Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/04/2014 - COMPLETE AGENDA
City of Fort Collins Page 1 Karen Weitkunat, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson Interim City Attorney City Manager 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. Regular Meeting November 4, 2014 (Revised 11/3/14) Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring November 25-December 10 as 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER City Manager Review of Agenda. City of Fort Collins Page 2 Consent Calendar Review This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion Items. o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion Items. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual. ● State your name and address for the record ● Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience is not allowed ● Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Consent Calendar The Consent Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by City Council with one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of: ● Ordinances on First Reading that are routine; ● Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine; ● Those of no perceived controversy; ● Routine administrative actions. 1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2014 Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2015. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, sets the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) 2015 Operations and Maintenance Budget amount of $744,084 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 for the administrative operations budget, appropriates the 2015 Line of Credit Draw in the amount of $1,000,000, sets the amount of $3,191,396 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 and sets the 2015 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2015. City of Fort Collins Page 3 2. Items Relating to Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts between Funds or Projects. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Benefits Fund for Unanticipated Expenditure Increases. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be Used to Cover Snow Removal Expenses. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Self- Insurance Fund for Insurance Expenses. The purpose of this item is for the Annual Year-End Adjustment. This year it is comprised of 4 separate ordinances. Ordinance No. 140, 2014, appropriates non-controversial expenses related to unanticipated revenue, grants, and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted. Ordinance No. 141, 2014, appropriates funds from the Benefits Fund to cover unanticipated expenditures and employee benefits. Ordinance No. 142, 2014, appropriates funds for snow removal for the remainder of 2014 as the entire snow removal budget has been spent. Ordinance No. 143, 2014, appropriates prior year reserves for property and liability claims that are expected to exceed budget. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014. 3. Items Relating to Ethics Review Board Code Changes. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2014, Amending Section 2-569 of the City Code Pertaining to Procedures of the Ethics Review Board. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2014, Amending Section 2-568(a) of the City Code Pertaining to Definitions Applicable to Ethical Rules of Conduct. The purpose of Ordinance No. 144, 2014 is to adopt revisions to the City Code to simplify and expedite the process of initiating Ethics Review Board review of ethics complaints and to update provisions related to alternative composition of the Board in the event members of the Board are themselves the subject of a complaint. Ordinance No. 145, 2014 is intended to incorporate into the City Code the definitions related to conflicts of interest that are specified in the City Charter, and to add new definitions to assist in the interpretation and application of the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter and City Code. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014. 4. Items Relating to City Code Clarifications for Plant Investment Fees. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2014, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees, Excess Water Surcharge Rates and Raw Water Requirements for Meters Larger Than Two Inches in Size. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2014, Amending Section 26-284 of the City Code to Clarify the Calculation of Infiltration and Inflow in Determining Sewer Plant Investment Fees. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, address several sections of Chapter 26 of the City Code relating to how plant investment fees are calculated and when the Excess Water Use Surcharge is applicable. These changes do not impact the amount charged for plant investment fees or the Excess Water Use Surcharge but rather seek to clarify the exact calculation of the fees. City of Fort Collins Page 4 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2014 Approving a First Amendment to the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, amends the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. and the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority by changing a key date in the requirement of the City Manager to present City Council with a package to renew the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax including funding for Lincoln Boulevard Improvements from November 2014 to April 2015. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2014, Vacating a City Trail Easement and Any Associated Rights on Colorado State University Property Between Centre Avenue and Bay Road. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, vacates a trail easement, located between Centre Avenue and Bay Road, that was obtained from Colorado State University Research Foundation in 1979 (including any prescriptive rights that may exist). This segment of the Spring Creek trail was replaced with a new and superior alignment in 2013 from an additional trail easement obtained from Colorado State University and Colorado State University Research Foundation. 7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Environmental Services Operating Budget. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $4,973 awarded to the City by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, transfer a matching amount of $4,973 from the 2014 General Fund and, combine these funds in the Environmental Services Radon Program account. The Radon Program carries out radon risk-reduction activities as identified in the current City budget. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Reimburse Woodward, Inc. for Development Fees. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $88,344 of current year General Fund Revenue and prior year General Fund Reserves for a rebate to Woodward of development fees as approved by City Council on April 2, 2013 (Ordinance No. 055, 2013). Ordinance No. 055, 2013 approved an agreement between the City, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and Woodward, Inc. The agreement provides Business Investment Assistance for the relocation of Woodward’s headquarters as well as an expansion of its manufacturing and office facilities to a new location at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Lemay Avenue. The project will retain or create between 1,400 and 1,700 primary jobs in the City. The City’s assistance includes a rebate of Use Tax, Development Fees, and Capital Improvement Fees. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2014, Amending Section 2-568 of the City Code to add to the Ethical Rules of Conduct a Prohibition on Special Treatment and to Establish a Reporting Requirement for Councilmember Contacts with City Staff. The purpose of this item is to promote transparency and awareness in connection with Councilmember contacts with the administrative service of the City and to establish clear standards related to special treatment in the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Code, City regulations, policies or programs, or provision of City services by any City officer or employee. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2014, Designating the Avery Duplex Cottage, 134-136 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The owners of the property, Kevin and Suzanne Murray and Carl and Karen McWilliams, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Avery Duplex at 134-136 North Sherwood Street. City of Fort Collins Page 5 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2014, Designating the Garcia Property, 321 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The owner of the property, Kate A. Polk, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Garcia Property, located at 321 North Whitcomb Street. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2014, Designating the 508 Remington Street Property, 508 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The owner of the property, James L. MacDowell IIl, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the 508 Remington Street Property, located at 508 Remington Street. 13. Resolution 2014-099 Approving a Position Profile for the City Attorney Position. The purpose of this item is to approve a position profile to be used in the recruitment and selection process for filling the City Attorney position. The Council Committee, in conjunction with the executive recruiter, Slavin Management Consultants created a draft position profile. END CONSENT CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. STAFF REPORTS A. Blue Grama Awards for Reintroduction of Black-footed ferrets to Soapstone Prairie and Poudre River restoration projects COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS City of Fort Collins Page 6 Discussion Items The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ● Staff presentation (optional) ● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five minute limit for each citizen) ● Council questions of staff on the item ● Council motion on the item ● Council discussion ● Final Council comments ● Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2014, Repealing Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags. (staff: Wanda Nelson; no staff presentation; 15 minute discussion) On October 10, 2014, the City Clerk certified that a referendum petition seeking to repeal Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding disposable Bags was sufficient. On October 21, 2014, Council voted 6-1 (nays: Poppaw) to repeal Ordinance No. 099, 2014. 15. Items Relating to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and Revised TOD Off- Street Parking Requirements. (staff: Seth Lorson, Laurie Kadrich, Cameron Gloss; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion) A. Resolution 2014-100 Approving the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2014, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Parking Issues Related to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and corresponding revisions to residential and commercial off-street parking requirements within the Land Use Code (LUC). At its September 11, 2014 meeting, Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the following LUC revisions: Residential 1. Minimum parking requirements for multi-family and mixed-use dwellings; and 2. Alternative compliance. Commercial* 1. Minimum parking requirements for nonresidential land uses city-wide; and 2. Alternative compliance. *The commercial parking recommendation was qualified as a necessary interim measure until a comprehensive parking management approach is adopted. The management approach includes on- street paid parking and residential parking permit programs at the perimeter, public parking garages, and a transportation demand management (TDM) program. City of Fort Collins Page 7 CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS OTHER BUSINESS A. On-Campus Stadium Resolution Direction. ADJOURNMENT A. Council will consider a motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 12, 2014. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, we, as citizens of this community, recognize the worldwide problem of violence against women occurs even here in Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, gender violence is traumatic to the body, mind, and spirit and can prevent people from being fully active participants at home and in the world; and WHEREAS, gender violence costs the nation billions of dollars annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism and non- productivity; and WHEREAS, in spite of some progress, we need only to look at our newspapers or watch a television newscast to see the unfortunate truth that gender violence has not yet been eliminated here or around the world; and WHEREAS, we support efforts of individuals and organizations to raise awareness, stimulate discussion, and advocate for local solutions that will curb gender violence; and WHEREAS, the right of women and men to be free of violence is a fundamental human right. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim November 25-December 10 as 16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM AGAINST GENDER VIOLENCE and urge citizens to support work to end gender violence and to eliminate the detrimental consequences gender violence has on the well-being of our community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 8 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Jennifer Hensley, Finance Coordinator Matt Robenalt, Executive Director SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2014 Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, sets the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) 2015 Operations and Maintenance Budget amount of $744,084 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 for the administrative operations budget, appropriates the 2015 Line of Credit Draw in the amount of $1,000,000, sets the amount of $3,191,396 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 and sets the 2015 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. DDA Boundary map (PDF) 2. First Reading Agenda Item Summary (w/o attachments) (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 139, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 9 Cache La Poudre River ³I ÕZYXW E Vine Dr Riverside Ave N College Ave E Lincoln Ave S Lemay Ave Remington St S College Ave 9th St S Mason St S Howes St E Mulberry St W Laurel St Laporte Ave W Mulberry St N Lemay Ave W Mountain Ave Jefferson St N Mason St N Howes St E Mountain Ave N L e may A v e Smith St E Elizabeth St Mathews St Locust St Peterson St E Myrtle St Stover St Whedbee St Linden St 12th St Maple St Cherry St Conifer St E Plum St W Oak St E Olive St W Olive St W Myrtle St Willow St Buckingham St E Oak St S Meldrum St Hemlock St 1st St Redwood St 3rd St S Whitcomb St 2nd St N Sherwood St W Magnolia St Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Jennifer Hensley, Finance Coordinator Matt Robenalt, Executive Director SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2014 Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to set the Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) 2015 Operations and Maintenance Budget amount of $744,084 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 for the administrative operations budget, appropriate the 2015 Line of Credit Draw in the amount of $1,000,000, set the amount of $3,191,396 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2015 and set the 2015 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors and staff recommend adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) was created in 1981 with the purpose, according to Colorado state statute, of planning and implementing projects and programs within the boundaries of the DDA. By state statute the purpose of the ad valorem tax levied on all real and personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five (5) mills, shall be for the budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development that specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes of the state statute and the Plan of Development the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various tax increment bonds, which require debt servicing. The City Council is also required by Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B) of the Colorado Revised Statutes to certify to the Larimer County Assessor by August 1st of each calendar year the property tax distribution percentages for all affected governmental entities whose property taxes are to be allocated to the DDA tax increment fund. A resolution will be presented to Council in January for this certification. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is requesting approval of the DDA Operations and Maintenance budget for fiscal year 2015 in the amount of $744,084. It is requesting appropriation of up to $1,000,000 for the 2015 Line of Credit draw. It is also requesting approval of the DDA debt payment commitments in the amount of $3,191,396 for 2015 obligations. Packet Pg. 11 Attachment1.2: First Reading Agenda Item Summary (w/o attachments) (2555 : SR 139 DDA Budget) ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 The 2015 Line of Credit draw, whose debt service payment will be made from the debt service fund, is projected to fund up to $1,000,000. Uses: Museum of Discovery $ 500,000 Multi-Year Reimbursement Payments 131,036 Future Public/Private Investments and Programs 368,214 Annual Line of Credit Financing Cost 750 Total $1,000,000 The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service payments for 2015. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 9, 2014 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its proposed budget for 2015 totaling $4,935,480 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative costs incurred by the DDA. ATTACHMENTS 1. DDA Boundary Map (PDF) 2. Resolution 2014-01 Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy (PDF) 3. Resolution 2014-02 Budget of the Estimated Amounts Required to Pay the Expenses of Conducting Business (PDF) 4. Resolution 2014-03 2015 Revolving Line of Credit (PDF) 5. Resolution 2014-04 for Payment of Debt Service (PDF) Packet Pg. 12 Attachment1.2: First Reading Agenda Item Summary (w/o attachments) (2555 : SR 139 DDA Budget) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE FORT COLLINS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) has been duly organized in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S) 31-25-804, 1973 as amended; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2014 DDA Board of Directors (the “DDA Board”), acting under the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-25-816, 1973, as amended, adopted a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015 which included appropriation of the 2015 Line of Credit draw, and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment during fiscal year 2015 of properly authorized operational and maintenance expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to appropriate the sum of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS ($4,935,480) in the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund and the Debt Service Fund for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2015, to be used as follows: DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 744,084 2015 Revolving Line of Credit Draw 1,000,000 DDA Debt Service Fund 3,191,396 $ 4,935,480 WHEREAS, the DDA Board has recommended to the Council a mill levy of five (5) mills upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the DDA District, such levy representing the amount of taxes for DDA purposes necessary to provide for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized operational and maintenance expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND, EIGHTY FOUR DOLLARS ($744,084), to be expended for the authorized purposes of the DDA. Packet Pg. 13 Attachment1.3: Ordinance No. 139, 2014 (2555 : SR 139 DDA Budget) - 2 - Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority 2015 Line of Credit draw the sum of up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000), to be used to finance DDA projects or programs in accordance with the DDA Plan of Development including the 2015 Museum of Discovery payment and multi-year reimbursement payments. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund the sum of THREE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED NINTY ONE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX DOLLARS ($3,191,396), for payment of debt service on previously issued and outstanding bonds, to pay the City’s investment service charge, for payment on the 2015 Line of Credit draw, and to be used to cover the DDA’s one-third share of payment on the Civic Center Parking Structure. Section 4. That the 2015 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the DDA District as of December 31, 2014 shall be five (5) mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for the District purposes to provide for payment during the aforementioned fiscal year of properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA. Said mill levy shall be certified to the County Assessor and the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, by the City Clerk as provided by law. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 14 Attachment1.3: Ordinance No. 139, 2014 (2555 : SR 139 DDA Budget) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Darin Atteberry, City Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts between Funds or Projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Benefits Fund for Unanticipated Expenditure Increases. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be Used to Cover Snow Removal Expenses. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Self-Insurance Fund for Insurance Expenses. The purpose of this item is for the Annual Year-End Adjustment. This year it is comprised of 4 separate ordinances. Ordinance No. 140, 2014, appropriates non-controversial expenses related to unanticipated revenue, grants, and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted. Ordinance No. 141, 2014, appropriates funds from the Benefits Fund to cover unanticipated expenditures and employee benefits. Ordinance No. 142, 2014, appropriates funds for snow removal for the remainder of 2014 as the entire snow removal budget has been spent. Ordinance No. 143, 2014, appropriates prior year reserves for property and liability claims that are expected to exceed budget. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 141, 2014 (PDF) 4. Ordinance No. 142, 2014 (PDF) 5. Ordinance No. 143, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Darin Atteberry, City Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts between Funds or Projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Benefits Fund for Unanticipated Expenditure Increases. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be Used to Cover Snow Removal Expenses. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Self-Insurance Fund for Insurance Expenses. The purpose of this item is for the Annual Year-End Adjustment. This year it is comprised of 4 separate ordinances. Ordinance No. 140, 2014, is for the appropriation of non-controversial expenses related to unanticipated revenue, grants, and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted. Ordinance No. 141, 2014, appropriates funds from the Benefits Fund to cover unanticipated expenditures and employee benefits. Ordinance No. 142, 2014, appropriates funds for snow removal for the remainder of 2014 as the entire snow removal budget has been spent. Ordinance No. 143, 2014, appropriates prior year reserves for property and liability claims that are expected to exceed budget. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Summary of Ordinances A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. The annual Budget Adjustment Ordinance allows for the appropriation of expenses related to unanticipated revenue, grants and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted. The purpose of this annual Budget Adjustment Ordinance is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2014 budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operational expenses. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested appropriations: Funding Unanticipated Revenue Reserves Increase to City Approp. General Fund $1,342,821 $446,826 $1,789,647 Capital Expansion Fund $60,000 $0 $60,000 Capital Projects Fund $481,297 $0 $481,297 Conservation Trust $190,000 $510,000 $700,000 Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $41,411 $1,019,793 $1,061,204 Golf Fund $98,000 $0 $98,000 KFCG Fund $0 $215,096 $215,096 Light & Power Fund $0 $100,000 $100,000 Natural Areas Fund $618,070 $0 $618,070 Recreation Fund $27,242 $0 $27,242 Sales & Use Tax Fund $0 $985,192 $985,192 Stormwater Fund $0 $106,125 $106,125 Timberline/Prospect SID #94 $60,048 $0 $60,048 Transit Services Fund $657,531 $0 $657,531 Transportation Fund $10,667 $0 $10,667 Wastewater Fund $0 $100,000 $100,000 Water Fund $0 $100,000 $100,000 Annual Year-End Adjustment Total $3,587,087 $3,583,032 $7,170,119 Note: This table summarizes the details of Ordinance No. 140, 2014. It does not include the amounts from the other 3 ordinances in this combined AIS. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds, and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance. The other three ordinances are for significant cost overruns greater than the original 2014 budget appropriation as follows. These were reviewed with the Council Finance Committee on September 15, 2014: B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Benefits Fund for Unanticipated Expenditure Increases. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be Used to Cover Snow Removal Expenses. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Self-Insurance Fund for Insurance Expenses. Packet Pg. 17 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 3 Funding Unanticipated Revenue Reserves Increase to City Appropriations Benefits Fund $0 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 Self-Insurance Fund $0 $610,000 $610,000 Transportation Fund $0 $800,000 $800,000 Additional Year-End Adjustments Total $0 $3,260,000 $3,260,000 APPROPRIATION DETAILS First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects. A. GENERAL FUND 1. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources which need to be appropriated to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these items follows: a. $28,800 - Chemical Test Fees & Driving w/o Insurance Penalty Assessments - Pursuant to C.R.S. 16- 11-501(2) (j), the costs of chemical tests (blood/breath tests) shall be reimbursed directly by the defendant to the law enforcement agency which administered and paid for the test. The driving without insurance law provides revenue to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation. It is projected that by the end of 2014, $28,800 will have been collected by the courts and passed on to Police Services under these provisions. The revenue is used to directly offset the actual cost of blood/breath testing for DUI and DUID (driving under the influence of drugs). Charges from local hospitals and the Colorado Bureau of Investigations laboratory total $27,000 thus far in 2014. b. $38,870 - High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Grant - In 2014, the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area increased the award of the 2013 FY grant by $38,870. The grant funds will be used by the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force to upgrade outdated equipment. No City match is required. c. $12,709 - Internet Crimes Against Persons Grant - In 2012-2013, Police Services was the subrecipient of grant funds from the Internet Crimes Against Persons Grant (ICAC). The grant paid for investigator training and software to assist in ICAC investigations. This item is to appropriate grant revenue in the amount of $12,709. No City match is required. d. $20,000 - 2014 Northern Colorado Drug Task Force Reserve Request - Fort Collins Police Services is the fiduciary agency for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force. The multi-agency task force is a collaborative effort staffed by Fort Collins and Loveland law enforcement personnel. The budget for the task force was appropriated early in 2014. Since then, a computer server had to be replaced. This item appropriates money from the Task Force reserve the money to cover the expense. e. $2,600 - K-9 Donation - In 2014, a generous Fort Collins resident donated $2,600 to the Police K-9 program. City policy requires the donation be appropriated via this ordinance for transparency purposes. The money was used for handler travel and training to pick up a new K-9 that was purchased late in 2013. f. $172,839 - Police Overtime and Straight Time Reimbursement - In 2014, Police Services received reimbursement from various entities for overtime expenses. The different activities include: CSU football traffic control, Tour De Fat, Brew Fest, New West Fest, regional auto theft case investigations, Poudre School District school board meetings, MAX implementation, and noise ordinance violation workshops. Additionally, in 2014 FCPS partnered with Larimer County to staff events at The Ranch. Police receives reimbursement from Larimer County for officer hours worked at Ranch events. Packet Pg. 18 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 4 Additionally, Police Services implemented a new CAD system in conjunction with Larimer County where a significant amount of overtime was incurred to install the system, troubleshoot problems and train staff. g. $52,529 - Poudre Valley Hospital Dispatch Contract Revenue - In the beginning of 2013, Fort Collins Police Services renegotiated the contract for providing dispatching services for Poudre Valley Health Systems. This resulted in more revenue than was originally projected for 2014. In addition, the hospital reimbursed Police Services for a dispatch console that was replaced as part of the 800 MHz project late in 2013. h. $35,171 - Police Report Fees - Police reports purchased by the public and insurance agencies generate revenue of approximately $7.50 a report. For 2014, it is estimated that $35,170 will be collected. The revenue from this fee is used to subsidize the cost of copy machine rental expenses. i. $90,997 - Vehicle Loss Reimbursement - In 2013, Police vehicles were damaged in motor vehicle collisions. The cost recovered by insurance claims is used to offset the cost of repair and replace totaled vehicles. j. $3,290 - Miscellaneous Vendor Refunds - Police Services received $3,290 from miscellaneous sources for the reimbursement of lost employee gate FOB's, cancelled training, and other vendor refunds. The reimbursement of funds goes to offset the cost of the original items/services purchased and subsequently returned/cancelled. k. $3,250 - SWAT Training Fees - In 2014, the Fort Collins Police SWAT team hosted training for other agencies and charged attendees a fee. Fort Collins Police Services is proudly the home of nationally recognized trainers who are experts in their field. By hosting training, revenue is generated for the SWAT program and FCPS SWAT members get to train without incurring travel expenses. The registration revenue offsets the cost of the training materials for the class. l. $90,424 - Sale of Retired 800 MHz Radio Equipment - In early 2013, Police Services replaced portable and mobile radios. Police sold the old radios to Jefferson County for $78,600. Also in 2014, other City departments purchased equipment for Transit Officers. This revenue will be used to offset the cost of new computer and communications equipment. m. $15,000 - Sale of Traffic Unit Motorcycles to Larimer County Sheriff's Office - The revenue received from Larimer County needs to be returned to the Camera Radar fund since the original purchase came from that account. New motorcycles were purchased in 2014 and this revenue will offset the cost of the new units and equipment. n. $6,988 - 2014 Seatbelt Grant - In 2014, Fort Collins Police received a grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation for two waves of Seatbelt Grant Enforcement. The grant paid for officers to work overtime to conduct enforcement activities. o. $11,597 - DUI Enforcement Grant - In 2014, Fort Collins Police received $11,597 in grant funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement. No City match is required. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $463,220 FROM: Prior Year Reserves - No. Colorado Drug Task Force $20,000 FROM: Prior Year Reserves - Police CAD $31,680 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (High Intensity Drug Traffic Grant) $38,870 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Internet Crimes Against Persons Grant) $12,709 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $11,597 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $6,988 FOR: Police Services $514,900 FOR: High Intensity Drug Traffic Grant $38,870 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 5 FOR: Internet Crimes Against Persons Grant $12,709 FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $11,597 FOR: Seatbelt Grant $6,988 2. The Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS) department has received revenue from various sources which needs to be appropriated to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these items follows: a. $3,000 - National Alliance for Preservation Conference Grant - Request for an appropriation of $1,500 in Certified Local Government (CLG) funding and $1,500 of matching grant funds from existing City of Fort Collins appropriations. The $1,500 City match was previously appropriated, but per the City Charter the transfer of these funds to a grant project must be authorized by City Council. The grant awarded authorized sending two Landmark Preservation Commission members to this national conference in Philadelphia for training and education. A requirement of retaining CLG funding is continual education for commission members. b. $62,000 - CDNS Development Hourly and Overtime Reimbursement - This is a request for hourly and overtime expenses that have been and are expected to be incurred throughout this year in an effort to keep up with current Development Review and inspection service levels. The department covered as much as possible through existing personal services budgets but anticipate needing an additional $62,000 to fully cover additional expenses incurred. Development Review revenues that have come in over projections (in excess of $1M as of August 31, 2014) are the suggested funding source. c. $19,800 - Loomis Addition Grant - This request is for an appropriation of $9,900 in Certified Local Government (CLG) funding and $9,900 of matching grant funds from existing City of Fort Collins appropriations. The $9,900 City match was previously appropriated, but per the City Charter the transfer of these funds to a grant project must be authorized by City Council. The grant authorized the hiring of a professional consultant to develop a historic context for the Westside's Loomis Addition. This context development is the prelude to a historic property survey. d. $63,785 - Paramount Cottage III Grant - Request for an appropriation of $27,109 in Certified Local Government (CLG) funding, $26,676 of matching grant funds from the owner and $10,000 of matching grant funds from existing City of Fort Collins appropriations. The $10,000 City match was previously appropriated, but per the City Charter the transfer of these funds to a grant project must be authorized by City Council. The grant awarded authorized the final phase of rehabilitation of the Paramount Cottage Camp located at 1544 West Oak Street. e. $6,528 - Restorative Justice Accountability Incentive Block Grant - This is an appropriation request for $6,528 in grant funding from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. No City match was required. The grant funds were awarded to Restorative Justice Services (RJS) to purchase the equipment and supplies needed to establish the processes and procedures for administering a new screening tool and making appropriate referrals for youth referred to RJS from the DAs Office. The implementation of this screening tool is intended to assure youth will receive the mental health and substance abuse help they need to deal with issues that likely underlie their criminal behavior. It is our hope that this support will help youth stay out of the justice system and lead productive lives. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous CDNS) $88,676 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (National Alliance Preservation Grant) $1,500 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Loomis Addition Grant) $9,900 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Paramount Cottage III Grant) $27,109 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Restorative Justice Grant) $6,528 FROM: Transfer from Existing Operating Budgets $21,400 FOR: CDNS Hourly and Overtime Reimbursement $62,000 FOR: National Alliance Grant $3,000 FOR: Loomis Addition Grant $19,800 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 6 FOR: Paramount Cottage III Grant $63,785 FOR: Restorative Justice Accountability Incentive Block Grant $6,528 3. Operation Services is requesting to complete the Arthur ditch rehabilitation project at the Mulberry Pool site. Previously, $500,000 was appropriated based on initial design and construction estimates. However, after completion of the final design, it was determined that an additional $200,000 was necessary to complete the project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $200,000 FOR: Arthur Ditch Rehabilitation Project $200,000 4. Operations Services is requesting to appropriate $60,000 to perform minor building renovations including an ADA restroom and some HVAC replacements at the Carnegie building (old museum) located at 220 Mathews. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $60,000 FOR: Carnegie Building Renovations $60,000 5. This request is to appropriate $100,000 to upgrade to LED lighting fixtures at the following facilities: Senior Center Gym, Northside Atzlan Center Gym and Parking Lot, 215 Mason Parking Lot, and Gardens at Spring Creek Parking Lot. Operation Services anticipates to complete all upgrades before the close of 2014. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $100,000 FOR: LED Light Fixture Upgrades $100,000 6. The Forestry Department request to appropriate unanticipated revenue from reimbursement claims for damages to trees caused by accidents. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $3,514 FOR: Forestry Maintenance $3,514 7. The Parks department is requesting the appropriation of $25,000 that was donated by Blue Ocean Enterprises / Richardson Foundation to the 4th of July celebration. This request appropriates these funds for this specified purpose. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $25,000 FOR: 4th of July Expenses $25,000 8. This is a request to appropriate $1,800 to help fund the acquisition of portable ramps in a joint effort with the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The City and DDA have been asked by a number of Fort Collins residents to help find a solution to afford disabled access to businesses in the Old Town Historic District. Although front door wheelchair access to many of the historic buildings within the District is not required by federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act) or City land use code, there is a desire to make the downtown businesses more accessible to people in wheelchairs. Business owners will voluntarily pay $75 for a ramp, remote doorbell and accessibility sticker, the City and DDA will split the remaining costs and delivery fee. Ramps will be portable and each business will be able to deploy a ramp when needed and store it discreetly when not in use. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $1,800 FOR: Portable Downtown Ramps Acquisition $1,800 9. The Social Sustainability department requests the appropriation of $51,086 to cover expenses related to Land Bank property maintenance needs for 2014. As expenses vary from year-to-year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs. This Land Bank reserve request will cover the Packet Pg. 21 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 7 expenses for 2014 including general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, and property appraisals. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank Reserve) $51,086 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $51,086 10. The Fort Collins Convention Center and Visitor's Bureau (FCCVB) has been awarded an $87,764 grant from the Colorado Welcome Center through the State of Colorado. These funds will be disbursed by the State of Colorado and directed through the City of Fort Collins, pursuant to State of Colorado requirements, then paid to the FCCVB. The grant period will run from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $87,764 FOR: Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $87,764 11. Economic Development requests the appropriation of $344,060 to cover payment of rebates made in 2014. In accordance with Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebates were paid out in March 2014 for the 2012 rebate program. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local manufacturing firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $344,060 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $344,060 12. Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung cancer risk from in-home radon exposure. This appropriation would recover kit sales revenue for the purpose of restocking radon test kits. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $4,146 FOR: Radon Test Kits $4,146 13. The Gardens requests appropriations of unanticipated revenues resulting from increased programs and popularity of the Gardens. Appropriations are needed for the additional cost of expanded programs and needed improvements at the gardens. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $40,500 FOR: Gardens on Spring Creek Programs and Operations $40,500 B. CAPITAL EXPANSION FUND 1. This item appropriates administrative fee revenue earned in the Capital Expansion Fund for transfer to the General Fund. The 2014 Budget appropriated $39,000 in administrative fees and through August over $65,000 has actually been received. Development review revenues are currently higher than 2013 year- end actual revenues when the actual 2013 administrative fee revenue was over $80,000. Staff is requesting the appropriation of an additional $60,000 of unanticipated revenue to enable the full amount of administrative fees received in 2014 to be transferred to the General Fund. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Administrative Fees) $60,000 FOR: Transfer to the General Fund $60,000 C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. As part of the Harmony Road and Shields Street Intersection Improvements Project, funds were received from the Fort Collins Loveland Water District for necessary waterline improvements. This project has been completed and the contributed funds are needed to cover the remaining expenses. Packet Pg. 22 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 8 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions in Aid) $63,590 FOR: Harmony & Shields Intersection Improv. Project $63,590 2. As part of the Linden Street Streetscape Improvements Project, funds have been received from the developer as a repay agreement for construction of local street improvements adjacent to their development. The address of the developers contributing to the project is 350 Linden and the amount contributed is $21,654. This project has been completed and the contributed funds are needed to cover the remaining expenses. . FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $21,654 FOR: Linden Street Improvements Project $21,654 3. As part of the Willow Street River District Improvements Project, funds have been received from developers as payment to construct the local street improvements adjacent to their development project. The addresses or names of the developers contributing to the projects are 405 Linden ($9,833), Feeder Supply ($96,928), Wolverine Farm Letterpress & Public House ($13,310), and Willow Street Lofts ($2,689). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Developer Contribution) $122,760 FOR: Willow Street River District Enhancements Project $122,760 4. Ridgeview Classical School has paid the City of Ft. Collins for the future installation of sidewalk along Welch Street in front of the school. The project is currently planned for late summer or early fall of 2015 pending any unforeseen circumstances. This item appropriates the revenue to fund the project. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Developer Charges) $3,375 FOR: BOB-Pedestrian Plan & ADA Improvements Project $3,375 5. Savings from operating budgets were identified at the end of 2013 in the Transportation Services Fund and deposited in the Capital Projects Fund. These savings are requested for appropriation to partially cover charges identified by the FTA as ineligible for reimbursement by the Federal grant for the MAX project. It is expected that at the close of the project, City matching funds will be available to provide for any expenses deemed ineligible. This appropriation ensures there are additional funds available if needed. If they are not needed, they will be returned to the Transportation Services Fund. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from Transportation) $110,846 FOR: MAX Ineligible Project Expenses $110,846 6. City residents approved a 0.25 cent tax to be used to finance projects identified in the Building Community Choices - Natural Areas and Park Improvement Capital Improvement Plan that went into effect on January 1, 1998, and expired on December 31, 2005. Per Ordinance No. 29, 1997 “Any excess revenues generated by the tax shall be used for natural areas and trails.” All projects in the plan have been completed and this item transfers the remaining interest earnings from the Capital Projects Fund to the Natural Areas Fund. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Interest) $125,474 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $125,474 7. This item appropriates unanticipated revenue received for park construction projects. The City received unanticipated revenue from Larimer County Park Development Fees related to 2013 development that were received in 2014. This revenue will be applied towards the construction of the Southeast Community Park. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Development Fees) $33,598 FOR: Southeast Community Park Project $33,598 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 9 D. CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 1. Due to increases in constructions costs in northern Colorado over the last two years, two trail projects are over initial budget estimates. The Trilby Underpass was estimated to cost $900,000, but actual costs are $1,300,000 (increase of $400,000). The Poudre Trail at Lemay and Mulberry Project was originally estimated to be $900,000, but is now estimated to be $1,200,000 (increase of $300,000). The Conservation Trust Fund has approximately $1,000,000 in reserves. This item requests appropriating $510,000 of reserves and $190,000 of unanticipated revenue for these projects and to cover these additional construction costs. . FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Lottery Proceeds) $190,000 FROM: Prior Year Reserves $510,000 FOR: Trail Acquisition and Development (Trilby Underpass, Poudre Trail) $700,000 2. This item transfers unused appropriations in the Conservation Trust Open Space Acquisitions Project, Fossil Creek Trail Project and Tri-City Trail Project to the Trail Acquisition /Development Project. The Open Space Acquisitions Project will be closed at year end. Transferred funds in the Trail Acquisition and Development Project will be used to cover unanticipated design and construction expenses for the Poudre Trail Project. FROM: Open Space Acquisitions Project unused appropriation $57,461 FROM: Fossil Creek Trail Project unused appropriation $90,000 FROM: Tri-City Trails Project unused appropriation $380,000 FOR: Trail Acquisition and Development Project $527,461 E. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 1. This item appropriates $31,411 for two Art in Public Places (APP) projects: the Transformer Cabinet Project in the Light & Power Fund ($3,982) and the Pianos About Town Project in the Cultural Services Fund ($27,429). Funding has been received from the Bohemian Companies - $38,492, Downtown Development Authority - $8,000, and Downtown Business Association - $2,900. This revenue was also for the administration of the projects ($17,981), but additional administration appropriations are not needed in 2014. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions - Cultural Services & Facilities Fund) $27,429 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions-Light & Power Fund) $ 3,982 FOR: Art in Public Places Project (Cultural Services & Facilities Fund) $27,429 FOR: Art in Public Places Project (Light & Power Fund) $ 3,982 2. The Downtown Fort Collins Creative District was accepted as a Candidate District into the Colorado Creative Districts Program. Creative districts are accepted into this program as "candidates" and work toward certification for two years. This incubator-style program offers Candidate Creative Districts benefits in the form of direct funding and professional assistance, training, and networking with peers. Candidate districts can apply for certification at the end of two years. Each candidate district is awarded a $5,000 grant from both the Colorado Creative Industries and the Boettcher Foundation. This item appropriates the $10,000 in grant revenue for the District expenses. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $10,000 FOR: Downtown Creative District $10,000 3. The Museum Fund was created in 2013 to segregate the City’s revenue and expenditures for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery which opened in November 2012. Final Museum revenue, expenditures, and reserve balances were determined at the end of 2013. This appropriates the Museum reserves from: Donations ($46,079), BOB Operations ($559,346), and Unassigned ($414,368), for a total of $1,019,793 for transfer from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to the Museum Fund. Packet Pg. 24 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 10 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Cultural Services & Facilities Fund) $1,019,793 FOR: Transfer to the Museum Fund $1,019,793 F. GOLF FUND 1. This item is to appropriate unanticipated revenue in the Golf Fund from restructured golf concessionaire contracts. Through the restructuring, additional revenue came into the City, but a portion of that revenue needs to be paid to the Golf Pro concessionaires. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Golf Fees) $98,000 FOR: Golf Expenses $98,000 G. KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND 1. Following approval of the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement and Revenue Allocation Formula on July 15, 2014, it was decided that PFA would participate in the City's Annual Year-End Adjustment Ordinance at the end of each year to appropriate the remaining KFCG balance from the end of the prior year. Therefore, Poudre Fire Authority requests the balance in the City's KFCG reserve fund dedicated to fire protection and other emergency services. These funds are requested to purchase fire apparatus in 2015. FROM: Prior Year Reserves - Fire Reserve $215,096 FOR: Poudre Fire Authority Operations $215,096 H. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 1. The 2013 appropriation which funded the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) was based on a preliminary implementation scope and assumed that the mapping interface would be handled after the initial implementation. As the work on CMMS has proceeded, the system requirements grew and it became clear that the mapping interface should be an integral part of the initial implementation. These changes have resulted in a more comprehensive CMMS implementation, however, they have impacted the projected project cost. In order to realize all of the benefits associated with the full implementation of CMMS along with the GIS interface an additional appropriation is being requested for 2014. It is expected that the additional $400,000 appropriation, consisting of $100,000 from each of the four utility Enterprise Funds, will complete the implementation in the Water Field Operations area and the GIS connections, and result in a projected savings of at least $200,000 from less consulting for the on-going asset management program with the Utilities Customer Service and Administration Fund in 2014. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 I. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. The sales and use tax revenue received in 2013 was higher than projected and the existing appropriations were not adequate to make the full transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax. (See Sales & Use Tax Fund Item #1) This item appropriates additional funds in the amount of $492,596 transferred from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund for Land Conservation expenses. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer In) $492,596 FOR: Natural Areas Expenses $492,596 2. City residents approved a 0.25 cent tax to be used to finance projects identified in the Building Community Choices - Natural Areas and Park Improvement Capital Improvement Plan that went into effect on January 1, 1998, and expired on December 31, 2005. (See Capital Project Fund item #6) This item appropriates Packet Pg. 25 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 11 the transfer from the Capital Projects Fund into the Natural Areas Fund for trail expenses. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer In) $125,474 FOR: Natural Areas Trails Expense $125,474 J. RECREATION FUND 1. Adult Fitness and Child Development programs at the North Aztlan Center have seen a significant participation increase in 2014. An increase in demand for the number of programs offered results in increased cost, off-set by revenue generated by registrations and drop-in fees. FROM Unanticipated Revenue $27,242 FOR: Recreation Programs $27,242 K. SALES AND USE TAX FUND 1. The sales and use tax revenue received in 2013 was higher than projected and the existing appropriations were not adequate to make the full transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax, and to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax. Adjustments to the General Fund, the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund and the Transportation Services Fund are not needed because the tax revenues are recorded directly into those funds. This item appropriates additional funds in the amount of $985,192 from prior year reserves to increase the transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics tax by $492,596, and to increase the transfer to the Natural Areas Fund for the Natural Areas tax by $492,596. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $985,192 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $492,596 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $492,596 L. STORMWATER FUND 1. This item appropriates 1% of the West Vine Channel Outfall project in the amount of $6,125 for Art in Public Places. The total capital project was appropriated in November, 2013 Ordinance No. 156 but did not include the Art in Public Places appropriation. Of the $6,125, 78% remains in the Stormwater Fund for the artwork ($4,778) and 22% is transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for operations ($1,225) and for maintenance ($122). This is funded from the Stormwater Fund Reserves. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $6,125 FOR: Art in Public Places Project - Stormwater Fund $4,778 FOR: APP Project - Transfer to Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $1,347 2. The 2013 appropriation which funded the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) was based on a preliminary implementation scope and assumed that the mapping interface would be handled after the initial implementation. As the work on CMMS has proceeded, the system requirements grew and it became clear that the mapping interface should be an integral part of the initial implementation. These changes have resulted in a more comprehensive CMMS implementation, however, they have impacted the projected project cost. In order to realize all of the benefits associated with the full implementation of CMMS along with the GIS interface an additional appropriation is being requested for 2014. It is expected that the additional $400,000 appropriation, consisting of $100,000 from each of the four utility Enterprise Funds, will complete the implementation in the Water Field Operations area and the GIS connections, and result in a projected savings of at least $200,000 from less consulting for the on-going asset management program with the Utilities Customer Service and Administration Fund in 2014. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 12 M. TIMBERLINE/PROSPECT SID #94 FUND 1. The SID was established in 2007 and payments are being made over 10 years. The City bills annually and forwards payments to a developer who fronted initial capital for the improvements. In 2014 revenues exceeded projects due to early payoffs made by property owners thus an appropriation is needed to forward payment to the developer FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $60,048 FOR: Timberline/Prospect SID #94 Expenses $60,048 N. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND 1. The City of Fort Collins has entered into agreements with each of its three Transportation Management Area (TMA) partners (Loveland, Berthoud, & the NFRMPO) to transfer local funds to the partners in exchange for the partner's allocation of federal formula funding. These agreements are specific to Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2013 FTA Section 5307 and Section 5339 formula grants. This request for additional appropriations to match the sum of the agreed-upon local funds exchange is fully funded with additional federal funding. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $657,531 FOR: Pass-Thru Funding to Transportation Management Area $657,531 O. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. FC Moves was awarded a $10,667 grant from The Denver Foundation (Kaiser Permanente) for the Fort Collins Walk and Wheel Demonstration Project. This funding will be used to design and implement a temporary protected bike lane demonstration project in 2015. Project site selection and planning will occur in late 2014. Funding will also be used for project evaluation to help inform future bikeway design across the City. This item appropriates the funds that have been received by the City. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contribution) $10,667 FOR: FC Moves Program $10,667 P. WASTEWATER FUND 1. The 2013 appropriation which funded the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) was based on a preliminary implementation scope and assumed that the mapping interface would be handled after the initial implementation. As the work on CMMS has proceeded, the system requirements grew and it became clear that the mapping interface should be an integral part of the initial implementation. These changes have resulted in a more comprehensive CMMS implementation, however, they have impacted the projected project cost. In order to realize all of the benefits associated with the full implementation of CMMS along with the GIS interface an additional appropriation is being requested for 2014. It is expected that the additional $400,000 appropriation, consisting of $100,000 from each of the four utility Enterprise Funds, will complete the implementation in the Water Field Operations area and the GIS connections, and result in a projected savings of at least $200,000 from less consulting for the on-going asset management program with the Utilities Customer Service and Administration Fund in 2014. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 Q. WATER FUND 1. The 2013 appropriation which funded the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) was based on a preliminary implementation scope and assumed that the mapping interface would be handled after the initial implementation. As the work on CMMS has proceeded, the system requirements grew and Packet Pg. 27 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 13 it became clear that the mapping interface should be an integral part of the initial implementation. These changes have resulted in a more comprehensive CMMS implementation, however, they have impacted the projected project cost. In order to realize all of the benefits associated with the full implementation of CMMS along with the GIS interface an additional appropriation is being requested for 2014. It is expected that the additional $400,000 appropriation, consisting of $100,000 from each of the four utility Enterprise Funds, will complete the implementation in the Water Field Operations area and the GIS connections, and result in a projected savings of at least $200,000 from less consulting for the on-going asset management program with the Utilities Customer Service and Administration Fund in 2014. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Benefits Fund for Unanticipated Expenditure Increases. Medical claims grew approximately 6% a year from 2009 through 2012. In 2013, claims increased 9% over 2012. In looking at the first eight months of 2014, the growth in medical claims is trending toward another increase of 9% or more, compared to 2013. Claims expenditures are anticipated to exceed budgeted appropriations by $1.3M Additional appropriations are also needed to cover unanticipated increases in other employee benefits, including Long-Term Disability, Life Insurance premiums, FPPA premiums and increased participation by employees in Flex Spending accounts (medical & daycare). An additional appropriation of approximately $1,850K is requested from reserves in the Benefits Fund. The Benefits Fund ended 2013 with a balance of $10.5M, above the targeted minimum balance of $6M. Similar to the Transportation Fund, if the additional appropriations requested are not expended, it will accrue to the Benefits Fund reserves. FROM: Prior Years Reserves $1,850,000 FOR: Benefit Fund Expenses $1,850,000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund to be Used to Cover Snow Removal Expenses. The budget for snow removal is based on the historical average annual cost of snow removal which is $1.5M. A contributing factor to the shortfall in 2014 is the 2013 calendar year snow and ice season. Deicing product was purchased in 2013 for the 2013-2014 snow season. The supply was depleted due to the severity and number of storms in winter 2013. The first quarter of 2014 was an above average snow season and many of the storms were multi-day and/or weekend events which added to the total cost of snow removal. The entire snow removal budget of $1.3M for 2014 has been spent. As is anticipated in heavy snow years, additional funding is being requested within the Annual Year-End Adjustment Ordinance using existing Transportation Fund reserves. The Transportation Fund ended 2013 with a balance of $15M of which $5.1M is available for additional costs such as this. If there are remaining funds, they will return to the Transportation Fund reserves. FROM: Prior Years Reserves $800,000 FOR: Snow removal in the Transportation Fund $800,000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Self-Insurance Fund for Insurance Expenses. Packet Pg. 28 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 14 Workers Compensation claims and Property Liability claims are budgeted based on the average claims over the past several years. As the attached charts illustrate, claims vary significantly from year to year. Property and Liability payments year to date of $322K compare to a full year budget of $450K. Because of several events during the year, Staff anticipates total payments will be approximately $596K and exceed budget by $274K. Property & Liability claims are expected to exceed budget driven by: $195K loss on two large dump trucks that were totaled in 2014 $150K from oil & gas litigation costs that were not included in the budget $70K loss from two police vehicles that were totaled in 2014 Workers Compensation payments year to date are essentially at the full year budget of $750K. The average annual payment over the past 5 years is $733k. Forecasting claims payments is difficult, as illustrated by $447K of the year to date payments are for claims from prior years and the historical volatility in annual payments. Staff anticipates total payments for workers compensation will be approximately $1,122K and exceed budget by $336K. The Self Insurance Fund ended 2013 with a $3.6M fund balance of which $2.8M is surplus. Additional funding of approximately $610K will be requested from the Self Insurance Fund and if not expended will be returned at year end. FROM: Prior Years Reserves $610,000 FOR: Workers Compensation $336,000 FOR: Property and Liability $274,000 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Ordinance No. 140, 2014, increases total City 2014 appropriations by $7,017,119. Of that amount, this Ordinance increases General Fund 2014 appropriations by $1,636,647 including the use of $446,826 in prior year reserves. Funding for the total City appropriations is $2,705,171 from additional revenue, $3,583,032 from prior year reserves, and $728,916 transferred from other funds. In addition, $21,400 is being transferred from an operating budget to a grant project and another $527,461 is being transferred from one project to another project. These transfers, however, do not increase overall City appropriations. Ordinance No. 141, 2014, increases Benefits Fund 2014 appropriations by $1,850,000. That amount is coming solely from Benefit Fund reserves. Ordinance No. 142, 2014, increases Transportation Fund 2014 appropriations by $800,000. That amount is coming solely from Transportation Fund reserves. Ordinance No. 143, 2014, increases Self Insurance Fund 2014 appropriations by $610,000. That amount is coming solely from Self Insurance Fund reserves. The table below is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves. Item # Fund Use Amount Citywide (Ordinance No. 140, 2014) A.1.d. General 2014 Northern Colorado Drug Task Force Reserve Request 20,000 A.1.f. General Overtime & Straight Time Reimbursement 31,680 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 15 A.9. General Land Bank Property Maintenance 51,086 A.11. General Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $344,060 D.1. Conservation Trust Appropriation of Reserves and Unanticipated Conservation Trust Revenue for Trail Construction 510,000 E.3. Cultural Services Transfer of Museum Reserves to Museum Fund 1,019,793 G.1. KFCG - Fire Poudre Fire Authority 215,096 H.1. Light and Power CMMS Maintenance Management 100,000 K.1. Sales & Use Tax Transfer to BOB & Natural Areas 985,192 L.1. Stormwater West Vine Channel Outfall project APP 6,125 L.2. Stormwater CMMS Maintenance Management 100,000 P.1. Wastewater CMMS Maintenance Management 100,000 Q.1. Water CMMS Maintenance Management 100,000 Benefits Ordinance (Ordinance No. 141, 2014) Benefits Unanticipated Benefit Expenditure Increases $1,850,000 Transportation (Ordinance No. 142, 2014) Transportation Snow Removal 800,000 Self Insurance (Ordinance No. 143, 2014) Self Insurance Workers Compensation and Property Liability Claims 610,000 Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $6,843,032 * The table above includes all Ordinances for this Agenda Item Summary If these transfers and appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce budgetary expenditures even though adequate revenue and reimbursements are actually available to cover those expenditures. ATTACHMENTS 1. Graphs depicting Workers Compensation and Property & Liability Claim Payments (PDF) Packet Pg. 30 Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS BETWEEN FUNDS OR PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City has prior year reserves, excess revenue, and unanticipated revenue available to appropriate; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b) of the City Charter, any expense or liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter also permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide for the expenditures listed below and the City Manager recommends that these expenditures be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following funds are hereby authorized for transfer and appropriated for expenditure for the purposes stated below: A. GENERAL FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $463,220 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves - No. Colorado Drug Task Force $20,000 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves - Police CAD $31,680 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (High Intensity Drug Traffic Grant) $38,870 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Internet Crimes Against Persons Grant) $12,709 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 2 - APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $11,597 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $6,988 FOR: Police Services $514,900 FOR: High Intensity Drug Traffic Grant $38,870 FOR: Internet Crimes Against Persons Grant $12,709 FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $11,597 FOR: Seatbelt Grant $6,988 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous CDNS) $88,676 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (National Alliance Preservation Grant) $1,500 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Loomis Addition Grant) $9,900 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Paramount Cottage III Grant) $27,109 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Restorative Justice Grant) $6,528 FROM: Transfer from Existing Operating Budgets $21,400 FOR: CDNS Hourly and Overtime Reimbursement $62,000 FOR: National Alliance Grant $3,000 FOR: Loomis Addition Grant $19,800 FOR: Paramount Cottage III Grant $63,785 FOR: Restorative Justice Accountability Incentive Block Grant $6,528 3. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $200,000 FOR: Arthur Ditch Rehabilitation Project $200,000 4. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $60,000 FOR: Carnegie Building Renovations $60,000 5. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $100,000 FOR: LED Light Fixture Upgrades $100,000 6. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $3,514 FOR: Forestry Maintenance $3,514 7. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $25,000 FOR: 4th of July Expenses $25,000 8. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $1,800 FOR: Portable Downtown Ramps Acquisition $1,800 9. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank Reserve) $51,086 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $51,086 10. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $87,764 FOR: Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $87,764 11. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $344,060 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $344,060 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 3 - 12. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $4,146 FOR: Radon Test Kits $4,146 13. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $40,500 FOR: Gardens on Spring Creek Programs and Operations $40,500 B. CAPITAL EXPANSION FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Administrative Fees) $60,000 FOR: Transfer to the General Fund $60,000 C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions in Aid) $63,590 FOR: Harmony & Shields Intersection Improvements Project $63,590 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $21,654 FOR: Linden Street Improvements Project $21,654 3. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Developer Contribution) $122,760 FOR: Willow Street River District Enhancements Project $122,760 4. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Developer Charges) $3,375 FOR: BOB-Pedestrian Plan & ADA Improvements Project $3,375 5. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfers from Transportation) $110,846 FOR: MAX Ineligible Project Expenses $110,846 6. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Interest) $125,474 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $125,474 7. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Development Fees) $33,598 FOR: Southeast Community Park Project $33,598 D. CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Lottery Proceeds) $190,000 APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $510,000 FOR: Trail Acquisition and Development (Trilby Underpass, Poudre Trail) $700,000 2. FROM: Open Space Acquisitions Project unused appropriation $57,461 FROM: Fossil Creek Trail Project unused appropriation $90,000 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 4 - FROM: Tri-City Trails Project unused appropriation $380,000 FOR: Trail Acquisition and Development Project $527,461 E. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions-Cultural Services & Facilities Fund) $27,429 APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions-Light & Power Fund) $3,982 FOR: Art in Public Places (Cultural Services & Facilities Fund) $27,429 FOR: Art in Public Places (Light & Power Fund) $3,982 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $10,000 FOR: Downtown Creative District $10,000 3. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Cultural Services & Facilities Fund) $1,019,793 FOR: Transfer to the Museum Fund $1,019,793 F. GOLF FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Golf Fees) $98,000 FOR: Golf Expenses $98,000 G. KFCG 1. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Fire Services) $215,096 FOR: Poudre Fire Authority $215,096 H. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 I. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer In) $492,596 FOR: Natural Areas Expenses $492,596 2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer In) $125,474 FOR: Natural Areas Trails Expense $125,474 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 5 - J. RECREATION FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fees) $27,242 FOR: Recreation Programs $27,242 K. SALES AND USE TAX FUND 1. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $985,192 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $492,596 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $492,596 L. STORMWATER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $6,125 FOR: Art in Public Places Project - Stormwater Fund $4,778 FOR: APP Project - Transfer to Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $1,347 2. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 M. TIMBERLINE/PROSPECT SID #94 FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $60,048 FOR: Timberline/Prospect SID #94 Expenses $60,048 N. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants $657,531 FOR: Pass-Thru Funding to Transportation Management Area $657,531 O. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contribution) $10,667 FOR: FC Moves Program $10,667 P. WASTEWATER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 6 - Q. WATER FUND 1. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $100,000 FOR: CMMS Maintenance Management $100,000 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 36 Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 140, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE BENEFITS FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURE INCREASES WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, through the Benefits Fund, provides employees with a full flexible benefit package including choices in insurance plans for health, life, vision, dental, long-term disability, and accidental death and dismemberment insurance; health care and dependent care reimbursement accounts; employee assistance program; and other employee benefits; and WHEREAS, the City is self-insured for employee health care benefits, collecting revenues associated with providing medical, dental, and employee-paid vision benefits to employees and budgets for the payment of all medical insurance claims, including administration costs for claims processing; and WHEREAS, the City’s Benefits Fund is sufficiently funded to cover claims and administration costs, and adequate reserves are maintained for use in the event that fund expenditures exceed the revenues received in the fund; and WHEREAS, staff projects the need for additional appropriations, totaling $1.85 million, to cover unanticipated expenditure increases for employee benefits, including medical claims, flex spending reimbursements, long-term disability, life insurance premiums and Fire & Police Pension Association (“FPPA”) contributions; and WHEREAS, an appropriation of $1,850,000 from prior year reserves within the Benefits Fund will still leave a reserve balance above the targeted minimum balance of $6 million; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Benefits Fund the sum of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,850,000) for unanticipated Benefits Fund expenditures. Packet Pg. 37 Attachment2.3: Ordinance No. 141, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 2 - Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 38 Attachment2.3: Ordinance No. 141, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND TO BE USED TO COVER SNOW REMOVAL EXPENSES WHEREAS, the Transportation Services Fund budgets for snow removal expenses based on the historical average annual cost; and WHEREAS, due to the number and severity of winter storms in 2013 and the above average snow season in the first quarter of 2014, the entire 2014 snow removal budget has been spent; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $800,000 are requested from Transportation Services Fund prior year reserves for snow removal costs for the remainder of 2014 and any unspent appropriations at the end of the year will be returned to reserves; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Services Fund has $15 million in reserves at year-end 2013 and $5.1 million of the total is available for additional costs such as snow removal; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Transportation Services Fund the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($800,000) for snow removal expenditures. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 39 Attachment2.4: Ordinance No. 142, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 2 - Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 40 Attachment2.4: Ordinance No. 142, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 143, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE SELF INSURANCE FUND FOR INSURANCE EXPENSES WHEREAS, property, liability and workers compensation claims are budgeted based on average claims over the past several years; and WHEREAS, City staff anticipates total property and liability payments for 2014 to be approximately $596,000, which is $274,000 over and above the 2014 budget for these payments; and WHEREAS, staff also anticipates total payments for workers compensation for 2014 to be $1.12M, which is approximately $336,000 over and above the 2014 budget for these payments; and WHEREAS, the request of $610,000 from prior years reserves in the Self Insurance Fund will fund the unforeseen expenditures from both the workers compensation and property and liability claims; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of SIX HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($610,000) to fund property, liability, and workers compensation payments for 2014. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 41 Attachment2.5: Ordinance No. 143, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) - 2 - Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 42 Attachment2.5: Ordinance No. 143, 2014 (2552 : SR 140-143 Year End Adjustment) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Carrie Daggett, Interim City Attorney SUBJECT Items Relating to Ethics Review Board Code Changes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2014, Amending Section 2-569 of the City Code Pertaining to Procedures of the Ethics Review Board. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2014, Amending Section 2-568(a) of the City Code Pertaining to Definitions Applicable to Ethical Rules of Conduct. The purpose of Ordinance No. 144, 2014 is to adopt revisions to the City Code to simplify and expedite the process of initiating Ethics Review Board review of ethics complaints and to update provisions related to alternative composition of the Board in the event members of the Board are themselves the subject of a complaint. Ordinance No. 145, 2014 is intended to incorporate into the City Code the definitions related to conflicts of interest that are specified in the City Charter, and to add new definitions to assist in the interpretation and application of the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter and City Code. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 144, 2014 (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 145, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 43 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Carrie Daggett, Interim City Attorney SUBJECT Items Relating to Ethics Review Board Code Changes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2014, Amending Section 2-569 of the City Code Pertaining to Procedures of the Ethics Review Board. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2014, Amending Section 2-568(a) of the City Code Pertaining to Definitions Applicable to Ethical Rules of Conduct. The purpose of the first ordinance is to adopt revisions to the City Code to simplify and expedite the process of initiating Ethics Review Board review of ethics complaints and to update provisions related to alternative composition of the Board in the event members of the Board are themselves the subject of a complaint. The second ordinance is intended to incorporate into the City Code the definitions related to conflicts of interest that are specified in the City Charter, and to add new definitions to assist in the interpretation and application of the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter and City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Introduction The Ethics Review Board (the “Board”) met on June 11, 2014, to discuss possible amendments to City Code Sections 2-568 and 2-569. It met again on September 19, 2014, and voted to recommend to Council the amendments to Section 2-568 and 2-569 as set out in the proposed ordinances. Code Section 2-568 establishes certain “ethical rules of conduct” that apply to the City’s councilmembers, board and commission members, and employees. Subparagraph (a) of Section 2-568 defines several of the words and terms used in both Sections 2-568 and 2-569. Code Section 2-569 creates the Board and defines its duties and procedures in providing advisory opinions concerning conflicts of interest and other ethical matters that pertain to councilmembers and board and commission members that arise under the City’s Charter and Code and under state law. The Board does not hear complaints related to employees. Proposed Amendments A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2014, Amending Section 2-569 of the City Code Pertaining to Procedures of the Ethics Review Board. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment3.1: First Reading Agenda item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 The amendments proposed for Section 2-569 relate primarily to changing the Board’s procedures for considering an ethics complaint and how that process would be initiated: The proposed process would eliminate the currently required review of each complaint by the City Council prior to consideration by the Board. Instead, the City Clerk would notify the chairperson of the Board, the persons (Councilmembers or board and commission members) named in the complaint, and the City Council of the complaint. Then the Board would meet (after notice of at least three days to the complainant and subjects of the complaint, and after required public notice of the meeting) within ten days to determine whether to formally investigate the complaint, based on whether the allegations, if true, would constitute an ethics violation, the reliability and sufficiency of the supporting facts, and any other relevant facts or circumstances. If the Board determines that an investigation is not warranted, written notice of the determination and the Board’s reasoning for it would be provided to the complainant, the subjects of the complaint, and the City Council. If the Board determines that a formal investigation is warranted, the Board would proceed to review and investigate the complaint as in the past. Ordinance No. 144 also adds a clear statement of the Board’s power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of documents. It also provides for the appointment of an alternate Board in the event that members of the Board are the subject of an ethics complaint. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2014, Amending Section 2-568(a) of the City Code Pertaining to Definitions Applicable to Ethical Rules of Conduct. The amendments proposed for Section 2-568 add several new definitions to subparagraph (a) of the section. These new definitions will help clarify and facilitate the enforcement of the conflicts-of-interest provisions in Section 9 of Article IV of the City Charter. More specifically, they are intended to reduce the difficulty the Board and Council have experienced in the past in understanding and applying the term “personal interest” as it is used in Section 9(b)(3) of Charter Article IV. It is therefore also being proposed that Code Section 2-568 be amended to expressly provide that the new and existing definitions in Section 2-568(a) be applied to the conflicts-of-interest provisions in Section 9 of Charter Article IV. Personal Interest Section 9(b)(3) of Charter Article IV makes it a misdemeanor offense for any councilmember, board or commission member, or City employee to vote on, attempt to influence, or otherwise participate in any manner as a City official in any decision of any City body or office of which he or she is member or to which he or she makes recommendations if he or she, or a “relative”, has a “personal interest” in that decision. If convicted under Section 9(b)(3), the maximum penalties are a $2,650 fine or 180 days imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment. In addition, the convicted City official is deprived of his or her office or employment and is ineligible for any City office or employment for two years after conviction. “Personal interest” is defined in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV to mean “any interest . . . by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public.” The words and terms in this definition in bold that have created the difficulty in understanding and applying Section 9(b)(3). Consequently, it is for these words and terms that definitions have been proposed for adoption in Section 2-568(a). It should also be noted that two of the new definitions are terms used in the second of the three exceptions to a “personal interest” as set out in Section 9(a). This second exception excludes from the definition of “personal interest” the interest a City official, or his or her relative, “has in the receipt of public services when such services are generally provided by the City on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens.” Approach To Drafting Definitions Packet Pg. 45 Attachment3.1: First Reading Agenda item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 3 The approach that has been followed in drafting the proposed definitions has been to give the defined words and terms the meaning that the Colorado courts are likely to give them. Since the newly defined words and terms from the “personal interest” definition that are being proposed are words and terms used, but not defined, in the City Charter, the meaning given to them are hopefully consistent with how the Colorado courts would interpret and apply them. In other words, the proposed amendments define these words and terms in the “personal interest” definition in a way consistent with how the courts would likely define or use them. Recommended Definitions Based on the foregoing, the Board and the City Attorney’s Office are recommending the following new definitions be added to Code Section 2-568(a). (Because “public services” and “similarly situated citizens,” are the key terms used in the second exception to the “personal interest” definition, definitions for these terms have also been recommended.) • Benefit shall mean an advantage or gain. • Different in kind from that experienced by the general public shall mean of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. • Direct shall mean resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. • Detriment shall mean disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. • Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public’s benefit. • Similarly situated citizens shall mean citizens in like circumstances having comparable legal rights and obligations. • Substantial shall mean more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ethics Review Board minutes, June 11, 2014 (PDF) 2. Ethics Review Board minutes, September 9, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 46 Attachment3.1: First Reading Agenda item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 144, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-569 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, Section 2-569 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Ethics Review Board (the “Review Board”) and establishes the procedures under which the Review Board operates, including the process for considering and making advisory recommendations to the City Council regarding ethics complaints; and WHEREAS, the Review Board has met and discussed the process for initiating and considering complaints pursuant to Section 2-569, and has developed recommendations for modifying the process for initiating complaints to expedite and simplify the initial review to determine whether a Review Board investigation of the complaint is warranted, along with other process improvements; and WHEREAS, the Review Board discussed specific revisions to Section 2-569 at meetings on June 11, 2014, and September 19, 2014, and on both occasions recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendments to the City Code, as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council therefore finds and intends that these amendments be adopted to further the purposes of Section 9 and to facilitate the enforcement of its provisions and the provisions of the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2-569 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-569. Board of ethics. (a) In order to assist the Councilmembers and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board." (b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of the Review Board. (c) Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review Board shall be as follows: Packet Pg. 47 Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 144, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 2 - (1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Councilmembers or board and commission members by any person; (2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members; (3) After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected board or commission concerning the same; and (4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City. (d) Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Councilmember or board and commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board and commission members named in the complaint and the City Council. The complaint shall be promptly scheduled for consideration by the Review Board. No more than ten (10) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, the Review Board shall meet and consider the complaint. All Councilmembers or board and commission members named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, shall be given written notice of such meeting at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the following: (1) whether the allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethical rules; (2) the reliability and sufficiency of any facts asserted in support of the allegations; and (3) any other facts or circumstances that the Review Board may consider relevant. If the Review Board determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send Packet Pg. 48 Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 144, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 3 - written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to all Councilmembers or board or commission members named in the complaint, as well as the City Council. c. In the event that a complaint is filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection which alleges a violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate), such complaint shall not be referred to the regular Review Board for review but shall instead be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaint; provided, however, that if five (5) or more Councilmembers are named in the complaint, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards and commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven-member board. Said Board and commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the complaint is filed with the City Clerk. Any board and commission members selected by the City Clerk who elect not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven-member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in Subsections (b) and (e) of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. (2) City Council inquiries. Any Councilmember may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Councilmember or board and commission member. (e) In performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d) hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected Councilmembers or board and commission members an opportunity to Packet Pg. 49 Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 144, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 4 - present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, in the case of a complaint, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to city Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same. Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (f) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the review board. (g) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2- 568(c)(1)(g). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Councilmember or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 50 Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 144, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 5 - Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 51 Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 144, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-568(a) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO ETHICAL RULES OF CONDUCT WHEREAS, Section 2-568(a) of the City Code currently defines a number of words and terms as they are used in the ethical rules of conduct set out in Section 2-568(c) and as they are used in City Code Section 2-569, which establishes the Ethics Review Board (the “Review Board”) and sets out the procedures under which the Review Board operates; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the definitions contained in Section 2-568 of the City Code, the Review Board believes that several new definitions should be added to this Section to clarify the meaning of “personal interest” as this term is used in Section 9(a) of Article IV of the City Charter and in Section 2-569; and WHEREAS, the City Council therefore finds and intends that these new definitions be applied to and used in Section 9 of Article IV of the City Charter to further the purposes of Section 9 and to facilitate the enforcement of its provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2-568(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-568. Ethical rules of conduct. (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, Section 2-569 and in Section 9 of the Charter Article IV, shall have the following meanings: (1) Benefit shall mean an advantage or gain. (2) Board and commission member shall mean a member of any appointive board or commission of the City. (3) Confidential information or information received in confidence shall mean: a. Information contained in any writing that may properly be withheld from public inspection under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act and that is marked "confidential" when provided to the officer or employee; b. All information exchanged or discussed in any executive session properly convened under § 2-31 or 2-71 of the Code, except to the extent that such information is also contained in a public record available to the general public under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act; or Packet Pg. 52 Attachment3.3: Ordinance No. 145, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 2 - c. All communications between attorneys representing the City and officers or employees of the City that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, whether oral or written, unless the privilege has been waived. (4) Councilmember shall mean a member of the City Council. (5) Different in kind from that experienced by the general public shall mean of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. (6) Direct shall mean resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. (7) Detriment shall mean disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. (8) Financial interest shall have the meaning given to this term in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV, which states: Financial interest means any interest equated with money or its equivalent. Financial interest shall not include: a. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an employee of a business, or as a holder of an ownership interest in such business, in a decision of any public body, when the decision financially benefits or otherwise affects such business but entails no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to the officer, employee or relative; b. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a nonsalaried officer or member of a nonprofit corporation or association or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization in the holdings of such corporation, association or organization; c. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a recipient of public services when such services are generally provided by the city on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens, regardless of whether such recipient is an officer, employee or relative; d. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a recipient of a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business by a lending institution, in such lending institution; e. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a shareholder in a mutual or common investment fund in the holdings of such fund unless the shareholder actively participates in the management of such fund; Packet Pg. 53 Attachment3.3: Ordinance No. 145, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 3 - f. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a policyholder in an insurance company, a depositor in a duly established savings association or bank, or a similar interest-holder, unless the discretionary act of such person, as an officer or employee, could immediately, definitely and measurably affect the value of such policy, deposit or similar interest; g. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an owner of government-issued securities unless the discretionary act of such owner, as an officer or employee, could immediately, definitely and measurably affect the value of such securities; or h. the interest that an officer or employee has in the compensation received from the city for personal services provided to the city as an officer or employee. (9) Officer or employee shall mean any person holding a position by election, appointment or employment in the service of the City, whether part-time or full- time, including any member of the City Council and any member of any authority, board, committee or commission of the City, other than an authority that is: a. Established under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes; b. Governed by state statutory rules of ethical conduct; and c. Expressly exempted from the provisions of Article IV of the City Charter by ordinance of the City Council. (10) Personal interest shall have the meaning given to this term in Section 9(a) of the Charter Article IV, which states: Personal interest means any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Personal interest shall not include: a. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as a member of a board, commission, committee, or authority of another governmental entity or of a nonprofit corporation or association or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization; Packet Pg. 54 Attachment3.3: Ordinance No. 145, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 4 - b. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has in the receipt of public services when such services are generally provided by the city on the same terms and conditions to all similarly situated citizens; or c. the interest that an officer or employee has in the compensation, benefits, or terms and conditions of his or her employment with the city. (11) Public body shall have the meaning given to this term in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV, which states: Public body means the Council or any authority, board, committee, commission, service area, department or office of the city. (12) Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public’s benefit. (13) Relative shall have the meaning given to this word in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV, which states: Relative means the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by the officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in and sharing with the officer or employee the expenses of the household. (14) Similarly situated citizens shall mean citizens in like circumstances having comparable legal rights and obligations. (15) Substantial shall mean more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 55 Attachment3.3: Ordinance No. 145, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) - 5 - Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 56 Attachment3.3: Ordinance No. 145, 2014 (2559 : SR 144-145 Ethics Review Board) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to City Code Clarifications for Plant Investment Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2014, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees, Excess Water Surcharge Rates and Raw Water Requirements for Meters Larger Than Two Inches in Size. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2014, Amending Section 26-284 of the City Code to Clarify the Calculation of Infiltration and Inflow in Determining Sewer Plant Investment Fees. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, address several sections of Chapter 26 of the City Code relating to how plant investment fees are calculated and when the Excess Water Use Surcharge is applicable. These changes do not impact the amount charged for plant investment fees or the Excess Water Use Surcharge but rather seek to clarify the exact calculation of the fees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 147, 2014 (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 148, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 57 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to City Code Clarifications for Plant Investment Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2014, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees, Excess Water Surcharge Rates and Raw Water Requirements for Meters Larger Than Two Inches in Size. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2014, Amending Section 26-284 of the City Code to Clarify the Calculation of Infiltration and Inflow in Determining Sewer Plant Investment Fees. The purpose of this item is to address several sections of Chapter 26 of the City Code relating to how plant investment fees are calculated and when the Excess Water Use Surcharge is applicable. These changes do not impact the amount charged for plant investment fees or the Excess Water Use Surcharge but rather seek to clarify the exact calculation of the fees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of these ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A. Proposed Changes on Water Plant Investment Fees, Excess Water Use Surcharge Rates, and Raw Water Requirements for Meters Larger than Two Inches The current City Code Section 26-128 (5) paragraph (b) suggests that plant investment fees for water connections larger than two inches are negotiated with the Utilities Executive Director. Plant investment fees are not negotiated but rather determined by a cost allocation method. The plant investment fees are determined based on the peak day demand of the connection and a gallon per day charge of $4.43. The change proposed here makes this explicit in the Code so that a customer may calculate the fee independently and does not reflect any change in the current plant investment fee charge. The current City Code Section 26-129 paragraph (c) refers to the “surcharge” which may not be descriptive enough to a customer to understand what surcharge is being referenced. The proposed changes make it clear that the surcharge is the Excess Water Use surcharge. The same clarification is being proposed for Sec 26- 149 paragraphs (d) and (e). In 2013 a change was made to the City Code to recognize that water taps larger than two inches are unique enough to the development that the fees and allotments associated with such taps should be determined on a development specific basis using a standard allocation methodology. The three inch meter size was eliminated from the table in Sec. 26-128 paragraph (5) at that time. The three inch meter size should have also been eliminated from the table in Sec. 26-129 paragraph (c) (3) and Sec. 26-149 paragraph (b) at that time. This ordinance addresses these issues. Sec. 26-149 paragraph (c) should have been modified as well. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment4.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 Modification of Sec. 26-149 paragraph (c) may change the amount of raw water required for service from the fixed amount currently listed in the table. The new amount may be higher or lower than the current fixed requirement depending on the specific development needs for water. B. Clarifying the Calculation of Infiltration and Inflow in Sewer Plant Investment Fees The current City Code Section 26-284 paragraph (d) presents a formula for calculating the plant investment fees associated with Category H non-residential development. The formula references the infiltration and inflow (I&I flow) but does not state what that value is for purposes of the calculation. This Ordinance will allow a customer to calculate the associated plant investment fees directly by stating that the I&I Flow is equal to 46.5% of the site flow. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed changes will not have any financial impact on customers as these changes are only intended to clarify how current charges are calculated. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed changes will not have any environmental impacts. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Because these ordinances are only intended to clarify existing language these ordinances were not presented to any Boards for their consideration. PUBLIC OUTREACH No public outreach has been done with respect to these ordinances. Packet Pg. 59 Attachment4.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES, EXCESS WATER SURCHARGE RATES, AND RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR METERS LARGER THAN TWO INCHES IN SIZE WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-120 provides for water plant investment fees to be based on and used for growth-related capital expansion costs of water supply, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution facilities, and related factors; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-120 further requires that the City Manager annually review the parameters and rates of the water plant investment fees and also requires that the City Manager present such fees to the City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and WHEREAS, City Code Sections 26-128, 26-129, and 26-149 concern various fees, rates, and requirements applicable to water service with meters larger than two inches in size; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to revise certain portions of the City Code with respect to two-inch and three-inch meters so that the City Code is consistent in this respect; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to set forth a specific calculation for the water plant investment fee for meters larger than two inches in size to ensure equal application of the fee; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council that the following changes be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-128 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-128. Schedule C, water plant investment fees. The water plant investment fee prescribed in § 26-120 shall be payable by users both inside and outside of the City, as follows: Packet Pg. 60 Attachment4.2: Ordinance No. 147, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 2 - … (5) Nonresidential service: a. Service to all nonresidential taps, including, but not limited to, taps for commercial and industrial service, shall be charged according to the size of the meter pursuant to the following schedule: Meter Size (inches) Nonresidential Plant Investment Fee ¾ $ 7,000 1 19,050 1½ 41,600 2 64,410 b. The fee for all meters larger than two (2) inches shall be calculated by multiplying the estimated peak daily demand by $4.43 / gallons, but shall not be less than the charge for a two-inch meter. Section 2. That Section 26-129 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges. … (c) The fees and requirements for raw water shall be as follows: (1) To satisfy raw water requirements (RWR) with in-lieu cash payments, the rate per acre-foot of RWR is sixty-five hundred dollars ($6,500). (2) Excess Water Use Surcharge assessed on commercial and irrigation taps when water use is in excess of the applicable annual allotment shall be three dollars and six cents ($3.06) per one thousand (1,000) gallons. (3) The annual water allotment, based on the minimum RWR shall be as follows: Packet Pg. 61 Attachment4.2: Ordinance No. 147, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 3 - Meter Size (inches) Annual Allotment (gallons/year) ¾ 293,270 1 977,550 1½ 1,955,110 2 3,128,170 Above 2 325,851 gallons per acre foot RWR . . . Section 3. That Section 26-149 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-149. Raw water requirement; nonresidential service. … (b) The minimum RWR for water meters up to two and zero tenths (2.0) inches in diameter are as follows: Meter Size (inches) RWR (acre-feet) ¾ .90 1.0 3.00 1.5 6.00 2.0 9.60 (c) The RWR for customers requiring a meter larger than two and zero tenths (2.0) inches, and for customers requiring two (2) or more meters, shall be determined by multiplying the applicant's estimate of peak annual use, or the total annual allotment for the meter or meters, whichever is greater, by one and ninety-two one-hundredths (1.92), provided that such estimate is first approved and accepted by the Utilities Executive Director. (d) Upon application for a water service permit after March 1, 1984, each applicant who is a nonresidential user shall be assigned an annual allotment of water equal to the greater of the RWR as determined pursuant to this Section and any RWR that was satisfied at the time of application for nonresidential water service. Further, in the event that, pursuant to Subsection (f) below, a nonresidential user submits more raw water than required under the provisions of this Subsection, then the annual allotment shall be determined pursuant to said Subsection (f). When a user uses more water than the annual Packet Pg. 62 Attachment4.2: Ordinance No. 147, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 4 - allotment, as determined by monthly billing records in a given calendar year, an Excess Water Use Surcharge in the amount prescribed in § 26-129 will be assessed on the volume of water used in excess of the annual allotment. (e) In the event an applicant applying for a nonresidential water service permit has, prior to March 1, 1984, surrendered water rights or otherwise satisfied the requirements of the City under an earlier water development program, then the minimum RWR for that property shall be considered satisfied under this Section. However, such nonresidential user shall be subject to the Excess Water Use Surcharge when the annual allotment is exceeded. … Section 4. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins contained herein shall go into effect on January 1, 2015. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 63 Attachment4.2: Ordinance No. 147, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 26-284 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO CLARIFY THE CALCULATION OF INFILTRATION AND INFLOW IN DETERMINING SEWER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, City Code Sections 26-284 concerns sewer plant investment fees, which are to be based on and used for growth-related capital expansion costs of wastewater collection, transmission and treatment facilities; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to clarify the manner in which the infiltration and inflow factor is calculated for the purpose of sewer plant investment fees in the City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council that the following changes to Section 26-284 be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-284 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-284. Sewer plant investment fees and surcharges established. … (d) The amount of the plant investment fee and surcharge for each nonresidential surcharged user, users in Category H and any user that is expected to generate greater than its proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant for the applicable category (including both contributed wastewater volume and volume related to infiltration and inflow), shall be calculated utilizing the following formula: SPIF = Site Flow x [Flow$ + (BOD x BOD $) + (TSS x TSS$ )] + I&I Flow x [Flow$ + (200 mg/l x BOD$) + (250 mg/l x TSS $)] Where: SPIF = Plant investment fee for Category H users and users discharging wastewater with average concentrations of BOD and/or TSS which exceed those average concentrations which are set forth in § 26-282(b) under Category E- 34 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 148, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 2 - Site Flow = The user's proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant based on site flow discharge from user’s site I&I Flow = That proportionate share of peak day flow due to infiltration and inflow as allocated to user's site flow discharge. I&I Flow is calculated to be 46.5% of Site Flow. Flow$ = $6.26 per gallon (unit cost of facilities attributable to treating wastewater flow) BOD = Average BOD concentration for user category or measured BOD concentration for the user as determined in accordance with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 200 mg/l BOD$ = $0.0152 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to treating BOD) TSS = Average TSS concentration for user category or measured TSS concentration for the user as determined in accordance with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 250 mg/l TSS$ = $0.0122 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to treating TSS) … Section 2. That the amendments to Section 26-284 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins contained herein shall go into effect on January 1, 2015. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 65 Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 148, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) - 3 - Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 66 Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 148, 2014 (2557 : SR 147-148 PIF Clarification) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Darin Atteberry, City Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2014 Approving a First Amendment to the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, amends the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. and the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority by changing a key date in the requirement of the City Manager to present City Council with a package to renew the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax including funding for Lincoln Boulevard Improvements from November 2014 to April 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 67 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Darin Atteberry, City Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2014 Approving a First Amendment to the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to amend the Agreement with Woodward, Inc. and the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority by changing a key date in the requirement of the City Manager to present City Council with a package to renew the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax including funding for Lincoln Boulevard Improvements. On April 2, 2013, City Council approved (6-1; Nays: Ohlson) on Second Reading the “Agreement with Woodward, Inc.” relating to the relocation and construction of the company’s headquarters and expanding its manufacturing and office facilities (the “Agreement”). The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) is also a party to the Agreement. The Agreement authorized a business assistance package that includes the reimbursement and rebate of taxes and contemplates construction of several public improvement projects. One aspect of the Agreement (Section 4.1(d)) relates specifically to improvements to Lincoln Boulevard. The Agreement contemplates that the City Manager will submit a package for City Council’s consideration that would help fund these improvements “by a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax…on a schedule to allow consideration of that measure by voters no later than November 2014.” The current schedule contemplates consideration of a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax in April 2015. Therefore, the Agreement requires amendment to reflect the new schedule and date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Woodward is a global company and has been in Fort Collins since 1955. It has continued to experience growth in sales and breadth of market of its products. The company serves two major market sectors including aerospace and energy. It is Woodward’s intent to expand their facilities to meet the growing demand for their products and to expand in northern Colorado. Over time, the Link-N-Greens site will be home to its international headquarters and for the global headquarters of up to two of its businesses: Industrial Turbomachinery Systems (ITS) and Engine Systems (ES). Woodward has outgrown its Drake facility and needs to expand its overall facilities to accommodate continued growth. Woodward is developing a campus of office, manufacturing, and testing facilities on the Link-N-Greens site. The campus will include a collection of buildings with parking areas served by private drives. In ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment5.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 2 conjunction with the campus, a retail and commercial center is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the site. Approximately 70,000 square feet of office and commercial development is planned for this area. The combined building footprint of the industrial/manufacturing facility is projected to be 600,500 square feet in buildings ranging from one to three stories. A future phase of construction will contain an unknown amount of commercial development including service based restaurant, retail and office for the benefit of the general public and Woodward employees. On April 2, 2013, City Council approved the Agreement on Second Reading (6-1, Nays: Ohlson). The Agreement authorizes a business assistance package that includes the reimbursement and rebate of taxes and contemplates construction of several public improvements. One aspect of the Agreement (Section 4.1(d)) relates specifically to improvements to Lincoln Boulevard. The intent of the improvements is to transform the standard street cross section into a boulevard similar to Mountain Avenue west of Old Town. The specific details of these improvements are not set but may include construction of new or improved street and intersections, sidewalks and benches, bicycle lanes and racks, trees and other landscaping, gateway features, transit related infrastructure, storm water improvements, directional signage, public art and other project for a positive neighborhood image, and interpretive features of culture and history relevant to the area. The Agreement stipulates that the City must use reasonable best efforts to complete a study of possible designs for the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements no later than April 30, 2014. This study has been completed and a final design was reviewed by City Council during work session on April 22, 2014 and approved as elements of the comprehensive plan of the City on May 20, 2014. In addition, the Agreement contemplates the City Manager submitting a package for City Council’s consideration that would fund the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements “by renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax…on a schedule to allow consideration of that measure by voters no later than November 2014.” The current schedule contemplates consideration of a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax to be submitted for voter consideration in April 2015. The proposed amendment changes the “November 2014” deadline to “April 2015” to reflect the current schedule. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS None. Packet Pg. 69 Attachment5.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 149, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH WOODWARD, INC. WHEREAS, the City, the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority (the “Authority”), and Woodward, Inc. (“Woodward”) previously entered into that certain “Agreement with Woodward, Inc.,” dated April 16, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement was approved by the City Council by Ordinance No. 055, 2013, on second reading on April 2, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Agreement authorizes a business assistance package from the City and the Authority to Woodward relating to Woodward’s relocation and construction of its company headquarters and the expansion of its manufacturing and office facilities on a new corporate campus site within Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, in Section 4(d) of the Agreement the City agreed to consider in the future the construction of significant public improvements to Lincoln Avenue, which avenue abuts and is adjacent to the campus site Woodward is now developing, referred to as the “Lincoln Boulevard Improvements” in the Agreement (the “Lincoln Boulevard Improvements”); and WHEREAS, in connection with the City’s future consideration of the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements, Section 4(d) of the Agreement also provides that the City Manager will “. . . present a package to the City Council of improvements to be funded by a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax, including a portion of the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements valued at approximately $8 million, on a schedule to allow consideration of that measure by the voters no later than November 2014.”; and WHEREAS, the City, the Authority and Woodward now agree that the City Manager does not need to submit the Building on Basics ballot measure to the Council for its consideration until the time needed to place the measure before the voters at the City’s next regular election on April 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City, the Authority and Woodward therefore desire to enter into the “First Amendment to Agreement with Woodward, Inc.” attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” (the “First Amendment”) to so amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the First Amendment is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the First Amendment, with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance. Packet Pg. 70 Attachment5.2: Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) - 2 - Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 71 Attachment5.2: Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH WOODWARD, INC. THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH WOODWARD, INC. (the “First Amendment”) is entered into this ___ day of ________, 2014, by and among the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a home rule municipal corporation (the “City”), the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority, a duly organized and existing downtown development authority under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, including, particularly, Title 31, Article 25, Part 8, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Authority”), and Woodward, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Woodward”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City, the Authority and Woodward have previously entered into that certain “Agreement with Woodward, Inc.” dated April 16, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement was approved by the Fort Collins City Council (the “Council”) by Ordinance No. 055, 2013, on second reading on April 2, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Agreement authorizes a business assistance package from the City and the Authority to Woodward relating to Woodward’s relocation and construction of its company headquarters and the expansion of its manufacturing and office facilities on a new corporate campus site in Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, included in the Agreement is the City’s agreement in Section 4(d) of the Agreement to consider in the future the construction of significant public improvements to Lincoln Avenue, which avenue abuts and is adjacent to the campus site Woodward is now developing, referred to as the “Lincoln Boulevard Improvements” in the Agreement (the “Lincoln Boulevard Improvements”); and WHEREAS, in connection with the City’s future consideration of the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements, Section 4(d) of the Agreement also provides that the City Manager will “. . . present a package to the City Council of improvements to be funded by a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax, including a portion of the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements valued at approximately $8 million, on a schedule to allow consideration of that measure by the voters no later than November 2014.”; and WHEREAS, the City, the Authority and Woodward now agree that the City Manager does not need to submit the Building on Basics ballot measure to the Council for its consideration until the time needed to place the measure before the voters at the City’s next regular election on April 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City, the Authority and Woodward therefore desire to enter into this First Amendment to so amend the Agreement. EXHIBIT A Packet Pg. 72 Attachment5.2: Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) 2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained in this First Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. That the first sentence of the second paragraph in Section 4(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in full as follows: “In addition, the City Manager agrees to present a package to the City Council of improvements to be funded by a renewal of the Building on Basics dedicated sales tax, including a portion of the Lincoln Boulevard Improvements valued at approximately $8 million, on a schedule to allow consideration of that measure by the voters at the City’s next regular municipal election on April 7, 2015.” Section 2. That the City, the Authority and Woodward agree that, except as amended herein, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Authority and Woodward have executed this First Amendment as of the date first above written. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a municipal corporation By: _______________________________ Karen Weitkunat, Mayor By: _______________________________ Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager Attest: _____________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing First Amendment to Agreement with Woodward, Inc. was executed before me this ____ day of _____________, 2014, by Karen Weitkunat, as Mayor, by Wanda Nelson, as City Clerk, and by Darin Atteberry, City Manager, of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation. Packet Pg. 73 Attachment5.2: Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) 3 WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ______________ ____________________________________ Notary Public THE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ________________________________________ Wynne Odell, Chairperson (SEAL) Attest: ___________________________ Janet Bramhall, Secretary STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing First Amendment to Agreement with Woodward, Inc. was executed before me this ____ day of _____________, 2014, by Wynne Odell, as Chairperson, and by Janet Bramhall as Secretary of THE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ______________ ____________________________________ Notary Public WOODWARD, INC. a Delaware corporation By: __________________________________ Tom Gendron, Chairman and CEO Packet Pg. 74 Attachment5.2: Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) 4 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The First Second Amendment to Agreement with Woodward, Inc. was executed before me this ____ day of _____________, 2014, by Tom Gendron as Chairman and CEO of WOODWARD, INC. a Delaware corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ______________ ____________________________________ Notary Public Packet Pg. 75 Attachment5.2: Ordinance No. 149, 2014 (2556 : SR 149 Woodward Agreement Amendment) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Patrick Rowe, Real Estate Specialist Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2014, Vacating a City Trail Easement and Any Associated Rights on Colorado State University Property Between Centre Avenue and Bay Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2014, vacates a trail easement, located between Centre Avenue and Bay Road, that was obtained from Colorado State University Research Foundation in 1979 (including any prescriptive rights that may exist). This segment of the Spring Creek trail was replaced with a new and superior alignment in 2013 from an additional trail easement obtained from Colorado State University and Colorado State University Research Foundation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 76 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Patrick Rowe, Real Estate Specialist Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2014, Vacating a City Trail Easement and Any Associated Rights on Colorado State University Property Between Centre Avenue and Bay Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to vacate a trail easement, located between Centre Avenue and Bay Road, that was obtained from Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) in 1979 (including any prescriptive rights that may exist). This segment of the Spring Creek trail was replaced with a new and superior alignment in 2013 from an additional trail easement obtained from Colorado State University (CSU) and Colorado State University Research Foundation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2013, the City obtained an easement for a new trail alignment from CSU and CSURF between Centre Avenue and Bay Road south of Prospect Road. This alignment replaced a previous trail easement that was obtained from CSURF in 1979, though a majority of the old trail was built outside of the area specified by the easement agreement. A different alignment was selected for the replacement trail in order to place the trail closer to Spring Creek and provide a superior connection to the Mason Trail. Additionally, the previous trail was constructed of asphalt and was inferior in its condition and size as compared to current City trail standards; thus the new trail provided an opportunity to reconstruct the trail according to current standards. In the course of replacing the previous 1979 trail, City staff agreed to seek the vacation of the City’s prior alignments, both the legal easement and the alignment as actually constructed (again, as the prior trail was not constructed within its easement). No utilities were permitted within the prior trail easement, thus none were notified of the proposed vacation. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no financial impacts associated with the vacation of this trail easement. Additionally, no consideration was paid for the replacement trail easements: only a nominal, $550 administrative charge was paid to CSU. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment6.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no environmental impacts associated with the vacation of the trail alignments. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) Packet Pg. 78 Attachment6.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 150, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VACATING A CITY TRAIL EASEMENT AND ANY ASSOCIATED RIGHTS ON COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY PROPERTY BETWEEN CENTRE AVENUE AND BAY ROAD WHEREAS, in 1979 the CSU Research Foundation (“CSURF”) granted the City an easement for open space use, including installation and maintenance of bike and pedestrian trails (the “1979 Easement”), on property owned by CSURF between Centre Avenue and Bay Road (the “CSURF Property”); and WHEREAS, a copy of the 1979 Easement is attached and incorporate herein as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the City then constructed a section of the Spring Creek Trail on the CSURF Property, but most of the trail was built outside the 1979 Easement; and WHEREAS, in 2013 CSURF conveyed the CSURF Property to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, acting by and through Colorado State University (“CSU”); and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City acquired a new trail easement from CSU and CSURF in a different location to provide a better connection between the Spring Creek Trail and the Mason Trail, and the old trail improvements were removed; and WHEREAS, the City has no further need for the 1979 Easement; and WHEREAS City staff is recommending that the 1979 Easement be vacated, and that the City also vacate and abandon any associated rights in the CSURF Property that the City may have acquired through construction of the former trail alignment outside the 1979 Easement; and WHEREAS, such vacation is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the 1979 Easement, more particularly described on Exhibit “A”, is hereby vacated, terminated and abandoned, along with any easement or other property rights the City may have acquired through construction of the former trail alignment pursuant to the 1979 Easement but outside the area described in the 1979 Easement. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be reasonable and appropriate to further document the vacation, termination and abandonment of the easement and other property rights as described in this Ordinance. Packet Pg. 79 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) - 2 - Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 80 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) EXHIBIT A Packet Pg. 81 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 82 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 83 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 84 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 85 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 86 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 87 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Packet Pg. 88 Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 150, 2014 (2558 : SR 150 Trail Easement) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Mary Aardrup, Volunteer Coordinator Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Environmental Services Operating Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $4,973 awarded to the City by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, transfer a matching amount of $4,973 from the 2014 General Fund and, combine these funds in the Environmental Services Radon Program account. The Radon Program carries out radon risk-reduction activities as identified in the current City budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Ordinance appropriates $4,973 of unanticipated grant revenues in the General Fund. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment granted these funds to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising and low-cost test kit sales. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in the City budget offer, “Air Quality Improvement.” The grant requires a local match of $4,973. Matching funds for the program will be transferred from the 2014 Environmental Services operating budget. Grant and matching funds would be combined in a new Environmental Services Radon Program account. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS City resources would be increased by $4,973. Required matching funds have already been appropriated in the 2014 General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS These funds will be used to lower the lung-cancer risk of Fort Collins residents that have elevated home radon levels. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 20, 2014 meeting, the Air Quality Board unanimously supported bringing forward the appropriation to the Radon Program. Packet Pg. 89 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach will be conducted throughout the year with presentations, educational materials and through print and electronic media. ATTACHMENTS 1. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, October 20, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 90 Excerpt from the minutes of the October 20, 12014 Air Quality Advisory Board AGENDA ITEM 1: Approval of Radon Grant Appropriation Mary Pat Aardrup, Health Sustainable Homes Program Manager will present the draft ordinance for appropriating funds for the radon program. Mary Pat explained that this grant has been ongoing for 10 years. They have already been awarded a grant from CDPHE and will go to Council to appropriate matching funds for the Radon Program from the Environmental Services operating fund. Members were given radon test kits and recent information. Over the last few years a study has been conducted about non-mitigation of known radon. The City’s program will give staff a better idea of who is mitigating and who is not, and what the radon levels are. In December a research project done by the City will be reviewed to determine the best way to present information to radon test purchasers to encourage mitigation. The whole state of Colorado is susceptible to radon. Comments/Q&A Tom Moore asked about radon mitigation for new construction. Mary Pat said that is part of the construction process, but these kits are for older homes that do not yet have mitigation. Tom Moore asked if Healthy Sustainable Homes inspections test for radon. Mary Pat said yes. Melissa added that the kits are supplied to participating home owners, including for new homes. Dave said he had a home energy audit and was told that the fan he has for radon mitigation is far overpowered. Is there anything in regulations for new home construction to have lower wattage fans? This could provide energy savings to the city. His auditor told him the systems are effective without the fan. Melissa added that this should be tested. Some systems may be effective passively, but that is dependent on the levels. Greg moved to approve recommendation of appropriation of funds for the Radon Program. Dave seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment7.1: Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, October 20, 2014 (2533 : Radon Program Grant Appropriation) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 157, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RADON PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Environmental Services Radon Program (the "Program") is part of the City’s indoor air quality program, which is guided by the Air Quality Plan with a policy goal to educate and encourage residents to reduce their exposure to indoor air pollution; and WHEREAS, the Program includes aggressive education, a voluntary radon testing program, mandatory radon mitigation in new construction, and an ordinance requiring the distribution of radon information to all residential home-buyers at the point-of-sale; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (“CDHE”) in the amount of $4,973; and WHEREAS, the CDHE grant funds are to be used to lower the lung-cancer risk of Fort Collins residents by directly supporting radon activities identified in two City Budget offers, Air Quality Improvement and the Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study; and WHEREAS, the grant requires $4,973 of matching funds, which have been included in the 2014 Environmental Services budget and are available for transfer to the CDHE project for the Program; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the CDHE grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. Packet Pg. 92 - 2 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE DOLLARS ($4,973) for expenditure in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program. Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE DOLLARS ($4,973) is authorized for transfer from the Environmental Services operating budget in the General Fund to the CDHE grant project for the Environmental Services Radon Program and appropriated herein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 93 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Jessica Ping-Small, Revenue and Project Manager SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Reimburse Woodward, Inc. for Development Fees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $88,344 of current year General Fund Revenue and prior year General Fund Reserves for a rebate to Woodward of development fees as approved by City Council on April 2, 2013 (Ordinance No. 055, 2013). Ordinance No. 055, 2013 approved an agreement between the City, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and Woodward, Inc. The agreement provides Business Investment Assistance for the relocation of Woodward’s headquarters as well as an expansion of its manufacturing and office facilities to a new location at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Lemay Avenue. The project will retain or create between 1,400 and 1,700 primary jobs in the City. The City’s assistance includes a rebate of Use Tax, Development Fees, and Capital Improvement Fees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Agreement Summary On April 2, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance 055, 2013 approving an Economic Development Project Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City, the DDA, and Woodward, Inc. The agreement specifies Woodward is eligible for a rebate in three areas: Use Tax on Construction Materials and Eligible Equipment (up to 80%) Development Fees (100%) Capital Improvement Fees (up to 50%). Use Tax Woodward plans to invest approximately $169.1 million in new buildings and $50.5 million in new equipment as part of the Project. As outlined in the Agreement, City Council will rebate 80 percent of the use tax collected in connection with these investments. The rebate will include approximately $2.6 million of the total $3.3 million due on construction materials and $1.2 million of the total $1.4 million due on eligible equipment. The use tax rebate on both construction materials and eligible equipment go beyond the general fund portion of the use tax rate. As a result, the general fund must bear the additional cost of the rebate to avoid impacting revenue associated with the dedicated use tax (e.g., Open Space, Street Maintenance, Building on Basics, and Keep Fort Collins Great). This additional cost will be backfilled from the revenue generated by indirect and induced economic impacts to the community. Packet Pg. 94 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 Development Fees As stated in the agreement, City Council will rebate 100 percent of the applicable Development Review Fees (e.g., Plan Check, and Base Building Permit Fee). The final rebate amount will be approximately $300,000. Capital Improvement Fees As part of the Agreement, City Council will rebate 50 percent of the applicable Capital Expansion, Street Oversizing and Utility Plant Investment fees due for the Project. The rebate will include approximately $3.0 million of the total estimated $5.4 million due. These fees are collected to offset the cost each new project imposes on the capital infrastructure within the City. As a result, the cost of the rebate must be backfilled from the revenue generated by indirect and induced economic impacts to the community. The backfilled revenue will make each capital fund whole. Employment Level Requirements The three rebate categories were offered with the stipulation that employment levels must reach or exceed 1,400 employees within the City by December 31, 2018. If a rebate request is made prior to December 31, 2018, the City will withhold 40% of the rebate until set employment levels have been met. If the target employment level is reached after December 31, 2018 but before December 31, 2020, Woodward will receive the retained 40 percent less $500,000 (combined between use tax and development fee rebates). Woodward will not be entitled to the remaining 40 percent if the target level is not reached by December 31, 2020. Rebate Summary Rebate Schedule as agreed upon with Woodward Two applications per year Application 1 includes: o January through June Development Review and Capital Improvement Fees Application 2 includes: o June through December Development Review and Capital Improvement Fees o January through December Use Tax. Key Stipulations Of the rebate amounts eligible, 40% will be withheld in escrow dependent on Woodward reaching the 1,400 employee mark by December 31, 2018. Use tax and Capital Expansion fees include a backfill requirement by the General Fund which will be accounted for at the time of appropriation. o 100% of the Capital Improvement Fee rebate will be backfilled by the General Fund o 100% of the dedicated taxes will be backfilled by the General Fund • .25% Natural Areas • .25% Streets and Transportation Packet Pg. 95 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 3 • .25% Building on Basics Projects • .85% Keep Fort Collins Great o Rebate funds will be appropriated by City Council biannually as part of the rebate process. Current Rebate Due for Period January 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014 Development Fee rebate due of $88,343.19. *Use Tax Rebate only paid once per year. The rebate amount of $88,343.19 includes a portion of Development Review Fees that were paid in 2013 as the project was in its initial phase. Woodward agreed to roll the 2013 fees paid into the first application for 2014. Moving forward, the rebate will be consistent per the agreed upon application schedule. The Council Finance Committee reviewed the appropriation ordinance at their October 20th, 2014 meeting with no suggested changes. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The total rebate amount is $88,344, of which $52,106 will come from unanticipated General Fund Revenue and $36,238 of prior year General Fund Reserves, will be appropriated for the purpose of remitting the rebate to Woodward. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The 101.5 acre project included a restoration of a 31-acre river buffer natural area which was transferred to the City upon completion. In addition, a 10-foot wide Poudre Trail was reconstructed through the new natural area. Packet Pg. 96 - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 158, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE AND PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND TO REIMBURSE WOODWARD, INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, and Woodward, Inc. (“Woodward”) entered into that certain “Agreement with Woodward, Inc.” dated April 16, 2013 (the “Agreement”), which provides business investment assistance for the relocation of Woodward’s headquarters and the expansion of its manufacturing and office facilities in Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Agreement specifies that Woodward is eligible for reimbursement from the City for the following paid by it to the City: (1) Use Tax on Construction Materials and Eligible Equipment, (2) Development Fees, and (3) Capital Improvement Fees; and WHEREAS, under the Agreement, Woodward can apply for reimbursement biannually for Development Review and Capital Improvement Fees and once a year for the Use Tax rebate; and WHEREAS, all funds reimbursed must be appropriated by Council as part of the rebate process; and WHEREAS, the Agreement was approved by City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 055, 2013, on April 2, 2013; and WHEREAS, the current reimbursement due to Woodward for the period of January 1, 2013, through June, 30, 2014, is $88,344 for eligible Development Fees; and WHEREAS, staff is requesting appropriation of $52,106 of unanticipated revenue and $36,238 from prior year reserves in the General Fund to reimburse Woodward in accordance with the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, do not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Packet Pg. 97 - 2 - Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the General Fund the sum of FIFTY TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIX DOLLARS ($52,106) to reimburse Woodward for Development Fees as required by the Agreement. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of THIRTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT DOLLARS ($36,238) to reimburse Woodward for Development Fees as required by the Agreement. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 98 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Darin Atteberry, City Manager SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2014, Amending Section 2-568 of the City Code to add to the Ethical Rules of Conduct a Prohibition on Special Treatment and to Establish a Reporting Requirement for Councilmember Contacts with City Staff. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to promote transparency and awareness in connection with Councilmember contacts with the administrative service of the City and to establish clear standards related to special treatment in the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Code, City regulations, policies or programs, or provision of City services by any City officer or employee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The intent of this new City Code provision is to develop a transparent method requiring any Councilmember to notify the entire Council, City Clerk, and City Manager when said Councilmember makes a non-routine request of the City on behalf of his or herself or business or family. Some matters, such as utility customer information, sales tax information, propriety business information or criminal enforcement-related information will be exempt from this change. City employees, likewise, will be bound under City Personnel Policy to report such contacts to their Service Area Director and reports will be forwarded to the City Manager. The process for reporting such contacts will be addressed in City Administrative Policy. City Code Section 2-568 establishes certain “ethical rules of conduct” that apply to the City’s councilmembers, board and commission members, and employees. Subparagraph (c) of Section 2-568 relates to rules of conduct. The amendments proposed for Section 2-568 clarify that no City officer or employee shall provide any special consideration, treatment, or advantage in the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Code or any City regulations beyond that which is available to other persons in similar circumstances or need. Subsection (5) of Section 2-568 further requires a Councilmember to deliver written disclosure to the City Clerk’s Office within 24 hours of contacting an officer or employee of the City in connection with that officer’s or employee’s role in relation to a matter not within the Councilmember’s role as an officer of the City. - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 159, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-568 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ADD TO THE ETHICAL RULES OF CONDUCT A PROHIBITION ON SPECIAL TREATMENT AND TO ESTABLISH A REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCILMEMBER CONTACTS WITH CITY STAFF WHEREAS, Section 2-568(c) of the City Code establishes ethical rules of conduct for officers and employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a clear standard and expectation prohibiting special treatment of City officers and employees in the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Code, City regulations, policies or programs, or provision of City services, by any City officer or employee; and WHEREAS, in order to promote transparency and awareness in connection with Councilmember contacts with the administrative service of the City, the Council has also determined that it will be beneficial to establish a reporting process for such contacts, when they are outside the Councilmember’s official role and are not routine contacts related to standard public services; and WHEREAS, incorporating new requirements as set forth above as part of the ethical rules of conduct will enable the Ethics Review Board to provide consultation and review of matters related to the application of these provisions to City Councilmembers and to members of City boards and commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2-568(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to add a new definition of the term “related entity” and the term “routine City matter,” to read as follows: Sec. 2-568. Ethical rules of conduct. (a) Definitions. “Related entity” shall mean any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, trust, estate, foundation, association, business, company or any other organization, whether or not operated for profit, with respect to which an officer or employee, or a relative of the same, has a substantial ownership interest in, is employed by, is an agent for or otherwise represents in any legal capacity. . . . Packet Pg. 100 - 2 - “Routine City matter” shall mean a usual and ordinary registration, reservation, or other request, within a program or for public services, such as a registration for a recreation class, reservation of a park shelter, or request for standard utility services, provided that the same is carried out using a routine process or system and in a manner consistent with standard practices. No application for a regulatory approval or license, other than a sales tax license, shall be considered a routine City matter. . . . Section 2. That Section 2-568(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to add a new subsection (4), to read as follows: Sec. 2-568. Ethical rules of conduct. (c) Rules of conduct. . . . (4) No officer or employee shall request on his or her own behalf, or for or through a relative or related entity, from any other officer or employee, or grant to any other officer or employee, or relative or related entity of the same, any consideration, treatment or advantage in the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Charter, Code, any City regulation, policy or program or in the provision of public services, that is substantially different from that available to other persons in the same circumstances or having the same need. Section 3. That Section 2-568(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to add a new subsection (5), to read as follows: Sec. 2-568. Ethical rules of conduct. (c) Rules of conduct. . . . (5) If any Councilmember contacts an officer or employee regarding a request in connection with that contacted officer’s or employee’s role and in relation to a matter that is not a routine City matter and is not within the Councilmember’s role as an officer of the City, said Councilmember shall no later than 5:00 p.m. on the next business day after such contact deliver a written disclosure to the City Clerk and the City Manager and to all other members of City Council. The written disclosure must describe the date, time and general subject matter of the contact, together with the identity of the officer or employee contacted. Any private or confidential information, such as tax, utility account, or other personal Packet Pg. 101 - 3 - information may be excluded or redacted from such disclosure. Disclosure by means of an electronic message shall be deemed to constitute written disclosure for purposes of this provision. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2014, Designating the Avery Duplex Cottage, 134-136 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owners of the property, Kevin and Suzanne Murray and Carl and Karen McWilliams, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Avery Duplex at 134-136 North Sherwood Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This duplex dwelling is architecturally significant because it is among Fort Collins’ very best examples of a vernacular Double Pen dwelling, featuring a symmetrical plan with twin entry porches. The dwelling accrues additional significance because it was constructed as a duplex, and is one of only a handful of historic duplexes existing in the city’s Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. Among those that do exist, this one displays a high standard of integrity. The dwelling is also architecturally notable for its architectural details, including horizontal drop siding on the façade, narrow double-hung sash windows, twin dormers, heavy long rectangular single slab sandstone porch steps, and twin hipped-roof entry porches with bead board ceilings. A rental throughout most of its history, the duplex dwelling has provided housing for numerous working class individuals and families through the years. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Recognition of 134-136 North Sherwood Street as a Fort Collins Landmark enables its owners to qualify for federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the property would see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. At a public hearing held on October 8, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standards (C), for its architectural significance to the city. Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Map (PDF) 2. Landmark Designation Application (PDF) 3. Owner agreement (PDF) 4. Staff report (PDF) 5. Photographs (PDF) 6. LPC Resolution 8, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 104 St Josephs School Civic Center Park Washington Park Civic Center Park North Maple St W Oak St N Meldrum St N Whitcomb St N Sherwood St S Meldrum St S Whitcomb St S Sherwood St Canyon Ave Laporte Ave N Howes St W Mountain Ave S Howes St © 134-136 N Sherwood St 1 inch = 300 feet Site ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment10.1: Site Map (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 134-136 North Sherwood Street Legal Description: The South 23 feet of Lot 11 and the North 23 feet of Lot 12, Block 51, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Avery Duplex Cottage OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Charles Bacorn, Owner; Kevin Murray and Carl McWilliams, Contract Purchasers Phone: 970-484-6966 (Murray); 970-493-5270 (McWilliams) Email: kevinsuz@wildmail.com; historians@frii.com Address: 117 South Whitcomb Street, 80521; 1607 Dogwood Court, 80525 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Carl McWilliams, Contract Owner Address: 1607 Dogwood Court, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone: 970-493-5270 Email: historians@frii.com Relationship to Owner: Contract Purchaser DATE: October 4, 2014 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 0 970.22 4- fax fcgov.c ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property consists of a circa 1899 side-by-side duplex residence and a historic one story garage with circa 1950 shed addition. SIGNIFICANCE Properties are eligible for designation if they possess significance, which is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Packet Pg. 107 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess exterior integrity, which is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Standard C: Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Standard G: Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Packet Pg. 108 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY (Please describe why the property is significant, relative to the Standard(s) above, and how it possesses exterior integrity.) This duplex dwelling is architecturally significant because it is among Fort Collins’ very best examples of a vernacular Double Pen dwelling, featuring a symmetrical plan with twin entry porches. The dwelling accrues additional significance because it was constructed as a duplex, and is one of only a handful of historic duplexes existing in the city’s Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. Among those that do exist, this one displays a high standard of integrity. The dwelling is also architecturally notable for its architectural details, including horizontal drop siding on the façade, narrow double-hung sash windows, twin dormers, heavy long rectangular single slab sandstone porch steps, and twin hipped-roof entry porches with bead board ceilings. A rental throughout most of its history, the duplex dwelling has provided housing for numerous working class individuals and families through the years. This property displays high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: setting, location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Integrity of Setting is defined as "the physical environment of a historic property." The residential neighborhood, along North Sherwood Street, where the property is located, is made up of late 19th century and early 20th century houses. The houses are sited on deep lots, uniformly set back from the street, with a wide strip of land between the curb and front sidewalk. There are no modern buildings or other modern features on this property. The existence of the historic garage/shed, a historic woven wire fence along the south property line, and the abundance of mature vegetation, provides the property with an exceptionally high quality of integrity of setting. Integrity of Location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred." The duplex dwelling and the garage/shed are both in the locations where they were originally constructed on this property. Integrity of Design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The dwelling's basic form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. An enclosed rear porch addition detracts minimally from the dwelling’s overall integrity of design. The basic form, massing, scale, and proportion of the garage/shed are also wholly discernible. Two shed-roofed extensions to the main gabled section of the garage/shed are not original; however, they are over fifty years of age. These two small extensions are also subservient to, and compatible with, the structure’s original construction. Integrity of Materials is defined as "the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property." The original materials of which the dwelling and garage were constructed remain intact and highly visible. Integrity of Workmanship is defined as "the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory." Because the dwelling and garage/shed were constructed as modest vernacular buildings, they do not display highly visible workmanship or craftsmanship that may be found, for example, in a high-style Queen Anne residence with an abundance of ornate details. This does not, however, mean that they are devoid of significant workmanship. The workmanship in these buildings is seen in subtle ways. It is seen in the overall quality of construction, in that horizontal members are level and vertical members are plumb, in the uniformity of related elements and features, and in the durability of the overall construction. The fact that the dwelling continues to exist and serve as a residence after more than eleven decades evidences a high level of workmanship. Integrity of Feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." The property’s physical characteristics and its environment evoke strong feelings relating to what life was like in Fort Collins during the early decades of the 20th century. Integrity of Association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property is associated with residential life in Fort Collins’ Westside neighborhood Packet Pg. 109 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 HISTORICAL INFORMATION A rental throughout most of its history, the duplex dwelling at 134-136 North Sherwood Street has provided housing for numerous working class individuals and families. Constructed circa 1899, the property was owned by both Franklin C. Avery and his brother, George P. Avery. Soon after completing a course in civil engineering, Franklin Avery joined the Union Colony and came to Colorado in 1870, where he assisted in surveying and platting the town of Greeley. He moved to Larimer County in the following year, and in 1872 surveyed the town of Fort Collins, establishing the new town with streets oriented to the compass, in contrast with the earlier established streets in Old Town, which were aligned with the river. Avery became one of Fort Collins’ leading citizens, and established the First National Bank. In addition to banking, he was heavily involved in real estate. Franklin’s brother, George Porter Avery came to Fort Collins in 1896, where he served as pastor of the First Methodist Church. Born in Ledyard, New York, he was educated at Cazenovia Seminary and Syracuse University. He was ordained a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1877, and served several churches in New York, and later, Chicago, before coming to Fort Collins. George Avery owned the property until 1925, when it wwas sold to Gustov Pastor by way of an agreement with Clyde and Retta Perkins. The first recorded occupants of the duplex dwelling were George L. Stiffler and his wife Jessie (134). Stiffler worked as a foreman for the Courier newspaper’s commercial rooms. Jessie also was employed in the Courier’s offices as a “comp.,” likely a composer. The north duplex (136) was occupied by Abram C. Middaugh and his wife Cora May. Mr. Middaugh operated a barber shop at 134 North College Avenue. The Middaughs had at least one child living with them, a daughter named Pearl. Residents changed frequently, and by 1904, the city directory lists W. H. and Ida M. Mullin at 134 and the McNeese family at 136. W. H. Mullin was secretary-treasurer of the Water Supply and Storage Company, then located at 120 South College Avenue. Charles McNeese was a blacksmith for J. Wessel’s shop, located at 217 North College Avenue. By 1908, McNeese owned the shop in partnership with Wiley S. Young. Living in the duplex with McNeese was his wife, Alice, and at least two children. Additional early residents demonstrated the duplex’s appeal to the working class. Occupants included a hostler (a locomotive engineer) who worked the C&S railway freight yard; a ranchman; Mrs. Fannie Lawson, a widow who supported herself through work as a seamstress; contractors and laborers; several employees of the Riverside Ice and Storage Company; and a manager for the F. W. Woolworth store. As the town grew, occupations changed, and this is reflected in the residents. By 1932, the duplex property was owned by N. O. Wymore, who in 1938 briefly occupied one of the units with his wife Lavinia. In 1933, Louis and Belva Koschalk were at 134, bakers for the Home Bakery, located at 609 South Mason Street. Interestingly, she is listed as a part owner of the business. Next door at 136 were Giles and LaVonne Alkire. Mr. Alkire was a grocer at 205 Linden. Also appearing in the 1930s and 1940s were gas station attendants and automotive mechanics, plumbers and electricians, and Billy Lyde, an inspector for the Retail Credit Co. In 1948, the first of many employees of Colorado A & M (now Colorado State University) appears. In the 1950s, the property was owned by Dalton W. Davis. For a period of at least twelve years, from the early 1950s through the mid-1960s, 134 was occupied by Frank and Hattie Rohrer. He was a salesman for Smith Sales, and associated with Goodwill Industries, which listed this as its address during his residency. In the 1970s and 1980s, the two units served as housing for a mix of college students and young working couples, including, in 1975, Sidney and Peggy Lunsford (134). He was a practical nurse at Poudre Valley Memorial Hospital. In the early 1980s, 136 was occupied by Arthur and Jaye Lundborg and their daughter, Caitlin. The Lundborgs were the owners of the property, which they sold to Charles Bacorn in May 1988. Born in 1946, Charlie Bacorn grew up on a 40-acre peach orchard in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, about 20 miles northeast of Philadelphia. He attended Hiram Scott College in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, were he graduated with a degree in psychology and sociology. He moved to Fort Collins circa 1973, where he worked at a variety of jobs including property management Packet Pg. 110 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 6 and as an electrical apprentice. He was employed by Wellington Pumps, an international firm that assisted developing countries with irrigation and water projects. While employed by the company, he worked overseas in Micronesia and the Middle East, and was briefly held hostage in Libya for 19 days. Upon returning to the United States in the 1980s, he returned to Fort Collins and used his skills to begin a solar energy company, Solar Services Company, founded in 1984. At the peak of the 1970s and 1980s solar boom, Fort Collins had upwards of 30 companies. When government supported tax credits ended in 1985, most of the businesses failed. Charlie, however, was determined to promote solar as a viable energy solution, and became known throughout all Fort Collins as Solar Charlie. His firm installed solar collection systems on many Fort Collins homes, but its real success came in the large number of houses (over 200) in the foothills and prairie that are located far off the electrical grid that now receive their energy through the sun. Charlie Bacorn retired in 2014 and, after operating the business for 30 years, recently sold Solar Services. Construction History Larimer County Assessor records list 1900 as this duplex dwelling’s year of construction. Other sources indicate that date is accurate within approximately one year. On August 25, 1898, the property was conveyed by Franklin C. Avery to the Corbin and Black Lumber Company for $125.00, a price which suggests that the dwelling had not been built as of that date. On January 2, 1902, the Fort Collins Weekly Courier published an article titled “Fort Collins’ Splendid Building Record,” which chronicled building construction during 1901. The following item in the article pertains to this property: “Rev. Geo. P. Avery 134-136 N. Sherwood. Frame cottage remodeled; 12 rooms; cost $700. James Mellinger, contractor.” The property’s address of 134-136 N. Sherwood Street, appears in the (first available) 1902 Fort Collins city directory, corroborating the dwelling’s existence by that time. The dwelling is depicted on the March 1906 Sanborn Insurance map which is the first Sanborn map to show the 100 block of North Sherwood Street. Sanborn Insurance maps indicate that the main gabled section of the garage/shed was built in the years between 1925 and 1943. A building permit issued on October 31, 1950 reveals that the shed-roofed extension to that building’s north elevation was erected at that time. Other building permits on file for the property indicate that the house roof was re-shingled in 1936 and 1952, and that the garage/shed roof was re-shingled in 1952. Sanborn insurance maps also seem to indicate that historically the back porch was not enclosed; it was, however, enclosed when Charlie Bacorn purchased the property in 1988. Mr. Bacorn extensively remodeled the rear enclosed porch subsequent to that date. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: c.1899 Architect/Builder: James Mellinger, Contractor Building Materials: Wood frame; stone foundation Architectural Style: Vernacular Double Pen dwelling Description: This property is located on the east side of the 100 block of North Sherwood Street. It is the third property south of Laporte Avenue and the ninth property north of Mountain Avenue. The property comprises an 8740 square foot lot which measures 46 feet N-S (across) by 190 feet E-W (deep). There are two buildings on the property, a 1½-story wood frame duplex dwelling and a 1-story wood frame garage/shed. The dwelling is set back approximately forty feet from the street, where there is a wide strip of land, with two oak trees, between the curb and front sidewalk. The front and back yards are heavily vegetated with mature, minimally-maintained, plants and fruit trees. The centerpiece in the front yard is a decades old trumpet vine which grows Packet Pg. 111 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 7 from a wooded trunk centered in front of the dwelling. From its trunk, the vine grows upward and outward spreading over and around a support structure of milled lumber. Beneath the overhanging vine and its support structure, there is a small brick patio with a wooden bench. Fruit trees in the backyard includes a golden delicious apple tree near the dwelling’s southeast corner, as well as several plum and cherry trees. Other plantings in the backyard include grape vines along the south fence, lilacs along the east (rear) fence, currants, blackberries, blueberries, rhubarb, bachelor buttons, and roses. Taking up nearly the entire width of the property, the duplex dwelling, overall, measures 40½ feet N-S (across) by 33½ feet E-W (deep). Included in these dimensions are the original 1½-story side-gabled (saltbox) dwelling, which measures 40½ feet N-S by 28½ feet E-W, and an enclosed shed-roofed rear porch addition, which measures 24 feet N-S by 5 feet E-W. The dwelling rests on a stone foundation, covered with concrete parging where it is exposed above grade. There is no basement other than a small cellar beneath the eastern (rear) part of the dwelling. The façade wall, facing toward Sherwood Street on the west elevation, is clad with painted white horizontal drop siding with painted brown wood trim boards. The south, north, and east elevation walls are clad with painted white horizontal lapped siding, also with painted brown wood trim boards. The main 1½-story dwelling is covered by a saltbox roof, covered with grey asphalt composition shingles on the shorter west-facing slope, and with metal roofing material on the longer east- facing slope. The roof eaves are boxed with painted white and brown wood trim. Two large gabled dormers overlook the façade on the west elevation, each with a 3/1 (ribbon style) double-hung sash window, with painted brown wood frames and surrounds, and with non-historic exterior metal storm windows. The façade is symmetrically arranged with two entry porches and four double- hung sash windows. The two porches are each approached by two heavy sandstone steps. The two porches each measure approximately 10 feet N-S by 5 feet E-W, and feature concrete bases, recycled material flooring, and hipped roofs supported by painted brown square wood posts. The porch ceilings are painted white bead board. Stained natural brown wood-paneled doors, each with one upper sash light, and each covered by a white metal storm door, enter the dwelling from the two porches. The north porch is flanked on each side by a 4/1 (ribbon-style) double-hung sash window. The south porch is flanked on each side by a 1/1 double-hung sash window. Windows on the north and south elevations are symmetrically arranged. The north elevation contains two 2/2 double-hung sash first story windows, and a set of paired 2/2 double-hung sash windows in the upper gable end. The south elevation contains two 1/1 double-hung sash first story windows, and a set of paired 4/4 double-hung sash windows in the upper gable ends. Windows on the west (façade), north, and south elevations all feature painted white or brown wood frames, painted brown wood surrounds with simple pediments, and non-historic exterior storm windows. The enclosed rear porch addition on the east elevation is supported by a low stone or concrete foundation, faced with red brick above grade. Its exterior walls are clad with painted white horizontal lapped wood siding, with painted brown corner boards. The addition is covered by a shed roof with metal roofing material. Three painted white wooden doors enter the addition’s east elevation. Two of these doors enter the rear of the dwelling’s main level, while the third door at the north end leads to a set of wooden stairs which descend to the cellar. The east wall of the addition also contains a small 12-light glass block window and a set of small, paired, single-light fixed- pane windows. The garage/shed is located near the north property line and approximately 28 feet west of the alley. This building, overall, measures 26 feet N-S by 24 feet E-W, and included in these dimensions are a main gabled section, with shed-roofed extensions to the north and west elevations. The walls rest on poured concrete perimeter foundation walls or piers, while the interior floor is dirt or gravel. The exterior walls are made of painted brown horizontal drop siding with corner boards. The gable and shed roof forms are covered with metal roofing material laid Packet Pg. 112 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 8 over 1x wood decking and 2x wood rafters. The east elevation, facing the alley, contains two sets of painted brown wooden garage doors, side-hinged with metal strap hinges. A narrow vertical wood plank door, side-hinged with metal strap hinges, enters the south end of the gabled section from the backyard. The south elevation of the main gabled section contains a 4-light window with a painted white wood frame and painted brown wood surround. A similar window penetrates the south wall of the western shed-roofed extension. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) City of Fort Collins building permits, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and online at Fort Collins History Connection, http://history.fcgov.com/. Fort Collins City Directories, 1902-1985, various publishers. Located at the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. “Fort Collins” Splendid Building Record.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, January 2, 1902 Larimer County Assessor Records for 134-136 North Sherwood. http://www.larimer.org/assessor/query/search.cfm. Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s Records for 134-136 North Sherwood. Located at the Larimer County Courthouse, 200 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Colorado McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, March 1906, September 1909, December 1917, December 1925, and October 1943, available at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado, and online at the Denver Public Library, http://denverlibrary.org/content/sanborn-maps Warranty Deed, May 20, 1988, Reception Number 88025068, Larimer County Assessor’s records. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado, 1911. Fort Collins: Courier Publishing & Printing Company, 1911. Packet Pg. 113 Attachment10.2: Landmark Designation Application (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment10.3: Owner agreement (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2014 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Avery Duplex at 134-136 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Charles Bacorn, Owner; Kevin Murray and Carl McWilliams, Contract Purchasers BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Avery Duplex located at 134- 136 North Sherwood Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. This duplex dwelling is architecturally significant because it is among Fort Collins’ very best examples of a vernacular Double Pen dwelling, featuring a symmetrical plan with twin entry porches. The dwelling accrues additional significance because it was constructed as a duplex, and is one of only a handful of historic duplexes existing in the city’s Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. Among those that do exist, this one displays a high standard of integrity. The dwelling is also architecturally notable for its architectural details, including horizontal drop siding on the façade, narrow double-hung sash windows, twin dormers, heavy long rectangular single slab sandstone porch steps, and twin hipped-roof entry porches with bead board ceilings. A rental throughout most of its history, the duplex dwelling has provided housing for numerous working class individuals and families through the years. Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the Avery Duplex qualifies for Landmark designation under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C. If the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the property is eligible under this standard, then the Commission may pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Avery Duplex as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under Designation Standard C. Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment10.4: Staff report (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) THE AVERY DUPLEX, 134-136 NORTH SHERWOOD STREET Western Elevation Western and Southern Elevations ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment10.5: Photographs (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Front Entry, Western Elevation Eastern Elevation Packet Pg. 117 Attachment10.5: Photographs (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Garage, Eastern Elevation Garage, Western Elevation Packet Pg. 118 Attachment10.5: Photographs (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment10.6: LPC Resolution 8, 2014 (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) Packet Pg. 120 Attachment10.6: LPC Resolution 8, 2014 (2504 : 134-136 North Sherwood Landmark Designation) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 160, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE AVERY DUPLEX COTTAGE 134-136 NORTH SHERWOOD STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated October 8, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the “Commission”) has determined that the Avery Duplex Cottage located at 134- 136 North Sherwood Street in Fort Collins, and more particularly described in Section 2, below (the “Property”) is eligible for individual Landmark designation for its high degree of exterior integrity and for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, as a significant locally rare example of a vernacular Double Pen dwelling, featuring a symmetrical plan with twin entry porches; and for its significance under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, as an original side-by-side duplex, one of only a handful of such historic duplexes existing in the city’s Eastside and Westside neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in City Code Section 14-5 and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that the Property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owners of the Property have consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property’s significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the City Council as findings of fact. Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Packet Pg. 121 - 2 - The South 23 feet of Lot 11 and the North 23 feet of Lot 12, Block 51 City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. Section 3. That the criteria in City Code Section 14-48 will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with City Code Chapter 14, Article III. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 122 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2014, Designating the Garcia Property, 321 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property, Kate A. Polk, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Garcia Property, located at 321 North Whitcomb Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Garcia Property, located at 321 North Whitcomb Street in Fort Collins, is eligible for Landmark designation for its significance to Fort Collins, under Landmark Designation Standard A, Events, for its characterization of historic patterns and trends representing the broad immigration patterns in early twentieth century Fort Collins associated with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church; and under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period as a hipped roof Classic Cottage. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Recognition of the Garcia Property, 321 North Whitcomb Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark enables its owner to qualify for federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the property should see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. At a public hearing held on October 8, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend designation of this property under Standard A, Events, for its characterization of historic patterns and trends representing the broad immigration patterns in early twentieth century Fort Collins associated with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church; and under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period as a hipped roof Classic Cottage. Packet Pg. 123 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. Landmark Nomination (PDF) 3. Owner Agreement (PDF) 4. Staff Report (PDF) 5. Photos (PDF) 6. LPC Resolution 9, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 124 Fullana Elementary Lee Martinez Community Park Maple St N Loomis Ave N Whitcomb St N Sherwood St Sycamore St Cherry St 321 N Whitcomb 1 inch = 200 feet © Site ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment11.1: Location Map (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 321 North Whitcomb, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Legal Description: Lot 9, Cotton’s Re-Subdivision, Block 273, West Side Addition, Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): The Garcia Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Kate A. Polk Phone: 970-218-7812 Email: mbckap49@gmail.com Address: 321 North Whitcomb, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Mitchell Schaefer, Historic Preservation Intern Address: P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522 Phone: 970-416-2283 Email: mschaefer@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Prepared August 19, 2014. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 0 970.22 4- fax fcgov.c ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property consists of . . . SIGNIFICANCE Properties are eligible for designation if they possess significance, which is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Packet Pg. 127 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess exterior integrity, which is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Standard C: Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Standard G: Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Packet Pg. 128 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The property at 321 North Whitcomb Street is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard A, Events, for its representation of broad immigration patterns in early twentieth century Fort Collins and for its association with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church; and under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a hipped roof Classic Cottage; and. This structure’s form and style illustrate the convergence of early-twentieth century ideologies. Fish scale shingles and spindle posts were modest outward expressions common to the late- Victorian era. The small size and simple form of this home are indicative of modest living. Thus this home illustrates owners who had modest means, yet were conscious of at least some outward expressions. The home at 321 North Whitcomb also stands as a testament of the vitality of the Hispanic community in Fort Collins and represents the broad immigration patterns of the early twentieth century. Due to proximity to Holy Family Catholic Church—literally just a few yards down the road—this home and the neighborhood to which it belongs served for several decades as a haven for Hispanic immigrants to Fort Collins as they were often segregated from the larger community. A priest at Holy Family Church recommended to Alejandro Garcia that he move his family into this particular home after emigrating from Mexico very likely to be closer to the local congregation. Alejandro, his family, and neighbors worked in nearby mines, sugar beet fields, and in other manual labor positions. Therefore, this home is symbolic of the lifestyle and vitality of the Hispanic Fort Collins community that proved so vital to the economic growth of the city. Finally, this home’s exterior integrity remains largely intact. No later than the early 1920s a large addition was made to the rear of the home, but that addition has now stood as part of the original home for approximately ninety years and serves to further illustrate the needs of the home’s occupants. In the 1970s, that addition’s outer walls were covered with drop board siding to match the rest of the home’s exterior. Other than a few more minor efforts to repair or maintain the structure, it remains largely unaltered from its original appearance. Coupled with its association with broad patterns of style and immigration in the early twentieth century, this home exhibits all seven aspects of exterior integrity. Packet Pg. 129 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Historical records for the property at 321 North Whitcomb in Fort Collins exist as far back as the mid-nineteenth century. In 1865 Joseph Mason, one of the first European settlers of what is now Fort Collins, acquired the northwest quarter of Section 11, Township 7, Range 69 from the United States government.1 Over the next forty years several individuals owned this property including some prominent Fort Collins citizens like Norman H. Meldrum, A. K. and Ella B. Yount, and Franklin C. Avery.2 At some point during the late nineteenth century the eastern half of Joseph Mason’s original purchase became known as the West Side Addition to Fort Collins. In July 1887, it seems Theodore Kutcher subdivided Block 273 of the West Side Addition for the first time.3 Only five years later in 1892 Lizzie C. Emigh and John C. Baird purchased Block 273 apparently with the intent of re-subdividing it to create smaller lots than existed according to the 1887 subdivision plat.4 Finally, in 1907, Lillian E. Cotton re-subdivided the same block a second time, thus creating a third plat, that by which the neighborhood stands subdivided today.5 For the first decade of the existence, it seems that the owners of the property never actually resided in the home. In 1908, only a few months after Cotton’s re-subdivision work, Lot 9 of Block 273 very likely appeared in the city directory of Fort Collins for the first time as 317 North Whitcomb Street. Unfortunately, the contractor, architect, and exact date of construction remain unidentified at this time. In 1908, Glen Dement, an agent of the White Sewing Machine Company, lived there with his wife Lizzie.6 The Dements, however, seem to have only been renting the property. According to the Abstract of Title for the property George G. Gilbert is listed as the owner of the property for most of 1908.7 City directories between 1908 and 1919 reveal that four different couples and a single man, all of blue collar professions, lived at 317 North Whitcomb at different times, but no evidence suggests that those tenants actually owned the property. Then in 1919, Elsie Sawyer purchased Lot 9, Block 273 from Ella Peterson.8 City directories indicate that Frank Sawyer, a machinist and chief engineer, lived at 317 North Whitcomb with his wife Elsie between 1922 and about 1940, making them the first known owners to actually live in the home. In about 1940 the Sawyers moved just a few houses to the north to 321 North Whitcomb (Lot 11, Block 273) while the residence at 317 was listed as “vacant” in the city directory for that same year. During the time that the Sawyer’s owned the property at 317 North Whitcomb, religious activity in Fort Collins experienced an interesting evolution. Beginning in the late-1910s the Great Western Sugar Company began recruiting Hispanic workers from the American Southwest and northern Mexico to work in the sugar beet fields.9 Along with their hope for economic improvement, those immigrant workers brought with them a deep devotion to the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, they were met with little fellowship from the Catholic population already residing in Fort Collins. A daughter of an immigrant couple later wrote that when their family first arrived in the area, the local Catholic congregation “found it hard to integrate” the growing number of Mexican parishioners into its fold.10 As a result, in 1924 Father Joseph Pierre of Canada organized the first Spanish-speaking Catholic congregation in Fort Collins and purchased the vacant West Side Presbyterian Church (then located on the northwest corner of Cherry and Whitcomb, just down the street from the Sawyer’s home). In the spring of 1929, a new church was built (which is still located on its original location on the southeast corner of Cherry and Whitcomb), while the old 1 Conveyance No. 1, Abstract of Title; Watrous, History of Larimer County, Colorado, 320–21, 46. 2 Conveyances Nos. 7, 11, 17, Abstract of Title. 3 Conveyances Nos. 44, 45, and 99, Abstract of Title. 4 Conveyances Nos. 62 and 99, Abstract of Title. 5 Conveyances Nos. 82 and 99, Abstract of Title. 6 FC City Directory, 1908, 43, 194. 7 Conveyances Nos. 84, 87, 89, 90, 92, Abstract of Title. 8 Conveyance No. 95, Abstract of Title. 9 Revised 08-2014 Page 6 Presbyterian Church became a neighborhood school. The establishment of Holy Family Church drew several Hispanic families into the area who wished to be near the physical embodiment of their faith. In 1940, after Frank and Elsie Sawyer moved out of the home at 317 North Whitcomb they sold the property. Knowing that a home near his church had just been placed on the market Father Fullana, Father Pierre’s successor, recommended to one of his parishioners - Alejandro Garcia (also known as Alexander and Alex) - that he should purchase the home and move in with his family.11 During the early twentieth century Alejandro and Jovita Garcia immigrated to Fort Collins from an economically insecure Mexico. Alejandro worked for a time in the Ingleside mine, where he reportedly “lost three fingers during a routine dynamite explosion,” after which he found work in a sugar beet field near Prospect Road and Shields Street in Fort Collins.12 By 1930 their young family included seven children, two of which, Frances and Mary, later consecrated themselves as nuns of the Catholic faith. Delphine Garcia, one of Alejandro’s daughters, remembered that her father purchased the home at 317 North Whitcomb from Elsie Sawyer in 1942 and moved in that same year.13 The Abstract of Title reveals the sale was made final in February 1943.14 Delphine also remembered that Father Fullana helped her family stain the woodwork in their new home.15 Unfortunately, in the 1940s city residents of Fort Collins ostracized the neighborhood and labelled it “the bad part of town” seemingly due to the influx of Hispanic families like Alejandro, Jovita, and their children.16 Nevertheless, Father Fullana and at least four sisters of St. Joseph from Steven’s Point, Wisconsin, worked tirelessly to provide ecclesiastical guidance and financial assistance when possible, and even taught classes to residents of the Holy Family Neighborhood. About the same time that the Garcia family moved onto Whitcomb Street near the intersection with Cherry, it seems the three distinct subdivision plats of 1887, 1892, and 1907 may have caused some confusion about the precise locations of lots and homes on the 300 block of North Whitcomb. These problems, coupled with the desire to sell the lot, very likely contributed to Elsie Sawyer’s legal action in 1941 to declare her ownership of Lot 9, Block 273 in the Cotton Re- subdivision of the West Side Addition to Fort Collins. On July 7th of that year she successfully proved her ownership of that property before the District Court of Larimer County.17 The confusion concerning the lots on Block 273 seems to have even affected city employees issuing building permits. In 1945 Alejandro Garcia received two building permits to re-shingle the home located on Lot 7, Block 273 and to build a chicken house on that same lot, despite the fact that other documents indicate his clear ownership of Lot 9. The confusion may have stemmed in part from the construction of a new home on the 300 block of Whitcomb Street built after the Garcia family had moved onto the street. Sanborn Insurance Maps and Fort Collins city directories indicate that sometime in the early 1940s a new home was constructed in Lot 7, Block 273, just a few yards south of the Garcia family’s home. In January 1946 Ray Portner received a building permit to construct a “residence” precisely on that very lot.18 Since Portner’s building permit is corroborated by information included in Sanborn Maps and city directories, it seems unlikely that Alejandro Garcia would have been working on a structure in 1945 that did not yet exist. Knowing this confusion may have existed at the time helps explain why in 1948 the Fort Collins city directory listed two families, the Garcia and Gallegos families, as residents of 317 North Whitcomb, despite 11 Interviews with Delphine Garcia noted in “Survey Form and File on 321 North Whitcomb: A Class Assignment for HY500C Submitted to Professor John Albright, Department of History, [Colorado State University], by Mary Therese Anstey, Mary Williams, and Michelle Zupan, December 1, 1994,” [4]. 12 “Survey Form and File on 321 North Whitcomb: A Class Assignment for HY500C Submitted to Professor John Albright, Department of History, [Colorado State University], by Mary Therese Anstey, Mary Williams, and Michelle Zupan, December 1, 1994,” [3–4, 8–9]. 13 Interviews with Delphine Garcia noted in “Survey Form and File on 321 North Whitcomb: A Class Assignment for HY500C Submitted to Professor John Albright, Department of History, [Colorado State University], by Mary Therese Anstey, Mary Williams, and Michelle Zupan, December 1, 1994,” [3], [5]. 14 Conveyance No. 102, Abstract of Title. 15 Interviews with Delphine Garcia noted in “Survey Form and File on 321 North Whitcomb: A Class Assignment for HY500C Submitted to Professor John Albright, Department of History, [Colorado State University], by Mary Therese Anstey, Mary Williams, and Michelle Zupan, December 1, 1994,” [4]. Revised 08-2014 Page 7 the fact that both were identified as owners of the property.19 By 1950 it appears the error had been corrected and the city directory listed the Gallegos family as residents of 317 North Whitcomb while the Garcia family lived at 321 North Whitcomb.20 Sanborn maps of the period also bear evidence of this address change, which also affected the Holy Family Church and a small handful of homes on the same block. From that point on, the property located on Lot 9, Block 273 in Cotton’s re-subdivision of the West Side Addition to Fort Collins has been listed as 321 North Whitcomb Street. Members of the Garcia family lived in the home on Whitcomb Street for about sixty years between 1942 and 2001. After moving into their house on Whitcomb Alejandro worked as a plumber until his retirement in about 1951. Alejandro’s wife Jovita, a homemaker, expressed devotion throughout her life to the Catholic faith. During their time in Fort Collins she was a member of and participated in several Catholic-based organizations including the Altar & Rosary Society. In 1955 Alejandro passed away leaving Jovita sole owner of the property. Nearly three decades later in 1983, their daughter Delphine moved in to care for her aging mother and remained until Jovita’s death in 1988 at 93 years of age. Delphine continued to live at 321 North Whitcomb until 2001 when she sold the property to Tim and Nancy Hild. The following year Peter Scholz and Colleen Shick purchased the property and for a time seem to have operated their business “Scholz Industries” from within the home. In January 2009, Scholz sub-divided Lots 8 and 9 for the first time and sold the former to Ed and Jennifer Schneider.21 Two months later, in March of that same year, the Scholz sold Lot 9 to Kate Polk, who is now seeking Fort Collins Landmark designation of the property.22 Since about 1925 the home at 321 North Whitcomb Street has undergone a series of alterations focused primarily on maintaining the structure and ensuring that it retains its historic character. Sanborn Insurance Maps indicate that sometime prior to 1925 a large addition was made to the rear of the home that extended fourteen (14) feet from the original rear (west) elevation and four (4) feet from both of the north and south elevations.23 Though at the time this addition significantly altered the appearance of the rear elevation of the home, it has remained largely intact in its original form for almost ninety years. About the same time, in 1925, John A. Klamm may have constructed a detached wood-frame garage. Nearly two decades later, in 1941, Frank Sawyer received a building permit to repair the roof of the home.24 Four years later it seems Alejandro Garcia demolished what may have been Klamm’s garage in favor of a “chicken house” after having re-shingled the home just a few months earlier.25 It is possible that the earlier portion of the storage structure now located in the rear northwest corner of the lot may be Alejandro’s chicken house. In 1973 Jovita Garcia received a permit to install storm windows and to repair the front porch.26 Then during the 1970s and 1980s a city rehabilitation project helped her repair the roof on her home and match the siding of the pre-1925 addition to that of the rest of the house which was then and still is covered with drop, or weatherboard, siding. By 1989 the repairs to the rear addition and the roofing were complete and the city provided Delphine Garcia with a letter noting she had no further obligation to repay the rehabilitation grant.27 Photographs archived at the city Historic Preservation Department that were taken between 1994 and 1999 provide further evidence of some alterations to the property. After 1994 three principle changes were made by owners that are not documented in available city building permits: a door was added to the rear (west) elevation to provide an entrance from the back yard directly into the pre-1925 addition; a thin double-hung window located in the southern corner of the west elevation was widened to provide more light for the rear addition; and an addition was added to the east 19 FC City Directory, 1948, 110, 370. 20 FC City Directory, 1950, 90, 158. 21 Warranty Deed, January 29, 2009, Larimer County Public Search, accessed August 26, 2014, http://www.larimer.org/clerk/search/showdetails.aspx?CFN=20090005131&MultiLimitField=SendToAppraiser. 22 Warranty Deed, March 12, 2009, Larimer County Public Search, accessed August 26, 2014, http://www.larimer.org/clerk/search/showdetails.aspx?CFN=20090014842&MultiLimitField=SendToAppraiser. 23 Fort Collins, Larimer Co., Colorado, Dec. 1925 (New York: Sanborn Map Company, 1926), 9. 24 FC Building Permit No. 1123, June 13, 1925; FC Building Permit No. 6724, August 25, 1941 Revised 08-2014 Page 8 elevation of what may have been Alejandro Garcia’s chicken house. Prior to 1999 an open awning covered a cement slab entryway that facilitated an east-facing door to open toward Whitcomb Street. That awning may have been extant as far back as 1925 when the rear addition was completed, but no evidence exists to indicate exactly when it was constructed. After 1999 that awning was removed and now that door opens to an uncovered cement slab. Despite these alterations much of the home remains unaltered from its original circa 1908 shape and style. Packet Pg. 133 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 9 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Circa 1908 Architect/Builder: N/A Building Materials: Wood-frame Home, Concrete Foundation Architectural Style: Hipped-Box Classic Cottage, Late-Victorian Details Description: This modest wood-framed one-story Hipped-box Classic Cottage reflects a style common throughout the State of Colorado and retains significant external integrity.28 It also bears several architectural details common to the late-Victorian era. A concrete foundation, which became common in residential construction during the late 19th century, supports the original home and the pre-1925 addition. The outer wall is covered with drop board siding, and the moderately pitched hipped-box roof is currently topped with asphalt shingles and includes boxed eaves with a moderate trim.29 The front façade (east elevation) includes a large gabled dormer and the rear (west) elevation was modified prior to 1925 to include a large addition that now houses the kitchen and other rooms. The front, east-facing elevation bears a large gabled dormer that is symmetrical with the hipped roof. The gabled dormer includes fish scale shingles and a single hopper window encased by a white wood-frame with slightly decorative lintel. Two storm windows, installed likely in 1973, sit symmetrically with the front façade, one on either side of the front entryway and are surrounded by simple wood frame that includes only minor decorative details. The front doorway is the only aspect of the front elevation that is not symmetrical with the home’s structure; instead it sits slightly to the left of center. The front, paneled door includes a large window and is surrounded by a thick white door casing with a slightly decorative crown. The partial, open front porch is covered by a partial hipped roof with very low pitch and is topped with asphalt shingles. It bears the same boxed eaves and moderate trim as the rest of the original home. The porch roof is supported by two spindle posts common in the late Victorian era which rest on the cement porch. One cement step leads from the sidewalk to the porch floor. Currently the front yard is surrounded by a white picket fence that was installed sometime after 1999.30 The north-facing side elevation bears three simple windows and continues the drop board siding common to the entire home. The two windows included on the original home structure are single- hung sash windows set in white wood frames with slightly protruding sills. They also include outer protective storm windows that may have been installed in 1973. The only north-facing light on the pre-1925 addition is a single pane window surrounded by very simple white framing and is protected by an additional storm window. Other than the drop board siding and the roof eaves and moderate trim, this elevation of the home bears no other prominent features. Since Lots 8 and 9 remained under the same ownership until 2009, previous owners adorned the southern elevation of the home more than the north because prior to that time it opened to a large yard that comprised Lot 8. As a result the windows and architectural features of the southern elevation are far more prominent than those on the north elevation. The south elevation of the home includes large single-hung windows protected by storm lights. The white wooden framing of these windows includes moderately ornate crowns to match the trim below the roof eaves and very simple sills to match those on the east and north elevations. The eastern most light is comprised of a single window while the western most light is comprised of two windows divided by a while mullion to match the wood framing. The pre-1925 addition to the west elevation of the home includes an east-facing entryway that opens to a cement porch now located on the south elevation of the original home. Photographs taken in the 1990s indicate that a shed-roofed porch 28 [Sarah J. Pearce with Merrill A. Wilson], Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering (Colorado Historical Society, 2008). 29 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture (New York: Knopf, 2013), 36. 30 This is based on photographs from the time on file at the Historic Preservation Department, City of Fort Collins, Fort Collins, Colorado. Packet Pg. 134 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 10 once covered this cement area and may have been installed when the rear addition was built before 1925. It is unknown who or when that porch covering was removed. Now that east-facing door opens to a simple cement porch, includes a simple light and pet door, and is surrounded by a simple white casing with crown to match the window frames on the south elevation. The south elevation of the pre-1925 addition includes a large sliding sash window that was installed sometime after 1994, as evidenced in photographs of the time. This light is surrounded by a modest white-board frame. An air vent sits directly below the center portion of this window. As mentioned above, sometime prior to 1925 one of the owners (who exactly is unknown since building permits do not exist from this time period) constructed an addition to the rear or west- facing elevation of the home. Though this elevation is not part of the original construction of the home it has undergone some renovations, mostly minor, to match it to the historic character of the original structure. In the 1970s and 1980s Jovita Garcia received a rehabilitation grant from the City of Fort Collins to match the siding of this addition to the drop siding on the rest of the home. Plans of that time suggest the shed roof of the addition may have been slightly raised.31 Then sometime after 1994 a few alterations were made to the addition’s west elevation. The southern- most window that used to be a single- or double-hung window was altered to be a wider sliding sash window surrounded with a similar wood frame to match the sliding window on the addition’s south elevation. An entryway was installed to provide access from the rear of the home directly into the back yard. That door sits south of the center of the structure and is surrounded by a simple white casing. A thin sliding sash window is located immediately to the north of the entryway and once bore a small awning that has since been removed. This light is surrounded by a simple white wood frame with almost no decorative features. The final window of the home is located farther to the north on the west elevation of the addition and is a single-hung window surrounded by white wooden frame with simple. Like nearly all other lights on this home this one is protected by storm windows. A rough-cut stone pathway leads from the rear entryway to the alley and storage structure located in the northwest corner of Lot 9. The storage building located in the northwest corner of Lot 9 is comprised of two clearly distinct construction efforts. The original storage structure may have been Alejandro Garcia’s chicken house that he constructed in the 1940s. It is now the western half of the extant storage structure and bears the same drop board siding as the original home, a tin-covered shed roof, and exposed rafters that are blocked by a rain gutter. It has a simple sliding sash window on the south elevation surrounded by a simple white wooden frame. Photographs from 1994 indicate that sometime since then an addition was made to the storage structure that is equally as modest as the original storage shed. But it bears a simple tin roof with exposed rafters and wide shiplap joint siding. It bears no windows and the only entryway into the storage structure is found on the south elevation of the storage structure’s post-1994 addition. This double-door entryway is surrounded by simple white wood casing. Other than the distinct drop board and shiplap siding on the two portions of the storage structure, the building bears almost no decorative elements. 31 Repair plans, issued by Jovita Garcia, date unknown, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Packet Pg. 135 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 11 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Abstract of Title to Lot 9, Block 273, Cotton’s Resub. of Subdivision of West Side Addition to Fort Collins. Fort Collins, Colorado: The Fort Collins Abstract Company, N/A. Aguayo, Jose. “Los Betabeleros (The Beetworkers).” In La Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado, edited by Vincent C. de Baca, 105–109 (Denver: The Colorado Historical Society, 1998). Anstey, Mary Therese, Mary Williams, and Michelle Zupan, “Survey Form and File on 321 North Whitcomb: A Class Assignment for HY500C Submitted to Professor John Albright, Department of History, [Colorado State University],” December 1, 1994, on file at Historic Preservation Department, City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Fort Collins Building Permit permits and Inspection Records 1925–2009, available at City of Fort Collins Public Records website, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/, Fort Collins History Connection website, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/, and on file at Historic Preservation Department, City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Fort Collins City Directories, 1902–2013. Garcia, Jovita, and City of Fort Collins, Grant Rehabilitation Documentation, on file at Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Garcia, Sister Mary, “My Weaving: Autobiography of Sister Mary Garcia, O.S.F.,” unpublished copy, 2006, Sister Mary Garcia Collection, Special Collections, Fort Collins Local Archive, SMG1. Larimer County tax and sale records, available at Larimer County Assessor Property Records Search website, http://www.larimer.org/assessor/query/search.cfm. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Knopf, 2013. [Pearce, Sarah J., with Merrill A. Wilson], Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering. Colorado Historical Society, 2008. Photographs on file at Historic Preservation Department, 1994–2014, City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Sanborn Maps of Fort Collins, Larimer Co., Colorado, 1906–1925. Watrous, History of Larimer County, Colorado. Packet Pg. 136 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 12 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________ day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________ day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary Packet Pg. 137 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment11.3: Owner Agreement (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 8, 2014 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Avery Duplex at 134-136 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Charles Bacorn, Owner; Kevin Murray and Carl McWilliams, Contract Purchasers BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Avery Duplex located at 134- 136 North Sherwood Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. This duplex dwelling is architecturally significant because it is among Fort Collins’ very best examples of a vernacular Double Pen dwelling, featuring a symmetrical plan with twin entry porches. The dwelling accrues additional significance because it was constructed as a duplex, and is one of only a handful of historic duplexes existing in the city’s Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. Among those that do exist, this one displays a high standard of integrity. The dwelling is also architecturally notable for its architectural details, including horizontal drop siding on the façade, narrow double-hung sash windows, twin dormers, heavy long rectangular single slab sandstone porch steps, and twin hipped-roof entry porches with bead board ceilings. A rental throughout most of its history, the duplex dwelling has provided housing for numerous working class individuals and families through the years. Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the Avery Duplex qualifies for Landmark designation under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C. If the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the property is eligible under this standard, then the Commission may pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Avery Duplex as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under Designation Standard C. Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment11.4: Staff Report (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation Front Elevation View to Southwest ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment11.5: Photos (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation View to Northwest Rear Elevation Packet Pg. 141 Attachment11.5: Photos (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation Garage/Shed Packet Pg. 142 Attachment11.5: Photos (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment11.6: LPC Resolution 9, 2014 (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Packet Pg. 144 Attachment11.6: LPC Resolution 9, 2014 (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 161, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE GARCIA PROPERTY, 321 NORTH WHITCOMB STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated October 8, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the “Commission”) has determined that the Garcia Property located at 321 North Whitcomb Street in Fort Collins, and more particularly described in Section 2, below (the “Property”) is eligible for Landmark designation for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard A, Events, for its characterization of historic patterns and trends representing the broad immigration patterns in early twentieth century Fort Collins associated with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church; and under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period as a hipped roof Classic Cottage; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in City Code Section 14-5 and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that the Property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property’s significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the City Council as findings of fact. Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Packet Pg. 145 - 2 - Lot 9, Cotton’s Re-Subdivision, Block 273, West Side Addition City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. Section 3. That the criteria in City Code Section 14-48 will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with City Code Chapter 14, Article III. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 146 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2014, Designating the 508 Remington Street Property, 508 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property, James L. MacDowell IIl, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the 508 Remington Street Property, located at 508 Remington Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The 508 Remington Street Property, located at 508 Remington Street in Fort Collins is eligible for Landmark designation for its high degree of integrity combined with its significance under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for its architectural merits as an exceptionally detailed, well-preserved example of a Queen Anne style residence, with especially noteworthy, very intricate brickwork. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as part of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Recognition of this property as a Fort Collins Landmark enables its owners to qualify for local financial incentive programs available only to Landmark designated properties. Due to its listing on the National and State Registers, the property owner already qualifies for state and federal financial programs for historic preservation. Based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the property should see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this increase to the fact that future owners will also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. At a public hearing held on September 10, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously (to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standards (C), for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. Packet Pg. 147 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Map (PDF) 2. Landmark Nomination (PDF) 3. Owner consent (PDF) 4. Staff Report (PDF) 5. Photos (PDF) 6. LPC Resolution 5, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 148 Young Peoples Learning Center «¬287 Mathews St E Myrtle St E Magnolia St W Myrtle St W Magnolia St Remington St S College Ave WSt Mulberry St E Mulberry 508 Remington St 1 inch = 200 © feet Site ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment12.1: Site Map (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 508 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524 Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 135, Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): 508 Remington Street Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: James L. MacDowell, III Phone: 720-675-9381 Email: james.macdowell@gmail.com Address: 508 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Mitchell Schaefer, Historic Preservation Intern Address: City of Fort Collins, Advanced Planning Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522 Phone: 970-416-2283 Email: mschaefer@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Prepared 2 September 2014. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 0 970.22 4- fax fcgov.c ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property consists of one Queen Anne, Victorian style home. No other structures or buildings at present exist on the property. SIGNIFICANCE Properties are eligible for designation if they possess significance, which is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Packet Pg. 151 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess exterior integrity, which is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Standard C: Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Standard G: Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The property at 508 Remington Street qualifies for individual recognition as a Fort Collins Landmark for its high level of integrity combined with its significance under Standard C, Design/ Construction for its architectural merits as an exceptionally detailed, well-preserved example of a Queen Anne style residence in Fort Collins. The beautifully intricate brickwork on the exterior walls is particularly noteworthy. While a 1965 addition to the rear, southeast corner of the home is somewhat uncharacteristic and anachronistic to this home’s original style, it remains hidden from the front street view and does not detract from the historic character of this home. This home is a contributing element of the Laurel School Historical District that was listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places in 1980. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The Queen Anne style home now located at 508 Remington Street was built, according to Larimer County tax records, in circa 1889. This date appears to be somewhat early. Larimer County Packet Pg. 152 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 Recorder’s records show that, in September 1882, Elizabeth Crafts had purchased this lot and the adjoining parcel from Frances Whitaker and Emma Barrows for $500. On November 7, 1895, Crafts sold both lots to Alston Ellis for $700, a price that strongly suggests that neither lot was improved upon at that time. On August 25, 1898, the Fort Collins Courier noted, “Dr. Alston Ellis, this week, sold to J. H. C. Walker, late of Kansas, the handsome pressed brick cottage on Remington Street, now occupied by [court stenographer] M. N. Jones. Consideration $3,600.” Due to the large increase in value between 1895 and 1898, it is logical to assume that the house was constructed by Ellis during this time period, which is consistent with its architecture. Dr. Alston Ellis was the third president of Colorado Agricultural College. Ellis was born in Kenton County, Kentucky, and obtained his bachelor's and master's degrees from Miami University at Oxford, Ohio. Following 25 years as a public school administrator at various Ohio schools and leadership positions in several educational organizations, on February 15, 1892, he became the State Agricultural College's third president. A controversial figure, he did much to forward the school’s development by increasing enrollment, commissioning several new campus buildings, and promoting a balance between the technical and scientific curriculum being taught and the liberal arts he felt necessary for a well-rounded education. However, his arrogant, egotistical and acerbic personality quickly created many adversaries. Despite strong associations with influential politicians and business leaders, including Governor Alva Adams who visited the Ellis home several times, Ellis’ association with Colorado Agricultural College was terminated by the Board after the 1898-99 school year. In August 1898, Ellis sold this property to Daisy and J. H. C. Walker, who resided in the house with their daughter Hazel June until 1909. J. H. C. Walker is variously listed in the Fort Collins City Directories as a stockman, investor, and capitalist. John Henry Caples Walker was a financier of some note. In Kansas, where the family lived prior to moving to Fort Collins circa 1897, he was an official of the Scott City bank. In 1896, Walker was a member of a distinguished party invited to Fort Collins to inspect the lands and water systems of the National Land and Irrigation Company. Upon moving to Fort Collins, he appeared in the paper with some regularity as a philanthropist and benefactor, at one point financing a Thanksgiving dinner for 150 destitute children. In 1909, the family traveled to California, hoping for relief for Walker from his heart trouble. Unfortunately, Walker passed away in Los Angeles on July 16, 1909. Subsequent residents and owners of the house included contractor Jonas Finger (1913–14, 1927); G. Fred Wiard (1922); real estate developer George Pastor (1925, 1933-36); farmer W.R. Drake (1929–31); Azel VanDyke (1938–40); Colorado A&M professors Lester and Margaret Stimmel (1946–48); and widow Dora Anderson (1952–69). In 1954, during Mrs. Anderson's ownership, the house was listed as a “rooming & boarding house” for students attending Colorado A&M (later Colorado State University), and apparently continued that role ever since. Chad Doverspike and Tara Tyger purchased the residence in 1999 and sold it in turn to the current owner, James L. MacDowell, III, in May 2014. Since the 1930s several repairs and maintenance efforts have been made to upkeep the home. Owners replaced the shingled roof in 1936, 1944, and again in 2013. In 1946 Lester Stimmel, then the owner, remodeled the basement and later insulated the home in 1948. Stimmel’s 1946 basement remodel may have altered the entryway on the rear (east) side of the home. In 1965, a shed-roofed enclosed wooden porch set on cinder blocks was added to the southeast corner of the house. Other repairs include the addition of a new fence for the back yard in 1953, new furnaces in 1997, and repairs to the outside walls in 2004. New windows and “hand doors” were installed in 1954, but otherwise building permits indicate the home has retained an excellent degree of its nineteenth-century integrity. It remains a prime example of the Queen Anne home style of the late Victorian era in American architecture. Packet Pg. 153 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: c. 1889 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Sandstone foundation, brick walls, wood ornamentation, asphalt shingle roof Architectural Style: Queen Anne, Victorian This vernacular Queen Anne style house is an irregularly shaped, two-story brick structure with multiple gables on its front (west) elevation and single gables on the remaining three elevations. All gables are moderately pitched with boxed eaves. The front (west) and side (south) gable fronts feature decorative coursed and fishscale shingles painted pink, white, and dark purple. The building has a rough cut coursed sandstone foundation that is exposed on all elevations with brick walls set in stretcher bond with two corbelled patterns wrapping around the entire home, one only a few feet above the ground and the other just below the roof eaves. The outer brick layer is primarily painted an off-white cream. The main, front (west) façade includes double gables with the lower gable encompassed by the higher one and sitting slightly to the south of the higher. On the northwest corner of the main façade is a projecting, open, one story porch, which was repaired in 2004, that has a brick closed rail capped by sandstone. The cement porch leads to the front entry way and has a flat wood beadboard ceiling supported by four simple and unadorned wooden posts, which were also added as part of the 2004 repairs. The roof of the porch also serves as the base for the second story, open, and uncovered balcony which is surrounded on the west, north, and partially on the south sides by simple wood carved balusters. The glass paneled front door with a transom light is located within the porch and is accompanied by an ornate, and possibly historical, hanging lamp. Windows are primarily one-over-one single-hung windows. The main window on the front façade is arched and set in an elaborate brick surround with corbelled pilasters and sandstone sill. Second-story windows feature carved wood surrounds. The south elevation bears a single gable decorated to match the front double gables. Below the gable opening and its single-hung window with carved framing rests a decorative checker corbelled brick pattern painted to match the home. Another similar corbelled brick pattern, though somewhat less ornate, is found on the same elevation west of the former. A second upper-story inswing casement window rests directly above the easternmost first-story window. The two lower level single-hung windows on the south elevation are surrounded by simple wood frames and encased by sandstone lintels and sills. The rough-cut sandstone foundation is exposed on the lower portion of the elevation. The south elevation also bears the entryway added as part of the 1965 addition. That entry way faces west as the addition protrudes slightly from the south elevation. Three cement stairs lead up to that entryway with a metal pipe railing painted white. The 1965 addition protrudes from the southeast corner of the structure and is supported by a cinderblock foundation set in stretcher bond. The transite siding surrounds the entire extension on the west, south, and eastern sides forming part of the south and east elevations of the house. As mentioned before, the entry way to the addition from the outside is located on the south elevation of the home and faces west. The south side of the addition includes two inswing casement windows surrounded by a simple wood frames and wooden sills. The east side of the addition bears a single inswing casement window surrounded by a wood frame and a double-hung window also surrounded by a wood frame. The transite siding of the addition ends abruptly, as does the cinderblock foundation, as it meets the original brick and sandstone structure on the east elevation. The shed-roof of the addition slops slightly down to the south and the boxed eaves are covered by one rain gutter extending the length of the addition’s entire south side. Like the rest of the house, the addition’s roof is topped by asphalt roll roofing. Packet Pg. 154 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 6 The rear (east) elevation bears one gable pierced by a brick chimney set in stretcher bond. Unlike the other elevations, this gable bears few decorative fishscale shingles, which are painted white and dark brown. The rest of the gable is covered by siding and two second-story windows. The smaller window bears a single-hung window surrounded by a wood frame. The larger is a single- hung window also surrounded by a carved wood frame. The lower level of the east elevation is topped by a hipped roof, interrupted on the west side by its intersection with the larger structure. The east portion of the first floor includes a small single pane window and a larger single-hung window surrounded by a wood frame which is encased by sandstone lintel and sill. The top of entryway into the east elevation is almost flush with the top of the exposed sandstone foundation so one must walk down from the ground level via a short series of cement steps to reach the doorway. The door includes a transom window surrounded by a wood frame and topped by a sandstone lintel. It seems this entryway was originally a simple door entry that did not require one to walk down to another level. Instead it was likely a door way capped by sandstone. Lester Stimmel’s basement renovations in 1946 seem to have altered that doorway to become an entrance directly to the basement. The east portion of the north elevation bears a fourth entryway into the home surrounded by a wood frame and topped by a transom light and sandstone lintel. Another single-hung window sits to the west of that door and is also surrounded by a wood frame and encased by sandstone lintel and sill. The north elevation includes a protruding portion of the home that is topped by another gable adorned with fishscale shingles that have been painted white to match the home. On the rear (east) side of the protrusion is what seems to have been another doorway topped by transom light and sandstone lintel, but has since been closed off with horizontal wood boards. The north side of the protrusion includes a gable, one second-story single-hung window surrounded by carved wood frame, and two taller single-hung windows on the first floor that are surrounded by simple wood frames and encased with sandstone lintel and sill. The front (west) side of the protrusion includes another first floor single-hung window surrounded by wood frame and bears the vernacular sandstone lintel and sill. To the west of the protrusion in the home’s structure is a final single-hung window also set in wood frame with sandstone lintel and sill. The roof is pierced by three brick chimneys; the main exterior chimney is located on the south side and has a corbelled collar. Other details include a simple decorative brick panel on the exterior chimney, and brickwork sill and string courses. The roof is topped with asphalt corning shingles. Packet Pg. 155 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Revised 08-2014 Page 7 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Ching, Francis D. K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995. City of Fort Collins city directories, 1902–2005, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. City of Fort Collins building permits, 1936–2014, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Hansen, James E, II. Democracy’s College in the Centennial State: A History of Colorado State University. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, 1977 “In Memorium.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, July 17, 1914. Information from the Fort Collins Midtown Historic District Survey, available at the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado.. Larimer County Assessor Property Information, Property Tax Years 2005–07, 2014. Larimer County Recorder Property Records, Lot 7, Block 135, Fort Collins. Laurel School Historic District, State and National Historic Registers by County, History Colorado website, accessed September 2, 2014, http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/larimer- county#fort. “Local and Personal.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, July 21, 1909. Marmor, Jason. City of Fort Collins Architectural Property Reconnaissance Survey Form, Eastside Neighborhood Survey Project, 508 Remington Street, 1998, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Michell, Elizabeth, Local Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form, 508 Remington Street, December 20, 2004, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. ———, photographs taken of 508 Remington Street, 2004, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. “To Provide for Poor Children.” Fort Collins Courier, November 17, 1907, p. 4. Packet Pg. 156 Attachment12.2: Landmark Nomination (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment12.3: Owner consent (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 10, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 508 Remington Street CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: James L. MacDowell, III, Property Owner REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Walker/MacDowell Property at 508 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado BACKGROUND: The Walker/MacDowell Property, located at 508 Remington Street, is an outstanding example of the Queen Anne architectural style, popular in Fort Collins during the late- nineteenth century. Already listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District, it is being nominated for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard C, both for its embodiment of the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; and for its high artistic values and design concepts. Constructed circa 1889, this building’s distinctive features include a notable arched front window with detailed brick patterns, multiple gables each adorned with fish scale and other imbricated shingles, an unusual amount of decorative brick patterns on the walls, including corbelling, a prominent front entry under second floor balcony, and steeply pitched roofs. The building retains a high degree of integrity. A small addition was made to the southeast corner of the home in circa 1965; however, it is nearly invisible from the public street and does not detract from the historic character of this home. The property is located in the Laurel School National Register District, in a residential setting of predominantly late nineteenth and early twentieth century residential properties. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling, and the Walker/MacDowell Property relates to and contributes to the neighborhood’s context. COMMISSION ACTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the request for Landmark designation of the Walker/MacDowell Property, 508 Remington Street. REVIEW CRITERIA: Municipal Code Section 14-5, Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, provides the criteria for determining the eligibility of a property for Landmark designation. It states, “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered.” Standards for determining significance: A. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment12.4: Staff Report (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) - 2 - 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. B. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. C. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. D. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Context: The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area…. Packet Pg. 159 Attachment12.4: Staff Report (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) THE WALKER/MacDOWELL PROPERTY, 508 REMINGTON STREET Front (West) and Side (South) Elevations, July 2014 Front (West) Elevation, July 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment12.5: Photos (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Side (South) Elevation, July 2014 Side (South) Elevation, July 2014 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment12.5: Photos (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Side (South) Elevation, July 2014 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment12.5: Photos (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Rear (East) Elevation, July 2014 Side (North) Elevation, July 2014 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment12.5: Photos (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment12.6: LPC Resolution 5, 2014 (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) Packet Pg. 165 Attachment12.6: LPC Resolution 5, 2014 (2528 : 508 Remington Street Landmark Designation) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 162, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE 508 REMINGTON STREET PROPERTY, 508 REMINGTON STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated September 10, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the “Commission”) has determined that the 508 Remington Street Property located at 508 Remington Street in Fort Collins, and more particularly described in Section 2, below (the “Property”) is eligible for Landmark designation for its high degree of exterior integrity and for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard C, Design/Construction, for its architectural merits as an exceptionally detailed, well-preserved example of a Queen Anne style residence, with especially noteworthy, very intricate brickwork; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in City Code Section 14-5 and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that the Property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the Property have consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property’s significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the City Council as findings of fact. Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Lot 7, Block 135, City of Fort Collins County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. Packet Pg. 166 - 2 - Section 3. That the criteria in City Code Section 14-48 will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with City Code Chapter 14, Article III. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 167 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Janet Miller, Human Resources Director SUBJECT Resolution 2014-099 Approving a Position Profile for the City Attorney Position. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve a position profile to be used in the recruitment and selection process for filling the City Attorney position. The Council Committee, in conjunction with the executive recruiter, Slavin Management Consultants created a draft position profile. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION As part of the process to define the experience, knowledge, skills, abilities, leadership and managerial attributes needed in the next City Attorney, the Council Committee has been working with the executive recruiter, Slavin Management Consultants, to create a proposed position profile. This draft profile was developed with input from key stakeholders. It will be used to promote the position to potential candidates and to narrow the candidate pool to those most qualified for this important position. The proposed profile is attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution. Packet Pg. 168 - 1 - RESOLUTION 2014-099 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE POSITION PROFILE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY SEARCH PROCESS WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, City Council adopted Resolution 2014-076 adopting a plan and target schedule for the recruitment and selection of the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, an important step in that process is the development of a position profile to be used to promote the position to potential candidates and to assist the recruiter in narrowing the pool of applicants to those most qualified for the City Attorney position; and WHEREAS, the Council Committee and the recruiter have created, with the assistance of key stakeholders, a proposed position profile; and WHEREAS, the proposed position profile is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, for the City Council’s review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the position profile attached as Exhibit “A” is hereby approved by the City Council for use in the City Attorney position recruitment and selection process. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 169 The City of Fort Collins, Colorado Invites Qualified Candidates to Apply For City Attorney EXHIBIT A Packet Pg. 170 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) Fort Collins, home to Colorado State University, has a population of 155,400 within 56 square miles and is located at the northern edge of the picturesque Rocky Mountain Front Range. Fort Collins is consistently ranked among the top cities by national magazines and organizations for its great schools, low crime, good jobs in the high-tech fi eld, and fantastic outdoor life. The community is highly educated with 79 percent more college graduates than the national average. In addition, the community’s median family income is $76,700 which is 20 percent greater than the national average. Fort Collins is sixty miles north of Denver and the Denver International Airport. Packet Pg. 171 2 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) History French trappers first established a campsite along the Cache La Poudre River in the 1700’s. Due to western expansion the U.S. government established a military outpost to protect settlers as they made their way across the prairie and over the continental divide. Business people were attracted to the area and claimed the area known as Fort Collins as the military left the region in 1868. Flash forward one hundred years as Fort Collins became an early hub of technology with the relocation of high tech companies in the 1970’s. The tech boom and bust in the 2000’s attracted a new kind of resident—entrepreneurial, innovative, and creative, embracing the pioneer spirit that settled the region originally. Economy Fort Collins has a strong economy anchored by the Colorado State University (CSU) campus with nearly 25,000 students and 7,000 employees. Founded in 1870 as a land grant college, students from every state and 95 foreign countries attend CSU. Graduate and undergraduate degrees are offered in nine colleges, and CSU is known for major research advances in agriculture, engineering, veterinary sciences, technology, and water. Major private sector employers in Fort Collins include Hewlett Packard (1,250 employees), Poudre Valley Hospital (3,000 employees), and Woodward, Inc. (1,300). Innovation occurs across industry sectors in Fort Collins. Craft brewer, bioscience, software, hardware, water innovation, and clean energy companies contribute ideas, inventions, and products that positively impact the local economy. In 2010, 225 patents were registered to researchers, scientists, and entrepreneurs in Fort Collins. Known as the community’s “crown jewel” Downtown Fort Collins has a large selection of eclectic, unique shops and restaurants. In the summer public plazas invite social gatherings and outdoor concerts. Old Town Square, a pedestrian only business district, is a vibrant hub of activity for all ages with outdoor patios and regularly scheduled entertainment. Robert Havlick Award for Innovation in Local Government recognizing the Sustainability Services Area formation Alliance For Innovation, March 2013 2012 Top Downtown in the Country Livability.com, November 2012 Packet Pg. 172 3 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) Education The Poudre School District (PSD) serves approximately 24,000 students and includes four high schools in Fort Collins and the surrounding area. In addition there are several charter schools in Fort Collins including Ridgeview Classical Schools which was rated among the top ten charter high schools in the nation (U.S.News & World Report, December 2008). For more information about PSD, please visit psdschools.org. Additional educational institutions in Fort Collins include Front Range Community College, the Institute of Business and Medical Careers, University of Phoenix, and Regis College. Recreation With 875 acres of developed park land including six community parks and 49 neighborhood/pocket parks, recreation opportunities abound in Fort Collins. The City also maintains 30,000 acres of natural areas and more than 32 miles of recreational trails. Platinum Bicycle Friendly Community League of American Bicyclists, May 2013 Packet Pg. 173 4 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) City Government Fort Collins was incorporated in 1873 and has operated under the council/manager form of government since 1939. The City Council consists of six district Council Members elected on a non-partisan basis for four-year terms and a Mayor elected at-large on a non-partisan basis for a two-year term. The Mayor Pro Tem is chosen from among the entire Council and serves a two-year term. The City has 27 Boards and Commissions that provide advice and recommendations to the City Council on issues such as affordable housing, art in public places, the environment, human relations, and the needs of senior citizens, youth, and women. The City Council appoints a City Manager who is responsible for managing municipal operations that consist of a $504 million calendar-year budget and 2,299 FTE’s. The current City Manager has worked for the City for 17 years and was appointed City Manager in 2004. In addition to traditional municipal services, the City has an electric utility, a regional airport jointly owned by the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery which was created through a unique public/ private partnership. Fort Collins’ voters have approved many capital improvement initiatives over the last forty years that have created new amenities and addressed municipal needs including two additional parks, a new City office building, a transit center, a downtown parking structure, and a horticulture center. The City has implemented these initiatives in a fiscally prudent manner as evidenced by its AAA bond rating. Each year the “World Class People” program recognizes City employees for their outstanding service, teamwork, individuality, and creativity. This is an opportunity to demonstrate how City employees contribute to making Fort Collins a great community. When past honorees were asked what they liked most about working for the City, most cited the people they worked with and the opportunity to make a difference in their community. Also, in a recent survey of City employees 60 percent indicated the City of Fort Collins is the best place they have ever worked. The City and community have received more than 60 honors and awards over the last several years that recognize the quality of life and economic and environmental sustainability that exists in Fort Collins. To view a list of these honors and awards, please visit the following web site fcgov.com/visitor. Vision To provide world-class municipal services through operational excellence and a culture of innovation. Mission Exceptional service for an exceptional community. Values • Outstanding Services • Innovation and Creativity • Respect • Integrity • Initiative • Collaboration and Teamwork • Stewardship Money Magazine ranked Fort Collins 6th Best Place to Live in the Nation in 2010 Packet Pg. 174 5 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) City Attorney Position The City Attorney serves as the chief legal advisor to the City of Fort Collins Colorado, and is responsible for providing sound and efficient legal services to City Council, City manager, boards, commissions, and other City staff in matters relating to their official powers and duties. Responsibilities include planning, staffing and supervising the legal service needs of the City. Provides legal representation for the City in all actions or suits in which the City is a party. The City Attorney is appointed by the City Council and is directly responsible to the City Council for the functions and duties assigned by the provisions of the City Charter and Municipal Code. The City Attorney serves at the pleasure of the City Council. City Attorney responsibilities include: • On a day-to-day basis, consult with and assist all the City departments with matters for which they require guidance, including contract drafting and interpretation, personnel legal questions, Municipal Code and Charter interpretation, building codes and other areas related to municipal law. • Participates in the preparation and presentation of cases, renders legal opinions, and prepares court papers, contracts, ordinances, resolutions, deeds and leases. Work is performed with technical independence in accordance with accepted practices. • Attend all meetings of the City Council and some City Council committee meetings and draft all ordinances, contracts and other instruments as required by the City Charter, ordinances or the Council. • Consult with the City Manager’s Office regarding all manner of things which have legal implications for the City and relate to the City Manager’s official duties and powers. • Effectively and efficiently manage the use of outside legal counsel and consultants. • Responsible for all prosecution in the Fort Collins Municipal Court. • Responsible for the management of the City Attorney’s Office, including the hiring of assistant city attorneys and other legal staff. Responsible for drafting and managing the departmental budget. • Prepares and approves proposed ordinances for consideration by the Mayor and Council. • Reviews the legality and/or sufficiency of contracts, bonds, bids, leases, insurance, and claims. • Represents the City in lawsuits and administrative hearings. • Serves the City’s interests in various contract negotiations. • Manages, supervises, and reviews the work of legal and support staff , (currently consisting of 10 attorneys, 2 paralegals, and 3 support staff) as well as, managing the office budget, support contracts, etc. • Researches, interprets, and applies laws, court decisions, and other legal authority in the preparation of opinions and briefs. • Analyzes legislation including proposed state and federal legislation affecting the City. Packet Pg. 175 6 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) Supervisory Duties: This position is responsible for supervision of City employees. This position carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with applicable laws and the policies of the organization and City Attorney’s Office. Responsibilities include but are not limited to: interviewing, hiring, and training employees; planning, assigning and directing work; appraising performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and resolving problems. Job Requirements: The minimum job requirements are: 1) graduation from a school of law accredited by the American Bar Association with a Juris Doctor Degree; and 2) high-level government management experience with at least ten years’ experience in the practice of law, including some (6 months to 1 year) experience in municipal law and supervising one or more attorneys and other professional staff. Licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado during his or her tenure in office, but need not be so licensed prior to appointment. Equivalent combinations of experience and education will be considered. Desired Professional and Personal Attributes: The following are the desired professional and leadership attributes for the Fort Collins’ City Attorney: • Must possess the ability to make sound judgments and exhibit composure and patience when dealing with stressful situations; the ability to communicate effectively and diplomatically, both orally and in writing, with co-workers, City Council, boards and commissions and the general public • Have a superior knowledge of municipal legal issues with a demonstrated mastery in areas of the law as deemed necessary by City Council • Must have the management skills and training which would allow the attorney to effectively and efficiently manage the programs and personnel of the City Attorney’s Office • Have the ability to efficiently operate a personal computer and perform word processing tasks • The ability to work occasional evenings, weekends and holidays as necessary to accomplish job tasks or as requested by City Council • Strong, tactful, and powerful communicator who explains complex issues in layperson language • Driver who works with a sense of urgency in a positive and personable manner • Change-agent who embraces continuous improvement philosophy and is quick study on addressing barriers to change • Experience with performance management and evaluation of services • Strong organizational and time-management skills with ability to prioritize key initiatives and manage work flow in complex environment with many stakeholders who have “must do” projects • Politically astute yet apolitical • Good public presentation skills with experience making presentations to City Councils or comparable groups • Able to inspire and motivate City employees. Compensation The salary for the City Attorney position is dependent on experience and qualifications. The following benefits package are provided: • Medical, dental, and vision insurance • Flexible spending accounts • 401(a) and 457 plans • Paid vacation • Paid sick leave and long and short-term disability • Nine paid holidays The City’s current organizational chart which will be revised to reflect the City Attorney position. Packet Pg. 177 8 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) Agenda Item 14 Item # 14 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Wanda Nelson, City Clerk SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2014, Repealing Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 10, 2014, the City Clerk certified that a referendum petition seeking to repeal Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding disposable Bags was sufficient. On October 21, 2014, Council voted 6-1 (nays: Poppaw) to repeal Ordinance No. 099, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 151, 2014 (PDF) Packet Pg. 178 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 21, 2014 City Council STAFF Wanda Nelson, City Clerk SUBJECT Items Relating to the Disposable Bags Referendum Petition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Presentation of a Certified Petition Seeking to Repeal Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags. (No Action Needed) AND B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2014, Repealing Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags. OR C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2014, Calling a Special Election for the Purpose of Submitting to the Registered Electors a Citizen Referendum of Ordinance No. 099, 2014 Amending Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Establishing Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags OR D. Resolution 2014-097 Referring Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Next Regular Municipal Election on April 7, 2015. On September 29, 2014, a referendum petition was filed with the City Clerk’s Office seeking to repeal Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags. On October 10, 2014, the City Clerk determined that the referendum petition was sufficient, absent a protest being filed by the October 9 deadline. Upon presentation to the Council of a petition certified as sufficient for referendum, the operation of the ordinance in question is automatically suspended pending repeal by the Council or final determination by the voters. If the ordinance is not repealed, the Council must refer the ordinance to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular or special City election scheduled for any other purpose. If the Council chooses to refer the measure to the voters, the Council may call a special election for this specific purpose. The earliest practical opportunity for a special election would be January 2015. If the Council chooses to wait until April 2015 to have the voters consider this issue, Resolution 2014-097 is presented to place the issue on the ballot and set the ballot language. If Council opts for a special election on another date, a revised Resolution will be presented to Council on November 4 in conjunction with Second Reading of the Ordinance calling the special election. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment14.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2554 : SR 151 Disposable Bags Repeal) Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council select among the options provided. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The cost for a special election would exceed $100,000. ATTACHMENTS 1. Certification of Referendum Petition (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 099, 2014 Amending Chapter 12 of City Code to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 180 Attachment14.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (2554 : SR 151 Disposable Bags Repeal) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 151, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 099, 2014, AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS REGARDING DISPOSABLE BAGS WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Disposable Bags (the “Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, a registered elector commenced referendum proceedings by filing with the City Clerk a notice of protest against the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the City Clerk approved the form of the referendum petition relating to the Ordinance (the “Referendum Petition”); and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2014, the Referendum Petition was filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014, the City Clerk determined that the Referendum Petition did contain the requisite number of signatures (at least 2,604) to warrant further action by the City Council and that such petition was sufficient within the meaning of Article X, Section 5(f) of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 2(e) of the City Charter, the presentation to the City Council of a petition certified by the City Clerk as sufficient for referendum automatically suspends the operation of the ordinance in question pending repeal by the Council or final determination by the electors; and WHEREAS, Council has determined that the Ordinance should be repealed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Ordinance No. 099, 2014, Amending Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Establish Regulations Regarding Disposable Bags, is hereby repealed in its entirety. Packet Pg. 181 Attachment14.2: Ordinance No. 151, 2014 (2554 : SR 151 Disposable Bags Repeal) - 2 - Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of October, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 182 Attachment14.2: Ordinance No. 151, 2014 (2554 : SR 151 Disposable Bags Repeal) Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and Revised TOD Off-Street Parking Requirements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2014-100 Approving the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2014, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Parking Issues Related to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and corresponding revisions to residential and commercial off-street parking requirements within the Land Use Code (LUC). At its September 11, 2014 meeting, Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the following LUC revisions: Residential 1. Minimum parking requirements for multi-family and mixed-use dwellings; and 2. Alternative compliance. Commercial* 1. Minimum parking requirements for nonresidential land uses city-wide; and 2. Alternative compliance. *The commercial parking recommendation was qualified as a necessary interim measure until a comprehensive parking management approach is adopted. The management approach includes on-street paid parking and residential parking permit programs at the perimeter, public parking garages, and a transportation demand management (TDM) program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council Work Session – May 27, 2014 At the May 27 City Council Work Session, the following feedback was provided: Packet Pg. 183 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 1. City Council generally supports the Study’s recommendations; 2. Two options for minimum parking requirements should be provided for multi-family dwellings: a. Retain temporary standards; or b. Adopt recommended standards; 3. Alternative compliance needs to demonstrate effective reductions in parking demand; 4. The City should pursue public-private partnerships for parking structures and off-site parking in the near- term; and 5. The effectiveness of MAX and parking conditions should be monitored in the long-term. TOD Parking Study Recommendations In 2013, as infill and redevelopment activity increased in the TOD Overlay Zone, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council expressed concerns about the lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand and the potential for spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns have also been expressed about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density. To address these concerns, the City Council adopted a “stop-gap” ordinance requiring minimum off-street parking in the TOD Overlay Zone. The temporary minimum requirement is 70% of the existing standard with an alternative compliance element that permits reduced parking if supported through a parking impact study. Staff and a consultant have conducted extensive public outreach and research on national best practices as part of the Study. The community has provided consistent feedback that, although the City’s vision for walkable and transit-oriented infill and redevelopment is commendable, and cars may not be needed for routine trips, residents still own cars and, therefore, vehicle storage and access needs to be accommodated. At the May 5 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the TOD Parking Study and accompanying Land Use Code (LUC) revisions, with the following key recommendations: 1. Provide minimum parking requirements that vary according to land use (Land Use Code); 2. Allow for alternative compliance based on parking demand mitigation strategies (Land Use Code); 3. Provide on-street paid parking in downtown, employing the newest management technology; 4. Develop public-private partnerships to construct parking structures; and 5. Continue monitoring parking conditions. The first two recommendations listed above are proposed to be implemented as revisions to the Land Use Code. (Discussion regarding residential and commercial land use recommendations are found on page three.) Recommendations three and four are policy direction for implementation which is outside the scope of the Parking Study. However, recommendation three, on-street paid parking, is already being considered for further outreach and implementation by Parking Services through a budget offer for 2015-16. Recommendation four, public-private partnerships for parking structures will be managed by the Economic Health Office to create the criteria necessary to implement such partnerships. In addition to the minimum parking requirements and alternative compliance provisions staff is recommending the following Land Use Code changes that will assist in getting right-sized parking: Require a parking narrative as a submittal requirement in which an applicant will describe the parking demand generated by the proposal with consideration of the anticipated number of employees, tenants, and/or patrons; the amount and location of parking provided; where anticipated spill-over parking will occur; and, any other considerations regarding vehicle parking; Revise the compatibility section of the Code to enable decision maker(s) to require an increased amount of parking; Require that all parking demand mitigation strategies are recorded on the approved site plan so that the strategies can be enforced for the life of the project through zoning compliance; and Create a definition of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) for the interim period of time prior to an adopted bona fide program so that a private proposal may utilize this strategy. Packet Pg. 184 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 3 Land Use Code Revisions – Residential in the TOD Overlay Zone Prior to the “stop-gap” ordinance, no minimum parking was required for mixed-use and multi-family residential in the TOD Overlay Zone. The chart below provides the existing (temporary – expires December 2014) and proposed parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family residential developments within the TOD Overlay Zone. Number of Bedrooms per Unit Temporary Requirements Proposed Requirements* One or less 1.1 0.75 Two 1.2 1 Three 1.4 1.25 Four and above 2.1 1.5 Rent-by-the-bedroom All bedrooms N/A 0.75 * Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure. Examples Development Units – Bedrooms Parking Provided Temporary Requirement Proposed Requirement Max Flats 64 – 98 64 Spaces 87 Spaces 74 Spaces Penny Flats 174 – 311 312 Spaces 210 Spaces 165 Spaces Pine Street Lofts 14 – 21 26 Spaces 16 Spaces 12 spaces Attachment 2 is an extensive analysis of multi-family developments within the TOD Overlay which compares the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms for 10 additional projects. Land Use Code Revisions – Commercial Citywide Currently, nonresidential land uses do not have minimum parking requirements and are limited to a maximum number of spaces. The proposed standards would create a minimum parking requirement of approximately 50% of the maximum permitted. Exemptions are proposed for existing buildings and reductions within the TOD Overlay Zone. The proposed requirements can be found in the attached ordinance. The following chart shows the amount of parking spaces required for commercial development under the proposed change. Examples: Development On-Site Parking Provided Off-Site Parking Provided Parking Required if Minimums Adopted Inside TOD Overlay Zone 401 N. Mason (Mason Street Sustainable Development) 0 11 22 Canyon Place (Otterbox) 0 310 for the Otterbox campus 60 Mitchell Block (Bohemian) 12 0 32 Meldrum Office Building (Blue Ocean Headquarters) 6 310 for the Otterbox campus 37 Packet Pg. 185 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 4 Block 1 (Encompass) 65 0 36 Outside TOD Overlay Zone Villagio 357 (maximum 401 spaces) 0 185 Custom Blending 48 (maximum + 3 handicap spaces) 0 30 Brinkman Headquarters 95 (maximum + 3 handicap spaces) 0 31 Land Use Code Revisions – Alternative Compliance The proposed alternative compliance option, for both commercial and residential land uses, provides flexible parking demand mitigation consistent with the vision for development within the TOD Overlay Zone. With future infill and redevelopment projects generally envisioned to be compact, transit and pedestrian friendly, with less area dedicated to surface parking lots, applicants have the ability to reduce the amount of parking provided when parking demand mitigation strategies are employed. The following chart shows demand mitigation strategies and the corresponding parking reduction. Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction*** Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit (< 50% AMI) 50% Transit Passes for each tenant 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Shared Parking Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Parking Impact Study Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on Approved Alternative Compliance **All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and subject to audit for the duration of the project. *** Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or Transportation Demand Management. (Residential Only) The parking demand mitigation strategies (included in the above LUC revisions) have been shown effective in reducing the need for extensive on-site parking. The proposed reductions were based on information cited below. Affordable Housing – Families earning 24% - 36% area median income (AMI) have a 44% lower vehicle ownership rate. (Source: www.nonprofithousing.org) Packet Pg. 186 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 5 Transit Passes – The table below illustrates the effects of providing transit passes: Location: Drive to Work Transit to Work Introduction of transit passes Before After Difference Before After Difference Santa Clara, CA 76% 60% -16% 11% 27% 16% Bellevue, WA 81% 57% -24% 13% 18% 6% Ann Arbor, MI N/A -4% -4% 20% 25% 5% Boulder, CO 56% 36% -20% 15% 34% 19% Average -16% 12% Source: Traffic Reduction Strategies Study, City of Pasadena, Nelson Nygaard Car Share – Studies have shown that carshare members reduce their car ownership. A study of City Carshare members found that 29% of members either sold vehicles or avoided planned vehicle purchases when they joined the program (Cervero et al., 2007). In a more recent national survey, carshare members reduced their vehicle ownership from an average of .47 autos per household before joining a carshare program to .24 vehicles after joining (Martin, Shaheen, & Lidicker, 2010). Notably, most of this ownership reduction was due to one-car households becoming zero-car households, with many fewer two-car households joining and reducing their auto ownership. Over half of carshare members were in zero-car households when they joined, and remained so. Still, enough households shed a vehicle after joining carshare or avoided purchasing a vehicle, that each carshare vehicle replaced 9 to 13 private vehicles. Bike and Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) A – The Victoria Transport Policy Institute - Walking and cycling improvements result in a typical parking reduction of 5 - 15%. (See table in Draft TOD Parking Study on page 26.) Parking Impact Study – This proposed provision permits a development proposal to provide a comprehensive study of parking conditions on and around their site in order to justify a lower or higher parking ratio than required. (See attached Parking Impact Study Guidelines.) BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The following boards were closely involved with the TOD Parking Study and were asked to formally recommend to approve the TOD Parking Study, adopt residential and commercial parking requirements, and alternative compliance. Topic and Recommendation Board Approve TOD Parking Study Adopt Residential Parking Requirements Adopt Commercial Parking Requirements Adopt Alternative Compliance Planning and Zoning Board YES YES YES YES Parking Advisory Board YES YES NO YES Transportation Board YES YES NO YES Packet Pg. 187 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 6 Planning and Zoning Board At its May 5, 2014 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommended adoption of the TOD Parking Study. At the September 11 meeting, the Board made separate motions for residential and commercial requirements. The Board voted unanimously (6-0) to adopt the residential parking requirements and corresponding alternative compliance, and a split vote (5-1) to adopt the commercial parking requirements and corresponding alternative compliance. The vote to approve commercial parking requirements was qualified as a necessary interim measure until a comprehensive parking management approach, as seen in many peer communities, is adopted which includes on-street paid parking (Study recommendation) and residential parking permit programs at the perimeter (existing), public parking garages (Study recommendation), and a transportation demand management (TDM) program (Study recommendation). Parking Advisory Board At its May 12, 2014 meeting, the Board unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the TOD Parking Study. However, the Board expressed the following concerns: need to be sensitive to the impacts minimum parking requirements may have on affordable housing; investment in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is important; and on-street paid parking will require more public outreach before implementation. At its July 14 meeting, the Board voted to recommend minimum parking requirements for residential but voted against minimum parking requirements for commercial citing concerns that it may deter development and market conditions will provide for parking. Transportation Board At its July 16, 2014 meeting, the Board unanimously voted to recommend minimum parking requirements for residential but voted against minimum parking requirements for commercial citing concerns that it may deter development and market conditions will provide for parking. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has conducted outreach throughout the entirety of the study engaging targeted stakeholders, formal organizations, the public-at-large, and City Boards and Commissions. Primarily, the topic has been presented in face-to-face meetings and also online tools such as the City’s website, Facebook, Mason Corridor Connection E-newsletter, Nextdoor, and an online survey. In general public comments indicate: o Spillover parking from CSU and new student housing is an issue; o the concept of less parking in the TOD Overlay may be sufficient in the long term but the transit is not yet running; o people may be able to perform routine trips via bikes, walking, and transit, but still own a car for longer trips; o parking requirements should be applied according to land use and site specific conditions; o on-street paid parking makes sense in the Downtown; and o parking structures are appropriate. (More detailed outreach information can be found in the Draft TOD Parking Study on page 54.) Community Engagement Strategy #1: Focus group presentations to key stakeholders o Groups Engaged UniverCity Connections, Transit and Mobility Taskforce, January 7 Developers, January 22-23 Commercial property owners, January 22-23 Design community/planners, January 22-23 Board of Realtors, February 11, May 13, July 10 Packet Pg. 188 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 7 Overland Sertoma Club, February 19 Downtown Business Association, March 20 Downtown Development Authority, August 14 North Front Range MPO & Larimer County Mobility Council, April 17 Chamber of Commerce, April 18, August 1 CREW of Northern Colorado, June 4 South Fort Collins Business Association, October 7 Community Engagement Strategy #2: Engage City Boards and Commissions o Groups Engaged Planning and Zoning Board, Mar. 7, April 4, May 8, July 10, September11 Parking Advisory Board, December 9, March 10, May 12, July 14 Transportation Board, March 19, July 16 Affordable Housing Board, April 3 Economic Advisory Commission, May 21 City Council Work Session, May 27 Community Engagement Strategy #3: General Public Involvement o Project Booth at Transportation Open House (February 20) Attendees: 150+ o Online Presence & Social Media Project Web page on City Web site City Facebook page Mason Corridor Connection E-newsletter Development Review List Serve o 328 Subscribers Nextdoor Web Posting o 4,174 total members o 3,330 households o Targeted Neighborhood Meetings Downtown Neighborhoods, March 6 Midtown Neighborhoods, March 11 Campus Area/Avery Park Neighborhoods, March 27 o Tactic: Engage Media Article in Coloradoan (March 5) Neighborhood Services E-Newsletter ATTACHMENTS 1. Map - TOD Overlay Zone (PDF) 2. TOD Projects Parking Comparison (PDF) 3. Parking Impact Study Guidelines (PDF) 4. City Council Work Session Summary, May 27, 2014 (PDF) 5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 189 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment15.1: Map - TOD Overlay Zone (2388 : TOD Parking Study) Projects in the TOD Overlay Zone Bedrooms Parking Spaces Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms Parking Spaces Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms Parking Spaces Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms Parking Spaces Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms Parking Spaces Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms The Summit (Choice Center)*(RBB) 665 217 32.6% 512.5 77% 358.8 53.9% 498.8 75.0% 573.6 86.3% Ram's Crossing K2(RBB) 140 47 33.6% 191.0 136% 133.9 95.6% 105.0 75.0% 120.8 86.3% Legacy Senior Apts*(s) 112 52 46.4% 118 105% 82.6 73.8% 33.6 30.0% 38.6 34.5% 318 W Myrtle 17 8 47.1% 13 76% 9.1 53.5% 7.8 45.6% 8.9 52.4% Pura Vida Place (RBB) 100 49 49.0% 90 90% 63.0 63.0% 75.0 75.0% 86.3 86.3% Sherwood Forts 9 5 55.6% 6 67% 4.2 46.7% 3.8 41.7% 4.3 47.9% Flats at the Oval (RBB) 96 57 59.4% 83 86% 57.1 59.4% 72.0 75.0% 82.8 86.3% Carriage House Apts*(RBB) 90 58 64.4% 95 106% 66.5 73.9% 67.5 75.0% 77.6 86.3% District at Campus West*(RBB) 658 461 70.1% 431 66% 343.0 52.1% 493.5 75.0% 567.5 86.3% Willow Street Lofts 46 36 78.3% 42 91% 29.1 63.2% 23.5 51.1% 27.0 58.8% Penny Flats 311 312 100.3% 255 82% 209.8 67.5% 164.8 53.0% 189.5 60.9% Average 57.9% Average 89% Average 64% Average 61% Average 70% RBB Only 51.5% RBB Only 94% RBB Only 66% RBB Only 75% RBB Only 86.3% *under construction (RBB) Rent-by-the-bedroom (s) Senior housing Existing Complies with Standard Existing - Market Driven Temporary Ordinance Inside TOD Existing Parking Requirement Outside TOD Parking Analysis of Projects in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone TOD Parking Study - Proposed Maxium Recommendation (115% of Minimum) 5/8/14 TOD Parking Study - Proposed Minimum Recommendation 5/8/14 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment15.2: TOD Projects Parking Comparison (2388 : TOD Parking Study) Parking Impact Study Guidelines May 5, 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment15.3: Parking Impact Study Guidelines (2388 : TOD Parking Study) As part of the Alternative Compliance process regarding parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone development review process, applicants can either follow the parking requirement standards or they have the option of providing, at their cost, a parking impact study. The following are guidelines outlining the contents of parking impact study that would be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins: PARKING IMPACT STUDY REPORT FORMAT & CONTENTS 1. Title Page 2. Executive Summary 3. Table of Contents 4. Introduction 5. Planning Context a. Study area b. Existing site plan c. Other developments within study area d. Map(s) and descriptive text e. Transportation network overview f. Transit, cycling and walking environment 6. Current Parking Assessment a. Current parking inventory b. Current land uses c. Existing traffic conditions 7. Description of Proposed Project a. Description of proposed land uses, including size (sq.ft.) b. Document proposed development schedule and project phasing 8. Parking Analysis a. Calculation of required parking for proposed project based on current land use code b. Assessment of existing parking conditions within a three block radius of the proposed development, including documentation of on-street parking i. Document existing available off-street parking within the study area, both on-site and within the immediate vicinity (3 block radius) ii. Document availability of on-street and/or shared parking opportunities, include documentation of availability at multiple timeframes. Document total supply and percent utilization on a lot-by-lot basis by timeframe iii. Document walking distances from parking areas to demand generators. Note topography and other environmental issues. c. Calculation of peak parking demand based on all proposed project land uses d. Conduct a limited parking rate survey in the immediate area e. Conduct a shared parking analysis (based on the latest Urban land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking methodology) to document peak parking accumulation patterns based on time of day, day of week and seasonal variations i. Documentation of potential “captive market factors” should also be included Packet Pg. 193 Attachment15.3: Parking Impact Study Guidelines (2388 : TOD Parking Study) f. Identify opportunities to reduce parking demand through the application of advanced parking management and TDM alternatives and their estimated reduction in parking demand by strategy 9. Conclusions and Recommendations a. Document recommended parking to be provided (based on analysis with and without shared parking and other demand reduction factors) b. Provide maps to summarize and illustrate. CITY PLANNING REVIEW The completed Parking Impact Study will be submitted to City planning staff for review. City staff will assess the study recommendations based on a standard alternative compliance application review process. This process includes the following criteria: Review Criteria - To approve an exception to the standard, the decision maker must first find that the proposed project accomplishes the general purposes of the applicable section(s) of the land use code. In reviewing the request for an exception to the standard parking ratio and in order to determine whether such request is consistent with the purposes of this subsection, as required above, the decision maker shall take into account the following: • The anticipated number of employees or residents occupying the building • The number and frequency of expected customers or clients • The availability of nearby on-street parking (if any) • The availability of shared parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding land uses (if any) • The provision of purchased or leased parking spaces in a municipal or private parking lot meeting the requirements of the city • Travel demand management programs (if any) • Any other factors that may be unique to the applicant's development request. The decision maker shall not approve an exception to the general office parking standard unless it: • Does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity • Minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street of the proposed increased parking by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible • Minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact of such additional parking on the surrounding neighborhood • Creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation • Creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features • Maintains handicap parking ratios in compliance with current AADAG requirements • For projects located in D, L-M-N, M-M-N and C-C zone districts, conforms with the established street and alley block patterns, and places parking lots across the side or to the rear of buildings • Is supported by a travel demand management program which has been submitted to and approved by the city. Packet Pg. 194 Attachment15.3: Parking Impact Study Guidelines (2388 : TOD Parking Study) Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221-6600 970.224-6177 - fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2014 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager FROM: Seth Lorson, City Planner RE: May 27, 2014 Work Session Summary: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study Attendees: City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro-tem Gerry Horak, Lisa Poppaw, Gino Campana, Bob Overbeck, Ross Cunniff City Staff: Seth Lorson, Laurie Kadrich Consultant: Dennis Burns, Kimley-Horn and Associates This memo summarizes input provided by Council regarding the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Board and Parking Advisory Board as a result of the TOD Parking Study. Feedback from Council: Council generally supports the recommendations. Provide two options for adoption in terms of minimum parking requirements for multi- family dwellings: o Retain temporary standards o Adopt recommended standards Alternative compliance needs to demonstrate effective reductions in parking demand. The City should pursue public-private partnerships for parking structures and off-site parking in the near-term. The effectiveness of MAX and parking conditions should be monitored in the long-term. Summary: Staff will bring the TOD Parking Study and Land Use Code revisions to Council for adoption on August 19. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment15.4: City Council Work Session Summary, May 27, 2014 (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 1 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and Land Use Code Revisions City Council November 4, 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 2 TOD Parking Study Recommendations 1. Minimum Parking Requirements (Land Use Code) 2. Alternative Compliance (Land Use Code) 3. On-Street Paid Parking 4. Parking Structures 5. Continued Monitoring Packet Pg. 197 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 3 Proposed Land Use Code Parking Revisions Residential: (within TOD Overlay) • Adopt proposed minimums; or • Retain temporary minimums Nonresidential: (Citywide) • Adopt proposed minimums Alternative Compliance • Adopt for residential; and • Nonresidential Packet Pg. 198 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 4 Residential Proposed Minimums: Number of Bedrooms/Unit Parking Spaces Per Unit* One or less 0.75 Two 1 Three 1.25 Four and above 1.5 Rent-by-the-Bedroom Parking Spaces Per Bedroom All Bedrooms 0.75 *Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure Packet Pg. 199 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 5 Multi-family Parking Requirements Number of Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit Outside the TOD Overlay Zone Temporary Req. inside TOD Overlay Recommended Req. inside TOD Overlay* One or less 1.5 1.1 0.75 Two 1.75 1.2 1.0 Three 2.0 1.4 1.25 Four and above 3.0 2.1 1.5 Rent by the bedroom N/A N/A 0.75 per bedroom *Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless in a structure. Packet Pg. 200 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 6 TOD Example: Max Flats Provided 64 Dwelling Units • 98 Bedrooms 64 Parking Spaces • 65% Sp/Bd New Requirement 74 Parking Spaces • 75% Sp/Bd Temporary Req. 87 Parking Spaces • 89% Sp/Bd Packet Pg. 201 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 7 TOD Example: Penny Flats Provided 174 Dwelling Units • 311 Bedrooms 312 Parking Spaces • 100.3% Sp/Bd New Requirement 165 Parking Spaces • 53% Sp/Bd Temporary Req. 210 Parking Spaces • 68% Sp/Bd Packet Pg. 202 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 8 TOD Example: Pine Street Lofts Provided 14 Dwelling Units • 21 Bedrooms 26 Parking Spaces • 124% Sp/Bd New Requirement 12 Parking Spaces • 57% Sp/Bd Temporary Req. 16 Parking Spaces • 76% Sp/Bd Packet Pg. 203 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 9 Nonresidential Adopt Minimum Requirements • Approximately 50% of Maximum • Existing Building Exemption • TOD Overlay Zone Exemption Packet Pg. 204 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 10 Recent Commercial Developments Development On-Site Parking Provided Off-Site Parking Provided Parking Required if Minimums Adopted 401 N. Mason 0 11 22 Canyon Place (Otterbox) 0 310 for Otterbox Campus 60 Mitchell Block (Bohemian) 12 0 32 Meldrum Office Building (Blue Ocean Headquarters) 6 310 for Otterbox Campus 37 Block 1 (Encompass) 65 0 36 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 11 Nonresidential Peer Communities Community Downtown Parking Requirement Comprehensive Parking Management Boulder, CO No Minimum Yes Eugene, OR No Minimum Yes Santa Barbara, CA No Minimum Yes Boise, ID No Minimum Yes Cedar Rapids, IA No Minimum Yes Asheville, NC No Minimum Yes Fort Collins No Minimum No Packet Pg. 206 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 12 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE *Maximum of 50% reduction without Parking Impact Study or Transportation Demand Management. Demand Mitigation Strategy Parking Requirement Reduction* Affordable Housing (< 50% AMI) 50% Transit Passes 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet of MAX Station 10% Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Shared Parking Based on Alternative Compliance Parking Impact Study Based on Alternative Compliance Transportation Demand Management Based on Alternative Compliance Packet Pg. 207 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 13 Questions 1. APPROVE TOD PARKING STUDY? (Resolution) 2. ADOPT LAND USE CODE REVISIONS? (Ordinance) a) Residential: (within TOD Overlay) i. Adopt proposed minimums; or ii. Retain temporary minimums; and iii. Alternative Compliance b) Nonresidential: (Citywide) i. Adopt proposed minimums, and ii. Alternative compliance Packet Pg. 208 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) 14 THANK YOU! Packet Pg. 209 Attachment15.5: Powerpoint presentation (2388 : TOD Parking Study) - 1 - RESOLUTION 2014-100 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PARKING STUDY WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council expressed concerns regarding the lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand, and the potential for spillover parking in adjacent neighborhoods, in the Transit- Oriented Development (“TOD”) Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, affected neighbors in the TOD zone have expressed concerns to the City Council about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density in certain areas of the TOD Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, City staff has engaged the services of Kimli-Horn and Associates, Inc., to conduct the TOD Parking Study (the “Study”) and as a part of the Study, extensive public outreach and research on national best practices was conducted and advice was received from the Planning and Zoning Board, the Parking Advisory Board and the Transportation Board; and WHEREAS, it was concluded as part of the Study that the City’s vision for walkable and transit-oriented infill and redevelopment, although commendable, may not be entirely practical because even though the automobile is not routinely needed, residents in the TOD zone continue to own cars and need to store them appropriately; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Parking Advisory Board and the Transportation Board have all recommended that the City Council approve the Study; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the Study be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Transit-Oriented Development Parking Study prepared by Kimli-Horn and Associates, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein is hereby approved. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 210 EXHIBIT A Packet Pg. 211 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 2 TABLE of CONTENTS Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction and Project Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Planning Context – Building on Adopted Community Policy .................................................................................................. 8 Parking Requirements Reform – The Scholarly Debate ........................................................................................................ 20 Triple Bottom Line Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 39 Best Practices Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 42 Peer City Reviews .................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Public Involvement................................................................................................................................................................ 54 TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis .......................... ………………………………………………..71 Alternatives Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 75 References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 84 Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 86 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 3 Executive Summary Background: The purpose of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone is to encourage transit-supported, compact, and walkable infill and redevelopment projects. Adopted in 2006-07, the TOD Overlay Zone standards removed minimum parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family dwellings. The intent is to incentivize redevelopment on challenging infill sites, and show commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment. Problem Statement: In 2013, as development activity increased in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council expressed concerns associated with the increasing number of multi-family and mixed- use housing (with a student-oriented housing emphasis) projects. The concerns include a perceived lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand generated, and thus the potential for spill-over parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns have also been expressed about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density. Fueled by these concerns, the City Council adopted a “stop-gap” ordinance (Ord. 121, 2013) requiring minimum parking in the TOD Overlay Zone. The temporary minimum requirement is 70% of the existing standard outside the TOD Overlay Zone with an alternative compliance element that permits a parking impact study to show a reduction in parking demand. Five Recommendations: 1. Minimum parking requirements for development projects that vary based on land use; 2. Allow for alternative compliance based on parking demand mitigation strategies; 3. On-street paid parking with modern management technology; 4. Public-private partnerships for parking structures; and 5. Monitor effects of MAX Bus Rapid Transit on parking conditions in the long term. Study Approach and Process: The Study team evaluated 1) planning context in terms of existing city policies and regulations related to TOD; 2) research of parking literature, best practices, and peer cities; 3) triple-bottom-line analysis; 4) public involvement and stakeholder feedback; 5) parking utilization data collected throughout the Overlay Zone; and 6) review of alternatives. Packet Pg. 213 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 4 Introduction and Project Purpose Background: The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone primarily consists of the commercial districts in the College Avenue and Mason Street Corridors, Downtown and the CSU Campus areas. The purpose of the TOD Overlay Zone is to encourage transit-supported, compact, walkable infill and redevelopment projects. Adopted in 2006-07 the TOD Overlay Zone standards removed minimum parking requirements for mixed-use and multi- family dwellings. The intent was to incentivize redevelopment on challenging infill sites, show commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment, and to encourage urban densities as a result of the Growth Management Area (GMA). The amount of parking was expected to be driven by market demand, balancing the need to provide adequate parking as an amenity, with the constraints of maximizing development potential on difficult infill sites. Problem Statement: In 2013, as development activity increased in the TOD Overlay Zone, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council expressed concerns with an increasing number of multi-family and mixed-use housing projects with a student-oriented housing emphasis. The concerns include a perceived lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand they are generating and, in turn, potentially leading to spill-over parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns have also been expressed about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density in the TOD zone. The City has the ability to require additional parking as it relates to neighborhood compatibility, however the tools to determine the parking demand are not in place and thus the City does not have an objective measure on which to base such a requirement. Fueled by these concerns, the City Council adopted a “stop-gap” ordinance (Ord. 121, 2013) requiring minimum parking in the TOD Overlay Zone. The new minimum requirement is 70% of the existing non-TOD standard with an alternative compliance element that permits a parking impact study to show a reduction in parking demand. The ordinance will expire on September 13, 2014, during which time the City, with the assistance of an expert consultant, are conducting a TOD Overlay Zone Parking Study (this report) that will result in a plan to implement Packet Pg. 214 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 5 permanent comprehensive parking requirements based on an evaluation of parking utilization information and best practices. Study Objectives: 1. Implement parking standards in the Land Use Code (“LUC” or “Code”) for multi-family and mixed-use residential and commercial development in the TOD Overlay Zone. a. Ensure parking standards are in conformance with the community vision as outlined in City Plan, the Parking Plan, the Transportation Master Plan and the Mason Corridor Plan, in regards to transit-oriented development and neighborhood compatibility. b. Explore a comprehensive approach to TOD Overlay Zone parking requirements. c. Base standards on data collected and best practices for a community the size of Fort Collins. 2. Engage community stakeholders, specifically residents and business owners in and adjacent to the TOD Overlay Zone and the Fort Collins Parking Advisory Board, through a thorough outreach process in which issues are discussed, accepted best practices are reviewed and alternatives are presented for feedback. 3. Establish a policy foundation for parking in the TOD Overlay Zone as an amendment to the existing Parking Plan. 4. Evaluate the options of parking impact fees or parking in-lieu fees. Study Approach and Process: 1) Review Planning Context o The Study evaluated major City planning documents that relevant to the planning framework and context for the TOD Overlay Zone: City Plan (2011), Parking Plan (2012), Midtown Plan (2013), and Transportation Master Plan (2011). In summary, these documents encourage mixed-use infill and redevelopment within targeted areas (particularly the TOD Overlay Zone), support more multi-modal transportation options, and acknowledge the need to preservation neighborhood character. 2) Research Best Practices o Parking Literature Review: Much of the leading research on parking policy can be summarized with the following quotes, “Too much parking at residential properties correlates with more automobile ownership, more vehicle miles traveled, more congestion, more carbon emissions, and higher housing costs. It also results in lost development opportunity because excess parking area could have been used instead for residential or commercial development or public realm uses such as parks and plazas.” (Mark Gander, Director of Urban Mobility and Development at AECOM) o Establishing Parking Requirements: According to Todd Litman, author of Parking Management Best Practices, should consider the following in order to create parking requirements tailored to specific development projects: o Surrounding land use mix. o Availability of transportation choices. o Population and development density. o Development type and size. o Peer Cities Review Related to Zoning Policy and Parking Requirements: A review of best practices and policies from other communities was conducted. Best practices in this area involve providing lower minimum parking Packet Pg. 215 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 6 requirements in TOD areas with alternative compliance mechanisms that provide opportunities to reduce parking demand further based on data driven processes incorporating a comprehensive approach that leverages shared public/private facilities and a range of transportation demand management options for private development. 3) Conduct Triple Bottom Line Analysis o Consistent with City sustainability policy, a “triple bottom line” analysis was conducted by staff from several City departments using the City’s Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM) exercise. This assessment identified potential strengths, limitations, opportunities and threats in the categories of social, economic and environmental impacts related to the reinstatement of minimum parking requirements compared to the previous policy which eliminated minimum parking requirements. In summary, the TBLAM suggests a balance of strengths and limitations in regard to minimum parking requirements, and recommends additional TBLAMs with more information and other stakeholders. 4) Involve Public and Stakeholders o An extensive community outreach process provided a wide range of opinions and concerns. Many expressed the opinion that while the vision and goals of the City related to the TOD corridor are commendable, people still have cars and need a place to put them. Accessible, but off-site vehicle storage emerged as a key strategy for evaluation. The concept of pursuing public/private partnerships as a preferred mechanism for developing a variety of shared parking assets as a component of a district specific targeted development strategy (Business Scorecard approach referenced later in this report) emerged as a best practice and study recommendation. o Identification of Special Issues: The primary “special issue” identified with this study had to do with the fact that these policy issues were being addressed before the MAX line is up and running. If the MAX line is successful, as anticipated, this may have an impact on a range of issues including parking demand reductions, traffic congestion, increased investment and development, etc. Development of a process for on-going review and assessment was recommended. 5) Collect Parking Utilization Data o Parking utilization surveys were conducted around seven recent development projects within the TOD Overlay Zone, including the Summit. The bottom line was that parking utilization rates were within acceptable ranges (i.e., none would have met the minimum standard required to initiate the City’s residential parking permit process). While acknowledging that some residents still express concerns regarding parking spillover, the problem, based on the collected data, does not appear to be as bad as initially believed. 6) Identify and Explore Alternatives o Each of these alternatives was assessed in this study and this analysis framed and informed the ultimate recommendations. No changes to current requirements Minimum parking requirements with an alternative compliance based on a parking impact study Parking requirements based on a parking impact study, with a development size threshold Use of a parking demand model to determine a dynamic parking requirement that responds to transit and infrastructure build-out Parking impact or In-lieu fees Packet Pg. 216 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 7 Strategies for less surface parking and more structured parking Other innovations or strategies not mentioned above A combination of the above options Packet Pg. 217 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 8 Planning Context – Building on Adopted Community Policy This section of the report is designed to give the reader a summary of the major City planning documents that provide the planning framework and context in which this study is being evaluated. It is important to note that this planning work builds on work that has been previously vetted through significant community discussion and adopted as City policy. PLAN FORT COLLINS The name Plan Fort Collins refers to the 2010 process to develop major updates to two key planning documents: City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. CITY PLAN City Plan is the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort Collins, and illustrates the vision for Fort Collins in the next twenty five years and beyond. The initial formulation of City Plan began in 1995 and involved a two-year process working with City Council, an advisory committee, City staff, a consulting team, and the public. The original creation of City Plan included extensive public involvement including the use of a visual preference survey. City Plan was adopted in 1997. Subsequent updates to City Plan were initiated in 2002 and adopted in 2004. For the City’s comprehensive plan to function over time, periodic updates are necessary to respond to significant trends or changes in the economic, physical, social, or political conditions of Fort Collins. These previous planning efforts focused on identifying the future size and character of Fort Collins, and also included updates to reflect changes to and new trends in the community. Specific principles and policies related to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone: Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements. Policy LIV 1.1 – Utilize a Growth Management Area Collaborate with the County and other jurisdictions in utilizing a Growth Management Area (GMA) surrounding Fort Collins to guide and manage growth outside of the City limits and delineate the extent of urban development in Fort Collins. Packet Pg. 218 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 9 Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: o Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. o Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. o Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. o Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. o Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map are parts of the city where general agreement exists that redevelopment and infill would be beneficial. These areas are generally considered a priority for efforts to reduce barriers and concentrate public investment in infrastructure. However, of the areas identified, the Packet Pg. 219 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 10 “community spine” (see Policy LIV 5.2) shall be the highest priority location for such efforts. Areas not shown on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas map are not excluded from redevelopment and infill activity, but are considered to be lower priority or where activity is less likely to occur for other reasons. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. Policy LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non-Residential Development Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood’s positive characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Ensure all new public streets are designed in accordance with the City street standards and design all new streets to be functional, safe, and visually appealing, with flexibility to serve the context and purpose of the street corridor. Provide a layout that is simple, interconnected, and direct, avoiding circuitous routes. Include elements such as shade trees, landscaped medians and parkways, public art, lighting, and other amenities in the streetscape. Approve alternative street designs where they are needed to accommodate unique situations, such as “green” stormwater functions, important landscape features, or distinctive characteristics of a neighborhood or district, provided that they meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment. Principle ENV 9: The City will reduce total mobile source emissions by focusing on both technology (e.g., tailpipe emissions) and behavior (e.g., driving patterns). Packet Pg. 220 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 11 TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a long-term vision document that defines the long-term multimodal transportation system that Fort Collins desires in the future, and also serves as a comprehensive reference guide regarding transportation issues. Both documents provide policy directions for decision-making, and set forth priority actions to make the vision a reality. The TMP serves to document the vision for the long-term multimodal transportation system that will support the Fort Collins community into the future. The City of Fort Collins first developed a TMP in concert with the development of City Plan in 1997. The TMP defined the future of Fort Collins in terms of transportation, providing policy direction for how decisions regarding the implementation of the multi-modal transportation system should occur. It also set priorities for implementing projects to meet short-term deficiencies while working towards the ultimate transportation system the community desires. The TMP, like City Plan, requires review and update every five years. In 2004 an effort to update the Transportation Master Plan began, but because of significant changes and additions to numerous areas it essentially became a new plan. Many of the goals, principles, and policies that were developed in 1997 remained valid, but the 2004 plan focused more on implementation of those goals, principles, and policies. The plan provides priority actions and strategies for implementing projects and services to meet short-term needs while working toward the long-range goals for the ultimate transportation system the City and community strive to achieve. Actions are identified that will happen concurrent with the adoption of the plan in the short term (1-2 years) and longer term (3+ years). The Transportation Master Plan process also includes updates to the City’s Master Street Plan (MSP), multimodal transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and the Pedestrian Plan. Packet Pg. 221 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 12 Innovate, Sustain, Connect Innovate The citizens of Fort Collins wish to advance their future in a positive and vital way, and City government, educational, and other institutions, as well as the private sector, have always been willing to lead and serve as models for other communities. Our vision reflects our desire to remain innovative, world-class leaders. Sustain The basic tenets of sustainability serve as the guiding principles for our vision and act as a foundation underpinning all components of each plan. Connect Being a “connected community” extends beyond the physical connections implied by our transportation system. It encompasses a community that is connected technologically and socially as well. Our vision embraces a City that provides safe and efficient facilities for all modes of travel. It also encourages expansion of technological infrastructure to serve and connect the community, increasing access to information and fostering better communication between residents, businesses, institutions, and local government. Finally, our vision promotes social connectivity through ongoing support of community organizations and volunteerism and by encouraging development patterns and creating gathering places that attract people and promote social interaction. Current values and goals are identified and summarized in the Plan Fort Collins Snapshot Report. The 2010 update also folds in and reflects other recent planning efforts and policy documents such as the Economic Action Plan, Climate Action Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Cultural Plan, Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, and many others. Related plans and policies are addressed within each of the seven topic-based chapters in this plan. Community Vision - Innovate, Sustain, Connect The City identified in its previous plans the community values and critical issues for building a framework that combines traditional planning principles and land development practices through planning directives and a community vision. A vision represents a desired future as defined by the community. Three major themes of Plan Fort Collins provide direction for the vision for the next 25 years and beyond: Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. Packet Pg. 222 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 13 PARKING PLAN: DOWNTOWN & SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS (2013) The Parking Plan, updated in 2013, addresses a wide range of parking program elements including parking management strategies, organization, planning, operations, communications, technology, and others. As noted in the Executive Summary of the Parking Plan, “The field of parking management has advanced significantly in recent years with new programmatic approaches, best practices, and technology solutions that can transform and expand the positive role that parking can play in helping communities achieve success.” The primary objective of this planning effort was to align parking system philosophies and programs to be more supportive of the larger community’s strategic goals. There are many opportunities for parking to be integrated into larger community and economic development strategies. The development of effective and collaborative relationships between parking management and Downtown stakeholders can transform and greatly enhance the vitality of Downtown environments. Parking is one of those activities that literally provide millions of “customer touches” each year. Improvements to the ease of use of parking and parking customer service can have a dramatic impact on how a community is perceived and on the success of community businesses and the livability of its neighborhoods. This strategic approach offers the City an opportunity to expand the way parking is viewed and its important role in creating vibrant, healthy communities and business districts. The Plan promotes the philosophy that parking needs to be focused on overall Downtown access rather than parking in isolation. In other words, parking is integral to a variety of important community access strategies, rather than a discipline in isolation from the larger transportation system. This broader focus on “access management” while keeping a focus on the importance of parking specific issues provides a more balanced and sustainable community transportation system. In summary, by evolving the parking program to better support the overall Downtown and community development objectives, the Parking Plan creates opportunities to better align parking and economic development, delivers a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to community access strategies, and establishes more collaborative relationships with related agencies and community partners. The Downtown Strategic Plan (2004) led to improvements in Downtown parking, but conditions have changed and there are a number of issues yet to be resolved. The Parking Plan developed in 2013 focuses on unsolved problems and high- priority concerns identified by staff, the consultant team, and community stakeholders. The following list provides some examples of these issues and concerns: Packet Pg. 223 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 14 • As housing, jobs, and commercial activity grows in Downtown, what are the best ways to manage the supply and demand for parking? • Do we need more parking infrastructure? If so, how do we pay for it? • What is the best way to educate and engage the business community and Downtown management on the range of new parking management options and their benefits as they relate to supporting and enhancing a vibrant Downtown? • How can the management of parking also support the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus riders? • Are the City’s parking policies regarding new development adequate to achieve the City’s higher-level goals for sustainability, urban design, and overall mobility management? • How can customer service regarding parking options be improved? • What new policies are needed to address the impacts of parking in neighborhoods near Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU)? MIDTOWN PLAN (2013) The Midtown Plan provides a vision for Midtown as a vital corridor, with a mix of uses and activities that will serve a broad spectrum of the community. It envisions a district with a distinct identity that distinguishes it from other parts of the city, and that will ultimately be a destination in its own right. The plan promotes streets that are inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists, with attractive street edges, and active urban plazas and spaces. Signature features, including public art and civic facilities, will be located strategically throughout the area and will serve as identifiers for smaller sub-areas within Midtown and invite year-round use. The vision for Midtown is that of an urban neighborhood of choice for many residents and an important economic generator for the city. It also should serve abutting residential neighborhoods and be conveniently accessible from them with the improvements of existing and addition of new streets throughout Midtown. The Midtown Plan incorporates the MAX line as a central transportation spine. New development along this spine will be of high quality, sustainable urban form that supports a pedestrian-first environment and fronts onto MAX instead of turning its back onto it. Key intersections will connect pedestrian, bike and auto traffic, from College Avenue to MAX with identifiable streetscapes, signage and wayfinding. Packet Pg. 224 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 15 College Avenue will continue to be a major north-south regional connection, but new development will be more urban in nature and buildings will address College with parking in back, rather than the reverse that exists today. The Framework Map, from the Midtown plan (right), graphically illustrates the improvements to be made for achieving this new vision. Packet Pg. 225 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 16 Background, Historical Context and Existing Conditions Review Parking, on and off-street, is governed by the provisions of the City’s Land Use Code. Specifically, the City regulates parking through Article 3, Section 3.2.2 of the City’s adopted code which contains minimum off-street parking requirements for individual sites based on the land uses. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Article 3, General Development Standards - Access, Circulation and Parking This section sets forth parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking stalls, landscaping and shared parking. It also addresses the placement of drive-in facilities and loading zones. The general standard relative to parking and site circulation is summarized below: “The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system must provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section. The on-site bicycle system must connect to the city’s on-street bikeway network. Connections to the off-road trail system shall be made, to the extent reasonably feasible.” The complete Section 3.2.2 (Access, Circulation and Parking) of the current zoning code can be found on the City’s website (http://www.fcgov.com/building/pdf/usematrixmarch2012.pdf). Parking Requirements Of particular interest to this study is Section 3.2.2 (K). This portion of the Code spells out the required number of off- Street parking spaces by type of use. Sub-division (G) provides for Shared Parking standards. The contents of these sections are summarized below. (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Packet Pg. 226 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 17 * Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price). 1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the following table (Note: the following standards were adopted as part of the “stop-gap” provisions, Ord. 121, 2013): 2. Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the minimum required in the TOD Overlay Zone per subparagraph 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. a. Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Analysis. b. Parking Analysis. A Parking Analysis shall include the following: 1) Data related to expected parking demand based on project size, location, employees, units and/or bedrooms. To the extent reasonably feasible, comparable local and regional parking demand rates for similar uses shall be utilized together with the average demand rates for similar facilities compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2) Data related to estimated non-vehicular mode usage shall be determined based on a Transportation Impact Study analysis. 3) Identification of parking mitigation measures to be utilized (beyond non-vehicular mode usage and support). Specific measures to reduce on-site parking demand may include, but are not limited to: a) Shared parking b) Off-site parking c) Parking pricing d) Transit pass program Packet Pg. 227 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 18 e) Unbundling parking spaces from residential dwelling units f) Rideshare, guaranteed ride home programs, car sharing, shuttle services g) Enhancements that encourage bicycle and pedestrian mobility h) Other verifiable parking demand reduction measures 4) The number and location of parking spaces proposed to be removed as part of the project, if any. 5) Assignment of parking demand to proposed parking locations. c. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section and the TOD Overlay Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of these sections. In reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into account the objective and verifiable results of the Parking Analysis together with the proposed plan's compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking. Shared Parking (3.2.2.(G) provides standards for the reduction of required off-street parking for mixed use projects. Specifically, mixed use developments (retail, office, institutional, and entertainment) which create staggered peak parking demand periods may share parking facilities. However, parking requirements for residential uses cannot be shared. City Council Ordinance 121, 2013 The 2013 city council adopted “stop-gap” ordinance (Ord. 121, 2013) reinstating minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone set the new minimum requirement at 70% of the existing non-TOD standard with an alternative compliance element that permits a parking impact study to show a reduction in parking demand. The parking analysis data developed by the City to inform Ordinance 121,2013 can be found in Appendix A. Development Review Process Proposed projects and developments are required to undergo review and approval through the City’s adopted development review process. Development review exists in part to ensure that each new development or piece of the puzzle is in alignment with our community’s vision for Fort Collins, as stated in City Plan and the Land Use Code (LUC). In addition, the community has adopted a philosophy that development should “pay its own way.” This means private- sector developers are designing and constructing many improvements which will become a part of the public Packet Pg. 228 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 19 infrastructure maintained by the City. So another purpose of development review process is to ensure consistent and good quality public improvements. Packet Pg. 229 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 20 Parking Requirements Reform – The Scholarly Debate This section of the report explores several important topics that are very relevant to this study. There is in fact a serious and significant national discussion occurring related to benefits and problems associated with the ubiquitous use of minimum parking requirements across the US and the world. Professor Donald Shoup, author of the “High Cost of Free Parking” and a Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, has led the charge in this area; promoting how better parking policies can improve cities, the economy, and the environment. Shoup recommends that cities should charge fair market prices for on-street parking, use the meter revenue to finance added public services in the metered neighborhoods, and remove off-street parking requirements. Recently several other noted academicians and planners have weighed in on the discussion of the importance of parking in general, expanding the research related to minimum parking requirements and proposing new options for how cities should approach these issues. We will focus on three publications in particular. The first is a book entitled “Parking Management” published by Mr. Todd Litman, founder of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The second is a recently published book by Richard Willson entitled: “Parking Reform Made Easy”. The third is a book by Eran Ben-Joseph entitled: “Re-Thinking A Lot – The Design and Culture of Parking”. However, before we launch into that discussion, there is another key issue worthy of exploration – the surprising importance of parking to Transit Oriented Developments. Parking and Transit Oriented Developments The following is an excerpt from an article by Mark Gander, Principal Planner; Director of Urban Mobility and Development at AECOM and a member of the Board of Directors for the Green Parking Council. There are approximately 250 million registered vehicles (2010) in the United States. When these vehicles are not in use, which accounts for more than 90 percent of their time, they must be parked. Because of this, off-street parking space availability is ubiquitous; its footprint is vast in scale. As MIT Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning Eran Ben-Joseph recently noted, in some U.S. cities, parking lots cover more than a third of the land area, becoming the single most salient landscape feature of our built environment. This ubiquity is further compounded because cities require parking everywhere, yet ironically its absence is noticed most. The ubiquity of parking is not accidental: Parking matters. It plays an important role in the success of cities, communities and places as well as in the development of mixed-use projects and sustainable transportation. Parking supply and pricing often have a direct impact on the ability to create compact, healthy communities. Too much parking at residential properties correlates with more automobile ownership, more vehicle miles traveled, more congestion, more carbon emissions, and higher housing costs. It also results in lost development opportunity because excess parking area could have been used instead for residential or commercial development or public realm uses such as parks and plazas. Packet Pg. 230 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 21 “Parking also has both direct and indirect environmental consequences. Direct environmental impacts include excessive land consumption, increased storm water flows, degraded water quality, and exacerbated heat island effects. Additionally, parking structures themselves use substantial amounts of natural resources and energy to construct and require on-going maintenance to operate. In many cases parking structures are seen as unsightly when they are not internalized in mixed-use buildings or wrapped by liner buildings. Parking also indirectly affects the environment because it influences how and where people choose to travel. Where free and ample parking is provided, people make the rational choice to drive almost everywhere — and these areas register more vehicle miles of travel per capita with resulting increases in greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Striking a balance between parking supply and development is a crucial challenge in developing the character of transit-oriented development (TOD). Residents in TOD projects are twice as likely not to own a car as other US households. They’re also two to five times more likely to commute by transit than others in the region. On the other hand, residents will need access to cars even if not on a daily basis and commercial establishments require some amount of parking to service their non-walking clientele. In many cases, developers will be unable to secure financing unless parking is provided. Unfortunately, many communities have simply applied conventional parking ratios to TOD projects. Because such standards have a suburban bias and are based largely on low-density single land uses they limit the expected community benefits of TOD, and possibly, lead to project failure. Transit Oriented Development includes four foundational elements: • Development around transit that is dense and compact, at least relative to its surroundings; • A rich mix of land uses—housing, work, and other destinations, creating a lively place and balancing peak transit flows; • A great public realm—sidewalks, plazas, bike paths, a street grid that fits, and buildings that address the street at ground level; and • A new deal on parking—less of it; shared wherever possible; energy efficient and designed properly. Right sizing parking for TOD necessitates a multipronged approach to understanding the existing and projected parking utilization and available supply in and around a TOD project area as well as the projected demand for new parking once the project is completed. Conducting a diagnostic parking study that is comprehensive and aligned with mobility choices is essential to this effort. Once the facts about demand, price, utilization, built form/development pattern, and household characteristics are understood, then appropriate strategies can be employed. Key elements include understanding differences among markets, unbundling or separating the full cost of parking from the associated use, and reducing (or eliminating) minimum parking requirements for certain land uses or certain areas. Understanding the parking uses by market and type then make it possible to look for opportunities for implementation of a wide range of measures from new technology (e.g. smart parking), to specific policies and physical design modification to consolidate and locate parking more efficiently. Packet Pg. 231 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 22 To ensure that parking meets the needs of a TOD project, while not impacting TOD’s benefits, there are a number of strategies that municipalities can employ working in conjunction with developers to provide the appropriate amount of parking. These strategies can be grouped into several categories, including reduction; demand; design; and pricing. Each of these categories is discussed briefly below. Reduction Given the research, along with the information developed by a parking supply and demand study, municipalities should make every effort to reduce the parking requirements for TOD projects. Eliminating parking minimums and instead employing parking maximums for TOD projects will help decrease parking oversupply. Similarly, requiring shared parking where multiple developers combine parking needs into one shared parking lot or structure may also help eliminate an oversupply of parking. Demand Reducing the need for car travel is critical to decreasing parking demand. Municipalities or developers should consider establishing car sharing programs where multiple users have access to a fleet of cars when they need them. Similarly, municipalities and transit agencies could increase incentives for using public transportation, including providing subsidized transit passes, establishing residential parking programs for adjacent neighborhoods backed by parking enforcement, and constructing bicycle parking facilities. Design Designing for pedestrians is an important element to right-sizing parking. This requires reducing or eliminating design elements that hamper pedestrian use such as the number and size of curb cuts. It also requires adding elements that provide for greater pedestrian safety and aesthetic appeal. These elements might include constructing pedestrian walkways separated from parking and roads, wrapping parking behind existing buildings, designing the first level of parking structures to include other uses such as stores and restaurants, and adding public amenities like art space or public plazas which incorporate green infrastructure. Packet Pg. 232 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 23 Pricing Pricing is another strategy that can be used to influence how and where parking is used and located within a transit station area. On-street parking can be priced to encourage availability of on-street spots for preferred populations such as short term customers. In this case, the cost of parking for 15 or 30 minutes near shops located in the transit station area might be minimal while parking prices for more than 30 minutes is set quite high. Another strategy is to price parking to reflect parking desirability, i.e. spaces closest to activity hubs and on- street are priced higher than spaces at the downtown fringe and parking garages. While increasing transit ridership, walking and biking are essential to establishing sustainable and livable communities, the car will continue as the principle mobility choice for years to come. Given this circumstance, municipalities and developers will have to provide parking for TOD projects and the surrounding area, but should do so in a way that is appropriately sized and located. Packet Pg. 233 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 24 A Growing Interest in Parking Requirement Reform In the graphic below, architect and designer Seth Goodman shows how parking and living spaces compare in major cities across the U.S. A more localized version of this research concentrated on the Northwest US is also available as is research on other land uses compared to parking spaces. Packet Pg. 234 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 25 The research that focused on the northwest US challenges the common assumption that smaller cities behave more like suburbs in terms of parking requirements. It’s actually a mixed bag. Spokane, Washington and Eugene, Oregon all mimic the requirements of larger cities. Fort Collins is another good example of this. We should not take for granted that a relatively small population (around 200,000 in the city proper) automatically translates to higher parking requirements. These examples demonstrate that cities don’t need Manhattan-like conditions to ease up on parking minimums. In Auckland, New Zealand, their City Council is debating whether to include traditional parking minimum requirements as an element of their Unitary Plan (comparable to City Comprehensive Plans in the US). The ad to the right illustrates how some advocacy groups are trying to influence the debate. In the following pages we examine the origins of parking requirements, the impediments to change, and how these policies can be reformed. Packet Pg. 235 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 26 The Case For and Case against Reforming Parking Requirements Background on Traditional Minimum Parking Requirements According to research published by professors Donald Shoup, Richard Willson and others, in many instances, efforts to accommodate parking have overextended actual need. The approach used by many cities to establish minimum parking requirements (typically a generic formula based on satisfying the maximum demand for free parking). Although this practice allows city planners to err on the side of caution, it has some serious drawbacks. In practical terms, this practice increases the cost of development and creates disincentives with respect to smart growth development and redevelopment. In addition, generic parking requirements create excess parking spaces that consume land and resources, encourage automobile use and associated pollution, and degrade water quality. The oversupply of parking is of particular concern for smart growth development in urban areas where the existing parking infrastructure can be better utilized and parking alternatives, such as shared parking and increased use of transit and pedestrian modes, can be more readily implemented. With the shifting trend toward urban revitalization over the past decade, the timing is opportune for instituting changes in parking requirements and transportation behavior. An important way to reduce the demand for parking and the need to supply parking to meet maximum demand is to provide transportation choices. This can be achieved by reducing the supply of parking in areas where transportation choices exist and by providing incentives for making other choices. Such changes will encourage infill redevelopment and reduce vehicle miles traveled, mobile source emissions and congestion. They will also increase ridership for public transit and, in turn, provide the additional revenues needed to support public transit improvements. There are, of course, potential drawbacks to reducing the supply of parking. Lenders, for example, may be unwilling to approve loans because plans do not meet their minimum parking requirements; developers may be concerned about the long-term marketability of their property; and residents may fear that parking will spill over into surrounding residential neighborhoods. Such concerns can be more readily addressed if: • The factors that affect parking demand are understood; • Walkable, pedestrian-oriented development design is implemented; and • Viable transportation choices exist. Concerns are also alleviated when developers, employers, and employees are aware of programs that balance the attractiveness of other transportation choices. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), for example, allows businesses to give their employees up to $100 per month in tax free transit subsidies. TEA-21 also allows employees who commute by public transit or vanpool to deduct the cost of commuting from their taxable income if they do not receive a subsidy. Packet Pg. 236 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 27 Establishing Parking Requirements On the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) website and in his book on Parking Management Best Practices, noted planner and transportation consultant Todd Litman does a good job of laying out the traditional approach to establishing parking requirements and makes a strong case for the use of more flexible and localized criteria in creating zoning codes especially as it relates to parking requirements. In setting parking requirements, planners typically use generic standards that apply to general land use categories (e.g., residential, office, retail). Such standards have been developed and published by professional organizations, including the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), based on experience in many locations. Much of the data on which these standards are based comes from low-density, single-use developments with limited transportation choices. Therefore, the generic parking rates cannot take into account the mix of context-sensitive, community specific variables - density, demographics, availability of transportation choices, or the surrounding land-use mix - all of which influence the demand for parking and should be reflected in parking requirements. Instead, requirements are based on the maximum demand for parking, when parking is provided at no charge to users, and walking, biking, and transit are not available choices. This formula yields a surplus of parking that is costly for developers to provide, and it subsidizes personal automobile use and encourages auto use even in areas where convenient transportation choices exist. Because of the way in which they are typically established, parking requirements are remarkably consistent across different cities, despite varying levels of economic vitality, population size, and development density. Alternatively, parking requirements can be established using methods that are better tailored to specific development projects. This approach entails careful consideration of the following land use characteristics that relate to parking demand: • Development type and size. o Takes into account the specific characteristics of the project. o Parking demand is influenced by the size of the development (typically measured by total building square footage), as well as the type of land use (e.g., retail, industrial). Generic parking formulas address these factors to some extent. • Population and development density. o Considers the density and demographic characteristics of the people using the building, including employees, customers, residents, and visitors. Information on income, car ownership, and age distribution also helps in projecting total parking demand. • Availability of transportation choices. o Takes into account the modes of transportation available to employees, visitors, and residents. Proximity of public transportation to a particular development, for example, will reduce parking demand. o Walkable neighborhoods and bicycle amenities will also reduce parking demand. • Surrounding land use mix. Packet Pg. 237 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 28 o Considers the surrounding land uses and density to better understand parking needs, and evaluates whether overall peak demand is lower than the sum of peak demands for different uses. This concept takes the timing of parking demand into account in determining the aggregate demand of multiple uses. o The type of community in which a development is located will also affect parking demand. For example, if a project is located in a city’s central business district, the availability of general use parking will reduce onsite parking demand. On the other hand, if the development is located in a residential area, on-street parking may be unacceptable to local residents, increasing the need for off-street parking at the development. Land use and demographic information are important tools for establishing project-specific parking requirements that create a better match of supply and demand for parking than do many generic requirements. Moreover, adjusting parking requirements downward to reflect realistic demand helps reduce the total cost of development, particularly in urban areas. By reducing cost, a potential deterrent to smart growth development and redevelopment can be removed. The following table from the VTPI website summarizes a wide range of parking management strategies and indicates typical reductions in the amount of parking required at a destination, and whether a strategy helps reduce vehicular traffic, therefore providing congestion, accident and pollution reduction benefits. Strategy Description Typical Reduction Traffic Reduction Shared Parking Parking spaces serve multiple users and destinations. 10-30% Parking Regulations Regulations favor higher-value uses such as service vehicles, deliveries, customers, quick errands, and people with special needs. 10-30% More Accurate and Flexible Standards Adjust parking standards to more accurately reflect demand in a particular situation. 10-30% Parking Maximums Establish maximum parking standards. 10-30% Remote Parking Provide off-site or urban fringe parking facilities. 10-30% Smart Growth Encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal development to allow more parking sharing and use of alternative modes. 10-30% X Walking and Cycling Improvements Improve walking and cycling conditions to expand the range of destinations serviced by a parking facility. 5-15% X Increase Capacity of Existing Facilities Increase parking supply by using otherwise wasted space, smaller stalls, car stackers and valet parking. 5-15% X Mobility Management Encourage more efficient travel patterns, including changes in mode, timing, destination and vehicle trip frequency. 10-30% X Packet Pg. 238 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 29 Parking Pricing Charge motorists directly and efficiently for using parking facilities. 10-30% X Improve Pricing Methods Use better charging techniques to make pricing more convenient and cost effective. Varies X Financial Incentives Provide financial incentives to shift mode, such as cash out. 10-30% X Unbundle Parking Rent or sell parking facilities separately from building space. 10-30% X Parking Tax Reform Change tax policies to support parking management objectives. 5-15% X Bicycle Facilities Provide bicycle storage and changing facilities. 5-15% X Improve User Information and Marketing Provide convenient and accurate information on parking availability and price, using maps, signs, brochures and electronic communication. 5-15% X Improve Enforcement Insure that parking regulation enforcement is efficient, considerate and fair. Varies Transportation Management Associations Establish member-controlled organizations that provide transport and parking management services in a particular area. Varies X Overflow Parking Plans Establish plans to manage occasional peak parking demands. Varies Address Spillover Problems Use management, enforcement and pricing to address spillover problems. Varies Parking Facility Design and Operation Improve parking facility design and operations to help solve problems and support parking management. Varies Environmental Impacts of Parking The significant environmental costs associated with parking are not typically factored into development decisions, and only recently have begun to be considered in setting parking requirements. Construction of unnecessary impervious surfaces increases the impacts of storm water runoff, either on the storm sewer system or the surrounding land. Paved surfaces can also result in water pollution and flooding, resulting in a decline in adjacent property values. Heat islands, or areas of artificially raised temperatures, also are exacerbated by unnecessary pavement. Consuming land for parking also reduces the land available for green space or other, more productive development. Land preserved as part of the green infrastructure allows storm water to percolate into the soil, provides wildlife habitat, provides air quality and noise reduction benefits, and is aesthetically desirable. Land developed for living, working, and shopping rather than just parking provides more intensive use. This lowers the demand to develop other land nearby or elsewhere in the region. Intensifying uses also creates a more supportive environment for transit and walking, and potentially for bicycling as well. Packet Pg. 239 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 30 Providing more parking than demanded, and at artificially low prices, contributes to several harmful environmental impacts. First, this subsidy of automobile use leads directly to excess driving. This results in increased auto dependency and air pollution, accidents, and congestion. Second, it indirectly degrades the attractiveness of walking and biking, by increasing distances between activities and creating uninteresting routes. Third, it indirectly undermines the potential for transit service by decreasing the density potential of development projects. All of these environmental costs tend to be greater for parking built in green field areas where there is more inexpensive but ecologically-sensitive open space available and where development densities are lower thus requiring more and longer automobile trips. Because these environmental costs are not realized by developers, they do not influence development decisions which are driven primarily by the direct financial costs that are typically lower in green field areas. Parking Requirement Reform The following is an excerpt from the book “Parking Reform Made Easy” by Richard Wilson. Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., FAICP, is Professor and Chair in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Parking requirements in zoning ordinances create one of the most wasteful elements of transportation and land use systems: unoccupied parking spaces. Each space requires over 300 square feet of valuable land or building area, yet many sit empty. Minimum parking requirements at shopping malls, for example, often lead to sprawling developments surrounded by large, underused parking lots. Spaces for workplaces may be well-used during the day but remain unoccupied in the evening because they are not shared with other land uses. Sometimes, the parking required is greater than the amount of parking ever used. Parking is overbuilt and underutilized for two reasons: 1) zoning requires an excessive parking supply, and 2) it prevents efficient sharing of parking among different land uses. Both reasons reflect a legacy of single-use zoning and an automobile-first approach to planning. Minimum parking requirements prevent private developers from responding to market conditions, and lessen developers’ interest in sharing parking or developing sites that are accessible without driving. Planners sometimes claim that developers would build the same amount of parking regardless of regulations, but if that’s true, then why impose minimum parking requirements in the first place? Parking requirements should be framed as a means of providing access, not an end. Parking requirements are only one of several ways to ensure storage for private automobiles. Private auto transportation, in turn, is only one of several ways to provide access. To carry out parking reform, we must counteract the decades-old practice of thinking about access in terms of roadways and parking. Packet Pg. 240 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 31 The Case FOR Parking Minimum Requirements Reduce street congestion around the development site Avoid parking spillover Create orderly development patterns Anticipate possible intensification or changes in the use of a development Create a level playing field among developers Encourage growth of core areas by increasing parking supply in those areas Reduce parking management by making the adjudication of conflicts between property owners unnecessary Why Parking Requirements? Early zoning ordinances did not have parking requirements. Zoning sought to manage the external impacts of properties, such as when a new building represented a fire hazard to the structure next door. In the mid-20th century, parking requirements were added to address surface street congestion caused by patrons driving in search of parking. Planners didn’t foresee that minimum parking requirements would favor private vehicle travel, lower overall density, and increase traffic. In surveys conducted in 1995 and again in 2013, local planners in southern California were asked about parking requirements and found a repetitious justification for minimum parking requirements: planners wished to “ensure an adequate number of parking spaces.” This response reflects a lack of critical thinking about fundamental public objectives, such as accessibility, economic development, and sustainability. The response also reflects an outdated vision of separated land uses, unrestricted auto-mobility, and plentiful free parking. Thus, many parking requirements are relics that undermine current land use and transportation goals. The following tables from Richard Willson’s book summarize the cases both for and against minimum parking requirements. Why Change Is Difficult Some regional and state policymakers recognize that existing parking requirements are excessive, but most have neglected the issue because parking is a responsibility of local governments. Yet parking requirements are crucial to accomplishing federal, state, and regional objectives in transportation, land use, and the environment. There are recent indications that if local governments do not carry out reforms, states may do it for them. In 2012, a proposal in the California legislature (AB 904) sought to override local parking requirements in transit-rich areas. Legislators The Case AGAINST Parking Minimum Requirements Encourages private vehicle usage and lengthens trips Adversely impacts transit and alternative modes Reduces development density Creates inhospitable project design Thwarts development and economic activity (little or no direct revenue) Makes construction of affordable housing more challenging Hampers investment in infill development and adaptive reuse in core areas Packet Pg. 241 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 32 subsequently tabled the proposal, however, showing the power of local governments to resist state interference in parking policies. Many local planners know the parking requirement status quo is wrong. They have observed wasted land, turned away restaurant proposals in historic districts, and seen affordable housing not pencil out. Despite these undesirable outcomes, planners have not made changes. Why? Some may feel powerless to change ossified regulations, sensing weak political support and lacking technical expertise to justify changes. Others may want the negotiating leverage that excessive parking requirements provide to extract public benefits from developers. Furthermore, planners know that parking is a key point in NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) resistance to development, so avoiding parking controversy can help ensure economic development. In effect, cities are addicted to parking requirements. The addiction is analogous to smoking, where immediate gratification overwhelms future costs. Change means freeing ourselves of parking dogma, habits, and golden rules. The old reality dictated fixed parking requirement ratios and exhibited an unwillingness to deviate from standard practice, even when it made sense to do so. This approach emphasized precision and uniformity. It undervalues important considerations of local variability, policy relationships, environmental capacity, and human behavior. All the land-use plans, design reviews, and streetscape renderings in the world will not produce desired outcomes if we do not reform parking requirements. It is important to note that this reticence to address the negative impacts of minimum parking requirements has not been the issue in the City of Fort Collins, which is known for its progressive planning and sustainability policies. However, the fact that this study was commissioned is a testament to the complexity and sensitivities that these complex and interrelated policy issues generate. In particular, a key issue in this study has to do with timing. With the investment in the Mason Corridor transit planning and the new MAX Bus Rapid Transit line, a Transit Overlay District was created in the City. Zoning codes (including parking requirements) were adjusted to reflect the different transportation dynamics of the corridor as well as a vision for increased development density and enhanced transit neighborhood urban design characteristics. However, these zoning changes preceded the actual implementation of the MAX BRT. As a result, new development projects have proceeded under the revised zoning conditions of the TOD Overlay Zoning district without the benefit of having the transit component in place. The development of the Summit project in particular (a fairly large student housing development near the CSU campus), which planned to provide 676 bedrooms with only 217 parking spaces (471 spaces would have been required in the development had been outside the TOD Overlay Zone – a difference of -254 spaces or -54% of the standard parking requirement)caused a rethinking of the policy to not to require minimum parking requirements for multi-family development within the TOD Overlay Zone and a temporary reinstatement of minimum parking requirements, on an adjusted basis, while the policy could be further examined. This policy adjustment will sunset in September 2014 when recommendations from this study will be used to reassess both TOD zoning policies and parking policies on a more comprehensive basis. Why Not Eliminate Parking Requirements? According to national experts, deregulating off-street parking allows markets to determine parking supply levels and provokes a fresh debate about justifications for public regulations and subsidies for all transportation modes. Currently, minimum requirements compel the provision of access for driving and parking, whereas zoning codes seldom impose Packet Pg. 242 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 33 equivalent requirements for bus, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. When they do, those requirements have been added more recently and are at a lower investment level. Under minimum requirements, even those who do not drive share in paying the cost of parking. Parking costs are embedded in higher retail prices, lower workplace salaries, higher rents, and the like. In these ways, most minimum requirements tend to prioritize private vehicles. Eliminating minimum requirements would begin to level the playing field for all travel modes. Cities such as Philadelphia, Portland, and Seattle have recently reformed their parking requirements and adopted limited deregulation. Deregulation shifts the approach from automatically requiring parking to not supplying it until it is economically justified. It is a big change from standard practice and should be coupled with programs for shared parking and advanced parking management. Still, the idea of eliminating minimum parking requirements hasn’t gained traction in many places. Local officials are often buffeted by demands from residents, storeowners, and employees for more parking, not less. City staff researched TOD parking requirements in several other communities including the following: • Denver Zoning Code: Maximum number of spaces shall not exceed 110% of the minimum parking spaces required by context-specific ratios (Denver’s method of calculating parking requirements everywhere). Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums. • Aurora TOD Zoning Sub-District: Minimum 0.5 – 1.0 space per multi-family dwelling unit depending on proximity to a transit station compared to 1.0 – 2.5 spaces per unit depending on number of bedrooms outside TOD. • Lakewood Transit Mixed Use Zone District: Minimum 1 space per unit, maximum 2 spaces per unit. Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums. The parking requirements may be met on-site or off-site at a distance of up to 600 feet from the use. • Eugene, Oregon: Establishes parking exempt areas not subject to minimums including Downtown and a couple other areas. • Metro Portland recommends three actions when the parking ratio is below 1.0 space/unit: o Charge for all covered parking o Add car-share in the area o Provide first rate bicycle facilities (lockers, wash areas, secured bike parking, etc.) Examples of progressive parking requirements from additional communities are reviewed later in this report (See Peer Cities section). Developers Responses to Different Approaches to Parking Requirements Approaches to parking reform vary from community to community. Accordingly, the table below shows the range of reform options, including the traditional approach in which the minimum requirements exceed expected use. At the other end of the spectrum is deregulation, with no minimum or maximum parking requirements. In many cities and towns, the best approach is somewhere in between, with deregulation in central business districts and transit-oriented developments, and reduced minimum requirements in other areas. Packet Pg. 243 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 34 Developers Response to Parking Requirements Packet Pg. 244 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 35 In Praise of Incrementalism According to Richard Willson, in the past decade, many cities initiated comprehensive zoning code reform, and others are planning such efforts. Comprehensive reform efforts allow planners to rethink parking requirements while they consider the basic organization and functioning of the zoning code. These efforts also allow planners to bypass the complexity of older codes that have undergone countless revisions. Ideally, planners will amass enough political clout and financial resources before undertaking the daunting task of comprehensive zoning code revision. There are many situations, however, where financial resources and political capital are not sufficient for comprehensive parking reform. In these cases, an incremental approach can produce good results. It makes sense to start where there is support, either from elected officials or from community or district stakeholders. Code reformers can work with these stakeholders and produce parking requirement reforms, parking overlay zones, or partial deregulation without creating opposition that might emerge in a citywide effort. These early successes often build support for larger, more comprehensive efforts. Rather than viewing pilot projects or experiments as somehow inferior to comprehensive parking reform, we should see them as effective ways of producing valuable information, testing innovative ideas, and ultimately generating change. Rethinking Parking – Another Perspective on the Potential of Parking Lots In his 2012 book entitled “Rethinking a Lot: The Design and Culture of Parking”, Eran Ben- Joseph, professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that parking lots are so prevalent in our daily life that we should take them more seriously. There are an estimated 600,000,000 passenger cars in the world, and that number is increasing every day. So too is Earth's supply of parking spaces. In some cities, parking lots cover more than one-third of the metropolitan footprint. It's official: we have paved paradise and put up a parking lot. In ReThinking a Lot, Eran Ben-Joseph shares a different vision for parking's future. Parking lots, he writes, are ripe for transformation. After all, as he points out, their design and function has not been rethought since the 1950s. With this book, Ben-Joseph pushes the parking lot into the twenty-first century. Packet Pg. 245 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 36 Can't parking lots be aesthetically pleasing, environmentally and architecturally responsible? Used for something other than car storage? Ben-Joseph shows us that they can. He provides a visual history of this often ignored urban space, introducing us to some of many alternative and non-parking purposes that parking lots have served - from RV campgrounds to stages for "Shakespeare in the Parking Lot." He shows us parking lots that are not concrete wastelands but lushly planted with trees and flowers and beautifully integrated with the rest of the built environment. With purposeful design, Ben-Joseph argues, parking lots could be significant public places, contributing as much to their communities as great boulevards, parks, or plazas. For all the acreage they cover, parking lots have received scant attention. It's time to change that; it's time to rethink the lot. The parking lot is the antithesis of nature’s fields and forests, an ugly reminder of the costs of our automobile-oriented society. But as long as we prefer to get around by car (whether powered by fossil fuel, solar energy or hydrogen), the parking lot is here to stay. It’s hard to imagine an alternative. Or is it? I [Ben-Joseph] believe that the modern surface parking lot is ripe for transformation. Few of us spend much time thinking about parking beyond availability and convenience. But parking lots are, in fact, much more than spots to temporarily store cars: they are public spaces that have major impacts on the design of our cities and suburbs, on the natural environment and on the rhythms of daily life. We need to redefine what we mean by “parking lot” to include something that not only allows a driver to park his car, but also offers a variety of other public uses, mitigates its effect on the environment and gives greater consideration to aesthetics and architectural context. It’s estimated that there are three nonresidential parking spaces for every car in the United States. That adds up to almost 800 million parking spaces, covering about 4,360 square miles — an area larger than Puerto Rico. In some cities, like Orlando and Los Angeles, parking lots are estimated to cover at least one-third of the land area, making them one of the most salient landscape features of the built world. Such coverage comes with environmental costs. The large, impervious surfaces of parking lots increase storm-water runoff, which damages watersheds. The exposed pavement increases the heat-island effect, by which urban regions are made warmer than surrounding rural areas. Since cars are immobile 95 percent of the time, you could plausibly argue that a Prius and a Hummer have much the same environmental impact: both occupy the same 9-by- 18-foot rectangle of paved space. A better parking lot might be covered with solar canopies so that it could produce energy while lowering heat. Or perhaps it would be surfaced with a permeable material like porous asphalt and planted with trees in rows like an apple orchard, so that it could sequester carbon and clean contaminated runoff. Packet Pg. 246 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 37 The ubiquity of parking lots has also led to an overlooked social dimension: In the United States, parking lots may be the most regularly used outdoor space. They are public places that people interact with and use on a daily basis, whether working, shopping, running errands, eating, even walking — parking lots are one of the few places where cars and pedestrians coexist. Better parking lots would embrace and expand this role. Already, many lots provide space for farmers’ markets, spontaneous games of street hockey, tailgating, even teenagers’ illicit nighttime parties. This range of activities suggests that parking lots are a “found” place: they satisfy needs that are not yet met by our designed surroundings. Planned with greater intent, parking lots could actually become significant public spaces, contributing as much to their communities as great boulevards, parks or plazas. For instance, the Italian architect Renzo Piano, when redesigning the Fiat Lingotto factory in Turin, eliminated the parking lot’s islands and curbs and planted rows of trees in a dense grid, creating an open, level space under a soft canopy of foliage that welcomes pedestrians as naturally as it does cars. The parking lot also has an underutilized architectural function. A parking lot is the first part of a space you visit or live next to. It is typically the gateway through which dwellers, customers, visitors or employees pass before they enter a building. Architects and designers often discuss the importance of “the approach” as establishing the tone for a place, as the setting for the architecture itself. Developers talk about the importance of “first impressions” to the overall atmosphere conveyed to the user. Yet parking lots are rarely designed with this function in mind. When they are, the effect is stunning. For instance, the parking lot at the Dia art museum in Beacon, N.Y., created by the artist Robert Irwin and the architecture firm OpenOffice, was planned as an integral element of the visitor’s arrival experience, with an aesthetically deft progression from the entry road to the parking lot to an allée that leads to the museum’s lobby. For something that occupies such a vast amount of land and is used on a daily basis by so many people, the parking lot should receive more attention than it has. We need to ask: what can a parking lot be? Summary The strategies and policy considerations discussed above are alternatives to setting a parking requirement based on a neighboring city’s requirement or a national average. Fort Collins has long moved beyond most communities in this regard, however through this study we will be evaluating options to reassess parking requirements based on specific land use categories (for example applying differing standards to “student housing oriented projects” compared to other Packet Pg. 247 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 38 multi-family housing developments based on the demonstrated differences in parking demand generated by this specific use). We are also assessing varying requirements based on development size or context features, such as transit accessibility, mixed-land uses, shared parking and overall development density. The use of alternative compliance mechanisms that provide more context specific data from which to make rational and measured adjustments to parking requirements are also being assessed. Parking reform can also be coordinated with regional planning and modeling activities. For example, in King County, Washington, the Metro Transit’s web-based GIS tool provides data on parking utilization for multi-family housing and tests alternative parking ratios in terms of costs and impacts. Note: More information about King County, Washington’s King County Multi-Family Residential Parking Calculator can be found at http://www.rightsizeparking.org/. In the case of Fort Collins, the use of the “Park+” parking demand modelling software that has been purchased by both the City and CSU could provide a similar analysis tool. Packet Pg. 248 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 39 Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM) TBLAM process was conducted in Collaboration with the City of Fort Collins Planning Services, FC Moves, Parking Services, Accounting, Transfort and Economic Health Departments. Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line information from a TBLAM, and use that information to offer recommendations on key indicators and suggested action items for the TOD Parking Study, considering both parking minimums and no prescribed requirements for parking. I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM): A. The TOD Parking Study team considered two alternatives: (1) parking minimums, as the current Land Use Code requires, and (2) not having prescriptive parking requirements (as was formerly in place). Thus, two separate maps were developed. B. Both maps were well balanced across the columns with ample strengths and limitations identified. C. Several considerations crossed into many columns, and rows. 1. Crossing columns indicates excellent depth of discussion and debate. 2. Crossing of rows indicates potential for conflicting values. D. Data, at the time the TBLAM was conducted, was largely anecdotal. Collecting additional parking-related data became a priority task. E. Threats should be further explored and contain more information on community and traffic growth. F. Mason Corridor MAX has a strong presence on the TBLAM. II. Conclusions Offered: A. Need to refine TBLAM again in phases: 1. When a proposed direction is selected, it would be beneficial to re-TBLAM with a larger group that is unfamiliar with the project to ensure all strengths, limitations, opportunities, and threats are identified. B. A key driver for the mapping exercises was the vision expressed in City Plan, our community’s comprehensive plan, which calls for increasing density within the TOD Overlay Zone District. 1. There was significant discussion regarding whether parking minimums would allow the City to achieve its density vision. 2. At the same time, staff was very sensitive to the other goals in City Plan regarding neighborhood compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character. C. The TBL team would recommend including additional stakeholders, such as the project’s advisory committee, to include additional viewpoints in the project. III. Potential Key Indicators Suggested: A. Re-TBLAM on a phased-schedule basis. B. Both scenarios have the potential for significant implications to all three areas (economic, environmental, and social) legs of the sustainability stool. Collecting data now and developing scenarios to base decisions on could be critical to ensuring the right decision is made. C. Post-TBLAM review environmental suggestions warrant detailed meetings and coordination directly with Environmental Services staff. Packet Pg. 249 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 40 Packet Pg. 250 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 41 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 42 Best Practices Review This section of the parking study summarizes some of the parking best management practices that are recommended and/or have been successfully implemented in other communities. These practices are tools to address existing parking issues and accommodate future demand. It is important to remember that these strategies are not mutually exclusive and may need to be modified to suit the needs of the City of Fort Collins. Many of these strategies are complementary and are most effective when used in conjunction with one another. Innovative Alternatives or Supplements to Minimum Parking Requirements Some local governments have implemented alternatives to generic parking requirements that increase availability from existing supply, reduce the demand for parking, or create more cost-effective and environmentally sensitive parking structures that preserve pervious surfaces. By lowering total development costs, some of these parking alternatives have consequently encouraged smart growth development and redevelopment. This section summarizes proven alternatives and includes discussion of their establishment, advantages, and potential concerns. The alternatives are organized according to their influence on parking supply, parking demand and pricing. Increasing Availability From Existing Supply Or Limited Expansion Frequently, the supply of parking in developed areas is sufficient to meet parking demand, but a combination of reasons limit the availability of that supply. Context-specific Minimum Requirements As discussed in the Introduction, generic minimum requirements are typically set based on maximum observed demand for free parking in areas with no transportation choices. However, parking demand is determined by a range of factors that lead to significant variations within and across jurisdictions, meaning that a single standard for each land use may not be appropriate. Other factors that are strongly correlated with lower vehicle ownership in urban areas are frequent transit service, small household sizes, low incomes, a high proportion of seniors, and rental housing. Similarly, at commercial developments, transit access, mix of uses, and density are good predictors of parking demand. Often developers are interested in finding ways to reduce the vehicle trip generation calculations for their expected development, so that they can demonstrate fewer impacts on the surrounding roadway network, while they may not always be so eager to reduce the amount of parking to supply. A major challenge for cities is how to convert this research and data, together with experience from other settings, into local parking requirements or planning approvals for specific developments. Some of the mechanisms being used are: • Transit Zoning Overlays • New Zoning Districts or Specific Plans • Parking Freezes • Reductions for Affordable and Senior Housing • Case-By-Case Evaluation • Land Banking and Landscape Reserves Packet Pg. 252 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 43 Maximum Limits and Transferable Parking Entitlements In contrast to generic minimum parking requirements, maximum limits restrict the total number of spaces that can be constructed rather than establish a minimum number that must be provided. Planners set maximum limits much like they set minimum requirements. Typically, a maximum number of spaces is based on square footage of a specific land use. For example, the City of Portland, Oregon restricts offices in the central business district to 0.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and retail to 1.0 space per 1,000 square feet of net building area. Contrary to what might be expected, the maximum limits in Portland have not led to a parking shortage because of the balance of transportation choices available. Maximum requirements are not ideal for all locations. It is crucial for municipalities that employ maximum requirements to have accompanying accessible and frequent public transportation. It is also important for the area to be sufficiently stable economically to attract tenants without needing to provide a surplus of parking. A number of cities have implemented maximum parking requirements, including San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. Shared Parking Different types of land uses attract customers, workers, and visitors during different times of the day. Shared parking is another alternative that city planners can employ when setting parking requirements in mixed-use areas. An office that has peak parking demand during the daytime hours, for example, can share the same pool of parking spaces with a restaurant whose demand peaks in the evening. This alternative also reduces overall development costs. By allowing for and encouraging shared parking, planners can decrease the total number of spaces required for mixed- use developments or single-use developments in mixed-use areas. Developers benefit, not only from the decreased cost of development, but also from the “captive markets” stemming from mixed-use development. For example, office employees are a captive market for business lunches at restaurants in mixed-use developments. Shared parking encourages use of large centralized parking facilities and discourages the development of many small facilities. This results in more efficient traffic flow because there are fewer curb cuts, and turning opportunities on main thoroughfares. This has the added benefits of reducing accidents and reducing emissions from idling vehicles stuck in traffic. Establishing shared parking requirements involves site-specific assessment or use of time-of-day parking utilization curves. Montgomery County, Maryland allows for shared parking to meet minimum parking requirements when any land or building under the same ownership or under a joint use agreement is used for two or more purposes. The county uses the following method to determine shared requirements for mixed-use developments: • Determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as though it were a separate use, by time period, considering proximity to transit. • Calculate the total parking required across uses for each time period. • Set the requirement at the maximum total across time periods. Packet Pg. 253 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 44 Many available sources document procedures for calculating shared parking requirements, from 1983’s “Flexible Parking Requirements” to 2003’s SmartCode. In-Lieu Parking Fees and Centralized Parking Municipalities establish in-lieu parking fees as an alternative to requiring on-site parking spaces. With in-lieu fees, developers are able to circumvent constructing parking on-site by paying the city a fee. The city, in return, provides centralized, off-site parking that is available for use by the development’s tenants and visitors. The fees are determined by the city and are generally based on the cost of providing parking. Cities set fees in one of two ways, either by calculating a flat fee for parking spaces not provided by a developer on-site or by establishing development-specific fees on a case-by-case basis. Shoup reports that in-lieu fees in the United States range from $5,850 to $20,180 per parking space. These fees can be imposed as a property tax surcharge. In-lieu parking fees provide advantages to both planners and developers. Allowing developers to pay fees in-lieu of constructing parking has the following benefits: • Overall construction costs may be reduced; • Construction of awkward, unattractive on-site parking is avoided; • Redevelopment projects involving historic buildings can avoid constructing parking that would compromise the character of the buildings; • Planners can ensure that existing parking facilities will be more fully utilized; and • Planners can encourage better urban design with continuous storefronts that are uninterrupted by parking lots. In establishing in-lieu parking fees, planners must be cognizant of potential developers’ concerns about the impact of a lack of on-site parking on the attractiveness of developments to tenants and visitors. This can be an issue if available public parking is insufficient, inconveniently located, or inefficiently operated. Planners must carefully consider the parking demand for each participating property and provide enough parking to meet this demand in order to avoid creating a perceived or real parking shortage. Planners must also work to ensure that public parking facilities are centrally located and operated efficiently. Centralized parking facilities can reduce the costs of parking because large facilities are less expensive on a per space basis to build and maintain than small facilities. Centralized parking, as an alternative to on-site parking, also improves urban design and preserves the historic nature of communities. Some cities mandate centralized parking facilities and finance them through development impact fees in lieu parking fees or negotiated contributions established during the environmental review process. Increasing Availability by Decreasing Demand Demand reduction can be achieved through a variety of programs and policies that attempt to reduce the automobile transportation demand, and thus reduce the needed supply of parking. While these programs are typically developed by local governments, their success often depends on the commitment of businesses to implement them effectively. Packet Pg. 254 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 45 Demand reduction programs include: car sharing, subsidies for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and vehicle trip reduction programs. When employers allow telecommuting and/or flexible work schedules that reduce commuting, demand is also reduced. Car Sharing Car sharing is a neighborhood-based, short-term vehicle rental service that makes cars available to people on a pay-per- use basis. Members have access to a common fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis, gaining most of the benefits of a private car without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. In programs with the most advanced technology, members simply reserve a car via telephone or the Internet, walk to the nearest lot, access the car using an electronic card, and drive off. They are billed at the end of the month. In commercial developments, car-sharing can also be a useful tool to reduce parking demand. Employees can use a shared vehicle for errands and meetings during the day, allowing them to take transit, carpool, walk or bicycle to work. Car-sharing works best in compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, where firms with corporate memberships tend to use the vehicles during the day and residents use them in the evenings and on weekends. As well as reduced parking demand, car-sharing brings a broad range of other benefits, including fewer vehicle trips, and improved mobility for low-income households who may not be able to afford to own a car. Formal car-sharing programs have been established in many cities including Boston, Massachusetts; Washington, DC; San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Boulder, Colorado. Many others are in the process of establishing operations. Alternatively, developers can provide shared vehicles themselves, or facilitate informal car- sharing among residents. Improvements to Transit Service, Pricing, and Information Transit subsidies can be provided by employers, by cities, or by residential property managers. In the case of employer- paid transit pass schemes, the employer pays the cost of employees’ transit, converting the fixed cost for parking spaces into a variable cost for the public transportation subsidy. This fringe benefit for employees reduces the demand for parking at the workplace, which in turn reduces traffic, air pollution, and energy consumption. It also reduces the cost associated with providing parking, as transit subsidies are generally less expensive than providing parking. Improvements to Pedestrian and Bicycle Service Demand for parking can be reduced by providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities that make it easier and more pleasant for people to walk or bicycle rather than drive. These amenities and design changes can alleviate traffic congestion. In particular, improving the walkability and pedestrian orientation of employment centers can address the increasingly common “drive to lunch” syndrome. For example, the auto-orientation of Tyson’s Corner, Virginia has resulted in terrible traffic at lunch time because people cannot walk to eating establishments or to do errands. Vehicle Trip Reduction Programs Another direct form of demand reduction involves instituting vehicle trip reduction programs. Vehicle trip reduction programs combine several types of demand reduction components to meet explicit vehicle trip reduction goals. Packet Pg. 255 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 46 Thus, instead of capping the number of parking spaces, local officials limit the number of vehicle miles traveled in a particular region. These types of programs attempt to decrease the number of trips by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and increase the use of a variety of commuting alternatives, including transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling. To increase the effectiveness of vehicle trip reduction programs, cities or employers can incorporate an assortment of complementary program elements to balance transportation choices. The following are some examples: • “Guaranteed ride home” services that allow employees who use public transit to get a free ride home (e.g., via taxi) if they miss their bus or if they need to stay at work late. • Company fleet cars that can be used for running errands during the workday (e.g., doctor appointments). • Preferential and/or reserved parking for vanpools/carpools. • Carpooling and/or vanpooling with ride matching service. Ride matching can facilitate the identification of people who live close to one another. This service can be accomplished by providing “ride boards” or by using an employee transportation coordinator. • Cellular phones for car and vanpooling to facilitate timing of pickups. There is little incentive for employers to implement vehicle trip reduction programs if they are not granted reductions in minimum parking requirements. They would not be able to realize the potential cost savings from providing less parking, but would simply be faced with a large number of empty spaces. Several cities, such as South San Francisco, have acknowledged this through ordinances that reduce parking requirements for projects that include vehicle trip reduction programs. Efficient Pricing Although it is often provided at no charge to the user, parking is never free. Each space in a parking structure can cost upwards of $2,500 per year in maintenance, operations and the amortization of land and construction costs. Even on- street spaces incur maintenance costs and an opportunity cost in foregone land value. The cost of parking is generally subsumed into lease fees or sale prices for the sake of simplicity and because that is the more traditional practice in real estate. However, providing anything for free or at highly subsidized rates encourages overuse and means that more parking spaces have to be provided to achieve the same rate of availability. Charging users for parking is a market-based approach by which the true cost of parking can be passed through to parking users. If the fee charged to users of parking facilities is sufficient to cover construction, operation, and maintenance costs, it will likely cause some users to choose not to park. Even where there are few alternatives to driving, parking pricing can encourage employees to seek out carpooling partners. In addition to reducing the cost of parking provision, pricing strategies bring major environmental and congestion benefits, particularly since they tend to reduce peak-period vehicle trips the most. Parking charges have been found to reduce employee vehicle trips, and thus daily parking demand, by between 7 percent and 30 percent or more, depending on factors such as the level of charges and the availability of alternatives to driving alone. Parking price elasticities generally range from –0.1 to –0.6, with the most common value being –0.3, meaning that each 1 percent rise in parking fees is accompanied by a 0.3 percent decrease in demand. Packet Pg. 256 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 47 Cash-Out Programs Cash-out programs provide alternatives to directly charging users for parking. Under such programs, employers offer employees the choice of free or subsidized parking, a transit/vanpool subsidy equal to the value of the parking (of which up to $100 is tax-free under current federal law), or a taxable carpool/walk/bike subsidy equal to the value of the parking. Employees who opt for the non-parking subsidies are not eligible to receive free parking from the employer, and are responsible for their parking charges on days when they drive to work. The cost savings associated with cash-out payments depend on the amount of the payments. If the full cash equivalent is provided, this demand reduction program does not reduce the total costs of providing parking. However, employees may accept cash payments lower than the full equivalent of the parking subsidy. If partial cash payments are used, employers face lower overall transportation subsidy costs and employees still benefit. Differential Pricing by Trip Type Parking pricing can be used as a sensitive tool to prioritize some types of trips over others, according to their purpose and duration. It allows managers to cater for desirable trips, such as short-term shoppers, while discouraging undesirable commuter trips, which add to peak-hour congestion and occupy a parking space for an entire day. These pricing strategies allow the overall supply of parking to be minimized, while ensuring spaces are available for critical users. They can also alleviate pressure to provide more parking from retailers and businesses, who may be concerned that poor parking availability discourages shoppers. Examples include: • Lower or zero rates for short-term parking encourage shopping trips, while proportionally higher rates for long- term parking discourage all-day commuter parking, freeing up spaces for customers. Short-term parking allows many people to use a single space over the course of a day, rather than a single commuter, and generates revenue for businesses and sales tax dollars for cities. • Parking charges that are levied by the hour or day, with no discounts for monthly parking, remove the financial disincentive to take transit occasionally. There is no perverse incentive to drive every day to “get your money’s worth” from the monthly parking pass. • Parking charges at transit stations that only apply before a certain time (such as 9 or 10 am) encourage off-peak transit ridership where spare capacity is available, rather than contributing to crowding in the peak. Residential Parking Pricing Parking charges can also be introduced at residential developments, through separating or “unbundling” the cost of parking from rents or sale prices. Rather than being provided with a set number of spaces whether they need them or not, residents can choose how many spaces they wish to purchase or rent. An alternative to direct charges is to provide “rent rebates” or discounts to residents who own fewer vehicles and do not use their allocated parking spaces. Parking Benefit Districts Parking pricing strategies can also be implemented through Parking Benefit Districts. Under this concept, revenue from meters and residential permits is returned to local neighborhoods. Once administrative costs are covered, all money Packet Pg. 257 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 48 goes to transportation and neighborhood improvements such as undergrounding of utility wires. Parking Benefit Districts allow developments to be built with less parking, while addressing potential spillover problems through market pricing of curb parking. Earmarking revenue to directly benefit the neighborhood or commercial district helps to generate support for charges from local residents and businesses, which might otherwise resist charging for parking that used to be free. Cities such as San Diego and Pasadena, California, have implemented Parking Benefit Districts in their downtown business districts, using parking meter revenue. Packet Pg. 258 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 49 Peer City Reviews In our research related to peer city parking requirements, we applied two primary criteria: communities of similar size or characteristics to Fort Collins or communities with progressive parking planning policies similar in values to Fort Collins. We identified five primary communities that met these criteria. These communities include: • Ann Arbor, Michigan • Berkeley, CA • Portland, OR • Eugene, OR • Arlington County, VA A summary of the key elements of each of these city’s policies are provided below. More detailed information for each community is provided in Appendix B. Appendix B contains selected examples of well-developed or progressive zoning codes including some not on the Peer Cities list noted above. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan • City’s web page: www.a2gov.org • Downtown Development Authority web page: www.a2dda.org • Commuting programs and services web page: www.getdowntown.org Key Policies and Initiatives GetDowntown Program – This is a commuter service and assistance program. It offers commuting programs and services to employees and employers in downtown Ann Arbor. Programs and services include the go!pass, Commuter Challenge, Bike Locker Rentals, Zipcars, free commuting assistance, and commuting materials. Go! Pass Program – It is an employee benefit which offers unlimited rides on the City buses with in Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) boundaries. Additionally, this program offers discounts for other commuter services and at downtown businesses. Commuter Challenge – It offers prizes for trying alternative modes of transportation. The modes include busing, biking, walking, carpooling, and van pooling. The program is offered only for the month of May. Bike Locker Rental – Locker rentals are offered at $60/month. The rentals are offered from April 1 to March 31. The fee is prorated if the rental starts after April. Monthly rentals are not available. To encourage alternative modes of transportation, the parking demand for office buildings were dropped from 4 to 3 per 1,000sf. Maximum parking demand ratio was implemented for many land uses. For downtown projects, developers are not required to provide parking for up to 400% of FAR. For some mixed-use land uses, 700% of FAR is allowed and parking is required for FAR above 400%. Bicycle parking is required for many land uses. Outside bicycle parking spaces can be used for meeting “useable open space” requirements. Areas for inside bicycle parking spaces are not included in calculating the vehicular parking requirements. Packet Pg. 259 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 50 Up to 30% of parking supply could be designed for compact cars only. Arlington County, Virginia • Arlington County web page: www.arlingtonva.us • Commuter Service web page: www.commuterpage.com • Mobility Lab: http://mobilitylab.org/ Key Policies and Initiatives Office parking requirement is 1 space per 580sf (with associated apartment use), which is significantly less than the national average. Without apartment use, the requirement is 1/530sf. Hotel parking requirement is 0.7 per room. Again, significantly less than national average. Underground parking is encouraged. Parking requirements for Medical Office Buildings could be reduced by 10%. Parking requirements are reduced if approved shared parking programs are implemented. Parking is not required for the first 5,000sf of development (some land uses are excluded). For grocery stores, first 15,000sf is exempt, if the grocery store is not the principal land use. Office parking requirements could be reduced by up to 10%. 100% of required parking could be provided up to ¼-mile away. Reduced parking demand with approved TDM programs. Up to 15% of parking supply could be designed for compact cars only. Maximum parking requirements for many land uses. Parking near metro stations is not required if the development is located within 1,000 feet (with some exemptions). Mobility Lab is one of the most aggressive and successful transportation alternative programs in the country and is a recommended model for Fort Collins to review. City of Berkeley, California • City’s web page: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us • Commuter Service web page: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/commute Key Policies and Initiatives The City offers many commuter programs. These include: o The Tax Relief Action to Cut Commuter Carbon (TRACC) o Commuter Benefit Services for Employers o The City requires that employers with ten or more employees provide a commute program to encourage employees to use public transit, vanpools or bicycles. TRACCC, gives employers several options - businesses can offer their employees commuter tax benefits as a payroll deduction, provide a subsidized benefit, or offer a combination of the two. Commute Programs Packet Pg. 260 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 51 o Guaranteed Ride Home Program o Ride matching for carpools and vanpools o Transportation Programs at UC Berkeley Transit Information Services o 511 Transit Information o Getting There on Transit o Clipper, the Bay Area's Smart Card for Transit AC Transit Local and Transbay Bus Service o Other Bus Services in Berkeley o Paratransit Services o Rail Service in Berkeley o Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) o Capitol Corridor (train service from San Jose to Sacramento) o Connecting AMTRAK passenger rail services Car Sharing Parking can be provided up to 300 feet away from the development. Joint-use, off-street parking is allowed if there are no substantial conflicts. Transit Service Fee (TSF) is collected to provide paratranist passes and promote ride sharing. Parking requirements are reduced if the development is located within 1/3-mile from a BART station. Subsidies available for approved TDM programs. City of Eugene, Oregon • City’s web page: www.eugene-or.gov Key Policies and Initiatives Parking requirements may be reduced (for some land uses) if the developer offers an approved shared parking plan. Bicycle parking is required with many land uses. Maximum parking ratio is used. Maximum parking cannot exceed 125% of minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements may be reduced if an approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is implemented. The City offers typical commuter services including bus, car pool, and van pool. Packet Pg. 261 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 52 City of Portland, Oregon • City’s web page: www.portlandonline.com • Commuter Assistance web page: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/43820 Key Policies and Initiatives Maximum parking for many land uses. Parking could be provided up to 500 feet away. Stacked parking with valet attendant is allowed. Parking requirements could be reduced by 5% for approved carpool programs. Parking requirements for residential developments are reduced and completely eliminated for all other land uses, if: o The development is located within 1,500 feet from a transit station, or o 500 feet from transit street where peak-hour service is provided at 20-minute intervals. Bicycle parking is required for many land uses. For every five bicycle parking, one vehicle parking could be eliminated. Parking requirements could be reduced by 10% if a transit supportive plaza is provided with the development. Motor cycle parking could be used to reduce vehicle parking by 5%. For every two car sharing parking one vehicle parking could be eliminated. “Smart Trip Business” initiative to encourage use of alternate modes of transportation. Some of the programs include: o Encourage use of bicycle at work place. o Businesses could be certified for as, “Sustainability Work Certified.” The certifications include “Certified,” Silver,” and “Gold.” o Car sharing programs. o Centralized Transportation Resource. o Employee education about use of transit. o “Commuter Challenge” program to encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. The table on the following page provides a comparison of the City of Fort Collins to the selected peer cities regarding key zoning code policies and issues. Packet Pg. 262 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 53 CITY OF FORT COLLINS (within TOD) CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA CITY OF BERKLEY, CA CITY OF EUGENE, OR CITY OF PORTLAND, OR General Practice Maximum/Minimum Standards Yes Minimum - Yes Yes N/A Yes; cannot exceed 125% of minimum standards Yes; Maximums apply for certain situations and land use Parking Reductions Yes; within TOD Overlay District (currently 70% of min - currently applies to residential uses), alternative compliance measures may be applied Reduced Office parking standards from 4 to 3 spaces / 1,000' sf MOB/Office parking can be reduced by 10%; Alternative compliance for mixed use buildings with or without apartments (e.g., 1.0 / 580 sf (w/apt use) - 1.0 / 530 sf (w/o apt use) Up to 25% reduction from the minimum for shared, off- street parking; District specific standards also apply (e.g., up to 50% in the Nodal Development Overlay Zone) 10% reduction with transit plaza on site; see also Reduction in Parking with TDM If within 1,000' of metro station - no parking required (certain, listed uses including retail and service commercial, grocery stores and restaurants If within 1/3 mile of BART station; 1/4 mile of publicly accessble parking facility; parking survey (500' radius), or provides certain types of uses. If within 1,500' of transit station or 500' of station with 20 min peak hour intervals - parking may be reduced or eliminated First 5K sf of building exempted from parking; grocery store = 15K sf exempt 54 Public Involvement Task Overview Across the country, cities and transit-supported commercial districts are more thoughtfully examining the role that parking requirements play in shaping the development landscape. This study includes an in-depth examination of key issues, an assessment of the larger national debate regarding parking requirements, a review of best practices from peer communities, but hearing directly from community members is also a critical element of our assessment. Therefore a rigorous public involvement process was conducted from January through April 2014. Intentional and targeted outreach to community stakeholders helps provide insight into the real and perceived parking and access challenges that residents, property owners, merchants, students and visitors encounter when they visit the districts included in the TOD study area. The purpose of the public involvement process was to: • Educate stakeholders and interested members of the general public about the process, goals and desired outcomes of the TOD Parking Study • Identify and engage key individuals, groups and organizations within the study area that are impacted by both existing parking requirements and future policy decisions • Provide residents with the opportunity to share their experiences, perceptions, ideas and concerns during the study process so that their feedback can be incorporated into the study recommendations in a meaningful way. Public Involvement Strategy & Methodology Overview Due to the complexity and technical nature of the study topic, Kimley-Horn and Associates engaged The Solesbee Group to develop an intensive public involvement strategy specifically for the Fort Collins TOD Project. The outreach strategy was specifically developed to help stakeholders better understand the role that parking requirements play in the City’s larger community development and quality of life landscape, and was grounded in the important context of the City’s adopted planning efforts – City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Downtown Parking Strategic Plan and Midtown Plan to name a few. The public outreach process officially kicked off January 22-23, with a set of meetings conducted by the consulting team. The remainder of the public meetings was conducted by City staff following the format outlined in the initial presentation which included a brief PowerPoint presentation and series of prepared questions (See Appendix C). The following outline provides an overview of the opportunities that were provided to stakeholder groups, community organizations and the general public to provide feedback throughout the project. • Community Engagement Strategy #1: Focus group presentations to key stakeholders and community groups o Groups Engaged (January – April 2014) UniverCity Connections, Transit and Mobility Taskforce, January 7 Packet Pg. 264 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 55 Developers, Jan 22-23 Commercial property owners, January 22-23 Design community/planners, January 22-23 Board of Realtors, February 11, May 13 Overland Sertoma Club, February 19 Downtown Business Association, March 20 Colorado State University/Avery Park Neighborhood, March 27 North Front Range MPO & Larimer County Mobility Council, April 17 Chamber of Commerce, April 18 CREW of Northern Colorado, June 4 • Community Engagement Strategy #2: Engage City Boards o Groups Engaged (January – April 2014) Planning and Zoning Board, March 7, April 4, May 8 Parking Advisory Board, March 10, May 12 Transportation Board, March 19 Affordable Housing Board, April 3 Economic Advisory Commission, May 21 City Council Work Session, May 27 • Community Engagement Strategy #3: General Public Involvement & Education o Project Booth at Transportation Open House (Feb 20) Attendees: 150+ o Online Presence & Social Media (January – April 2014): Project Web page on City Web site City Facebook page Project information distributed through: • Mason Corridor Connection E-newsletter • Development Review List Serve o 328 Subscribers • Nextdoor Web Posting o 4,174 total members o 3,330 households Board of Realtors Survey o 400 Responses o Targeted Neighborhood Meetings (January – March 2014) Downtown Neighborhoods, March 6 Midtown Neighborhoods, March 11 Campus Area/Avery Park Neighborhoods, March 27 Packet Pg. 265 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 56 o Tactic: Engage Media (January – April 2014) Article in Coloradoan (March 5) Neighborhood Services E-Newsletter Additionally, an online questionnaire was included on the project Web site and promoted during public meetings, on Facebook and through existing e-publications like the Mason Corridor Connection E-Newsletter. The questionnaire was provided as alternative option for those who could not attend one of the public meetings to ensure that a variety of opportunities for feedback were provided. 67 people completed the questionnaire and a copy of the questionnaire tool is included in Appendix D. Community Feedback Extensive notes were taken at all the public meetings and that feedback, along with the open-ended questionnaire responses, was carefully analyzed to identify key themes and the most frequently mentioned stakeholder concerns. The result of that analysis is detailed in this following section. Current State of Parking When asked their opinion about the current state of parking in the TOD study area, stakeholders responded as follows: • Downtown is very busy on-street but there is “plenty of off-street parking except for maybe once or twice a year”. Many reported “never having trouble finding parking” in a downtown garage. • The areas around CSU are “always congested”; 62% of Board of Realtor (BOR) survey respondents said there was “not enough parking” around CSU. There were mixed reviews about the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) – not in terms of program management but in terms of the frustration of having students parking in the neighborhoods – and there was strong consensus that CSU should be more actively involved in either providing parking options for students or discouraging students from bringing cars in the first place. • Largely there is plenty of parking in Midtown, except around a few projects like The Summit. 61% of BOR survey respondents said there was the “right amount of parking” around buildings and businesses. However, survey respondents also said that parking was one of the top two obstacles to the Mason Corridor’s success (next to building heights). Another important issue that was raised frequently in conversations about the current state of parking was the safety of pedestrians and bikers. It was mentioned that safety issues already exist in areas where there is a higher density of people and vehicles in the TOD (i.e., around campus and in residential areas surrounding campus), and by actively seeking to increase density with TOD-oriented policies, pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle conflicts will naturally only intensify. The solutions most frequently suggested were: 1) grade separation between bikes, pedestrians and vehicles was suggested, 2) separate paths for bikes and pedestrians and 3) improvement/better maintenance to existing bike paths. Packet Pg. 266 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 57 “TOD without the ‘T’” One of the most, if not the most, consistent question heard throughout the stakeholder engagement process was: Is it was too early to think about policy decisions like appropriate parking minimums/maximums for the TOD when MAX isn’t online yet? Many stakeholders rightly pointed out that while it is important to be aware of current parking issues in the TOD, these issues may not be the same once MAX comes online. This stakeholder feedback was in line with concerns raised by City staff and the consulting team at the beginning of this study. Stakeholders smartly cautioned the study team that any recommendations of the study should be data-driven and allow sufficient flexibility in parking policy decisions once MAX comes online. To begin addressing the “data question”, City staff collected baseline parking occupancy data in the neighborhoods surrounding the MAX. Data was collected both during CSU’s spring break and while class was in session to provide an accurate picture of occupancy in both scenarios. “A Tale of Two Cities” Perhaps the most striking theme identified throughout the public involvement process was the stark divide between respondents who strongly feel that Colorado is part of the “west” and that while using alternative modes is reasonable for “routine trips” (i.e., shopping, meeting friends, traveling to work or school), residents still want access to their cars and a convenient place to park them upon arrival. This sentiment was especially evident in the questionnaire where, in one question, respondents strongly supported the construction of additional structured parking to ensure convenient parking options and help prevent spillover into residential neighborhoods, while commenting that parking structures were “unsightly”, “blocked mountain views” and discouraged the use of alternate modes in a following question. While this “Tale of Two Cities” perspective isn’t a new development, it is firmly part of Fort Collins’ cultural fabric and it was vitally important for the consulting team to carefully consider both perspectives when creating a balanced set of recommendations for the TOD project. Through investment in the MAX Bus Rapid Transit line, the City of Fort Collins has made a very public commitment to developing policies and programs that support its adopted Triple Bottom Line approach. According to both the public meeting feedback and questionnaire results, a slight majority of residents are cautiously willing to support the City’s more progressive approach to parking management – one that creates a reasonable disincentive for people to use single-occupancy vehicles as their main mode of transportation and that doesn’t invest in car-oriented urban design. Stakeholders also showed strong support for existing City plans, a sentiment that is reflected a previous section of this report that highlights how the recommendations of this study were grounded in adopted City plans. Balancing a “Case by Case” Approach Several stakeholders confirmed one of the core assumptions made by the consulting team at the beginning of this project, which was that the result of this study would not be a “one size fits all” solution but instead would identify a process to guide City staff as they evaluate specific proposed projects. While stakeholders suggested that the City “be creative” and approach proposed developments on a case by case basis, a careful balance must be struck between allowing City staff and the development community enough freedom to come up with creative solutions while also recognizing the negatives associated with inhibiting development with burdensome review processes and/or “cutting things up into pieces” in terms of zoning and sub areas. Other frequently mentioned stakeholder comments included: Packet Pg. 267 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 58 • The desire to see more of an incentive model rather than using regulation to enact change. • The feeling that it is important to differentiate between types of projects, commercial, residential and student residential, in terms of parking impacts. • The importance of developing a process whereby the City can obligate developers to follow through on the promises that they make to get a plan approved. Other Frequently Mentioned Issues: On-Street Paid Parking, “PPP’s” and Off-Site Car Storage • On-Street Paid Parking: Implementing a paid parking program came up multiple times throughout a variety of different stakeholder groups as a tool that the City should have at its disposal. While on-street paid parking has been under discussion for many years in Fort Collins and many feel strongly that businesses will be adversely impacted by its implementation, the enforcement of time-limited parking has its limitations and free on-street parking seems counterintuitive in a community that actively supports alternative transportation modes and environmental sustainability. Many stakeholders also reported confusion about why they had to pay to use parking garages while on-street parking remains free; as one stakeholder wisely commented “the most convenient parking should be paid parking”. If Fort Collins truly wants to achieve its goals of compact walkable development, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and supporting the success of alternative transportation investments, paid parking can be an effective tool and it should be leveraged as a key management strategy. • Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s): Public/private partnerships, related to the development of structured parking, should be a key strategy for achieving many of the TOD area’s primary goals (i.e., increased development density, limiting the over-supply of parking, promoting shared parking, encouraging the success of the MAX line, etc.). Additional structured parking – which was the option overwhelmingly preferred by stakeholders for the development of future parking assets – is an expensive undertaking but when done well, can be positioned as an incentive that will spur additional TOD development. • Off-site Car Storage: As discussed in the previous “Tale of Two Cities” section above, Colorado is considered part of the west and 93% of Board of Realtor survey respondents said owning a car was “Important” (67% said “Very Important”). The overwhelming majority of stakeholders said that owning a vehicle provides quick access to the mountains, Denver metro area, the Denver International Airport, and is part of the cultural fabric of Colorado. Bottom line: As long as a “convenient” alternative does not exist, people are not giving up their cars – even if they choose to live in a transit oriented corridor. One of the ideas shared with stakeholders during this study process was the concept of off-site car storage. The reactions to this suggestion were widely mixed – some thought it was a creative solution that was worth trying (as long as the remote parking was accessible via the MAX line), while others thought that the suggestion was a non-starter. While the consulting team was not aware of other communities where off-site car storage has been implemented effectively, “someone always has to be the first one to try a new idea” and a small study using CSU students and other residents located along the MAX could be a viable pilot study. Packet Pg. 268 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 59 “Closing the Communication Loop”: How Engagement Informs Policy Recommendations The City of Fort Collins has one of the most robust public involvement processes of any City of its size across the country, and maybe even one of the most robust for a City of ANY size. What the City rightly realizes is that stakeholder engagement is a vital part of developing a successful access management and parking strategy that supports a community’s larger economic development goals. Outreach to Fort Collin’s diverse constituencies, while not without its challenges, provides important insight into the real and perceived parking, transportation and access challenges regularly faced by businesses, property owners, students, employees, visitors and members of the Fort Collins community. However, in many communities that undertake a planning or study process like this one, communication with stakeholders about how their feedback was used to develop study or plan recommendations is often missing. After spending hours of time attending public meetings, taking surveys and engaging in online discussion, stakeholders often feel disenchanted with the process because they can’t see their “fingerprints” when it comes time for recommendations on policies and programming to be made. In many communities, engagement grinds to a halt when the study is complete or the consultant leaves town, and stakeholders don’t hear from their cities again until it is time for a new round of public meetings. In cities like Fort Collins – where proactive and authentic public involvement is part of the community culture – it is really important to continue communication and education throughout the policy development and implementation phases, giving the stakeholders and general public an avenue to give feedback that could help refine the implementation process. This process – “Closing the Communication Loop” – also helps build trust and confidence that feedback given during the public involvement process was both heard and incorporated into the final recommendations. It is the hope of the consulting team that stakeholders will see their words and thoughts reflected in this Public Involvement chapter of the Transit-Oriented Parking Study. It is also strongly recommended that this report, along with an Executive Summary which includes specific recommendations, be made available to the general public using a variety of formats, including distribution through existing e-publications (i.e., Mason Corridor Connection), and social media with links to the project Web site. Packet Pg. 269 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 60 Data Collection Data collected by City Staff – March 2014 The following tables and maps summarize the data collection efforts conducted to document current parking inventory and utilization around the new developments within the TOD Overlay Zone. Parking utilization surveys were conducted around seven recent development projects within the TOD Overlay Zone, including the Summit. Parking utilization surveys were conducted at various times of day including: mid-week early AM counts, mid-week mid-day counts, evening counts and weekend counts. Counts were also taken during the CSU spring break week to provide a snapshot of parking utilization in the absence of normal student activities. Additional parking utilization data collected as part of the City’s new Residential Parking Permit program was also reviewed. The bottom line was that parking utilization rates were within acceptable ranges (none would have met the minimum standard required to initiate the City’s residential parking permit program) and while acknowledging that some residents still express concerns regarding parking spillover, the problem, based on the collected data, does not appear to be as bad as initially thought. TOD Parking Study TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis Mid-Week Parking Counts Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014 Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy Private Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity Percent Occupied 318 W. Myrtle 4/9/2014 6:20 AM 78 0 135 0 57.78% 318 W. Myrtle 4/9/2014 2:15 PM 115 0 135 0 85.19% Flats at the Oval 4/9/2014 6:20 AM 154 41 452 57 38.31% Flats at the Oval 4/9/2014 2:50 PM 345 35 452 57 74.66% Penny Flats 4/9/2014 6:40 AM 95 0 382 0 24.87% Penny Flats 4/9/2014 3:15 PM 214 0 382 0 56.02% Pura Vida 4/9/2014 6:20 AM 216 35 383 49 58.10% Pura Vida 4/9/2014 2:50 PM 293 29 383 49 74.54% Ram's Crossing 4/9/2014 5:40 AM 78 254 137 495 52.53% Ram's Crossing 4/9/2014 2:00 PM 137 269 137 495 64.24% Summit on College 4/9/2014 5:50 AM 176 261 341 834 37.19% Summit on College 4/9/2014 2:25 PM 118 308 341 834 36.26% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/9/2014 7:00 AM 62 72 411 142 24.23% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/9/2014 3:15 PM 191 111 411 142 54.61% Packet Pg. 270 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 61 TOD Parking Study TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis Evening Parking Counts Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014 Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy Private Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity Percent Occupied 318 W. Myrtle 4/4/2014 6:25 AM 80 0 135 0 59.26% 318 W. Myrtle 4/4/2014 8:10 PM 93 0 135 0 68.89% Flats at the Oval 4/4/2014 6:25 AM 243 56 452 57 58.74% Flats at the Oval 4/4/2014 8:10 PM 270 42 452 57 61.30% Penny Flats 4/4/2014 6:45 AM 103 0 382 0 26.96% Penny Flats 4/4/2014 8:25 PM 130 0 382 0 34.03% Pura Vida 4/4/2014 6:25 AM 196 42 383 49 55.09% Pura Vida 4/4/2014 8:15 PM 160 28 383 49 43.52% Ram's Crossing 4/4/2014 5:45 AM 75 295 137 495 58.54% Ram's Crossing 4/4/2014 7:10 PM 62 185 137 495 39.08% Summit on College 4/4/2014 5:55 AM 275 276 341 834 46.89% Summit on College 4/4/2014 7:45 PM 138 537 341 834 57.45% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/4/2014 6:45 AM 78 69 411 142 26.58% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/4/2014 8:45 PM 295 81 411 142 67.99% TOD Parking Study TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis Weekend Parking Counts Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014 Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy Private Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity Percent Occupied 318 W. Myrtle 4/5/2014 6:15 AM 78 0 135 0 57.78% 318 W. Myrtle 4/5/2014 3:00 PM 61 0 135 0 45.19% Flats at the Oval 4/5/2014 6:15 AM 216 43 452 57 50.88% Flats at the Oval 4/5/2014 3:00 PM 206 33 452 57 46.95% Penny Flats 4/5/2014 6:30 AM 108 0 382 0 28.27% Penny Flats 4/5/2014 3:20 PM 125 0 382 0 32.72% Pura Vida 4/5/2014 6:15 AM 190 26 383 49 50.00% Pura Vida 4/5/2014 3:00 PM 143 23 383 49 38.43% Ram's Crossing 4/5/2014 5:40 AM 64 204 137 495 42.41% Ram's Crossing 4/5/2014 2:15 PM 50 157 137 495 32.75% Summit on College 4/5/2014 5:50 AM 166 230 341 834 33.70% Summit on College 4/5/2014 2:30 PM 128 404 341 834 45.28% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/5/2014 6:45 AM 70 70 411 142 25.32% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/5/2014 3:25 PM 297 66 411 142 65.64% Packet Pg. 271 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 62 TOD Parking Study TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis Spring Break Parking Counts Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014 Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy Private Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity Percent Occupied 318 W. Myrtle 3/20/2014 5:45 AM 46 0 135 0 34.07% 318 W. Myrtle 3/20/2014 2:15 PM 104 0 135 0 77.04% Flats at the Oval 3/20/2014 5:45 AM 164 21 452 57 36.35% Flats at the Oval 3/20/2014 2:15 PM 270 16 452 57 56.19% Penny Flats 3/20/2014 6:20 AM 84 0 382 0 21.99% Penny Flats 3/20/2014 3:15 PM 188 0 382 0 49.21% Pura Vida 3/20/2014 5:45 AM 144 23 383 49 38.66% Pura Vida 3/20/2014 2:15 PM 179 21 383 49 46.30% Ram's Crossing 3/19/2014 6:00 AM 31 60 137 495 14.40% Ram's Crossing 3/19/2014 3:00 PM 47 55 137 495 16.14% Summit on College 3/18/2014 6:00 AM 115 121 341 834 20.09% Summit on College 3/18/2014 2:00 PM 85 308 341 834 33.45% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 3/20/2014 6:00 AM 45 69 411 142 20.61% Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 3/20/2014 3:15 PM 236 95 411 142 59.86% Packet Pg. 272 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 63 Data Collection Sites at Multi-family Developments in the TOD Overlay Zone Packet Pg. 273 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 64 Packet Pg. 274 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 65 Packet Pg. 275 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 66 Packet Pg. 276 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 67 Packet Pg. 277 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 68 Packet Pg. 278 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 69 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 70 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 71 Alternatives Assessment Introduction Alternatives Review The following alternatives were identified in the overview and scope of the project. The following factors were considered in the assessment of each alternative based on our review of best practices and the peer city reviews conducted as part of this study. Alternative 1: No changes o Factors considered: ▪ It may be premature to evaluate parking standards for the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone prior to an operational transit system (MAX) for which the standards were created to complement. ▪ Existing “temporary” standards will limit over-building of parking to some degree, however, costs for parking are high, and particularly so for structured parking where the life-cycle of a parking structure is 50 – 75 years. ▪ The original TOD Overlay Zone was developed per Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements of New Starts/Small Starts grant funding program for the MAX BRT system. FTA may be opposed to the parking standards being “watered down” – as the focus of the parking management strategy – is to promote use of BRT. The revised parking management strategy was a requirement for City of Fort Collins to receive FTA approval for MAX funding. Could it affect on-going or future FTA funding if the parking requirement changes are made permanent? ▪ Does a lack of revisions to our interim parking standards change our decision making going forward? Alternative 2: Minimum Requirement with Alternative Compliance o Factors considered: ▪ Existing “temporary” standards will limit over-building of parking to some degree. ▪ If developers propose alternatives, those options could be vetted through a parking impact study. Defining specific data requirements and parking impact study methodologies as well as standards for applying the results by City staff are being evaluated. ▪ Storage parking strategies are being assessed as an alternative compliance option. ▪ Regarding student housing issues, leverage the fact that CSU already has a bus pass program with Transfort. The City could monitor increases in transit usage and related traffic and parking Packet Pg. 281 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 72 demand impacts on an on-going basis and identify opportunities to collaborate with CSU on common parking goals. ▪ The City could develop a range of developer and/or employer trip reduction programs. ▪ Minimum requirements could vary based on land use and/or development size and character. Alternative 3: Parking Impact Study o Factors considered: ▪ For development projects of a certain size, a required “parking impact study” could provide some protection for adjacent neighborhoods and provide developers with a process for proposing or assessing alternatives. ▪ Defining specific data requirements and parking impact study methodologies as well as standards for applying the results by City staff are being evaluated. ▪ Shared parking strategies between properties should be encouraged. ▪ Inclusion of a parking study as a minimum submittal requirement will add cost and complexity to the development review process. Alternative 4: Dynamic Parking Requirement o Factors considered: ▪ Consider how parking standards can be tied to trip generation rates. A key goal of the TOD Overlay Zone was not to allow the parking supply to be overbuilt. The fact that the MAX is not yet in place is an issue, however, we should not lose sight of the goal that parking should be sized based on the vision for the future not what is needed today before the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) opens. ▪ The City and CSU both have access to the Park+ parking demand modeling software. This could be expanded and used as an on-going tool in the Development Review Process (as is currently being done in the City of Beverly Hills) ▪ As the opportunities for multi-modal transportation options expand, parking requirements could be more dynamic, adapting to specific criteria on an aggregate or area-specific basis. Alternative 5: Parking Fees o Factors considered: ▪ Fee-in-Lieu programs have been reviewed and have several significant drawbacks. ▪ Parking Impact Fees are an option that may offer more benefits and flexibility. ▪ Other approaches to parking infrastructure development (to support the larger TOD corridor development goals) are being reviewed. The options that appear most viable include: Packet Pg. 282 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 73 • Development or Parking Impact Fees • Paid on-street parking o A paid parking pilot program on Lake Street (adjacent to CSU which already has paid parking) could be a way to introduce paid parking on a limited basis. o Paid on-street in the downtown area could generate a significant revenue stream that could be used as the basis for parking infrastructure development going forward. • A tax measure to underwrite future parking and transportation infrastructure development is another viable alternative (at least from the perspective of generating an adequate revenue stream to fund the needed investments). Alternative 6: Structured Parking Strategies o Factors considered: ▪ Consider long term “return on investment strategies”; in particular consider data regarding land value and potential tax generation rates for different types of development patterns. Parking investment can be a tool to support and encourage the level of development density in the TOD corridor. It can be viewed as an “investment” as opposed to an incentive. There needs to be a balance between developer-required investment and public investment. A parking investment and infrastructure funding strategy is needed. ▪ Consider public/private partnerships for the creation of mixed-use parking structures, on-site and off-site parking for private development, and as an economic development tool: • CSU would consider a shared-use garage along the MAX line between Pitkin and Lake Streets • An alternative site nearer to Drake may be an option • Finding a key location or locations for development along the MAX corridor for a “model” TOD development project (a project that exemplifies the desired type and scale of development that the City wants to encourage)could be developed to “set the standard” for the corridor in terms of development density, design standards, shared parking, support of transportation alternatives, etc. As part of this “idealized development project”, a public/private partnership related to the provision of structured parking could be developed as a road map for similar projects to follow. Alternative 7: Other Strategies o Factors considered: ▪ Focus on “multi-modal strategies”. Increase opportunities for improved walkability and urban design, active transportation, and monitor trends in automobile ownership patterns, etc. as a way to improve overall accessibility and to reduce vehicle miles travelled and parking demand. Packet Pg. 283 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 74 ▪ One of the goals of the original TOD overlay zone was to incentivize structured parking by allowing more density which, in turn, provides an incentive for more affordable housing. How can new approaches further promote and reinforce these goals? ▪ Consider the goals and role of neighborhood parking permit programs. This will involve balancing the use of public rights of way, promoting long-term planning goals, being sensitive to the needs of neighborhoods and property owners and sustaining the high quality of life that citizens expect in Fort Collins. ▪ Consider the data regarding travel trends related to younger and future generations – people of all ages in the future will not be choosing to live or travel the way that we have in the past. How do we best incorporate these trends into our policy recommendations? ▪ Evaluate strategies such as Parking Districts and/or district management strategies that leverage parking management as a tool to achieve larger district/area development and management goals. ▪ A central conflict in the parking analysis exists between long-range policies that promote the aggressive land-use, transportation and climate action goals, found in City Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan versus short-term parking needs based on present land use patterns and parking demand. Consider the development of incremental approaches that balance long-term goals with short and mid-term needs. ▪ The potential for shared-use storage parking at CSU is not being considered by University staff at the present time, but should be revisited on a regular basis as the campus parking and transportation programs change over time. ▪ The creation of an “Economic Development Oriented Parking Policy” should be considered. Such a policy was developed for the City of Tempe, AZ. ▪ Actively identify opportunities for public/private partnerships (i.e., shared parking, joint financing of new facilities, etc.). A concept referred to as the “Business Development Score Card Strategy” is recommended. Packet Pg. 284 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 75 Recommendations The following recommendations seek to balance the need for development-provided parking and City policies for infill and redevelopment in the near term. In the long term, these recommendations propose to facilitate a comprehensive approach to parking, transit, and public investment. Recommendation #1: Minimum Parking Requirements that Vary Based on Land Use This recommendation is consistent with best practices in terms of lower minimum parking requirements with a maximum requirement within the TOD Overlay Zone and allowances for reductions with demand mitigation strategies. Multifamily and Mixed-Use Residential Land Uses • Minimum Parking Requirements – The following minimum parking requirements represent a lower parking requirement than outside the TOD Overlay Zone and differentiates the rent-by-the-bedroom model of leasing that was identified as contributing to the issue of spill-over parking. Land Use Code Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the following table: Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement* Rent-by-the-Bedroom Multi-family Dwellings Parking spaces Per Bedroom All Bedrooms 0.75 Multifamily Dwellings Number of Bedrooms Per Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit One or less 0.75 Two 1 Three 1.25 Four and above 1.5 *Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure. The “rent-by-the-bedroom” model of leasing and managing multi-family dwellings has increased greatly in the past decade. The recommendation to require parking provided per-bedroom is because this leasing model creates a greater Packet Pg. 285 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 76 occurrence of unrelated adults occupying a dwelling unit, as one must be an adult to sign a lease. Thus, creating a higher incidence of unrelated adults and a higher vehicle ownership rate per dwelling unit. Nonresidential Land Uses Currently, the Land Use Code does not have minimum parking requirements for commercial land uses; it only has maximum requirements. The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council requested this study evaluate the implementation of minimum parking requirements for nonresidential land uses. The recommended minimum parking requirement is approximately 50% of the maximum parking standard. This recommendation includes exemptions for existing buildings and an additional 25% reduction for development within the TOD Overlay Zone. Packet Pg. 286 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 77 Recommendation #2: Alternative Compliance Based on Parking Demand Mitigation Strategies This recommendation provides flexibility for development to adequately provide parking strategies and also efficiently develop property in targeted infill and redevelopment areas. • Parking Requirement Reductions – The following demand mitigation strategies are demonstrated methods to reduce parking demand and provide options for residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Land Use Code Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone may reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces by providing demand mitigation elements as shown in the following table: Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction*** Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit1 (< 50% AMI) 50%1. Transit Passes for each tenant 10%2. Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share3 Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Shared Parking Based on Shared Parking Study Results Off-Site Parking 1:1 Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10%4. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Varies Based on Proposal **All demand mitigation strategies shall be recorded on the site plan and subject to audit for the duration of the project. ***Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or Transportation Demand Management. Packet Pg. 287 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 78 1Affordable Housing – Families earning 24% - 36% area median income (AMI) have a 44% lower vehicle ownership rate. (Source: www.nonprofithousing.org) 2Transit Passes – The table below illustrates the effects of providing transit passes: Location: Drive to Work Transit to Work Introduction of transit passes Before After Difference Before After Difference Santa Clara, CA 76% 60% -16% 11% 27% 16% Bellevue, WA 81% 57% -24% 13% 18% 6% Ann Arbor, MI N/A -4% -4% 20% 25% 5% Boulder, CO 56% 36% -20% 15% 34% 19% Average -16% 12% Source: Traffic Reduction Strategies Study, City of Pasadena, Nelson Nygaard 3Car Share - Existing studies show that carshare members do reduce their car ownership. A study of City Carshare members found that 29% of members either sold vehicles or avoided planned vehicle purchases when the joined the program (Cervero et al., 2007) In a more recent national survey, carshare members reduced their vehicle ownership from an average of .47 autos per household before joining a carshare program to .24 vehicles after joining (Martin, Shaheen, & Lidicker, 2010). Notably, most of this reduction was due to one-car households becoming zero-car households, with many fewer two-car households joining and reducing their auto ownership. Over half of carshare members were in zero-car households when they joined, and remain so. Still, enough households shed a vehicle after joining carshare, or avoided purchasing a vehicle, that each carsharing vehicle replaced 9 to 13 private vehicles. 4Bike and Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) A - Victoria Transport Policy Institute - Walking and Cycling Improvements Typical Parking Reduction = 5 - 15%. (See table in draft report page 26.) • Parking Impact Study - In addition to the predictable allowances provided with the demand mitigation strategies outlined in recommendation one, this recommendation permits a development proposal to provide a comprehensive study of parking conditions on and around their site in order to justify a lower or higher parking ratio than required. Land Use Code Sec. 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1)(a)(2) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the minimum required in the TOD Overlay Zone per subparagraph 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. Packet Pg. 288 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 79 a. Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Impact Study which addresses issues identified in the City’s submittal requirements for such study. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section and the TOD Overlay Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of these Sections. In reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into account the objective and verifiable results of the Parking Impact Study together with the proposed plan's compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – A sample TDM checklist is shown in Appendix F. Implementation of this recommendation is outside the scope of this project, however, FC Moves has a budget offer to create and staff a TDM Program starting in 2015-16. In the interim, the Study proposes adding a definition to the Land Use Code for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) so that a private proposal may utilize this strategy. Land Use Code Transportation Demand Management shall mean a comprehensive program utilizing strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation and parking resources that further the City’s sustainability, infill, and redevelopment goals. These strategies typically include, but are not limited to, transit subsidies, enhanced bicycle facilities, car/vanpool options, and shared parking. TDM Discussion The basic concept is to provide a service to helps private employers access a range of parking and trip reduction tools and programs. Connecting developers to resources that can help them reduce parking demands (and therefore potentially lower the amount of parking they would be required to provide) is win-win scenario. The key is having a well-developed program that offers a range of choices that developers or businesses can choose from depending on the type of business or development they are providing. In most of the programs researched (Washington DC, Arlington County VA, Boulder CO, Ann Arbor MI), defined packages of TDM strategies are available that employers or developers can sign-up for. There is typically a multi-year commitment required and agreements must be signed to qualify for parking reductions as part of an alternative compliance component of a development review process. A related trend in the world of urban public transport lies in mobility systems that will provide bicycles, cars and other mobility services on demand. In the future, many mobility assets will be shared instead of owned by users. Convenient and reliable lifestyle services will be offered to “connected” citizens who will be able to easily access these combined mobility services via their smartphones. Integrated mobility services are emerging as a smart alternative to vehicle Packet Pg. 289 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 80 ownership in a rapidly urbanizing world. They offer new and easy to access options that can be tailored to better meet customer needs and also address a range of issues related to evolving urban environments. Combined mobility services take the concept of shared-use to a new level, recognizing that the desires for flexibility and efficiency which are driving consumers to shared-use mobility solutions are further advanced when those solutions can be offered in an integrated platform. For those providers of mobility solutions that make the transition to combined mobility services, these developments offer a real opportunity to deliver sustainable growth over the next decades. Recommendation #3: On-street Paid Parking Direction from the Planning and Zoning Board to support on-street paid parking as a primary strategy is also strongly supported by the consultant team. Although implementation of on-street paid parking is outside the scope of this study, it is already being considered for further outreach and implementation by Parking Services through a budget offer for 2015-16. This Study acknowledges that further community dialogue must first take place in regards to where and when this strategy would be applied, and what the pricing and management system would be used. On-street Paid Parking Discussion Implementing paid on-street parking in targeted areas and eventually in other areas of the TOD Overlay Zone as the corridor matures has several benefits. Charging for parking is the most direct way to both reduce parking demand and helps ensure the availability and turnover of on-street and improve the utilization of off-street spaces. This strategy also begins to develop an on-going funding mechanism to support parking infrastructure investment. During the study that produced the Downtown Parking Plan the lack of a strategy to fund future parking infrastructure was labeled as a “huge unfunded liability”. City parking staff have run several scenarios regarding potential revenue generation and the City finance staff have concluded that on-street paid parking is a viable option that has the capability of generating adequate revenues from which revenue bonds could be issued sufficient to fund multiple parking structures over time. On-Street parking has other benefits as well. Beyond adding to the overall supply of parking, on-street parking slows traffic, creates better pedestrian environments by buffering sidewalks from moving vehicles, increases the viability of retail shops and services, and contributes to reducing the amount of land used for off-street lots. There have been many technological advances related to on-street parking technology and related management applications. Appendix F provides a detailed overview of the latest in on-street parking technologies and management strategies. Implementation of this recommendation is outside the scope of this project, however, Parking Services has a budget offer to create an on-street paid parking pilot program. As part of the proposed project, Parking Services will be further examining all the elements of on-street paid parking, including; where and when it is most appropriate to be administered, how much it will cost and the payment structure, technology, details of management, use of revenue, and further stakeholder outreach. Packet Pg. 290 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 81 Recommendation #4: Public/Private Partnerships for Parking Structures Provision of parking structures through public-private partnerships was strongly supported by stakeholders and noted as a priority by City Council. The MAX Bus Rapid Transit line has many opportune locations for such an investment. Parking structures can provide for off-site parking and serve as an economic development incentive for projects on challenging infill sites with limited space. Parking Structure Investment Discussion This recommendation encourages the City to develop a comprehensive approach that emphasizes leveraging parking infrastructure investment as a key element of community and economic development. Parking investments, made as part of an overall TOD business development strategy, should carry an expectation of a 5 to1 return on public funds invested. To achieve this level of return, projects that offer significant shared parking benefits are strongly encouraged. To promote the effective management of existing and future public parking resources in the TOD Overlay Zone, a parking district approach which can coordinate and management parking and access management related issues should be strongly supported. Parking districts offer a mechanism to invest and manage parking resources within a defined geographic area. Often times, the overriding goals of a district are actually more akin to a business or general improvement district that also manages parking as a tool for overall district management. As the district matures, and development intensifies, the role of the parking district and the types of management programs offered will evolve. In other communities, parking related revenues are often reinvested within the districts to support other strategic district development goals creating ‘balanced and sustainable district access strategy’. Another strategy would be to adopt the “Business Scorecard Development Approach” for TOD Overlay Zone in conjunction with the development of a parking infrastructure investment strategy that leverages shared parking to the maximum degree. One approach to developing a downtown or area business strategy is to establish specific targets for housing, office, retail and hotel development within the district. This business strategy would ideally reflect the shared vision for the area and the community at large as defined in a city-wide strategic or master plan. This recommendation may be more appropriate as an element of the City’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) given that this agency oversees tax increment financing and related investment funds. A model business score card can also incorporate several key parking elements. Key elements can include: Identification of projects that support defined district master plan goals. Targeting specific development projects that move the forward the shared vision of the district is especially important for helping the district achieve its desired goals. In the case of the Fort Collins TOD Overlay Zone stated goals include such elements as: increased development density (mid-rise developments of four to five stories), compact in-fill development, walkability and good urban design, limited sharable parking assets, etc. There are often many potential development projects to consider, but prioritizing those projects that help move the community forward in the desired direction deserve special consideration and can provide justification for providing reasonable incentives. Packet Pg. 291 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 82 As part of the parking support policies being proposed, maximizing the benefits of shared parking is an important consideration. Because of the cost of investing in structured parking, it is in the City’s interest to get the most benefit from these public fund investments. Consider, for example, the investment in a 600 space public parking facility at $30,000 per space – an $18,000,000 investment. This investment could help support a variety different development projects. One issue that came up frequently in the public engagement process but that can also be linked with the concept of leveraging public/private partnership was the fact that while many citizens in Fort Collins may use alternative transportation, vehicle ownership is still important to them. Having reasonable access vehicles was considered very important. Therefore a “storage parking” solution that would allow individuals to store their cars remotely, but still access them via the MAX line is a potential solution. The City could enter into a public-private partnership to provide a certain percentage of parking spaces within a parking facility (surface and/or structured) which would be provided as “storage or remote parking”. Funds to support this recommendation could come in the form of TIF revenues generated within the TOD Overlay zone to offset storage parking development costs OR through the provision of development incentives utilizing increases in density and/or floor area ratio (FAR). Funds generated (potentially dedicate a portion/percentage of revenues, dedicated line item, or similar) within the TOD Overlay Zone should be used exclusively for purposes related to the location, design, construction and maintenance of new municipal parking structures to serve the area. If determined that additional parking is not needed at the current time, based on continued growth within the community and this corridor, additional parking facilities will be necessary to minimize impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods; as such, the City should begin to identify those locations now in order to minimize the lag time between planning and development of these sites. Implementation of this recommendation requires establishment of criteria the City would use when considering proposals for joint public-private parking investments. While this additional work falls outside the scope of the TOD Parking Study, Economic Health staff is already discussing ways to incorporate public-private partnerships for parking structures into its economic strategies. Packet Pg. 292 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 83 Recommendation #5: Monitor effectiveness of MAX Bus Rapid Transit on parking conditions in the long term Consistent feedback from stakeholders was that we have implemented TOD strategies and land use regulations before the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was operational. Because these strategies are premised upon a functional high- frequency transit service, it is important to continue monitoring parking conditions in the long term. The MAX began service in May 2014 and therefore the data collected for this study will serve as a baseline condition. Packet Pg. 293 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 84 REFERENCES 1. Urban and Economic Development Division. Parking Alternatives: Making Way for Urban Infill and Brownfield Redevelopment. Report EPA-231-K-99-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1999. 2. Development, Community and Environment Division. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. Report EPA-231-R-01-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2001. 3. Holtzclaw, J., Clear, R., Dittmar, H., Goldstein, D., and P. Haas. Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Transportation Planning and Technology, vol. 25, no. 1 (2002), pp. 1-27. 4. Transportation and Land Use Coalition and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus: Silicon Valley’s Opportunity to Address Housing Needs and Transportation Problems with Innovative Parking Policies. Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Oakland, CA, 2002. 5. Shoup, D. Truth in Transportation Planning. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, forthcoming 2003. 6. Millard-Ball, A. Putting on their Parking Caps. Planning, April 2002, pp. 16-21. 7. Bureau of Planning. Chapter 33.510, Part Two. Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code. City of Portland, Oregon, May 1999. 8. Smith, T.P. Flexible Parking Requirements. Planning Advisory Services Report 377. American Planning Association, 1983. 9. Transect Codeware Company. Section 6.5, Mixed-Function Parking Standards. SmartCode, verion 5.2, p. 8. 10. Shoup, D. In-Lieu of Required Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 18, no. 4 (Summer 1999). 11. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. City CarShare Vehicle Ownership Survey. Unpublished survey for City CarShare, San Francisco, 2002. 12. Senator for Building and Environment. Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability. City of Bremen, Germany, 2002 13. Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 17, no. 1 (Fall 1997), pp. 3-20. 14. Urban and Economic Development Division. $mart Investments for City and County Managers: Energy, Environment and Community Development. Report EPA-231-R-98-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1998. 15. South Florida Regional Planning Council. Downtown Kendall Master Plan. 1998. 16. Pratt, R. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Web Document 12, March 2000. http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_12.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2003. 17. Shoup, D. Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies. Transport Policy, vol. 4, no. 4 (1997), pp. 201-216. Packet Pg. 294 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 85 18. Shoup, D. An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 61, no. 1 (Winter 1995), pp. 14-28. 19. Mark Gander, Principal Planner; Director of Urban Mobility and Development at AECOM and Board of Directors, Green Parking Council. 20. http://mitpress2.mit.edu/books/chapters/0 262017334chap1.pdf 21 G.B. Arrington, Cervero, Robert, Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel (2008), available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf 22 Donald Shoup, “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements,” Transportation Research Part A 33 (1999): 549-574. Available as a free download from http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu Packet Pg. 295 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 86 Additional Resources The following documents were provided to City staff on a CD as additional resources. 1. U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies 2. Residential On-Site Carsharing and Off-Street Parking Policy in the San Francisco Bay Area 3. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements – Forinash 4. City Carshare - Best-Practices 5. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel 6. Parking Solutions - Examples and Case Studies 7. Exposed: America's Totally Inconsistent Minimum Parking Requirements 8. FHWA - Parking Pricing Primer 9. Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference 10. How Flexible Parking Requirements Spur Economic Development: Lessons from Santa Monica 11. Parking Reforms for a Livable City - Centre for Science and Environment - New Delhi, India 12. Parking Guidelines for Downtown Kirkland, WA 13. Parking Mgmt. Strategies for Downtown Kirkland, WA 14. Montgomery County MD Parking Policy Study – Summary 15. Montgomery County Parking Policy Study – Spring 2011 – ZAP Summary 16. The Myth of Free Parking - Transit for Livable Communities 17. New Suburbanism: Reinventing Inner-Ring Suburbs 18. NYC Parking Best Practices 19. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability – Litman – VTPI 20. Parking Management Tools - A Discussion of Time-Limits and Pay Parking 21. Westport Parking Study & Commercial Design Guidelines – City Council Presentation 22. Parking Best Practices – A Review of Zoning Policies and Regulations in Select US and International Cities Packet Pg. 296 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 87 23. Parking Code Guidance: Case Studies and Model Provisions - MTC Smart Growth Technical Assistance: Parking Reform Campaign 24. Parking Management - Strategies, Evaluation and Planning – Litman – VTPI 25. Article: Yes, Parking Reform is Possible – Shoup 26. Policies for Shareable Cities: Transportation 27. Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements - Vinit Mukhija and Donald Shoup 28. Parking Study for Dania Beach Parking - Implementation Plan – Kimley-Horn 29. Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices - Governor’s Office of Smart Growth, Annapolis, MD 30. Smart Growth Network Multimodal Incentives 31. Strategies and Tools to Implement Transportation-Efficient Development: A Reference Manual Phase 2 of Integrating Land Use and Transportation Investment Decision-Making 32. TOD and Transit Station Area Principles – Kimley-Horn 33. Tools for Mixed-Income TOD - Douglas Shoemaker/Center for Transit Oriented Development 34. The Transportation Prescription - Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform In America 35. Arlington County Residential Transportation Performance Monitoring Study - Sept-2013 Packet Pg. 297 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) 88 APPENDICES Appendix A – Land Use Code Revision Ordinance Appendix B – Parking Impact Study Guidelines Appendix C – Community Engagement Questionnaire Results Summary Appendix D – On-Street Parking Technology White Paper Appendix E – Parking as an Economic Development Strategy White Paper Appendix F – Sample Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Checklist Packet Pg. 298 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 163, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO ADDRESS PARKING ISSUES RELATED TO THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) OVERLAY ZONE WHEREAS, the Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) Overlay Zone historically had no minimum parking requirements and, in 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) and the City Council expressed concerns about the lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand and the potential for spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, City staff was instructed to address this parking problem temporarily by the presentation to the City Council for adoption of Ordinance No. 121, 2013, which imposed certain minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone and which temporary parking ordinance, following its extension by Ordinance No. 107, 2014, expires in December 2014; and WHEREAS, City staff has now conducted extensive public outreach and research on potential solutions to the problem of parking spillover while supporting the City’s goal of encouraging walkable and transit-oriented infill and redevelopment recognizing that even in the TOD Overlay Zone there will be motor vehicles both in usage and in storage; and WHEREAS, the extensive public outreach, and presentation to the Board, the Board recommended that the Land Use Code be amended to establish minimum parking requirements that vary according to land use and to allow for alternative compliance solutions based upon a parking impact study, shared parking, or transportation demand management proposals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use Code are in the best interests of the City and should be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.2.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking . . . (D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles). . . . Packet Pg. 299 - 2 - (3) Location. Only off-street parking areas provided to serve uses permitted in a zone district predominated by residential uses will be allowed in such district. (a) Required off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or premises as the building or use for which they are required unless: 1. such spaces are provided collectively by two (2) or more buildings or uses on abutting lots in a single parking area located within the boundaries of those abutting lots, and the total number of parking spaces supplied collectively is equal to the number of spaces required by this subdivision for each use considered separately, or 2. an alternative location is approved by the Director provided that the Director must have determined that such location is permanent and provides close and easy access to users. . . . (G) Shared Parking. Where a mix of uses creates staggered peak periods of parking demand, shared parking calculations shall be made to reduce the total amount of required parking. Retail, office, institutional and entertainment uses may share parking areas. In no case shall shared parking include the parking required for residential uses. . . . (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use. (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Packet Pg. 300 - 3 - Four and above 3.0 * Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price). 1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit * One or less 1.1 Two 1.2 Three 1.4 Four and above 2.1 Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit * One or less 0.75 Two 1 Three 1.25 Four and above 1.5 Rent-by-the Bedroom Parking Spaces Per Bedroom All bedrooms 0.75 *Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure. a. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone may reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces by providing demand mitigation elements as shown in the following table: Packet Pg. 301 - 4 - Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction*** Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit for Sale or for Rent (equal to or less than 50% Area Median Income) 50% Transit Passes for each tenant 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service A 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Shared Parking Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Parking Impact Study Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on Approved Alternative Compliance **All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and shall be subject to audit for the duration of the project. *** Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or Transportation Demand Management. 2. Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the minimum required in the TOD Overlay Zone per subparagraph 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. a. Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set Packet Pg. 302 - 5 - forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Analysis Parking Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management proposal, or Shared Parking Study which addresses issues identified in the City’s submittal requirements for such studies. b. Parking Analysis. A Parking Analysis shall include the following: 1) Data related to expected parking demand based on project size, location, employees, units and/or bedrooms. To the extent reasonably feasible, comparable local and regional parking demand rates for similar uses shall be utilized together with the average demand rates for similar facilities compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2) Data related to estimated nonvehicular mode usage shall be determined based on Transportation Impact Study analysis. 3) Identification of parking mitigation measures to be utilized (beyond nonvehicular mode usage and support). Specific measures to reduce on-site parking demand may include, but are not limited to: a) Shared parking. b) Off-site parking. c) Parking pricing. d) Transit pass program. e) Unbundling parking spaces from residential dwelling units. f) Rideshare, guaranteed ride home programs, car sharing, shuttle services. g) Enhancements that encourage bicycle and pedestrian mobility. h) Other verifiable parking demand reduction measures. 4) The number and location of parking spaces proposed to be removed as part of the project, if any. Packet Pg. 303 - 6 - 5) Assignment of parking demand to proposed parking locations. cb. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section and the TOD Overlay Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of these Sections. In reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into account the objective and verifiable results of the Parking Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management proposal, or Shared Parking Study Analysis together with the proposed plan's compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking. . . . (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements: Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (a) The table below sets forth the number of minimum required and maximum allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. In the event that on-street or shared parking is not available on land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking allowed may be increased by twenty (20) percent. Use Minimum Parking Spaces Maximum Parking Spaces Restaurants a. Fast Food b. Standard 7/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Commercial Recreational a. Limited Indoor Recreation b. Outdoor 3/1000 sq. ft. .1/person cap 6/1000 sq. ft. .3/person cap Packet Pg. 304 - 7 - c. Bowling Alley 2.5/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Theaters 1/6 seats 1/3 seats General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. Personal Business and Service Shop 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. Shopping Center 2/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Medical Office 2/1000 sq. ft. 4.5/1000 sq. ft. Financial Services 2/1000 sq. ft. 3.5/1000 sq. ft. Grocery Store, Supermarket 3/1000 sq. ft. 6/1000 sq. ft. General Office 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. or .75/employee on the largest shift or 4.5/1000 sq. ft. if all additional parking spaces gained by the increased ratio (over 3/1000 sq. ft.) are contained within a parking garage/structure Vehicle Servicing & Maintenance 2/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Low Intensity Retail, Repair Service, Workshop and Custom Small Industry 1/1000 sq. ft. 2/1000 sq. ft. Lodging Establishments 0.5/unit 1/unit Health Facilities a. Hospitals b. Long-Term Care Facilities 0.5/bed 1/bed .33/bed plus 1/two employees on major shift Industrial: Employee Parking 0.5/employee .75/employee (b) Existing Buildings Exemption: Change in use of an existing building shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For Packet Pg. 305 - 8 - the expansion or enlargement of an existing building which does not result in the material increase of the building by more than twenty-five (25) percent, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the redevelopment of a property which includes the demolition of existing buildings, the minimum parking requirement shall be applied to the net increase in the square footage of new buildings. (c) TOD Overlay Zone Exemption: If new development is proposed within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone, twenty-five (25) percent of the square footage of gross leaseable area of such new development, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. The exemption shall be distributed proportionally among the uses contained in a mixed-use development. (bd) For uses that are not specifically listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed. (e) For non-residential uses within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone the required minimum number of parking spaces may be reduced by providing demand mitigation strategies as shown in the following table: Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction Transit Passes for every employee within the development 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service A 10% Shared Parking Based on approved alternative complaince Packet Pg. 306 - 9 - Parking Impact Study Based on approved alternative compliance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on approved alternative compliance **All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and shall be subject to audit for the duration of the project. (3) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio (as measured by the number of parking spaces based on the applicable unit of measurement established in the table contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) for nonresidential land uses or the number of parking spaces based on use for recreational and institutional land uses) that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. (a) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by either a traffic impact study containing a trip generation analysis or by other relevant data describing the traffic impacts of any proposed recreational or institutional land use or activity. a Parking Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management analysis, or Shared Parking Study which addresses issues identified in the City’s submittal requirements for such studies. . . . Section 2. That Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility . . . (J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on or requirements for: Packet Pg. 307 - 10 - (1) hours of operation and deliveries; (2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; (3) placement of trash receptacles; (4) location of loading and delivery zones; (5) light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; (7) location and number of off-street parking spaces. Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Transportation Demand Management” which reads in its entirety as follows: Transportation Demand Management shall mean a comprehensive program utilizing strategies to be implemented that result in more efficient use of transportation and parking resources. These strategies typically include, but are not limited to, transit subsidies, enhanced bicycle facilities, car/vanpool options, and shared parking. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 308 - 11 - Passed and adopted on final reading on this 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 309 City of Fort Collins Page 1 Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Vice President City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson Interim City Attorney Executive Director 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. General Improvement District No. 1 Board Meeting November 4, 2014 (after the Regular Council Meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m.) CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2015; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 3 minute staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) The sum of $276,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2015 imposed within the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID) boundaries. Additional revenue for GID No. 1 from automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $38,000 resulting in an expected revenue total of $314,000 for 2015. In addition, the 2015 budget will include the use of $920,000 from GID No. 1 reserves to contribute to the $3 million makeover of Old Town Square that is being led by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 BOARD Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 General Improvement District No. 1 Board STAFF Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2015; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Appropriation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sum of $276,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2015 imposed within the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID) boundaries. Additional revenue for GID No. 1 from automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $38,000 resulting in an expected revenue total of $314,000 for 2015. In addition, the 2015 budget will include the use of $920,000 from GID No. 1 reserves to contribute to the $3 million makeover of Old Town Square that is being led by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The recommended appropriations for this amount are as follows: Capital Improvement Projects: $1,000,000 to contribute to the $3 million makeover of Old Town Square $ 26,000 to be used for other capital improvements in the downtown area $1,026,000 Total Other GID Expenses: $ 14,005 for staffing $ 11,500 for the Larimer County Treasurer's fee for collecting the property tax $ 23,000 for property tax rebate program $ 2,500 for estimated electrical costs for downtown lighting and water $ 1,560 for miscellaneous expenses $115,000 for transfer to other funds $167,565 Total Packet Pg. 2 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 2 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2015 at $1,193,565. This item also sets the GID No. 1 mill levy at 4.924 mills, which will generate approximately $276,000 for fiscal year 2015. The mill levy remains unchanged from previous years. Additional 2015 revenue includes automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest which together are projected to be $38,000 in fiscal year 2015. ATTACHMENTS 1. Boundary map (PDF) Packet Pg. 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 Attachment1.1: Boundary map (2546 : GID No.1 2015 Mill Levy and Budget Appropriation) - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 066 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015; DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY; AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the statutes of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the taxable property in the GID and recommends that a levy of 4.924 mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID is required during 2015 to pay the cost of operating the GID; and WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 4.924 mill will result in $276,000 of revenue; and WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and WHEREAS, additional revenue is collected by the GID from such sources as the automobile ownership tax, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings and that revenue for 2015 is anticipated to be $38,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as the ex-officio Board of Directors of the GID, desires to appropriate the necessary funds for operating costs and capital improvements of the GID for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, as follows: Section 1. That, for the purpose of providing the necessary funds to meet the expenses to be incurred in the General Improvement District No. 1 in 2015, 4.924 mills is hereby levied upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the General Improvement District No.1 as of December 31, 2014. Packet Pg. 5 - 2 - Section 2. That the City Clerk acting ex-officio as the Secretary of the General Improvement District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to certify such levy to the Board of Larimer County Commissioners as provided by law. Section 3. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, hereby appropriates out of the revenues of General Improvement District No. 1 for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2015, the sum of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS ($273,565) to be raised by taxation and additional revenue to be expended for the authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1. Section 4. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, hereby appropriates out of prior year reserves of the General Improvement District No. 1 for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2015, the sum of NINE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($920,000) for authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Packet Pg. 6 City of Fort Collins Page 1 Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Vice President City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson Interim City Attorney Executive Director 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. Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Board Meeting November 4, 2014 (after the General Improvement District No. 1 meeting) CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2015; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 3 minute staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2015 of $1,000. The sum of $24,700 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2015. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 15 ("GID No. 15") from interest earnings is anticipated to generate $370. The total 2015 revenue for GID No. 15 is expected to be $25,070. The total amount will be used in the future to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 BOARD Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Board STAFF Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2015; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Appropriation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2015 of $1,000. The sum of $24,700 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2015. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 15 ("GID No. 15") from interest earnings is anticipated to generate $370. The total 2015 revenue for GID No. 15 is expected to be $25,070. The total amount will be used in the future to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2009, the City annexed Phase 3 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The area annexed included the entire Larimer County Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (GID No.15). A map of the GID No. 15 is attached. Larimer County organized GID No. 15 in 1997. Pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., since the annexation area included the entire area within the improvement district boundaries, upon annexation, GID No.15 became a City-operated district and Council has thereafter acted as the ex officio Board of Directors of the District. Under State law, the City is required to set the annual mill levy for the GID No. 15 and to certify the amount of the levy to the Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County. This Ordinance continues the establishment, as in years past, of a mill levy of 10.0. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance sets the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 mill levy at 10.0 mills, which will generate approximately $24,700 for fiscal year 2015. Additional 2015 revenue for the GID No. 15 includes interest earnings, which are projected to be $370 in fiscal year 2015. In addition the 2015 Budget will include the use of $1,000 for the Larimer County Treasurer’s fee for collecting the property tax. ATTACHMENTS 1. Boundary map (PDF) Packet Pg. 2 W TRILBY RD S COLLEGE AVE W SKYWAY DR CONSTELLATION DR MARS DR VENUS AVE ARAN ST ORBIT WAY DEBRA DR H OLYOKE C T P O L A R I S DR S T A R W A Y S T AV O NDALE R D RAMA H D R N E P T U N E D R GALA X Y W A Y URANUS ST F LA G L E R R D - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 006 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ACTING AS THE EX-OFFICIO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015; DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY; AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION WHEREAS, the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (the “GID”) was created by Larimer County in 1997 and annexed into the City by Phase Three of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in 2009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 31-25-603 and 37-25-609, C.R.S., as a result of the annexation of the entire GID into the City, the GID is now a district of the City and the City Council is to act as the ex-officio board of directors of the GID; and WHEREAS, GID staff has considered the amount of revenue to be raised by a levy on the taxable real property within the GID boundaries, and recommends imposing a levy of 10.0 mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all such taxable real property for 2015; and WHEREAS, GID staff estimates a levy of 10.0 mills will result in $24,700 of revenue; and WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years; as such, prior voter approval of the proposed levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1) of the Colorado Revised Statutues requires certification of any tax levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County no later than December 15; and WHEREAS, additional revenue totaling $370 for 2015 is expected to be collected by the GID from interest earnings; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the City of Fort Collins Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15, as follows: Section 1. That the 2015 mill levy rate for taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of taxable real property within the GID boundaries shall be 10.0 mills. Section 2. That the City Clerk acting ex-officio as the Secretary for the GID shall certify this levy of 10.0 mills to the County Assessor and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners as provided by law. Packet Pg. 4 - 2 - Section 3. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 15, hereby appropriates out of the revenues of the GID for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2015, the sum of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000). Section 4. That revenue to be raised by taxation and additional revenue of the GID will be reserved in fund balance until such future time as authorized by the Board of Directors for the purposes of the General Improvement District No. 15. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor, Ex Officio President ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary Packet Pg. 5 IDALIA DR Y U M A CT I D A L I A CT RICK DR SOLAR CT M E R C U R Y D R W SATURN DR F O S S IL CREST DR E TRILBY RD E SATURN DR G A L A X Y CT E SKYWAY DR PLATEAU CT AURORA WAY LEO CT OR I O N CT PLUTO CT SUNDOWN CT FL A G L E R RD General Improvement Skyview South District No. 15 Legend General Improvement District #15 Parcels 1 inch = 600 feet ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 3 Attachment1.1: Boundary map (2544 : Skyview GID 15 Mill Levy) Exemptions N/A Off-street parking not required in downtown area(s) if project does not exceed maximum FAR See above Parking Reductions Within C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), no parking required to be provided if 8 or less spaces required; 9 or more required parking spaces may be reduced by providing streetscape-type improvements including transit stop can reduce required parking by 4 spaces. Outdoor restaurant may exempt parking requirements for first 20 seats Shared Parking Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Reduction in Parking with TDM Measures Yes; each car/van pool space = 4 required spaces Yes Yes (subsidies provided by City; transit information provided, etc.) Yes Yes (5% reduction with car pool program; 5% reduction if motorcycle parking provided) Other Standards Bicycle parking required with many land uses Bicycle parking required with many land uses Bicycle parking required with many land uses Bicycle parking required with many land uses Bicycle parking required with many land uses; every 5 bicycle spaces reduces total vehicle spaces (required) by 1 Up to 30% of parking supply can be compact 15% (max) compact car designation City contracted with zipcar (downtown area) Bike sharing station with 15 docks and 8 shared bicycles reduces vehicle parking by 3 spaces; additional standards may apply Parking location / distance from site On-street (alternative compliance/exceptions to general office) N/A Parking can be provided up to 600' from site (pedestrian route) Parking can be provided up to 300' from site Parking can be provided up to 1/4 mile from site Parking can be provided up to 500' from site Commuter parking incentives / programs TBD N/A N/A Transit information provided N/A N/A Pool parking provided; transit service (hours) extended) Commuter programs provided City offers commuter services (bus, car pool, van pool) 10 + employees requires commuter program 20 + parking spaces requires carpool parking (5 spaces or 5% of total) Can pay in-lieu of parking fee (where a public parking fund exists) Stacked Parking (w/ Valet) USE *1 The following parking standards are provided for comparison purposes based on the Peer City Reviews and current Fort Collins Parking requirements PARKING STANDARDS SUMMARY Packet Pg. 263 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2478 : TOD Parking Study - RESO) • Life insurance • Annual executive physical • Wellness programs • Employee assistance program *The City contributes 10 percent of the employee’s salary into 401(a) money purchase plan and matches up to 3 percent of employee contributions to 457 deferred compensation plan. 7 To Apply: Please send your resume and cover letter in a Word format with current salary to slavin@bellsouth.net by November 24, 2014. For additional information about this job, please contact: Robert E. Slavin, President Slavin Management Consultants 770-449-4656 slavin@bellsouth.net Or Paul Wenbert, Western Regional Manager Slavin Management Consultants 480-664-2676 pwconsulting@cox.net An Equal Opportunity Recruiter/Employer Packet Pg. 176 Attachment1: Exhibit A (2553 : City Attorney Position Profile RESO) 25 FC Building Permit No. 8347, May 25, 1945; FC Building Permit No. 8586, September 15, 1945. 26 FC Building Permit No. 20531, August 23, 1973; FC Inspection Record, Building Permit No. 20531, May 28, 1974. 27 Jovita Garcia and City of Fort Collins, Grant Rehabilitation Documentation, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Packet Pg. 132 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) 16 Interviews with Delphine Garcia noted in “Survey Form and File on 321 North Whitcomb: A Class Assignment for HY500C Submitted to Professor John Albright, Department of History, [Colorado State University], by Mary Therese Anstey, Mary Williams, and Michelle Zupan, December 1, 1994,” [5]. 17 Conveyance No. 100, Abstract of Title. 18 FC Building Permit No. 8807, January 16, 1946. Packet Pg. 131 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) Jose Aguayo, “Los Betabeleros (The Beetworkers),” in La Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado, edited by Vincent C. de Baca, 105–109 (Denver: The Colorado Historical Society, 1998). 10 Sister Mary Garcia, “My Weaving: Autobiography of Sister Mary Garcia, O.S.F.,” unpublished copy, 2006, 7, Sister Mary Garcia Collection, Special Collections, Fort Collins Local Archive, SMG1. Packet Pg. 130 Attachment11.2: Landmark Nomination (2531 : 321 North Whitcomb Street Landmark Designation) N Whitcomb St C a j e tan S t 10th St Canyon Ave O s i a nde r S t Cowan St N Meldrum St S Mason St Jerome St Colorado St Main St Walnut St H o ffm an Mil l Rd P a scal S t O v al D r Endicott St S Sherwood St 11th St Mull e i n D r Sycamore St Bellflower Dr East Dr Frontage Rd E Laurel St Woo d l awn D r Lesser Dr West Dr Pine St E Magnolia St Lilac Ln Duff Dr Lupine Dr Martinez St N Mason St El m St W Plum St Trujillo St Mas o n Ct Rivend a l Dr Lopez Ct Eastdal e D r Poudre River Dr Li n d e n Ce n ter Dr Rembrandt Dr Locust Ct Baum St Kenroy Ct Pine St Frontage Rd E Laurel St E Magnolia St Downtown Development Authority Boundary Parcels DDA Boundary Amended: September 17, 2013 Printed: November 07, 2013 1 inch = 1,320 feet . 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment1.1: DDA Boundary map (2555 : SR 139 DDA Budget)