Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/20/2016 - RESOLUTION 2016-095 CONSENTING TO A REQUEST BY THEAgenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 20, 2016 City Council STAFF Travis Storin, Accounting Director Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development SUBJECT Resolution 2016-095 Consenting to a Request by the Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District to Dissolve. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider consenting to the dissolution of the Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District. Legal counsel from the District contacted the City Attorney's Office in August 2016 to seek the City's consent to the dissolution of the park and recreation district formed in 2008. The District's Board of Directors believes the benefits do not justify the overhead costs of administering the district. State statute §32-1-704(3)(b) permits special districts to dissolve without conducting an election if: (a) the City Council and District Board both consent, and (b) the district does not carry any outstanding financial obligations. Anheuser-Busch is the sole property owner within the District. Without Council consent, it is presumed that the District will pursue dissolution via conducting an election for which Anheuser-Busch is the sole voter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District was formed in late 2008, and its formation was supported by the City Council with unanimous adoption of Resolution 2008-089. The District is an 18-acre space wholly owned by Anheuser-Busch, consisting of a wildlife habitat area and softball field. While generally used by Anheuser-Busch employees, the facility is open for public use through a user fee structure. The original intention for the District formation was for:  Legal protection should users be injured while utilizing the facility; and  As a quasi-municipal organization, the District wanted to be eligible to apply for grants and other funding resources that are inaccessible to a private entity. The Anheuser-Busch District Board is exclusively made up of employees of the brewery, and Anheuser-Busch is the sole property owner within the District. The Board now believes the originally anticipated benefits no longer justify the overhead costs. Legal counsel for the District has indicated that the land will still be used as a ball field and park and be available for public use, subject to the normal usage requirements that were in place before the District was organized (i.e., payment of applicable rental fees, prior scheduling with the Brewery's tourism office, etc.). When the District was formed in 2008, staff recommended Council adoption of the Resolution approving the District Service Plan. The staff recommendation to approve the service plan was in part based upon the Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 existing and projected need for the services to be provided by the District and in part on the fact that existing City services in the area were inadequate. The rationale applied was that the City did not have plans to develop a neighborhood park in the immediate vicinity (within one mile) of the District as there are no homes in the area and no funding source to pay for a park. The proposed District was in the best interest of the area because the services were similar to that of a neighborhood park and would be enjoyed by the people employed in the area. The existing and projected need and the adequacy of services in the area of the District is virtually the same in 2016 as in 2008, and service levels were not materially impacted by the existence of the District subsequent to formation. This agenda item was not discussed with the Parks and Recreation Board because the City does not have a claim to the property and it is not part of the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. Therefore, the ability to influence this land's use is minimal. Department heads Mike Calhoon and Kurt Friesen for Parks and Parks Planning, respectively, have reviewed the item and concur that it is not part of the City's planning strategy. City residents have benefited from Anheuser-Busch's willingness to allow public use of private land, and staff expects this privilege to continue, according to communications with District legal counsel. Further, staff believes there is no impact to current plans for improvements to facilities in the Northeast. Colorado Revised Statutes allow for dissolution provided (a) the governing bodies of the District and City both consent, and (b) the District has no financial obligations or outstanding bonds. Without Council consent, the District will likely pursue dissolution via conducting an election in which the sole property owner Anheuser- Busch would be the sole voter. It is more expedient and administratively desirable to pursue dissolution via Council Resolution expressing consent. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS As with the 2008 formation of the District, staff does not assess any financial impact to the City of Fort Collins associated with the dissolution. The District was authorized to impose a 5 mill property tax with a cap of 10 mills to generate operations and maintenance income. However, to-date, it has not exercised that authority. According to its 2015 annual report, the District has neither any financial assets nor financial obligations or bonds. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The City does not assess an impact to its Parks and Recreation Policy Plan for the northeast section of Fort Collins, as the District is not zoned for residential development. As such, the Parks and Recreation Board was not engaged. A new community park is planned for the future but would be on an entirely separate land parcel. The community has benefited and expects to continue to benefit from Anheuser-Busch's willingness to allow public use of private land. The item was discussed at the November 21, 2016, Council Finance Committee meeting and met with general support. Discussion ensued about improvements to northeast parks such as Richards Lake; however such improvements are separate from the District's dissolution and not considered to be a point of leverage. The property the District encompasses has heretofore never been a part of Parks planning considerations. PUBLIC OUTREACH According to the minutes of the September 16, 2008, City Council regular meeting, no public input was given when Council discussed this item. State statutes regarding the dissolution of special districts do not require municipalities to conduct public outreach nor is there such a requirement in the City Code or Land Use Code. In order to dissolve, a court must issue an order authorizing dissolution following a noticed hearing at which interested parties may appear and testify. Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Approximate District Boundaries (PDF) 2. AB Parks and Recreation District 2015 Annual Report (PDF) 3. Resolution 2008-089 Conditionally Approving the Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District Service Plan (PDF) 4. Excerpt from Council minutes, September 16, 2008 (PDF) 5. Council Finance Committee minutes, November 19, 2016 (draft) (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Council Finance Committee November 19, 2016 DRAFT minutes excerpt D. Anheuser‐Busch Park and Recreation District Dissolution Travis Storin, Accounting Director Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legal counsel from Anheuser‐Busch contacted the City Attorney’s Office in August 2016 to seek the City’s consent in the dissolution of a park and recreation district formed in 2008. The Board of Directors believes the overhead costs of administering the district do not justify the benefits as originally anticipated. State statute permits to dissolve without conducting an election if: A) the City Council and district board both consent and B) the district does not carry any outstanding financial obligations. Without Council consent, it is presumed that the District will conduct an election for which they would be the sole voter. District Formation • Approved via Resolution 2008‐089; 18‐acre District is wholly owned by Anheuser‐Busch • Consists of wildlife habitat area and softball field • Authorized to impose a small mill levy of 5‐10 mills for operations, in addition to user fees • Original intention for district formation was for 1) legal protection, 2) preservation of facilities, and 3) ability to pursue funding resources unavailable to private entities Request for Dissolution • District Board believes original purposes are no longer needed and overhead costs do not justify the legal benefits • CO Revised Statutes allow for dissolution without an election if: A) District has no financial obligations or outstanding bonds, and B) The District Board and Council both consent • A‐B anticipates land to still be used as ballfield and park Implications to City • No financial impact to City; A‐B is solely responsible for paying operating costs of district • No impact to Parks operations Gerry Horak; I am good with this ‐ why did it come to us? Darin Atteberry; this came to the sub‐committee when it was originally initiated ‐ ‐ will the fields go away? Travis Storin: the fields will not go away and they will continue to be open to the public Ross Cunniff; were there financial considerations/ projections made in 2008 when this was adopted that we need to know about or Council should know about? ATTACHMENT 5 Council Finance Committee November 19, 2016 DRAFT minutes excerpt Mike Beckstead; we reviewed the original AIS with Kurt Friesen and Mike Calhoun and we didn’t see anything of substance when this was originally brought forward. This came to me via the CAO ‐ I use the Council Finance as a way to vet things before we go to Council. Ross Cunniff; is there any record of public comment from 2008? Would be good to include that as well as the in the packet. Mike Beckstead; we will include the AIS from 2008 in the Council packet and any public comments. Mayor Troxell; there is some ability for public use ‐ is there signage to indicate that? This is in the city ‐ I have heard some concerns from residents in the NE part of the community regarding parks and how we are not servicing them. For example, Richards Lake – we are not going to plant some trees – water issues, etc. I am wondering if we could get some commitment to Parks in the NE part of our community through this discussion funded in part by InBev / AB. Darin Atteberry; there is a community park and a neighborhood park scheduled up there‐ the concerns that have been expressed include some neighbors who have wanted us to put trees in ‐ we aren’t ready to do that yet as we don’t have a neighborhood park design ‐ Kurt or Travis ‐ do you see any opportunity for leverage? Kurt Friesen; if we have a facility open for public use than it is available and can be continued to be used as it is today so I see that as the opportunity. Mike Beckstead; They had two options to dissolve; 1) they could take it to a ballot and they would be the single property owner that would vote for it or 2) the resolution route being less costly and more expedient than a vote so not sure what our leverage would be. Mayor Troxell; as part of commitment to community ‐ why did we enter into this in 2008? I was on the Council then and I vaguely remember – the intent ‐ how do we service the NE part of the community (facilities and parks)? Mike Beckstead; they came to us in 2008 to form this district around the liability question ‐ we said yes to that process and now they are saying that the liability question is not a concern to them. We will explore if there is anything in the way of a commitment that could be had Ross Cunniff; I see in the documentation ‐ the non‐developed area was not a legal liability issue ‐ would like to understand the history and have this information in the Council packet to review. Mayor Troxell; I would offer the opportunity as a good corporate citizen ‐ consider improvement of parks in the NE part such as Richards Lake ‐ getting some movement there ‐ I think it is a rather weak argument as to why we can’t plant some trees ‐ do some initial planning as to where trees should be ‐ not the full plan but would facilitate planting some trees today will have benefits when the park is finished out. -1- RESOLUTION 2016-095 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CONSENTING TO A REQUEST BY THE ANHEUSER-BUSCH PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT TO DISSOLVE WHEREAS, on September 16, 2008, following due notice and a public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-089, conditionally approving the service plan (the “Service Plan”) for the Anheuser-Busch Park and Recreation District (the “District”); and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2008, the Larimer County District Court issued an Order and Decree declaring the District organized pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 32-1-101, et seq., as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request from the District for the City Council’s consent to the dissolution of the District in accordance with C.R.S. § 32-1-704(3)(b), as amended; and WHEREAS, the District has advised the City Council that it currently has no assets, and has no financial obligations or outstanding bonds; and WHEREAS, the District has advised the City Council that the District does not currently provide for any facilities or services to the property within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the District’s request, and by this resolution issues its consent to the dissolution of the District as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. The City Council hereby consents to the dissolution of the Anheuser- Busch Park and Recreation District in accordance with C.R.S. §§ 32-1-701, et seq., as amended. Section 3. No services or facilities are currently being provided by the District; therefore, the City Council’s consent provided herein is not intended to, and shall not be construed as, the City Council’s agreement to assume the responsibility for any services or facilities, or to provide the public improvements or services contemplated by the Service Plan, or to undertake any other action of the District authorized in the Service Plan. -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of December, A.D. 2016. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk