proposals, and disputed matters concerning shared revenues. 8.3. Sharing of Costs. All costs of the mediation/binding arbitration process shall be divided equally between the Parties. 8.4. Mediation Process. The dispute resolution process shall commence with the appointment of a mediator who shall be experienced in matters of local government and the legal obligations of local government entities. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) days of the commencement of the process, each party shall within five (5) days appoint an independent third party, and the third parties so appointed shall select a mediator within fifteen (15) days of their appointment. Mediation shall be completed no later than sixty (60) days after a mediator is selected by the parties or by the independent third parties. The procedures and methodology for mediation shall be determined by the mediator, but shall be in compliance with applicable law. 8.5. Binding Arbitration Process. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement through the mediation process, the matter in dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The parties agree that the order resulting from the arbitration process shall be deemed a final and conclusive resolution of the matter in dispute. The parties shall agree on the appointment of an arbitrator who shall be experienced in matters of local government and the legal obligations of local government entities. It is understood and agreed that the parties may agree upon the appointment of that person who conducted the mediation portion of this process as the arbitrator, but are not bound to do so. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator within fifteen (15) days, each party will appoint an independent third party, and the third parties so appointed shall select a mediator within fifteen (15) days of their appointment. Arbitration shall be completed no later than ninety (90) days after an arbitrator is selected by the parties or by Page 10 of 14 the independent third parties. The procedures and methodology for binding arbitration shall be determined by the arbitrator, but shall be in compliance with applicable law. SECTION 9. CONTINGENT ON APPROPRIATIONS The obligations of the City and Town do not constitute an indebtedness of the City or Town within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or provision. The obligations of the City and Town for payment of the Sales Tax Increment under this Agreement shall be from year to year only and shall not constitute a mandatory payment obligation of the City or Town in any fiscal year beyond the present fiscal year. This Agreement shall not directly or indirectly obligate the City or Town to make any payments of Sales Tax Increment beyond those appropriated for any fiscal year in which this Agreement shall be in effect. The City and Town Manager (or any other officer or employee at the time charged with the responsibility of formulating budget proposals) is hereby directed to include in the budget proposals and appropriation ordinances submitted to the City Council and the Town Board, in each year prior to expiration of this Agreement, amounts sufficient to meet its obligations hereunder, but only if it shall have received such amounts in the form of Sales Tax Increment, it being the intent, however, that the decision as to whether to appropriate such amounts shall be at the discretion of the City Council and Town Board. SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS 10.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties regarding the sharing of (1) costs for the Project; and (2) net new tax revenues generated with the CAC boundaries. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by the Parties. 10.2. Severability. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by the courts to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision of this Agreement and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision was never part of this Agreement. 10.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered with the State of Colorado and the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability. 10.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado. 10.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and Page 11 of 14 sent via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be: If to the City: City Manager 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 With a copy to City Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 If to the Town: Town Manager Windsor Town Hall 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 With a copy to Town Attorney c/o Town Manager Windsor Town Hall 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 10.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement. 10.7. Authorization. The signatories to this Agreement affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made. 10.8. Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor the City or Towns’ rights, obligations or duties may be assigned or transferred in whole or in part by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party. 10.9. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement. Page 12 of 14 10.10. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the undersigned Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 10.11. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 10.12. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Approved as to Form: CITY OF FORT COLLINS ________________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk TOWN OF WINDSOR ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Town Clerk E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW Fossil Creek Reservoir 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Miles © I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center Land Use Commercial Employment Residential Natural Resource Buffer I-25 Setback Wetlands Boundaries CAC Fort Collins GMA Windsor GMA Parcels Proposed Interchange Redesign Interchange Footprint Right of Way Changes CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: February 24, 2011 EXHIBIT A to the Amended IGA W. West Foster, MAI, CRE, SR/WA ♦ Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA Jon M. Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA ♦ Christine Antonio ♦ Michael Smith Certified General Real Estate Appraisers ♦ 910 54th Avenue, Suite 210, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Phone (970) 352-1117 ♦ FAX (970) 323-2753 October 3, 2012 Mr. Rick Richter Capital Projects Manager Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 John P. Frey, Esq. Frey McCargar & Plock, LLC The Historic Harmony Mill 131 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 Reimbursement Study- Revised October 3, 2012 Dear Mr. Richter and Mr. Frey: At your request, I am submitting my revised appraisal consulting report, which involves a reimbursement study prepared to estimate an equitable manner to assess property owners within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and the Windsor GMA who benefit from the capital improvement project proposed to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange. Scope of the Assignment City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor officials have committed to fund approximately $2.3 million as their share of the proposed interchange construction costs and an additional $250,000 for interchange enhancements. This study is to determine a fair and equitable manner for the two municipalities to assess property owners and be reimbursed based on the estimated influence the project is to have on the value of those properties in proximity to the project. The study involves making a determination of which properties within the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor growth management areas in proximity to the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are EXHIBIT B to the Amended IGA Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 2 October 3, 2012 being benefitted from the proposed interchange improvements and to what extent the properties are enhanced by the proposed access enhancements. The properties within the two growth management areas in proximity to the interchange were studied to formulate an opinion as to the extent they are estimated to benefit from the proposed interchange improvements. The areas of influence are reduced typically based on the diminished proximity to the interchange. The conclusion was reached that when confined to properties within both communities' growth management areas, the sites within the corridor activity center (CAC) boundary were those deemed to possess the most influence from the interchange improvements. The initial focus of my investigation was to study the influences on land value in proximity to newly developed interstate highway interchanges. The four interchanges that had the most significant and relevant data were in the Denver Metropolitan area. The two interchanges where the most significant data were found included the recently constructed Interstate 25 and 144th Avenue interchange and the Interstate 25 and 136th Avenue interchange. Data in proximity to the E-470 and East Smoky Hill Road interchange and the E-470 and the South Gartrell Road interchange were also studied. These data were then utilized to estimate the extent to which the land around this interchange would increase in value after the interchange improvements are made. Based on the data gathered at the four interchanges mentioned, it was concluded that there are four areas of influence, which I have labeled Value Enhancement Zones A through D. On the attached I25 - State Highway 392 Interchange Value Enhancement Zones map, Zones A and A-1 are highlighted in red, Zones B and B-1 are in orange, Zone C is shown in pale green, and Zone D is highlighted in darker green. Zones A and A-1 feature the best proximity to the interchange and, in my opinion, will benefit the greatest from the interchange improvements. Zone A consists of commercially-zoned land. Zone A-1 consists of commercial lots on the east side of Interstate 25 straddling Colorado State Highway 392. Based on the investigation of data surrounding the four interchanges discussed above, Zone A prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 3 October 3, 2012 Zones B and B-1 are slightly farther removed from the interchange, but still possess strong influence for potential commercial uses. Zone B consists strictly of vacant commercially-zoned land. The Zone B-1 parcel consists of a commercial site on the west side of Interstate 25 north of Colorado State Highway 392 that has been significantly improved with buildings. Zone B prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the inter- changes were nearing completion on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot. Zone C is farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility. Zone C prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot. Zone D is yet farther removed from the interchange, and the data at the interchanges studied suggest that these sites are also influenced by interstate frontage and benefit from good accessibility due to the interchange improvements. Zone D prices increased from the period before the interchanges were constructed to the period after the interchanges were nearing completion on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot. The preceding data are generated from newly developed interchanges where none previously existed. The value increases at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange are not expected to be quite as dramatic. Value Enhancement Fee Estimates Each property within the four primary zones discussed above is shown in the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet and is identified by Larimer County assessor's parcel number and ownership as indicated in county records. The gross land area has been calculated using the best available information; and the non-developable areas have been calculated using City of Fort Collins Geographical Information System (GIS) data, which then results in a developable land area calculation per square foot. The value enhancement fees will be assessed based on developable land area per square foot at the time the sites are developed or when the sites are redeveloped. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 4 October 3, 2012 At the newly constructed interchanges studied, the Zone A prices increased on the average of $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot. Since no interchanges existed before, these average increases are greater than what would be expected at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 when the interchange improvements are completed since that interchange already exists. Using 25 to 50 percent of the $7.00 to $7.50 per square foot estimated value after the interchange improvements are made results in a forecast increase from $1.88 to $3.75 per square foot for Zones A and A-1. There are 1,576,345 square feet of developable land area in Zones A and A-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zone A category will be from just over $2.9 million to nearly $6 million. In Zones B and B-1 prices increased on the average of $4.50 to $4.75 per square foot at the interchanges studied. Again, since an interchange already exists at Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $1.16 to $2.32 per square foot within Zones B and B-1. There are 4,333,889 square feet of developable land area in Zones B and B-1. It is forecast that value increases in Zones B and B-1 will be from $5.0 to nearly $10.1 million. Land prices in Zone C at the interchanges studied increased on the average of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot due to the new interchange construction. Again, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.94 to $1.88 per square foot within Zone C. There are 6,682,600 square feet of developable land area in Zone C. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $6.3 to nearly $12.6 million. At the interchanges studied, land prices in Zone D increased on the average of $2.00 to $2.25 per square foot as a result of the new interchange being constructed. As with the preceding zones analyzed, since the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange already exists, the increase is not expected to be as great. If a range in forecast value increases of 25 to 50 percent is utilized again, it results in a forecast increase from $0.53 to $1.06 per square foot within Zone D. There are 9,320,291 square feet of developable land area in Zone D. It is forecast that value increases in the Zone C category will be from $4.9 to nearly $9.9 million. Mr. Rick Richter and John P. Frey, Esq. Page 5 October 3, 2012 It is clear from the data gathered at the four interchanges studied that the improvements proposed at the Interstate 25 and Colorado State Highway 392 interchange will enhance property values within the CAC at a minimum of $19.1 million, which is greater than the $2.55 million being assessed. Exhibit A: I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Map Exhibit B: Value Enhancement Zone Analysis spreadsheet Exhibit C: Qualifications of W. West Foster Exhibit D: Certification E C ounty Road 32 S County Road 5 E C ounty Road 30 !"`$ !"`$ ôZYXW ôZYXW F o s s i l C r e e k R e s e r v o i r 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Miles © I25 - State Value HWY Enhancement 392 Interchange Zones Value Zone Enhancement A Zone Zone B C Zone No Use D Areas Boundaries CAC Fort Windsor Collins GMA GMA Parcels Wetlands Proposed Interchange Interchange Footprint Redesign Right of Way Changes CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: August 10, 2011 GROSS NON-DEV DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL PROXIMITY OWNER LAND AREA LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEES COMPONENT OF FEE REMARKS ZONE A 86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 347,609 297,910 $0.28 $82,892 $41,446 NWQ of I-25 and SH 392 Interchange 86154-05-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,410 0 73,410 $0.28 $20,426 $10,213 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 73,324 0 73,324 $0.28 $20,402 $10,201 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-001 BANK OF CHOICE 55,889 0 55,889 $0.28 $15,551 $7,775 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-07-002 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 74,479 0 74,479 $0.28 $20,723 $10,362 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86154-05-007 BUSINESS PARK I OF 392 49,185 0 49,185 $0.28 $13,686 $6,843 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed Lot 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 0 186,550 $0.28 $51,907 $25,953 Prime SW Quadrant of I-25 and SH 392 ZONE A-1 86154-05-003 KHUONG HUONG TANG, et al 26,196 0 26,196 $0.28 $7,289 $3,644 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-004 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 36,568 0 36,568 $0.28 $10,175 $5,087 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86154-05-006 WESTGATE PARTNERS LLC 60,807 0 60,807 $0.28 $16,919 $8,460 Ptarmigan Business Park Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-002 MICHAEL I. MAXWELL, et al 55,178 0 55,178 $0.28 $15,353 $7,677 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-001 THE BAILEY COMPANY 43,963 0 43,963 $0.28 $12,233 $6,116 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-001 SCHRADER PROPERTIES, LLC 66,211 0 66,211 $0.28 $18,423 $9,211 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-002 TACO JOHNS INTERNATIONAL INC 49,223 0 49,223 $0.28 $13,696 $6,848 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-003 FORMER TCE, LLC 100,887 0 100,887 $0.28 $28,071 $14,036 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-45-004 WESTGATE HOSPITALITY LLC 96,118 0 96,118 $0.28 $26,744 $13,372 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-47-001 MEYERS 4701 LLC 152,444 0 152,444 $0.28 $42,417 $21,208 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot 86221-43-003 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS 78,003 0 78,003 $0.28 $21,704 $10,852 Westgate Commercial Center Developed and Improved Lot ZONE B 86154-06-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 772,886 21,283 751,603 $0.21 $156,848 $78,424 I-25 Frontage in NEQ of interchange 86150-00-014 YEAGER, NANCY L TRUSTEE 786,783 53,648 733,135 $0.21 $152,994 $76,497 North side of SH 392 east of Bus. Park 86154-08-001 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 653,873 242,410 411,463 $0.21 $85,866 $42,933 East of Frontage Rd. N. of SH 392 86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 0 578,912 $0.21 $120,810 $60,405 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393 86221-47-002 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 995,327 85,593 909,734 $0.21 $189,847 $94,924 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 86220-00-003 POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH CARE INC 1,324,499 711,956 612,543 $0.21 $127,828 $63,914 Frontage on east side of I-25 S. Of SH 392 ZONE B - 1 86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 71,223 336,499 $0.21 $70,222 $35,111 I-25 Frontage N of SH 392 in NWQ of interchange ZONE C 86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 71,728 955,151 $0.12 $110,736 $55,368 Frontage on west side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 352,269 587,429 $0.12 $68,104 $34,052 Frontage on east side of I-25 N. Of SH 392 86154-06-003 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 126,260 85,128 41,132 $0.12 $4,769 $2,384 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-004 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 317,882 15,897 301,985 $0.12 $35,011 $17,505 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-005 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 291,695 0 291,695 $0.12 $33,818 $16,909 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86154-06-006 WINDSOR INVESTMENTS LTD 37,858 0 37,858 $0.12 $4,389 $2,195 East of I-25 and North of SH 392 86150-00-017 JBT ASSOCIATES, LLC 1,767,708 236,095 1,531,613 $0.12 $177,569 $88,784 West Side of LC Road 5 N. of SH 392 86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 444,571 596,500 $0.12 $69,156 $34,578 South of SH 392; West of Wetlands 86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 163,264 81,404 $0.12 $9,438 $4,719 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 221,691 681,468 $0.12 $79,006 $39,503 West of Frontage Rd. S. of SH 393; West of wetlands 86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,708,402 132,037 1,576,365 $0.12 $182,757 $91,379 Farther South of SH 392 West of I-25 ZONE D 86220-00-004 WINDSOR GOLD COAST LLC 2,544,953 224,297 2,320,656 $0.05 $107,619 $53,809 Farther South of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-021 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,555,303 501,653 1,053,650 $0.05 $48,862 $24,431 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-016 HORTON, MARY A/ET AL 1,030,219 419,817 610,402 $0.05 $28,307 $14,153 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-011 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,045,838 486,358 559,480 $0.05 $25,945 $12,973 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86150-00-001 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 1,444,331 381,052 1,063,279 $0.05 $49,309 $24,654 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-002 THREE T INVESTMENTS LLLP 94,626 69,233 25,393 $0.05 $1,178 $589 Farther North of SH 392 on east side of I-25 86100-00-015 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 1,625,207 469,646 1,155,561 $0.05 $53,588 $26,794 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 86150-00-020 HORTON FEEDLOTS INC 3,452,929 921,059 2,531,870 $0.05 $117,414 $58,707 Farther North of SH 392 east of I-25 to LC Road 5 21,913,125 $2,550,000 $216,111 ATTACHMENT ONE - VALUE ENHANCEMENT ZONE ANALYSIS September 2012 Foster Valuation Company LLC QUALIFICATIONS OF W. WEST FOSTER Education M.S. Degree in Regional Economics, Colorado State University. B.S. Degree in General Business, Colorado State University. All of the basic courses required for the MAI designation given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; Course III (Rural Properties); Course IV (Litigation Valuation); Course VI (Real Estate Investment Analysis); Course VII (Industrial Valuation); Course 520 (Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis); Course 550 (Advanced Applications); and all Litigation courses offered in the Professional Development Program. This partial list of courses was all given by the Appraisal Institute or its predecessor organizations. Principles of Real Estate Engineering, The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions, and several relocation courses, given by the International Right of Way Association. Management and Leasing of Shopping Centers, by the Institute of Real Estate Management. Advanced Ranch Appraisal, by the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Seminars: Computer-Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling, Subdivision Appraisal, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, plus numerous real estate seminars given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and later by the Appraisal Institute. Memberships and Designations Appraisal Institute: Designated Member (MAI) 1982 to 1986 - National Division of Curriculum 1986 to 1987 - National committee to write The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th Edition 1987 to 1991 - Board of Examiners, General Demonstration Appraisal Reports 1987 to 1994 - Regional Member, Review and Counseling Division 1991 to 1994 - Regional Representative, Region II 1992 to 2008 - Contributor to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th through 13th Editions 1995 - National Vice Chair, Review and Counseling Division 1995 - Vice Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 to 1997 - Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 - National Chair, Ethics Administration Division 1997 to 2008 - National Chair, Professional Ethics and Counseling Committee American Society of Real Estate Counselors: Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) 1994 - Vice Chair, Colorado Chapter 1995 - Chair, Colorado Chapter International Right of Way Association: Senior Right of Way Professional (SR/WA) Northern Colorado Commercial Association of Realtors Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: State of Colorado, #CG00001795 Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser, April 1981 to present, specializing in valuation and counseling with respect to a variety of nonresidential properties. Robert J. Mitchell, MAI, & Associates: Fee Appraiser, March 1976 to March 1981, specializing in rural and income property valuation. Qualified in District and Federal Courts as an Expert Valuation Witness. CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal consulting assignment. 8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. No one provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing this certification. 11. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 12. As of the date of this appraisal consulting report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I estimate the reimbursement amounts to be based as shown on the attached Value Enhancement Zone Analysis, as of October 3, 2012, to be as shown in the attached: DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Wendy Williams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-097 Ratifying the Appointment of Maddy Wawro to the Poudre River Public Library District Board of Trustees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 20, 2012, the Library Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Larimer County Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson, unanimously recommends the appointment of Kipp Lyons for a four-year term. On September 26, 2012, Mr. Lyons resubmitted a letter of resignation, effective October 15, 2012. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In November 2006, voters approved the formation of the Fort Collins Regional Library District. This name was changed to the Poudre River Public Library District in February 2009. The City Council and County Commissioners formed a Library District Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of two Councilmembers and two Commissioners. The Committee interviewed numerous candidates for the Board of Trustees and recommended seven candidates to the full Council and to the Commissioners for ratification. The candidates were ratified unanimously by both the Council and the Commissioners. The intergovernmental agreement between the City, County and District sets out the process for appointing Trustees. It provides that a committee, comprised of two members of Council and two Commissioners, will recommend a candidate for appointment who must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of both the full Council and the Commissioners. The Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson, met on February 20, 2012. The Committee, in part, unanimously recommended to the Council and the Commissioners that Kipp Lyons be appointed for a four-year term, as provided in the Board’s bylaws. At that same meeting, the Committee determined that, should another vacancy occur, applicant Maddy Wawro would be the Committee’s next recommended appointee. That selection has been reconfirmed with the Committee, and this Resolution ratifies the appointment of Maddy Wawro for a term to expire in March 2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-097 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF MADDY WAWRO TO THE POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, on November 7, 2006, the voters approved a citizen initiative to establish and fund the Fort Collins Regional Library District, now called the Poudre River Public Library District (the “Library District”), pursuant to Sections 24-90-101 to 606 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Library Law”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Library Law, the City Council and Larimer County Commissioners each appointed two of their members to a committee (the “Committee”) to fill seven positions on the initial board of trustees of the Library District; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, in accordance with the Library Law, the City Council passed Resolution 2007-026 ratifying the appointment of seven trustees to the Library Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Bylaws of the Library District Board of Trustees, a trustee may serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms, which are staggered so that typically one or two trustees are appointed or reappointed every year; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2012, the Committee met and decided, in part, to appoint Kipp Lyons to a four-year term expiring in March 2016; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, Mr. Lyons submitted a letter of resignation, effective October 15, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that Maddy Wawro, who submitted an application in January 2012, should be appointed to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Kipp Lyons; and WHEREAS, Section 24-90-108(2)(c) of the Library Law requires that the Committee’s trustee appointments be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the legislative body of each governmental unit participating in the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that pursuant to the requirements of the Colorado Library Law, the City Council, by a two-thirds majority vote of its members, hereby ratifies the Committee’s appointment of Maddy Wawro to complete the remainder of the four year term held by Kipp Lyons, to expire in March 2016, to the Board of Trustees of the Poudre River Public Library District; provided, however, that such action is contingent upon the Larimer County Commissioners taking similar action. Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 23th day of October, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Wendy Williams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 5 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-098 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Poudre River Public Library District Regarding the Donation to the District of Library Project Funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City and the Poudre River Library District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on December 18, 2007, in which the City agreed to use City Library Impact Fee revenue to complete construction, tenant finish, furnishings and purchase of materials for a Southeast Branch Library. The Facility project budget included “General Fund Productivity Savings” funds, which were appropriated to the Facility project, but not spent. A balance of $329,839 remains. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins built Council Tree Library as a capital improvement project with the intention of turning over the building and library operations to the Poudre River Library District. Construction funds were derived from impact fees, donations, and from the City of Fort Collins General Fund through two appropriations. The funds in question were appropriated from the General Fund, but not spent. The District has asked the City to give the District the remaining funds to spend on specific improvement projects in Library Park. The Council Finance Committee discussed this item at its 16 meeting and agreed that the proposed improvements would provide a public benefit by creating additional public amenities in Library Park and improving access to the Park and the Main Library. They expressed support for donating the funds for the improvements. The Intergovernmental Agreement specifies that the District may use up to the full amount of the funds for the following projects: (a) Improvements to Peterson Street accessibility and Library entry plaza. This project includes redesign and repaving of the library entry plaza and the addition of pavement adjacent to the curb, making access to the park and library more convenient for the public. This project is estimated to cost $60,000. (b) Widen and upgrade the diagonal walkway (Bench Allée) that runs diagonally from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of Library Park. This project would also include the placement of benches and planters along the edge and stringing decorative lights in the trees along the path. This project is estimated to cost $121,837. (c) Construction of an amphitheater on the northwest side of Library Park for community-scale activities. This project is estimated to cost $148,002. The City will transfer to the District the amount requested for each project at the time the District awards a construction contract for the project. The amount of money the District requests for each project may be more or less than the estimated cost for the project; however, the total funds provided for the three projects will not exceed $329,839. Upon completion, all improvements will be the property of the Library District. The District will grant the City a public access easement over any sidewalk areas that are improved using the City funds, including new sidewalks along Peterson Street and the Bench Allée, that are not already in a public right-of-way. The City currently leases Library Park from the District in exchange for maintaining Library Park in substantially the condition it was in as of the date of the lease. The District is required to fund the increased costs of maintenance for any upgrades, additions or improvements the District wishes to make to Library Park. As long as the Park Lease remains in effect, the City will, at the end of each calendar year, invoice the District for the additional costs of maintenance required by the Approved Projects, and the District will reimburse the City for such costs within sixty (60) days of the date of such invoice. October 23, 2012 -2- ITEM 5 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS General Fund monies that were previously appropriated for a Southeast Branch library will be donated to the Poudre River Library District. If the funds have not been spent in accordance with this Agreement by December 31, 2013, they will revert to the City and the City will have no further obligation to fund the Approved Projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-098 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT REGARDING THE DONATION TO THE DISTRICT OF LIBRARY PROJECT FUNDS WHEREAS, The City, Larimer County, and the Poudre River Public Library District, formerly known as the Fort Collins Regional Library District (“District”) are parties to an Intergovernmental Agreement dated December 18, 2007 (the “Library Agreement”); and WHEREAS, under the Library Agreement, the City agreed to use City Library Impact Fee revenue to complete construction, tenant finish, furnishing and purchase of materials for a Southeast Branch Library (the “Facility”); and WHEREAS, the Facility project budget included $339,304 in City General Fund money that was appropriated to the Facility project but was not spent on the Facility project (the “Project Funds”); and WHEREAS, a balance of $329,839 of the Project Funds remains, and the District has asked the City to give the remaining Project Funds to the District to spend on specific improvement projects in Library Park (the “Projects”); and WHEREAS, the proposed Projects are: • improvements to Peterson Street accessibility and the Library entrance plaza; • improvements to the walkway that runs diagonally through Library Park; and • construction of an amphitheater on the northwest side of Library Park; and WHEREAS, Library Park, which is adjacent to the Main Library, is owned by the District and is managed by the City as a public park under a lease agreement between the City and the District; and WHEREAS, the Council Finance Committee discussed the District’s request at its regular meeting on July 16, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Council Finance Committee agreed that the Projects would provide a public benefit by creating additional public amenities in Library Park and improving access to the Park and the Main Library, and expressed its support for the proposed donation; and WHEREAS, a copy of a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the District governing the use of the Project Funds is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements to provide any function, service or facility, Under Article II, Section 16 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins and Section 29-1-203 C.R.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Library District regarding the use of the Project Funds for the Projects proposed by the Library District, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit "A", along with such other terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the best interests of the City. Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 23rd day of October A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Draft 10-12-12 {00033812} INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING DONATION OF LIBRARY PROJECT FUNDS This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado and the Poudre River Public Library District is entered into this ____ day of ____________, 2012. RECITALS A. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado (“City”), Larimer County, Colorado, and the Poudre River Public Library District, formerly known as the Fort Collins Regional Library District (“District”) are parties to an Intergovernmental Agreement dated December 18, 2007 (the “Library Agreement”). B. Under the Library Agreement, the City agreed to use City Library Impact Fee revenue to complete construction, tenant finish, furnishing and purchase of materials for a Southeast Branch Library (the “Facility”), and to convey the Facility to the District to operate as a public library. C. The Facility project budget included $339,304 in “General Fund Productivity Savings” funds. This money was appropriated to the Facility project but was not spent on the Facility project. A balance of $329,839 remains. D. The District has asked the City to give the District the remaining funds, hereafter referred to as the “Project Funds”, to spend on specific improvement projects in Library Park. E. The proposed improvements would provide a public benefit by creating additional public amenities in Library Park and improving access to the Park and the Main Library. F. The City has agreed to provide the requested funding, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Approved Projects. The District may use up to the full amount of the Project Funds for the following projects (the “Approved Projects”): a) Improvements to Peterson Street accessibility and Library entry plaza. This project includes redesign and repaving of the library entry plaza and the addition of pavement adjacent to the curb, making access to the park and library more convenient for the public. This project is estimated to cost $60,000. b) Widen and upgrade the diagonal walkway (Bench Allée) that runs diagonally from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of Library Park. This project would also include the placement of benches and planters along the edge and stringing decorative lights in the trees along the path. This project is estimated to cost $121,837. EXHIBIT A Draft 10-12-12 {00033812} c) Construct of an amphitheater on the northwest side of Library Park for community-scale activities. This project is estimated to cost $148,002. 2. Payment. The City will transfer to the District the amount of the Project Funds requested for each Approved Project at the time the District awards a construction contract for such Approved Project. The amount of Project Funds the District requests for each Approved Project may be more or less than the estimated cost for such Project as described above; however, the total funds provided for the three Approved Projects will not exceed $329,839. 3. Deadline for Completion. If the Project Funds have not been spent in accordance with this Agreement by December 31, 2013, the Project Funds will revert to the City and the City will have no further obligation to fund the Approved Projects. 4. Ownership. Upon completion of the Approved Projects, all improvements will be the property of the Library District. 5. Maintenance. Pursuant to a Lease Agreement between the City and the District dated February 2, 2009 (the “Park Lease”), the City currently leases Library Park from the District in exchange for maintaining Library Park in substantially the condition it was in as of the date of the Park Lease. Section 3.3 of the Park Lease requires the District to fund the increased costs of maintenance for any upgrades, additions or improvements the District wishes to make to Library Park. The parties agree that for so long as the Park Lease remains in effect, the City will, at the end of each calendar year, invoice the District for the additional costs of maintenance required by the Approved Projects, and the District will reimburse the City for such costs within sixty (60) days of the date of such invoice. 6. Public Access. The District will grant to the City by separate deed(s) a pedestrian/public access easement over any sidewalk areas, including sidewalks along Peterson Street and the Bench Allée, that are improved using the Project Funds and that are not already within a dedicated public right-of-way. 7. Existing Agreements. This Agreement is not intended to modify or replace the Library Agreement or Park Lease, and those agreements remain in full force and effect. POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES ___________________________________ ____________________________________ President Date ATTEST: Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Secretary Seter & Vander Wall, P.C. Draft 10-12-12 {00033812} CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Mayor Date ATTEST: Approved as to Form: ____________________________________ ___________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz Wade Troxell Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, Executive Director Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, Secretary The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING October 23, 2012 (after the Adjourned Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar consists of Items 3 through 6. This Calendar is intended to allow the Urban Renewal Board to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of resolutions of no perceived controversy. 3. Resolution No. 042, Adopting Amendments to the Bylaws of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will be asked to create formal Rules of Procedures for governing the conduct of Board meetings. By doing so, it creates a redundancy in the existing URA Bylaws because the Bylaws also contain a small section regarding meeting order. Staff recognized this redundancy and consequently reviewed the Bylaws and found other, minor inaccuracies. Therefore, several amendments to the Bylaws are proposed for consideration and are considered housekeeping in nature. 4. Resolution No. 043 Adopting Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Meetings of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. Resolution No. 043 creates formal Rules of Procedure for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board. The purpose of the document is to provide a clear structure for meetings, and would establish the order of business, time and length of meetings, procedures for citizen comment and Commissioner question/debate, and the basic rules of order. October 23, 2012 5. Resolution No. 044, Establishing a Board Finance Committee and Appointing Committee Members. This Resolution establishes an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Finance Committee. This committee of the URA Board would consist of the same members that serve on the Council Finance Committee. Having a separate committee allows the URA Finance Committee to discuss all matters related the URA, including receiving and discussing privileged and confidential URA information. ***END CONSENT*** ***DISCUSSION ITEMS*** 6. Resolution No. 045 Adopting Updated Policies and Procedures for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. The Resolution makes several changes to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA) Policies and Administrative Procedures document. This document provides guidance to the Board, staff, and community stakeholders when considering whether to provide tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to a project in a URA Plan area. Revisions to the existing 2010 policies have been discussed over the past year at several Board work sessions. Only select changes are being brought forward at this time; remaining controversial changes will be postponed until additional benchmarking research is completed. 7. Resolution No. 046 Adopting a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks, Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The Resolution for consideration would adopt a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy to be used by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in cases where a URA-assisted project results in the displacement of residents and/or businesses, or the URA intends to acquire real property. The Policy is based on federal and state regulations, and provides a uniform process by which relocation services and financial assistance is offered, and/or real property is acquired. 8. Consideration of Pulled Consent Items. 9. Other Business. 10. Adjournment. DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Josh Birks, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 3 SUBJECT Resolution No. 042, Adopting Amendments to the Bylaws of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will be asked to create formal Rules of Procedures for governing the conduct of Board meetings. By doing so, it creates a redundancy in the existing URA Bylaws because the Bylaws also contain a small section regarding meeting order. Staff recognized this redundancy and consequently reviewed the Bylaws and found other, minor inaccuracies. Therefore, several amendments to the Bylaws are proposed for consideration and are considered housekeeping in nature. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board will be asked to create formal Rules of Procedures for governing the conduct of Board meetings. By doing so, it creates a redundancy in the existing URA Bylaws because the Bylaws also contain a small section regarding meeting order. Staff recognized this redundancy and consequently reviewed the Bylaws and found other, minor inaccuracies. Therefore, several amendments to the Bylaws are proposed for consideration and are considered housekeeping in-nature (see Exhibit A of Resolution No. 042). FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Resolution does not have a direct financial/economic impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Resolution does not have a direct environmental impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary June 26, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 042 OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Board”) adopted Resolution No. 006, which adopted bylaws for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Authority staff has recommended certain changes to the Authority’s bylaws in order to update and clarify certain aspects of the bylaws as originally adopted. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY that the amended bylaws attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference are hereby adopted as the bylaws of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 23rd day of October A.D. 2012. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 1 BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ARTICLE I – THE AUTHORITY Section 1. Name of Authority. The name of this urban renewal authority shall be the “Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority” as established by the City of Fort Collins City Council. The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority shall be referred to in these Bylaws as the “Authority” or “URA.” Section 2. Office of the Authority. The office of the Authority shall be located at 281 North College300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, or at such other place in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado as the Board of Commissioners of the Authority may direct. Section 3. Authority to Enact Bylaws. The Authority is authorized pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-25-105(1)(a) to make and adopt bylaws, orders, rules and regulations in furtherance of its powers and authority under the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (C.R.S. § 31-25-101, et seq.). ARTICLE II – MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS AND STAFF Section 1. Board of Commissioners. In accordance with C.R.S. Section 31-25- 115, the Fort Collins City Council, comprised of seven (7) members, has designated its elected members to serve as the Board of Commissioners of the Authority (the “Board”). The Mayor and members of City Council shall constitute the Board. Section 2. Officers. The officers of the Authority shall be a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Executive Director, and Secretary. Section 3. Chairperson. The Chairperson of the Authority shall be the Mayor of the City of Fort Collins. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. Except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Board, the Chairperson shall sign all contracts, deeds, and other instruments made by the Board. Section 4. Vice Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson shall be the Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Fort Collins. The Vice Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson. In case of the resignation or death of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chairperson until such time as a new Chairperson is seated by election of a Mayor for the City of Fort Collins. Section 5. Temporary Chairperson. In the absence of both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, the Board may appoint a temporary chairperson to preside at any meeting of the Board. EXHIBIT A 2 Section 6. Executive Director. The Fort Collins City Manager shall serve as the Executive Director of the Authority. Section 7. Secretary. The Fort Collins City Clerk shall serve as the Secretary of the Authority. The Secretary shall keep the records of the Authority; record all votes at formal meetings of the Board; keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purpose; and keep the seal of the Authority and have power to affix such seal to all contracts and documents authorized to be executed by the Authority. Section 8. Additional Duties. The officers of the Authority shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Board. Section 9. Keeping of Minutes. Minutes shall be kept of all formal meetings of the Board and all meetings of committees of the Board at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation or formal action occurs or could occur. Minutes need not be kept of work sessions of the Board. ARTICLE III – MEETINGSCONDUCT OF BOARD BUSINESS Section 1. Formal Meetings and Work Sessions. Formal meetings of the Board shall be those meetings where formal action may occur. No formal action shall be taken at work sessions of the Board. Meetings and work sessions may be held at such time and place as may from time to time be determined by the Chairperson, except as otherwise directed by a majority of the members of the Board. Full and timely notice of all formal Board meetings and work sessions, and of all committee meetings, shall be given in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-401 et seq. (the “Open Meetings Law”). Section 2. Committees. The Chairperson Board may by resolution, from time to time, create either standing or ad hoc committees as deemed appropriate for special study or review unless otherwise directed by a majority of the Board; and the Chairperson shall appoint all standing or ad hoc committee members. Each committee shall, at its first meeting, elect its own chairperson. Upon completion of the duties of any ad hoc committee, the committee shall be deemed to be automatically disbanded. The cChairperson Board may by resolution also disband any standing or Ad ad Hoc hoc committees unless otherwise directed by a majority of the members of the Board. Section 3. Executive Sessions. Executive sessions of the BoardAuthority may be called during any formal meeting of the Board as permitted by the Open Meetings Law. Section 4. Quorum. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. When a quorum is in attendance, action can be taken by the Board upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum present unless a different requirement for voting is specified by applicable law. 3 Section 5. Order Boardof BusinessMeetings. Meetings of the Authority Board shall be conducted in accordance with such meeting schedules, procedures and rules of order as the Board may adopt, in its discretion. not be required to follow any specific agenda order or process, although the following order shall typically be used as a guide for the Board’s order of business at formal meetings: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of minutes of the previous meeting 4. Consideration of Resolutions a. Public Hearings b. General Business 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment An opportunity for general public comment on matters not listed on the agenda may, at the discretion of the Chairperson, be provided to persons in attendance at any meeting of the Board. Section 6. Manner of Voting. The voting on all motions and resolutions before the Board shall be by roll call vote. The yes votes, no votes and abstentions shall be entered in the minutes of each meeting. Every member of the Board, when present, must vote unless excused from voting on matters involving the consideration of his or her own official conduct or when his or her personal financial interest is involved. Section 7. Keeping of Minutes. Minutes shall be kept of all formal meetings of the Board and all meetings of committees of the Board at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation or formal action occurs or could occur. Minutes need not be kept of work sessions of the Board. Section 8. Removal. The presiding officer shall have the power to cause persons to be removed from a Board meeting or a committee meeting, in order to maintain order and public safety during the meeting. ARTICLE IV – CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Board shall be governed by the same rules regarding ethics and conflicts of interest as apply to the City Council. ARTICLE V – AMENDMENTS These Bylaws may be amended from time to time by an affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of the Board of Commissioners at any formal meeting of the Board. 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED: By: Date: , 20062012 Douglas P. HutchinsonKaren Weitkunat, Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Executive Director URA Attorney DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Josh Birks, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 4 SUBJECT Resolution No. 043 Adopting Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Meetings of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resolution No. 043 creates formal Rules of Procedure for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board. The purpose of the document is to provide a clear structure for meetings, and would establish the order of business, time and length of meetings, procedures for citizen comment and Commissioner question/debate, and the basic rules of order. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The URA Board does not currently have adopted rules of procedure to conduct URA Board meetings. Historically, Board meetings typically follow the same process as City Council. Based upon the continued growth in the number of URA projects, it was suggested that formal rules of procedure would be beneficial. In response, an adaptation from Council’s rules of procedures is provided for consideration (see Exhibit A of Resolution No. 043). The proposed Rules of Procedure establish the following: 1. Order of business 2. Time and length of meetings 3. Procedures for citizen comment 4. Procedures for Commissioner questions and debate 5. Basic rules of order. One aspect being proposed that would be unique to the URA is the ability for an applicant seeking TIF to make a presentation to the Board at a meeting. The applicant presentation could come before or after staff’s, depending on the project. Although staff proposed options to change the Board’s meeting date and time at a previous work session, the concept was not supported. This Resolution would continue the current practice of holding meetings on an as-needed basis after regularly-scheduled Tuesday City Council meetings. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Resolution does not have a direct financial/economic impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Resolution does not have an environmental impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary June 26, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 043 OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CONDUCT OF MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Board”) adopted Resolution No. 006, which adopted bylaws for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, the Board has by its adoption on this date of Resolution No. 042, adopted amended bylaws for the Authority (the “Bylaws”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Bylaws, meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with such meeting schedules, procedures and rules of order as the Board may adopt, in its discretion; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board desires to establish as its general rules of procedure for the conduct of Board meetings, the Rules of Procedure attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Board Rules of Procedure”). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY that the Board hereby adopts the Board Rules of Procedure as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 23rd day of October A.D. 2012. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS (Adopted __________) Section 1. Order of Business. Business a. Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“Authority”) Board of Commissioners (“Board”) business shall be conducted in the following order: (1) Call Meeting to Order (2) Roll Call (3) Authority Executive Director’s Agenda Review (4) Opportunity for Commissioners to Pull Consent Items (5) Opportunity for Citizens to Pull Consent Items (6) Citizen Participation (7) Citizen Participation Follow-up (8) Consent Calendar (9) Consent Calendar Follow-up (10) Staff Reports (11) Commissioner Reports (12) Commissioner-Pulled Consent Items (13) Items Needing Individual Consideration (14) Citizen-Pulled Consent Items (15) Other Business (16) Adjournment b. Items not on the consent agenda shall be considered according to the following procedure, except as otherwise determined by the Chairperson to be appropriate: (1) Presentation by Authority staff and/or project applicant (as determined by the Chairperson and in the order most suitable for an understandable presentation of the item) (2) Citizen Participation (3) Commissioner Questions (4) Motion (5) Discussion (6) Vote on Motion Section 2. Time and Length of Meetings. a. Board meetings will take place when scheduled by the Chairperson. EXHIBIT A 2 b. Board meetings will begin at the time specified for each scheduled meeting. b. No more than one (1) short break, for a time period specified by the Chairperson, will be planned per meeting. All commissioners and staff will return to their seats in the Council Chambers at the conclusion of any such break. The Chairperson will resume the meeting at the prescribed time. c. Each Board meeting will end no later than two hours after it was begun, except that: (1) any item of business commenced before the meeting has lasted two hours may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the Board may, by majority vote, extend a meeting for the purpose of considering additional items of business, until no later than 12:00 a.m. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Board meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting that have not yet been considered by the Board, will be continued to the next Board meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. Section 3. Citizen Comment. a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than items to be considered by the Board under the discussion agenda for that night’s meeting. A maximum of five (5) minutes will be allowed per speaker. In order to determine the actual amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Chairperson will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak. If the number of persons intending to speak is more than six (6), the Chairperson will shorten the allotted time in order to allow as many people as possible to address the Board within a reasonable period of time given the scheduled agenda. b. Citizen input will be received with regard to: (i) each item on the discussion agenda, (ii) each item pulled from the consent agenda, and (iii) any item that is addressed by formal Board action under the “Other Business” segment of the meeting that may directly affect the rights or obligations of any member of the general public. Such citizen input will be permitted only once per item regardless of the number of motions made during the Board’s consideration of the item. 3 c. The time limits for individual citizen comments regarding agenda items will be established by the Chairperson prior to each such item. In order to determine the amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Chairperson will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak to the item. If the number of persons indicating an intent to speak to an item is twelve (12) or less, each speaker will generally be allowed five (5) minutes. If the number of persons indicating an intent to speak to an item is thirteen (13) or more, each speaker will generally be limited to three (3) minutes per item. However, the Chairperson may increase or decrease the time limits per speaker as he or she deems necessary to facilitate the Board’s understanding of the item, or to allow the Board to consider and act upon the item in a timely fashion. d. Any determination of the Chairperson with regard to the foregoing time limits may be overridden by a majority vote of the Board. Section 4. Authority of Chairperson to Maintain Order and Decorum.Decorum . As the presiding officer, the Chairperson may order the removal from any meeting of the Board of persons who are substantially disrupting the meeting or threatening the safety of others. The Chairperson should, if circumstances permit, issue a warning to such persons prior to removal. If, in the judgment of the Chairperson, the disruptive behavior or unsafe conduct presents an immediate threat of bodily harm to commissioners or other participants in the meeting, no such warning need be given. Section 5. CCCCoooommmmmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnneeeerrrr Questions and Debate. Commissioner questions and debate regarding an agenda item will occur immediately following citizen input and prior to entertaining any main motion related to the item. Except when raising a point of order, commissioners seeking to ask questions or participate in debate will do so only when called upon by the Chairperson. The Chairperson may limit or curtail questions or debate as he or she deems necessary for the orderly conduct of business, except as overridden by a majority of commissioners present and voting, pursuant to a point of order. No commissioner will speak to an item more than once until all other commissioners have had an opportunity to be heard. Section 6666. . Basic Rules of Order. The following commonly used rules of order will govern the conduct of Board business. Except as specifically noted, all motions 4 require a second. These rules of order are based upon Robert=s Rules of Order Newly Revised as modified to reflect adopted practices of the City Council and to the requirements of the City Charter. (For example, while a two-thirds vote is necessary for the passage of some of the motions listed below under Robert=s Rules of Order, all motions of the Council, except a motion to go into executive session or a motion to adopt an emergency ordinance, may be adopted upon approval of a majority vote of the members present at a meeting, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 11 of the City Charter.) For simplicity and convenience, these rules are consistent with the rules in effect for City Council meetings. For any question of procedure not addressed by these rules, reference shall be made to Robert=s Rules of Order for clarification or direction. In the event of any conflict between these rules of order and Robert=s Rules of Order, these rules of order shall prevail. In the event of any conflict between these rules of order or Robert=s Rules of Order and Colorado statutes, the City Charter or City Code provisions, the statutes, City Charter or City Code provision shall prevail. A. MAIN MOTIONS Main motions are used to bring business before the Board for consideration and action. A main motion can be introduced only if no other business is pending. All main motions require a second and may be adopted by majority vote of those commissioners present and voting, except that: (1) a motion to go into executive session requires a two-thirds vote of those present and voting. A main motion may be made by any commissioner, including the Chairperson. It is debatable and may be amended. BBBB. SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS These are motions that may be applied to another motion for the purpose of modifying it, delaying action on it, or disposing of it. 1. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend, once seconded, is debatable and may itself be amended once. However, a "secondary amendment," which is a change to a pending "primary amendment," cannot be amended. The point of a motion to amend is to modify the wording - and, within certain limits, the meaning - of a pending motion before the pending motion itself is acted upon. Therefore, once a motion to amend has been seconded and debated, it is decided before the main motion is decided. Certain motions to amend are improper. For example, an 5 amendment must be Agermane@ to be an order. To be germane, an amendment must in some way involve the same question that is raised by the motion to which it is applied. Also, some motions to amend are improper, for example, a motion that would merely make the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion, or one that would make the question as amended identical with, or contrary to, one previously decided by the Board during the same session. AFriendly@ amendments acceptable to the maker and the seconder of the main motion do not require a second and are permissible at any time before a vote is taken on the main motion. 2. Withdrawal or Modification of a Motion. In the brief interval between the making of a motion and the time when the Chairperson places the motion before the Board by stating it, the maker can withdraw or modify the motion. After a motion has been seconded and stated by the Chairperson it belongs to the Board as a whole and the maker must request the Board’s permission to withdraw or modify his or her motion. 3. Motion to Lay on the Table. A motion to table is intended to enable the Board to lay the pending question aside temporarily, but only when something else of immediate urgency has arisen. By adopting a motion to lay on the table, a majority has the power to immediately halt the consideration of a question, since a motion to table is neither debatable nor amendable. 4. Motion to Postpone Indefinitely. A motion to postpone indefinitely is, in effect, a motion that the Board decline to take a position on an agenda item or main motion. Its adoption kills the agenda item or main motion for the duration of the meeting and avoids a direct vote on the item or motion. It is useful in disposing of an item or motion that cannot either be adopted or expressly rejected without undesirable consequences. It is debatable but not amendable. 5. Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (or Definitely). This is the motion by which action on an agenda item or a pending motion can be put off to a definite day, meeting or hour, or until after a certain event has occurred. This motion can be debated only to the extent necessary to enable the Board to determine whether the main question should be postponed and, if so, to what date or time. Similarly, it is amendable only as to the date or time to which the main question should be postponed. 6 6. ACalling the Question@. "Calling the question" may sometimes motivate unanimous consent to end debate. If it does not, however, then debate does not automatically end. Instead, if any commissioner objects to ending the debate, the Chairperson should ask if there is a second to the motion and, if so, he or she must immediately take a vote on whether to end debate. The motion is not debatable or amendable. CCCC..INCIDENTAL MOTIONS. These are motions which usually apply to the method of conducting business rather to the business itself. 1. Point of Order. If a commissioner thinks that the rules of order are being violated, he or she can make a point of order, thereby calling upon the Chairperson for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules. Such a motion takes precedence over any pending question out of which it may arise. This motion does not require a second. It is not amendable and, technically, it is not debatable. However, with the Chairperson=s consent, the member raising the point of order may be permitted to explain his or her point. In response to a point of order, the Chairperson can either immediately rule, subject to appeal to the Board, or the Chairperson can refer the point of order to the judgment of the Board, in which case the point becomes debatable. In making his or her ruling, the Chairperson can also consult the parliamentarian, if there is one, or can request the advice of one or more experienced commissioners. However, no commissioner has the right to express an opinion unless requested to do so by the Chairperson. When the Chairperson has made a ruling, any two commissioners can appeal the ruling (one commissioner stating the appeal and the other seconding it). When an appeal is taken, the matter is decided by majority vote of the Board. A tie vote sustains the decision of the Chairperson. If a point of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the perceived violation of the rules occurs. 2. Motion to Divide a Question. If a motion relating to a single subject contains several parts, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition by itself, the parts of the motion can be separated for consideration and voted on as if they were distinct questions by the adoption of a motion for division of the question. This motion, if seconded, takes precedence over the main motion and is not debatable. However, the motion to divide must clearly state the manner in which the question is 7 to be divided, and while the motion to divide is pending, another member can propose a different division by moving an amendment, in which case the amended form of the motion, if seconded, would be decided first. Often, little formality is involved in dividing a question, and it is arranged by unanimous consent. 3. Motion to Suspend the Rules. When the Board wishes to do something that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to suspend the rules that interfere with the proposed action. This motion can be made at any time that no question is pending and can be applied to any rule except those that are fundamental principles of Colorado statute, the City Charter, City Code or other applicable laws. This motion is neither debatable nor amendable. D. RESTORATIVE MOTIONS These are motions that bring a question again before the Board for its consideration. 1. Motion to Take from the Table. The object of this motion is to take from the table and make pending again before the Board a motion or series of adhering motions that previously had been laid on the table. This motion is neither debatable nor amendable. When a question is taken from the table, it is before the Board with everything adhering to it, exactly as it was when laid on the table. 2. Motion to Reconsider. This motion enables a majority of the Board to bring back for further consideration a motion that has already been voted on. This motion is in order only if made on the same date that the vote to be reconsidered was taken. The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit the correction of hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of a vote. This motion can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. When a member who cannot make a motion for reconsideration believes that there are valid reasons for one, he or she can try, if there is time or opportunity, to persuade someone who voted with the prevailing side to make such a motion. This motion is debatable whenever the motion proposed to be reconsidered was debatable. And, when debatable, opens to debate the merits of the question to be reconsidered. It is not amendable. The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is that the question on which the vote was reconsidered is immediately 8 placed before the Board in the exact position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. 3. Motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. By means of the motions to rescind or to amend something previously adopted, the Board can change an action previously taken or ordered. This motion is debatable and amendable. In contrast to a motion to reconsider, there is no time limit on making a motion to rescind or a motion to amend something previously adopted (provided that no action has been taken by anyone in the interim that cannot be undone), and these motions can be moved by any commissioner, regardless of how he or she voted on the original question. The effect of passage of this motion is not to place the matter back before the Board as it was just prior to a vote being taken. Instead, it either entirely nullifies the previous action or modifies it, depending upon which motion is used. For that reason, this motion should not be made if third parties have relied to their detriment on the previous action. EEEE..PRIVILEGED MOTIONS These motions are of such urgency or importance that they are entitled to immediate consideration, even when another motion is pending. This is because these motions do not relate to the pending business but have to do with special matters of immediate and overriding importance which, without debate, should be allowed to interrupt the consideration of anything else. 1. Motion to Adjourn. A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion except when the motion is conditioned in some way, as in the case of a motion to adjourn at, or to, a future time. Such a conditional motion is not privileged and is treated just as any other main motion. A conditional motion to adjourn at or to a future time is always out of order while business is pending. However, an unconditioned, privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence over most other motions. The privileged motion to adjourn is neither debatable nor amendable, while a conditioned motion to adjourn is debatable and may be amended. 2. Motion to Recess. A motion to recess that is made when no question is pending is a main motion and should be treated as any other main motion. A motion to recess is said to be privileged if it is made when another question is pending, in which case it takes precedence over all 9 subsidiary and incidental motions and most other privileged motions. It is not debatable and is amendable only as to the length of the recess. DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Josh Birks, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 5 SUBJECT Resolution No. 044, Establishing a Board Finance Committee and Appointing Committee Members. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution establishes an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Finance Committee. This committee of the URA Board would consist of the same members that serve on the Council Finance Committee. Having a separate committee allows the URA Finance Committee to discuss all matters related the URA, including receiving and discussing privileged and confidential URA information. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Before Urban Renewal Authority (URA) staff brings projects and other financial matters to the URA Board for consideration, the City Council Finance Committee is typically consulted first. Since City Council members are also URA Board members, this practice works well the majority of the time. There have been and will continue to be instances where statutory limitations prevent the Council Finance Committee from discussing sensitive URA matters. Therefore, for URA staff to fully utilize the direction offered by a Finance Committee, it is recommended that a Finance Committee be established by the URA Board. The URA Finance Committee would consist of the same members that serve as the Council Finance Committee, but would have the ability to convene as a separate committee to receive and discuss privileged and confidential URA information. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Resolution does not have a direct financial/economic impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Resolution does not have a direct environmental impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary June 26, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 044 OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ESTABLISHING A BOARD FINANCE COMMITTEE AND APPOINTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Board”) adopted Resolution No. 006, which adopted bylaws for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, the Board has by its adoption on this date of Resolution No. 042, adopted amended bylaws for the Authority (the “Bylaws”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Bylaws, the Board may, from time to time, create either standing or ad hoc committees as deemed appropriate and appoint the members of such committees; and WHEREAS, Authority staff has recommended that the Board establish a Finance Committee to provide an opportunity for early and detailed review of funding proposals, projects and other financial matters to assist Authority staff in formulating and refining the same for Board consideration; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to form a Finance Committee and to make initial appointments to the Finance Committee. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. That for the purposes described above, a Finance Committee of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority is hereby created, to consist of three Commissioners. Section 2. That the following Commissioners are hereby appointed to serve on the Finance Committee until such time as the Board may decide to make new appointments: Karen Weitkunat Kelly Ohlson Ben Manvel Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 23rd day of October A.D. 2012. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Josh Birks, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 6 SUBJECT Resolution No. 045 Adopting Updated Policies and Procedures for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Resolution makes several changes to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA) Policies and Administrative Procedures document. This document provides guidance to the Board, staff, and community stakeholders when considering whether to provide tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to a project in a URA Plan area. Revisions to the existing 2010 policies have been discussed over the past year at several Board work sessions. Only select changes are being brought forward at this time; remaining controversial changes will be postponed until additional benchmarking research is completed. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Resolution would make several changes to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA) Policies and Administrative Procedures document. This document provides guidance to the Board, staff, and community stakeholders when considering whether to provide tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to a project in a URA Plan area. The proposed changes have been discussed at previous work sessions held by the URA Board (see Attachments 1-4). There has been an increase in development activity, and there are several projects that are anticipated to request URA participation in the coming months. For this reason, staff recommends adopting a series of changes that are considered non-controversial and administrative in nature; these changes would help to clarify and improve the URA process for all parties involved. The URA Board originally adopted policies in 2006, and subsequently revised them in 2010. In spring of 2011, staff was directed to review the policies and consider additional revisions. Several iterations of the proposed revisions have been presented and discussed with the Board and community stakeholders. While there has been agreement on some of the changes, others remain controversial. The non-controversial changes are recommended for adoption and are explained in Table 1 below; the complete Policy and Administrative Procedures document is attached as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 045. The remaining controversial changes will be postponed until they can be reevaluated based on additional benchmarking when the new Redevelopment Program Manager is hired (anticipated within the next 90 days). Table 1: Revisions for Consideration Change Rationale Including the mission statement The 2006 policies included the mission statement, but the existing 2010 version does not. Clarifying affordable housing definition The 2010 policies contained a mistake regarding the City’s code definition of a qualified affordable housing project. No interest will be paid on the applicant’s expenses Now a standard practice that is not specified in the existing policies. Describing who is on the URA Team The URA Team is an interdisciplinary team of staff that reviews URA applications; a Board member requested that the Departments that comprise the Team be listed. An approved Redevelopment Agreement must be executed within 12 months Standard practice that is not specified in the existing policies. October 23, 2012 -2- ITEM 6 Change Rationale Giving extra consideration for projects that achieve LEED Silver certification If substantial costs to the URA are involved to screen, review, or negotiate a project, the other party may be asked to pay a deposit in advance; a contractual commitment to fund such work may be required in advance of, or in connection with, a formal application. This is not a requirement but would put achieving LEED Silver certification among other public benefits that receive extra consideration, e.g., affordable housing. This is intended for cases where extraordinary work is required by the URA to process a request for tax increment assistance. In such cases, the other party may be asked to pay a deposit for substantial costs in advance of the URA incurring such expenses. Staff will not bring an application to the Board for consideration if it does not meet the fundamental objectives of the URA Standard practice that is not specified in the existing policies. Note that the iterative process over the past year has resulted in some significant changes in terms of the format of the document. For example, the proposed 2012 version separates policies from administrative procedures. Additional minor text changes were made throughout the document for clarification purposes. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Resolution does not have a direct financial/economic impact, but clarifies how and when the URA provides financial assistance to a project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Resolution does not have a direct environmental impact. One revision to the policies may have an indirect impact; the URA would begin to give “extra consideration” for projects that achieve LEED Silver Certification or higher. While this is not a requirement, it may induce some projects to go beyond the City’s Building Code and implement more sustainable building principles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. PUBLIC OUTREACH An informational meeting on the pros and cons of the LEED certification process was held on April 5, 2012. An open house was held on May 30, 2012 to present and discuss proposed policy changes with the general public. Ongoing conversations have been had with members of the South Fort Collins Business Association, North Fort Collins Business Association, Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee, and the Fort Collins Board of Realtors. ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary June 26, 2012 2. Work Session Summary January 24, 2012 3. Work Session Summary October 4, 2011 4. Work Session Summary June 14, 2011 5. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y 300 LaPorte Ave • PO Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6505 • TDD 970-224-6002 • renewfortcollins.com DT: October 7, 2011 TO: President and URA Board members TH: Darin Atteberry, Executive Director FM: Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager Christina Vincent, Redevelopment Program Administrator RE: October 4, 2011 Work Session Summary – URA Policies and Advisory Group Options Board members present: President Weitkunat, Vice-President Ohlson, Ben Manvel, Lisa Poppaw, Gerry Horak, Wade Troxell Staff present: Bruce Hendee, Christina Vincent, Josh Birks Discussion/Follow-up points: • The URA policies were revised from both the discussion during the June 14 worksession and further revised from the discussion from the URA project The Commons, by Capstone Development Corporation. • The Board requests that consideration be given to the Affordable Housing requirement to exceed the stated Land Use Code minimum. • The Board gave suggestions to improve the language in several sections and remove the redundancies. • The Board questioned the need for the additional consideration for local ownership. • Regarding the advisory group options, some Board members wanted to see an option six created to reflect no recommending advisory group option. • Some members of the Board would also like to consider an advisory group that could serve in an ad-hoc capacity. Staff will attempt to create that structure. Next Steps: December 6 – The URA Board will consider adopting the updated URA Policies and Procedures. January 31 – The URA Board will discuss the Policies and Procedures in the greater context of tax increment financing and the best approach for awarding grant monies. ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 1 1 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Policies and Administrative Procedures URA Board - October 23, 2012 2 Background • URA policies adopted 2006, revised 2010 • Discussion to revise policies began May 2011 • Several iterations presented to URA Board and stakeholders • Not all changes are proposed for adoption tonight – Previously-proposed, controversial items are postponed ATTACHMENT 5 2 3 Proposed Changes • Overall re-formatting of the document • Including the mission statement • Clarifying affordable housing definition • Clarifying no interest paid on applicant’s expenses • Describing the URA/Redevelopment Team 4 Proposed Changes (continued) • Clarifying a Redevelopment Agreement must be executed within 12 months of approval • Giving extra consideration for LEED Silver projects • Recovering substantial URA costs for screening/reviewing/negotiating Agreements • Clarifying an application must meet fundamental URA goals to be considered by the URA Board 3 5 Staff Recommendation Adoption of Resolution No. 045 6 Thank You ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 045 OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ADOPTING UPDATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Board”) adopted Resolution No. 007, which approved a mission statement and general policies for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, the Board adopted Resolution No. 024, approving and adopting new and more extensive general policies for the Authority, which policies have been in place to guide the activities of Authority staff and the Board since that time; and WHEREAS, in response to Board input, Authority staff initiated a review of Authority policies in spring 2011, and proposed policy revisions have been considered by the Board at work sessions on June 14, 2011, October 4, 2011, January 24, 2012, and June 26, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on those discussions, Authority staff has recommended certain changes to the Authority’s policies and procedures in order to better describe the priorities and expectations of the Board in connection with proposed urban renewal projects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. That the policies and procedures contained in the attached Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures accurately reflect the Board’s expectations for the processing of applications for financial assistance from the Authority. Section 2. That the Board hereby adopts the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 23rd day of October A.D. 2012. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 1 FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (Adopted __________) GENERAL POLICIES “The mission of the Urban Renewal Authority is to remedy blight, using Tax Increment Financing, to leverage private capital investment, and stimulate sustainable development and public improvement projects.” SECTION 1 – PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) staff, recommending bodies, and URA Board (Board) in considering, reviewing and processing applications that seek to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for development activities within established TIF Districts. Policies are in accordance with Colorado Urban Renewal Law (C.R.S. § 31‐25‐101 et seq.) but have been adapted to further the City’s own vision and goals for the URA. The Board may, in its discretion, amend or waive sections of this document when determined necessary or appropriate. The fundamental purpose for application to the URA for TIF assistance is to facilitate desirable development/redevelopment projects within the URA TIF District that would not otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through TIF. The Board intends to provide the minimum amount of TIF assistance needed to make the project viable in order to preserve unencumbered TIF for District‐wide public improvements. The provision of financial assistance is at the sole discretion of the Board which shall, in its discretion, reject or approve projects on a case‐by‐case basis taking into account established policies, specific project criteria, and demands on City services versus potential public benefits received from the proposed project. Meeting policy guidelines and other criteria does not guarantee the award of TIF assistance. Furthermore, approval or denial of one project is not intended to set a precedent for approval or denial of any other project. SECTION 2 - OBJECTIVES The URA was established to accomplish the following objectives:  Eliminate blight.  Improve public infrastructure (streets, storm drainage, sewer, utilities, etc.) in areas where deficiencies exist.  Remove impediments to desired development, e.g., lack of infrastructure, environmental contamination, presence of floodplain, and/or unsuitable soils. EXHIBIT A 2  Retain, expand or attract businesses for the purpose of improving the City’s economic base as demonstrated by projects that retain jobs, create primary jobs, increase the manufacturing base, etc.  Create destination locations, including mixed‐use projects, which will capture additional revenue to the area.  Encourage development projects that enhance the streetscapes and pedestrian experience and improve the vitality of commercial corridors by adding interest and activity.  Provide a variety of quality housing choices.  Encourage development that is consistent with City Plan, subarea plans, and approved Urban Renewal Plans.  Promote energy and water efficiencies within buildings and developments.  Protect natural habitats and features. SECTION 3 – ELIGIBLE COSTS The following are eligible costs that may be considered for TIF assistance:  Removal of hazardous materials or conditions (sites where remediation or mitigation is required).  Site clearance or site acquisition.  Land assemblage.  Parking/structured parking for the public.  Infrastructure that is extraordinarily costly to the project and/or serves other development and redevelopment facilitating further improvements in the area.  Sustainable and renewable energy features that reduce the environmental impact of the project.  Public amenities such as parks, plazas, community gathering areas and streetscapes to enhance the aesthetics of the area.  Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as identified by the City of Fort Collins.  Projects listed in Infrastructure Plans related to the Plan area, e.g., North College Infrastructure Funding Plan.  Other qualifying expenses as permitted by Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq. SECTION 4 – EVALUATION CRITERIA The following evaluation criteria will be used to review applications seeking TIF. Since every project is unique, additional evaluation criteria may become necessary and will be determined individually based on the merits of the project. 3 Financial feasibility:  TIF assistance will not be considered for projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without TIF assistance, except where exceptional circumstances warrant support for the project.  Individuals requesting TIF must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the URA, sufficient equity investment in the project prior to seeking TIF. Equity is defined as cash or un‐ leveraged value in land or prepaid costs attributable to the project. Examples of equity may include personal cash, letter of credit, personal investment, awarded grant monies, etc.  Assistance will not be provided solely to increase the developer’s profit margin on the project. Prior to consideration of a TIF request, the URA will undertake a financial analysis of the project costs to ensure that the developer’s internal rate of return (IRR) is reasonable based on the characteristics of the project.  For projects that will generate more than $1 million in TIF or create a project that is more than 10,000 sq. ft. in size there may be an independent financial analysis. The independent analysis will be contracted for by the URA and the cost will be paid for by the applicant. Additionally, if the project is seeking more than 50% of the property tax increment generated from the project, or if the applicant is asking for requesting more than $150,000 in financial assistance, an independent financial analysis of the project may be required by the URA. Public Benefit:  A qualitative and/or quantitative analysis should be completed in order to identify the public benefits achieved by the project. Analysis of the benefits of the project will be measured against the expectations set in the relevant plans that may include, but not be limited by, City Plan (the City’s Comprehensive Plan), an Urban Renewal Plan, a community subarea plan, or an adopted policy, ordinance, or resolution of the City Council.  Public benefits that garner additional consideration by the URA Board include: - Affordable housing projects that exceed the minimum City Land Use Code definition of an “affordable housing project”. - Projects that have local ownership, which is defined to mean any home location, business, or developer located within a 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary. - Projects that achieve or exceed LEED Silver certification. - Projects that include early childhood care and/or education centers. - Historic preservation and/or adaptive reuse of historic structures.  Projects that do not provide sufficient public benefits may, after review, be provided feedback and allowed to submit a revised application. Revisions may lead to approval or final denial of the URA applicant and may include, but are not limited to: - Greater developer contribution; - Reduced TIF participation; and/or - Redefinition of the scope of the project. 4 Section 5 – Other General Policies  If substantial URA expense may be involved during screening, reviewing, and/or negotiating, a party requesting assistance from the URA may be asked to pay a deposit in order to fund URA staff or contractual work in advance of the URA incurring significant costs; furthermore, contractual commitments to fund appropriate work or other expenses may be required in advance of, or in connection with, a formal application or other request for assistance.  The applicant must be able to demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction an ability to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project based upon past experience, general reputation, and credit history.  TIF assistance for land/property purchase costs will not be provided in an amount exceeding the fair market value of the property. Fair market value will be determined by an independent appraiser hired by URA staff. The cost of the appraisal will be paid for by the applicant.  There will be no interest paid on any portion of the applicant’s reimbursable expenses.  TIF will not be used to retroactively reimburse projects or make payments to cover costs associated with any actions incurred by a development/redevelopment prior to execution of the Redevelopment Agreement, except for eligible hard costs associated with public improvements required of the project as approved by the Board. 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES SECTION 1 - APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The applicant must complete the TIF application in its entirety, including the following documentation:  A location map  Site plans or project drawings/perspectives/elevations  Project pro‐forma included, but not limited to: - Estimate of construction costs from licensed general contractor - Breakdown of public verses private improvements - Projected rents with vacancy assumption - Project schedule  Owner/Business resume  A proposed project timetable indicating the estimated time frame for major steps including the City’s planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (CO).  Executive Summary with answers to the following questions: – What is the nature of the project? – Why is TIF assistance needed and how will the funds be used? – What sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF? – How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)? – How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area? – How will the project help achieve the goals of the Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan? – How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions? – How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques? Please be specific how this project uses energy and water efficiency exceeding code requirements, renewable resources, natural resource conservation techniques, or stormwater low impact design methods. SECTION 2 – APPLICATION PROCESS  Applications may be submitted to URA staff at any time during regular business hours.  After URA staff has done a preliminary analysis and made suggested edits or modifications to the application, there will be a final submittal.  After the final submittal, the financial analysis will take place. If the analysis is completed by an independent consultant, additional time may be required depending on availability.  Additional community‐based input from affected groups may be required. – Feedback from community‐based input (e.g., North Fort Collins Business Association, South Fort Collins Business Association) may require modifications that delay approval and even require additional financial analysis. 6 – If the application is for a project within the North College Urban Renewal Plan Area, the North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) must make a recommendation by a majority vote. The CAG meets on a monthly basis and the proposed project/TIF application will be scheduled on the agenda once the financial analyses are completed and the URA staff has adequate information and achieved a staff recommendation to present.  The final application will be reviewed by the URA Team, which includes staff representatives from the following Departments: - Economic Health - Engineering - Utilities - Planning - Legal - Finance  If the fundamental objectives of the URA are not clearly met, the application will be denied by staff and will not move forward to the Board for approval. The applicant may re‐apply if there is a significant financial change affecting the project’s financial feasibility, or if the project changes extensively from the original application and should be considered on its own merit.  If the URA Team recommends the application, staff will work with the applicant to create a project specific Redevelopment Agreement (RA) that will define the terms of URA participation and TIF assistance for the project.  Once a final RA is agreed to, URA staff will schedule the application for consideration at a hearing before the Board. The Board typically meets bimonthly on Tuesday evenings.  The Board will consider the application at the scheduled meeting. The Board will decide whether or not to support the application. The Board’s action may include: o Adoption of the RA; o Continuation or delay of decision; o Denial of the application; or o Conditional approval of the RA with clear direction on suggested terms. The Board will also clearly indicate if the conditions are mandatory for approval or optional enhancements. If denied, the URA Board will not allow re‐application to the URA for TIF unless there are significant changes from the original denied application.  An approved Redevelopment Agreement will remain valid for 12 months and will expire if not properly executed within that timeframe.  Until such time as a RA has been finalized and executed, no applicant will have any entitlement to TIF assistance.  Except as otherwise approved by the URA Board, TIF assistance will be on a reimbursement basis and only after the project valuation is verified by the Larimer County Assessor’s Office and the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Letter of Completion (LOC) is issued at completion of construction. The funds will be paid upon actual costs, without interest, with verifiable receipts. DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Josh Birks, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Resolution No. 046 Adopting a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Resolution for consideration would adopt a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy to be used by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in cases where a URA-assisted project results in the displacement of residents and/or businesses, or the URA intends to acquire real property. The Policy is based on federal and state regulations, and provides a uniform process by which relocation services and financial assistance is offered, and/or real property is acquired. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The fundamental purpose of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) is to eliminate blighted conditions in targeted redevelopment areas. In some cases, supporting a project that eliminates blight and provides a tax benefit to the area results in the displacement of businesses and/or residents. When displacement is inevitable and requires relocation, the URA can provide service and sometimes financial relief to assist with the relocation. In the past, the URA has managed relocation on a case-by-case basis. Considering the increase in redevelopment activity within URA plan areas, it is anticipated that displacement will continue to be a potential issue. In fact, potential displacement of current tenants due to the Foothills Mall redevelopment has been made public. Rather than continuing to manage these situations individually, staff recommends that the URA Board adopt policies that can be universally applied to any displacement situation created by a URA-assisted project. This approach ensures consistency with how services and financial assistance are provided. Additionally, there may be cases when the URA exercises its power to acquire real property to facilitate development or redevelopment. Colorado Revised Statutes provide guidance for such circumstances in terms of how the acquisition process should be managed to ensure fairness and consistency. The Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy under consideration has been adapted from other Colorado URAs and is intended to be a living document. While it is imperative to have this policy in place as soon as possible, it will be continuously evaluated as it is implemented and improved, as needed. The Policy is based on the following federal and state regulations: the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and implementing regulations including 49 CFR Part 24; US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Handbook 1378, and; Colorado Revised Statue 24-56-101 through 113. The document is divided in to two sections: Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition, summarized in detail below. The complete Policy document is attached as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 046. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE This section consists of five components: Relocation Planning, Notices, Advisory Services, Relocation Assistance Payments, and Appeals. Relocation Planning This component acknowledges that successful relocation requires planning and considerable coordination; the earlier impacts are considered, the easier it will be to manage any challenges. Therefore, the URA will prepare a Relocation Plan that addresses relocation impacts and potential solutions as early in the development stages of a project as possible. October 23, 2012 -2- ITEM 7 Notices Certain information will be communicated to displaced persons through personal contact and a series of notices to minimize disruption and maximize the chances of successful relocation. Three primary notices are described in the Policy: 1. General Information Notice – provided as soon as feasible in the early stages of a project. The purpose is to provide a general description of the URA’s Relocation Assistance Policy. 2. Notice of Relocation Eligibility – provided later when it has been determined that particular persons will be displaced. The purpose is to inform the occupant that (s)he will be displaced as a result of the project and, therefore, will be eligible for relocation benefits, as applicable. 3. 90-Day Notice – basic protection of the Uniform Act to be sent at least 90 days in advance of the earliest date the occupant will be required to move. In addition, a 30-day notice will be delivered no less than 30 days prior to the specific date required for the move. Advisory Services Services will provide displaced persons with information, counseling, and advice as necessary. Typical basic services include, but are not limited to: • Explanation of relocation services and appropriate payments. • Discussion of eligibility requirements for each relevant type of relocation payment. • Determination of needs and preferences of the occupant to be displaced through a personal interview. • Providing current listings of replacement properties. • Transportation to inspect potential relocation housing if the person is unable to do so on his/her own. • Assistance in obtaining and completing applications or claim forms for relocation payment or other related assistance. Relocation Assistance Payments There are two main categories of payments: residential and non-residential. Within each category there are several types of payments that address expenses incurred as a result of a required move. Note that the Social Sustainability Office is currently developing city-wide relocation policies for residential displacement; the outcome of that effort will inform and could change the URA’s policy towards residential relocation. Residential moving and related expenses includes the reasonable and necessary costs for: • Transportation costs to the new site within a 50 mile radius. • Packing, moving, and unpacking of household goods. • Disconnecting and reconnecting household appliances and other personal property. • Storage of household goods. • Insurance for replacement value of property during the move and necessary storage. • Replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the move if insurance is not reasonably available. Residential replacement housing payments are for the difference, if any, between the actual acquisition price or rent plus utilities of a comparable replacement dwelling and the price of the dwelling from which the occupant is being displaced. These payments are made based on eligibility requirements found in 49 CFR Part 24, and have statutory caps of $5,250.00 for 90-day occupants and $22,500.00 for 180-day owners. Another requirement of the Uniform Act is that the replacement housing meets certain standards, and the Policy reiterates specific criteria for complying. Business and non-profit (non-residential) relocation payments for moving expenses not to exceed $50,000 include, but are not limited to: • Transportation of personal property. • Packing, crating, uncrating, and unpacking of personal property. • Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and installing equipment/machinery. • Insurance for replacement value of personal property. October 23, 2012 -3- ITEM 7 • Re-lettering signs and replacing stationary on hand at time of displacement. • Actual direct loss of tangible personal property. Business relocation payments for reestablishment expenses not to exceed $10,000 are available for: • Repairs/improvements to replacement real property as required by law/code. • Construction and installation costs for exterior signs. • Provision of utilities from right-of-way to improvements on replacement site. • Licenses, fees, and permits not paid as part of moving expenses. • Feasibility surveys, soil testing, and market studies. Additionally, costs in connection with searching for a replacement location can be paid to the displaced person up to $1,000. Certain businesses and non-profit organizations are eligible to obtain a fixed payment; if a business receives this payment, it will not receive moving/reestablishment/search expense payments. Appeals It is anticipated that an individual or entity may disagree with the URA’s relocation assistance decisions, and the Policy outlines a process by which such decisions can be appealed. LAND ACQUISITION This Section provides policies to guide the URA should it intend to acquire real property, and includes the following: • Every reasonable effort shall be made to expeditiously acquire the property by negotiation. • Prior to negotiations, the property shall be appraised. The appraisal may be waived if the case involves the acquisition by sale or donation of property with a fair market value below $5,000. • The URA shall offer an amount reasonably believed to be just compensation; in no event shall the amount offered be less than the approved appraisal of the fair market value. The offer shall be in writing and include a summary of the basis for the amount established as just compensation. • The owner of the property to be acquired shall not be required to surrender possession of the property before the agreed purchase price is paid or before there is a deposit with the court for the amount awarded as a result of condemnation proceedings. • If an owner or tenant is permitted to occupy the real property on a rental basis, the amount of rent shall not exceed the fair rental value of the property. • If a real property is to be acquired by exercise of the power of eminent domain, formal condemnation proceedings shall be instituted. • If the acquisition of only part of the property would leave the owner with an uneconomical remnant, an offer to acquire the entire property shall be made. Relationship to “Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies” On the same evening the URA Board is asked to consider this Resolution, City Council will hold a work session to discuss another project addressing displacement, Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies. This project is managed by the Social Sustainability Department and differs from the URA relocation policies in two primary ways: • It only addresses residential displacement, whereas the URA’s policies address both residential and non- residential (business). • It will be applied citywide, whereas the URA’s only apply in designated Plan Areas/TIF Districts. URA staff is coordinating closely with the other project. The timing is such that the URA policies are needed immediately and cannot wait on the forthcoming recommendations from the other effort; however, it is staff’s intention October 23, 2012 -4- ITEM 7 to update the URA policies, with regard to the residential component, to be consistent with any new recommendations that emerge. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS In the event that residential or business occupants are displaced because of a URA-assisted project, the URA will be responsible for making associated payments using tax increment revenue to that individual or entity. While the Policy provides caps for certain types of payments, the total amount provided for each displaced individual/entity will vary based on needs. Those needs will be thoroughly assessed by the URA to ensure payments are for necessary and reasonable costs that result directly from the displacement. In terms of acquiring real property, the Policy is clear that the value paid by the URA will be based upon an appraisal and an amount reasonably believed to be just compensation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation 1 1 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy URA Board - October 23, 2012 2 Background • Displacement and/or acquiring real property are sometimes necessary to facilitate desired redevelopment • The URA has managed previous situations on a case-by- case basis • Adopting a standard provides consistency when administering services or financial assistance ATTACHMENT 1 2 3 Applicable Regulations • Based on federal and state regulations: – Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; – US Department of Housing and Urban Development Handbook 1378; and – Colorado Revised Statute 24-56-101 through 113 4 Relocation Assistance • Planning •Notice – General – Relocation Eligibility – 90-Day • Advisory Services • Appeals 3 5 Relocation Assistance (continued) • Relocation Assistance Payments – Residential • Replacement housing payment • Replacement housing standards – Non-residential (businesses and non-profits) • $50,000 for moving expenses • $10,000 for reestablishment expenses • $1,000 for search costs • Fixed payment, $1,000 - $20,000 6 Land Acquisition • Reasonable effort to acquire expeditiously through negotiation • Property shall be appraised prior to negotiation • Offered amount shall not be less than the appraised value • Owner shall not be required to surrender the property until payment is made • If acquisition of part of the property would result in an uneconomical remnant, the offer should include the entire property 4 7 Staff Recommendation Adoption of Resolution No. 046 8 Thank you RESOLUTION NO. 046 OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ADOPTING A RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND LAND ACQUISITION POLICY FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Board”) has previously adopted general policies for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, in addition to general policies, Authority staff has recommended that the Authority have in place a Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy consistent with the provisions of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Sections 31-25-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, Authority staff has prepared for Board consideration the proposed Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY that the Board hereby adopts as Authority policy the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 23rd day of October A.D. 2012. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 1 FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policy (Adopted ________) I. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has adopted the following policies (the Policy) to govern activities when relocating individuals, families, businesses, non-profit organizations and personal property displaced by urban renewal projects funded, in whole or in part, by URA funding (URA projects). These policies have been adopted by the URA to provide relocation assistance to displaced persons and businesses, and to comply with Colorado Revised Statute 24-56-101 through 113 (the Relocation Statute). The Relocation Statute relies heavily on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (the Uniform Act) and the implementing regulations thereof including 49 CFR Part 24, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Handbook 1378. It is the URA’s policy that all persons relocated as a result of a URA project be treated uniformly based on the policies set forth herein. A. RELOCATION PROCESS When property needed for a URA project is occupied, it may be necessary to displace the occupants for the project to proceed. Among other benefits, this Policy provides relocation payments for persons displaced from their residences, businesses and non-profit organizations. These payments include moving expenses and certain supplements for increased costs at a replacement location. In addition, this Policy provides protections for displaced persons such as requiring the availability of replacement housing, minimum standards for such housing, and requirements for notices and informational materials. Also, under this Policy displaced persons are entitled to certain "advisory services" to help them relocate and reestablish successfully. The URA is committed to the successful relocation of those to be displaced as a goal in ensuring the success of URA projects. To assist in achieving this goal, this Policy contains the following five main components: Relocation Planning, Notices, Advisory Services, Relocation Assistance Payments and Appeals. B. RELOCATION PLANNING Successful relocation requires planning. Housing resources must meet the needs of displaced residents in terms of size, price, rental rate, location, and timely availability. Advisory services and various notices, some with specific timing requirements, must be provided. Businesses must be given relocation assistance to ensure a minimum of disruption to operations. Payments must be made to displaced persons at the time they are needed to obtain replacement housing. Coordination with other displacement programs or agencies may be necessary. These activities and requirements require planning. Since the relocation of occupants may be one of the major potential impacts of any project, the earlier such impacts are considered, the easier it will eventually be to deal with challenges encountered. Early consideration of relocation impacts may also influence the timing of a project. If a project displacement involves persons with special needs such as the disabled or the elderly, particular attention will be given to providing EXHIBIT A 2 advisory services. Therefore, it is URA policy that a Relocation Plan addressing relocation impacts and possible solutions will be required early in the developmental stages of a project. C. NOTICES The URA recognizes the need of displaced persons for information about the relocation process and requires that certain information be provided to them. This information will be provided through personal contact and through a series of notices for the purposes of minimizing disruption and maximizing the chances of a successful relocation. The following are the primary notices that must be delivered: 1. General Information Notice – This notice is to be provided to potential displaced persons as soon as feasible in the early stages of the project. It is to be written in easily understood language and, if appropriate, in a foreign language. The purpose of the notice is to provide a general description of this Policy, including benefits, responsibilities and protections. 2. Notice of Relocation Eligibility – This notice will be provided later in the project when it has been determined that particular persons will be displaced. The time for providing this notice is the initiation of negotiations; that is, the date of the first written offer to acquire the real property at which the person is an occupant (residential or non-residential). If no acquisition of real property is required, then a project start date will be determined by the URA. The notice informs the occupant that he or she will be displaced as a result of the project and, therefore, will be eligible for relocation benefits, as applicable. 3. 90-Day Notice –Upon a determination of project start date, written notice must be provided to occupants at least 90 days in advance of the earliest date the occupants will be required to move. In the case of residential displacement, this notice can only be issued after ensuring that at least one comparable replacement dwelling is available. In addition, a 30-day notice will be delivered to the occupant no less than 30 days prior to the specific day that the occupant will be required to move. D. ADVISORY SERVICES It is recognized that relocation payments may not be sufficient to minimize the hardship of a move necessitated by an urban renewal project. Relocation advisory services will also be provided to assist displaced persons. These services will provide displaced persons with information, counseling and advice as necessary. Typical basic services, which will be made available to all displaced persons, include:  Explanation that no person can be required to move from a dwelling for a URA project unless replacement housing is available to such person.  Explanation of relocation services and appropriate payments.  Explanation and discussion of eligibility requirements for each relevant type of relocation payment and, at an appropriate time, determination of eligibility for each displaced person. Persons who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States are not eligible, with certain limited exceptions, to receive relocation payments or advisory services. 3  Determination of the needs and preferences of the person to be displaced through a personal interview.  Making every effort to meet identified needs, while recognizing the importance of the displaced persons' priorities and their desire, or lack of desire, for assistance.  Provision of the following specific types of services, as appropriate:  Current listings, including prices or rents, of replacement properties either comparable to acquired dwellings or appropriate for displaced businesses.  Transportation for displaced persons to inspect potential relocation housing if they are unable to do so on their own.  Information concerning Federal and State housing, disaster loan assistance (when applicable), and other programs offering relocation or related types of assistance.  Assistance in obtaining and completing applications or claim forms for relocation payment or other related assistance. E. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS Relocation assistance payments will be available to persons displaced by URA projects. There are two main categories of payments: residential and non-residential. Within each category there are several types of payments to address expenses incurred as a result of a required move. Any payments based on actual costs will be on a reimbursement only basis, except as otherwise expressly provided. For any reimbursable cost in excess of $5,000, at least three comparative bids or binding estimates must be obtained and will be the basis for determining the reimbursement due for actual, reasonable and necessary costs. Documentation of any costs incurred for which reimbursement will be requested must be obtained and maintained by the person seeking reimbursement, and must be made available to the URA for review, upon request, as a condition of reimbursement. Residential Displacements Moving and related expenses – This includes payment for the actual cost to move personal property. A property owner may have a commercial mover move personal property or may elect to move the personal property her/himself. The property owner also has the option to be paid on the basis of a schedule published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rather than on the basis of actual costs (a copy of the schedule is available on the FHWA website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/index.htm). Payments For Actual, Reasonable Moving And Related Expenses include the reasonable and necessary costs for:  Transportation costs to the new site within a 50 mile radius.  Packing, moving and unpacking of household goods. 4  Disconnecting and reconnecting household appliances and other personal property (examples: telephone and cable TV).  Storage of household goods, as may be necessary.  Insurance for the replacement value of the relocated persons’ property during the move and necessary storage.  The replacement value of property lost, stolen or damaged in the move (but not through owner neglect) if insurance is not reasonably available. Replacement housing payment – This is a payment for the difference, if any, between the actual acquisition price or rent plus utilities of a comparable replacement dwelling and the acquisition price or rent plus utilities of the dwelling from which the occupant is being displaced (or, in the case of financial need, 30% of the household’s gross monthly income). The minimum number of months used to determine rent differential payment is 42, but this may increase to 60 months depending on the nature of the project. See HUD Handbook 1378 Chapter 7 Section 104(d) Relocation Requirements for more information. Additionally, increased mortgage interest costs and selected incidental expenses (settlement costs) also may be eligible. These payments are made based on certain eligibility requirements found in 49 CFR Part 24 and under statutory caps of $5,250.00 for 90-day occupants and $22,500.00 for 180-day owners. For displaced homeowners who have owned and occupied their property for more than 180 days, a replacement housing payment will be calculated and made available based on the criteria contained in the HUD Handbook 1378 Section 3-3. For displaced homeowners or tenants who have occupied their dwellings for more than 90 days, a replacement housing payment will be calculated and made available based on the criteria contained in the HUD Handbook 1378 Section 3-4. For displaced persons who have not occupied their dwellings for more than 90 days, a replacement housing payment may be calculated and made available based on the criteria contained in the HUD Handbook 1378 Section 3-5. When payments under the caps are insufficient to provide a comparable replacement dwelling in a timely and cost-effective manner, Last Resort Housing Measures may be implemented based on the criteria set forth in the HUD Handbook 1378 Section 3-6. Replacement Housing Standards - Replacement housing made available to displaced persons must meet certain standards. These standards are contained in the interrelated concepts of "decent, safe, and sanitary housing" and "comparable replacement housing." The phrase "decent, safe, and sanitary (DSS)" refers to the physical condition of the replacement dwelling. In general, a dwelling that meets the standards of the local housing or occupancy code and the minimum requirements of the Federal regulation, will be DSS. The phrase "comparable replacement dwelling" means a dwelling which meets the following criteria: 5 1. Decent, safe, and sanitary, as described previously. 2. Functionally equivalent to the displacement dwelling. 3. Adequate in size to accommodate the displaced person(s). 4. Located in an area that is: a. Not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions; b. Generally not less desirable than the location of the displacement dwelling with regard to public utilities and commercial and public facilities; c. Reasonably accessible to the displaced person's place of employment. 5. Located on a typical residential site. 6. Currently available to the displaced person(s). 7. Within the financial means of the displaced person(s). No person may be required to move from a dwelling unless he or she has been offered an available comparable replacement dwelling. In carrying out this requirement, every displaced person must be offered at least one comparable replacement dwelling and, if possible, three. The comparable replacement dwelling will form the basis of the computation of the Replacement Housing payment. Business and Non-Profit Displacements (non-residential) 1. Relocation payments for actual moving and related expenses include reasonable and necessary costs, not to exceed $50,000 (unless the displaced non-residential person has in advance shown good cause for why this limit is not sufficient to cover reasonable and necessary costs and the URA has accordingly established an increased limit based on said showing) of:  Transportation of personal property from their present location to the replacement location. (Generally, transportation costs are limited to a distance of 50 miles. If the business plans to move beyond 50 miles, in order to be eligible for reimbursement of related expenses, the details of the planned move must be reviewed in advance with the URA.)  Packing, crating, uncrating, and unpacking the personal property.  Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and installing relocated and "substitute" machinery, equipment and other personal property. This includes connection to utilities available nearby. It also includes modifications to the personal property that are necessary to adapt it to the replacement structure, the replacement site or the utilities at the replacement site and modifications necessary to adapt the utilities at the replacement site to the personal property. 6  Storage of personal property for a reasonable period of time, if required.  Insurance for the replacement value of the personal property in connection with the move and necessary storage. Where insurance is not available on reasonable terms, the URA project may elect to "self-insure" the replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the move (but property lost, stolen or damaged as a result of the neglect of the displaced person is not covered by this policy).  Any license, permit or certification required of the displaced person at the replacement location. However, the cost must be reasonable and necessary to reestablishment at the replacement location and the payment may be based on the remaining useful life of the existing license, permit, or certification.  Professional services, necessary for (1) planning the move of the personal property, (2) moving the personal property, or (3) installing relocated or "substitute" personal property at the replacement location.  Relettering signs and replacing stationery on hand at the time of the displacement and made obsolete as a result of the move.  The reasonable cost incurred in attempting to sell an item that is not relocated.  Actual direct loss of tangible personal property. This payment provides compensation for property that is neither moved nor promptly replaced with a "substitute" item at the replacement location. Payment is limited to the lesser of: (1) the estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the personal property or (2) the market value of the property for its continued use at the old location, less any proceeds from its sale. To be eligible, the business must make a good faith effort to sell the property, unless the URA determines that such effort is not necessary. Payment for the loss of goods held for sale shall not exceed the cost of the goods to the displaced person.  Purchase and installation of "substitute" personal property. This payment is made when an item of personal property is not moved but is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site. Payment will be limited to the lesser of: (1) the estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the item, or (2) the actual cost of the substitute item delivered and installed at the replacement location, less any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced item. It is important that the business discuss its plans with the URA before it proceeds. 2. Relocation Payments for Reestablishment Expenses include reasonable and necessary costs, not to exceed $10,000, of:  Repairs or improvements to the replacement real property as required by Federal, State or local law, code or ordinance.  Modifications to the replacement property to accommodate the business operation or make a replacement structure suitable for conducting the business. 7  Construction and installation costs for exterior signs to advertise the business.  Provision of utilities from the right-of-way to improvements on the replacement site.  Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces at the replacement site, such as paint, paneling or carpeting.  Licenses, fees and permits that are not paid as part of moving expenses.  Feasibility surveys, soil testing and marketing studies.  Advertisement of the replacement location.  Professional services and incidental expenses in connection with the purchase or lease of a replacement property.  Estimated increased costs of operation during the first two years at the replacement site for such items as (1) lease or rental charges, (2) personal or real property taxes, (3) insurance premiums, and (4) utility charges, excluding impact fees.  Impact fees or one-time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage. 3. Relocation Payments for Search Costs include reasonable and necessary costs up to $1,000 of expenses incurred in connection with searching for a replacement location. It covers costs for:  Transportation expenses;  Time spent searching for a replacement location, based on reasonable salary or earnings;  Reasonable fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to find a replacement location (not fees related to the purchase of the site); and  Meals and lodging away from home. 4. Certain businesses, non-profit organizations and farms are eligible to obtain a Fixed Payment (Alternative Allowance). If a business receives this payment, it will not receive a Payment for Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses or a Payment for Reestablishment and Site Search Expenses. The Fixed Payment to a business or farm operation is based on the average annual net earnings of the business or farm operation; the Fixed Payment to a non-profit organization is based on average annual expenses and revenue. A Fixed Payment will not be less than $1,000 or more than $20,000. 8 E. APPEALS An individual or entity may disagree with the relocation assistance decisions made pursuant to this Policy, and may seek recourse in the form of an appeal of such decisions. The following summarizes the URA’s appeal process: 1. General. The URA shall promptly review all written appeals in accordance with applicable law, regulations and the following policies. The URA shall consider a written appeal regardless of form. 2. Actions Which May Be Appealed. A person may file an appeal with the URA in any case in which the person believes that the URA has failed to:  Properly determine that the person qualifies, or will qualify (upon moving), as a displaced person who is eligible for relocation assistance;  Properly determined the amount of any relocation payment required by this policy;  Provide appropriate referrals to comparable replacement dwellings or inspect the replacement dwelling in a timely manner; or  Waive the time limit for (a) the filing of a claim or an appeal or (b) purchasing, renting or occupying a replacement dwelling. 3. Time Limit for Initiating Appeal. The time limit for receipt by the URA of a written appeal under this Policy is 60 days after the displaced person receives written notification of the URA’s determination on the person’s claim. On a case-by-case basis, and for good cause, the URA Executive Director may extend such time limit. 4. Right to Representation. A person has a right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative in connection with his or her appeal, but solely at the person’s own expense. (If a lower income person is unable to prepare a written appeal or requires assistance in preparing an appeal, the URA shall provide such assistance and/or refer the person to an appropriate third party who will provide such assistance at no cost to the person, e.g., certain citizen groups, tenant unions, neighborhood legal service or urban league.) 5. Review of Records by Person Making Appeal. The URA shall permit a person to inspect and copy all material pertinent to his or her appeal, except materials which the URA determines may not be disclosed to the person for reasons of confidentiality. The URA may impose reasonable conditions on the person’s right to inspect, consistent with applicable law. 6. Agency Official Reviewing Appeal. The URA official conducting the review of the appeal shall be either the Executive Director of URA or his or her authorized designee. However, the reviewing official shall not have been directly involved in the action appealed. 9 7. Scope of Review of Appeal. In deciding an appeal, the reviewing official shall consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal. 8. Determination and Notification after Appeal. Promptly after receipt of all information submitted by a person in support of an appeal, the reviewing official shall schedule a hearing to consider the appeal. The person bringing the appeal shall be given at least 14 days written notice of the time and place of the hearing. The person bringing the appeal and the URA may submit written or oral testimony in support of the respective position. The proceedings will be recorded in such a manner as will allow a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. The reviewing official shall make a written determination on the appeal, including an explanation of the basis on which the decision was made and shall furnish the person brining the appeal with a copy. If the full relief requested is not granted, the URA shall advise the person of his or her right to seek judicial review. 9. Judicial Review. The person bringing the appeal shall have the right to seek judicial review of the reviewing official’s decision pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). II. LAND ACQUISITION The following policies apply when the URA intends to acquire real property: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to expeditiously acquire the property by negotiation. 2. Prior to initiation of negotiations by the URA, the property shall be appraised. The owner or owner’s representative shall be afforded an opportunity to accompany the appraiser when he or she inspects the property. The appraisal may be waived if the case involves the acquisition by sale or donation of property with a fair market value of less than five thousand dollars ($5,000). 3. Before the URA initiates negotiations for acquisition, the URA shall determine an amount it reasonably believes to represent just compensation for the property, and shll offer that amount for the property; in no event shall the amount offered be less than the approved appraisal of the fair market value. Fair market value shall be determined based on the value prior to any public improvements for which the property is being acquired. The offer shall be in writing and include a summary of the basis for the amount established as just compensation, which shall separately state damages to the owner’s remainder property, if any. 4. The owner of the property to be acquired shall not be required to surrender possession of the property before the agreed purchase price is paid or before there is a deposit with the court for the amount awarded as a result of condemnation proceedings. 5. If an owner or tenant is permitted to occupy the real property on a rental basis, the amount of rent shall not exceed the fair rental value of the property. 10 6. If a real property is to be acquired by exercise of the power of eminent domain, formal condemnation proceedings shall be instituted by the URA. 7. If the acquisition of only part of the property would leave the owner with an uneconomical remnant, an offer to acquire the entire property shall be made. Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Nelson, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION October 23, 2012 after the Urban Renewal Authority Meeting 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies. (staff: Ken Waido; 1 hour discussion) City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the community’s housing stock, encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing units, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents displaced through the closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities. The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the strategic plan would be to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are located inside the City limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City Charter. The strategic plan under development will deal with more than just the relocation of low- income residents displaced by redevelopment. The expanded scope of the project will investigate optional techniques to preserve and stabilize some mobile home parks to reduce economic pressures to convert the parks to other uses. In cases where a mobile home park is subjected to redevelopment and the displacement of park residents, the project will develop relocation assistance requirements to be covered by the park/property-owner and/or developer of the redevelopment activity. 3. Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis. (staff: Aaron Iverson; 45 minute discussion) This purpose of this agenda item is to brief City Council on the status of the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis . City Council was provided with an update memo in February discussing the start and intent of the study. Since that time, the project team looked at existing conditions, modeled future traffic conditions, developed a vision and goals for the study, conducted the first public outreach, and began the development of future concepts for Harmony Road. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Ken Waido Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City policies contained in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, list manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the community’s housing stock, encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing units, and call for the mitigation of impacts on residents displaced through the closure of mobile home parks due to redevelopment activities. The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the strategic plan would be to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are located inside the City limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City Charter. The strategic plan under development will deal with more than just the relocation of low-income residents displaced by redevelopment. The expanded scope of the project will investigate optional techniques to preserve and stabilize some mobile home parks to reduce economic pressures to convert the parks to other uses. In cases where a mobile home park is subjected to redevelopment and the displacement of park residents, the project will develop relocation assistance requirements to be covered by the park/property-owner and/or developer of the redevelopment activity. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED As indicated above, this project is looking at mobile home park preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements to mitigate the impact on residents displaced and forced to relocate due to a redevelopment project. Staff is seeking feedback from the Council as to the level of comfort the Council may have with some of the preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements researched by staff and the consulting team to this point in the planning process. If acceptable to the Council, the techniques and requirements will be further refined and subjected to additional stakeholder and public reviews. If some techniques and requirements are unacceptable to the Council, they will be dropped from further consideration. Staff would like to receive Council’s comments regarding the following questions: 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the following preservation and stabilization options for mobile home parks? a. Mobile Home Park Zoning District October 23, 2012 Page 2 b. Park Resident Ownership - Right of First Refusal or Right to Match Last Offer for Sale of Mobile Home Park c. Infrastructure/Maintenance/Replacement 2. What feedback does Council have regarding the following options for notice to affected residents? a. Notice of Closure b. Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”) 3. What feedback does Council have regarding the following general relocation assistance requirement options? a. Relocation Report b. Payment of Relocation Costs c. Rental Assistance 4. Does the Council have any additional questions or comments at this time? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Mobile home parks are an important source of low-cost, affordable housing for lower income households, seniors, and people with disabilities. Mobile home owners are a unique population because they are considered homeowners, but they are also considered tenants because they do not own the land on which their homes are located. The City of Fort Collins has seen the closure of several mobile home parks for a variety of reasons that displaced park residents and caused their relocation. Attachment 1 provides a table listing these park closures and the reasons for the closures. In all of the closure cases, City staff provided support and collaborated with other agencies, such as the Fort Collins Housing Authority, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Neighbor-to Neighbor, the Colorado Division of Housing, The Murphy Center, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to relocate, or find other types of suitable replacement housing, for displaced park residents. However, while there were some similarities, the City’s involvement was different, more of an ad hoc approach, done on a case-by-case basis, for each of the park closures. Attachment 1 also contains additional information as to how the City assisted with the relocation of displaced residents from the Bender Mobile Home Park, which closed in April of this year. One of the “near-term actions” in the City Plan Action Plan was to “Develop a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities.” The City Council placed the development of an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan” on its 2012 Work Plan. The purpose of the strategic plan is to develop City policies and requirements applicable to redevelopment projects by defining the City’s role, responsibilities, obligations, and involvement in redevelopment projects which cause the displacement of low-income people from their homes (with an emphasis on mobile home parks), whether they are located inside the City limits or within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), within the restrictions of the City Charter. The strategic plan will provide a procedures manual for City actions the next time redevelopment causes displacement and the need to relocate low-income residents, as well as strategies to preserve existing mobile home parks. Attachment 2 presents the relevant City policies from City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014 for this strategic plan. October 23, 2012 Page 3 Mobile Home Park Inventory Attachment 3 depicts a map showing the mobile home parks that are located north of Drake Road. Attachment 4 depicts a map showing the mobile home parks that are located south of Drake Road. There are approximately 1,230 manufactured housing/mobile homes located in nine mobile home parks inside the City limits. The parks range in size from 5 units to 451 units. These parks were established between the years 1957 and 1984. Approximately 73% of the mobile homes within mobile home parks inside the City limits are owner-occupied and 27% are rental. Of the 1,230 units located inside the City limits, 361 units (29%) are in parks with local (Fort Collins, Loveland, LaPorte) park ownership, 255 units (21%) are in parks whose owners who are located in Colorado, and 614 units (50%) are in parks whose owners who are located out of state. Based on data from the City’s Building Department, no new mobile homes have been brought into the city since 2005. Between 2002 and 2005, 29 new mobile homes were located in the city, most likely in the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park, which has since closed. Since 2002, over 330 mobile homes relocated from their previous lot to another lot in the same park or different mobile home park inside the City limits. There are also approximately 1,041 manufactured housing/mobile homes located within six mobile home parks on parcels that are outside of and contiguous to the City limits. If redevelopment plans were to be submitted to Larimer County for these parcels, they would be required to annex into the City under the provisions of the Fort Collins-Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The parks range in size from 5 units to 332 units. These parks were established between the years 1968 and 1972. Approximately 81% of the mobile homes are owner-occupied and 19% are rental. Of the 1,041 units, 42 units (4%) are in parks with local ownership, 332 units (32%) are in parks whose owners are located in Colorado, and 667 units (64%) are in parks whose owners are located out of state. Finally, there are approximately 510 manufactured housing/mobile homes located within ten mobile home parks in the GMA on parcels that are not within nor contiguous to the City limits. If redevelopment plans were to be submitted to the County for these parcels, the development plans would be processed according to the County’s development review procedures and would be required to sign an Annexation Agreement to annex into the City once contiguity was achieved with the City limits according to the provisions of the Fort Collins-Larimer County IGA. The parks range in size from 3 units to 293 units. These parks were established between the years 1962 and 1989. Approximately 65% of the mobile homes are owner-occupied and 35% are rental. Of the 510 units, 97 units (19%) are in parks with local ownership, 117 units (23%) are in parks whose owners are located in Colorado, and 296 units (58%) are in parks whose owners who are located out of state. Attachment 3 contains additional information collected as part of the mobile home park inventory. Research on Potential Approaches An early element of this project involved researching strategies used by other communities to address the conversion of mobile home parks to other land uses and the relocation of displaced residents. As a general statement, the research found that local regulations regarding the closure of mobile home parks tend to track closely with state regulations where they have been adopted (i.e., October 23, 2012 Page 4 a state “Mobile Home Park Act”). It is rare to find a local community that requires a park owner to cover the relocation costs of displaced mobile home owners/residents if the state does not already require some sort of relocation assistance and/or funding mechanism. Potential approaches for consideration by the City are organized into two categories: 1) techniques to preserve or stabilize mobile home parks, and 2) strategies to assist with relocation when redevelopment is eminent. These potential approaches were discussed at the September informational stakeholder meetings, and are summarized below. Preservation and Stabilization Techniques Mobile Home Park Permitted Use and Standards Some communities list mobile home parks as a permitted use in one or more (generally agricultural or residential) zone districts and then adopt regulations governing the lot layouts, parking layouts, utility systems, and driveway circulation systems that will apply to that land use. Creation of a mobile home park does not require a hearing, just compliance with the standards; if the application meets the standards then it can be approved administratively. This approach is commonly found where state legislation requires that communities allow mobile home parks in one or more of their residential zone districts. Since the use must be allowed (by state law), no permit or rezoning is necessary, and the park standards are designed to address the layout and impacts of the use. Related Background Information In Fort Collins, Mobile Home Parks (MHPs) are only permitted in two zoning districts: 1) the LMN, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, and 2) the E, Employment District. New parks require a public hearing and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Given the closure of the Pioneer MHP, due to commercial redevelopment, when City Plan and the new Land Use Code were adopted in 1997, most MHPs were placed into the LMN District as an attempt to “preserve” them by reducing outside commercial and/or residential redevelopment market pressures. However, the LMN District has proven to not be an absolute preservation protection district as the Dry Creek MHP, located in the LMN zone, closed, causing displacement of the residents, and is redeveloping into a detached single-family unit subdivision. Special/Conditional Use Permits Some communities list mobile home parks as a conditional or special use within some existing (usually agricultural or residential) zone districts, but require that the applicant obtain approval for that use (i.e., it is not available “by right”). Usually, this requires a public hearing before either a Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment, but in some communities, a hearing before the City Council may be required. Generally, communities that follow this approach also adopt mobile home park standards, and compliance with those standards (or approved variances) is required of any park that receives a conditional/special use permit. Mobile Home Park Zoning District Some communities create a zoning district specifically designed for mobile home parks. These districts are usually applied to existing parks in order to help preserve them, but they are also October 23, 2012 Page 5 available for the creation of new mobile home parks. They allow only mobile home residences and uses closely related to the operation of the park, and include the same types of layout, circulation, and utility service standards discussed above. Other commercial and residential uses are generally not allowed, because the site layout, parking layout, and driveway width standards that work for mobile home parks are not readily applied to other land uses. As with all zoning actions, applying these zones to existing parks or to raw land would require review by the Planning Commission and then action by City Council following a public hearing. Related Background Information The City’s 1965-1997 Zoning Ordinance (i.e., pre-Land Use Code) contained two mobile home park districts: 1) the ML, Low Density Mobile Home District (maximum 6 units/acre), and 2) the MM, Medium Density Mobile Home District (maximum 8 units/acre). These zones were not totally restricted to only mobile home park use as they also permitted additional limited residential uses. In 1981, the City adopted a new PUD ordinance known as the Land Development Guidance System, which permitted “Any land use located on a Planned Unit Development plan as defined, processed and approved according to” the LDGS. In theory then, the LDGS did permit other potential uses in the ML and MM zones, as long as they were approved through the “system.” On the other hand, the LDGS also allowed mobile home parks, in theory, to be proposed in zoning districts where such parks were not a listed permitted use. A mobile home park was never proposed through the LDGS in a zone where it was not listed as a permitted use. Of the 1,230 mobile homes inside the City limits, 1,127 (92%) are in parks that were previously in either the ML or MM Zoning District. • Does Council have any feedback on the potential use of a mobile home park district as an option for preservation and stabilization of mobile home parks? Park Resident Ownership - Right of First Refusal or Right to Match Last Offer for Sale of Mobile Home Park Some states and local governments provide mobile home unit owners a “first right of refusal” to buy the mobile home park from the owner at a reasonable price if the owner intends to sell the park. Typically, this right only applies to mobile home owners that are organized into a recognized homeowners association (sometimes required to be registered with the state) that can obtain financing as the purchasing entity. The right does not usually apply to individuals or groups of individuals who are park residents, but who are not parts of an approved entity related to the park. These types of provisions allow mobile home unit owners an opportunity to preserve their housing before the park is listed on the open market. Several variations of these requirements can also be found. In Malibu, CA, for example, the homeowners association is given the right to match the final market offer on the sale of a mobile home park (i.e., a “right of last offer”). In some states, state programs and non-profit organizations exist to help mobile home owners organize and buy their mobile home parks. October 23, 2012 Page 6 Related Background Information Attachment 4 discusses the Thistle Mapleton Park project in Boulder where a land trust preserved a mobile home park. Funding Partners is one of the affordable housing agencies engaged as a key stakeholder in this project. Joe Rowan, Executive Director, is aware of this technique and his agency could potentially be involved in providing some financing to a mobile home park resident HOA to purchase their existing park. The City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014 also contains an implementation action item to investigate the establishment of a permanent funding source for the Affordable Housing Fund. It is possible that the Fund could be used at some point in the future as a source for financial assistance for the acquisition of mobile home parks by an HOA or a non-profit agency. Federal funds from the CDBG and HOME Programs are another potential source of money. • Does Council have any feedback on the potential use of park resident ownership as an option for preservation and stabilization of mobile home parks? Right of Preferential Housing Some communities require that the redevelopers of mobile home park properties offer current park residents a preferential right to occupy residential units created when the park is redeveloped. Often this approach is paired with a requirement that some of the new residential units be offered at affordable prices, so that the current mobile home unit owners are offered a chance to purchase or rent some of the new affordable units. This option would be made more difficult in Fort Collins by Colorado’s constitutional prohibition on rent control since it would be difficult or impossible to require a redeveloper that is not using public funds to rent units at affordable rates. Any requirement to create affordable units in the new development would most likely apply to for sale units, and many current mobile home park residents might be unable to qualify for mortgage financing even if the units were offered at affordable prices. Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Some communities offer grants or loans to mobile home park owners to invest in infrastructure maintenance and upgrades as a way to stabilize and support mobile home communities. Grants or loans are sometimes made available to pave (or repave) roadways, upgrade water and/or sewer systems, replace failing septic systems, improve site drainage, or other improvements that would prolong the useful life of the mobile home park and/or reduce threats to public health and safety within the park. Related Background Information Chapter 18 of the City Code contains regulations and standards for mobile home parks and mobile home units in the City limits. These regulations include park maintenance requirements for utilities including electric, water, sewer, and gas, as well as trash removal. City financial assistance could be made available from the federal CDBG and/or HOME Programs, or the City’s Affordable Housing Fund for mobile home park infrastructure maintenance/ replacement projects. The City’s funds could be used to leverage additional private financing to October 23, 2012 Page 7 cover project costs and keep lot rents affordable. Any such applications would need to compete with other proposals through the competitive process. Any funding allocated by the City would contain affordable housing requirements regarding family incomes and length of affordability as contained in the City Code. • Does Council have any feedback on the potential use of infrastructure maintenance/ replacement projects as an option for preservation and stabilization of mobile home parks? Relocation Assistance Strategies Notice of Closure In a number of states (including Colorado), before a mobile park owner can close a park, or redevelop the park for another use, the park owner must mail a written notice to each mobile home park unit owner (or sometimes to the resident or tenant of the unit). Although there are many variations of this requirement, California and Colorado law requires notice to the unit owner, Utah requires notice to the resident, and Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Maine require notice to the tenant. The purpose is two-fold: (1) to give the recipient of the notice a fair opportunity to participate in any local approval process for the proposed redevelopment; and( 2) to provide adequate time for the unit owner, resident, or tenant to find new housing in case the proposed redevelopment is approved. In some cases, the park owner is prohibited from raising the rent on tenants during the notice period (e.g., UT, CA, OR, WA). The required notice period varies, but 6 month and 12 month notice periods are common. Some examples of these provisions are provided below: State Required Notice Period Colorado, Arizona, Montana 6 month notice Utah 9 month notice Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington 1 year notice California 6 to 12 month notice (depending if a local permit for change of use is required, additional local requirements apply in some communities) New Hampshire 18 month notice Massachusetts 2 years notice • Does Council have any feedback on the option for a notice to affected residents with an extended time frame from 6 months to 12 months? October 23, 2012 Page 8 Notice of Vacancy Some California jurisdictions have provisions to address the future of mobile home parks that become mostly vacant or unoccupied. For example, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, deem any mobile home park with a vacancy rate of 25% or greater to be a “mobile park closure,” unless the vacancies were caused by a natural disaster. If that level of vacancy occurs, the park owner must file an application for closure with the County and becomes subject to the same County requirements for noticing, relocation assistance, etc., as a regular closure. The County’s regulations also allow a mobile park resident or interested person who has reason to believe that 25% or more of the lots are vacant to notify the County, which may then investigate and make its own determination of whether the owner has made an “unauthorized” park closure in violation of local requirements. The purpose of these regulations is to prevent park owners from closing a park incrementally over time by slowly terminating leases until all the tenants are gone, thus avoiding required relocation payments, as well as giving the county notice of the potential (undocumented) loss of affordable housing units. • Does Council have any feedback on the option for a notice of vacancy to affected residents if a park falls below a certain vacancy rate? Relocation Report In some communities, the mobile home park owner must produce a relocation report that details the impacts that closure or conversion will have on displaced residents, often including the number of residents displaced, the opportunities to find replacement housing within a certain distance from the park (e.g., 25 miles), the costs to relocate each qualifying resident, and other resources from which residents can get financial, legal, and logistical help. The report must be approved by the local jurisdiction, sometimes after a public hearing, and a copy of the report may be provided to each resident in the park. In practice, approval of the relocation report sometimes takes a year or more, which provides park residents additional time to find replacement housing. • Does Council have any feedback regarding the production of a relocation report as a general relocation assistance requirement? Payment of Relocation Costs The mobile home park owner is sometimes required to pay for the relocation costs directly to the homeowner. In most cases, the payments are required to cover, but not exceed, the reasonable amount needed to relocate displaced park residents to a location of equal quality. In some cases the relocation amount is determined on a case-by-case basis (Santa Barbara County, CA and Wilsonville, OR), but in other cases it is set by state stature (AZ, WA, OR), or is a lump sum payment set by the local government. Mobile home renters sometimes receive less relocation assistance than resident owners (Santa Barbara County, CA), because they are probably not responsible for moving the mobile home unit itself. While relocation payments are of significant value to park residents who are dislocated, it is likely that mobile home park owners who are subject to these obligations may treat them as a cost of park operations and raise mobile home site rents in an attempt to recoup them. To avoid this risk, Washington funds the relocation funds through a statewide $100 transfer charge on all sales of mobile homes, located in mobile home parks. Although the Colorado constitution currently prohibits real estate transfer fees, mobile home units October 23, 2012 Page 9 are not currently titled or taxed as real estate, so this option might be available. Related Background Information The City of Fort Collins must already adhere to federal affordable housing relocation laws. If any federal funds are used in a project in the City, the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act must be followed. Federal funds would include, but not be limited to, those from the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (e.g., CDBG and HOME funds). Relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act includes such things as notification requirements, temporary relocation, clear limits on assistance including moving expenses, temporary housing costs, differences in monthly rental payments, etc. These relocation costs would need to be added to the other costs of the proposed redevelopment project and be paid for by the property- owner and/or developer/builder of the redevelopment project. The City’s Urban Renewal Authority is currently reviewing the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements to develop policies that would apply to projects that would utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF). This strategic plan will coordinate with the Urban Renewal Authority and not duplicate its efforts. However, the strategic plan will need to identify additional “triggers” that would invoke relocation assistance payment requirements in addition to federal and Urban Renewal Authority financial assistance. These triggers could include the following: • A request for financial assistance from the City for the use of Affordable Housing Fund dollars. • Annexation of an existing mobile home park slated for redevelopment and required to annex into the City according to the provisions of the Fort Collins-Larimer County IGA. • A rezoning request to foster a redevelopment activity, • Requests for development approval including Overall Development Plans (ODPs) and Project Development Plans (PDPs). • Does Council have any feedback regarding the payment of relocation costs as a general relocation assistance requirement? Does Council have any feedback regarding the additional “triggers” that would invoke relocation assistance payment requirements? Rental Assistance Some states and localities require that the park owner to pay rental assistance to cover any increase in rent that a displaced renter will pay in new location. For example, Santa Barbara County, CA, requires that the park owner pay for a displaced renter’s increase in rent, subject to certain limits, for 12 months, in addition to any other required relocation payments. This is similar to the rental assistance requirement applicable when federal funds are used under the Uniform Relocation Act except the time limit could be as high as 48 months. • Does Council have any feedback regarding the payment of rental assistance as a general relocation assistance requirement? October 23, 2012 Page 10 Other Strategies to Explore While the preservation and relocation mitigation strategies listed above include some of the more common approaches used in other communities, a variety of other ideas emerged during discussions with stakeholders, and those are listed below. The planning team will continue to explore the feasibility of these and any other Council-identified strategies as the planning process continues. • Assistance in becoming a “resident-owned community” – i.e., organizing current park owners so that they can qualify for a mortgage to purchase the mobile home park (land) under a cooperative form of ownership (a national non-profit named Resident Owned Communities USA [“ROC USA”] provides assistance in this process). • Partnerships with or ownership by housing agencies – for example, by having the housing agency purchase and manage the park lands as part of a pool of affordable housing assets. • Partnerships with the City’s Land Bank Program to identify alternative sites for creation of a mobile park where displaced units could be moved, or to trade Land Bank parcels to a mobile home park owner for redevelopment in return for transferring ownership of the park to a resident organization or housing agency. • Private redevelopment/relocation insurance – e.g., identifying insurers that might offer insurance against displacement through park closure in return for an additional premium, which might be borne by the residents or by a government or housing agency if the costs were lower than anticipated relocation costs. Public Involvement The involvement of stakeholder groups, the general public, and City boards and commissions is a very important component of this project. Three key stakeholder groups have been identified and have been involved in the project: (1) mobile home park property-owners; (2) mobile home park residents (unit owners and renters) and interested citizens; and (3) affordable housing and human service agencies (e.g., Fort Collins Housing Authority, Neighbor-to-Neighbor, CARE Housing, The Murphy Center, and Funding Partners). A project website (www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/mobilehomeservices.php) has been established for the dissemination of information, announcement of upcoming public meetings, and collection of public comments. Two key City advisory boards have been involved in the process so far: the Affordable Housing Board, because mobile homes are a low cost, affordable housing component of the community’s housing stock, and the Planning And Zoning Board, because future redevelopment of mobile home parks will likely involve decisions by the Board. Two department of the Larimer County government are involved: the Planning Department and the Environmental Health Department. October 23, 2012 Page 11 Stakeholder Meetings Three stakeholder informational meetings were scheduled as part of the first phase of the public process for the project. The three meetings for the specific stakeholder groups included: (1) manufactured/mobile home park property-owners; (2) manufactured/mobile home owners, park residents, and interested citizens; and (3) affordable housing and social service agencies. Notes from these meetings are in Attachment 5. Boards and Commission Comments Affordable Housing Board The Affordable Housing Board discussed potential mobile home park preservation techniques and relocation assistance payment requirements at its regular monthly meeting held on October 4, 2012. Below is a summary of the Board’s comments: • Mobile Home Park Zone – The Board did not support the rezoning of existing mobile home parks into an exclusive Mobile Home Park District, but recognized the City should do something for preservation of existing parks. Rezonings could have an negative impact on property values. Generally, the Board preferred the City to develop incentives versus regulations to help preserve and sustain existing parks. Some members questioned the long-term viability of some parks and discussed whether the parks should be allowed to redevelop with much higher densities with some new units being required to be affordable to existing park residents. For example, use of an overlay zone in conjunction with the LMN District to allow mobile home park redevelopment projects to achieve a density of 18 units/acre (current affordable housing LMN density bonus is only to 12 units/acre), with a pre-determined minimal percentage being affordable units. • Resident Park Ownership – The Board was mixed on this technique recognizing the significant challenges of organizing existing residents into a cohesive group. While some non-profit agencies may be able to help, many others lack unique experience in managing mobile home parks. • Notice of Closure – The Board supported the idea of extending the current Colorado law requiring a 6-month notice of pending park closure to a 12-month requirement. • Relocation Assistance Payments – The Board struggled with the City’s obligation to help mobile home park residents displaced and forced to relocate because of redevelopment. They recognized that park closures eliminate lower cost, affordable housing and that a park closure typically means a relatively large number of homes need to relocate at the same time. However, they rhetorically asked why the City did not help low-income home owners who lost their homes due to foreclosures over the past several years, in an amount that may be larger than the number of mobile homes in the community. October 23, 2012 Page 12 Planning and Zoning Board The Planning and Zoning Board comments will be included in Council’s Read-Before Packet on Tuesday. Implementation Actions One of the key concerns with implementation actions of the strategic plan will be with their conformance with any applicable state legislation. Colorado’s Mobile Home Act is found in the Colorado Revised Statutes, Sections. 38-12-200.1 to 38-12-221. Section 38-12-201.3 states the following: “The general assembly hereby finds and declares that mobile homes… are important and effective ways to meet Colorado’s affordable housing needs… The general assembly encourages local governments to allow and protect mobile home parks in their jurisdictions and to enact plans to increase the number of mobile home parks in their jurisdictions. The general assembly further encourages local governments to provide incentives to mobile home park owners to attract additional mobile home parks and to increase the viability of current parks.” Generally speaking, the strategic plan addresses the above section of state legislation through the options for mobile home park preservation and stabilization identified so far in the planning process.. It is anticipated the strategic plan will develop specific implementation actions which will be grouped into either: 1. Short-term actions (actions adopted either with the adoption of the strategies, or within one year of adoption), or 2. Longer-term actions (actions requiring more than one year to develop and conduct public reviews leading to eventual adoption). Implementation actions of the project will also be listed in the following three basic categories: 1. Techniques/regulations that the City can adopt unilaterally under the authority of the City Charter and the City Code. 2. Techniques/regulations that would require the City to work with Larimer County to adopt and implement as provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 3. Techniques/regulations that would require new and/or revised Colorado state enabling legislation in order to be implemented. In summary, it appears the City, as a home rule municipality, can legislate in areas where the state has not has expressly forbidden any local ordinances. If the City wished to put additional requirements on mobile home park owners who want to close a park, the state law does not October 23, 2012 Page 13 expressly forbid that, and the City does not need authorization from the state to enact additional requirements. Any additional regulations developed by the strategic plan will be thoroughly reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office before being presented to the City Council for formal adoption. Next Steps The following table lists the basic next steps in the planning process for the development of the strategic plan. November/December 2012 • Refinement of preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements. • Conduct additional stakeholder and general public meetings. November 2012 – January 2013 • Reviews by the Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board • Public hearings in January February 5, 2013 • City Council adoption of the strategic plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Mobile Home Park Closures 2. City Policies 3. Map of Mobile Home Parks Located North of Drake Road 4. Map of Mobile Home Parks Located South of Drake Road 5. Mobile Home Park Inventory 6. Thistle’s Mapleton Park, in Boulder, Colorado 7. September 2012 Stakeholder Informational Meetings 8. PowerPoint presentation . . ATTACHMENT 1 Mobile Home Park Closures The following table provides a list of park closures and the reasons for the closures. Park Name Reason for Closure Pioneer Mobile Home Park Commercial redevelopment Johnson Mobile Home Park Natural flood disaster Dry Creek Mobile Home Park Residential redevelopment Grape Street Commercial redevelopment Bender Mobile Home Park Residential redevelopment Bender Mobile Home Park The most recent park closure was the Bender Mobile Home Park which closed in April 2012. In addition to City staff working with affordable housing and social service agencies to assist Bender residents, the City Council approved the allocation of $50,000 to subsidize the relocation costs of displaced residents. A $2,000 assistance maximum per family was established. Fifteen families utilized a total of $27,150 of the allocated funds, leaving a balance of $22,850. Funds covered expenses such as:  First month’s lot rents at a new location  Security deposits  Moving expenses  Home rehabilitations  Plumbing supplies ATTACHMENT 2 City Policies The most relevant current City policies related to this project are as follows: From City Plan: Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 8.6 – Mitigate Displacement Impacts Explore ways to mitigate the impact upon residents displaced through the closure of manufactured housing parks or conversion of rental apartments, including single room occupancy units, to condominiums or other uses. NEAR-TERM IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS: 2011 AND 2012 24. Relocation Plan - Develop a proactive plan to address the issue of resident displacement due to redevelopment activities. From the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014: Priority #2: Preserve existing affordable housing units. ATTACHMENT 3 Map of Mobile Home Parks Located North of Drake Road !"`$ ÉZYXW Year ASPEN Built:MHP 1970 SPAULDING Year Built:1989 LN HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 NORTH Year COLLEGE Built:1964 MHP MONTCLAIR YearMOTEL Built:0 COLLINS Year Built:AIRE 1972 MHP COLLINS Year Built:AIRE 1972 MHP MOUNTAINVIEW Year Built:1966 MHP HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 MHP PARKLANE Year Built:1958 MHP POUDRE Year Built:VALLEY 1968 MHP HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 MHP HICKORY Year Built:VILLAGE 1972 MHP NORTH Year COLLEGE Built:1972 MHP NORTHSTAR Year Built:1957 MHP BLUE Year SPRUCE Built:1966 MHP TERRY Year Built:LAKE 1962 MHP NORTH Year COLLEGE Built:1968 MHP STONECREST Year Built:1960 MHP TERRY Year Built:COVE 1970 MHP EQUESTRIAN Year Built:CENTER 0 MHP COTTONWOOD Year Built:1979 MHP Year Built:1960 Year SKYLINE Built:1976 MHP HIGHLAND Year Built:MANOR 1969 MHP NORTHSTAR Year Built:1957 MHP Year SKYLINE Built:1984 MHP ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ³I ³I S COL LEGE AVE S SHIELDS ST W MULBERRY ST W LAU REL ST N SHIELDS ST R E M I N G T O N S T LAPO RTE AVE 9TH ST E LINCOLN AVE E M U L ATTACHMENT 4 Map of Mobile Home Parks Located South of Drake Road !"`$ ôZYXW Year WHITES Built:MHP 1989 PLEASANT Year Built:GROVE 1970 MHP FOOTHILLS Year Built:1966 MHP HORSETOOTH Year MARINE Built:0 RESORT TIMBERIDGE Year Built:SOUTH 1972 MHP HARMONY Year Built:1972 MHP TIMBERIDGE Year Built:NORTH 1972 MHP ³I LANDINGS DR E TRILBY RD E DRAKE RD W HORSETOOTH RD S OVERLAND TRL MAI N S T W TRILBY RD KE CH TE R R D S LEMAY AVE S M A S O N S T W DRAKE RD S TIMBERL INE RD S C OL LE GE AV E W C O U N T Y R O A D 3 8 E W H ATTACHMENT 5 Mobile Home Park Inventory This attachment contains information collected about the mobile home parks in the Fort Collins area. The parks have been divided into three groupings: 1. Parks that are located inside the City limits, 2. Parks that are located in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) but outside the City limits, but whose parcels are contiguous to the City limits, and 3. Parks that are located in the GMA, but outside the City limits and whose parcels are not contiguous to the City limits. The information in the following tables include:  Park Name  Number of Units (according to Larimer County Assessor’ Files)  Size in Acres  Density (Units per Acre)  Year Built  Number of Owner Units  Owner Percentage  Number of Renter Units  Renter Percentage  Current Zoning  Location in a Targeted Redevelopment Area  Former City Zoning District (for parks inside the City limits)  Recreational Amenities  Ownership Location Park Name (Inside City Limits) Assessor's Number of Units Size in Acres City Limits (CL) or GMA Density (Uniys/Acre) Contiguious to City Limits Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District Dirt (D) Streets Wet Utilities Issues Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Harmont MHP 451 68.78 CL 6.6 1972 352 78% 99 22% LMN Yes MM Pool Chicago, IL Skyline MHP 61 9.95 CL 6.1 1976 58 95% 3 5% LMN ML Pool Clearwater, FL Skyline MHP 102 16.49 CL 6.2 1984 98 96% 4 4% LMN ML Pool Clearwater, FL Northstar MHP 35 3.27 CL 10.7 1957 32 91% 3 9% LMN NCL Golden, CO Northstar MHP 15 1.08 CL 13.9 1957 12 80% 3 20% LMN NCL Golden, CO Cottonwood MHP 13 0.77 CL 16.9 1979 12 92% 1 8% LMN RM D Laporte, CO (Meldrum/Cherry St.) 5 0.38 CL 13.2 1960 0 0% 5 100% NCB Yes C D Fort Collins Hickory Village MHP 205 32.11 CL 6.4 1972 146 71% 59 29% LMN Yes MM Sewer Wheat Ridge, CO North College MHP 96 8.98 CL 10.7 1964 35 36% 61 64% CS Yes MM Fort Collins North College MHP 46 4.40 CL 10.5 1968 8 18% 38 72% CS Yes MM Fort Collins North College MHP 166 19.40 CL 8.6 1972 148 89% 18 11% LMN Yes MM Fort Collins Stonecrest MHP 25 1.91 CL 13.1 1960 0 0% 25 100% CS Yes HB D Loveland, CO Montclair Motel 10 1.25 CL 8.0 0 0 0% 10 100% CS Yes HB D Fort Collins 1230 900 73% 330 27% ATTACHMENT 5 1 Park Name (Contiguous to City Limits) Assessor's Number of Units Size in Acres City Limits (CL) or GMA Density (Uniys/Acre) Contiguious to City Limits Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District Dirt (D) Streets Wet Utilities Issues Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Pleasant Grove MHP 106 12.97 GMA 8.2 Yes 1970 76 72% 30 28% M1 Sewer Chicago, IL Timberridge North MHP 281 40.43 GMA 7.0 Yes 1972 228 81% 53 19% M1 Sewer Pool Southfield, MI Collins Aire North MHP 159 23.09 GMA 6.9 Yes 1972 111 70% 48 30% O Pool Paauilo, HI Collins Aire South MHP 121 28.75 GMA 4.2 Yes 1972 104 86% 17 14% O Pool Paauilo, HI (Spaulding Lane) 7 1.52 GMA 4.6 Yes 0 7 100% 0 0% M1 Fort Collins Poudre Valley MHP 332 39.22 GMA 8.5 Yes 1968 286 86% 46 14% M1 Storm Evergreen, CO Highland Manor MHP 5 0.50 GMA 10.0 Yes 1969 5 100% 0 0% M1 Fort Collins Highland Manor MHP 30 3.18 GMA 9.4 Yes 1969 30 100% 0 0% M1 Fort Collins 1041 847 81% 194 19% 2 Park Name (Not Contiguous) Assessor's Number of Units Size in Acres City Limits (CL) or GMA Density (Uniys/Acre) Contiguious to City Limits Year Built Number of Owner Units Owner Percentage Number of Renter Units Renter Percentage Current Zoning Targeted Redevelopment Area Former City Zoning District Dirt (D) Streets Wet Utilities Issues Recreational Amenities Ownership Location Timberridge South MHP 293 40.62 GMA 7.2 No 1972 214 73% 79 27% M1 Sewer Pool Southfield, MI White's MHP 5 1.12 GMA 4.5 No 1989 0 0% 5 100% R D Fort Collins Aspen MHP 25 1.75 GMA 14.3 No 1970 14 56% 11 44% M1 Sewer Greenwood Village, CO Parklane MHP 62 7.31 GMA 8.5 No 1958 44 71% 18 29% C Yes Sewer Boulder, CO Mountainview MHP 30 4.34 GMA 6.9 No 1966 15 50% 15 50% R-2 Watkins, CO Equestrian Center MHP 3 9.52 GMA 0.3 No 0 1 33% 2 67% O D Dublin, CA Terry Lake MHP 27 4.30 GMA 6.3 No 1962 2 7% 25 93% O D Septic Fort Collins Blue Spruce MHP 24 5.92 GMA 4.1 No 1966 24 99% 0 1% FA Fort Collins Highland Manor MHP 17 3.34 GMA 5.1 No 1969 17 99% 0 1% M1 Fort Collins Terry Cove MHP 24 4.01 GMA 6.0 No 1970 3 12% 21 88% R D Fort Collins 510 333 65% 177 35% 3 ATTACHMENT 6 Thistle’s Mapleton Park, in Boulder, Colorado Mapleton Park in Boulder, Colorado, is the leading example of master leasing a park to create a permanently affordable manufacturing housing park. Thistle Community Land Trust formed a limited liability company to purchase the park and then leased the land through a 99-year master lease to Mapleton Home Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public benefit corporation. Then, the Association leased spaces to residents. The LLC and the Association also created a detailed management plan that set out the principles for the park’s operation, the control and governance of the Association and the division of their rights and responsibilities. A third party manager handles the space leases, including landlord/tenant matters. The LLC was able to purchase the property with below market, fixed rate financing made available through bank qualified tax exempt bonds—the first time such financing has been used to purchase and renovate a manufactured housing park. Through the efforts of the residents and the community land trust, 135 home sites were preserved. 1 ATTACHMENT 7 September 2012 Stakeholder Informational Meetings Manufactured/mobile home park property-owners:  Tuesday, September 25, 4:00 – 5:30 pm  Harmony Library – 4616 South Shields Street Meeting Notes:  Lots of differences between each mobile home community  City has handled each mobile home park closure differently. The purpose of this project is to City clarify role/policies for future situations.  Potential Strategies to Prevent Redevelopment: o Right of First Refusal o Right of Last Refusal/Offer o Right of Preferential Housing o Incentives o Zoning Changes  In other communities, did vendor fees increase to match the maximum relocation assistance amount? o A pre-determined amount usually means vendors will charge that amount o A non-fixed amount (actual cost) of relocation assistance may be better approach to avoid this problem o Consulting team will explore typical actual costs for moving within Fort Collins  What happens to abandoned homes when a park closes? o The owner of park is usually responsible for removal o This is a challenging issue for park owners, especially for re-1976 (HUD) homes that are in poor condition  If a federally-funded redevelopment project occurs, a relocation process is already determined (Uniform Relocation Act, which occurs at the cost of the redevelopment project)  Key factors in whether units are moved or abandoned are market vacancy rates and the age/value of units  There may not be places to move homes in the event of a closure in Fort Collins  Is the City in favor of opening new parks? o Mobile home parks are permitted uses in the LMN zone o Although they are permitted uses, many higher density housing projects (e.g., student housing, mobile home parks, etc.) can encounter opposition from surrounding neighborhoods/property-owners  The last mobile home park approved in Fort Collins was Dry Creek, although this project had some financial challenges and has since closed  The Housing Authority does have some modular housing units on permanent foundations – this trend will likely increase in the future 2  Have there been any reconfigurations of mobile home parks to enlarge lots/reduce density? o Not to the team’s knowledge, but this is permissible by amending the site plan (usually the mobile home park is platted as one large lot) o This is typically not usually a zoning issue as long as setbacks and minimum densities are satisfied  Would the relocation mitigation policies apply to re-configuration/reducing the number of lots in mobile home parks? o Probably not since it is unlikely that a park owner would eliminate lots if they were occupied (i.e., consolidation of lots would generally occur only if vacant lots were available)  How would the displacement strategies differ for mobile home owners vs. renters? o Residents who rent homes from the mobile home park owners or other landlords generally have month to month (or longer) leases, and in these instances standard landlord/tenant agreements apply (not displacement strategies) o For mobile home owners who just lease the land, displacement mitigation assistance may apply if the City decides to adopt such policies  How would the relocation strategies apply to properties outside of city limits? o If a property is located within the County but adjacent to (Contiguous with) the City limits, any redevelopment project would spur the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the County, and the property would be annexed into the City and the development project would be subject to City requirements (including displacement mitigation). o If a property is located in the County and not adjacent to the City, redevelopment would be handled by the County, and the City’s requirements would not apply, other than the City’s requirement that the property sign an agreement to annex to the City when eligible.  If park owners are required to pay for relocation mitigation, they could get double the burden by having to pay for relocation and then also by having to pay the costs of removing abandoned homes  Key issues to consider when developing strategies are the quality of the homes and occupants. The free market determines which homes are worth moving and which ones are not worth moving (abandoned). The abandoned homes are a big issue, and the strategy should explore whether or not some sort of relocation assistance fund could also apply to park owners who are left with removing abandoned homes.  Need to explore whether or not there are any State/City or other regulations about moving pre-HUD homes (some perceptions that regulations exist). Manufactured/mobile home owners and park residents:  Tuesday September 25, 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm  Northside Aztlan Community Center - 112 Willow Street Meeting Notes  The planning process seems to be short; need to determine if there is enough time allotted for thorough feedback from all stakeholders 3  Need to advertise meetings as open to the public; mobile home park newsletters may be a good tool to notify folks of future meetings  Will this plan address Mobile Home Parks in County? o Mobile home parks in the City (approximately 1200 units) – yes, this plan will address o Mobile home parkss in the County but contiguous/adjacent to City limits (approximately 1100 units) – yes, the plan will address o Mobile homes in the County and not contiguous/adjacent to City County (approximately 700 units) – no, these are subject to the County’s process and requirements, but the County will be involved throughout the effort  Cheryl and Catholic Charities deserve recognition for Bender assistance efforts  City assistance helped with the Bender displacement but more assistance needed (could Section 8 vouchers be explored in the future?)  Low-income housing needed throughout the City  Residents are the ones who lose out  This plan may also involve exploring changes in state laws and regulations to protect residents from displacement What have other communities done to prevent redevelopment of mobile home parks?  Right of First Refusal – time period given depends on location o (Right of First Refusal) in Resident-Owned Communities (ROC USA) o Housing trust fund support – tap into local lenders  Right of Last Offer  Right of Preferential Housing (1st in line for new units) o Form of inclusionary zoning o Can be tied to existing rents or area median income  Incentives  Zoning – strengthen process/make it harder to close MH parks o Some variation of a mobile home park zone o Could this be a taking? No, as long as reasonable economic use of the property o Why did the City drop MH park zones in 1997? o Thought was that LMN would help preserve parks Potential Assistance Tools when Displacement will Happen  Notification of park closure o 6 months in CO o Longer in other states (12 month – 2 year)  Financial Assistance o Relocation Assistance Fund (WA) – state operates, funded by transfer of title fees paid by residents o Property owner/landlord pays (OR)  Landlord support (relocation coordinator)  Vacancy rate triggers notice  Purchases/Land trusts Other Comments and Questions 4  Relocation of pre-1976 homes is very challenging; Hard to find new parks that will accept them o Solution needs to include voluntary abandonment o Need state action to override covenants  How will various options be evaluated? o State/local action/level of support o Best practices/lessons learned o City Council to be the final decision maker  Title changes – personal property vs. real property (stronger consumer protections for real property)  Mortgage settlement fund – explore potential to use some of this money for relocation assistance  Are mobile homes really affordable? o Preserving existing communities cheaper than building new o Residents are captive in parks  Land Trust model of non-profit developer model could work to help with preservation o Lowry a good CO model for affordable housing  Does the City have funding for mobile home community preservation? Look at overall affordable housing budget in City  What role does/could CHAFA play?  Credit union lending could play a larger role Affordable housing and social service agencies:  Wednesday, September 26, 9:00 – 10:30 am  Conference Room B, 281 North College Avenue Meeting Notes  Current title of project is complicated but it needs to address preservation and displacement mitigation  Explore partnerships/coordination with CARE housing and others on residents or agencies owning mobile home parks  Would it be possible to develop the City’s land bank property as a mobile home park or swap this property for another property?  State and federal funding is very limited to assist in relocation efforts (rough estimate of total State funds for affordable housing +/- 2 million, Federal funds +/- 10 million)  Need models/case studies about the economics of resident owned communities or other “benign” landowner situations  Some of the mobile home communitieLimited ability to move pre-1976 homes  Lots of very old parks o Failed infrastructure one cause of closures 5 o Infrastructure improvements a possible strategy ( partnerships)  Dry Creek was the last mobile home park developed  Explore the potential development or trading of the City’s Land Bank properties to save mobile home parks from redevelopment  Some communities have tried to secure long-term commitments to retain mobile home parks but without much success  Need to clarify City vs. County vs. State vs. URA responsibilities when redevelopment/displacement occur and compare these with the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements  Case studies to research o Mapleton mobile home park (Boulder, CO Thistle Community Housing) o Rocky Mountain Community Land Trust (CO Springs)  Aging in place a key issue in mobile home parks as well as throughout the community. Could mobile homes be part of the solution?  Resident Owned Communities a successful approach in some areas o Homeowners need financial partners to make this successful (partner with local banks?) o Explore the role of the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) in establishing resident owned communities  Revolving Loan Fund in Northern CO can be used on mobile homes but there is a $5,000 maximum allowed on repairs for mobile homes  The City doesn’t enforce private covenants, such as those enacted by mobile home parks and other subdivisions 1 1 Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies October 23, 2102 City Council Work Session 2 City Council 2012 Work Plan Develop an “Affordable Housing Relocation Strategic Plan.” The strategic plan will investigate: • Options for mobile home park preservation and stabilization • Options for displacement relocation assistance requirements ATTACHMENT 8 2 3 Relevant City Policies City policies from City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014: • Recognize manufactured housing/mobile homes as an important component of the city’s housing stock. • Encourage the preservation of affordable housing units. • Mitigate the relocation displacement impacts upon residents due to redevelopment activities. 4 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on preservation and stabilization options for mobile home parks: – Mobile Home Park Zoning District – Park Resident Ownership – Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement • Council feedback on the following options for notice to affected residents: – Notice of Closure – Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”) 3 5 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on the following general relocation assistance requirement options: – Relocation Report – Payment of Relocation Costs – Rental Assistance • Any additional Council questions or comments at this time? 6 Mobile Home Park Inventory • 1,230 manufactured housing/mobile home units located in 9 parks inside the City limits. • 1,041 manufactured housing/mobile home units located in 6 parks on parcels that are contiguous to the City limits • 510 manufactured housing/mobile homes units located in 10 parks in the GMA and not contiguous to the City limits 4 7 Preservation and Stabilization Techniques • Mobile Home Park Zoning District – Some communities create a zoning district specifically designed for mobile home parks in order to help preserve them. – In the past the City had 2 MHP Zones: • ML, Low Density Mobile Home District • MM, Medium Density Mobile Home District 8 Preservation and Stabilization Techniques • Park Resident Ownership – Mobile home unit owners buy the mobile home park from the owner at a reasonable price if the owner intends to sell the park. • Requires establishment of a Home Owners Association (HOA), or • The involvement of a non-profit affordable housing organization, or • Establishment of a land trust. 5 9 Preservation and Stabilization Techniques • Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement – Some communities offer grants or loans to mobile home park owners to invest in infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. • City financial assistance (e.g., CDBG/HOME Programs, Affordable Housing Fund) could provide funds for park infrastructure projects. – Applications would compete with other proposals through the competitive process 10 Relocation Assistance Strategies Notice of Closure • Before a mobile park owner can close a park, or redevelop the park for another use, the owner must mail a written notice to each mobile home park unit owner and/or tenant. • Colorado law requires a 6-month notice. • Should the City of Fort Collins consider extending the notice requirement (e.g., 12 months)? 6 11 Relocation Assistance Strategies Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closure”) • A mobile home park with a vacancy rate of 25% or greater is considered to be a “mobile park closure.” • If that level of vacancy occurs, the park owner becomes subject to the requirements for noticing, relocation assistance, etc., as a regular closure. 12 Relocation Assistance Strategies Relocation Report • A park owner is required to detail the impacts a closure will have on displaced residents: – the number of residents displaced, – the opportunities to find replacement housing within a certain distance (e.g., 25 miles), – costs to relocate qualifying residents and – resources for residents (financial, legal, and logistical). 7 13 Relocation Assistance Strategies Payment of Relocation Costs • A mobile home park owner is required to pay for the relocation costs directly to the homeowner to cover the reasonable amount needed to relocate displaced park residents to a location of equal quality. 14 Payment of Relocation Costs Federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA) • The City must already adhere to federal URA requirements if any federal funds are used in a redevelopment project in the City. • URA relocation assistance includes notification, temporary relocation, moving expenses, temporary housing costs, differences in monthly rental payments, etc. 8 15 Payment of Relocation Costs City’s Urban Renewal Authority • The Urban Renewal Authority is currently reviewing the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements to develop policies that would apply to projects that would utilize, for example, Tax Increment Financing (TIF). • The displacement mitigation strategic plan will coordinate with the Urban Renewal Authority and not duplicate its efforts. 16 Payment of Relocation Costs • This strategic plan identify additional “triggers” that would invoke relocation assistance payment requirements. • These triggers could include the following: – Financial assistance from the City’s AHF – Annexation of a park for redevelopment – A rezoning request for redevelopment – Development approvals (e.g., Overall Development Plans (ODPs) and, Project Development Plans (PDPs). 9 17 Public Involvement • Three key stakeholder groups have been identified and have been involved in the project: – mobile home park property-owners – mobile home park residents (unit owners and renters) and interested citizens – affordable housing and human service agencies • Three stakeholder informational meetings were conducted in September 18 Public Involvement • City boards/commissions – Affordable Housing Board – Planning and Zoning Board • Larimer County government – Planning Department – Environmental Health Department • Project web page has been established 10 19 Implementation Actions The strategic plan will develop implementation actions which will be grouped into either: • Short-term actions, or • Longer-term actions Implementation actions will also be listed in three basic categories: • Actions the City can adopt unilaterally • Actions that require coordination with Larimer County • Actions that require new state enabling legislation 20 Next Steps November/December 2012 Refinement of preservation techniques and relocation assistance requirements. Conduct additional stakeholder and general public meetings. November 2012 – January 2013 Reviews by the Affordable Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Board Public hearings in January February 5, 2013 City Council adoption of the strategic plan. 11 21 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on the following preservation and stabilization options for mobile home parks: – Mobile Home Park Zoning District – Park Resident Ownership – Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement • Council feedback on the following options for notice to affected residents: – Notice of Closure – Notice of Vacancy (“Illegal Closures”) 22 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Council feedback on the following general relocation assistance requirement options: – Relocation Report – Payment of Relocation Costs – Rental Assistance • Any additional Council questions or comments at this time? DATE: October 23, 2012 STAFF: Aaron Iverson Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This purpose of this agenda item is to brief City Council on the status of the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis . City Council was provided with an update memo in February discussing the start and intent of the study. Since that time, the project team looked at existing conditions, modeled future traffic conditions, developed a vision and goals for the study, conducted the first public outreach, and began the development of future concepts for Harmony Road. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Harmony Road is, and will continue to be, a vital transportation corridor and one of the City's primary economic districts. Staff would like City Council feedback on the following: 1. What is working well on Harmony Road; what needs to be corrected? 2. What is Council's input on the Purpose and Goals (the future of Harmony Road)? 3. What feedback does Council have regarding the initial alternatives developed? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Enhanced Travel Corridors Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) include existing and future key transportation routes that provide connections between major activity centers like downtown, CSU, midtown, employment centers, shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. Originally identified in 1997 as part of the initial City Plan, ETCs are intended to incorporate high frequency transit, bicycling, pedestrian and automobile solutions and options. While ETCs share this similar purpose, each individual corridor may have a different, unique way to provide those connections. In some corridors, ETCs may focus on enhancing travel time through the corridor to connect primary destinations (Mountain Vista Corridor and Timberline Corridor), while other ETCs may focus on enhancing infill and redevelopment along the corridor (Mason Corridor and Harmony Corridor). Attachment 4 shows the designated ETCs within the City as defined in the Transportation Master Plan (2011). October 23, 2012 Page 2 To position Harmony Road for future funding opportunities, this study is being developed consistent with the processes outlined in Federal Transit Authority's (FTA) Alternatives Analysis and Federal Highways’ (FHWA) Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) programs. Following these processes includes regular coordination with FTA and comprehensive documentation of the alternatives development and screening process. Following Federal processes positions the City to be eligible to compete for future federal funds. Existing and Future Conditions The existing and future travel conditions for the Harmony Corridor are provided in detail in the Draft Corridor Understanding Report, which can be found at this link (www.fcgov.com/harmony). The significant findings from that report include: • Harmony Corridor, as we know it today, is the result of numerous plans and programs throughout the years, as well as a result of serving as Colorado State Highway 68 for nearly forty years. • Harmony Road serves as both local commercial and residential land uses within the Harmony Corridor, but also serves as an important regional connection to I-25 with significant through traffic. • Harmony Road is a wide six-lane facility (currently and planned) with large landscaped setbacks and informal tree plantings, creating campus-style settings as envisioned in the 1991 “Harmony Corridor Plan” (last amended in 2006). • Street design elements, such as medians, street lights and plantings have been inconsistent along the corridor, with some of the corridor still maintaining a rural character. • Most of Harmony Road does not incorporate any stormwater quality treatment mitigation, as currently required, since it was largely constructed before these regulations went into effect. Stormwater issues are currently not being addressed in a systematic way on Harmony Road. • Traffic volumes are some of the highest in the city (just after College Avenue), ranging from over 19,000 to almost 46,000 vehicles per day, depending on location. • Harmony Road has two intersections (Timberline and Lemay) with the highest crash totals in the city. • The type of crashes occurring include rear-end crashes, sideswipes, and, in certain locations, bicycle-related crashes and crashes involving signs. • Bus service is provided by three routes (route 1, 16, and 17) with an average daily ridership of: Route 1 - 1,149; Route 16 - 277; and Route 17 - 158. • The design of much of Harmony Road makes the provision of safe, convenient, and efficient transit service challenging due to long distances between signalized intersections, lack of October 23, 2012 Page 3 sidewalk connections to land uses, the lack of curb and gutter, and some physical barriers like drainage ditches. • Harmony Road has six- to ten-foot bike lanes on both sides of the street from I-25 through the Shields Street intersection, with a direct connection to the Mason Trail. • Sidewalks currently exist along the vast majority of the Corridor, and most sections of the sidewalk are detached from the roadway. • As a result of indirect pedestrian connections, limited and long distances between signalized street crossings, large setbacks, rights-of-way and some physical barriers like drainage ditches, crossing Harmony Road as a pedestrian is challenging. • The Corridor is adjacent to some potential historic resources, park and recreation facilities. Any future improvements must consider air quality or other environmental impacts, as well as impacts to the above-mentioned facilities. • Employment and households are going to grow within the Harmony Road Corridor area in the future. • Automobile traffic will also grow and congestion will increase along the entire Corridor in the future. This growth in traffic is due in part to Harmony’s role as a regional connector and a primary gateway in and out of the southern part of the community. • Harmony Road is identified as an important regional transit connection in the future as well. Purpose and Need Through the process of developing the Corridor Understanding, the project’s Technical Advisory Committee developed a guiding purpose and need statement complete with supporting goals and objectives for the project. Purpose Statement “The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses, environmental stewardship, and economic health goals.” Goal #1: Improve Multi-Modal Mobility Problem Statements • The transit routes along Harmony Road are discontinuous, making transit travel along Harmony Road and to key activity centers throughout Fort Collins inefficient and inconvenient. October 23, 2012 Page 4 • Traveling by bicycle along Harmony Road is uncomfortable because Harmony is a high- volume, high-speed corridor. • Harmony Road traffic signals (and pedestrian crossings) are typically spaced a half-mile apart requiring long, sometimes out-of-direction travel for pedestrians crossing Harmony. • Travel demand and traffic congestion along the Corridor is expected to increase due to growth in population and employment along Harmony Road and the surrounding area and will result in additional pressure on the transportation infrastructure. • The existing Harmony Road cross-section does not accommodate potential mixed-use and transit-oriented development, due to the lower density land use patterns established for the corridor. Objectives • Provide comfortable and convenient multimodal travel options that include auto, transit, walking and bicycling. • Provide a transportation system that supports existing and planned land uses, including future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. • Provide multi-modal connections to the City’s system of Enhanced Travel Corridors. • Help accommodate future travel demand by increasing bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation’s share of trips. Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility Problem Statement Today’s transportation network does not provide sufficient connections between modes nor between each mode and the destinations along the corridor. Objectives • Improve connectivity among various travel modes along and across the corridor. • Enhance transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing and future land uses. • Provide a multi-modal system that is accessible to all abilities and a broad demographic. October 23, 2012 Page 5 Goal #3: Improve Safety Problem Statements • Harmony Road has the two intersections with the highest crash totals in the City. • Harmony Road is a wide corridor with few dedicated, safe pedestrian crossing points. Objectives • Improve multi-modal travel safety along and across the Corridor. • Increase opportunities for pedestrians to safely cross Harmony Road. Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability Problem Statement Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals. Objective • Increase the use of environmentally friendly transportation options. • Implement affordable and cost-effective transportation solutions. • Implement a solution that complements the larger transportation system. • Provide a system that supports planned land uses and economic vitality. Public Outreach A public open house was held on May 3, 2012, presenting initial concepts, and gathering input on issue identification. The following items were identified at the meeting: • Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making. • People frequently jaywalk. • Long crossing distance for pedestrians – high exposure to heavy volume traffic. • Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street. • Transit service does not go to the Harmony Transfer Center. • Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars. Additionally, an online questionnaire was developed that provided the same input opportunities on the project for those not able to attend the public open house. Over 250 people responded to the questionnaire, a summary of the results are included in Attachment 5. As the project moves forward into development of alternatives, additional public outreach involving stakeholders, businesses and others will be ongoing. A second public open house was held on September 13, and a questionnaire October 23, 2012 Page 6 to gain feedback on Tier 2 alternatives is currently available on-line (www.fcgov.com\harmony) until October 31. Alternatives Development The development of the Harmony ETC Master Plan includes the definition, screening, and evaluation of alternatives with the ultimate recommendation of one alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Alternatives are being evaluated based on their ability to meet the project’s Vision and Purpose and Need, environmental impacts, and comparative costs. Screening criteria include a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures directly tied to the Project Vision/Goals and Objectives. Figure 1 shows the alternative development process. Figure 1. Alternative Development Process Tier 1 alternatives are currently being developed based on information from the Corridor Understanding, the established goals and objectives and public input. These Tier 1 alternatives are intended to be broad and capture a wide range of ideas. The range of Tier 1 alternatives includes: • No action, keep conditions as currently exist. • Enhance the current bus service within the existing roadway. • Convert the outside travel lane into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane, taking away one automobile travel lane in each direction. • Construct a BRT lane within the median, requiring the loss of one automobile travel lane in each direction. • Turn the outside travel lane into a BRT lane combined with a High Occupancy Vehicle lane, taking away one automobile travel lane in each direction. • Add a BRT lane to the outside of the existing roadway, widening the corridor and keeping three automobile travel lanes in each direction. October 23, 2012 Page 7 • Add a BRT lane within the median but widening the entire corridor to keep three automobile travel lanes in each direction. • Combine the above transit and roadway improvements with bike lanes, shared use paths or protected bicycle facilities like a buffered bike lane. • Combine any of the alternatives with bicycle/pedestrian overpasses or underpasses at strategic locations. • Combine any of the alternatives with intersection improvements These Tier 1 alternatives will be evaluated against the projects goals and objectives and result in a set of Tier 2 alternatives that are more focused and further refined in greater detail. The Tier 1 alternatives provide an opportunity to test some of the concepts and ideas learned to date against the communities' expectations, and to look for any fatal flaws. Tier 2 Alternatives • The Tier 2 alternatives that are being considered have been divided by geographic areas, including; the west segment, Shields Street to College Avenue, central segment, College Avenue to Ziegler Road, and the east segment, Ziegler to I-25 The Tier 2 alternatives going forward for detailed evaluation are as follows (and shown in Attachment 6): West Segment • Do nothing and keep the roadway configuration and bus service as is. • Improve the bus service with more frequent, direct service and priority treatments at the intersections. • Improve bicycle facilities creating on street cycle-tracks or a larger off street shared use path. Central and West Segments • Do nothing and keep the roadway configuration and bus service as is. • Improve the bus service with more frequent, direct service and priority treatments at the intersections. • Improve the bus service by using the outside lane for bus and high-occupancy-vehicles (HOV) only, with more frequent, direct service and priority treatments at the intersections. • Improve bicycle facilities creating on street cycle-tracks or a larger off street shared use path. • Pedestrian improvements are included in all Tier 2 alternatives. At a minimum, completing the missing segments of sidewalks is recommended. Additionally, improving pedestrian crossings is a key need for Harmony Road. The range of options includes making upgrades to the existing signalized crossings and also looking for opportunities to install grade- separated (underpasses or overpasses) at key locations. October 23, 2012 Page 8 Implementation This study effort is intended to develop a long range vision for the next evolution of Harmony Road. The product of this study will include a “locally preferred alternative”, which will include a number of components, including: • Recommended roadway and intersection configurations • Recommended bicycle facilities, both along and crossing Harmony Road • Recommendations for improving walking conditions, including addressing pedestrian crossings • Recommended transit improvements for Harmony Road, in conjunction with the Transfort Strategic Plan • Recommendations for updates to supporting plans such as the Harmony Corridor Land Plan • Recommendations for updates to the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Timing for implementation will be specified depending on each element as immediate, short-term, mid-term or long-term. Timing implementation of recommendations will depend on funding as well as community and Council priorities. This plan should be updated every five years to identify how well elements are being implemented and to address changing conditions. Next Steps The next steps for the project are to refine the alternatives through a deliberative evaluation process and community dialogue, present these alternatives (Tier 2 alternatives) to the community and move towards a final preferred alternative. Figure 2 shows the phases of the study and where we are at currently in the process. Figure 2. Study Phases October 23, 2012 Page 9 Below are milestones for the study effort: September/October 2012 Ongoing public input September 13, Public Open House Online Questionnaire, Oct. 15 - Oct. 31 Tier 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation December 2012: Development of Locally Preferred Alternatives January/February 2013 Phasing and Funding Plan March/April 2013 Final public open house / public input on final plan, including boards and commissions April - May 2013 Develop draft final plan June 2013 Present to City Council for adoption ATTACHMENTS 1. PowerPoint presentation 2. Study Area Map 3. January 2012 City Council Update Memo 4. Enhanced Travel Corridors Map 5. Summary of questionnaire results 6. Sketches of Tier 2 Alternatives 1 City Council Work Session October 23, 2012 Transportation Planning 2 1. Purpose of the Study 2. Existing Conditions 3. Project Goals 4. Public Input: Open House and Survey 5. Alternatives Development Presentation Overview ATTACHMENT 1 2 3 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Farm Road I‐25 Built Becomes State Hwy Harmony Road transferred to City HP Builds Facility Harmony Corridor Plan Harmony Bicycle Plan 6‐lanes to Boardwalk Harmony Road History 4 3 5 Harmony Road ETC Study Area 6 Projected Household Growth Source: NFRMPO Travel Demand Model, as modified for Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 4 7 Projected Employment Growth Source: NFRMPO Travel Demand Model, as modified for Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 8 Historic Traffic Volumes on Harmony Road 5 9 Legend Current and Future Congestion 2009 2035 Uncongested Congesting Congested XX, XXX Daily Traffic Volumes N 10 Historic Crash Rates on Harmony Road 6 11 College Lemay Timberline High Crash Intersections on Harmony Road 12 Current Transit Ridership on Harmony Road 17 1 16 Harmony Rd. Timberline Lemay College Shields Ziegler Horsetooth 295 Daily on and offs (for Harmony stops) 324 Combined on and offs (for Harmony stops) 7 13 Walking Conditions on Harmony Road 14 Walking Conditions on Harmony Road 8 15 Walking Conditions on Harmony Road 16 Bicycling Conditions on Harmony Road 9 17 Bicycling Conditions on Harmony Road 18 Summary of Current Conditions: ‐ Employment and population will continue to grow ‐ Traffic and travel demand is increasing ‐ Congestion is likely to increase in the future ‐ There are safety issues ‐ Conditions for bicycling and walking need to be improved ‐ Transit service is currently challenged ‐ Regional growth has (and will have) impact on Harmony Road 10 19 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the project is to implement multi‐ modal transportation improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses, economic health and environmental stewardship goals. 20 Goal #1: Improve Multi‐modal Mobility Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility and Connectivity Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability Goal #3: Improve Safety Project Goals 11 21 • Supports land use • Opportunities • Provides travel options • Cost effective • Convenient • Safety • Connectivity • Environmentally Sound • Affordable • Accessible Project Objectives 22 • Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making • People frequently jaywalk • Wide crossing for pedestrian – high exposure • Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street • Transit service does not go to Transfer Center • Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars Public Input 12 23 Over 250 responses to on‐line survey 24 Alternatives Development We Are Here 13 25 ‐ Enhanced transit service ‐ Intersection improvements ‐ Bicycle facilities (cycle tracks, green lanes, off street) ‐ Improved pedestrian and bicycle crossings Alternatives Development‐Examples 26 Next Steps August / September: Ongoing public input September 13, Public Open House September/October 2012: Tier 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation December 2012: Development of Locally Preferred Alternative January/February 2013: Phasing and Funding Plan March/April 2013: Ongoing Public Input April ‐ May 2013: Develop draft final plan June 2013: Present to City Council for adoption 14 27 Council Feedback Sought: 1. Council's thoughts on Harmony Road current conditions 2. Council's input on the Vision and Goals (the future of Harmony Road) 3. Council's feedback on the initial alternatives developed 28 For More Information Project Website: fcgov.com/harmony Contact: Aaron Iverson aiverson@fcgov.com or 970‐416‐2643 Attachment 2: Study Area Map Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation Planning, Development & Transportation DATE: February 2, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation Services Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director FROM: Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning and Special Projects Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis – Project Overview The purpose of this memo is to provide City Council with an overview of the Harmony Road Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis effort. This planning effort began in December 2011 and is expected to be complete in June 2013. The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), a major milestone is scheduled to be determined by January 2013. The Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is a direct outcome of a near-term action item in Plan Fort Collins/ Transportation Master Plan, adopted by City Council in February 2011. This Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is also part of the City Council work plan. Funding for this project was approved by City Council from the voter-approved Keep Fort Collins Great funds for the 2011-12 budget cycle. The purpose of the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is to augment and update existing transportation plans for the Harmony Corridor and to document the transportation, land use, environmental, economic, and social needs of the corridor and to determine the most appropriate corridor configuration. Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) provide connections between major activity centers like Downtown, CSU, Midtown, employment centers, shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. While ETCs share this similar purpose, each individual corridor will have a different, unique way to provide those connections. In some corridors, ETCs may focus on enhancing travel time through the corridor to connect primary destinations (Mountain Vista Corridor and Timberline Corridor), while other ETCs may focus on enhancing infill and redevelopment along the corridor (Mason Corridor and Harmony Corridor). The boundaries of this corridor plan will be Harmony Road from Interstate 25 (I-25) to Shields Street as shown in Figure 1. An influence area one mile on either side of Harmony Road will be used for understanding land use, socioeconomic and other contextual factors that may influence the Harmony Road corridor. Attachment 3 2 Figure 1: Study Corridor and Influence Area The Harmony ETC is intended to address, at a minimum, the following items (presented in no particular order): - Provide mobility and improved safety to/from Fort Collins via this important regional gateway; - Create an updated master plan that supports multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel to ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities; - Recommend improvements to support local goals of integrating land-use and transportation planning, with economic development and environmental stewardship; - Address regional connectivity between the City of Fort Collins and our regional neighbors and the I-25 corridor; - Link major employment, education, medical campus/offices, commercial, entertainment, and residential areas within southeast Fort Collins; - Provide connectivity to the Mason Corridor, future enhanced Timberline Corridor and the regional transportation system; - Collaborate among City staff, private sector, and surrounding communities; - Seek citizen input to help develop transportation design options, identify funding and build partnerships; and - Create an updated master plan that supports sustainability to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend. - Address the appearance and urban form and the long term maintenance needs of the corridor. 3 Project Overview Project Management The project will be managed by Transportation Planning/Advance Planning. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been established at the onset of the project to guide the development of the ETC master plan and to serve as a sounding board for the technical aspects of the project. The TAC will include the members from the following organizations: - City of Fort Collins - Town of Timnath - North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization - Larimer County - Front Range Community College - South Fort Collins Business Association - Federal Transit Authority - Federal Highway Administration Public Involvement In order to reach out to and receive valuable input from the varied stakeholders in the corridor and throughout the community, a multi-faceted public involvement plan is essential. The public involvement process will be ongoing through the duration of the planning process. A project website will be not only a clearinghouse for project-related information and documentation, but it will also be a place where the public can provide comments and input when it is convenient for them. We will utilize Twitter and Facebook feeds at regular intervals throughout the project. Information feeds might include public meeting announcements, alerts to new project website postings, and links to survey questions on the website. In addition to web-based public outreach it is important to also provide traditional public outreach opportunities. The public libraries located on both ends of the Harmony Road corridor would serve as ideal locations for public open house forums to present project information and to solicit input. The public meetings will be held at important milestones during the project including: - Public Meeting #1 – Present corridor understanding; solicit input on the Purpose and Need, vision for the corridor, and ideas for alternatives - Public Meeting #2 – Present and solicit input on Tier 1 alternatives and preliminary evaluation and screening results - Public Meeting #3 – Present and solicit input on Tier 2 alternatives and preliminary evaluation and screening results - Public Meeting #4 – Present and solicit input on the Locally Preferred Alternative and Implementation Plan City staff will hold focus group meetings with business, environmental and other community groups. Additional City staff will provide outreach and seek input from the Transportation Board, Economic Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning as well as other Boards, Commissions, and City Council during the planning process. 4 Five Phases of the Planning Process Phase 1 - Corridor Understanding (December 2011 - March 2012) The development of a comprehensive understanding of the past, present and future conditions of the Harmony Road corridor will provide the basis for the development of a vision and alternatives. Elements of this task include the following: History – Summarize a historical development and improvement timeline of the known progression of roadway and access improvements along Harmony Road. The Harmony Corridor has changed dramatically over its lifespan, from a rural state highway to one of the most heavily used commercial arterial corridors within the City. Regional and Citywide Context – Harmony Road serves as a regional corridor that connects the City of Fort Collins with other key regional communities and the state’s major north/south transportation corridor, I- 25. It is important to understand the regional context and the nature of the users of the corridor both today and in the future. Existing Plans – Existing plans and programs influencing Harmony Road will be reviewed. Examples include various City land use and transportation plans for the Harmony corridor, as well as CDOT’s regional North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement. This task will include defining the immediate development scenarios, i.e., those improvements that may occur during the progress of this project, such as new commercial or residential developments. Understanding the plans and proposed developments for the corridor is critical to formulating a base understanding of the opportunities and constraints that exist along Harmony Road. Existing Conditions – It will be important to understand both the existing operational and physical conditions that the traveling public faces, as well as the projected future demands on the transportation system. This process begins with a thorough understanding of existing travel conditions for motorists, transit patrons, pedestrians, and cyclists. Travel movements, when combined with the physical and operational corridor attributes, will provide a vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle level of service understanding related to current operating conditions. Future Baseline Conditions – The next step in understanding the Harmony Road corridor will be to document the future demands on the corridor. The regional travel demand model which has been recently modified by the City for City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) will be used as the primary tool to establish the baseline future conditions in 2035 (origins and destinations, trip purposes, trip lengths, etc.). The summary of future baseline conditions will be used to determine deficiencies in the ability of the transportation system to accommodate future multimodal travel demands. It will also be used to establish the project Purpose and Need Statement, the corridor vision, and the facility alternatives for consideration. 5 Phase 2 - Corridor Vision (March 2012 - May 2012) This phase will update/refresh the vision for the corridor with supporting goals and objectives. The vision will be based on findings from the existing and future conditions effort, initial public involvement, feedback from stakeholders and guidance from City Council. It is anticipated that the development of a corridor vision will be an integral outcome of the public involvement. Establish Purpose and Need – A thorough understanding of the corridor today and in the future by the project stakeholders will facilitate the development of a sound Purpose and Need Statement. Issues and concerns will be solicited from the public and agencies early in the planning process. Obtaining this information early allows the Purpose and Need Statement to be as comprehensive and specific as possible, which supports further refinement of the alternatives that pass screening. Establish Corridor Vision – While the Purpose and Need Statement will essentially act as a problem statement (with respect to existing and projected future conditions), the corridor vision will define the community’s desires for the Harmony Corridor in the future. The corridor vision will build upon previous work in the corridor, including the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Harmony Access Control Plan. It will be context-sensitive to the identified opportunities and challenges and will provide: - An understanding of the desired modal components of the corridor, - A vision for the interaction between land uses and the transportation system, and - A basis for setting goals and objectives that reflect the values of the community and that will translate into evaluation criteria for use in the analysis of alternatives. The TAC and corridor stakeholders will be essential to developing the Corridor Vision. Goals and objectives to support the corridor vision will be drafted, and we will rely heavily upon previously established citywide goals and objectives in City Plan and the TMP. Phase 3 - Master Plan Development (May 2012 - December 2012) The development of the Harmony ETC Master Plan will include the definition and screening/evaluation of alternatives with the ultimate recommendation of one alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). To ensure that this Master Plan moves the City toward its ultimate vision for Harmony Road, the master plan will be developed and alternatives evaluated in a manner consistent with the processes outlined in Federal Transit Authority's (FTA) Alternatives Analysis and Federal Highways’ (FHWA) Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) programs. Following these processes will require regular coordination with FTA and comprehensive documentation of the alternatives development and screening process, which should minimize backtracking and costly reevaluation in the future. Following Federal processes positions the City to potentially fund recommended corridor improvements with Federal funds. The following elements will be defined for each of the alternatives: - Street Network – The initial set of improvements may consider changes to the number of lanes, land use, access control and signal spacing to meet the desired mobility needs of the corridor. - Transit Network – It is anticipated that the initial set of build alternatives will be wide ranging from light rail and streetcar to bus rapid transit and express bus. Potential station spacing, frequency and headways will be defined. - Bike and Pedestrian Improvements – This could include both on-street and off-street improvements to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel along the corridor. Such improvements could also extend onto parallel routes. Alternatives will be evaluated based on their ability to meet the project’s Vision and Purpose and Need, their environmental impacts, and their comparative costs. Screening criteria will include a combination of 6 quantitative and qualitative measures that will be directly tied to the Project Vision/Goals and Objectives. Performance measures derived from the refined travel demand model will be used to compare each alternative’s ability to attract ridership, improve travel time, and to enhance overall corridor mobility. This evaluation will also be closely tied to the tenants of sustainability and triple bottom line evaluation developed in Plan Fort Collins. These measures will be closely linked with Integrated Land Use and Transportation measures presented in the City’s TMP. In addition, we will supplement those measures with others that are more specific to the vision, goals, and objectives of the Harmony Road corridor. Following the development of the screening process, we will calculate and assess the associated measures for each alternative, and combine the results in an evaluation matrix that will present the relative results for each alternative. In collaboration with the TAC, and considering stakeholder input, we will use the results to develop a shortlist of alternatives. Once refined, evaluated and vetted through the public process the most supported Build Alternative will be recommended as the LPA. Phase 4 – Implementation Plan (January 2013 - March 2013) Fort Collins’ TMP sets forth implementation strategies that tie directly to its vision, principles, and policies to ensure that short-term actions help to achieve the long-term vision of the TMP and the City. As part of this project, we will develop an implementation plan that ensures that Harmony Road improvements are consistent with the City’s TMP. The implementation plan will include a financial plan, a list of priorities, and a schedule including phasing schedules. Once the physical and operational elements of LPA are fully understood, it is important to understand how the project can be constructed over time. It is critical to structure the LPA into phases that meet the operational goals of the project and provide significant operational improvements. Basic phasing options could include: - Constructing corridor-wide elements that provide corridor-wide benefits, but constructed in such a manner as to layer one improvement onto another until all of the LPA elements are completed. - Constructing all LPA elements on a segment-by-segment basis. For example, the Shields Street to College Avenue segment could be constructed first to provide transit continuity between Front Range Community College and the new South Transit Center. Phase 5 – Plan Adoption Process (March 2013 - June 2013) The final phase of the project process is plan adoption. This includes a final public review and comment presentations and feedback from boards and commissions, and presentation to City Council for adoption. 7 Project Schedule for Harmony Road ETC Master Plan: September – December 2011 Project Startup/Consultant Selection December 2011 – March 2012 Corridor Understanding / Data Collection & Analysis March 2012 – May 2012 Corridor Vision Summer 2012 Council Work Session May 2012 – December 2012 Alternatives Development and Evaluation January 2013 Locally Preferred Alternative Selection January 2013 – February 2013 Final Master Plan Drafted March 2013 – June 2013 Adoption Process June 2013 City Council Hearing See attached Work Flow Diagram for detailed project timeline, including tasks and milestones. The project website will provide frequent updates and information on the project, and can be found at the following address: fcgov.com/harmony. The project manager is Aaron Iverson who can be contacted via email at aiverson@fcgov.com or by phone at 970-416-2643. Attachment: Work Flow Diagram Attachment 4: Enhanced Travel Corridors Map Page 1 Summary of Public Input 1st Round of Public Involvement – May 2012 The first public meeting was held at the Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church on Harmony on May 3rd from 4:00 – 7:00 PM. The format of the meeting was an open house, with four stations: 1) Education, 2) Identification of Issues (Problems), 3) Corridor Visions (Solutions), and 4) Questionnaire (Trade Offs). While the attendance was somewhat light, the input received was good. The City distributed flyers and sent messages through Facebook and Twitter to direct people to the online questionnaire, which was be open through the end of May. The questionnaire received 254 responses. The following issues were identified at the public meeting: • Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making • People frequently jaywalk • Wide crossing for pedestrian – high exposure • Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street • Transit service does not go to Transfer Center • Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars The responses to the multiple choice online questionnaire questions are charted on the following pages. A summary of the corresponding comments follows the applicable charts. The themes that were most common to the questionnaire responses are listed below, in the general order of response frequency: • Separate bikes from travel lanes (buffer) • Provide a balance between differernt modes/provide travel options • 6 general purpose travel lanes are needed • Support for landscaped median • Support for dedicated bus lane • Improve pedestrian crossings and/or provide grade separated crossings • Support for detached sidewalks • Maintain wide setbacks/open feel • Accommodate bikes on both sides Attachment 5 Page 2 Page 3 Traffic/Congestion • Signal timing – (19) • Too many traffic signals – (5) • Travel speeds slow/less than posted – (3) • Congestion at railroad crossings – (1) Page 4 • Volume of traffic – (1) Configuration • Transition from 3 to 2 lanes; should be 3 the whole way – (8) • Confusing – lane ends, merges, etc – (3) • Too few turn lanes at access points – (3) • Too many lanes – (2) • Too many access points – (1) Bicycle • Safety issues at intersections for bicyclists – (6) • Not appropriate for/comfortable for bikes – (6) • Lack of bike underpass/overpass – (3) • Inconsistent bike lane configuration (shifting), not well marked – (3) • Bike lane/right turn conflict approaching intersections – (2) • Bikes are a hazard, remove – (2) • Too much traffic for bicyclists to turn left – (1) Pedestrian • Missing sidewalk – (2) • Safety issues at intersections for pedestrians – (1) • Poor environment for pedestrians/not inviting – (1) Transit • Buses block travel lane (especially at stop near RR tracks) – (2) • Wait time for bus service too long – (1) Maintenance • Condition of road (Boardwalk to College, most notably) – (3) • Construction ongoing – (3) • Snow piled up in bike lane and sidewalk – (1) • Condition of bike lanes (pot holes) – (1) Other • No concerns, it works well – (4) • Noise – (1) • Current land uses not bicycle and pedestrian friendly – (1) Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Other Destinations: • Medical facilities – (4) • MAX – (2) • Connections to other E/W and N/S bus arterials (GRID) – (2) • Libraries – (2) • Hughes Stadium – (1) • Timberline Road – (1) • Avago – (1) • Front Range Village – (1) • Senior Center – (1) • Denver – (1) • Work – (1) • Larimer County Detention Center – (1) • Schools – (1) Page 8 Positive Comments • Like the detached sidewalks – (22) • Good for bikes – (19) • Good for auto – (12) • Like the wide setbacks – (7) • Aesthetically pleasing – (6) • Like 3 travel lanes on Harmony – (6) • Each mode has its own space – (6) • Like the green space – (2) • Lane use appears understandable (user friendly) – (2) • Like the access control – (2) • Good for snow plowing – (1) • Auto is predominant mode – embrace – (1) • Realistic – (1) Page 9 Negative Comments • Too much emphasis on autos, freeway feel – (25) • Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (24) • Prefer separated bike lanes – (14) • Unattractive (especially depressed median) – (10) • Prefer a dedicated bus lane – (7) • Concern about pedestrian/transit users ability to cross the street – (6) • Not environmentally responsible/sustainable – (5) • Regressive/Proven to be ineffective – (5) • No “life” on the street, needs urban amenities, sense of community – (5) • Not good for pedestrians, shopping/residential too separated – (5) • Bikes should be routed to other streets – (4) • Bikes should be moved to the sidewalk (shared use path) – (4) • Unfair to non-drivers – (4) • Poor business access – (3) • Add landscaping in median – (2) • Depressed median seems unsafe – (2) • Encourages unhealthy mode of transportation – (1) • Buildings set back too far – (1) • Needs more dense land use to encourage other modes – (1) • Concern about ROW impacts – (1) Page 10 Positive Comments • Like the landscaped median – (42) • Like the increased emphasis on bus – (17) • Aesthetically pleasing – (14) • Like the detached sidewalks – (12) • Like the wide setbacks – (7) • Like the dedicated bike lane – (6) • Good for bikes – (6) • Good for auto – (4) • Friendly, vibrant – (3) • Good for pedestrians – (2) • Each mode has its own space – (1) Page 11 Negative Comments • Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (19) • Too expensive to implement and maintain (especially landscape median) – (11) • Prefer separated bike lanes – (9) • Concern about pedestrians crossing wide intersections – (6) • Visibility limited by over-landscaping – (6) • Too much emphasis on autos – (5) • Do not anticipate much bus ridership – (5) • Too wide, too many lanes, too much traffic – (4) • Not good for pedestrians (and transit users), shopping/residential too separated – (3) • Dislike the bus’s interference with traffic flow – (3) • Need more bike and ped friendly facilities – (3) • Wide median is wasted space – (3) • Prefer dedicated bus lane – (3) • Prefer grade separated pedestrian crossing – (3) • Bus/bike conflict – (3) • Difficult for bikes to turn left – (3) • Higher densities needed to support transit – (2) • Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2) • Regressive – (1) • Bus service is not as important as traffic flow – (1) • Seems too crowded – (1) • Raised median safer with 3 lanes – (1) • Add green bike boxes – (1) • Buses need designated pull outs – (1) Page 12 Positive Comments • Like the dedicated bus lanes – (41) • Like the separated cycle tracks – (37) • Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (13) • Improves safety for cyclists – (11) • Good multimodal options – (10) • Like the detached sidewalks – (6) • Like the landscaped median – (5) • Like HOVs using bus lane – (4) • Bus lane provides an extra buffer between cyclists and auto – (4) • More environmentally friendly – (3) • Like the less costly median – (2) • Aesthetically pleasing – (2) Page 13 Negative Comments • Too wide, too much traffic – (21) • Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (13) • Very difficult for pedestrians to cross – (11) • Concern about bus/right turn conflict – (8) • Concern about cycle track treatment at intersection – (7) • Not aesthetically compelling – (7) • Too much going on – (6) • More protection needed for bikes – (4) • Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3) • Cycle tracks should be two-way – (3) • Difficult for cyclists to make left turns – (3) • Confusing for out of town visitors – (3) • Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2) • Expensive – (1) • Concern about bus signal priority and driver confusion – (1) • If HOV, bus stop/HOV conflict – (1) • Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1) • Bus pull outs from GP lanes instead – (1) • Not human friendly – (1) • Would like to see roundabouts – (1) • Over-designed – (1) • No improvement over existing – (1) • Concern about ROW impacts – (1) • Don’t need 6 lanes with separate bus lane – (1) • Dislike raised median – (1) Page 14 Positive Comments • Like the median BRT – (18) • Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (17) • Like the downtown/community feel/minimal setback – (9) • Encourages alternative travel modes – (8) • Like the two-way cycle track – (8) • Like the bikes being separated from traffic – (7) • Improves safety for cyclists – (6) • Good multimodal options – (5) • Pedestrian friendly – (5) • Like having only 4 auto lanes – (4) • Like that it is less of an “asphalt jungle” – (3) • Traffic speeds would be slow (favorable) – (3) Page 15 • Looks efficient/compact – (3) • Better for businesses – (2) • Would serve commuters well – (1) • More environmentally friendly – (1) Negative Comments • Lacks needed auto capacity – (35) • Too cramped/too urban/big city – (16) • Bikes should be on both sides – (16) • Buildings too close to road – (16) • Too congested – (15) • Concern about how pedestrians would cross from station – (15) • Dislike the two-way cycle track – (11) • Not appropriate for Harmony – (6) • Not aesthetically compelling/no median landscaping – (4) • Concern for safety on two-way cycle track (esp at intersections and accesses) – (3) • Pedestrians too close to street, unpleasant – (3) • Concern median BRT would require more signals – (3) • Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3) • Too much emphasis on bus – (3) • Concern about buses passing each other – (2) • Dislike the bus in the median – (1) • No room for expansion – (1) • Concern about snow storage – (1) • Concern about safety for left turners – (1) • Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (1) • Median BRT would confuse drivers – (1) • Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1) ATTACHMENT 6 A R M O N Y R D S US HIGHWAY 287 S TAFT HILL RD S CO UNT Y ROA D 13 CARPENTER RD Z I E G L E R R D S COUNTY ROAD 11 JOHN F KENNEDY PKWY ROAD S COUNTY 7 S SHI EL DS ST E HORSETOOTH RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 E ROAD COUNTY 3 8 E ROAD COUNTY 36 STRAUSS CABIN RD E HARMONY RD E C O U N T Y R O A D 3 0 STATE HIGHWAY 392 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COU NTY R OAD 1 9 INTERSTA TE 25 Mobile Home City of Parks Fort (South Collins of Drake Rd) CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: October 12, 2012 Mobile Home Parks Streets Water Features GMA City Limits 0 0.5 1Miles © ATTACHMENT 4 B E R R Y S T G R E G O R Y R D S MASON ST W VINE DR E DRAKE RD S HOWES ST N MASON ST LINCOLN AVE COUNTRY CLUB RD S OV ER LA ND TR L N OV ER LA ND TR L S TAFT HILL RD TURNBERRY RD N HOWES ST R I V E R S I D E A V E N LEMAY AV E W DRAKE RD ROAD COUNTY 54 G W PROS PECT R D RD ZIEGLER S LEMAY A VE S T I M B E R L I N E R D W EL IZ AB ET H ST E VIN E DR W D O U GL A S R D S SUMMIT VIEW DR E PROSPECT RD S COUNT Y ROAD 5 N T A F T H I L L R D T E R R Y L A K E R D N TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 48 N CO UNT Y ROA D 19 N CO UNTY ROAD 17 E DOUGLAS RD N COUN TY ROA D 5 I N T E R S T A T E 2 5 MOU NTAIN VISTA DR RICHAR DS LAK E RD E COUNTY ROAD 50 E CO UNT Y ROAD 52 E C OUN TY R OAD 54 GIDDINGS RD N CO UNTY ROAD 9 N U S H I G H W A Y 2 8 7 Mobile Home City of Parks Fort (North Collins of Drake Rd) CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: October 12, 2012 Mobile Home Parks Streets Water Features GMA City Limits 0 0.5 1Miles © ATTACHMENT 3