HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 12/01/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
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
December 1, 2015
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring December 10, 2015 as International Human Rights Day.
B. Proclamation Declaring December 2015 as Narconon Colorado - a Life Worth Saving Month.
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 may comment regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar and items not
specifically scheduled on the agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development
application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to the
Council.
Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the table in the lobby (for recordkeeping
purposes).
All speakers will be asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand,
and then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for
those who are not able to stand while waiting).
The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and to
keep comments brief. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be
provided to the City Clerk.
A timer will buzz once and the timer light will turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of
speaking time remain, and will buzz again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has
ended.
[**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development,
citizens should consult the Development Review Center page on the City’s website at
fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 221-6750.]
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.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 3, 2015 Regular Council Meeting and
the November 10, 2015 Adjourned Council Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 3, 2015 Regular Council
meeting and the November 10, 2015 Adjourned Council meeting.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund to Reimburse Avago Wireless Technologies (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. For Use and
Business Personal Property Taxes as Provided in Business Investment Agreements.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, 2015, appropriates
$467,663 of prior year reserves from the General Fund for a rebate to Avago Wireless Technologies
(USA) Mfg. for use tax and business personal property tax rebates under two business investment
agreements. The agreements provide business investment assistance to Avago for the expansion
and retrofit of Avago’s Building 4 for a wafer fabrication facility in 2012 and for a FBAR clean room
facility in 2013. These two projects created an additional 227 primary jobs in the city.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2015, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the
City Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, 2015, updates the City
Code, which requires an annual adjustment to certain building permit related fees. Capital
Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to reflect the changes in the
Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by the
changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 1.0% since its last
adjustment and the ENR has not changed significantly enough to warrant an adjustment. These
increases will go into effect on January 1, 2016.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2015, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Easement on
Maxwell Natural Area to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System.
This Ordinance unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, 2015, authorizes
conveyance of a ten-year renewable easement to Colorado State University on Maxwell Natural
Area that will replace a 99-year lease for access to maintain the Aggie “A” on the Natural Area. The
Natural Areas Department proposed that the City grant a permanent easement to the Board of
Governors of the Colorado State University System (CSU) on Maxwell Natural Area. On First
Reading, Council amended the Ordinance to authorize the City to enter into a ten-year easement
agreement with CSU that will automatically renew for successive ten-year terms, unless either party
elects to terminate the easement after notice to the other party. The easement will also enable CSU
and its students to carry out two other group activities that currently require annual permits from
Natural Areas. CSU’s current access typically has minimal impact to the Natural Area and no
additional impacts are anticipated. No other access rights are to be conveyed. Minor edits have
been made to the Ordinance language consistent with Council’s amendments on First Reading and
are shown in the Ordinance.
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation
Fund for Locker Renovation at Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC).
The purpose of this item is to introduce an ordinance to appropriate $57,012 for the construction cost
of a locker room at EPIC. The funding for the locker room construction was raised by the CSU club
hockey team. Staff will bring to Council for approval upon second reading of the appropriation
ordinance an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins and Colorado
State University (CSU) Department of Campus Recreation. The IGA is expected to provide for a
renewable 10-year agreement to provide a dedicated locker room for the hockey team. Because
CSU is funding the improvements, staff has proposed waiving certain maintenance costs for the new
EPIC locker room during the initial term of the IGA. However, it is expected that the University will
continue to pay all standard rental and user fees associated with reservation and use of ice time at
EPIC.
City of Fort Collins Page 4
6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Street
Oversizing Fund for the Reimbursement of the Construction of Roadway Improvements.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $1,250,000 from the Street Oversizing Fund Prior Year
Reserves to cover anticipated reimbursements for the construction by developers of oversized
portions of arterial and collector roadway improvements for 2015.
7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2015, Adopting the 2016 Classified Employees Pay Plan.
The purpose of this item is to recommend changes to the City's Classified Employee Pay Plan based
on results of the annual market analysis. The City of Fort Collins utilizes a common compensation
methodology to assess jobs, combine them into occupational groups and establish pay range
structures. The result of this work is a Classified Employee Pay Plan which sets the minimum,
midpoint and maximum of pay ranges within each occupational group. A detailed analysis of
benchmark data is conducted each year to determine if the market is moving sufficiently to
recommend structure adjustments. Actual employee pay increases are awarded through a separate
administrative process in accordance with the budgeted amount approved by Council.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2015, Adopting the 2015 Larimer County Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee Schedule.
The purpose of this item is to adopt the 2015 Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
Schedule (Regional Road Fee) as determined by the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer
County.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2015, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
The purpose of this item is to adopt a variety of revisions, clarifications and additions to the Land Use
Code that are housekeeping and routine in nature that have been identified since the last update in
July 2015.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2015, Conditionally Vacating Certain Rights-of-Way Consisting
of Portions of Prospect Court and the Alley as Dedicated on G.F. Wiard’s Additional Plat at
Reception No. 231427 of the Larimer County Records and Flinn’s Resubdivision Plat of Lots 11, 12
and 13 in Block 1 of G.F. Wiard’s Addition at Reception No. 665972 of the Larimer County Records.
The purpose of this item is to vacate portions of the alley and Prospect Court in the block south of
Lake Street and north of Prospect Road that are no longer needed.
11. Resolution 2015-104 Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Northern Colorado Lodge
#3 of the Fraternal Order of Police.
The purpose of this item is to approve a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the
Northern Colorado Lodge #3, Colorado Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and authorize execution of
such agreement. The City and the FOP, using an Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) approach,
engaged in negotiations regarding the terms and conditions of a possible bargaining agreement for
2016 and 2017. City staff and the FOP have tentatively reached an agreement. On November 23,
2015, bargaining unit members voted to ratify the proposed agreement.
12. Resolution 2015-105, Establishing a Process for the City Council to Appoint an Additional
Commissioner to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board when Required by Law.
The purpose of this item is to provide a resolution for City Council consideration that describes and
adopts the approach to be used by the Mayor and City Council to appoint an additional
commissioner to the Urban Renewal Authority Board (the “URA Board”), if needed, as a result of the
passage of House Bill 2015-1348. In addition, the Resolution instructs staff to send certified letters to
all eligible taxing entities informing them of their future ability to participate in a process for their
appointment of commissioners to the URA Board.
City of Fort Collins Page 5
13. Resolution 2015-106 Making Legislative Findings and Approving a Non-Substantial Modification of
the North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan.
The purpose of this item is modify wording in the North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan (the
“Plan”) to clarify that the Plan authorizes and describes only one “urban renewal project,” as this term
is defined and used in the urban renewal laws.
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
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
● Staff presentation (optional)
● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three 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. Items Pertaining to the Wood Street Second Annexation and Zoning. (staff: Clay Frickey; no staff
presentation; 5 minute discussion)
A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2015, Annexing Property Known as the
Wood Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street
Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
City of Fort Collins Page 6
The purpose of this item is to annex and zone a parcel in an enclave at 832 Wood Street. This is a
City-initiated request to annex the 16.267 acre parcel #97023-00-034 at 832 Wood Street into the
City of Fort Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Pateros Creek
subdivision on September 18, 2012. As of September 18, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and
annex the enclave in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106.
The Wood Street Second Annexation abuts the City of Fort Collins Utilities building to the north. The
requested zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The surrounding
properties are existing residential, office, park, and light industrial land uses in the City of Fort
Collins.
15. Public Hearing and Resolution 2015-107 Making Legislative Findings and Approving a Second
Substantial Modification of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. (staff: Patrick Rowe, Josh Birks; 5
minute staff presentation; 25 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider two modifications of the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan (the “Midtown Plan”). One modification amends wording in the Midtown Plan to clarify
that the Plan identifies and describes only one urban renewal project. The other modification will
reduce the Midtown Plan area by removing territory not currently in either of the two approved tax
increment financing (TIF) districts within the Midtown Plan (Prospect South and Foothills Mall).
Adoption of this Resolution is the final step to enact these two modifications.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2015, Amending Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins and Setting the Compensation of the Municipal Judge. (staff: Janet Miller; 2 minute staff
presentation; 10 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to set the 2016 salary for the Municipal Judge. Market data and
performance are considered when determining City employee compensation. City Council met in
executive session on November 10, 2015 to conduct the annual performance review of Municipal
Judge, Kathleen Lane. Market data has been provided to Council and the employee. This
Ordinance establishes the 2016 salary of the Municipal Judge.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2015, Amending Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins and Setting the Compensation of the City Attorney. (staff: Janet Miller; 2 minute staff
presentation; 10 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to set the 2016 salary for the City Attorney. Market data and performance
are considered when determining City employee compensation. City Council met in executive
session on November 10, 2015 to conduct the annual performance review of City Attorney, Carrie
Daggett. Market data has been provided to Council and the employee. This Ordinance establishes
the 2016 salary of the City Attorney.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2015, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins and Setting the Compensation of the City Manager. (staff: Janet Miller; 2 minute staff
presentation; 10 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to establish the 2016 salary of the City Manager. Market data and
performance are considered when determining City employee compensation. City Council met in
executive session on November 10, 2015 to conduct the annual performance review of City
Manager, Darin Atteberry. Market data has been provided to Council and the City Manager. This
Ordinance establishes the 2016 salary of the City Manager.
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
City of Fort Collins Page 7
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers
(Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to
initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not
originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)
ADJOURNMENT
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, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United
Nations on December 10, 1948; and
WHEREAS, it was the first time a document declaring human rights and fundamental
freedoms was adopted by an international organization, and it continues to have universal value
in defending and advancing people’s rights; and
WHEREAS, America’s commitment to individual freedom and democracy provides the
foundation for our society and the Bill of Rights serves to guide our people and our government
to ensure basic human rights and liberties; and
WHEREAS, as a community, we are committed to upholding these principles and
making Fort Collins a place where all citizens have the opportunity to voice their opinions,
practice their faith, and enjoy the blessings of freedom; and
WHEREAS, our community will find encouragement in rallying together to defend
human rights. By working together to advance the rights of all people, we will help to build
mutual trust and harmony for all individuals in our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim December 10, 2015 as
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
in the city of Fort Collins and hereby encourage all residents, businesses, and institutions to
recognize International Human Rights Day 2015 by observing our nation’s Bill of Rights and
pledging to uphold the universal principles of liberty and justice that define our dreams and
shape our hopes as we face the challenges of a new era.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 8
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, each life salvaged from addiction restores life to every sphere of influence
of the addict – his own life, that of his family and his community; and
WHEREAS, the effect of an individual’s addiction has a dramatic impact on virtually
every relationship and connection the addict has, thus through these connections, the ravages of
addiction permeates the lives of nearly every member of our society; and
WHEREAS, Narconon Colorado – A Life Worth Saving has helped over seven hundred
individuals recover from addiction; and
WHEREAS, Narconon Colorado – A Life Worth Saving and its staff dedicate
themselves twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year
to help the individual by salvaging him or her utterly from addiction, restoring his or her abilities
to be a successful, happy, productive individual and a contributing member of his or her family
and the community; and
WHEREAS, Narconon Colorado – A Life Worth Saving has helped hundreds of addicts
gain power over their addiction, who then create a positive effect on the thousands of lives they
touch. In so doing, they create a zone of calm where once there was only sorrow and despair,
helping to make this a better world.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
declare December 2015 as
NARCONON COLORADO – A LIFE WORTH SAVING MONTH
and recognize Narconon Colorado - A Life Worth Saving and its staff for helping hundreds of
addicts find sobriety and better, happier, more successful lives, helping our families and our
community at large.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 9
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 3, 2015 Regular Council Meeting and the
November 10, 2015 Adjourned Council Meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 3, 2015 Regular Council meeting and
the November 10, 2015 Adjourned Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. November 3, 2015 (DOCX)
2. November 10, 2015 (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 10
City of Fort Collins Page 261
November 3, 2015
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Staff Present: Atteberry, Daggett, Winkelmann
AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
City Manager Atteberry withdrew Consent Agenda Item No. 12, Resolution 2015-094 Approving
and Adopting an Updated Energy Policy, for additional staff work and consideration by the
Energy Board. Additionally, he noted the word “Chairperson” has been replaced with “Chair”
regarding the Airport Commission bylaws in Item No. 13, Resolution 2015-095 Approving the
Bylaws of the Northern Colorado Regional Airport Commission. City Manager also noted Ginny
Sawyer will be providing a staff report on public engagement opportunities.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Useon Choi, Fort Collins Symphony, thanked the City and played a clarinet piece.
Wes Kenney, Fort Collins Symphony Music Director, thanked Council for its support of the
Symphony and announced an event this Saturday. He suggested the acoustics at the Lincoln
Center should be improved.
Lynn Barker noted Council will be discussing camping issues at its November 17
th
meeting and
stated emergency shelters are open. Additionally, she expressed concern regarding homeless
individuals not knowing about shelters or fearing utilizing them.
Lynn Thompson, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition, thanked Beth Sowder for her work related to
the camping issue and suggested changes to the Code relating to camping on private property
and sleeping in parked vehicles. She expressed concern that the proposed camping ordinance
language is ambiguous.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, thanked Beth Sowder for her work
and expressed concern regarding the current draft of the camping ordinance. She suggested the
possibility of postponing consideration of the ordinance to the same date as the ordinance
relating to abandoned property.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
Councilmember Stephens thanked the speakers from the Fort Collins Symphony and requested a
future update on discussions relating to the acoustics at the Lincoln Center. Additionally, she
requested staff input regarding public outreach efforts for the camping ordinance. Jeff Mihelich,
Deputy City Manager, replied outreach has occurred with the Fort Collins Homeless Coalition,
Homeward 2020 and other groups.
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 262
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern regarding enforceability of the camping ordinance
and requested additional staff follow-up on that issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted outreach has occurred in order to address those types of issues.
City Manager Atteberry and Mihelich agreed and stated the draft language has been provided
well before consideration of the ordinance in order to allow for public outreach and potential
modifications.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the reason for the November 17th timeline. Mihelich
replied this issue has been on the minds of community members and discussed the three large
changes. He noted a more robust discussion regarding enforceability will occur.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Brittany Hoaglund withdrew Item No. 7, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2015, Making
Certain Amendments to Section 17-142 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Related to Public
Nudity, from the Consent Agenda.
Eric Sutherland withdrew Item Nos. 4, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2015, Amending
Section 25-75(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Extend the Expiration Date of the
City's 0.25% Street Maintenance Sales and Use Tax as Approved by the Voters at the City's April
7, 2015, Regular Election and to Correct an Error in the Expiration Date of the City's 0.85%
Sales and Use Tax Increase Approved by the Voters at the City's November 2, 2010, Special
Election, and 10, First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2015, Authorizing the City Manager and
the Mayor to Enter Into an Agreement Regarding the City Ditch, Including the Quit Claim of a
Portion of the City Ditch and the Granting of an Updated Easement Across the Waterworks
Property, from the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
RESULT: CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2015, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for
the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for
the Fiscal Year 2016 and Fixing Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal
Year 2016. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015, sets the Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) Budget. The following amounts will be appropriated:
DDA Public/Private Investments & Programs $ 725,394
DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 791,717
Revolving Line of Credit Draws $ 2,100,000
DDA Debt Service Fund $ 4,521,012
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 263
The Ordinance sets the 2016 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
2016.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Downtown Development Authority Fund for Expenditure on Projects and Programs in Fiscal
Year 2015 in Accordance with the Downtown Plan of Development. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015, appropriates
unanticipated revenue from interest earnings in the amount of $13,508 and from project savings in
the amount of $63,836 for a total appropriation of $77,344 for use by the Downtown Development
Authority. The Downtown Development Authority Board has authorized the expenditure of these
funds for various DDA projects and programs in fiscal year 2015.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transit
Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the
Transfer of Appropriations into the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Therein for the
Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of Two Rapid Transit Buses. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015, appropriates and
transfers $1,473,887 to help pay for two recently-delivered Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 60-foot
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses for MAX. The total cost for the two buses is $1,734,598 and
the balance will be paid from an existing Capital Projects Fund appropriation of $260,711. The
requested funding sources and amounts are as follows: Transportation Fund Reserves in the
amount of $741,288; and Transit Fund Reserves in the amount of $732,599. The appropriated
amounts will then be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2015, Amending Section 25-65 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins to Change the Application Filing Deadline for the City's Manufacturing
Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015, amends City Code
Section 25-65 to change the deadline for filing an application for the manufacturing equipment use
tax rebate (MUTR) with the City from December 31st to June 30th.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Houska
Automotive Rezoning. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015, rezones one parcel of
land, 1005 Riverside Drive, near the southwest corner of the Riverside Drive and Lemay Avenue
intersection. Existing zoning is N-C, Neighborhood Commercial District. Proposed zoning is C-L,
Limited Commercial District. The parcel is 2.5 acres in size and is currently vacant.
6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2015, Adopting the 2016 Budget and Appropriating the
Fort Collins Share of the 2016 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the
Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. (Adopted)
The 2016 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $931,890, and will be funded from Airport
operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($177,500 from each
City), and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort Collins 50% share of the
2016 Airport budget, which totals $465,945. This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share
of capital funds, totaling $83,334 for the Airport from Federal and State grants; contributions from
Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The budgeted 2016 Airport capital funds,
totaling $166,668, will be used to complete a major Airport improvement including the second phase
of the construction of a snow removal equipment storage facility.
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 264
7. First Reading Ordinance No. 136, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund to Reimburse Custom Blending, Inc. For Use Taxes and Business Personal Property
Taxes as Provided in the Business Investment Agreement. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $13,130 of prior year reserves in the General Fund for a
rebate to Custom Blending for use tax and business personal property tax rebates under an
agreement approved by City Council on August 20, 2013 (Resolution 2013-073). The Agreement
provides business investment assistance for the expansion of Custom Blending’s manufacturing
facility and investment in additional manufacturing equipment. Custom Blending has retained or
created 63 primary jobs in the city.
8. Resolution 2015-093 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Lodgepole Investments, LLC, Annexation. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to initiate annexation proceedings for the Lodgepole Investments LLC
properties, located 670 feet southwest of the intersection of I-25 and State Highway 392, addressed
as 7795 and 7801 SW Frontage Road, Fort Collins, CO. The applicant, Lodgepole Investments, LLC
has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of two properties and right-of-way, totaling
39.7 acres.
The requested zoning for this annexation is G-C, General Commercial. The property is located within
the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the I-25/SH 392 Corridor Activity Center (CAC) overlay
area. The requested zoning district is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and
the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. A specific project development plan proposal is not included
with the annexation application.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal
Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and
directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the
annexation and zoning ordinances; not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by state law.
9. Resolution 2015-094 Approving and Adopting an Updated Energy Policy. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to adopt the 2015 Energy Policy (Policy), presented to Council at the
September 22, 2015 work session. The Policy will replace the existing 2009 Energy Policy. In
alignment with Ordinance No. 098, 2011, the scope of the Policy has expanded from past versions to
include various types of energy sources and end-uses delivered within the community, which include
electricity, natural gas and transportation fuels. The Policy update was timed to allow for coordination
with the Climate Action Plan Framework (CAP) and associated goals adopted by Council earlier in
2015. The Policy provides goals for the prioritization of decision making, programs and services
related to the quantity of use and the energy sources for electricity, thermal end-uses and
transportation. The Policy uses a systems approach to energy production and consumption, as well
as triple bottom line metrics (economy, society, and environment) guiding City government in the
development of plans promoting policy outcomes for residents, businesses and other type of
organizations.
10. Resolution 2015-095 Approving the Bylaws of the Northern Colorado Regional Airport
Commission. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to adopt the bylaws governing the responsibilities and duties of the
Northern Colorado Regional Airport Commission.
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 265
11. Resolution 2015-096 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for Construction of the Mulberry
Street Bridge Across the Poudre River. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to authorize the Mayor to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This action will provide a repayment
mechanism for City improvements currently being constructed by CDOT as part of the State
Highway 14 Bridge over the Poudre River between Riverside and Lemay Avenue Project. All
repayment funds associated with the IGA have been previously appropriated. Funds for the City’s
urban design improvements were appropriated through Council actions (Ordinance Nos. 112, 2012
and 153, 2014). Repayment funds associated with the City of Fort Collins Wastewater Facility
frontage improvements will be paid from City of Fort Collins Wastewater Funds and Street
Oversizing Funds.
Total funding amounts are as follows:
Mulberry Bridge Urban Design Improvements Funds - $647,000
City of Fort Collins General Transportation Funds - $75,000
City of Fort Collins Wastewater Funds - $318,000
Street Oversizing Funds - $70,000
Total Amount to be Repaid - $1,110,000
12. Resolution 2015-097 Designating a Voting Delegate and Alternate Delegate for National
League of Cities Annual Business Meeting. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to officially designate a voting delegate and alternate delegate who are
eligible to vote on behalf of the City at the National League of Cities (NLC) annual business meeting.
NLC bylaws afford voting rights at the annual business meeting to member communities based upon
population. Delegates will vote on changes to NLC bylaws, election of members of the Board of
Directors and member resolutions.
CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
Councilmember Cunniff requested follow-up to a question he had emailed regarding Item No. 8,
First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2015, Adopting the 2016 Budget and Appropriating the
Fort Collins Share of the 2016 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the
Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the withdrawn Item No. 12, Resolution 2015-094 Approving and
Adopting an Updated Energy Policy, will come back as a stronger policy.
Mayor Troxell discussed Item Nos. 8, First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2015, Adopting the
2016 Budget and Appropriating the Fort Collins Share of the 2016 Fiscal Year Operating and
Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, and 13, Resolution
2015-095 Approving the Bylaws of the Northern Colorado Regional Airport Commission, and
noted the new bylaws are the first step in the new Airport structure.
STAFF REPORTS
Ginny Sawyer, City Manager’s Office, announced a Community Issue Forum on Thursday
discussing “Wicked” Problems and stated these forums address Council and community
priorities relating to neighborhood livability and public engagement.
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 266
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Campana attended a meeting of the model United Nations at Fossil Ridge High
School.
Councilmember Martinez discussed the distribution of coats and boots at Laurel Elementary by
the North Fort Collins Business Association, the Boards and Commissions appreciation dinner, a
meeting with the Windsor Town Council regarding the I-25/Highway 392 IGA, and the Group
Publishing awards ceremony.
Councilmember Overbeck reported on the Group Publishing awards ceremony, noting $61,000
in award money was distributed.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on the distribution of coats and boots at Putnam and Irish
Elementary Schools, noting 25% of the students at Putnam qualify for these types of assistance.
He noted the importance of assisting homeless children in the community.
Councilmember Cunniff reported on the bison reintroduction ceremony at Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
Mayor Troxell reported on the meeting with the Windsor Town Council, the bison re-
introduction ceremony, and the Boards and Commissions recognition dinner.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for the Design of the Police Regional Training Facility. (Adopted on First Reading)
The purpose of this item is to seek adoption of the appropriation ordinance to fund the design phase
of the Police Regional Training Facility. The request is for $810,000 and authorization for funding for
the Fort Collins portion of the design phase.
City Manager Atteberry briefly discussed the work which has gone into making this best-in-class
facility happen.
Deputy Police Chief Cory Christensen outlined the plan for the facility and stated the current
cost is approximately $18.5 million, to be split with the City of Loveland. He discussed the areas
within the Strategic Plan which are supported by this facility development and noted training
facilities have been lacking in Fort Collins. Completion is slated for early 2018.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, noted the $18.5 million includes the design cost and
discussed the financing plan and operation and maintenance costs. He outlined the possible
scenarios based on varying revenue and rent amounts.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if data on comparable training costs from other Front Range cities
exists. Christensen replied Boulder and Lakewood have comparable hourly training needs.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about land lease costs. Beckstead replied the intent is for the land
lease to replace the City’s current contributions to the Airport.
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 267
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern regarding the range costs. Beckstead replied it is not
the intent for comparable facilities to cover capital costs with rental costs.
Councilmember Cunniff asked how full the ranges are at the Highlands Ranch and Adams
County facilities. Christensen replied it is very difficult to find training times to meet the City’s
needs at either facility during the week.
Councilmember Cunniff asked whether or not a closer facility with rental rates in the $900 range
would be used. Christensen replied it would be difficult to say.
Councilmember Cunniff noted there is a possibility of the City being able to rent out its facility
at a rate covering capital costs. Beckstead replied the rental rates can be increased as rental
capacity gets consumed.
Councilmember Cunniff requested formalizing that intent in order to eliminate the feeling of
subsidizing other user organizations.
Councilmember Campana asked if the fully-loaded rental rate would include financing costs.
Beckstead replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Overbeck asked if the municipal bond estimates are based on a triple A rating.
Beckstead replied that applies to general obligation bonds and stated the City is rated as a triple
A issuer; however, the certificates of participation may or may not be rated triple A when they
are issued. Additionally, he noted the estimates are intentionally conservative.
Councilmember Stephens asked if the proposed driving pad would hold up to the weight of
Poudre Fire Authority vehicles. Chief Hutto replied the current design will not hold up to the
weight of a fire truck; however, PFA has expressed some interest in making necessary design
changes.
Councilmember Martinez requested information about PFA’s ability to use the facility. Fire
Chief Tom DeMint replied PFA has expressed an interest in discovering the costs of improving
the driving range for fire truck weights, as have neighboring community fire departments.
Councilmember Martinez asked how police training balances physical training with community
relations. Christensen replied officers train every month on a wide variety of topics, with skills-
based training taking up approximately half of the total training time. Much of the training
involves de-escalating situations without the use of force. The remaining training time is spent
in a variety of other types of training. Chief Hutto noted there are occasions where low-
frequency training involves high-liability issues.
Councilmember Martinez asked about Loveland’s Council support for the facility. Loveland
Police Chief Luke Hecker replied the City of Loveland has unanimously allocated $1 million for
a Loveland stand-alone firing range project and has vowed to move forward with Fort Collins in
the development of the training facility as a 50/50 partner. He stated Loveland’s ten-year capital
plan holds a strategy for cash servicing the cost of this facility and noted Loveland’s Council
does not have to vote on the approval of this facility again as it has already done so unanimously.
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 268
Councilmember Campana asked about Loveland’s commitment to the facility design costs.
Chief Hecker replied Loveland has allocated design costs for 2016 and has created a strategy in
its ten-year capital plan for cash servicing the entire capital cost.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the money has been appropriated. Chief Hecker replied the
dollars have been allocated in the capital plan and the Loveland Council will need to appropriate
funds once a construction design is complete. City Manager Atteberry noted that is the case with
Fort Collins, as well.
Councilmember Martinez asked how the Police building was financed. City Manager Atteberry
replied it was also financed with certificates of participation.
Councilmember Martinez stated the viability of a partnership with PFA needs to be discussed.
Councilmember Overbeck asked if the certificate of participation counts against the City's debt.
Beckstead replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the share new development pays toward existing buildings.
Beckstead replied the current asset value, divided by population or some other unit, is involved
in the creation of the capital expansion fee.
Councilmember Cunniff asked when the police fee structure was last updated. Beckstead replied
new fees were adopted in 2013 and another revision is planned for 2016.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the schedule for fee adjustments. Beckstead replied fees
are brought forth for CPI adjustments annually and a complete evaluation of fees is scheduled on
a three to five year basis and will occur in 2016.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the public engagement process regarding this facility.
Ken Cooper, Loveland Facilities Operations Manager, replied door-to-door visitations in the area
were held and one neighbor was in opposition to the project.
Councilmember Overbeck asked why an open house was not held. Cooper replied an open
house was held at the Airport with four people in attendance.
Councilmember Overbeck stated a more robust public conversation should have occurred,
including information on the financial aspects of the plan. Cooper noted part of the project plan
is to reach back out to neighbors with an additional update.
Councilmember Martinez noted this item is specifically for the design and Council will vote on
the appropriation for the construction in the future.
Councilmember Martinez made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 138, 2015, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff stated his ultimate vote on the actual project may be dependent on the
design and further discussed his concerns and requested additional analyses as part of the design.
City Manager Atteberry replied he would respond at Second Reading regarding when those
concerns can be addressed.
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 269
Councilmember Overbeck requested the inclusion of habitat protection, if necessary.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed the importance of a governance agreement with Loveland and
supported the outreach Loveland has done, given the facility will be physically located in
Loveland.
Councilmember Martinez stated the future costs of this type of expansion would be far greater
and discussed the importance of proper training, noting it is a mandate, not an option.
Additionally, he noted the costs have decreased in the “right-sizing” of the facility.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak thanked Chief Hecker and Chief Hutto, as well as the City of Loveland,
and noted the City's police officers have identified this as a priority.
Councilmember Stephens noted the importance of an IGA and also supported examining LEED
certification.
Mayor Troxell stated the facility is needed.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 138, 2015 ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Martinez, District 2
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2015, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2016; Amending the Budget for the
Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2016, and Ending December 31, 2016; and Fixing the Mill
Levy for Fiscal Year 2016. (Adopted as Amended on First Reading)
The purpose of this item is to amend the adopted 2016 Budget and set the amount of $563,376,909
to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016. Including the 2016 adopted budgets for the General
Improvement District No. 1 (“GID No. 1”) of $193,877, the Skyview General Improvement District
No. 15 (“GID No. 15”) of $1,000, and the revised Urban Renewal Authority (URA) budget of
$2,889,600, the total City appropriations amount to $566,461,386. The Net City Budget, which
excludes the GID No.1, GID No. 15, URA, and internal transfers between City funds, is
$448,374,933 for 2016.
City Manager Atteberry discussed Council’s adopted priorities, infrastructure investments, and
improved internal systems. In terms of Council priorities, this budget recommendation moves
the Climate Action Plan forward, invests in maintaining a sense of place in neighborhoods,
initially implements Nature in the City, and provides additional resources for neighborhood
traffic calming devices. The recommendation aids vulnerable populations in various ways and
drives innovation with the first phase of implementation of the Information Technology Open
Data Portal. These budget amendments aid in maintaining high quality services for residents.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, further detailed financial aspects of these amendments.
City Manager Atteberry noted City Attorney Daggett has put together a Budgeting for Outcomes
offer for one FTE which, at Council's direction, will be included in the Second Reading of the
Ordinance.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 270
Chrissy Krumb thanked Council for making the creation of safe bus stops a priority.
Eric Sutherland opposed the inclusion of the Urban Renewal Authority budget within the City's
budget. Additionally, he commented on the budget process and revenues.
Marilee Boylan thanked Council for its consideration to prioritize mid-cycle funding for a full-
time staff member to focus on and begin the process of making the City's bus stops accessible.
Councilmember Cunniff requested information on the cost to transform all of the City's
operations to carbon-neutral operations. He asked if the increase for employee benefits is in line
with other governmental entities and private employers in the region. Kelly DiMartino,
Assistant City Manager, replied the increase is in line with what has been done in the past and
stated 70%/30% is the employer/employee split for employees with dependents and 85%/15% is
the split for employee-only plans. She stated these amounts are consistent with market data.
Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt
Ordinance No. 139, 2015, on First Reading, with the inclusion of Offer 67.1 from the City
Attorney.
Councilmember Cunniff acknowledged this is a large mid-cycle budget, but noted these are all
important community priorities.
City Manager Atteberry stated the City is very attentive to both the public and private sector
markets in terms of compensation and benefits.
Councilmember Stephens stated this budget, while large, provides a safer and healthier
community. She thanked the speakers who came forth to support the bus stop improvements.
Mayor Troxell stated he would support the motion and commended the budget and process.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2015, ADOPTED AS AMENDED ON FIRST READING
[UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gino Campana, District 3
SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
15. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2016. (Adopted on First Reading)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding Calculation and Collection of Development Fees Imposed for New or Modified
Electric Service Connections.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Water Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 271
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges. (Option A or Option B)
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2015, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
The purpose of this item is for Council to consider adopting rate changes for electric and wastewater
rates, and electric capacity fees, water plant investment fees (PIFs), wastewater PIFs and
stormwater PIFs, along with other Code clarifications and formatting changes.
Randy Reuscher, Utilities Rate Analyst, stated four of the ordinances are related to monthly
utility bills which will impact existing customers, and four ordinances relate to plant investment
fees and the electric capacity fee. In terms of electric rates, the City is faced with a $4 million
increase in the wholesale cost for 2016 and the proposed increase is just a wholesale pass-
through at 3.2%. For wastewater rates, there are two proposed options and staff is
recommending a 2.5% residential increase and 4.5% commercial increase. There are no
proposed rate changes for water or stormwater rates.
Eric Sutherland discussed the Boxelder Stormwater Authority and fees and commented on the
need for a time-of-use rate structure.
Councilmember Martinez asked what these changes will mean to the average residential rate
payer. Reuscher replied there is approximately a $3 increase per customer per month for all four
services.
Councilmember Cunniff requested additional information regarding the staff recommended
option for wastewater rates and asked if there would be a point at which the average matches the
cost of service. Reuscher replied full cost of service rates occurred in 2014.
Councilmember Martinez asked how individuals with limited discretionary spending would
compensate for these increases. Reuscher replied Council will be presented with a low-income
rate structure option in February.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if there are existing programs for utility bill assistance. Reuscher
replied in the affirmative.
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 272
Councilmember Martinez expressed concern regarding the ease of participating in these
programs. Reuscher replied the medical-assistance program application can be completed on-
line and community outreach has occurred to market that program.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the rate increases involve additional personnel. Reuscher
replied the development of the low-income rate will involve a comprehensive outreach program
and noted the assistance program at this point is focused on the medical program. In terms of the
factors driving the rate increase, they are not labor related, but more regarding equipment
replacement and maintenance and capital investments.
Councilmember Martinez requested a definition of comprehensive outreach. Reuscher replied
the outreach would consist of having public forums, online marketing, and monthly bill inserts.
City Manager Atteberry stated additional, more detailed information regarding the outreach
program could be provided.
Councilmember Martinez discussed the importance of making this an easy process for
individuals who make not have access to the types of outreach mentioned.
City Manager Atteberry asked when the rate increases become effective. Reuscher replied they
would become effective January 1, 2016 and stated a low-income rate has been in the works for
over a year; the administration of such a rate is the difficulty at this point.
Councilmember Martinez discussed the importance of keeping the workforce in Fort Collins and
expressed concern about the consistent rate increases for those households. City Manager
Atteberry stated staff is very cognizant of bringing rate increases forward and oftentimes do not
bring increases forward.
Council held a brief discussion regarding the importance of outreach for these types of programs
across the board and the possible addition of other programs.
Councilmember Martinez requested some follow-up to his concerns prior to Second Reading.
City Manager Atteberry replied that will occur.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Ordinance No. 140, 2015, on First Reading.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 141, 2015, on First Reading.
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 273
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 142, 2015, on First Reading.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Ordinance No. 143, 2015, on First Reading.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 143, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Ordinance No. 144, 2015, Option A, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern that a full public discussion on the smooth modeling
has not occurred. Reuscher replied this option is not meant to be a subsidy, but is simply a
smoothing of the rate classes for the residential class.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested additional information be presented regarding the options prior
to Second Reading.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 144, 2015, OPTION A, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING
[UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 145, 2015, on First Reading.
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 274
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 146, 2015, on First Reading.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
16. Resolution 2015-098 Directing City Staff to Participate in the Ongoing Colorado Oil and Gas
Commission Rulemaking Related to the Governor's Oil and Gas Taskforce Recommendations
17 and 20 Endorsing and Adopting the Prehearing Statement Prepared by the City. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to consider a prehearing statement and provide staff direction for the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rulemaking.
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, discussed the state-level changes relating to the
oil and gas industry and detailed items supported by staff and staff’s proposed changes to the
draft rules issued by the state.
Monty Knobel asked if fracking and drilling will be allowed within the City limits. Weinheimer
replied this is state-level rule making being undertaken by the Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. He stated the City does not have the authority to say no to oil and gas and this will
provide the opportunity for additional engagement regarding the siting of oil and gas facilities.
Councilmember Cunniff supported the item as being consistent with Council’s legislative intent.
Councilmember Campana supported the item and thanked Councilmember Cunniff for his
suggestion to bring the item forward in this format.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2015-098.
RESULT: RESOLUTION 2015-098 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 275
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2015, Amending Section 25-75(a) of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins to Extend the Expiration Date of the City's 0.25% Street Maintenance
Sales and Use Tax as Approved by the Voters at the City's April 7, 2015, Regular Election and
to Correct an Error in the Expiration Date of the City's 0.85% Sales and Use Tax Increase
Approved by the Voters at the City's November 2, 2010, Special Election. (Adopted on Second
Reading)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015 amends Section 25-
75(a) of the City Code to reflect the appropriate tax expirations dates as approved by the electors.
The expiration date of the street maintenance tax will reflect the extension to December 31, 2025.
The expiration date for the Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) tax increase of .85% needs to be
corrected to December 30, 2020.
Eric Sutherland took exception to the language stating this was approved by voters and suggested
the ballot question was misleading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 131, 2015, on Second Reading.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 131, 2015, ADOPTED ON SECOND READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2015, Making Certain Amendments to Section 17-142
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Related to Public Nudity. (Adopted on Second Reading)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2015, updates Section 17-
142 of the City Code to read as “Public Nudity” rather than “Public Indecency,” and maintains the
current prohibition of the exposure of the female breast in public, excluding from this prohibition
children under the age of ten and breastfeeding mothers. There has been a slight modification to the
language between First and Second Reading. The words “areola and” have been added before the
word “nipple”.
Aaron Hoaglund provided a history of toplessness in the United States and opposed adoption of
the ordinance as written.
Tyson Roehrkasse questioned the language in the ordinance and opposed it as written.
Samantha Six questioned Council regarding pornography and equality.
Brittany Hoaglund challenged the definition of breasts in the ordinance.
Lea Hanson, Women’s Commission, supported Option 2 of the ordinance presented on October
20, as it would eliminate holding women to a different code of conduct than men.
Tom Elliott supported Option 1 of the ordinance as written, citing the public comment at the
previous Council meeting.
Monty Knobel supported Option 1 of the ordinance as written.
Trey Marchel stated more attention should be paid to other issues, such as homelessness.
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 276
Elise Roehrkasse discussed equal rights stating this ordinance, as written, opposes the State
Constitution and United States Constitution.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt
Ordinance No. 134, 2015, on Second Reading.
Mayor Troxell thanked the individuals who spoke.
Councilmember Cunniff noted this ordinance makes important changes regarding nursing
mothers and stated the community has spoken regarding this issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the constitutionality of this issue can be decided by courts and a
referendum can be brought forth by citizens to change the ordinance.
Councilmember Stephens thanked the speakers and stated community support is around option
one.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 134, 2015, ADOPTED ON SECOND READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2015, Authorizing the City Manager and the Mayor to
Enter Into an Agreement Regarding the City Ditch, Including the Quit Claim of a Portion of the
City Ditch and the Granting of an Updated Easement Across the Waterworks Property.
(Adopted on First Reading)
The purpose of this item is to request approval of a proposed agreement between the City, the Larimer
County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company (“Ditch Company”), and The James S. Brinks Trust formed under
the Trust Agreement dated November 30, 2007 (“Trust”), the quit claim of a portion of the City Ditch, the
granting of an updated easement across the Waterworks property, and the City’s acquisition of carriage
rights.
Eric Sutherland stated errors were made in this transaction and discussed historical property
rights.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 137, 2015, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak supported the work of City Attorney Daggett on this item.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Brinks Trust is agreeable to this arrangement. City
Attorney Daggett replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Martinez and Mayor Troxell commended City Attorney Daggett on her work.
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
November 3, 2015
City of Fort Collins Page 277
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2015, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Troxell noted the City’s ballot issue relating to broadband service was approved by
voters.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adjourn to
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 10, 2015, to consider a possible executive session to discuss
the annual performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge, and to
consider such other matters as may come before the Council.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 PM.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: November 3, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
City of Fort Collins Page 278
November 10, 2015
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting – 6:00 PM
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
Staff present: Atteberry, Daggett, Winkelmann
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to go into
executive session, as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1) of City Code and Colorado Revised
Statutes Section 24-6-402(4)(f)(I), for the purpose of discussing the annual performance reviews
of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:08 PM.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: November 10, 2015 (3826 : minutes-11/3, 11/10)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Seonah Kendall, Economic Policy & Project Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to
Reimburse Avago Wireless Technologies (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. For Use and Business Personal
Property Taxes as Provided in Business Investment Agreements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, 2015, appropriates $467,663 of prior
year reserves from the General Fund for a rebate to Avago Wireless Technologies (USA) Mfg. for use tax and
business personal property tax rebates under two business investment agreements. The agreements provide
business investment assistance to Avago for the expansion and retrofit of Avago’s Building 4 for a wafer
fabrication facility in 2012 and for a FBAR clean room facility in 2013. These two projects created an additional
227 primary jobs in the city.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 147, 2015 (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 17, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Seonah Kendall, Economic Policy & Project Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to
Reimburse Avago Wireless Technologies (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. For Use and Business Personal
Property Taxes as Provided in Business Investment Agreements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $467,663 of prior year reserves from the General Fund for a rebate
to Avago Wireless Technologies (USA) Mfg. for use tax and business personal property tax rebates under two
business investment agreements. The agreements provide business investment assistance to Avago for the
expansion and retrofit of Avago’s Building 4 for a wafer fabrication facility in 2012 and for a FBAR clean room
facility in 2013. These two projects created an additional 227 primary jobs in the city.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Agreement Summary
On July 19, 2011, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-066, approving a Business Investment Agreement,
which the City and Avago entered into on July 25, 2012 (the 2012 Agreement). The 2012 Agreement provides
business investment assistance to Avago for the expansion and retrofit of its Building 4 for a new wafer
fabrication facility. On October 16, 2012, City Council adopted Resolution 2012-096, approving a second
Business Investment Agreement with Avago, which the City and Avago entered into on June 5, 2013 (the 2013
Agreement). The 2013 Agreement provides business investment assistance to Avago for the expansion and
retrofit of its Building 4 - for a new FBAR clean room facility. The 2012 and 2013 Agreements provide that
Avago is eligible for the following rebates:
2012 Agreement (wafer fabrication facility):
Use tax on new “Eligible Manufacturing Equipment” (up to 100%) for the period beginning August 1, 2011
and ending December 31, 2013, subject to a limit on the total use tax rebate amount of $1,725,000. A
total of $1,089,734 in use tax rebates was paid to Avago in 2013 and 2014 under the 2012 Agreement.
Avago is not eligible for any additional use tax rebates under the 2012 Agreement, so no use tax rebate is
now being requested under the 2012 Agreement.
Business Personal Property Tax Rebates (up to 50%) for a ten-year period for the Eligible Manufacturing
Equipment purchased for the period beginning August 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2013. Each
annual payment is limited to $81,700, or 50% of City business personal property taxes actually paid for the
Eligible Manufacturing Equipment so purchased for the wafer fabrication facility project, whichever is lower.
For 2015, Avago is eligible for a business personal property tax rebate of $37,127 under the 2012
Agreement.
ATTACHMENT 1
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (3838 : SR 147 Avago Rebate)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 2
2013 Agreement (FBAR clean room facility):
Use tax on new Eligible Manufacturing Equipment (up to 100%) for the period beginning October 26, 2012
and ending December 31, 2014, subject to a limit on the total use tax rebate amount of $3,882,200. For
2015, Avago is eligible for a use tax rebate of $329,629 under the 2013 Agreement.
Business Personal Property Tax Rebate (up to 50%) for a ten-year period for the Eligible Manufacturing
Equipment purchased for the period beginning October 26, 2012 and ending December 31, 2014. A limit
on each annual payment is $100,907, or 50% of City business personal property taxes actually paid for the
Eligible Manufacturing Equipment so purchased for the FBAR clean room facility, whichever is lower. For
2015, Avago is eligible for a business personal property rebate of $100,907 under the 2013 Agreement.
Employment Level Requirements
The two rebate categories were offered with the stipulation that Avago’s employment levels must be
maintained at the same number of employees within its Fort Collins facility as Avago employed as of June 5,
2013 (437 employees). As of December 31, 2014, Avago had 996 full time equivalent employees.
Rebate schedule as agreed upon with Avago
Staff has developed a rebate schedule with Avago which is consistent with the 2012 and 2013 Agreements
whereby two rebate applications will be processed each year.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The total rebate amount is $467,663 of prior year reserves from the General Fund.
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (3838 : SR 147 Avago Rebate)
ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND TO REIMBURSE
AVAGO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES (U.S.A.) MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR USE AND
BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AS PROVIDED IN BUSINESS INVESTMENT
AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins (“City”) and Avago Wireless Technologies (U.S.A.)
Manufacturing, Inc. (“Avago”) have previously entered into that certain “Business Investment
Agreement For Economic Development Related to Avago Technologies Building 4 Retrofit”
dated July 25, 2012 (the “2012 Agreement”) and that certain “Business Investment Agreement
for Economic Development Related to Avago Technologies Building 4 Retrofit for New FBAR
Clean Room Facility” dated June 5, 2013 (the “2013 Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Agreement and 2013 Agreement shall be hereinafter be referred to
jointly as the “Agreements”; and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Agreement was approved by City Council on July 19, 2011, in
Resolution No. 066, 2011, and the 2013 Agreement was approved by City Council on October
16, 2012, in Resolution No. 096, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Agreement provides certain business investment assistance to
Avago for the retrofit of its Building 4 for a new wafer fabrication facility and the 2013
Agreement provides similar assistance to Avago for the retrofit of its Building 4 for a new FBAR
clean room facility; and
WHEREAS, the Agreements provide that Avago is eligible for reimbursement from the
City for the following paid by it to the City, subject to certain limitations: (1) Use Tax on new
Eligible Equipment, (2) Business Personal Property Tax on Eligible Manufacturing Equipment;
and
WHEREAS, under the Agreements, Avago can apply for reimbursement biannually for
both rebates; and
WHEREAS, all funds reimbursed must be appropriated by Council as part of the rebate
process; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting an appropriation for the full amount of $467,663 from
prior year reserves in the General Fund to reimburse Avago in accordance with the Agreements;
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.
2.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Ordinance No. 147, 2015 (3838 : SR 147 Avago Rebate)
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 FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
SIXTY-THREE DOLLARS ($467,663) to reimburse Avago for Use Tax and Business Personal
Property Tax as required by the Agreements.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
November, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
2.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Ordinance No. 147, 2015 (3838 : SR 147 Avago Rebate)
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2015, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to
Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, 2015, updates the City Code, which
requires an annual adjustment to certain building permit related fees. Capital Improvement Expansion fees
and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to reflect the changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price
Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record
(ENR). The CPI has increased 1.0% since its last adjustment and the ENR has not changed significantly
enough to warrant an adjustment. These increases will go into effect on January 1, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 148, 2015 (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 34
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 17, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2015, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to
Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the City Code, which requires an annual adjustment to certain building
permit related fees. Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to reflect the
changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are adjusted by
the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 1.0% since its last
adjustment and the ENR has not changed significantly enough to warrant an adjustment. These increases will
go into effect on January 1, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In May 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, which established capital improvement expansion
fees for Community Parkland, Police, Fire, and General Government services. The purpose for the fees is to
have new development pay a proportionate share of the capital improvements and equipment costs that will be
necessary to provide services to new development. The Code provisions approved by Ordinance No. 051,
1996, provide for the annual adjustment of the fees to keep up with inflation, using the Denver-Boulder (now
Denver-Boulder-Greeley) Consumer Price Index.
The City has imposed a Neighborhood Parkland fee for neighborhood parks since 1968. In August 1996,
Council adopted Ordinance No. 105, 1996, which aligned the Neighborhood Parkland fee to the housing size
differentials in the Capital Improvement Expansion fee ordinance, and updated the fee schedule to reflect pre-
1996 inflation. The Neighborhood Parkland fees have been adjusted for inflation in 1997-2007, along with the
Capital Improvement Expansion fees.
In 2013, Council adopted Ordinance No. 120, 2013, which updated the residential and commercial fees to the
current level of service. The residential fees were implemented at 100% effective October 3, 2013 and the
commercial fees were implemented in a phased approach at 60% in October, 2013, 80% in 2015 and 100% in
2016.
Based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, the inflation level since
the last annual adjustment is an increase of 1.0% for 2016. This Ordinance adjusts the fee schedules
described in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to account for inflation and adjusts the commercial fees to 100% of
the 2013 study plus inflation. In the Ordinance, all amounts for the capital improvement expansion fees have
ATTACHMENT 1
3.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (3840 : SR 148 Capital Expansion Fees)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
been rounded to the nearest dollar. These changes will go into effect on January 1, 2016.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
2016 Capital Expansion Fees Table
2016 Update to Capital Expansion Fees
When Finance undertook this effort in 2013, it committed to re-evaluate the capital expansion fees on a 3-5
year cycle. In 2016 Finance will hire a consultant to conduct a study to update the capital expansion fees for
the next 3-year cycle.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This is an update to an ordinance passed in 2013 by City Council taking the commercial capital expansion fees
up to the agreed upon 100% phased-in amount after three years. Extensive public outreach was completed in
2013. There was no public outreach for this update completed in 2015.
N'hood Comm. Gen.
Land Use Type Unit Park Park Fire Police Gov't Total
Updated Fees
Resid., up to 700 sf Dwelling $1,262 $1,069 $272 $137 $321 $3,061
Resid., 701-1,200 sf Dwelling $1,619 $1,373 $346 $173 $410 $3,921
Resid., 1,201-1,700 sf Dwelling $1,788 $1,516 $384 $192 $452 $4,332
Resid., 1,701-2,200 sf Dwelling $1,863 $1,580 $399 $200 $473 $4,515
Resid., over 2,200 sf Dwelling $1,996 $1,692 $427 $214 $507 $4,837
Commercial 100% 1,000 sf $0 $0 $329 $165 $780 $1,274
Industrial 100% 1,000 sf $0 $0 $78 $40 $183 $300
2016 Updated CIE Fees
3.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (3840 : SR 148 Capital Expansion Fees)
ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO INCREASE THE
AMOUNTS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPANSION FEES
CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 7.5 OF THE CITY CODE SO AS TO REFLECT
INFLATION IN ASSOCIATED COSTS OF SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality having the full right of self-government
in local and municipal matters under the provisions of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, among the City’s home rule powers and authority is the power to regulate,
as a matter of purely local concern, the development of real property within the City and the
authority to fund and construct, as matters of purely location concern, public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City’s comprehensive plan shows that the rate of future growth and
development in Fort Collins will require a substantial expansion in community park, police, fire,
and general government facilities, and related capital equipment, if its level of service standards
for such facilities are to be maintained; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should contribute its
proportionate share of providing such capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has broad legislative discretion in determining the
appropriate funding mechanisms for financing the construction of public facilities in the City;
and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 051,
1996, establishing certain capital improvement expansion fees; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 7.5-18 provides for annual adjustment in all capital
improvement expansion fees for inflation, corresponding to the increases reflected in the Denver-
Boulder Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, now known as the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (the “CPI”); and
WHEREAS, in September 1968, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 038, 1968,
which established the original Neighborhood Parkland Fee to fund the acquisition and
development of parkland, which ordinance has since been amended on several occasions to
adjust the fee and to refine related procedures and requirements; and
WHEREAS, with the adoption in August 1993 of Ordinance No. 082, 1993, the City
Council directed the City Manager to annually review the Neighborhood Parkland Fee and
submit to the Council proposed inflation-related increases based on the CPI; and
3.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Ordinance No. 148, 2015 (3840 : SR 148 Capital Expansion Fees)
WHEREAS, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent CPI, staff anticipates
the Index will reflect an inflation increase of 1.0 percent since the last annual adjustment,
effective January 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically used the Engineering News Record as a reference to
determine whether the Street Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion Fee should be
increased to account for rising construction costs; and
WHEREAS, based on the Engineering News record, the cost of constructing street
improvements has not changed significantly since the last adjustment of the Street Oversizing
Capital Improvement Expansion Fee; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is
necessary in the interests of the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, that the
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, including the Neighborhood Parkland Fee, be increased to
reflect inflation as determined by the CPI.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That effective January 1, 2016, the fee schedule in Section 7.5-28(a) of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Community Parkland Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft. and under $1,069.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,373.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,516.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,580.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 1,692.00
Section 3. That effective January 1, 2016, the fee schedule in Section 7.5-29(a) of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft. and under $ 137.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 173.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 192.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 200.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 214.00
Commercial buildings
(per 1,000 sq ft.)
165.00
Industrial buildings 40.00
3.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Ordinance No. 148, 2015 (3840 : SR 148 Capital Expansion Fees)
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Section 4. That effective January 1, 2016, the fee schedule in Section 7.5-30(a) of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion
Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft. and under $ 272.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 346.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 384.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 399.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 427.00
Commercial buildings
(per 1,000 sq ft.)
329.00
Industrial buildings
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
78.00
Section 5. That effective January 1, 2016, the fee schedule in Section 7.5-31(a) of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the General Government Capital Improvement
Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft. and under $ 321.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 410.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 452.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 473.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 507.00
Commercial buildings
(per 1,000 sq ft.)
780.00
Industrial buildings
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
183.00
Section 6. That effective January 1, 2016, the fee schedule in Section 7.5-71(b) of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Neighborhood Parkland Fee, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft. and under $1,262.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,619.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,788.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,863.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 1,996.00
Section 7. That except as expressly amended in this Ordinance, all other provisions
in City Code Sections 7.5-28(a), 7.5-29(a), 7.5-30(a), 7.5-31(a), and 7.5-31(b) shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.
3.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Ordinance No. 148, 2015 (3840 : SR 148 Capital Expansion Fees)
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
November, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of December, A.D.
2015.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of December, A.D. 2015.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Ordinance No. 148, 2015 (3840 : SR 148 Capital Expansion Fees)
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2015, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Easement on Maxwell
Natural Area to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 17, 2015, authorizes conveyance of a
ten-year renewable easement to Colorado State University on Maxwell Natural Area that will replace a 99-year
lease for access to maintain the Aggie “A” on the Natural Area. The Natural Areas Department proposed that
the City grant a permanent easement to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System
(CSU) on Maxwell Natural Area. On First Reading, Council amended the Ordinance to authorize the City to
enter into a ten-year easement agreement with CSU that will automatically renew for successive ten-year
terms, unless either party elects to terminate the easement after notice to the other party. The easement will
also enable CSU and its students to carry out two other group activities that currently require annual permits
from Natural Areas. CSU’s current access typically has minimal impact to the Natural Area and no additional
impacts are anticipated. No other access rights are to be conveyed. Minor edits have been made to the
Ordinance language consistent with Council’s amendments on First Reading and are shown in the Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 41
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 17, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2015, Authorizing the Conveyance of an Easement on Maxwell Natural
Area to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to authorize conveyance of a permanent easement to Colorado State University on
Maxwell Natural Area that will replace a 99-year lease for access to maintain the Aggie “A” on the Natural
Area. The Natural Areas Department proposes that the City enter into a permanent easement agreement with
the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System (CSU) on Maxwell Natural Area. The
easement will replace a 99-year lease that provided CSU with access to maintain the Aggie “A” on the Natural
Area. The easement will also enable CSU and its students to carry out two other group activities that currently
require annual permits from Natural Areas. CSU’s current access typically has minimal impact to the Natural
Area and no additional impacts are anticipated. No other access rights are to be conveyed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In the late 1970s, the City Parks and Recreation Department acquired more than 160 acres from the Maxwell
family (the property is part of Maxwell Natural Area and is owned/managed by the Natural Areas Department -
see Attachments 1 and 2). At the time the land was purchased, the property was already subject to an
existing 99-year lease (set to expire on December 19, 2022) between R.G. Maxwell and the State Board of
Agriculture. The lease gives the State Board of Agriculture and its successors the right of ingress and egress
to the Maxwell property for the purpose of constructing and repairing the Aggie “A”. The “A” was constructed in
1923 and has been registered since 1995 on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties as an example
of hillside monograms which are distinctive landmarks in western states. (Note: The “A” is not a set structure
(e.g., concrete) but instead consists of rocks and vegetation painted white in the shape of the letter. It is
approximately 450 feet long and 210 feet across.)
Over the years, CSU’s use of Maxwell Natural Area has expanded from maintenance of the “A” to include two
additional student activities: the annual freshman hike to the “A” and the lighting of the “A” at homecoming.
These activities, including the painting of the “A”, have necessitated multiple permits on a yearly basis since
Natural Areas has made special allowances for off-trail use for large groups (the painting of the “A” involves
upwards of 70 people). At the request of the City Manager’s office, Natural Areas staff began exploring
alternatives to the lease and permit arrangement to simplify the process for CSU and for Natural Areas.
Natural Areas staff met with CSU representatives earlier this year and discussed several options, including an
updated lease, a potential land trade, and a permanent easement. The parties agreed that a permanent
easement would provide the best solution - the easement enables NAD to retain management responsibilities
ATTACHMENT 1
4.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3839 : SR 149 Maxwell Easement)
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 2
and to conduct its own activities within the “A” area while eliminating the need for the annual permits and
updating the requirements for CSU’s activities. (A lease implies exclusive use of the property and could
potentially restrict Natural Area's ability to manage and maintain the land.)
The original lease contained very few details or parameters for CSU’s access to the “A”, simply stating the
State Board of Agriculture had “the right of ingress and egress to the said land for the purpose of constructing
and repairing the College letter “A”’”. The easement establishes the boundaries of CSU’s access and provides
ingress and egress to the “A” from County Road 23 via existing trails. (CSU is providing a survey of the
easement area. See Attachment 3 - Aerial Map of Proposed CSU Easement Area for a general depiction) In
addition, the easement outlines notification requirements and provides direction on the type of equipment and
paint used to light and paint the “A. The easement also spells out obligations for cleanup and repairs should
CSU’s activities generate debris or cause damage. All costs associated with construction, restoration or
maintenance of the “A” are to be borne by CSU.
Natural Areas is requiring low VOC latex paint and natural pigments to minimize the biological impacts of
continued use of the area by CSU. (The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines low VOC latex paint
as that containing <251 g/L VOC.) The easement also includes a vegetation management plan by which CSU
may conduct minor vegetation maintenance in the area immediately adjacent to the “A” (e.g., pruning shrubs
such as Mountain Mahogany to a height of no less than 3 feet tall).
While staff appreciates the recommendation of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) to enter
into a lease instead of a permanent easement, staff continues to recommend a permanent easement. Staff
believes that periodically renegotiating a lease defeats a key motivation for pursuing the easement, which is
relieving both the City and CSU from having to repeatedly revisit what both parties agree should be a long-
standing arrangement and agreement. Moreover, if the “A” should ever be abandoned by CSU, the City has
the right to terminate the easement with prior notice to CSU.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
NAD is requesting a nominal consideration for the easement in the amount of $100. There will be no additional
financial impact to NAD due to the fact that this is replacing an existing lease and that no new improvements
will be located on the property. Staff believes that this below market conveyance serves a bona fide public
purpose as required by Section 23-114 of the City Code because:
1. The use to which the Easement will be put promotes health, safety or general welfare and benefits a
significant segment of the citizens of Fort Collins, as the “A” has long been a major focal point for student
activities at CSU that help build the culture of the student body. Students comprise a significant portion of
our community and participation in “A”- related activities promotes community engagement and welfare.
2. The Easement and continued use and preservation of the “A” support the preservation of an historic
landmark and City Plan Principle LIV16: “The quality of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the
preservation of historic resources and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the
community.”
3. The financial support provided by the City through the below-market disposition of the Easement will be
leveraged with other funding or assistance, including maintenance work by the CSU Alumni Association.
4. Conveyance of the Easement will not result in any direct financial benefit to any private person or entity,
except to the extent such benefit is only an incidental consequence and is not substantial relative to the
public purpose being served.
5. Conveyance of the Easement for less than fair market rent will not interfere with current City projects or
work programs, hinder workload schedules or divert resources needed for primary City functions or
responsibilities.
4.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3839 : SR 149 Maxwell Easement)
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 3
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The item was presented to the Land Conservation Stewardship Board (LCSB) on October 14, 2015. Five of nine
board members were present and voted unanimously to recommend that City Council consider a lease
arrangement instead of a permanent easement. The LCSB’s formal recommendation as outlined in a memo to
City Council dated November 3, 2015, is as follows:
1. The LCSB recommends to City Staff and to City Council that a permanent easement not be granted to CSU
or the State Board of Agriculture for access through the Maxwell Natural Area to the CSU "A."
2. That a new lease replace the remaining term of the 99-year lease that was established between the State
Board of Agriculture and the Maxwell family, which has an expiration date of 19 Dec 2022.
3. The new lease should be structured as an umbrella permit for uses that have required multiple special-use
permit applications from CSU and approval by City entities, thus removing the need for annual application and
approval, and should be specific about: (1) permitted routes and times (events) of access; (2) allowable
activities; (3) other conditions and restrictions that the Natural Areas Department (NAD) deems necessary.
(Attachments 4 and 5)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map (PDF)
2. Aerial map-Maxwell Natural Area (PDF)
3. Aerial map-proposed CSU easement area (PDF)
4. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, October 14, 2015 (PDF)
5. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board memo re: CSU access to Aggie "A" recommendation
(PDF)
4.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 17, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3839 : SR 149 Maxwell Easement)
ORDINANCE NO. 149, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT ON
MAXWELL NATURAL AREA TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City owns a parcel of real property located in Larimer County, Colorado
that is part of Maxwell Natural Area and is more particularly described as the SW 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6
th
P.M. less Book 849 Page 242,
and less Book 1182, Page 409 of the Larimer County Records (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, when the City purchased the Property in 1979 it was subject to an existing
99 year lease between the owner, R.G. Maxwell, and the State Board of Agriculture (the “1923
Lease”); and
WHEREAS, the 1923 Lease was intended to allow Colorado State University (“CSU”) to
access, construct and repair the Aggie “A” painted on the hillside near Hughes Stadium, and is
set to expire in 2022; and
WHEREAS, the “A” is listed on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, and is
therefore considered a landmark subject to Chapter 14 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 14-53 of the City Code requires the owner of a site or object
designated as a landmark to maintain the site or object to prevent it falling into a state of
disrepair that would have a detrimental effect on its historic character; and
WHEREAS, over the years CSU’s activities surrounding the “A” have increased,
resulting in the City issuing multiple administrative permits every year for such activities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desireshas determined that a ten-year easement
automatically renewed for successive ten-year terms, unless either party elects to terminate after
notice to the other party, which easement would replace the 1923 Lease, is the most appropriate
solution; and
WHEREAS, CSU has asked the City to grant it a non-exclusive, permanent easement
over the area described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the
“Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the Easement would spell out in more detail than the 1923 Lease what
activities CSU can conduct on the Property, what materials CSU can use on the Property, and
cleanup, restoration and maintenance obligations; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell,
convey or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property owned by the City, provided that the
City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of
Packet Pg. 45
the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff has concluded that granting the easement to CSU is the best way
for the City to manage CSU’s access to the “A” on the Property; and
WHEREAS, NAD is proposing to chargeCity staff recommends charging only nominal
consideration for the Easement in the amount of $100; and
WHEREAS, under Section 23-114 of the City Code, any sale of City property interests
must be for an amount equal to or greater than the fair market value of such interest unless the
City Council determines that such sale serves a bona fide public purpose, based on the five
factors listed in Section 23-114; and
WHEREAS, staff believes that the conveyance of the Easement to CSU for less than fair
market value serves a bona fide public purpose because:
(1) The use to which the Easement will be put promotes health, safety or general
welfare and benefits a significant segment of the citizens of Fort Collins, as the
“A” has long been a major focal point for student activities at CSU that help build
the culture of the student body. Students comprise a significant portion of our
community and participation in “A”- related activities promotes community
engagement and welfare;
(2) The Easement and continued use and preservation of the “A” supports the
preservation of an historic landmark and City Plan Principle LIV16: “The quality
of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the preservation of historic resources
and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the community;”
(3) The financial support provided by the City through the below-market disposition
of the Easement will be leveraged with other funding or assistance, including
maintenance work by the CSU Alumni Association;
(4) Conveyance of the Easement will not result in any direct financial benefit to any
private person or entity, except to the extent such benefit is only an incidental
consequence and is not substantial relative to the public purpose being served; and
(5) Conveyance of the Easement for less than fair market rent will not interfere with
current City projects or work programs, hinder workload schedules or divert
resources needed for primary City functions or responsibilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the City’s conveyance of the
Easement to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System as provided herein
is in the best interests of the City.
Packet Pg. 46
Section 2. That the City Council further finds that such conveyance for less than fair
market value serves a bona fide public purpose for the reasons stated in the recitals above.
Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to terminate the 1923 Lease and convey the Easement to the Board of Governors of the
Colorado State University System on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance,
together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the
City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City,
including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easement, as
long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the interest to
be conveyed.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
November, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 1st day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 47
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Bob Adams, Recreation Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Recreation Fund for
Locker Renovation at Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to introduce an ordinance to appropriate $57,012 for the construction cost of a
locker room at EPIC. The funding for the locker room construction was raised by the CSU club hockey team.
Staff will bring to Council for approval upon second reading of the appropriation ordinance an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University (CSU)
Department of Campus Recreation. The IGA is expected to provide for a renewable 10-year agreement to
provide a dedicated locker room for the hockey team. Because CSU is funding the improvements, staff has
proposed waiving certain maintenance costs for the new EPIC locker room during the initial term of the IGA.
However, it is expected that the University will continue to pay all standard rental and user fees associated with
reservation and use of ice time at EPIC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
CSU Ram Hockey is a Club Hockey organization under the umbrella of the CSU Department of Campus
Recreation. The City’s history with the men’s team dates back to 1990, a few years after EPIC opened. The
Colorado State Rams Hockey Team plays in the American Collegiate Hockey Association (ACHA) Division 1
league and is a founding member of the Western Collegiate Hockey League (WCHL).
EPIC and CSU have maintained a positive relationship for decades. This relationship has included:
Jointly operating weekend hockey games
Tournaments
Fundraising events
Beginner/intermediate/advanced skills classes for credit in health science studies
Intercollegiate figure skating competitions.
Two years ago, the CSU Men’s club hockey team moved its home rink to the NoCo Ice Rink in Windsor. Last
year, the team and coaches requested a return to EPIC as the team’s home rink and wanted to negotiate a
long term use agreement. However, the Division 1 Western Collegiate Hockey League in which the hockey
team plays requires teams have their own locker room at their home rink.
5
Packet Pg. 48
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 2
Last year, EPIC staff identified a possible solution to the locker room issue and began plans to convert
underutilized temporary office space and a small multi use room into a locker room. The CSU team then
raised the necessary funds to remodel the space and transferred the funds to the City. The locker room
construction begins a ten-year commitment between the CSU Campus Recreation Department and the City of
Fort Collins, furthering the positive and progressive partnership between the two entities.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The construction of the new locker room creates no new financial commitment for the City of Fort Collins
beyond application of the funds generated by CSU, deposited with the City for this purpose. CSU would
continue to be entitled to the use of the locker room, assuming continued operation of the EPIC facility
generally.
Long term financial benefits for the City include:
Increased revenue for EPIC through home match ticket sales
Increased profile for EPIC and use of the facility by the CSU students attending events
Hockey Tournament ticket and concession sales
Hockey camp revenues
Reduced labor expense in the City’s Cub Hockey program as a result of volunteer involvement by CSU
team members.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed and unanimously supported a draft of the agreement at its
July 22, 2015, meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, July 22, 2015 excerpt (PDF)
2. Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (PDF)
5
Packet Pg. 49
Parks and Recreation Board
July 22, 2015
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting – July 22, 2015
Recreation Updates
The 4th of July Parade was a success.
Bob informed the Board that John Litel published their article in the Recreator.
Fort Collins Parks and Recreation was awarded the 2015 Playful City USA.
Board supported IGA between CSU/EPIC for locker room assignment for CSU Ram Hockey.
The Farm Celebrated 30th Anniversary on July 25th.
Fencing update – The Fencing program at Northside had seen a steady decline in the past 5 years. With our Youth
Sports Academy (YOSA) partnership with Qdoba the sessions have grown and are continuing to grow.
Park Planning Updates
Kurt said they are in the preliminary concepts for City Park, there’s an emphasis on safety concerns with the pool
and traffic.
The neighbors were pleased with the English Ranch Community Garden.
Arapaho Bend trail is coming along quickly.
Senior Center Garden is open.
Board Work Plan Items
No Updates.
Bicycle Advisory Board Liaison Update
Bruce said there wasn’t a meeting this month. Jessica expressed concerns regarding the increase in bicycle/vehicle
accidents. Brian said there is a meeting regarding this on August 6th at the Agave Room. Brian mentioned that he has been
discussing a 3wheeled bicycle with his daughter for their staff to utilize while traveling between campuses. He feels this
could be a safer alternative for curriers etc. to utilize on the trails rather than on the streets. Marty said there specific
regulations regarding motorized devices on the trails. J.R. mentioned that the wheelbase also has to be a certain width to
accommodate two-way traffic on the trails.
Bullet Points
The Board was updated on the Gardens.
Delynn Coldiron updated the Board on the smoking ban.
Jill Wuertz discussed the Life Cycle Update.
Marty reviewed funding options with the Board.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned 8:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
WtãÇ jÉÜà{
Dawn Worth
Board Attendance
Board Members: Ragan Adams, Mary Carlson, Brian Carroll, Bruce Henderson, Jessica MacMillan, Kelly Smith, Dawn
Theis
Staff: Bob Adams, Delynn Coldiron, JR Schnelzer, Mike Calhoon, Kurt Friesen, Marty Heffernan, Wendy Williams, Jill
Wuertz, Dawn Worth
Guest: None
ATTACHMENT 1
5.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board minutes, July 22, 2015 excerpt (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
ATTACHMENT 2
5.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
5.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
5.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
5.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
5.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
5.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Final Construction Cost with Add-On Options (3803 : EPIC & CSU Club Hockey)
ORDINANCE NO. 150, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE RECREATION FUND
FOR LOCKER RENOVATION AT EDORA POOL ICE CENTER (EPIC)
WHEREAS, between 1990 and 2013, the Colorado State University (“CSU”) Men’s club
hockey team (“CSU Hockey”) used the Edora Pool Ice Center (“EPIC”) ice rink as the team’s
home rink; and
WHEREAS, two years ago, CSU Hockey moved its home rink to the NoCo Ice Rink in
Windsor; and
WHEREAS, last year the CSU Department of Campus Recreation (“CSU Recreation”)
on behalf of CSU Hockey requested a return to EPIC as the team’s home rink and sought to
negotiate a long term use agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Recreation Department has negotiated an intergovernmental
agreement with CSU Recreation regarding the use of EPIC as the home rink for CSU Hockey;
and
WHEREAS, the Division 1 Western Collegiate Hockey League, of which CSU Hockey is
a member, requires that member teams have their own locker room at their home rink; and
WHEREAS, City Council is considering for approval, concurrent with Second Reading
of this Ordinance, a Resolution authorizing the intergovernmental agreement that City staff has
negotiated with CSU Recreation (the “IGA”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the IGA, CSU Hockey has agreed to pay the City the amount of
$57,012 for locker room renovations at EPIC; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this item is to appropriate $57,012 in the Recreation Fund by
CSU Hockey for the construction cost of a locker room at EPIC dedicated for the team’s use; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins 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 revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Recreation Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Packet Pg. 57
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated
revenue in the Recreation Fund the sum of FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND TWELVE DOLLARS
($57,012) for the construction cost of a locker room at Edora Pool Ice Center.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 58
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Program Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund for
the Reimbursement of the Construction of Roadway Improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $1,250,000 from the Street Oversizing Fund Prior Year Reserves to
cover anticipated reimbursements for the construction by developers of oversized portions of arterial and
collector roadway improvements for 2015.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Development has increased in the city and developments have been constructing arterial and collector
roadway segments. In accordance with the City Code, the oversized portion of arterial and collector streets
are reimbursed through the Street Oversizing Program.
City policy requires new developments to pay their fair share of the street network needed to handle the added
traffic they create. All projects impacting traffic pay a Transportation Impact Fee called the Street Oversizing
Fee when they receive a City of Fort Collins building permit.
The Street Oversizing Program collects Street Oversizing Fees from new developments and allocates these
funds for construction of the “oversized” portion of collector and arterial streets in newly developing areas.
Street Oversizing Fees are one-time impact fees used for capital expansion of the transportation network.
In 2015, several larger projects have been completed with development, including:
Timberline Road at Crowne
Trilby Road at Kechter Farm
Suniga Road at Aspen Heights
This appropriation is needed to cover the expense of reimbursing developers for constructing oversized
portions of arterial and collector roadway improvements for 2015.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are sufficient reserves in the Street Oversizing Program to fund these reimbursements.
6
Packet Pg. 59
ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE STREET
OVERSIZING FUND FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, new developments are required to pay their share of the street network
needed to handle the added traffic created by the development; and
WHEREAS, the Street Oversizing Program collects fees from new developments and
allocates these amounts for construction of the oversized portion of collector and arterial streets
in newly developing areas; and
WHEREAS, all projects impacting traffic pay a Transportation Impact Fee called the
Street Oversizing Fee when they receive a City of Fort Collins building permit; and
WHEREAS, Street Oversizing Fees are one-time impact fees used for capital expansion
of the transportation network; and
WHEREAS, depending upon the circumstances, the City may choose to build the
required oversized collector and arterial streets or choose to have developers build such streets
with the City reimbursement for certain construction costs; and
WHEREAS, this appropriation is needed to reimburse developers for construction costs
incurred for oversized arterial and collector roadway segments for 2015; 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 as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves
in the Street Oversizing Fund the total sum of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,250,000) for the reimbursement of street oversizing fees for 2015
to developers who have constructed qualifying oversized portions of collector and arterial streets.
Packet Pg. 60
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 61
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Janet Miller, Assistant Human Resources Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2015, Adopting the 2016 Classified Employees Pay Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to recommend changes to the City's Classified Employee Pay Plan based on
results of the annual market analysis. The City of Fort Collins utilizes a common compensation methodology
to assess jobs, combine them into occupational groups and establish pay range structures. The result of this
work is a Classified Employee Pay Plan which sets the minimum, midpoint and maximum of pay ranges within
each occupational group. A detailed analysis of benchmark data is conducted each year to determine if the
market is moving sufficiently to recommend structure adjustments. Actual employee pay increases are
awarded through a separate administrative process in accordance with the budgeted amount approved by
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins utilizes a common compensation methodology to assess jobs, combine them into
occupational groups and establish pay range structures. The result of this work is a Classified Employee Pay
Plan which sets the minimum, midpoint and maximum of pay ranges within each occupational group. A
detailed analysis of benchmark data is conducted each year to determine if the market has moved sufficiently
to recommend structure adjustments. Based on this analysis, staff is recommending changes to the existing
pay structure and adoption of the Classified Employee Pay Plan.
The City of Fort Collins utilizes a common compensation methodology to identify benchmark jobs, combine like
jobs into occupational groups and establish a pay grade structure. The current pay plan includes seven
occupational groups. Pay grade midpoints within each occupational group are determined upon collecting and
analyzing benchmark data. Each pay grade has a 40% spread from the range minimum to the maximum.
Non-benchmark jobs are evaluated and placed in the Pay Plan using a point-factor system that is calibrated
against benchmark jobs. Positions may be added or moved within the approved pay structure based on
results of an objective job analysis. Actual employee salary increases are determined administratively within
the Council adopted employee pay increase budget.
Police collective bargaining unit positions are included in the Pay Plan to establish pay for such positions
unless and until market data is collected and pay is established according to any approved collective
bargaining agreement.
The following market definition was identified in 2009 to ensure that the City’s Pay Plan aligns closely to the
market area within which the City completes for talent:
7
Packet Pg. 62
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 2
Market
Professional and technical jobs - Colorado Front Range, extending from Fort Collins south to Colorado
Springs. Includes private and public sector data, where available
Administrative support and some labor trade jobs - Northern Colorado. Includes private and public sector data,
where available
A comprehensive market analysis was conducted in 2015. This analysis included collecting actual salary data
for benchmark jobs using validated surveys from Mountain States Employers Council (MSEC) and Colorado
Municipal League (CML). MSEC provides services to employers of all sizes throughout Colorado, Utah and
Arizona.
Data Sources
MSEC Colorado Compensation Survey, private sector organizations with 500+ employees.
MSEC Information Technology Compensation Survey
MSEC Public Employers Compensation Survey
CML compensation reports, public organizations with populations of 50k or greater.
As a result of the market analysis, staff is recommending structure adjustments to Classified Employee Pay
Plan.
Recommended Pay Plan Structure Adjustments
Occupational Group Adjustment
Administrative Support 2.5%
Administrative Professional 2.5%
Technical / Engineering 5%
Operations and Skill Trades I 4%
Operations and Skill Trades II 4%
Information Technology 4%
Protective Services Civilian 1.5%
Skill Based / Step in Range Positions 4%
7
Packet Pg. 63
ORDINANCE NO. 153, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE 2016 CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 2-566 of the City Code requires that the pay plan for all classified
employees of the City shall be established by ordinance of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating employees in a manner that is fair,
competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the annual market analysis conducted by the Human Resources Department
includes public and private employer survey information for Northern Colorado and the Front
Range, providing clear benchmark information for approximately 143 benchmark positions; and
WHEREAS, the pay plan recommended by the City Manager is consistent with City
Council objectives, including the philosophy of establishing pay ranges by using the average
actual salaries for benchmark positions to set the mid-point of pay ranges for those positions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the recommended pay plan is
in the best interests of the City and further believes that the allocation of individual salaries
within the pay plan should be related to employee performance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2016 City of Fort Collins
Classified Employees Pay Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”
and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. That the effective date of the Plan shall commence with the January 4,
2016, pay period.
Section 4. That the City Manager shall fix the compensation levels of all classified
employees within the pay levels established in the Plan except to the extent that the City
Manager determines, due to performance or other extraordinary circumstances, that the pay level
of a particular employee should remain below the minimum or be fixed above the maximum for
that employee’s job title.
Section 5. That the City Manager shall fix the salary for newly-created positions or
positions that are modified due to changes in job duties within the approved pay structure based
on results of an objective job analysis.
Packet Pg. 64
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 65
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
8010 N AP01 $1,477.08 $1,772.50 $2,067.92
8016 N $3,200.33 $3,840.42 $4,480.50
8018 N $38,404.00 $46,085.00 $53,766.00
8020 N
8022 N
8024 N
8026 N
8050 N REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST I AP02 $1,654.35 $1,985.19 $2,316.08
8060 N RECREATION COORDINATOR $3,584.42 $4,301.25 $5,018.17
8062 N PUBLICITY MARKETING SPECIALIST $43,013.00 $51,615.00 $60,218.00
8064 N REVENUE/LICENSING AGENT
8068 N UTILITY FEE/RATE SPECIALIST
8070 Y CURATOR
8075 N ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISOR
8076 N VIDEO PRODUCER
8078 N CASH SYSTEMS COORDINATOR
8084 N WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
8086 N ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM COORD
8088 N FUNDRAISING & MARKETING COORD
8092 N COMM OUTREACH GARDEN COORD
8094 N CIVIC ENGAGEMENT LIAISON
8101 Y BUSINESS OUTREACH SPECIALIST AP03 $1,852.85 $2,223.42 $2,594.00
8103 Y RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROG COORD $4,014.50 $4,817.42 $5,620.33
8104 Y RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROG COORD $48,174.00 $57,809.00 $67,444.00
8105 Y STRATEGIC ACCOUNTS SPECIALIST
8106 Y RECRUITMENT SPECIALIST
8107 Y VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR - MHE
8110 Y WATER CONSERVATION SPECIALIST
8114 Y BUYER
8116 Y HUMAN RESOURCES REPRESENTATIVE
8117 Y BENEFITS ANALYST
8120 Y WELLNESS PROGRAM COORDINATOR
8124 Y CDBG/HOME PROGRAM ADMINSTR
8125 Y AFFORDABLE HOUSNG PROG ADMNSTR
8126 Y NEIGHBORHOOD ADMINISTRATOR
8127 Y NEIGHBORHOOD DEV REV LIAISON
8128 Y MARKETING ANALYST
8130 Y ENVIRO ED/PUBLIC INVOLV COORD
8134 Y FINANCIAL COORDINATOR
8136 Y TECHNICAL PRODUCTION DIRECTOR
8140 Y SALES TAX AUDITOR
8146 Y PUBLIC RELATIONS COORDINATOR
8150 Y BUDGET ANALYST
8160 N DEPUTY CITY CLERK
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS ANALYST
TRAVEL TRAINING COORDINATOR
JOB TITLE
8162 Y COMM MEDIATION PROG COORD
8164 Y SALES MANAGER
8166 Y SYSTEMS & PERFORMANCE ANALYST
8054 N GRAPHICS SPECIALIST
8201 Y GRANTS DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST AP04 $2,075.15 $2,490.19 $2,905.23
8203 Y PUBLIC RELTNS & PROGRMMG COORD $4,496.17 $5,395.42 $6,294.67
8204 Y THERAPEUTIC RECREATION SPEC $53,954.00 $64,745.00 $75,536.00
8205 Y GRANTS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATR
8207 Y COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
8209 Y VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR
8211 Y WELLNESS PROGRAM MANAGER
8213 Y SERVICE PLANNER
8216 Y ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
8217 Y SAFETY, SECURITY, TRAINING MGR
8218 Y SR BUDGET ANALYST
8224 Y RECREATION SUPERVISOR
8226 Y CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK
8228 Y TRANSPORTATION PLANNER
8230 Y CITY PLANNER
8232 Y FINANCIAL ANALYST
8236 Y KEY ACCOUNTS REP
8237 Y COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SPECIALST
8240 Y REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST III
8244 Y ASSISTANT MUSEUM DIRECTOR
8245 Y CUST SUPPORT BUSINESS ANALYST
8247 Y HRIS ANALYST
8250 Y BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST
8254 Y REC FINANCE/BUSINESS ANALYST
8257 Y SR COMMUNICATIONS & MKTG SPEC
8260 Y COMPENSATION ANALYST
8262 Y SR SALES TAX AUDITOR
8267 Y VISUAL ARTS ADMINISTRATOR
8268 Y ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ANALYST
8272 Y TRANSIT PLANNER
8274 Y UTILITIES EDUCATION SUPERVISOR
8276 Y SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY SPEC
8102 Y ACCOUNTANT
8305 Y SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR AP05 $2,324.19 $2,789.04 $3,253.88
8307 Y SR URBAN FORESTER $5,035.75 $6,042.92 $7,050.08
8308 Y SR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER $60,429.00 $72,515.00 $84,601.00
8309 Y PAYROLL/ACCTS PAYABLE SUPV
8310 Y PERFORMING ARTS CENTER MGR
8312 Y SR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER
8334 Y INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATOR
8336 Y COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER
8338 Y CUSTOMER AND ADMIN SVCS MGR
8342 Y UTILITIES CUST SUPPORT MANAGER
8347 Y COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING MGR
8349 Y WATER CONSERVATION MGR
8354 Y PARKS FINANCE SUPERVISOR
8356 Y HEALTH AND SAFETY SPECIALIST
8360 Y FINANCIAL & POLICY ANALYST
8362 Y UTILITIES CUSTOMER FINANCE MGR
8366 Y CREATIVE DIRECTOR
8368 Y MGR OF GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK
a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
8372 Y ECONOMIC HEALTH ANALYST
8374 Y SR HRIS/BENEFITS ANALYST
8378 Y CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS MANAGER
8380 Y COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MANAGER
8202 Y SR BUYER
8206 Y HUMAN RESOURCES PARTNER
8214 Y SR ACCOUNTANT
4452 Y PAYROLL/ACCTS PAYABLE SUPV
8400 Y RISK MANAGER AP06 $2,603.12 $3,123.73 $3,644.35
8403 Y HISTORIC PRESERVATION MANAGER $5,640.08 $6,768.08 $7,896.08
8404 Y CHIEF PLANNER $67,681.00 $81,217.00 $94,753.00
8405 Y SR CITY PLANNER / ZONING
8407 Y BIKES PROGRAM MANAGER
8408 Y UTILITY RATE ANALYST
8409 Y ECON POLICY & PROJECT MGR
8410 Y RECREATION AREA MANAGER
8411 Y COMMUNICATIONS & ADMIN MANAGER
8413 Y PERFORMANCE EXCELLNCE PROG MGR
8415 Y OPERATIONS MANAGER
8416 Y POLICE PUBLIC RELATIONS MGR
8417 Y UTILITIES FINANCIAL OPS MGR
8418 Y REAL ESTATE SERVICES MANAGER
8419 Y SERVICE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
8424 Y LEARNING & ORG DEV MANAGER
8426 Y IT FINANCIAL AND POLICY MGR
8432 Y CABLE TELEVISION MANAGER
8434 Y ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER
8436 Y POLICY AND PROJECT MANAGER
8318 Y SR CITY PLANNER
8451 Y CONTROLLER AP07 $2,863.38 $3,436.08 $4,008.73
8452 Y NATURAL AREAS MANAGER $6,204.00 $7,444.83 $8,685.58
8455 Y MUSEUM DIRECTOR $74,448.00 $89,338.00 $104,227.00
8458 Y REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MANAGER
8462 Y MANAGER OF PARKS
8464 Y NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MANAGER
8466 Y STRATEGIC FINANCE MANAGER
8472 Y TOTAL REWARDS MANAGER AP08 $3,149.77 $3,779.73 $4,409.69
8476 Y PLANNING MANAGER $6,824.50 $8,189.42 $9,554.33
8478 Y HR BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY MGR $81,894.00 $98,273.00 $114,652.00
AP09 $3,464.73 $4,157.69 $4,850.62
$7,506.92 $9,008.33 $10,509.67
$90,083.00 $108,100.00 $126,116.00
8540 Y ASST HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AP10 $3,637.96 $4,365.54 $5,093.15
$7,882.25 $9,458.67 $11,035.17
$94,587.00 $113,504.00 $132,422.00
a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
AS01 $871.00 $1,045.19 $1,219.38
$1,887.17 $2,264.58 $2,642.00
$22,646.00 $27,175.00 $31,704.00
4012 N PARKING ATTENDANT AS02 $958.08 $1,149.69 $1,341.31
4014 N COURT BALIFF $2,075.83 $2,491.00 $2,906.17
$24,910.00 $29,892.00 $34,874.00
4100 N ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK I AS03 $1,073.08 $1,287.69 $1,502.31
4102 N ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT I $2,325.00 $2,790.00 $3,255.00
$27,900.00 $33,480.00 $39,060.00
4150 N FACILITIES SCHEDULER AS04 $1,201.85 $1,442.19 $1,682.58
4152 N DEPUTY COURT CLERK I $2,604.00 $3,124.75 $3,645.58
4156 N ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT II $31,248.00 $37,497.00 $43,747.00
4158 N ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK II
4160 N CUSTOMER SERVICE REP I
4200 N SERVICE SCHEDULE COORD AS05 $1,332.00 $1,586.38 $1,850.81
4202 N ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE $2,864.33 $3,437.17 $4,010.08
4203 N ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT $34,372.00 $41,246.00 $48,121.00
4206 N LEGAL SECRETARY
4208 N DEPUTY COURT CLERK II
4211 N UTILITY CASHIER
4212 N ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REP
4214 N CUSTOMER SERVICE REP II
4215 N UTILITY BILLING REPRESENTATIVE
4216 N RECREATION SERVICES REP
4217 N DOCUMENT IMAGING CLERK
4222 N ASST BOX OFFICE COORDINATOR
4226 N PERSONNEL TECHNICIAN
4230 N RECORDS MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR
4232 N SALES TAX TECHNICIAN
4246 N PERSONNEL SPECIALIST AS06 $1,454.19 $1,745.04 $2,035.88
4248 N DOT COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR $3,150.75 $3,780.92 $4,411.08
4250 N PAYROLL SPECIALIST $37,809.00 $45,371.00 $52,933.00
4252 N RIGHT OF WAY TECHNICIAN
4256 N LEGAL ASSISTANT
4258 N RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNICIAN
4260 N ADMIN TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST
4266 N ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
4274 N CREDIT/COLLECTIONS REP
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
4276 N FINANCIAL TECHNICIAN
4280 N LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE REP
4290 N EVENTS COORDINATOR
4292 N DISPATCH/SCHEDULER
4360 N ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SUPV AS07 $1,599.62 $1,919.54 $2,239.46
4362 N SCHEDULING SUPERVISOR $3,465.83 $4,159.00 $4,852.17
4364 N BOX OFFICE COORDINATOR $41,590.00 $49,908.00 $58,226.00
4366 N BENEFITS SPECIALIST
4368 N SR LEGAL ASSISTANT
4384 N DISPATCH/SCHEDULER SUPERVISOR
4386 N TRANSFORT CUST SERVICE SUPV
4250 N PAYROLL SPECIALIST II
4272 N EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASST
4286 N BLDG & DEV REVIEW TECH
4402 N LEGAL EXEC ADMIN ASST AS08 $1,759.58 $2,111.50 $2,463.42
4404 Y UTILITY BILLING SUPERVISOR $3,812.42 $4,574.92 $5,337.42
4406 N BLDG & DEV REVIEW TECH SUPV $45,749.00 $54,899.00 $64,049.00
4410 Y UTILITY SERVICES COORDINATOR
4416 N UTILITIES ADMIN SERVICES SUPV
4418 N PARALEGAL
4352 N MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR AS09 $1,935.54 $2,322.65 $2,709.77
$4,193.67 $5,032.42 $5,871.17
$50,324.00 $60,389.00 $70,454.00
4454 Y EXEC ASST TO THE CITY MGR AS10 $2,129.08 $2,554.88 $2,980.69
$4,613.00 $5,535.58 $6,458.17
$55,356.00 $66,427.00 $77,498.00
a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
IT01 $1,231.92 $1,478.31 $1,724.69
$2,669.17 $3,203.00 $3,736.83
$32,030.00 $38,436.00 $44,842.00
IT02 $1,355.12 $1,626.15 $1,897.15
$2,936.08 $3,523.33 $4,110.50
$35,223.00 $42,280.00 $49,326.00
IT03 $1,520.42 $1,824.54 $2,128.65
$3,294.25 $3,953.17 $4,612.08
$39,531.00 $47,438.00 $55,345.00
5511 N PC HARDWR/SOFTWRE SPECIALIST IT04 $1,702.88 $2,043.46 $2,384.04
5517 N GIS MAPPING SPECIALIST $3,689.58 $4,427.50 $5,165.42
$44,275.00 $53,130.00 $61,985.00
5512 N LEAD PC HARDWR/SOFTWRE SPEC IT05 $1,907.23 $2,288.69 $2,670.12
$4,132.33 $4,958.83 $5,785.25
$49,588.00 $59,506.00 $69,423.00
5525 Y GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST IT06 $2,136.12 $2,563.35 $2,990.58
5526 Y CONTROL & DATA SYS SPECIALIST $4,628.25 $5,553.92 $6,479.58
$55,539.00 $66,647.00 $77,755.00
5514 Y TELECOM SYS & SVCS ADMNISTRTOR IT07 $2,391.46 $2,869.77 $3,348.04
5535 Y SR GIS PROGRAMMER ANALYST $5,181.50 $6,217.83 $7,254.08
5536 Y TELECOM TECHNICAL SPECIALIST $62,178.00 $74,614.00 $87,049.00
5537 Y SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
5538 Y ERP ANALYST
5545 Y WEB PROGRAMMER ANALYST
5540 Y DATABASE ANALYST IT08 $2,631.69 $3,158.04 $3,684.38
5543 Y TELECOM SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR $5,702.00 $6,842.42 $7,982.83
5546 Y LAN AND SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR $68,424.00 $82,109.00 $95,794.00
5550 Y SYSTEMS ANALYST
5551 Y POLICE SYSTEMS ANALYST
5552 Y SYS INTEGRATOR/NETWK ADMINIST
5553 Y INFORMATION SERVICES MANAGER IT09 $2,894.88 $3,473.85 $4,052.85
5558 Y CONTROL & DATA SYSTEMS ENG $6,272.25 $7,526.67 $8,781.17
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
5561 Y NETWORK ADMINISTRATION MGR $75,267.00 $90,320.00 $105,374.00
5562 Y SR DATABASE ANALYST
5564 Y SR SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
5566 Y SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATION MGR
5577 Y GIS MANAGER
5565 Y SR NETWORK ENGINEER IT10 $3,184.35 $3,821.23 $4,458.08
5571 Y APPLICATION SVCS MGR-UTILITIES $6,899.42 $8,279.33 $9,659.17
5573 Y SR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR $82,793.00 $99,352.00 $115,910.00
5579 Y SR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
5575 Y INFORMATION SECURITY ARCHITECT IT11 $3,343.58 $4,012.27 $4,681.00
5578 Y STRATEGIC PROJECTS MANAGER $7,244.42 $8,693.25 $10,142.17
$86,933.00 $104,319.00 $121,706.00
5574 Y IT DIR-INFRASTRUCTURE SVS IT12 $3,510.73 $4,212.88 $4,915.04
5576 Y IT DIRECTOR - APPLICATION SVCS $7,606.58 $9,127.92 $10,649.25
$91,279.00 $109,535.00 $127,791.00
a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
TECH/ENGINEERING
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
6010 N LABORATORY ASSISTANT TE01 $1,261.00 $1,513.19 $1,765.35
$2,732.17 $3,278.58 $3,824.92
$32,786.00 $39,343.00 $45,899.00
6020 N TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR TE02 $1,412.27 $1,694.73 $1,977.19
$3,059.92 $3,671.92 $4,283.92
$36,719.00 $44,063.00 $51,407.00
6100 N LAND SURVEY TECHNICIAN TE03 $1,581.77 $1,898.12 $2,214.46
$3,427.17 $4,112.58 $4,798.00
$41,126.00 $49,351.00 $57,576.00
6150 N TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECH I TE04 $1,771.58 $2,125.88 $2,480.23
6152 N ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN $3,838.42 $4,606.08 $5,373.83
6153 Y FACILITIES PLANNER/DESIGNER $46,061.00 $55,273.00 $64,486.00
6158 N CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL TECH
6202 N CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR TE05 $1,984.15 $2,381.00 $2,777.81
6204 N SURVEY PARTY CHIEF $4,299.00 $5,158.83 $6,018.58
6206 N TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECH II $51,588.00 $61,906.00 $72,223.00
6246 N WATERSHED TECHNICIAN
6250 N SR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR TE06 $2,222.27 $2,666.73 $3,111.19
6252 N APPRENTICE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $4,814.92 $5,777.92 $6,740.92
6253 N CHEMIST $57,779.00 $69,335.00 $80,891.00
6258 N WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL SPEC
6262 N INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT SPEC
6274 N PARKS PROJECT MANAGER
6276 N TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECH III
6307 Y ELECTRIC UTILITY PROJECT MGR TE07 $2,444.50 $2,933.38 $3,422.31
6310 Y CIVIL ENGINEER I $5,296.42 $6,355.67 $7,415.00
6314 Y WATERSHED SPECIALIST $63,557.00 $76,268.00 $88,980.00
6316 Y LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
6318 Y UTILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR
6319 N LAB QUALITY ASSURANCE COORD
6320 Y ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGER
6322 Y ENERGY SERVICES ENGINEER
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in Open Range Structure
a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
6401 Y LABORATORY SUPERVISOR TE08 $2,688.96 $3,226.73 $3,764.54
6402 Y POLLUTION CONTROL SERVICE SUPV $5,826.08 $6,991.25 $8,156.50
6403 Y ELECTRICAL ENGINEER I $69,913.00 $83,895.00 $97,878.00
6406 Y TRAFFIC SYSTEMS ENGINEER
6407 Y TRAFFIC SYSTMS ENG/SUPV
6409 Y SR ELEC UTIL PROJ MGR
6410 Y CIVIL ENGINEER II
6412 Y CHIEF SURVEYOR
6414 Y ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY SPEC
6415 Y ENERGY MANAGER
6418 Y FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER
6420 Y WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
6426 Y CHIEF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
6430 Y SR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
6432 Y SYSTEMS AND ENERGY MANAGER
6504 Y CIVIL ENGINEER III TE09 $2,957.85 $3,380.38 $4,141.00
6505 Y WATER UTIL FIELD OPNS SUPNTNDT $6,408.67 $7,324.17 $8,972.17
6508 Y SR ENERGY SERVICES ENGINEER $76,904.00 $87,890.00 $107,666.00
6514 Y SPECIAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
6515 Y ASST CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
6516 Y SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER
6522 Y ASSET MANAGER
6524 Y UTIL HLTH SAFTY & SECURTY MGR
6526 Y CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
6528 Y PAVEMENT ENGINEER
6530 Y PROJECT ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR
6532 Y SR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER TE10 $3,253.62 $3,904.35 $4,555.08
6534 Y PROCESS/SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR $7,049.50 $8,459.42 $9,869.33
6538 Y DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER $84,594.00 $101,513.00 $118,432.00
6540 Y PAVEMENT MGMT PROGRAM MGR
6542 Y STREET OVERSIZING PROGRAM MGR
6546 Y ASST OPERATIONS SERVICES DIR
6548 Y ENERGY SERVICES MANAGER
6554 Y WATER PRODUCTION MANAGER TE11 $3,416.31 $4,099.58 $4,782.85
6556 Y ENVIRONMENTAL REG AFFAIRS MGR $7,402.00 $8,882.42 $10,362.83
6558 Y MGR OF CAP PRJCTS/CITY ENGNEER $ 88,824.00 $106,589.00 $124,354.00
6560 Y WATER RESOURCES MANAGER
6562 Y WATER SYSTEMS ENG MGR
6564 Y WATER RECLAM / BIOSOLIDS MGR
8958 Y CHIEF ENGINEER
8961 Y ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER
8968 Y ELECTRIC SYS DESIGN AND IT MGR TE12 $3,587.08 $4,304.50 $5,021.92
8970 Y STANDARDS ENGINEERING MGR $7,772.00 $9,326.42 $10,880.83
$ 93,264.00 $111,917.00 $130,570.00
a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
TECH/ENGINEERING
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
STE01 $1,260.96 $1,513.15 $1,765.35
$2,732.08 $3,278.50 $3,824.92
$ 32,785.00 $39,342.00 $45,899.00
STE02 $1,412.27 $1,694.73 $1,977.19
$3,059.92 $3,671.92 $4,283.92
$ 36,719.00 $44,063.00 $51,407.00
STE03 $1,581.77 $1,898.12 $2,214.46
$3,427.17 $4,112.58 $4,798.00
$ 41,126.00 $49,351.00 $57,576.00
STE04 $1,771.58 $2,125.88 $2,480.19
$3,838.42 $4,606.08 $5,373.75
$ 46,061.00 $55,273.00 $64,485.00
STE05 $1,984.15 $2,381.00 $2,777.81
$4,299.00 $5,158.83 $6,018.58
$ 51,588.00 $61,906.00 $72,223.00
6254 N PLANS ANALYST STE06 $2,201.08 $2,641.31 $3,081.50
$4,769.00 $5,722.83 $6,676.58
$ 57,228.00 $68,674.00 $80,119.00
STE07 $2,444.50 $2,933.38 $3,422.31
$5,296.42 $6,355.67 $7,415.00
$ 63,557.00 $76,268.00 $88,980.00
ST08 $2,688.96 $3,226.73 $3,764.54
$5,826.08 $6,991.25 $8,156.50
$ 69,913.00 $83,895.00 $97,878.00
STE09 $2,957.85 $3,549.42 $4,141.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in a Step Plan Structure
a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
$6,408.67 $7,690.42 $8,972.17
$ 76,904.00 $92,285.00 $107,666.00
STE10 $3,253.62 $4,099.58 $4,782.85
$7,049.50 $8,882.42 $10,362.83
$ 84,594.00 $106,589.00 $124,354.00
a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE I
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
OSA01 $909.08 $1,090.88 $1,272.69
$1,969.67 $2,363.58 $2,757.50
$ 23,636.00 $28,363.00 $33,090.00
7076 N BUS CLEANER OSA02 $988.58 $1,186.31 $1,384.00
$2,141.92 $2,570.33 $2,998.67
$ 25,703.00 $30,844.00 $35,984.00
7086 N TRANSPORTATION MAINT WORKER OSA03 $1,107.23 $1,328.69 $1,550.12
$2,399.00 $2,878.83 $3,358.58
$ 28,788.00 $34,546.00 $40,303.00
7110 N METER READER OSA04 $1,240.12 $1,488.12 $1,736.15
7112 N WAREHOUSE WORKER $2,686.92 $3,224.25 $3,761.67
7114 N UTILITY GROUNDS TECHNICIAN $ 32,243.00 $38,691.00 $45,140.00
7118 N EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE WORKER
7120 N FACILITY ASSISTANT
7124 N FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER
7150 N SR WAREHOUSE WORKER OSA05 $1,388.96 $1,666.73 $1,944.54
7156 N STREETS EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I $3,009.42 $3,611.25 $4,213.17
7158 N TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I $ 36,113.00 $43,335.00 $50,558.00
7162 N PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
7166 N BUS OPERATOR
7168 N GRAFFITI ABATEMENT OFFICER
7122 N PARTS ASSISTANT
7250 N FARM TECHNICIAN OSA06 $1,555.62 $1,866.73 $2,177.85
7252 N FACILITY MAINTENANCE TECH $3,370.50 $4,044.58 $4,718.67
7254 N FIELD/TRAINING COORDINATOR $ 40,446.00 $48,535.00 $56,624.00
7256 N FIELD/TRAINING COORDINATOR
7257 N STREETS EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II
7260 N TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECH I
7264 N STREET SIGN TECHNICIAN
7270 N COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR
7272 N UTILITY FACILITY LOCATOR
7276 N UTILITY FACILITY LOCATOR
7280 N MAINTENANCE TECH - BUILDING
7284 N MAINTENANCE TECH - BUILDING
7321 N FACILITIES LEAD LOCATOR OSA07 $1,703.38 $2,044.04 $2,384.73
7323 N FORESTRY TECHNICIAN $3,690.67 $4,428.75 $5,166.92
7325 N TRANSIT SERVICES OFFICER $44,288.00 $53,145.00 $62,003.00
7327 N FORESTRY SPECIALIST
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in Open Range Structure
a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
7328 N FLEET SPECIALIST
7330 N TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECH II
7331 N SR CODE COMPLNCE INSP/OCCUPNCY
7332 N NATURAL AREAS TECHNICIAN
7334 N EXHIBITS TECHNICIAN
7336 N MAINTENANCE PLANNER/SCHEDULER
7338 N MAINT TECH-LANDSCAPE
7346 N RESOURCE RECOVERY SPECIALIST
7352 N AQUATICS MAINTENANCE TECH
7358 N CUSTODIAL CONTRACT ADMN
7365 N COURT SECURITY OFFICER
7366 N ROAD SUPERVISOR
7368 N GRAFFITI ABATEMENT COORDINATOR
7369 N PARKING FACILITIES SUPERVISOR
7398 N PARKING FACILITIES SUPERVISOR
7400 N INSTRUMENT/ELECTRIC TECH OSA08 $1,873.73 $2,248.46 $2,623.23
7402 N ZONING INSPECTOR $4,059.75 $4,871.67 $5,683.67
7405 N WATER SUPPLY CONTROLLER $48,717.00 $58,460.00 $68,204.00
7418 N MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST
7422 N METER READER SUPERVISOR
7424 N CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR
7426 N MATERIAL CONTROL SUPERVISOR
7428 N BLDG CONTROL SYSTEM MAINT SPEC
7431 N AQUATICS MAINTENANCE LEAD
7432 N PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR
7436 N UTILTY BLDG/HVAC MTNANCE COORD
7438 N FORSTRY CREW LEADR-SM&MED TREE
7440 N FORSTRY CREW LEADR-LARGE TREES
7356 N MAINTENANCE TECH-HVAC
7350 N ASST SUPERINTENDENT-GOLF
7460 N ELEC INSTRUMENT & CONTROL SPEC OSA09 $2,061.08 $2,473.31 $2,885.50
7463 N CREW CHIEF $4,465.67 $5,358.83 $6,251.92
7466 N BUILDING MAINTENANCE SPVSR $53,588.00 $64,306.00 $75,023.00
7470 N MASTER ELECTRICIAN
7477 N FORESTRY CREW CHIEF
7480 N FACILITIES LOCATE SUPERVISOR
7484 N PARTS SUPERVISOR
7486 N LEAD MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST
7490 N RESOURCE RECOVERY CHIEF
7492 N EQUIPMENT OPERATOR SPECIALIST
7430 N HVAC LEAD
7519 N FORESTRY SUPERVISOR OSA10 $2,267.23 $2,720.65 $3,174.12
7521 N FACILITIES MAINT SUPERINTENDNT $4,912.33 $5,894.75 $6,877.25
7522 N WATER SVCS SAFETY & TRNG SUPV $58,948.00 $70,737.00 $82,527.00
7524 N TECHNICAL SVCS SUPV-WASTEWATER
7525 N TECHNICAL SVCS SUPV-WTR TRTMNT
7526 N WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISOR
7531 N ZONING SUPERVISOR
7532 N PROCESS CONTROL SUPERVISOR
7534 N PARKS SUPERVISOR
7540 N INSTRUMENT/ELECTRICAL SPVSR
7461 N COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR
7478 N SUPERINTENDENT OF GOLF
a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
7482 N SHOP SUPERVISOR
OSA11 $2,482.62 $2,979.12 $3,475.65
$5,379.00 $6,454.75 $7,530.58
$64,548.00 $77,457.00 $90,367.00
7560 N WATER TRTMNT PLANT SUPERINTNDT OSA12 $2,730.85 $3,277.00 $3,823.19
$5,916.83 $7,100.17 $8,283.58
$71,002.00 $85,202.00 $99,403.00
a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE I
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
SOSA01 $909.08 $1,090.88 $1,272.69
$1,969.67 $2,363.58 $2,757.50
$23,636.00 $28,363.00 $33,090.00
SOSA02 $988.58 $1,186.31 $1,384.00
$2,141.92 $2,570.33 $2,998.67
$25,703.00 $30,844.00 $35,984.00
SOSA03 $1,107.23 $1,328.69 $1,550.12
$2,399.00 $2,878.83 $3,358.58
$28,788.00 $34,546.00 $40,303.00
SOSA04 $1,240.12 $1,488.12 $1,736.15
$2,686.92 $3,224.25 $3,761.67
$32,243.00 $38,691.00 $45,140.00
SOSA05 $1,388.96 $1,666.73 $1,944.54
$3,009.42 $3,611.25 $4,213.17
$36,113.00 $43,335.00 $50,558.00
7268 N WATER UTILITY MAINT OPERATOR SOSA06 $1,555.62 $1,866.73 $2,177.85
7286 N WATER METER TECHNICIAN $3,370.50 $4,044.58 $4,718.67
7290 N WATER METER SYSTEMS OPERATOR $40,446.00 $48,535.00 $56,624.00
7345 N MECHANIC SOSA07 $1,703.38 $2,044.04 $2,384.73
7397 N NATURAL AREAS TRAILS RANGER $3,690.67 $4,428.75 $5,166.92
$44,288.00 $53,145.00 $62,003.00
7406 N LEAD MECHANIC SOSA08 $1,873.73 $2,248.46 $2,623.23
7409 N LEAD RANGER $4,059.75 $4,871.67 $5,683.67
7410 N BUILDING INSPECTOR $48,717.00 $58,460.00 $68,204.00
7416 N PLANT OPERATOR
7465 N LEAD BUILDING INSPECTOR SOSA09 $2,061.08 $2,473.31 $2,885.50
7472 N LEAD PLANT OPERATOR $4,465.67 $5,358.83 $6,251.92
$53,588.00 $64,306.00 $75,023.00
SOSA10 $2,267.23 $2,720.65 $3,174.12
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in a Step Plan Structure
a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
$4,912.33 $5,894.75 $6,877.25
$58,948.00 $70,737.00 $82,527.00
a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE II
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
OSB01 $1,195.00 $1,434.00 $1,673.00
$2,589.17 $3,107.00 $3,624.83
$31,070.00 $37,284.00 $43,498.00
OSB02 $1,314.46 $1,577.35 $1,840.23
$2,848.00 $3,417.58 $3,987.17
$34,176.00 $41,011.00 $47,846.00
OSB03 $1,445.92 $1,735.12 $2,024.31
$3,132.83 $3,759.42 $4,386.00
$37,594.00 $45,113.00 $52,632.00
OBS04 $1,590.54 $1,908.65 $2,226.77
$3,446.17 $4,135.42 $4,824.67
$41,354.00 $49,625.00 $57,896.00
OSB05 $1,979.96 $2,375.96 $2,771.96
$4,289.92 $5,147.92 $6,005.92
$51,479.00 $61,775.00 $72,071.00
7852 N SR ELECTRIC SYSTEMS OPERATOR OSB07 $2,374.00 $2,848.81 $3,323.62
$5,143.67 $6,172.42 $7,201.17
$61,724.00 $74,069.00 $86,414.00
7900 N SERVICES CREW CHIEF OSB08 $2,599.54 $3,119.46 $3,639.35
7902 N ELECTRIC DIST SAFETY SUPV $5,632.33 $6,758.83 $7,885.25
7904 N SUPERVISORY ELECT SYS OPERATOR $67,588.00 $81,106.00 $94,623.00
7906 N METER SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR
7950 N SUPERVISORY CREW CHIEF OSB09 $2,846.54 $3,415.85 $3,985.15
$6,167.50 $7,401.00 $8,634.50
$74,010.00 $88,812.00 $103,614.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in Open Range Structure
a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE II
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
SOSB03 $1,445.92 $1,735.12 $2,024.31
$3,132.83 $3,759.42 $4,386.00
$37,594.00 $45,113.00 $52,632.00
7740 N LINE GROUNDWORKER SOSB04 $1,699.19 $2,039.04 $2,378.88
$3,681.58 $4,417.92 $5,154.25
$44,179.00 $53,015.00 $61,851.00
7760 N ELECTRIC METER TECH SOSB05 $1,979.96 $2,375.96 $2,771.96
$4,289.92 $5,147.92 $6,005.92
$51,479.00 $61,775.00 $72,071.00
7804 N ELECTRIC SYSTEMS OPERATOR SOSB06 $2,168.04 $2,601.65 $3,035.27
7806 N ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN I $4,697.42 $5,636.92 $6,576.42
7808 N LINEWORKER EQUIPMENT SPEC $56,369.00 $67,643.00 $78,917.00
7850 N ELECTRICAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR SOSB07 $2,374.00 $2,848.81 $3,323.62
7860 N ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN II $5,143.67 $6,172.42 $7,201.17
7862 N SUBSTATION SPECIALIST $61,724.00 $74,069.00 $86,414.00
7864 N ELECTRIC LINEWORKER
7908 N LINE CREW CHIEF SOSB08 $2,599.54 $3,119.46 $3,639.35
7910 N SPECIAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR $5,632.33 $6,758.83 $7,885.25
7912 N LINE EQUIPMENT CREW CHIEF $67,588.00 $81,106.00 $94,623.00
7952 N SUBSTATION ELEC/COMM SPEC SOSB09 $2,846.54 $3,415.85 $3,985.15
$6,167.50 $7,401.00 $8,634.50
$74,010.00 $88,812.00 $103,614.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in a Step Plan Structure
a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
PROTECT SERVICES CIVILIAN
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
9030 N WARRANTS TECHNICIAN PSA03 $1,287.88 $1,545.46 $1,803.04
$2,790.42 $3,348.50 $3,906.58
$33,485.00 $40,182.00 $46,879.00
9050 N POLICE SUPPLY TECHNICIAN PSA04 $1,442.42 $1,730.92 $2,019.38
$3,125.25 $3,750.33 $4,375.33
$37,503.00 $45,004.00 $52,504.00
9064 N POLICE REPORT SPECIALIST PSA05 $1,615.50 $1,938.62 $2,261.69
9065 N PROPERTY EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN $3,500.25 $4,200.33 $4,900.33
9066 N VICTIM ADVOCATE $42,003.00 $50,404.00 $58,804.00
9067 N FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS SPECIALIS
9080 N POLICE INVESTIGATIVE AIDE PSA06 $1,777.04 $2,132.46 $2,487.85
9082 N POLICE SERVICES TECHNICIAN $3,850.25 $4,620.33 $5,390.33
$46,203.00 $55,444.00 $64,684.00
9093 N CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST PSA07 $1,954.77 $2,345.73 $2,736.69
9095 N CRIME ANALYST $4,235.33 $5,082.42 $5,929.50
$50,824.00 $60,989.00 $71,154.00
9123 N TECHNICAL SERVICES SPECIALIST PSA08 $2,150.23 $2,580.27 $3,010.31
9126 N VICTIM SERVICES SUPERVISOR $4,658.83 $5,590.58 $6,522.33
9128 N POLICE RECORDS SUPERVISOR $55,906.00 $67,087.00 $78,268.00
9130 N PROPERTY / EVIDENCE SUPERVISOR
PSA09 $2,365.31 $2,838.35 $3,311.42
$5,124.83 $6,149.75 $7,174.75
$61,498.00 $73,797.00 $86,097.00
9150 Y RECORDS MANAGER PSA10 $2,483.54 $2,980.23 $3,476.96
9160 Y POLICE TECHNICAL PROJECTS MGR $5,381.00 $6,457.17 $7,533.42
$64,572.00 $77,486.00 $90,401.00
9170 Y POLICE PSYCHOLOGIST PSA11 $2,607.69 $3,129.23 $3,650.77
$5,650.00 $6,780.00 $7,910.00
$67,800.00 $81,360.00 $94,920.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in Open Range Structure
a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
PROTECTIVE SERVICES CIVILIAN
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
SPSA01 $1,035.62 $1,242.73 $1,449.85
$2,243.83 $2,692.58 $3,141.33
$26,926.00 $32,311.00 $37,696.00
SPSA02 $1,139.15 $1,366.96 $1,594.81
$2,468.17 $2,961.75 $3,455.42
$29,618.00 $35,541.00 $41,465.00
SPSA03 $1,319.62 $1,583.54 $1,847.46
$2,859.17 $3,431.00 $4,002.83
$34,310.00 $41,172.00 $48,034.00
SPSA04 $1,478.00 $1,773.58 $2,069.19
$3,202.33 $3,842.75 $4,483.25
$38,428.00 $46,113.00 $53,799.00
SPSA05 $1,655.31 $1,986.35 $2,549.19
$3,586.50 $4,303.75 $5,523.25
$43,038.00 $51,645.00 $66,279.00
SPSA06 $1,820.85 $2,185.00 $2,549.19
$3,945.17 $4,734.17 $5,523.25
$47,342.00 $56,810.00 $66,279.00
SPSA07 $2,002.96 $2,403.54 $2,804.15
$4,339.75 $5,207.67 $6,075.67
$52,077.00 $62,492.00 $72,908.00
9102 Y CRIMINALIST SPSA08 $2,203.19 $2,643.85 $3,084.46
$4,773.58 $5,728.33 $6,683.00
$57,283.00 $68,740.00 $80,196.00
SPSA09 $2,423.54 $2,908.23 $3,392.96
$5,251.00 $6,301.17 $7,351.42
$63,012.00 $75,614.00 $88,217.00
SPSA10 $2,544.73 $3,053.65 $3,562.62
$5,513.58 $6,616.25 $7,719.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Positions Paid in a Step Plan Structure
a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
$66,163.00 $79,395.00 $92,628.00
a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
PROTECTIVE SERVICES CIVILIAN
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
9060 N EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCHER CBU01 $1,678.46 $1,981.62 $2,284.73
$3,636.67 $4,293.50 $4,950.25
$43,640.00 $51,522.00 $59,403.00
9120 N EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH SUPV CBU03 $2,469.35 $2,687.92 $2,906.46
$5,350.25 $5,823.83 $6,297.33
$64,203.00 $69,886.00 $75,568.00
9145 Y EMERGENCY SERVICES COMM MGR CBU04 $3,800.65 $4,068.15 $4,335.62
$8,234.75 $8,814.33 $9,393.83
$98,817.00 $105,772.00 $112,726.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Collective Bargaining Unit Positions
If the City Council approves a collective bargaining agreement, adjustments
to the pay ranges to these positions in the Collective Bargaining Unit may be
necessary and will be submitted to City Council for approval by ordinance.
a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
PROTECTIVE SERVICES CIVILIAN
JOB TYPE EXEMPT Y/N PAY GRADE
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BIWEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
MAXIMUM
9210 N COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CBU05 $1,812.42 $2,139.62 $2,466.77
$3,926.92 $4,635.83 $5,344.67
$47,123.00 $55,630.00 $64,136.00
9220 N POLICE OFFICER CBU06 $2,215.65 $2,615.54 $3,015.42
$4,800.58 $5,667.00 $6,533.42
$57,607.00 $68,004.00 $78,401.00
9230 N SERGEANT CBU07 $3,297.58 $3,524.04 $3,750.50
$7,144.75 $7,635.42 $8,126.08
$85,737.00 $91,625.00 $97,513.00
9240 Y POLICE LIUTENANT CBU08 $4,057.23 $4,230.62 $4,403.96
$8,790.67 $9,166.33 $9,541.92
$105,488.00 $109,996.00 $114,503.00
9251 Y POLICE DEPUTY CHIEF PSB09 $4,950.81 $5,116.15 $5,281.50
9252 Y POLICE ASSISTANT CHIEF $10,726.75 $11,085.00 $11,443.25
$128,721.00 $133,020.00 $137,319.00
JOB TITLE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Collective Bargaining Unit Positions
If the City Council approves a collective bargaining agreement, adjustments
to the pay ranges to these positions in the Collective Bargaining Unit may be
necessary and will be submitted to City Council for approval by ordinance.
a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2015, Adopting the 2015 Larimer County Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee Schedule.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt the 2015 Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule
(Regional Road Fee) as determined by the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2000, the City and Larimer County entered into an IGA agreeing that the City would collect a Regional Road
Fee on behalf of Larimer County. The fee is collected at the time a building permit is issued. The Regional
Road Fee helps generate revenue for road improvements that are necessitated by new development. The fees
are only used on capacity related improvements that are of mutual benefit to both the City and Larimer County.
The Larimer County Land Use Code specifies that its Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fees must
be updated to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. The methodology for
adjustments is based on a two-year moving average calculated from the Colorado Construction Cost Index
data compiled by Colorado Department of Transportation.
Larimer County’s procedure for fee adjustments is to update the two-year moving average using the most
recent prior year construction cost index data and calculate new adjusted fees. If the change is less than 5%
the new fees become effective without further action by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). If the
increase exceeds 5%, the County’s Land Use Code specifies that the BCC review and approve the fee
change. The County typically adjusts and adopts new fees in July of each year. The 2015 Fee Table is
included as Exhibit A to the Ordinance.
Part of the operational changes agreed to in 2014 was for the City to bring the Regional Road Fee changes
along with the City fee changes that are customarily brought to Council in December. The County is aware of
the lag time in this process.
The change in fee for a regional single family detached home will be an $18 increase (6%). Under the City
Code, changes in the amount of the County fee do not take effect in the City until the City Council approves a
new fee schedule. Council is asked to adopt the latest Regional Road Impact Fee schedule.
8
Packet Pg. 89
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The fees are collected on behalf of Larimer County and the program. Revenues from the fees will pass through
City accounts and will not affect City revenue limits under Article X, Section 20. The City does retain a 2%
administration fee. Adoption will result in an increase to development fee payers.
8
Packet Pg. 90
ORDINANCE NO. 154, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE 2015 LARIMER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City and Larimer County (the “County”) have heretofore entered into an
intergovernmental agreement whereby the City collects a transportation capital expansion fee on
behalf of Larimer County at the time of issuance of building permits, which fee is to be utilized
to general revenue for road improvements that are necessitated by such new development; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County have established a procedure for the City Council to
consider the Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee changes to reflect increases
in construction costs, along with the City fee changes in December; and
WHEREAS, the proposed change in the Larimer County Transportation Capital
Expansion Fee for a single family detached home in the new fee schedule is an increase of
$18.00; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 7.5-82(c)(1), the new Larimer County
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee schedule must be adopted by the City Council by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the 2015 Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the 2015 Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee
Schedule (also known as the Regional Road Fee Schedule) attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted and approved, and shall go into effect in Fort
Collins upon the effective date of this Ordinance.
Packet Pg. 91
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 92
a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Exhibit A (3843 : Larimer County Capital Expansion Fee Schedule ORD)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2015, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt a variety of revisions, clarifications and additions to the Land Use Code
that are housekeeping and routine in nature that have been identified since the last update in July 2015.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a
regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last
update. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously
improve both the overall quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
All of the proposed changes have been discussed and refined in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning
Board at various work sessions between August and October of this year. At its November 12, 2015 meeting,
the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions and voted unanimously to recommend to
Council approval of all the changes.
Fugitive Dust - Not Included in This Ordinance
The Board also considered, but tabled, two references that would update the old title “Storm Drainage Design
Criteria and Construction Standards” to the new title “Stormwater Criteria Manual.” This revision was
continued for one month due to concerns about the larger and separate project that proposes to regulate a
variety of aspects related to Fugitive Dust. This project is being managed by Environmental Services and is
tracking independent of the biannual Land Use Code Revisions.
Mobile Food Vendors - Not Included in This Ordinance
The Ordinance does not contain any revisions relating to various aspects regarding Mobile Food Vendors. As
with Fugitive Dust, this item is separate and tracking independently of the biannual Land Use Code Revisions.
Further, any potential changes related to Mobile Food Vendors would be made to Chapter 15 of the City Code
and not the Land Use Code.
9
Packet Pg. 94
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed revisions were listed on “This Week in Development Review,” the weekly online notice that is
posted on the website and sent to approximately 435 subscribers. The items were then noted on the “Agenda”
notice for the November Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, and then post hearing, listed again under
“Recent Outcomes.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Code Issues List (PDF)
2. Annotated Issues List (PDF)
3. Annotated Ordinance Index (PDF)
9
Packet Pg. 95
ATTACHMENT 1
9.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Land Use Code Issues List (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
ATTACHMENT 2
9.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Annotated Issues List (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Annotated Issues List (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Annotated Issues List (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.b
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Annotated Issues List (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.b
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Annotated Issues List (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
ATTACHMENT 3
9.c
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Annotated Ordinance Index (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.c
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Annotated Ordinance Index (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.c
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Annotated Ordinance Index (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
9.c
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Annotated Ordinance Index (3832 : Land Use Code Changes)
ORDINANCE NO. 155, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use
Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and have made
recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 1.3.4(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone
district in accordance with this Section, the Director, or the Planning and Zoning
Board with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City
Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), may impose
such conditions and requirements, including, but not limited to, conditions related
to the location, size and design on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1)
accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the
City Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-area plans, or (3)
prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and
neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses.
Section 3. That Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.2.10 Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use
Packet Pg. 106
(A) Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. Minor amendments to any approved
development plan, including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development
Plan, or any site specific development plan, (except replats)or the existing condition of a
platted property, and changes of use meeting the criteria of 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2),
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director
and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments and
changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so
amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably
feasible, at least to the extent of its original compliance (so as to preclude any greater
deviation from the standards of this Code by reason of such amendments). Minor
amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following:
(1) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific
development plan (except a minor subdivision [no longer authorized in
this Code]) which was originally subject only to administrative review and
was approved by the Director, or any change of use of any property that
was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a use-by-right
review under prior law; provided that such change would not have
disqualified the original plan from administrative review had it been
requested at that time; and provided that the change or change of use
complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular
request for change or change of use:
(a) the minor amendment Rresults in an increase by one (1) percent or
less in the approved number of dwelling units, except that in the
case of a change of use of any property that was developed
pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right review
under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed to be added
may be four (4) units or less; or
(b) the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease in the
amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure
that does not change the character of the project; or
(c) the minor amendment Rresults in a change in the housing mix or
use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone
district and does not change the character of the project; or
(d) the minor amendment Ddoes not result in a change in the character
of the development; or
(e) the minor amendment Ddoes not result in new buildings, building
additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and
landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries
of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site
specific development plan; or
Packet Pg. 107
(f) the minor amendment Rresults in a decrease in the number of
approved dwelling units and does not change the character of the
project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the
requirements of this Code.; and
(g) Iin the case of a change of use of any property that was developed
pursuant to a basic development review or use-by-right review
under prior law, the minor amendment change of use results in the
building and parcel of ground upon which the building is located
being brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible,
with the applicable general development standards contained in
Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article
4 of this Code.
(2) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific
development plan which was originally subject to review by the Planning
and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a project reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law), or any change of use of
any property that and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board;
provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the
following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change
of use:
(a) the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease by one
(1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units; or
(b) the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease in the
amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure
that does not change the character of the project; or
(c) the minor amendment Rresults in a change in the housing mix or
use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone
district and does not change the character of the project; or
(d) the minor amendment Ddoes not result in a change in the character
of the development; andor
(e) the minor amendment Ddoes not result in new buildings, building
additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and
landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries
of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site
specific development plan.
(3) Referral. In either (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment
or change of use to the Administrative Hearing Officer or Planning and
Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments to development plans or
Packet Pg. 108
changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of the City for the
development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed
as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change
of use as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for
the zone district in which the land is located. The referral of minor
amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans
approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same
manner as required for the original development plan for which the
amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision of
the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final
decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under
Division 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5, as applicable, for the minor amendment or change
of use.
(4) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval,
approval with conditions or denial of, a change of use, or a minor
amendments of any approved development plan, or site specific
development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be
to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within
fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall
constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12).
(B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A).
(1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any approved development plan,
(including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan),
or any site specific development plan, and changes of use that are not
determined by the Director to be minor amendments or qualifying changes
of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above, shall be deemed
major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or
site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the
development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed
as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set
forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone
district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible,
shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4.
Major amendments to development plans or site specific development
plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the
same manner as required for the original development plan for which
amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project
development plan or site specific development plan shall be recorded as
amendments in accordance with the procedures established for the filing
and recording of such initially approved plan. Any partial or total
abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan
Packet Pg. 109
approved under this Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the
City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code, shall
be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a Type 2
review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the
property subject to the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use
shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed as set forth
in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in
which the land is located.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 2.11.1(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
2.11.1 Purpose and Applicability
. . .
(B) Applicability. This Division shall apply to appeals from an administrative
decision regarding the interpretation and/or application of the land use regulations
which preceded this Land Use Code, and to appeals from the following
administrative decisions made under this Land Use Code, provided such
administrative decision is not for approval, approval with conditions, or denial
either of a project development plan or a final plan pursuant to Divisions 2.4 or
2.5 or of an administrative amendment/abandonment of any such plan or of any
plan approved under prior law, processed pursuant to Section 2.2.10 (Step 10):
. . .
(11) Decisions of the administrative staff to approve, approve with conditions
or deny a development application for a use subject to Basic Development
Review based on its compliance with the applicable standards of Article 3
and Article 4 of this Land Use Code.
. . .
Section 5. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of
a new Division 2.18 Basic Development Review, which reads in its entirety as follows:
2.18.1 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of the Basic Development Review process is to establish a process for
approval of a site specific development plan where the decision maker is the Director.
There is no public hearing and the Basic Development Review process shall not be
construed to be the same as an Administrative (Type 1) review process for which the
Director, or his designee, conducts a public hearing. The Basic Development Review
shall be the review process for:
Packet Pg. 110
(A) Those uses listed as such in each of the Article Four Zone Districts.
(B) Existing Limited Permitted Uses (1.6.5)
(C) Expansions and Enlargements of Existing Buildings (3.8.20 and 3.8.25).
(D) Building Permit Applications (2.7).
(E) Minor Subdivisions (2.18.2).
2.18.2 Minor Subdivisions
A Minor Subdivision is a plat or replat that does not create more than one new lot. A
minor subdivision shall not be permitted if the property is within a parcel, any part of
which has been subdivided by a Minor Subdivision plat within the immediately preceding
twelve (12) months. For an unplatted metes and bounds lot undergoing the Minor
Subdivision process to create a platted lot with the same boundaries, Step 6 (Notice) of
Section 2.18.3 is not applicable.
2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures
An application for a Basic Development Review or Minor Subdivision shall be processed
according to, in compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division
2.1 and Steps (1) through (12) of the Common Development Review Procedures
(Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive), as follows:
(A) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Not applicable.
(B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable.
(C) Step 3 (Development Application): Applicable.
(D) Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable.
(E) Step 5 (Staff Report): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, a staff report
shall be prepared in the case of an appeal of a final decision pursuant to Section
2.2.12(Step 12).
(F) Step 6 (Notice):
Step 6(A) (Mailed Notice): Applicable. Notice to be mailed to the owners of
record of all real property within eight hundred (800) feet (exclusive of property
rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the property lines
of the parcel of land to be subdivided.
Step 6(B) (Posted Notice): Applicable.
Step 6(C) (Published Notice): Applicable.
Packet Pg. 111
Step 6(D) (Supplemental Notice): Not Applicable.
Step 6(E) Applicable.
(G) Step 7 (Public Hearing): Not Applicable.
Step 7(A)(1 and 2): (Decision maker): Not applicable and in substitution thereof,
the Director shall be the decision maker and there shall be no public hearing.
Steps 7(B – C) – Not Applicable.
Step 7(D)(1 and 2): (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution
thereof, after consideration of the development application, the Director shall
issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
development application based on compliance with the standards referenced in
Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8). The
written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to any person who provided
comments during the comment period and shall also be posted on the City’s
website at www.fcgov.com.
Step 7(D)(3): (Findings): Applicable
Step 7(E): (Notification to Applicant): Applicable.
Step 7(F)(1): (Recording of the Public Hearing): Not Applicable.
Step 7(F)(2)(a): (The Record): Not Applicable.
Step 7(F)(2)(b): (Minutes): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, the
Director shall issue the decision in writing.
Step 7(F)(2)(c and d): (Verbatim Transcript and Videotape Recording): Not
Applicable.
Step 7(G): (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable for Minor Subdivisions
only.
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable.
(I) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(J) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(K) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable
Step 11(A): (Application Submittals): Applicable
Packet Pg. 112
Step 11(B and C) (Lapse): Not Applicable.
Step 11(D)(1-8): (Final Plan and Plan and Other Site Specific Development Plan):
Applicable.
Step 11(D)(9): (Post denial re-submittal delay): Not Applicable.
Step 11(D)(10): (Automatic repeal; waiver): Applicable
(L) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable and in explanation thereof, appeals of the decision
of the Director regarding approval, approval with conditions or denial of a Basic
Development Review and Minor Subdivision shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the
Director within 14 days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal
hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board shall be considered a new, or de novo,
hearing. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute
a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(Step 12).
Section 6. That Section 3.8.19(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
3.8.19 Setback Regulations
(A) Features Allowed Within Setbacks. The following structures and features may
be located within required setbacks:
(1) trees, shrubbery or other features of natural growth;
(2) fences or walls, subject to permit approval, that do not exceed the
standards established in Section 3.8.11;
(3) driveways and sidewalks;
(4) signs, if permitted by the sign regulations of this Land Use Code;
(5) bay windows and similar sized cantilevered floor areas, and architectural
design embellishments of dwellings that do not project more than two (2)
feet into the required setback, basement egress windows including the
foundation that forms the window well, as long as the window foundation
does not exceed the elevation or height of the house foundation, provided
they do not none of the foregoing elements shall encroach upon any public
easements;
. . .
Packet Pg. 113
Section 7. That Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.8.28 Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations
. . .
(C) In all zone districts allowing extra occupancy rental houses except L-M-N, an
application for extra occupancy rental house use for more than five (5) tenants
shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review.
(D) In the L-M-N zone district, an application for extra occupancy rental house use
for four (4) or fewer tenants shall be subject to basic developmental review.
(ED) In the L-M-N zone district, an application for extra occupancy rental house use
for more than four (4) tenants shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review.
Section 8. That the table contained in Section 4.16(B)(2) [Downtown District] of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
Land Use
Old City
Center
Canyon
Avenue
Civic
Center
C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Retail marijuana store Type 1BDR Type 1BDR Type 1BDR
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Section 9. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(f) and (g) [River Downtown Redevelopment
District] of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Medical marijuana centers.
2. Retail marijuana store.
(g) Industrial Uses:
1. Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations.
2. Medical marijuana-infused product manufacturers.
3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
Packet Pg. 114
4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility.
Section 10. That Section 4.17(B)(2)(c) and (d) [River Downtown Redevelopment
District] of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
14. Retail marijuana store.
154. Music studios.
165. Food truck rally.
176. Music facility, multi-purpose.
(d) Industrial Uses:
1. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
2. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
3. Retail marijuana testing facility.
41. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems.
Section 11. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(f) [Community Commercial District] of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Medical marijuana centers.
2. Retail marijuana store.
Section 12. That Section 4.18(B)(2)(c) [Community Commercial District] of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
27. Retail marijuana store.
Packet Pg. 115
287. Music studios.
298. Food truck rally.
3029. Music facility, multi-purpose.
Section 13. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(f) and (g) [Community Commercial – North
College District] of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Medical marijuana centers.
2. Retail marijuana store.
(g) Industrial Uses:
. . .
3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility.
Section 14. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(c) and (d) [Community Commercial – North
College District] of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
26. Retail marijuana store.
276. Music studios.
287. Food truck rally.
298. Music facility, multi-purpose.
(d) Industrial Uses:
1. Light industrial uses.
2. Research laboratories.
3. Workshops and custom small industry uses.
Packet Pg. 116
4. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
5. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
6. Retail marijuana testing facility.
74. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems.
Section 15. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(f) [Community Commercial – Poudre River
District] of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Medical marijuana centers.
2. Retail marijuana store.
Section 16. That Section 4.20(B)(2)(c) [Community Commercial – Poudre River
District] of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
19. Retail marijuana store.
2019. Music studios.
210. Music facility, multi-purpose.
Section 17. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2) [General Commercial
District] of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC)
General Commercial
District (C-G)
C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
. . . . . . . . .
Retail marijuana store Not permitted Type 1BDR
. . . . . . . . .
. . .
Packet Pg. 117
Section 18. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(f) and (g) [Service Commercial District] of the
Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Medical marijuana centers.
2. Retail marijuana store.
(g) Industrial Uses:
1. Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation
operations.
2. Medical marijuana-infused product manufacturers.
3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility.
Section 19. That Section 4.22 (B)(2)(c) and (d) [Service Commercial District] of the
Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
43. Retail marijuana store.
4443. Music studios.
(d) Industrial Uses:
. . .
6. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
7. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
8. Retail marijuana testing facility.
96. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems.
Packet Pg. 118
Section 20. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2) [Limited Commercial
District] of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas
D. INDUSTRIAL
. . . . . . . . .
Retail marijuana cultivation facility Not permitted Type 1BDR
Retail marijuana product
manufacturing facility
Not permitted Type 1BDR
Retail and medical marijuana testing
facility
Not permitted Type 1BDR
. . . . . . . . .
Section 21. That Section 4.28 (B)(1)(f) [Industrial District]of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Industrial Uses:
1. Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation
operations.
2. Medical marijuana-infused product manufacturers.
3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility.
36. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems.
Section 22. That Section 4.28(B)(2)(d) [Industrial District] of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(d) Industrial Uses:
. . .
11. Retail marijuana cultivation facility.
12. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility.
13. Retail marijuana testing facility.
1411. Large-scale solar energy systems.
Packet Pg. 119
Section 23. That the definition of “Basic development review” contained in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Basic development review shall mean a review without a public hearing by the City of
Fort Collins staffDirector for the purpose of determining compliance with the applicable
standards of Article 3 and Article 4 of this Code for any use that is not subject to a Type 1
or Type 2 review.
Section 24. That the definition of “Change of use” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Change of use shall mean the act of changing the occupancy of a building or land from a
use that is specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 to a different use that is
specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4. A change of use occurs whenever:
. . .
Section 25. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Minor subdivision” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Minor subdivision shall mean the subdivision of a lot, tract or parcel into not more than
one (1) new lot and may include adjustments to lot lines.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 120
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Sheri Langenberger, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2015, Conditionally Vacating Certain Rights-of-Way Consisting of
Portions of Prospect Court and the Alley as Dedicated on G.F. Wiard’s Additional Plat at Reception No.
231427 of the Larimer County Records and Flinn’s Resubdivision Plat of Lots 11, 12 and 13 in Block 1 of G.F.
Wiard’s Addition at Reception No. 665972 of the Larimer County Records.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to vacate portions of the alley and Prospect Court in the block south of Lake Street
and north of Prospect Road that are no longer needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1921 the land bounded by Lake Street, College Avenue, Prospect Road and the Union Pacific Railroad
tracts was platted as G.F. Wiard’s Addition into multiple lots that included an alley right-of-way that runs north-
south between Lake Street and Prospect Road. In 1953 a portion of this subdivision was replatted as Flinn’s
Resubdivision of Lots 11, 12 and 13 in block 1 of G.F. Wiard’s Addition. As part of this replat, right-of-way for
Prospect Court and additional widening to the alley was dedicated to the City.
Prospect Court and the alley right-of-way have been utilized for access and utility services by the various
adjacent lots since the alley was originally platted. Prospect Court and the alley are not paved improved
roadways, they are currently gravel and dirt.
Colorado State University (CSU) has requested the vacation of Prospect Court and a portion of the alley in this
block as this is the site of CSU’s new Medical Center. The right-of-way vacation is needed in order to
accommodate the new building footprint. A vehicular connection is no longer proposed from north to south
through the block. The site plan advisory review for the CSU Medical Center was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board on October 8, 2015.
The portion of the right-of-way adjacent to Prospect Road will be retained. As a part of the CSU Medical
Center project the Prospect Road frontage will be widened and improved, and the right-of-way needed to
accommodate these improvements will be retained as right-of-way.
A portion of the northern portion of the alley is also proposed to be retained. There is one lot within this block
that is not owned by CSU. A portion of the alley will remain in place in order to provide this lot with permanent
access. As a part of the condition of this vacation, CSU will need to provide an access easement from the
south end of the remaining alley through the parking lot and reconnecting to Lake Street west of the alley so
that adequate access is provided.
10
Packet Pg. 121
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 2
This request has been routed to utilities that identified utilities located within the right-of-way, and until the
utilities have been relocated a utility easement will need to exist. The vacation will not become effective or be
filed until the plat for the CSU Medical Center is filed. If the utilities have not been relocated by the time the
plat is to be filed, a utility easement to accommodate the utilities will be provided on the plat and this easement
will be vacated by separate document at a later date after the utilities have been relocated.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A memorandum requesting input was sent to the utility providers, potentially impacted City departments, and
the one adjacent property owner.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map (PDF)
2. Proposed CSU Medical Center with ROW vacation highlighted (PDF)
10
Packet Pg. 122
E Prospect Rd
W Prospect Rd
SCollegeAve
E Lake St
Prospect C
t
W Lake St
Tamasag Dr
City of Fort Collins
Prospect Court Right of Way Vacation
0 50 100 200 300 400
Feet
Legend
Proposed Right of Way Vacation
/
ATTACHMENT 1
10.a
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Vicinity map (3845 : Prospect Court and alley vacation)
SPAR Submittal
Medical Center
Site Plan
0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ NORTH
20’
R.O.W
September September 28, 2, 2015 2015
2220’ ’
R.RRRR O. OOOO WWWWWWW
ROW to be vacated
proposed access easement
ATTACHMENT 2
10.b
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Proposed CSU Medical Center with ROW vacation highlighted (3845 : Prospect Court and alley vacation)
ORDINANCE NO. 156, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONDITIONALLY VACATING CERTAIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY CONSISTING OF
PORTIONS OF PROSPECT COURT AND THE ALLEY AS DEDICATED ON G. F.
WIARD’S ADDITION PLAT AT RECEPTION NO. 231427 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY
RECORDS AND FLINN’S RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF LOTS 11, 12, AND 13 IN BLOCK 1
OF G.F. WIARD’S ADDITION AT RECEPTION NO. 665972 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY
RECORDS
WHEREAS, right-of-way was dedicated to the City pursuant to the G.F. Wiard’s
Addition plat recorded on October 31, 1921, at reception number 231427 in the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder’s records; and
WHEREAS, additional right-of-way was dedicated to the City pursuant to the Flinn’s
Resubdivision plat of Lots 11, 12, and 13 of block 1 of G.F. Wiard’s Addition recorded on May
15, 1953, at reception number 665972 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s records; and
WHEREAS, Colorado State University has requested that the City vacate portions of the
aforementioned rights-of-way (such portions to be vacated hereinafter referred to as “Rights-Of-
Way”) as more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, pertinent City agencies and private utility companies have been contacted
and reported no objection to the proposed vacation of the Rights-Of-Way, provided that a utility
easement is provided until such time as the utilities have been relocated; and
WHEREAS, the City shall have no duty to maintain the existing roadways after the
Ordinance becomes effective; and
WHEREAS, the Rights-Of-Way to be vacated are no longer needed for right-of-way
purposes, the rights of the residents of the City of Fort Collins will not be prejudiced or injured
by the vacation of said street Rights-Of-Way, and it is in the public interest to do so; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to vacate City right-of-way pursuant to
Section 23-115 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Rights-Of-Way consisting of the portions of Prospect Court and
alley more particularly described on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, are hereby vacated upon the satisfaction of all of the following conditions:
Packet Pg. 125
(1) This vacation shall not take effect until this Ordinance is recorded with the
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder;
(2) This Ordinance shall be recorded concurrently with the subdivision plat for the
development known as “Colorado State University Medical Center.” Such
subdivision plat shall contain:
a. An access easement dedicated to the public from the south end of the
remaining alley curving west and reconnecting to Lake Street in a form
satisfactory to the City Engineer after consultation with the City Attorney;
and
b. Utility easements dedicated to the public for any existing or proposed
utilities within the boundaries of the plat in a form satisfactory to the City
Engineer after consultation with the City Attorney;
and
(3) If this Ordinance is not so recorded by December 31, 2019, then this Ordinance
shall become null and void and of no force or effect.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Packet Pg. 126
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 127
([KLELW$
3
a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Exhibit A (3846 : Prospect Court and alley vacation ORD)
3
a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Exhibit A (3846 : Prospect Court and alley vacation ORD)
SDJHRI
a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Exhibit A (3846 : Prospect Court and alley vacation ORD)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT
Resolution 2015-104 Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the
Fraternal Order of Police.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Northern
Colorado Lodge #3, Colorado Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and authorize execution of such agreement.
The City and the FOP, using an Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) approach, engaged in negotiations regarding
the terms and conditions of a possible bargaining agreement for 2016 and 2017. City staff and the FOP have
tentatively reached an agreement. On November 23, 2015, bargaining unit members voted to ratify the
proposed agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In August, 2004, city voters passed Citizen Ordinance No. 001 which modified the City Code to provide for
collective bargaining between the City and members of the Police Services bargaining unit. Members of the
bargaining unit selected the Northern Colorado Lodge #3, Colorado Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) to serve
as their bargaining agent. The first bargaining agreement was approved in 2006.
Since 2011, the City and FOP have utilized an IBB approach rather than traditional bargaining. The current
round of negotiations focused on these primary interests:
Fostering and preserving public trust
Good stewardship of resources
Employee safety and well-being
Consistency of policies and benefits as compared to other City employees, recognizing the unique
characteristics of police work
Adoption of the Resolution would approve the terms and conditions of employment for members of the
bargaining unit for 2016 and 2017 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the
City. The proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement is on file with the City Clerk’s Office. A summary of the
bargaining agreement is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit “A.”
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The increased expense for the addition of the Retiree Health Savings match is approximately $225,000 for
2016. Per the contract, compensation data to determine final ranges for 2016 will be reviewed in January.
However, based on preliminary estimates, a supplemental appropriation not to exceed $100,000 may be
needed for salaries in 2016. This number would be in addition to the $371,000 already budgeted for Bargaining
11
Packet Pg. 131
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
Unit salary increases. The financial impact for 2017 is anticipated to be similar.
11
Packet Pg. 132
RESOLUTION 2015-104
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITH NORTHERN COLORADO LODGE #3 OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2004, the electors of the City approved at a special City
election an ordinance that contains a comprehensive scheme for collective bargaining between
the City and certain employees of its Police Services (the "Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance amended the City Code by adding a new Division 7 to Article
VII Chapter 2 of the Code entitled "Public Safety Administration Cooperative Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2005, the District Court for Larimer County, Colorado,
entered an Order in Case Number 05-CV-1146 invalidating portions of the Ordinance dealing
primarily with binding arbitration and leaving intact those portions of the Ordinance requiring
good faith negotiations between the City and the designated bargaining agent; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance, the Northern Colorado Lodge
#3, Colorado Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") was selected as the designated bargaining agent
for those employees of Police Services who are members of the bargaining unit; and
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City and the FOP entered into a collective bargaining
agreement for 2006-2007 and, since that time, the parties have approved and executed
subsequent agreements for each ensuing two-year period; and
WHEREAS, the latest such agreement will expire on December 31, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City and the FOP have, pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance,
again engaged in negotiations regarding the terms and conditions of a new collective bargaining
agreement for 2016 and 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the City Council approval of such
agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the terms and conditions of the
proposed agreement, believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to approve the
same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Council hereby approves the terms and conditions of that certain
collective bargaining agreement, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and a
Packet Pg. 133
summary of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A",
and authorizes the City Manager to execute the collective bargaining agreement on behalf of the
City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 134
Exhibit “A”
Summary of the 2016-2017 Bargaining Agreement
The City of Fort Collins (City) management and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP),
representing the members of the Fort Collins Police Services Bargaining Unit, have reached a
tentative agreement for the 2016-17 contract. Following is a summary of the changes which
were made to the agreement:
1. Unpaid Administrative Leave
The current Article 24 provides employees be placed on unpaid administrative leave when
charged with a felony. The amended article will expand the conditions under which the City can
place Bargaining Unit Members on unpaid administrative leave. In addition to the existing
condition allowing the City to place an employee on unpaid administrative leave, the City will be
able to place members on unpaid leave if an employee is charged with a crime that could result
in a decertification by the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board, which
includes misdemeanor offenses such as sexual assault, 3rd degree assault, harassment, and
bias-motivated crimes, among others. The parties have also tentatively agreed that if an
administrative investigation, for one of those misdemeanors, is not resolved within 60 days of
the employee’s criminal case reaching a disposition, the employee will be placed on paid
administrative leave until the investigation has concluded.
2. Short Term Disability
The City incorporated some plan changes to the definition, administration and payment of the
benefit. In order to keep internal equity with other City employees and have a consistent policy,
the City and the FOP agreed to amendments to the contract to make the following changes:
x Pay the first 6 weeks following a 2-week unpaid period (weeks 3-8) at one-hundred
percent (100%) of the employee’s regular salary.
x Pay the following 4 weeks and 6 days (weeks 9-13) at seventy-five percent (75%) of the
employee’s regular salary.
x Eliminate the bank of sick time that allowed employees to make the difference up
between the seventy-five percent (75%) and their regular salary. Instead, employees are
permitted to use vacation, holiday, or award time to supplement the twenty-five percent
(75%) that is unpaid per the defined benefit.
3. Performance Improvement Plan
The City recently implemented its Quarterly Performance Alignment review system City-wide.
Under this system, employees subject to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) when a pay
increase is implemented will not receive the increase unless, and until, they successfully
complete their PIP and sustain one full quarter of satisfactory performance. The City and the
FOP agreed to an amendment to include this condition on pay increases for those members of
the Bargaining Unit on a PIP.
4. Promotion Procedures
The current contract outlines separate promotion procedures for Dispatch Supervisors than for
Sergeants and Lieutenants, which provides for a level of inequitable treatment for some
members of the Bargaining Unit. The City and the FOP reached agreement on an amendment
a
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Exhibit A (3842 : Collective Bargaining RESO)
to make the promotion procedures the same for Sergeant, Lieutenant, Dispatch Supervisor, and
Dispatch Manager.
5. Retirement Health Savings Match.
The current contract requires all Bargaining Unit members contribute one-percent of their base
salary to a retirement health savings (RHS) account, managed by ICMA-RC. This amount is not
sufficient to “bridge the gap” for medical costs between their retirement and reaching Medicare-
eligibility age, which can sometimes exceed ten years. The City and the FOP agreed to amend
the contract to match the Bargaining Unit employees’ contributions at the following scale:
Years of Service at FCPS Percent of Contribution (Employer and
Employee)
0 – 9.99 years of service 1.0% of base salary
10 – 19.99 years of service 1.25% of base salary
20 years of service until retirement 1.5% of base salary
6. Salary Data Collection
The current contract outlines the collection process for salary data by requiring that the most
current data available in October be used to determine the mid-point between the 4th and 5th
salary ranks for each position. The FOP presented evidence that this, in fact, results in the
Bargaining Unit being ranked 6th or 7th in some positions when the actual salary numbers are
confirmed each year. The City and the FOP agreed to an amendment to postpone final data
collection until January, so that the Bargaining Unit members’ salaries would actually fall
between the 4th and 5th rankings for each year.
7. Holiday Pay
The current contract awards overtime pay when holiday leave is used by Bargaining Unit
employees who begin their shift on a holiday. Under this system, hours worked on a holiday for
a shift that began on a non-holiday are not paid. For example, a shift beginning at 10:00 P.M. on
Christmas Eve would be counted entirely as non-holiday time, even though up to eight hours of
that shift may have been worked on Christmas Day, a City holiday. The City and the FOP
agreed to change the system so that all hours, up to the maximum of one shift worked on a
holiday (designated or observed), and only those hours, would be paid as overtime when leave
is also used.
8. Rank Differential and FTO/CTO Compensation
The current contract outlines pay for acting supervisors, field training officers, and
communications training officers by defining the amount of compensation per shift. Due to
having differing lengths of shifts, the City and FOP agreed to change the contract to a
compensation model based on the number of hours worked, rather than an entire shift.
9. Training and Travel
Language in the current contract was not as clear as desired regarding the current practice to
compensate for travel time to a work site that is not an employee’s usual place of employment.
Agreement was reached to add language specifying more clearly the conditions when
Bargaining Unit members are expected to be paid for travel during training and call-outs.
a
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Exhibit A (3842 : Collective Bargaining RESO)
10. Corporal and CSO Supervisor Positions
In an effort to plan for a growing population size and thereby a growing police force, the City
sought to establish the framework in the CBA that would allow for the creation of a Corporal
position between Officer and Sergeant, in addition to a Community Service Officer (CSO)
Supervisor that would manage CSOs. The City and the FOP agreed to include the necessary
language in the contract to provide salary categories if the City elects to fill these new positions.
11. Language Changes
Each bargaining season, the FOP and the City agree to make minor language changes in order
to add clarity, clean up inconsistencies, match practice, or fix errors. As an example, “Captain”
will be changed to “Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief” throughout the document.
a
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Exhibit A (3842 : Collective Bargaining RESO)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
SUBJECT
Resolution 2015-105, Establishing a Process for the City Council to Appoint an Additional Commissioner to the
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board when Required by Law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide a resolution for City Council consideration that describes and adopts the
approach to be used by the Mayor and City Council to appoint an additional commissioner to the Urban
Renewal Authority Board (the “URA Board”), if needed, as a result of the passage of House Bill 2015-1348. In
addition, the Resolution instructs staff to send certified letters to all eligible taxing entities informing them of
their future ability to participate in a process for their appointment of commissioners to the URA Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In May 2015, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 2015-1348 (the “URA Reform Bill”). The URA
Reform Bill will affect the City’s Urban Renewal Authority (the “URA”) in several significant ways. One of the
effects of the URA Reform Bill is the potential appointment of up to four new commissioners to the URA Board.
The URA Reform Bill provides that whenever on or after January 1, 2016, the City Council approves a new
urban renewal plan or modifies an existing plan, this will trigger the applicability of the URA Reform Bill to the
City’s URA and allow Larimer County and the school districts and the special districts levying a property tax
within the URA’s boundaries to appoint new commissioners to the URA Board. The County Commissioners
can appoint one commissioner and the school districts and the special districts can each collectively appoint
one commissioner. If any or all three of these appointments occur and the result is an even number of
commissioners on the URA Board, the URA Reform Bill requires the Mayor to appoint an additional
commissioner to restore the membership on the URA Board to an odd number.
Overview of Current URA Board
Upon creation of the URA, the City Council elected to designate itself to act as the URA Board (Resolution
1982-010). Therefore, the current URA Board consists of seven members. Thus, if three new commissioners
are appointed to the URA Board by the County, the school districts and the special districts, the URA Board
will consist of an even number of commissioners and trigger the need for the Mayor to appoint an eleventh
commissioner.
Overview of the Appointment Process for an Eleventh Member
The URA Reform Bill requires the Mayor to make the necessary appointment to return the URA Board to an
odd number of commissioners. However, after consultation with the Mayor and the Leadership Planning Team,
staff recommends using the following process (modeled after the City’s existing Boards and Commission
appointment process) to make the appointment instead of an appointment solely by the Mayor:
12
Packet Pg. 138
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
1. Advertising and Recruitment: The City Clerk will advertise the vacant position on the URA Board
consistent with the procedures used to advertise vacant City Board and Commission positions. The
advertisement will specify a due date for applications to serve on the URA Board.
2. Tracking Applications: The City Clerk will collect all applications submitted by the deadline and verify
applicants meet requirements to serve. All applications will be distributed to the entire City Council.
3. Interviews: The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will determine an interview team to meet with applicants
consisting of the Mayor and one other City Councilmember (the “Council Interview Team”). The City
Clerk will work with appropriate City Manager’s office staff to schedule interviews of applicants for the
Council Interview Team. The Team will identify a candidate to appoint to the URA Board from the
applicant pool.
4. Appointment: The City Clerk will prepare, in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, a resolution
for City Council consideration making the appointment of the recommended candidate.
5. On-Boarding: The URA staff will prepare materials to orient and on-board the new commission
member. Staff will provide these materials to the new commissioner along with an anticipated
schedule of meetings. All materials will be available to new, current commissioners, and the general
public.
Proposed Schedule
City staff proposed the following schedule, in anticipation of the first meeting of the newly constituted URA
Board on March 29, 2016 (first fifth Tuesday of 2016):
Advertising: December
Interviews: January
Appointment: February
On-Boarding: March
Process for Coordinating Appointments by Other Districts
PLEASE NOTE: The information below is meant as background information only. The URA
Reform Bill does not require the City to develop or manage the appointment process on behalf
of the other districts. In fact, staff prefers to remain a resource and consultant to the County
and the districts to avoid the perception of undue influence on the appointment of new
commissioners.
This Resolution directs staff to send certified letters to the County, school districts, and the special districts
informing them of the changes made by the URA Reform Bill and to inform them of their potential new role in
appointing up to three new URA Board commissioners. This letter will include a number of items:
1. An overview of changes made by the URA Reform Bill;
2. Information regarding the appointment of new commissioners;
3. An invitation to an information session to be held by staff regarding the URA Reform Bill; and
4. A request to send the name of each group’s new commissioner by a given date.
The URA Reform Bill does not provide direction on how commissioners are to be selected by the County, the
school districts, and the special districts. However, it is clear in the URA Reform Bill that each of the three new
commission positions remains vacant until filled by the applicable entities.
Eligibility Criteria:
The URA Reform Bill spells out the following criteria for eligibility of new commissioners:
County – The board of the County Commissioners may appoint anyone to be the URA commissioner.
No additional criteria are provided by the URA Reform Bill.
School Districts – Any school district levying property taxes within the URA’s boundaries is eligible to
12
Packet Pg. 139
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
engage in the appointment process. The commissioner must be an elected member of the board of
education from one of the eligible school districts. Therefore, the Poudre School District and the
Thompson School District will need to agree on who their appointed commissioner will be.
Special Districts – Any special district levying property taxes within the boundaries of the URA is
eligible to engage in the appointment process. The commissioner must be an elected member of one
of the eligible district boards. Therefore, the special districts will also need to agree on who their
appointed commissioner will be. Staff has requested a list of the affected special districts from Larimer
County. If available, it will be provided as a read before item.
12
Packet Pg. 140
RESOLUTION 2015-105
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR THE COUNCIL TO APPOINT AN ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER TO THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD
WHEN REQUIRED BY LAW
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, City Council adopted Resolution 82-10 establishing
with the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
(the “Authority”) and designating the Council to serve as the Authority’s Board of
Commissioners (the “URA Board”); and
WHEREAS, in May 2015, the Colorado General Assembly adopted House Bill 2015-
1348 (“HB-1348”) which amended in several respects the Colorado Urban Renewal Law,
C.R.S. Sections 31-25-101 , et seq. (the “ Act”); and
WHEREAS, one of HB-1348’s amendments to the Act will allow for the appointment of
up to four new commissioners to the URA Board whenever on or after January 1, 2016, the
Council approves any new urban renewal plan or modifies one of its two existing urban renewal
plans, the North College Avenue Renewal Plan or the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan; and
WHEREAS, when the Council takes either of these actions, HB-1348 provides that
Larimer County (the “County”) will be entitled to appoint one new commissioner to the URA
Board, the City’s two school districts, the Poudre and Thompson School Districts, (jointly, the
“School Districts”) will together be entitled to appoint one new commissioner to the URA Board,
and all of the special districts levying property taxes within the Authority’s boundaries (the
“Special Districts”) will together be entitled to appoint one new commissioner to the URA
Board; and
WHEREAS, while HB-1348 does not require the County, the School Districts or the
Special Districts to appoint a commissioner, if their appointments result in an even number of
commissioners on the URA Board, HB-1348 will require the City’s Mayor to appoint another
new commissioner to the URA Board to restore the Board’s membership to an odd number; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and the Leadership Planning Team have discussed this
appointment process and directed City staff to bring forward this Resolution to establish for
Council a process for the Mayor’s appointment of a commissioner to the URA Board as required
by HB-1348 that is modeled after the current process the Council follows in appointing members
to the City’s boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, City staff has also recommended that this Resolution address the process the
City is to follow to coordinate with the County, the School Districts and the Special Districts
regarding their potential future appointments of commissioners to the URA Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Packet Pg. 141
Section 1. That when the Mayor is required by the Act, as amended by HB-1348, to
appoint a new commissioner to the URA Board to restore the membership on the URA Board to
an odd number, the following process for that appointment shall be used:
A. Advertising and Recruitment: The City Clerk shall advertise the vacant position
on the URA Board consistent with the procedures used to advertise vacant City board and
commission positions. The advertisement shall specify a due date for applications to
serve on the URA Board.
B. Tracking Applications: The City Clerk shall collect all applications submitted by
the deadline and verify that the applicants meet the established requirements generally
required for City board and commission appointments. All applications will be
distributed to the entire Council.
C. Interviews: The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem will determine an interview team to
meet with applicants consisting of the Mayor and one other City Councilmember (the
“Council Interview Team”). The City Clerk shall work with appropriate staff in the City
Manager’s Office to schedule interviews of the applicants for the Council Interview
Team. The Council Interview Team is to identify from those interviews a candidate that
the Team is recommending be appointed as the new commissioner to the URA Board.
D. Appointment: The City Clerk shall prepare, in consultation with the City
Attorney’s Office, a resolution for Council’s consideration to make the appointment of
the recommended candidate.
E. On-Boarding: The URA staff shall prepare materials to orient and on-board the
new commission member. Staff shall provide these materials to the new commissioner
along with an anticipated schedule of meetings. All materials will be made available to
new, current commissioners, and the general public.
Section 2. That in anticipation that the County, the School Districts and the Special
Districts will likely be appointing in the future new commissioners to the URA Board, staff is
directed to send certified letters to the County, both of the School Districts, and each of the
Special Districts to inform them of their potential new role in appointing new URA Board
commissioners. This letter is to include an overview of the changes made by to the Act by HB-
1348, other relevant information regarding the appointment of new commissioners, an invitation
to an information session to be held by City staff regarding this appointment process, and a
request for the name of each group’s appointed commissioner by a given date.
Packet Pg. 142
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins on
this 1st day of December A.D. 201 5.
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 143
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Patrick Rowe, Real Estate Specialist III
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
SUBJECT
Resolution 2015-106 Making Legislative Findings and Approving a Non-Substantial Modification of the North
College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is modify wording in the North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan (the “Plan”) to
clarify that the Plan authorizes and describes only one “urban renewal project,” as this term is defined and
used in the urban renewal laws.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This year the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 2015-1348 (the “URA Reform Bill”), with an
effective date of January 1, 2016. The URA Reform Bill applies to all new urban renewal plans, as well as
existing plans when they are modified in certain ways. When applicable, the URA Reform Bill will affect the
City’s Urban Renewal Authority (the “URA”) in several significant ways. Chief among them is that the City will
be required to negotiate an agreement with all affected taxing entities, like Larimer County, on the issue of how
property tax increment generated will be allocated and spent under a new urban renewal plan or the
modification of an existing plan. If the City and other taxing entities cannot reach such an agreement, the tax-
allocation issue will be decided through mediation by a “mediator.”
Ambiguity in the URA Reform Bill around what constitutes a modification of an urban renewal plan that will
trigger this negotiation and mediation process has raised concern that any new undertaking or activity under
an urban renewal plan may inadvertently trigger this requirement and have an adverse effect on existing urban
renewal undertakings and activities under these plans.
This concern relates to the applicability provision of the URA Reform Bill which provides, in part, that the
addition of an urban renewal project to an urban renewal plan triggers the negotiation and mediation process.
An “urban renewal project” is defined by the statutes as “undertakings and activities for the elimination and for
the prevention of the development or spread of slums and blight … in accordance with an urban renewal plan”.
Although this definition makes it unlikely that a future undertaking or activity under the North College Plan
would be construed as adding an urban renewal project to the Plan, staff nevertheless recommends a
clarification to the Plan’s wording to more clearly state that the Plan authorizes only one urban renewal project
within which numerous urban renewal undertakings and activities might occur. This Resolution approves that
change to the North College Plan.
The proposed modification will not affect any substantive aspect of the Plan, but it does provide a measure of
protection in avoiding the concern discussed above.
13
Packet Pg. 144
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 2
Because this proposed modification to the Plan does not result in any substantial change in land area, land
use, design, building requirements, timing or procedure as previously approved in the Plan, C.R.S. Section 31-
25-107 provides that this modification is not a “substantial modification” of the Plan that triggers the notice and
other procedural requirements in Section 31-25-107 that are required to be followed when adopting a new
urban renewal plan or substantially modifying an existing one.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Information on this proposed modification has been provided to the North College Citizens Advisory
Commission and the North Fort Collins Business Association.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (DOC)
13
Packet Pg. 145
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 1
North College Avenue
Urban Renewal Plan
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins and
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Adopted December 21, 2004
Amended: December 1, 2015 to Clarify that this Plan
Authorizes and Describes One Urban Renewal Project
Deleted: December 21, 2004
Deleted: on
13.a
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 2
Table of Contents
1. Preface and Intent ......................................................................................... 3
2. Finding of “Blight” ........................................................................................ 5
3. Plan Objectives .............................................................................................. 6
4. Renewal Undertakings and Activities .......................................................... 7
5. Development Standards and Procedures .................................................... 8
6. Conformance ................................................................................................. 9
Urban Renewal Law .......................................................................................................... 9
City Plan ............................................................................................................................ 9
7. North College Project Financing .................................................................. 9
Property Tax Increment .................................................................................................. 10
Sales Tax Increment ........................................................................................................ 10
Tax Increment Reimbursement………………………………………………………………..10
8. Plan Advisory Group ................................................................................... 12
9. Modifications to the Plan ............................................................................ 12
10. Reasonable Variations .............................................................................. 11
Deleted: 76
Deleted: 87
Deleted: 98
Deleted: 98
Deleted: 98
Deleted: 109
Deleted: 1211
Deleted: 1211
13.a
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 3
1. Preface and Intent
The North College Avenue Renewal Plan (Plan) is an Urban Renewal Plan prepared for the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) and the City of Fort Collins (the City), pursuant to the provisions
of the Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 31-25-101 et seq. (Urban Renewal Law). Terms used
in the Plan have the same meaning as in the Urban Renewal Law.
The jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority are the same as the boundaries of the City. Within the
City boundaries there may be one or more urban renewal areas. This Plan describes the framework for
certain public undertakings constituting urban renewal projects and other authorized activities under the
Urban Renewal Law in the North College Corridor area, located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer
County, Colorado.
The boundary of the area to which this Plan applies generally includes those properties located within
the area bounded by:
The Cache La Poudre River on the south,
the Larimer-Weld Canal on the north,
an irregular line generally about a quarter mile from North College Avenue on the west,
and irregular line generally extending to Redwood Street about a half mile from North College
Avenue on the east.
The plan area is depicted on the Boundary Map on the following page. A legal description of the area is
attached hereto as Appendix A (Renewal Area).
Deleted: Corridor
Deleted: .
13.a
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 4
13.a
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 5
This Plan was prepared for adoption by the City Council in recognition that the Renewal Area requires a
coordinated strategy, with financing possibilities, to eliminate blight and prevent the spread of blight,
and accomplish the City’s development objectives for improving the viability of the area.
This Plan is intended to describe and authorize the Authority, in cooperation with the City, to promote
and assist renewal undertakings and activities within the Renewal Area involving the development,
redevelopment and rehabilitation of properties within the Renewal Area as part of a single “urban
renewal project,” as this term is defined and used in the Urban Renewal Law, consistent with the
objectives and standards in this Plan (North College Project).
The Plan effort was originated in response to a request by existing property owners in the area. Owners
reached consensus and requested the establishment of a renewal plan after years of involvement in
public discussion. As a group, they recognize the problems with existing development, which is largely
outdated and substandard, constituting blighted conditions, and they want to stay involved in solutions
that fit the area.
The driving interest in establishing this Plan and implementing the North College Project under it is to
begin offering tax increment financing as a tool to stimulate and leverage both public and private sector
development (including redevelopment), to help eliminate blight and prevent the spread of blight. It is
the intent of this Plan for any renewal undertakings and activities occurring as part of the North College
Project and other implementation actions that they be done in a responsive manner, with full
consideration for interests and concerns of property owners in the area.
The renewal undertakings and activities to pursued under this Plan as part of the North College Project
are anticipated to occur incrementally over a substantial period of time.
2. Finding of “Blight”
Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the North College Avenue Existing
Conditions Study, dated September 29, 2004, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” to City
Council Resolution 2004-118, the City Council made a finding on December 21, 2004, in its Resolution
2004-152 that the Renewal Area was “blighted” as defined by the Urban Renewal Law, by the existence
of the following ten factors:
slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
deterioration of site or other improvements;
unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
the existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes;
buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code
violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or
inadequate facilities;
environmental contamination of buildings or property;
the existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or
substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements
Deleted: the
Deleted: ment
Deleted: of
Deleted: development projects
Deleted: to
Deleted: Development and redevelopment in the
area is
Deleted: hereto as Appendix “B”
Deleted: the
Deleted: , by
13.a
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 6
The City Council also found that these factors, taken together, substantially impair the sound growth of
the City, constitute an economic and social liability, and are a menace to the public heath, safety and
welfare of the community. Based on evidence of the “blighted” factors, the Renewal Area is appropriate
for authorized renewal undertakings and activities of the Authority as part of the North College Project
pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law.
3. Plan Objectives
The overall objective of this Plan is for the North College Project to remedy blight and prevent the
spread of blight by assisting implementation of the relevant provisions contained in the following
documents:
North College Avenue Corridor Plan
North College Avenue Access Management Plan
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
Fort Collins Infill Infrastructure Report
City Plan (The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan)
City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan
Dry Creek Drainage Basin Master Plan
To do this, this Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around the Renewal
Area. A combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public investment will assist
progress toward the following additional objectives:
To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through cooperation
among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed improvements
To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of the city
To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements
To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and complementary
to unique circumstances in the area
To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land
To improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation and safety
To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities
To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and conditions
To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Renewal Area
To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when such
opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political limits of the Authority
to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide relocation benefits, and pursue
redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation projects.
13.a
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 7
4. Renewal Undertakings and Activities
To support progress toward the objectives, the Authority may undertake as part of the North College
Project any of the following renewal undertakings and activities, as deemed appropriate for the
elimination or prevention of blight factors within the Renewal Area, pursuant to the Urban Renewal
Law:
a. Public Improvements. The Authority may cause, finance or facilitate the design, installation,
construction and reconstruction of public improvements in the Renewal Area. In order to
promote the effective utilization of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the Renewal Area,
the Authority may, among other things, enter into financial or other agreements with the City of
Fort Collins to provide the City with financial or other support in order to encourage or cause the
City to invest funds for the improvement of storm drainage and street conditions and deficiencies
in the Renewal Area.
b. Purchase of Property. In the event that the Authority finds it necessary to purchase any real
property for the North College Project to remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal
Law and this Plan, the Authority may do so by any legal means available, including the exercise
of the power of eminent domain, pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. If the power of eminent
domain is to be exercised for the purpose of transfer of property to another private person or
entity, the Authority’s decision whether to acquire the property through eminent domain shall be
guided by the following criteria, with the understanding that these guidelines shall not be
construed to constrain the Authority’s legal ability to exercise the power of eminent domain:
■ all requirements of the Urban Renewal Law, including eminent domain
procedures, have been met;
■ other possible alternatives have been thoroughly considered by the Authority;
■ good faith negotiations by the Authority and/or the developer have been rejected
by the property owner;
■ reasonable efforts have been undertaken to: (a) understand and address the
property owner's position and his or her desires for the property and for any
existing business on the site, and (b) work with the owner to either include the
owner in the planning of the proposed development or purchase the property and
relocate the owner in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law on terms and
conditions acceptable to the owner.
c. Demolition. The Authority may provide for the demolition of existing development and
clearance of sites as part of a specific North College Project undertaking or activity .
d. Participation Agreements. The Authority may enter into participation agreements with property
owners or developers in the Renewal Area to facilitate participation and assistance that the
Deleted: r
Deleted: a
Deleted: an urban renewal project
Deleted: project
Deleted: project
Deleted: projects
Deleted: r
Deleted: a
13.a
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 8
Authority may choose to provide to such owners or developers. These may include provisions
regarding planning, public improvements, financing, design, and any other matters allowed
pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law.
e. Relocation Assistance. It is not expected that the activities of the Authority will displace any
person, family, or business. However, to the extent that in the future the Authority may purchase
property causing displacement of any person, family, or business, it shall develop a relocation
program to assist any such party in finding another location pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law,
and provide relocation benefits consistent with the Urban Renewal Law. There shall be no
displacement of any person or business without there being in place a relocation program, which
program shall become a part of this Plan when adopted.
f. Hiring. The Authority may employ consultants, agents, and employees, permanent and
temporary, and it shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation.
g. Legal Authority. The Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban
Renewal Law.
5. Development Standards and Procedures
Development within the Renewal Area shall be designed and processed in accordance with the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code and other applicable standards, in the City’s standard development review
procedures.
Deleted: project
13.a
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 9
6. Conformance
URBAN RENEWAL LAW
This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of the Urban
Renewal Law.
CITY PLAN
The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan, describes desirable land use and
transportation patterns, with goals and policies for those topics along with community appearance and
design, the environment, open lands, housing, the economy, and growth management. In addition, the
adopted North College Avenue Corridor Plan is a related Element of City Plan.
Briefly summarized, the land use pattern envisioned by these plans for the Renewal Area is a
commercial corridor well-integrated with surrounding mixed-use and residential development. The
Renewal Area is envisioned to evolve with improved community design and streetscapes, in an
interconnected framework of streets and blocks. One of the purposes of this Plan is to implement the
vision for the Renewal Area as a commercial corridor with mixed-use residential improvements.
This Plan is intended to provide mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan, and therefore it is
in direct conformance with City Plan.
The following excerpts from City Plan highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Urban Renewal
Plan. These are representative excerpts, and not an all-inclusive listing of relevant statements:
■ PRINCIPLE GM-8: The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in areas within
the Growth Management Area boundary. SEE FIGURE GM-8.
■ Policy GM-8.1 Targeted Redevelopment/Infill. Redevelopment and infill development will be
encouraged in targeted locations. The purpose of these areas is to channel growth where it will be
beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing and services with fewer and shorter auto trips.
These targeted areas are parts of the city where general agreement exists that development or
redevelopment is beneficial. A major goal is to increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing
residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. These areas should be
defined from City Plan, Subarea Plans, Zoning and locational criteria such as:
a. Underutilized land
b. Areas already undergoing positive change, which is expected to continue
c. Areas where infrastructure capacity exists
d. Areas where public investment is warranted from a policy perspective
e. Areas with special opportunities, such as where major public or private
investment is already planned
f. Transportation opportunities:
● Along travel corridors
● Along enhanced travel corridors
13.a
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 10
■ Policy GM-8.4 Remedy Infrastructure Deficiencies. The City will consider opportunities to
selectively correct infrastructure deficiencies in targeted areas, such as storm drainage and streets, so
that infill development or redevelopment does not pay an infrastructure “penalty” to remedy past
problems in existing developed areas.
■ Policy GM-8.5 Public Investment.
The City will consider opportunities, and the costs and benefits for targeted public investment in order to
encourage redevelopment and infill development in appropriate locations.
■ Policy ECON-1.5 Maintain and Expand City Revenue Base. The City will ensure that
commercial uses that generate the sales and use tax revenues which support the City’s financial base are
maintained and expanded. The City will also explore other options to expand and diversify its revenue
base, including targeted annexations of existing commercial corridors, such as the Mulberry Corridor, as
well as revenue sharing agreements with other communities.
a. The City will assist in identifying and preserving key undeveloped parcels in
appropriate locations for additional commercial activity.
b. The City will seek to strengthen existing commercial districts, such as the
Downtown, North College, Campus West, and the Foothills Mall.
c. The City will seek to maintain and enhance its attractiveness as a place to do
business in order to maintain its share of the region’s sales and use tax base.
7. North College Project Financing
Specific North College Project undertaking and activities may be financed in whole or in part by the
Authority, under the tax increment financing (TIF) provisions of CRS § 31-25-107(9)(a) of the Urban
Renewal Law, or by any other available source of financing authorized to be undertaken by the
Authority pursuant to CRS § 31-25-105 of the Urban Renewal Law.
The Authority is authorized as part of the North College Project to: (a) finance any renewal
undertaking and activities within the Renewal Area with revenues from property tax increments, sales
tax increments, interest income, federal loans or grants, agreements with public, quasi-public or private
parties and entities, loans or advances from any other available source, and any other available sources
of revenue; (b) issue bonds and incur other obligations contemplated by the Urban Renewal Law in an
amount sufficient to finance all or any part of a renewal undertaking or activity within the Renewal
Area; and (c) borrow funds and create indebtedness in any authorized form in carrying out this Plan.
Any principal and interest on such indebtedness may be paid from property tax increments, sales tax
increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or properties legally available to the Authority. Such
methods may be combined to finance all or any part of the North College Project undertakings and
activities.
PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT
A fund for financing North College Project undertakings and activities may be accrued and used by the
Authority under the property tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law. Under this
method, property taxes levied after the effective date of the approval of this Plan upon taxable property
in the Renewal Area each year by or for the benefit of any public body shall be divided for a period not
Deleted: projects
Deleted:
Deleted: urban
Deleted: projects
Deleted: project
Deleted: Plan
Deleted: projects
13.a
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 11
to exceed twenty-five (25) years after the effective date of the adoption of the tax allocation provision,
as follows:
Base Amount - That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or
for such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in the Renewal Area last
certified prior to the effective date of approval of the Plan or, as to an area later added to the Renewal
Area, the effective date of the modification of the Plan, shall be paid into the funds of each such public
body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body.
Increment amount - That portion of said property taxes in excess of such base amount shall be allocated
to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the Authority to pay the principal of, the interest on,
and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred
by (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in
whole or in part, a specific project. Such increment amount shall also be used to pay for the Authority's
financial obligations incurred in the implementation of this Plan.
Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Renewal Area exceeds
the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Renewal Area, all of the taxes levied
upon taxable property in the Renewal Area shall be paid in to the funds of the respective public bodies.
In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in Larimer County, which
are subject to division of valuation for assessment between base and increment, as provided above, the
portions of valuations for assessment to be allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted
in accordance with such reassessment. Note that at the time of this Plan adoption, such a general
reassessment occurs every two years, in the odd-numbered years.
When such bonds, loans, advances, indebtedness, and financial obligations, including interest thereon
and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in
the Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies.
SALES TAX INCREMENT
The North College Project may also be financed by the Authority under the sales tax allocation
financing provisions of the Urban Renewal law. The act allows that upon the adoption or amendment of
an Urban Renewal Plan, sales taxes flowing to the City may be "frozen" at their current level. The
current level is established based on the previous twelve months prior to the adoption of this Plan.
Thereafter, the City can continue to receive this fixed sales tax revenue. The Urban Renewal Authority
thereafter may receive all, or an agreed upon portion of the additional sales taxes (the increment) which
are generated above the base. The Authority may use these incremental revenues to finance the issuance
of bonds, reimburse developers for public improvement costs, reimburse the City for public
improvement costs and pay off financial obligations and other debts incurred in the administration of the
Urban Renewal Plan. This increment is not an additional sales tax, but rather is a portion of the
established tax collected by the City, and the sales tax increment resulting from redevelopment efforts
and activities contemplated in this Plan.
TAX INCREMENT REIMBURSEMENT
Deleted: p
13.a
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 12
Tax increment revenues may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs incurred for
improvements related to a renewal undertaking or activity to pay the debt incurred by the Authority
with such entities for those renewal undertakings and activities . Tax incremental revenues may also be
used to pay bonded indebtedness, financial obligations and debts of the Authority related to any renewal
undertakings and activities under this Plan.
8. Plan Advisory Group
To help tailor implementation of this Plan to unique circumstances in the area, a citizen advisory group
shall be formed with strong representation of owners in the North College Corridor area to render advice
to the URA Board of Commissioners (Board). Furthermore, to ensure effective communication, this
Plan recommends that the group include one or two members from City Council and a member from the
Planning and Zoning Board. The intent of this Plan is for URA Board of Commissioners to consult with
the Advisory Group on all significant actions and decisions of the Authority regarding this Plan.
9. Modifications to the Plan
This Plan may be modified pursuant to requirements and procedures set forth in CRS §31-25-107 of the
Urban Renewal Law governing such modifications.
10. Reasonable Variations
The Board shall have the ability to approve reasonable variations (as determined by the Board) from the
strict application of these Plan provisions, so long as such variations reasonably accommodate the intent
and purpose of this Plan and the Urban Renewal Law. Plan provisions may be altered by market
conditions, redevelopment opportunities and/or the needs of the community affected by the Plan.
Deleted: project
Deleted: urban
Deleted: and purposes
Deleted: urban
13.a
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 13
Appendix A - Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH COLLEGE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
AREA
The North College Urban Renewal Plan Area is located in Sections 35 and 36 of Township 8 North
Range 69 West and in Sections 1, 2, 11 and 12 of Township 7 North Range 69 West all of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows;
Commencing at the northeast corner of the said Section 2;
THENCE westerly along the north line of Section 2 to the east one sixteenth corner on the north line of
Section 2 and to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the said
Section 35 to the north right of way of West Willox Lane;
THENCE easterly along the said north right of way, to the west line of Lot 21 of the Plat of The Re-
subdivision Of The Goehring Subdivision;
THENCE northerly along the west line of Lot 21 and along the west line of Lot 3 of the K-D Park
Subdivision to the northerly line of the North College Annexation to the said City;
THENCE northeasterly, northerly, easterly and southeasterly along the said northerly annexation line, to
the east most line of the said North College Annexation;
THENCE southerly along the said east most line and along the east line of the Nauta North College
Annexation to the said City to the north right of way of East Willox Lane;
THENCE easterly along the said north right of way, to the west line of the Willox Heights Annexation
to the said City;
THENCE northerly along the said west line to the north line of the said Willox Heights Annexation;
THENCE easterly, southerly and easterly along the said north line, to the east line of the said Willox
Heights Annexation;
THENCE southerly along the said east line and its southerly extension to the south right of way of the
said East Willox Lane;
THENCE westerly along the said south right of way to the east right of way of Blue Spruce Drive;
THENCE southerly along the said east right of way to the south line of the plat of Replat of Coachlight
Plaza;
THENCE easterly along the said south line to the east line of Block 5 of the plat of Replat No. 1 of
Evergreen Park;
THENCE southerly along the said east line to the south line of the plat of Nokomis Subdivision;
THENCE easterly along the said south line and its easterly extension to the easterly right of way of
Redwood Street;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way and its southerly extension to the southerly
right of way of East Vine Drive;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the easterly right of way of North College
Avenue;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the southerly line of the said North College
Annexation;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line, its westerly extension and along the southerly line of
the Griffin Addition to the said City to a line which is 75.00 feet (measured at right angles) westerly of
and parallel with the centerline of the main track of the Union Pacific Railroad;
13.a
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 14
THENCE northerly along the said parallel line to the south line of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Canyon Lakes Ranger District Administrative Site;
THENCE westerly along the said south line to the west line of the said Canyon Lakes Ranger District
Administrative Site;
THENCE northerly along the said west line and its northerly extension to the south right of way of
Hemlock Street (4th Street);
THENCE westerly along the said south right of way to the north-south centerline of the said Section 2
and to the easterly line of McMurry Park;
THENCE northerly, westerly and northwesterly along the said easterly line of McMurry Park to the
east-west centerline of the said Section 2;
THENCE easterly along the said east-west centerline to the west line of the plat of Lakewood Estates
Mobile Home Park;
THENCE northerly along the said west line to the northerly right of way of Hickory Street;
THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to a line which is 25.00 feet (measured at right
angles) northeasterly of and parallel with the said centerline of the main track of the Union Pacific
Railroad;
THENCE northwesterly along the said parallel line to a line which is 328.50 feet (measured at right
angles) north of and parallel with the south line of the north east quarter of the said Section 2;
THENCE easterly along the said parallel line to the west line of the east half of the said northeast
quarter of Section 2;
THENCE northerly along the said west line of the east half of the northeast quarter to the Point of
Beginning.
13.a
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Redlined North College Urban Renewal Plan (3836 : URA North College Plan Modification)
RESOLUTION 2015-106
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND APPROVING A NON-SUBSTANTIAL
MODIFICATION OF THE NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, City Council adopted Resolution 82-10 establishing
with the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
(the "Authority") and designating the Council to serve as the Authority’s Board of
Commissioners (the “Authority Board”); and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, City Council adopted Resolution 2004-152
approving the “North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan” dated December 21, 2004, (the
“Original Plan”) in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, C.R.S. Sections 31-25-
101 , et seq. (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Original Plan was adopted to facilitate the elimination and prevention of
blighted areas with the plan area established in the Original Plan (the “Plan Area) by promoting
and assisting undertakings and activities within the Plan Area involving the development,
redevelopment and rehabilitation of properties within the Plan Area as part of a single “urban
renewal project,” as this term is defined and used in the Act (the “North College Project”); and
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Original Plan, the Authority has provided assistance to
several such undertakings and activities within the Plan Area as part of the North College Project
(the “Existing Undertakings”); and
WHEREAS, in May 2015 the Colorado General Assembly adopted House Bill 2015-
1348 (“HB-1348”) which amended the Act to require, beginning January 1, 2016, that
municipalities having an urban renewal authority must follow a negotiation and binding
mediation process with other affected taxing entities for any proposed modification to an urban
renewal plan that would add a new “urban renewal project” to the plan; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Original Plan with the intent and expectation that
it would describe and authorize only one “urban renewal project,” as this term is defined in the
Act, within which any number of undertakings and activities could occur, such as the Existing
Activities; and
WHEREAS, these HB-1348 amendments to the Act have created considerable
uncertainty as to when the City will be required to follow this negotiation and binding mediation
process when in the future it is proposing to provide assistance to new undertakings or activities
under the Original Plan and how this process might affect the Existing Undertakings; and
WHEREAS, City staff has therefore recommended to Council that the Original Plan be
modify by amending language in the Original Plan to make clear that it identifies and authorizes
only one “urban renewal project,” that being the North College Project (the “Modification”); and
Packet Pg. 160
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(7), City Council hereby finds that the
Modification will not be a substantial modification of the Original Plan because the Modification
does not result in any substantial change in the land area, land use, design, building
requirements, timing or procedure as previously approved in the Original Plan and, therefore,
that the notice and other requirements in Section 31-25-107 necessary for substantial
modifications of urban renewal plans are not applicable to this Modification; and
WHEREAS, the changes proposed in the Modification have been made to the Original
Plan resulting in the “North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan” dated December 1, 2015,
which is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference (the “First Amended
Plan); and
WHEREAS, based on the Council’s review of the First Amended Plan and the
information provided to it, the Council hereby finds and determines that Council’s approval of
First Amended Plan is in the best interest of the City and its citizens, it is consistent with the
purposes of the Act, and it satisfies all applicable requirements of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth
herein and the Council hereby makes and adopts all of the findings and determinations set forth
in these recitals.
Section 2. That the First Amended Plan is hereby adopted and, as so adopted,
intended to supersede and replace in all respects the Original Plan. However, Council Resolution
2004-152 approving the Original Plan and the Council’s findings and determinations in it shall
remain in full force and effect except to the extent this Resolution has modified the Original Plan
by the adoption of the First Amended Plan.
Section 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to promptly deliver a certified copy
of this Resolution with the attached exhibit to the Larimer County Assessor as required by C.R.S.
Section 31-25-107(10).
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins on
this 1st day of December A.D. 201 5.
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 161
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 1
North College Avenue
Urban Renewal Plan
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins and
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Adopted December 21, 2004
Amended: December 1, 2015 to Clarify that this Plan
Authorizes and Describes One Urban Renewal Project
a
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 2
Table of Contents
1. Preface and Intent ......................................................................................... 3
2. Finding of “Blight” ........................................................................................ 5
3. Plan Objectives .............................................................................................. 6
4. Renewal Undertakings and Activities .......................................................... 7
5. Development Standards and Procedures .................................................... 8
6. Conformance ................................................................................................. 8
Urban Renewal Law .......................................................................................................... 8
City Plan ............................................................................................................................ 8
7. North College Project Financing .................................................................. 9
Property Tax Increment .................................................................................................. 10
Sales Tax Increment ........................................................................................................ 10
Tax Increment Reimbursement………………………………………………………………..10
8. Plan Advisory Group ................................................................................... 11
9. Modifications to the Plan ............................................................................ 11
10. Reasonable Variations .............................................................................. 11
a
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 3
1. Preface and Intent
The North College Avenue Renewal Plan (Plan) is an Urban Renewal Plan prepared for the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) and the City of Fort Collins (the City), pursuant to the provisions
of the Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 31-25-101 et seq. (Urban Renewal Law). Terms used
in the Plan have the same meaning as in the Urban Renewal Law.
The jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority are the same as the boundaries of the City. Within the
City boundaries there may be one or more urban renewal areas. This Plan describes the framework for
certain public undertakings constituting urban renewal projects and other authorized activities under the
Urban Renewal Law in the North College Corridor area, located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer
County, Colorado.
The boundary of the area to which this Plan applies generally includes those properties located within
the area bounded by:
The Cache La Poudre River on the south,
the Larimer-Weld Canal on the north,
an irregular line generally about a quarter mile from North College Avenue on the west,
and irregular line generally extending to Redwood Street about a half mile from North College
Avenue on the east.
The plan area is depicted on the Boundary Map on the following page. A legal description of the area is
attached hereto as Appendix A (Renewal Area).
a
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 4
a
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 5
This Plan was prepared for adoption by the City Council in recognition that the Renewal Area requires a
coordinated strategy, with financing possibilities, to eliminate blight and prevent the spread of blight,
and accomplish the City’s development objectives for improving the viability of the area.
This Plan is intended to describe and authorize the Authority, in cooperation with the City, to promote
and assist renewal undertakings and activities within the Renewal Area involving the development,
redevelopment and rehabilitation of properties within the Renewal Area as part of a single “urban
renewal project,” as this term is defined and used in the Urban Renewal Law, consistent with the
objectives and standards in this Plan (North College Project).
The Plan effort was originated in response to a request by existing property owners in the area. Owners
reached consensus and requested the establishment of a renewal plan after years of involvement in
public discussion. As a group, they recognize the problems with existing development, which is largely
outdated and substandard, constituting blighted conditions, and they want to stay involved in solutions
that fit the area.
The driving interest in establishing this Plan and implementing the North College Project under it is to
begin offering tax increment financing as a tool to stimulate and leverage both public and private sector
development (including redevelopment), to help eliminate blight and prevent the spread of blight. It is
the intent of this Plan for any renewal undertakings and activities occurring as part of the North College
Project and other implementation actions that they be done in a responsive manner, with full
consideration for interests and concerns of property owners in the area.
The renewal undertakings and activities to be pursued under this Plan as part of the North College
Project are anticipated to occur incrementally over a substantial period of time.
2. Finding of “Blight”
Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the North College Avenue Existing
Conditions Study, dated September 29, 2004, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” to City Council
Resolution 2004-118, the City Council made a finding on December 21, 2004, in its Resolution 2004-
152 that the Renewal Area was “blighted” as defined by the Urban Renewal Law, by the existence of the
following ten factors:
slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
deterioration of site or other improvements;
unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
the existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes;
buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code
violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or
inadequate facilities;
environmental contamination of buildings or property;
the existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or
substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements
a
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 6
The City Council also found that these factors, taken together, substantially impair the sound growth of
the City, constitute an economic and social liability, and are a menace to the public heath, safety and
welfare of the community. Based on evidence of the “blighted” factors, the Renewal Area is appropriate
for authorized renewal undertakings and activities of the Authority as part of the North College Project
pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law.
3. Plan Objectives
The overall objective of this Plan is for the North College Project to remedy blight and prevent the
spread of blight by assisting implementation of the relevant provisions contained in the following
documents:
North College Avenue Corridor Plan
North College Avenue Access Management Plan
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
Fort Collins Infill Infrastructure Report
City Plan (The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan)
City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan
Dry Creek Drainage Basin Master Plan
To do this, this Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around the Renewal
Area. A combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public investment will assist
progress toward the following additional objectives:
To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through cooperation
among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed improvements
To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of the city
To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements
To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and complementary
to unique circumstances in the area
To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land
To improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation and safety
To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities
To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and conditions
To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Renewal Area
To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when such
opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political limits of the Authority
to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide relocation benefits, and pursue
redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation projects.
a
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 7
4. Renewal Undertakings and Activities
To support progress toward the objectives, the Authority may undertake as part of the North College
Project any of the following renewal undertakings and activities, as deemed appropriate for the
elimination or prevention of blight factors within the Renewal Area, pursuant to the Urban Renewal
Law:
a. Public Improvements. The Authority may cause, finance or facilitate the design, installation,
construction and reconstruction of public improvements in the Renewal Area. In order to
promote the effective utilization of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the Renewal Area,
the Authority may, among other things, enter into financial or other agreements with the City of
Fort Collins to provide the City with financial or other support in order to encourage or cause the
City to invest funds for the improvement of storm drainage and street conditions and deficiencies
in the Renewal Area.
b. Purchase of Property. In the event that the Authority finds it necessary to purchase any real
property for the North College Project to remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal
Law and this Plan, the Authority may do so by any legal means available, including the exercise
of the power of eminent domain, pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. If the power of eminent
domain is to be exercised for the purpose of transfer of property to another private person or
entity, the Authority’s decision whether to acquire the property through eminent domain shall be
guided by the following criteria, with the understanding that these guidelines shall not be
construed to constrain the Authority’s legal ability to exercise the power of eminent domain:
■ all requirements of the Urban Renewal Law, including eminent domain
procedures, have been met;
■ other possible alternatives have been thoroughly considered by the Authority;
■ good faith negotiations by the Authority and/or the developer have been rejected
by the property owner;
■ reasonable efforts have been undertaken to: (a) understand and address the
property owner's position and his or her desires for the property and for any
existing business on the site, and (b) work with the owner to either include the
owner in the planning of the proposed development or purchase the property and
relocate the owner in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law on terms and
conditions acceptable to the owner.
c. Demolition. The Authority may provide for the demolition of existing development and
clearance of sites as part of a specific North College Project undertaking or activity.
d. Participation Agreements. The Authority may enter into participation agreements with property
owners or developers in the Renewal Area to facilitate participation and assistance that the
Authority may choose to provide to such owners or developers. These may include provisions
regarding planning, public improvements, financing, design, and any other matters allowed
pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law.
e. Relocation Assistance. It is not expected that the activities of the Authority will displace any
person, family, or business. However, to the extent that in the future the Authority may purchase
property causing displacement of any person, family, or business, it shall develop a relocation
program to assist any such party in finding another location pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law,
and provide relocation benefits consistent with the Urban Renewal Law. There shall be no
displacement of any person or business without there being in place a relocation program, which
program shall become a part of this Plan when adopted.
a
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 8
f. Hiring. The Authority may employ consultants, agents, and employees, permanent and
temporary, and it shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation.
g. Legal Authority. The Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban
Renewal Law.
5. Development Standards and Procedures
Development within the Renewal Area shall be designed and processed in accordance with the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code and other applicable standards, in the City’s standard development review
procedures.
6. Conformance
URBAN RENEWAL LAW
This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of the Urban
Renewal Law.
CITY PLAN
The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan, describes desirable land use and
transportation patterns, with goals and policies for those topics along with community appearance and
design, the environment, open lands, housing, the economy, and growth management. In addition, the
adopted North College Avenue Corridor Plan is a related Element of City Plan.
Briefly summarized, the land use pattern envisioned by these plans for the Renewal Area is a
commercial corridor well-integrated with surrounding mixed-use and residential development. The
Renewal Area is envisioned to evolve with improved community design and streetscapes, in an
interconnected framework of streets and blocks. One of the purposes of this Plan is to implement the
vision for the Renewal Area as a commercial corridor with mixed-use residential improvements.
This Plan is intended to provide mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan, and therefore it is
in direct conformance with City Plan.
The following excerpts from City Plan highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Urban Renewal
Plan. These are representative excerpts, and not an all-inclusive listing of relevant statements:
■ PRINCIPLE GM-8: The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in areas within
the Growth Management Area boundary. SEE FIGURE GM-8.
■ Policy GM-8.1 Targeted Redevelopment/Infill. Redevelopment and infill development will be
encouraged in targeted locations. The purpose of these areas is to channel growth where it will be
beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing and services with fewer and shorter auto trips.
These targeted areas are parts of the city where general agreement exists that development or
redevelopment is beneficial. A major goal is to increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing
a
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 9
residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. These areas should be
defined from City Plan, Subarea Plans, Zoning and locational criteria such as:
a. Underutilized land
b. Areas already undergoing positive change, which is expected to continue
c. Areas where infrastructure capacity exists
d. Areas where public investment is warranted from a policy perspective
e. Areas with special opportunities, such as where major public or private
investment is already planned
f. Transportation opportunities:
● Along travel corridors
● Along enhanced travel corridors
■ Policy GM-8.4 Remedy Infrastructure Deficiencies. The City will consider opportunities to
selectively correct infrastructure deficiencies in targeted areas, such as storm drainage and streets, so
that infill development or redevelopment does not pay an infrastructure “penalty” to remedy past
problems in existing developed areas.
■ Policy GM-8.5 Public Investment.
The City will consider opportunities, and the costs and benefits for targeted public investment in order to
encourage redevelopment and infill development in appropriate locations.
■ Policy ECON-1.5 Maintain and Expand City Revenue Base. The City will ensure that
commercial uses that generate the sales and use tax revenues which support the City’s financial base are
maintained and expanded. The City will also explore other options to expand and diversify its revenue
base, including targeted annexations of existing commercial corridors, such as the Mulberry Corridor, as
well as revenue sharing agreements with other communities.
a. The City will assist in identifying and preserving key undeveloped parcels in
appropriate locations for additional commercial activity.
b. The City will seek to strengthen existing commercial districts, such as the
Downtown, North College, Campus West, and the Foothills Mall.
c. The City will seek to maintain and enhance its attractiveness as a place to do
business in order to maintain its share of the region’s sales and use tax base.
7. North College Project Financing
Specific North College Project undertaking and activities may be financed in whole or in part by the
Authority, under the tax increment financing (TIF) provisions of CRS § 31-25-107(9)(a) of the Urban
Renewal Law, or by any other available source of financing authorized to be undertaken by the
Authority pursuant to CRS § 31-25-105 of the Urban Renewal Law.
The Authority is authorized as part of the North College Project to: (a) finance any renewal
undertaking and activities within the Renewal Area with revenues from property tax increments, sales
tax increments, interest income, federal loans or grants, agreements with public, quasi-public or private
parties and entities, loans or advances from any other available source, and any other available sources
of revenue; (b) issue bonds and incur other obligations contemplated by the Urban Renewal Law in an
a
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 10
amount sufficient to finance all or any part of a renewal undertaking or activity within the Renewal
Area; and (c) borrow funds and create indebtedness in any authorized form in carrying out this Plan.
Any principal and interest on such indebtedness may be paid from property tax increments, sales tax
increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or properties legally available to the Authority. Such
methods may be combined to finance all or any part of the North College Project undertakings and
activities.
PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT
A fund for financing North College Project undertakings and activities may be accrued and used by the
Authority under the property tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law. Under this
method, property taxes levied after the effective date of the approval of this Plan upon taxable property
in the Renewal Area each year by or for the benefit of any public body shall be divided for a period not
to exceed twenty-five (25) years after the effective date of the adoption of the tax allocation provision,
as follows:
Base Amount - That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or
for such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in the Renewal Area last
certified prior to the effective date of approval of the Plan or, as to an area later added to the Renewal
Area, the effective date of the modification of the Plan, shall be paid into the funds of each such public
body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body.
Increment amount - That portion of said property taxes in excess of such base amount shall be allocated
to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the Authority to pay the principal of, the interest on,
and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred
by (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in
whole or in part, a specific project. Such increment amount shall also be used to pay for the Authority's
financial obligations incurred in the implementation of this Plan.
Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Renewal Area exceeds
the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Renewal Area, all of the taxes levied
upon taxable property in the Renewal Area shall be paid in to the funds of the respective public bodies.
In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in Larimer County, which
are subject to division of valuation for assessment between base and increment, as provided above, the
portions of valuations for assessment to be allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted
in accordance with such reassessment. Note that at the time of this Plan adoption, such a general
reassessment occurs every two years, in the odd-numbered years.
When such bonds, loans, advances, indebtedness, and financial obligations, including interest thereon
and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in
the Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies.
SALES TAX INCREMENT
The North College Project may also be financed by the Authority under the sales tax allocation
financing provisions of the Urban Renewal law. The act allows that upon the adoption or amendment of
a
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 11
an Urban Renewal Plan, sales taxes flowing to the City may be "frozen" at their current level. The
current level is established based on the previous twelve months prior to the adoption of this Plan.
Thereafter, the City can continue to receive this fixed sales tax revenue. The Urban Renewal Authority
thereafter may receive all, or an agreed upon portion of the additional sales taxes (the increment) which
are generated above the base. The Authority may use these incremental revenues to finance the issuance
of bonds, reimburse developers for public improvement costs, reimburse the City for public
improvement costs and pay off financial obligations and other debts incurred in the administration of the
Urban Renewal Plan. This increment is not an additional sales tax, but rather is a portion of the
established tax collected by the City, and the sales tax increment resulting from redevelopment efforts
and activities contemplated in this Plan.
TAX INCREMENT REIMBURSEMENT
Tax increment revenues may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs incurred for
improvements related to a renewal undertaking or activity to pay the debt incurred by the Authority with
such entities for those renewal undertakings and activities. Tax incremental revenues may also be used
to pay bonded indebtedness, financial obligations and debts of the Authority related to any renewal
undertakings and activities under this Plan.
8. Plan Advisory Group
To help tailor implementation of this Plan to unique circumstances in the area, a citizen advisory group
shall be formed with strong representation of owners in the North College Corridor area to render advice
to the URA Board of Commissioners (Board). Furthermore, to ensure effective communication, this
Plan recommends that the group include one or two members from City Council and a member from the
Planning and Zoning Board. The intent of this Plan is for URA Board of Commissioners to consult with
the Advisory Group on all significant actions and decisions of the Authority regarding this Plan.
9. Modifications to the Plan
This Plan may be modified pursuant to requirements and procedures set forth in CRS §31-25-107 of the
Urban Renewal Law governing such modifications.
10. Reasonable Variations
The Board shall have the ability to approve reasonable variations (as determined by the Board) from the
strict application of these Plan provisions, so long as such variations reasonably accommodate the intent
and purpose of this Plan and the Urban Renewal Law. Plan provisions may be altered by market
conditions, redevelopment opportunities and/or the needs of the community affected by the Plan.
a
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 12
Appendix A - Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH COLLEGE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
AREA
The North College Urban Renewal Plan Area is located in Sections 35 and 36 of Township 8 North
Range 69 West and in Sections 1, 2, 11 and 12 of Township 7 North Range 69 West all of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows;
Commencing at the northeast corner of the said Section 2;
THENCE westerly along the north line of Section 2 to the east one sixteenth corner on the north line of
Section 2 and to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the said
Section 35 to the north right of way of West Willox Lane;
THENCE easterly along the said north right of way, to the west line of Lot 21 of the Plat of The Re-
subdivision Of The Goehring Subdivision;
THENCE northerly along the west line of Lot 21 and along the west line of Lot 3 of the K-D Park
Subdivision to the northerly line of the North College Annexation to the said City;
THENCE northeasterly, northerly, easterly and southeasterly along the said northerly annexation line, to
the east most line of the said North College Annexation;
THENCE southerly along the said east most line and along the east line of the Nauta North College
Annexation to the said City to the north right of way of East Willox Lane;
THENCE easterly along the said north right of way, to the west line of the Willox Heights Annexation
to the said City;
THENCE northerly along the said west line to the north line of the said Willox Heights Annexation;
THENCE easterly, southerly and easterly along the said north line, to the east line of the said Willox
Heights Annexation;
THENCE southerly along the said east line and its southerly extension to the south right of way of the
said East Willox Lane;
THENCE westerly along the said south right of way to the east right of way of Blue Spruce Drive;
THENCE southerly along the said east right of way to the south line of the plat of Replat of Coachlight
Plaza;
THENCE easterly along the said south line to the east line of Block 5 of the plat of Replat No. 1 of
Evergreen Park;
THENCE southerly along the said east line to the south line of the plat of Nokomis Subdivision;
THENCE easterly along the said south line and its easterly extension to the easterly right of way of
Redwood Street;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way and its southerly extension to the southerly
right of way of East Vine Drive;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the easterly right of way of North College
Avenue;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the southerly line of the said North College
Annexation;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line, its westerly extension and along the southerly line of
the Griffin Addition to the said City to a line which is 75.00 feet (measured at right angles) westerly of
and parallel with the centerline of the main track of the Union Pacific Railroad;
a
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
North College Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 13
THENCE northerly along the said parallel line to the south line of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Canyon Lakes Ranger District Administrative Site;
THENCE westerly along the said south line to the west line of the said Canyon Lakes Ranger District
Administrative Site;
THENCE northerly along the said west line and its northerly extension to the south right of way of
Hemlock Street (4th Street);
THENCE westerly along the said south right of way to the north-south centerline of the said Section 2
and to the easterly line of McMurry Park;
THENCE northerly, westerly and northwesterly along the said easterly line of McMurry Park to the
east-west centerline of the said Section 2;
THENCE easterly along the said east-west centerline to the west line of the plat of Lakewood Estates
Mobile Home Park;
THENCE northerly along the said west line to the northerly right of way of Hickory Street;
THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to a line which is 25.00 feet (measured at right
angles) northeasterly of and parallel with the said centerline of the main track of the Union Pacific
Railroad;
THENCE northwesterly along the said parallel line to a line which is 328.50 feet (measured at right
angles) north of and parallel with the south line of the north east quarter of the said Section 2;
THENCE easterly along the said parallel line to the west line of the east half of the said northeast
quarter of Section 2;
THENCE northerly along the said west line of the east half of the northeast quarter to the Point of
Beginning.
a
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: North College Urban Renewal Plan (3866 : URA North College Plan Modification RESO)
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Clay Frickey, Associate Planner
SUBJECT
Items Pertaining to the Wood Street Second Annexation and Zoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2015, Annexing Property Known as the Wood
Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Second
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The purpose of this item is to annex and zone a parcel in an enclave at 832 Wood Street. This is a City-
initiated request to annex the 16.267 acre parcel #97023-00-034 at 832 Wood Street into the City of Fort
Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Pateros Creek subdivision on September 18,
2012. As of September 18, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and annex the enclave in accordance with
Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106.
The Wood Street Second Annexation abuts the City of Fort Collins Utilities building to the north. The requested
zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The surrounding properties are existing
residential, office, park, and light industrial land uses in the City of Fort Collins.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an enclave annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to
policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements,
the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation
according to State law. Wood Street Second Annexation became an enclave upon the annexation of the Pateros
Creek subdivision on September 18th, 2012. As of September 18th, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and
annex the enclave in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106.
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Use
North Urban Estate (U-E) Pateros Creek subdivision: Single-family detached
South Employment (E) City of Fort Collins Utilities facility
14
Packet Pg. 175
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 2
East Public Open Lands (P-O-L) Lee Martinez Community Park
West Public Open Lands (P-O-L) Single-family detached
Employment (E) City of Fort Collins Operations Services Fleet Service
Center
The requested zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The Land Use Code
describes this zone district as follows:
Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density and large-lot
housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions
which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations
for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural
or open lands.
The property owner has expressed interest in a limited amount of additional development on the site following
the annexation process. No detailed development plan has been prepared. The City of Fort Collins has been
working with the property owner to install a geoheat exchange system that will pipe cool air from the bottom of
the pond on the site to the City Utilities building abutting to the south.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No direct economic impacts will result with this proposed annexation and zoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning request on
October 29th, 2015. The annexation and placement of the parcel into the Urban Estate zone district was on
the consent agenda. The board approved the consent agenda with a 7-0 vote.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred two weeks prior to the item going before
the Planning and Zoning Board at their scheduled public hearing on October 29th, 2015. A letter of notification
of the public hearing was mailed to all Affected Property Owners within 800 feet of the property 14 days prior to
the hearing. The Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for annexation and initial zonings
and a meeting was not held for this annexation & zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map (PDF)
2. Proposed Zoning Map (PDF)
3. Structure Plan Map (PDF)
4. Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC)
5. Powerpoint Presentation (PPTX)
14
Packet Pg. 176
ATTACHMENT 1 14.a
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Vicinity Map (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
ATTACHMENT 2 14.b
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Proposed Zoning Map (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
ATTACHMENT 3
14.c
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Structure Plan Map (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers
Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue
Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado
Emily Heinz
Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system
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.
Special Hearing
October 29, 2015
Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider
Absent: None
Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Branson, Wilkinson, Burnett, Mapes, Frickey, McWilliams, Schmidt,
Ragasa and Cosmas
Agenda Review
Chair Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the following processes:
While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration,
citizen input is valued and appreciated.
The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for
each item.
Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with
city Land Use Code.
Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will
be allowed for that as well.
This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure
that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
14.d
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 2
Planning Director Gloss presented the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas.
Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda:
None noted.
Consent Agenda:
1. Wood Street Second Annexation
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the October 29, 2015,
Consent agenda, which includes the Wood Street Second Annexation. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick
seconded. Vote: 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Uncommon – 310 S. College Avenue
Project: Uncommon – 310 S. College Avenue
Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6-
story, mixed-use building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The site formerly
contained Perkins restaurant, which was demolished and removed in early 2015. The property is zoned
Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The proposed land uses are permitted, and the PDP is
subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The site is 35,000 square feet. Proposed building coverage is 30,600 square feet. The ground floor
consists of street-front retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet, and the upper levels contain
apartment units totaling 120 units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a
total of 248 bedrooms. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet.
125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground level below upper floor
building space, with access from the alley.
Recommendation: Denial
14.d
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 3
Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, 12 citizen emails had been received in support
of the project, an email from Eric Sutherland with concerns relating to the prominent legal issues
involved, various historic materials and evidence related to the project (857 pages) from Lucia Liley’s
office to become part of the public record, and a draft of the Quality Improvement Plans for Development
Review Process prepared by Zucker Systems. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe also stated that he was
presenting email correspondence between himself and Lucia Liley that will be designated as Exhibit 1.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mapes gave a broad PowerPoint presentation of this project, including pictorial comparisons of
the applicant’s renderings and the renderings prepared by City Staff, which indicates significant
differences with regard to building size and massing proportions, design and materials, and
character/architecture. He also discussed the affected Land Use Codes and concluded that this project
does not meet the prescribed standards, especially for adjacent historic properties, and he detailed each
standard and demonstrated the incompatible aspects of the project. He stated that the buildings are not
compatible with the surrounding buildings with respect to height, massing, and character.
Planner Branson began his presentation by calling attention to the inaccurate renderings provided by the
applicant, and he presented a set of images modeling these inconsistencies. He also stated that the
images created by Staff were meant to be compatible with the ongoing Downtown Plan, and they were
taken using a “human perspective” (approximately 5½’ off of the ground). He made comparisons
between the Uncommon building and other similar sites, concentrating on the percentage of the footprint
that would be consumed. Uncommon will use 90% of the lot, which is significantly higher than other
similar buildings.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe added that, regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)
findings, Ms. Liley had made an inquiry about adjacent historic properties, and he had provided her with
information indicating that some of those properties are questionable for historic designation purposes.
Chris Johnson, representing CA-Ventures as the applicant, stated that this location would not be housing
CSU students and that it would be multi-family residential. He discussed the pedestrian scale regarding
massing, mentioning that the models did not show the landscaping, so he feels that some of the Staff’s
models are inaccurate. He stated that the lot coverage is actually 84%, not 90%. He also discussed the
parking situation. He gave some of his personal background and the need for this project in Fort Collins.
He said that the zoning was considered, and all of the uses were allowed. He has also considered the
future development possibilities, and the construction costs involved. He praised the density of the
project and how it fits with the City plan. He indicated that his revenue has been affected already
(materials, time, etc.).
Mr. Johnson stated that due diligence has been employed through various “community listening”
opportunities, and he said that the community has been very supportive of the project overall. The
applicant is interested in maintaining economic feasibility, and they are striving to integrate this building
into the community in a sensitive way. He noted that the surroundings continue to vary, which makes
being sensitive even more challenging. He has spoken to neighbors and the community, and they have
made some changes:
Because Old Town is made up of mostly young professionals, they have removed the 4-bedroom
units and increased the smaller unit types to accommodate the demographics.
They have altered their renting model to renting by the unit, not by the bed.
They are changing their marketing practices to attract graduating CSU students.
They are reducing floor-to-floor heights and increased the setbacks.
14.d
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 4
He feels the applicant has responded with multiple design solutions during the planning process, since
they were asked by Staff to consider reduction of the overall project by 1/3, which he said is economically
infeasible. In response, more concessions were made to increase outdoor space, etc. In addition, they
presented their project to the LPC and attempted to get more direction. They have subsequently
obtained a letter of support from the Armstrong Hotel. The project was denied by the LPC; he believes
that their recommendation was not warranted. They have continued their community outreach, receiving
positive input overall. In conclusion, he reviewed the overall criteria that they used when developing the
property, citing the desirability of higher density in the Downtown-Canyon Avenue subdistrict area.
Lucia Liley, 419 Canyon Avenue, is the attorney representing the applicant. She discussed the
significant, positive changes that the applicant has made in order to go forward with this project. The
nature of the disagreement with Staff has been the height and mass of the building as it relates to
neighborhood scale. These qualifications are based on subjective, qualitative metrics, which she feels
can be difficult to interpret consistently. She discussed the context of the project and the zoning issues
involved; she showed visual graphics of the neighboring blocks, the Downtown plan criteria and
considerations, the historic development of downtown, and the 1989 Downtown Plan suggestions that
taller buildings should be built amid historic buildings. She discussed the Downtown Strategic Plan
criteria and demonstrated how the City has encouraged buildings that meet the criteria that this project
strives to do. She listed the defining characteristics for the area and how they are expected to evolve
over time. She also discussed LUC 3.4.7 and 3.5.1: including height, scale, mass and bulk, along with
landscaping, architecture, pedestrian features, lighting, and parking. She questioned the historic
considerations and how they should be considered with respect to this project. She said that Staff had
acknowledged that the project had met all of the criteria for historic criteria; therefore, she questioned
what the negative impacts were specifically, saying that the applicant had reviewed the historic structures
recommended by Staff for consideration. She also discussed the LPC findings and comments, along
with the comments made by dissenting LPC members.
Eduardo Illanes, Architect representing CA-Ventures for the project, also gave a detailed presentation of
the building architecture, including the integration of the LUC into the project and the considerations
shown to uphold the Fort Collins landscape and heritage. He spoke of how daily life would be enhanced
and the adjustments and concessions that had been made over the project development. He discussed
in detail the building and surrounding area designs, including the rationale for the landscaping,
sidewalks, and open spaces. He compared the various building facades with older surrounding
buildings. He discussed the need for housing along with the higher desired densities prescribed by the
City plan. He mentioned the creation of the paseo, and how this will further enhance the quality of life for
Uncommon residents. Parking for residents will be mostly in the underground garage with several public
parking spaces available to the public. He discussed at length the vision for downtown and how
Uncommon fits into that vision.
Ms. Liley concluded the applicant presentations by reviewing the 2006 Strategic Plan, which had been
subsequently amended after adoption. She pointed out some of the changes, including the “75%
coverage” rule that has since been modified. She reviewed some of the features of other buildings
(setbacks, footprint, level of urbanization, height ranges, and historic significance) that had been
approved in the past (some with modifications) and how they compare with Uncommon. She
acknowledged that this project does not supply the required amount of open space; however, she
pointed out that the paseo alone has enough space to satisfy this requirement.
The Board took a break at 8:15pm and resumed at 8:25pm.
14.d
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 5
Public Input
Steve Levinger, 511 Mathews Street, the owner of the Armstrong Hotel, spoke about the various
buildings that had been built and destroyed over the last 10 years and how he is in support of
this project. He doesn’t feel that historic preservation issues should be a reason for denial.
Dave Derbes, 618 Wabash Street, is a developer and spoke in support of this project. He cited
the evolution of the project and appreciates the quality and thoughtfulness of the applicant. He
also commended them for considering the City plans in place.
Justin Larson, 419 Canyon Avenue, is a neighbor and also supports the project, saying the
project meets the various codes, commending the design team overall.
Joanne Eskildsen, 210 W. Magnolia, is a neighbor and spoke in support of the project, even
though she initially did not support it. She also commended the developers.
Spiro Palmer, 901 W. Mountain Avenue, who represents Palmer Properties and owns other
local businesses, spoke in favor of this project; he stated his belief that this is a special project
and is a good reflection of the downtown overall.
Myrne Watrous, 723 W. Olive Street, spoke in support of City Staff and the Landmark
Preservation Commission, saying she feels the building is too tall and large for that area and the
parking is inadequate. She cited several other developments that do not have adequate
parking, and she suggested another location for the project.
Eric Nichols, 1401 Riverside, helped negotiate this building site transaction, and he spoke in
favor of the project, saying the code standards have been met. He was also involved in other
Fort Collins projects, and he commended the design team for providing a well-designed building
compared to similar buildings.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Ms. Liley asked to submit several other items into the records (Exhibit 2). Mr. Johnson responded to the
citizen’s question about the origin of the name “Uncommon” by explaining that the name is chosen as the
project evolves; they noticed that the project was named “Uncommon” because of the various aesthetic
features which distinguish this building from others.
Member Hobbs requested Planner Mapes to review the setbacks on all four sides of the proposed
buildings, including City right-of-way areas. Planner Mapes confirmed that there is landscaping within
the City right-of-way, and he discussed the setbacks on each street. He also reviewed the zoning
requirements for the Canyon Avenue area. Marc Ragasa, Engineering, stated that the Poudre Fire
Authority required a 5-foot setback to accommodate their truck loading needs. Member Hobbs also
asked what the reason is for the discrepancy of lot coverage stated by City staff versus the applicant.
Mr. Ragasa responded that the discrepancy is due to variations in data used by each (including
rounding). Planner Mapes indicated that the paseo has been enhanced recently, and he feels that the
applicant has met the prescribed standard.
14.d
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 6
Member Hansen inquired about the ground floor public space (including the paseo) and how it will be
perceived. Mr. Illanes responded that there are no barriers to these public spaces, and they will be
accessible thru an open walkway. He added that there will be an upstairs roof area and possibly an
outdoor restaurant or retailer.
Member Heinz clarified that the common space is for the public, and she also asked other questions
regarding the retail strip and the parking spaces with regard accessibility by the public. She also asked if
the alley to the south would be improved, and Planner Mapes stated that it will remain a parking lot.
Member Hart asked Staff what kind of reduction of mass and scale would be adequate to improve the
context of the building, and Planner Mapes responded that the extent of the 5th and 6th levels are the
primary issues. Planning Director Gloss noted that this building is significantly higher than surrounding
buildings, and he feels that the transitional areas are the core issues. The code does not prescribe a
specific way to do that.
Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked why the taller heights were created for individual blocks. Planner Mapes
gave some background as to how that evolved, saying that, at that time, there were competing objectives
among various interests (citizens vs. developers). He detailed the criterion that was considered for this
particular block regarding the number of stories allowed (5-6 stories, which can have variable heights
depending on the floor height). Chair Carpenter also added how difficult those conversations had been,
since the stories were not specifically decided. Planner Mapes said there had been opposition from the
communities; therefore, standards were inserted with the idea that they should be broadly interpreted.
Member Hart also asked about the massing of this and future buildings. Planner Mapes responded that
it is always possible to have exceptions, and he showed slides indicating how blocks should be
transitioned compared to a mock-up of what Uncommon will look like once completed. Member Hansen
asked about setbacks, and Mr. Illanes responded that, from the street, we would see a step lower than
what is being proposed. There was more discussion on the building heights and the appropriate number
of stories, focusing on the transition of the proposed building and the surrounding areas. There was also
discussion on what the standards require for lot coverage and whether removing the 75% standard
would mean moving more toward an urban form. Planner Mapes stated that the purpose of the code
change was to provide more of what was desired by the community. Discussion ensued regarding the 6-
story wall on the Montezuma Alley; Planner Maps clarified that the design of that wall was left to the
compatibility standards backing up the zoning district standards. He added that the factors that led to
Staff’s findings are the combination of the height, the extent of the footprint and construction, and the
resulting East wall. While other buildings are taller or bigger, it is those elements taken together that led
to Staff findings. Member Schneider asked for clarification on what element is more important: the code
language or the Strategic Plan? Planning Director Gloss stated that there have been voids in the
building that create some open spaces, but the building is still massive without significant relief. Mr.
Illanes acknowledged that, while this is a large building, it is also divided into three sections. Planner
Mapes also stated that one of the goals of the Planning Department is to allow change to occur over time
with buildings gradually becoming taller, as opposed to this happening all at once.
There was more discussion regarding scale issues with the historic district on the east side of the
building and how the open space will be used by residents. The courtyard is 30 feet wide and 60 feet
deep; therefore, Staff believes it is unlikely that there will be sunshine in those open spaces, although Mr.
Illanes believes the sun will sometimes penetrate that area. The disposition of snow melt has not been
considered by the applicant. There was discussion regarding the compliance to standards for the
fenestration on the back wall. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked what impacts would occur if the 5th and 6th
stories were stepped back, especially along the east wall; Mr. Johnson said the impacts would be
incompatible with what has been done to date in ensuring success. The applicant had been encouraged
14.d
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 7
to put the height on the alley side in order to avoid creating the “birthday cake” effect. Member Heinz
suggested that it would be helpful to have more prescriptive code standards for transitioning.
Chair Carpenter asked adding setbacks to the East side of the building would be helpful, and Planning
Director Gloss stated that they would prefer to alter the setbacks on the west side. Karen McWilliams,
Historic Preservation Planning Manager, stated that the length of the unarticulated east wall (which is
closest to buildings in the national register district) is the most critical to maintaining proper historic
preservation elements. The Landmark Preservation Commission had previously determined that this
building is too large in this space. She also disputed some of Ms. Liley’s statements that the
compatibility is entirely about the massing, the transitioning, the setbacks and stepbacks, and the shape
of the building, rather than just a comparison to other historic buildings.
Member Hobbs asked about the 3D models presented by Staff, since they significantly conflict with the
images presented by the applicant. He asked if the models shown by staff are objective and unbiased
portrayals of the buildings. Both Planning Director Gloss and Planner Branson confirmed that these
models are as accurate and unbiased as possible. Member Hansen commented on the various
techniques of including landscaping in the mock-ups. The applicant also clarified that this project is not
considered to be “affordable housing”.
Board Deliberation
Member Schneider stated that this project supports the City plan and Strategic Plan, and he
commended the developer for trying to make concessions where possible. Member Hansen
agreed and stated that the challenge is in making the transition on the edge of the zoning
district; he is in favor of the current transition, with the exception of the East side of the building,
and he believes that the impact of that wall may be mitigated over time. Member Hobbs is not in
favor of the project as it stands based on the compatibility of the project with the surrounding
neighborhoods. He feels this is a gateway project to the historic Downtown district, and, even
though the arithmetic calculations are in line, the context of this project does not fit well.
Member Heinz would support more prescriptive measure regarding the massing of this building,
but she will still support this project. Member Hansen supports this project, and he added that
these types of structures won’t work in the future without confidence in the long-term plan.
Member Hart supports this project and thinks that this is the future of Fort Collins, even though
he agrees that the code will need some adjustments. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick is very conflicted
with this project. She believes that this project is meeting the LUC standards; therefore, she is
unable to find a good faith argument why it shouldn’t be approved, even though she doesn’t
support the design of the east wall. Chair Carpenter does not support the project because it is
right at the edge of the zoning district; she concedes that this is primarily a subjective decision.
Planner Mapes gave an overview on the modification, saying that the lower portions of the
building do comply with the specified materials. The applicant declined to provide a separate
presentation. Member Hansen stated that he is in favor of the modification and believes that the
use of these materials is appropriate.
Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification of standard to subsection 4.1.6
(D)(5)(e) Exterior Façade and Materials for the Uncommon project PDP#150013, based
upon the findings of fact on page 11 in the staff report. Member Hansen seconded. Vote:
6:1, with Member Hobbs abstaining.
14.d
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Planning & Zoning Board
October 29, 2015
Page 8
Member Hart made a motion to approve the Uncommon project PDP#150013 because it
complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. Member Heinz
seconded. Vote: 5:2, with Member Hobbs and Chair Carpenter dissenting.
Other Business
None noted.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:16pm.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Jennifer Carpenter, Chair
14.d
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (3829 : Wood Street Second Annexation)
Wood Street Second Annexation Initiating Resolution
Clay Frickey
10-20-15
Overview
• Involuntary annexation
• Enclave created in September 2012
• City initiating annex for energy project
• Use cool air from lake bottom for climate control at
Utilities building
• Proposed zoning is Urban Estate (U-E)
2
Context
• Owner - Jeffrey
Lebesch
• Annexation = 16.267
acres
3
Planning & Zoning
Board Recommendation
• Planning and Zoning Board – October 29th
• On consent
• 7-0 to approve consent agenda
4
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and
requested zoning of Urban Estate with the approval of the
Ordinances on First Reading.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 157, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
WOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2015-088 stating the intent of the City to annex and initiating
annexation proceedings for the Wood Street Second Annexation, as defined therein and
described below, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the area proposed to be annexed has been
entirely contained within the boundaries of the City for a period of not less than three years prior
to this date; and
WHEREAS, the Wood Street Second Annexation complies with all other requirements
for enclave annexations set forth in Title 31, Article 12 of the Colorado Revised Statues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of
the City to annex said area to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the following described property, to wit:
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, AND
CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 TO
BEAR N89°14'45"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 13155, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED LS 20123, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
N00°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 342.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N85°40'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 953.72 FEET;
Packet Pg. 190
2. N65°32'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DUFFY
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH LINES OF SAID DUFFY ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.38 FEET;
2. N89°13'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 242.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE
SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 322.95 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, S89°17'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,272.42 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, ALSO BEING
THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00°40'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 645.41 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 708,577 SQUARE FEET (16.267 ACRES), MORE OR LESS
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Wood Street Second Annexation.
Section 3. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service
lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed
except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City.
Section 4. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (the “Subdistrict”). Upon inclusion into the Subdistrict, said property shall
be subject to the same mill levies and special assessments as are levied or will be levied on other
similarly situated property in the Subdistrict.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 191
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 192
ORDINANCE NO. 158, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE WOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning of the Wood
Street Annexation property, as described below (the “Property”) is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed
zoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.(H)(3) of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
zoning of the Property described below and has determined that the Property should be zoned as
hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to
Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended
by including the property known as the Wood Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property (the “Property”) is
more particularly described as:
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, AND
CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 TO
BEAR N89°14'45"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 13155, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED LS 20123, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT
Packet Pg. 193
COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
N00°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 342.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N85°40'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 953.72 FEET;
2. N65°32'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DUFFY
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH LINES OF SAID DUFFY ANNEXATION THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.38 FEET;
2. N89°13'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 242.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE
SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 322.95 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, S89°17'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,272.42 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, ALSO BEING
THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00°40'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 645.41 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 708,577 SQUARE FEET (16.267 ACRES), MORE OR LESS
Section 3. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the
Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the
Property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said
Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Packet Pg. 194
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 195
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Patrick Rowe, Real Estate Specialist III
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and Resolution 2015-107 Making Legislative Findings and Approving a Second Substantial
Modification of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider two modifications of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan
(the “Midtown Plan”). One modification amends wording in the Midtown Plan to clarify that the Plan identifies
and describes only one urban renewal project. The other modification will reduce the Midtown Plan area by
removing territory not currently in either of the two approved tax increment financing (TIF) districts within the
Midtown Plan (Prospect South and Foothills Mall). Adoption of this Resolution is the final step to enact these
two modifications.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In May 2015, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 2015-1348 (the “URA Reform Bill”), with an
effective date of January 1, 2016. The URA Reform Bill applies to all new urban renewal plans, as well as
existing plans when a qualifying plan modification is made. When applicable, the URA Reform Bill will affect
the City’s Urban Renewal Authority (the “URA”) in several significant ways. Chief among them is that on and
after January 1, 2016, the City will be required to attempt to negotiate an agreement with all affected taxing
entities, like Larimer County, on the issue of how property tax increment generated will be allocated and spent
under that plan. If the City and other taxing entities cannot reach such an agreement, the tax-allocation issue
will be decided through “mediation” by a “mediator.”
There is concern that the City’s two existing urban renewal plans, the North College and Midtown Urban
Renewal Plans, and the urban renewal undertakings and activities ongoing under them, may be negatively
affected by the URA Reform Bill. In an effort to avoid and minimize this concern, staff recommends that the
Council take the following actions before January 1, 2016: (1) amend the Midtown Plan to clarify that it
authorizes only one urban renewal project (the “First Midtown Modification”); and (2) amend the Midtown Plan
to remove all the territory in the Midtown Plan area that is not currently in the Prospect South or the Foothills
Mall tax increment financing (“TIF”) districts, with the exception of a small connection between the two TIF
districts located within South College Avenue right-of-way (the “Second Midtown Modification”). These two
modifications are jointly referred to in this AIS as the “Midtown Modifications”.
The First Midtown Modification clarifies language in the Midtown Plan, specifying that the Plan authorizes only
one urban renewal project. This is in keeping with the statutory definition of an “urban renewal project” defined
as “undertakings and activities for the elimination and for the prevention of the development or spread of slums
and blight … in accordance with an urban renewal plan”. Although such a broad definition makes it unlikely
15
Packet Pg. 196
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 2
that any Midtown Plan activity would be construed as a separate project, Staff recommends the Midtown Plan
be made clearer on this point. Such a revision further reduces the likelihood that the Midtown Plan may
inadvertently become subject to the URA Reform Bill changes.
The Second Midtown Modification specified above, reducing the size of the Midtown Plan area, has been
determined to be a substantial modification of the Midtown Plan. The urban renewal statutes require the
process to consider this change be the same process that is required for the approval of a new urban renewal
plan, which involves a number of steps (outlined below) and culminates in the public hearing. The First
Midtown Modification, clarifying that the Midtown Plan authorizes only one urban renewal project, is not a
substantial change, but will be jointly considered as a matter of process.
The Second Midtown Modification removes a substantial amount of land from the Midtown Plan area, which
area is currently 658.5 acres in size and shown on the map Existing Plan Area or Attachment 1 (specifically
noted on the map as the “Plan Area”). The land to be removed from the Plan Area would be those properties
not currently located in either of the two tax increment financing districts established in the Midtown Plan, these
being the Prospect South Tax Increment District and the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District (jointly, the “TIF
Districts”). However, certain portions of South College Avenue currently not located in the TIF districts will
remain in the Plan Area to connect the two TIF Districts. The Midtown Modifications would exclude
approximately 490.7 acres (or approximately 75 percent) of the land from the Plan Area as depicted on the
map Proposed Plan Area or Attachment 2 (specifically note on the map as the “Excluded Area”), thereby
resulting in the new boundaries for the remaining Midtown Plan area consisting of approximately 167.9 acres
of land, which boundaries are also depicted on the Proposed Plan Area map or Attachment 2 (specifically
noted on the map as the “New Plan Area”).
The rationale for both of these Midtown Modifications is to protect the TIF Districts and their existing and future
undertakings and activities, like the Foothills Mall redevelopment, from potential adverse effects of the URA
Reform Bill. For instance, if the properties in the Excluded Area are not removed from the Plan Area and any
future urban renewal undertakings or activities occur on them, an affected taxing entity might argue that such
undertakings or activities have triggered the URA Reform Bill requiring the City and the URA to negotiate with
that taxing entity a tax allocation agreement for not only the new undertakings or activities, but also with
respect to the existing undertakings and activities in the TIF Districts. By removing the Excluded Area from the
Plan Area now, this should eliminate this argument. Then, if and when the City decides to pursue an urban
renewal plan and project for any property in the Excluded Area, it can do so without concern that such action
will adversely affect the existing and future urban renewal undertakings and activities in the Midtown TIF
Districts in light of the URA Reform Bill.
The process to modify the Midtown Plan has involved the following steps:
1. URA resolution proposing the Midtown Modifications - September 8, 2015 (OCCURRED - the URA
adopted Resolution No. 077);
2. Council resolution submitting the Midtown Modifications to the Planning and Zoning Board to review
for conformity with City Plan and to the Poudre School District - September 15, 2015 (OCCURRED -
Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-084);
3. Planning and Zoning Board hearing to consider the Midtown Modifications and adoption of a resolution
with its recommendation to Council concerning the Modifications’ conformance with City Plan -
October 8, 2015 (OCCURRED - the Planning and Zoning Board adopted the attached resolution
(Attachment 3) finding that the Midtown Plan, as amended by the Midtown Modifications, is in
conformity with City Plan);
4. Council resolution scheduling a public hearing on the Midtown Modifications - October 20, 2015
(OCCURRED - Council Adopted Resolution No. 2015-090);
5. On October 16, 2015, the City timely submitted to the Poudre School District the notice described in
C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(9)(d);
6. On October 21, 2015, the URA timely mailed to the property owners in the Plan Area the blight study
notice required in C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(1)(b);
7. On October 22, 2015, the URA timely submitted to Larimer County the notice required in C.R.S.
Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a);
15
Packet Pg. 197
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 3
8. On October 25, 2015, the City timely published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan the notice required in
C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(3)(a);
9. On October 30, 2015, the City timely mailed to the property owners, residents and business owners in
the Plan Area the notice required in C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(4)(c); and
10. On December 1, 2015, Council will hold a public hearing to consider a resolution approving the
Midtown Modification.
Adoption of this Resolution is the final step to enact the two modifications prescribed above.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The URA Board passed Resolution No. 077 on September 8, 2015, proposing the Midtown Modifications. A
copy of the resolution is attached (Attachment 4).
On October 8, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board adopted the attached resolution (Attachment 3) finding
that the Midtown Plan, as amended by the Midtown Modifications, is in conformity with City Plan.
The Larimer County Board of Commissioners provided a letter in support of the modification to the Midtown
Plan boundaries. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment 5).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Following the URA Board meeting on September 8, 2015, the City initiated formal public outreach on the
Midtown Modifications. The outreach has included notices and letter correspondence to the property owners,
residents, business owners, and taxing entities within the Midtown Plan that were timely provided as required
by and in compliance with the urban renewal statutes, as well as correspondence with key stakeholders (e.g.,
South Fort Collins Business Association), and the statutorily required published notice was timely published.
For additional detail on the public outreach, please refer to the attached public engagement plan (Attachment
6).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Existing Plan Area (PDF)
2. Proposed Plan Area (PDF)
3. Planning and Zoning Board Resolution (PDF)
4. Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (PDF)
5. Letter of Support (Larimer County) (PDF)
6. Public Engagement Plan (PDF)
7. Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (DOC)
8. Powerpoint (PPTX)
15
Packet Pg. 198
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
SHIELDS
COLLEGE
DRAKE
PROSPECT
LEMAY
HORSETOOTH
MASON
HARMONY
BOARDWALK
JOHN F KENNEDY
LANDINGS
REMINGTON
TROUTMAN
LEMAY
SWALLOW
STOVER
LAKE
CENTRE
COLUMBIA
OAKRIDGE
WHEATON
WABASH
MEADOWLARK
TROUTMAN
COLONY
SENECA
BOARDWALK
HINSDALE
STANFORD
BROOKWOOD
STUART
MANHATTAN
KEENLAND
PITKIN
WHALERS
CENTENNIAL
PARKWOOD
WELCH
RICHMOND
RESEARCH
STARFLOWER
MONROE
CENTER
MATHEWS
TICONDEROGA
HIGHCASTLE
WINDMILL
SPRING PARK
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 2 2
15.b
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Proposed Plan Area (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
ATTACHMENT 3
15.c
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Resolution (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15.c
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Resolution (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15.c
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Resolution (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15.c
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Resolution (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
ATTACHMENT 4
15.d
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15.d
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15.d
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15.d
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
SHIELDS
COLLEGE
DRAKE
PROSPECT
LEMAY
HORSETOOTH
MASON
HARMONY
BOARDWALK
JOHN F KENNEDY
LANDINGS
REMINGTON
TROUTMAN
LEMAY
SWALLOW
STOVER
LAKE
CENTRE
COLUMBIA
OAKRIDGE
WHEATON
WABASH
MEADOWLARK
TROUTMAN
COLONY
SENECA
BOARDWALK
HINSDALE
STANFORD
BROOKWOOD
STUART
MANHATTAN
KEENLAND
PITKIN
WHALERS
CENTENNIAL
PARKWOOD
WELCH
RICHMOND
RESEARCH
STARFLOWER
MONROE
CENTER
MATHEWS
TICONDEROGA
HIGHCASTLE
WINDMILL
SPRING PARK
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
#############
SHIELDS
COLLEGE
DRAKE
PROSPECT
LEMAY
HORSETOOTH
MASON
HARMONY
BOARDWALK
JOHN F KENNEDY
LANDINGS
TROUTMAN
REMINGTON
LEMAY
RECEIVED
NOV 18 Z015
ATTACHMENT 5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-7010
FAX (970) 498-7006
November 10,2015
City Manager's Office
Honorable Mayor Wade Troxell
Members of the City Council
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
Larimer County is in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing mailed on October 30, 2015 regarding
reconfiguring the boundaries of the Midtown Urban Renewal Authority (URA). Please accept this
letter of support for the proposed action. Larimer County values the collaborative relationship we
share with the City of Fort Collins. The modified boundary will provide clarity and foster successful
collaboration on future URA tax increment financing projects. We urge your support of the boundary
reconfiguration proposal and look forward to working with the City and URA Board in the future.
Sincerely,
1sstoners steve 9M9l-Johnson -
Chair, District 1 Commissioner District 2 Commissioner
Tom Donnelly
District 3 Commissioner
cc: Darin Atteberry, Fort Collins City Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Lew Gaiter Ill
District 1
Steve Johnson
District 2
Tom Donnelly
District 3
15.e
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Letter of Support (Larimer County) (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
ATTACHMENT 6
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN MODIFICATION
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Inform & Consult
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION:
Should City Council modify the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to provide protection to the existing
Midtown TIF Districts and their existing and planned urban renewal project undertakings and
activities (e.g., Foothills Mall redevelopment)?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
1. Property owners, residents, and business owners in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area
2. South Fort Collins Business Association
3. Affected Taxing Entities (e.g., Larimer County)
TIMELINE:
August 31, 2015 to December 1, 2015
Phase 1: Increase Awareness of Proposed Modification
Timeframe: August 31, 2015 to October 8, 2015
Key Messages:
1. There are two existing tax increment financing (TIF) districts within the Midtown Plan Area – South
Prospect and Foothills Mall
2. State legislature passed HB 2015-1348 (the “URA Reform Bill”) that affects the manner in which
an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) can operate
3. The URA Reform Bill necessitated a change to the Midtown Plan Area to protect the existing and
planned undertakings and activities within the existing Midtown TIF District
4. City remain committed to redevelopment along the community’s spine and the Midtown Plan Area
plays a crucial role in that commitment
5. City desires to honor the changes of the URA Reform Bill and follow the process and procedure
for future TIF districts in the Midtown area
Tools and Techniques:
1. Required notice letter sent to property owners within the Midtown Plan Area
2. Meet with SFCBA to discuss proposed modification of plan
3. Inform affected taxing entities of the proposed change – either informally (meeting) or formally
(letter)
PHASE 2: Required Public Hearing
Timeframe: October 9, 2015 to December 1, 2015
Key Messages:
1. Same as above
Tools and Techniques:
1. Send formal notice to all residents, business owners, and property owners in the affected area 30
days prior to public hearing
2. Publish date of required public hearing with notice in the Coloradoan 30 days prior to the public
hearing
3. Conduct a public hearing as required by statute
15.f
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
1
Midtown
Urban Renewal Plan
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins and
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Adopted: September 6, 2011 (Including Tax
Increment Financing District-Prospect South)
Amended: May 7, 2013 to add Tax Increment
Financing District-Foothills Mall
Amended: December 1, 2015, to exclude 490.7 acres from the Plan Area and to
clarify that this Plan authorizes and describes only one urban renewal project
Prepared By:
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
15.g
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
2
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
15.g
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
3
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5
2. Blight Conditions .......................................................................................................... 9
3. Plan Objectives .......................................................................................................... 12
4. Authorized Urban Renewal Undertakings and Activities .......................................... 13
Public Improvements and Facilities ....................................................................... 13
Cooperative Agreements ....................................................................................... 13
Purchase of Property ............................................................................................. 13
Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Prep .................... 14
Property Disposition .............................................................................................. 14
Redevelopment Agreements ................................................................................. 14
Relocation Assistance ............................................................................................ 14
Hiring...................................................................................................................... 14
Legal Authority....................................................................................................... 14
Catalyst and Enhancement Projects ...................................................................... 14
5. Development Standards and Procedures .................................................................. 15
6. Conformance ............................................................................................................. 15
Urban Renewal Law ............................................................................................... 15
City Plan ................................................................................................................. 15
7. Midtown Project Financing ....................................................................................... 18
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Boundaries ................................................ 18
Property Tax Increment ......................................................................................... 19
Sales Tax Increment ............................................................................................... 20
Tax Increment Reimbursement ............................................................................. 20
8. Modifications to the Plan .......................................................................................... 21
9. Reasonable Variations ............................................................................................... 21
10. Effective Date of the Plan ............................................................................................ 21
Appendices
Appendix A – Legal Description ......................................................................................... 22
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA ................................. 22
Appendix B – Legal Description ......................................................................................... 28
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – PROSPECT SOUTH ..... 28
Appendix C -- Legal Description…………………………………………………………………………………….24
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT -- FOOTHILLS MALL….24
List of Figures
Figure 1: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary ............................................................ 7
Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South ............................................. 8
15.g
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
4
Figure 3. Tax Increment Financing District -- Foothills Mall…………………………………………..8
15.g
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
5
1. Introduction
The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is a plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (Authority) and the City of Fort Collins (the City), pursuant to the provisions of the
Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 et seq. (Urban Renewal Law). Terms used in
the Plan have the same meaning as in the Urban Renewal Law.
The jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority are the same as the boundaries of the City. Within
the City boundaries there may be one or more urban renewal plan areas. This Plan describes the
framework for certain urban renewal undertakings and activities constituting a single “urban
renewal project”, a this term is defined and used in the Urban Renewal Law, and other
authorized activities under the Urban Renewal Law (Midtown Project) in the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan Area (Plan Area), located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado.
This Plan was prepared for adoption by the City Council in recognition that the Midtown
Commercial Corridor requires a coordinated, cooperative strategy, with financing possibilities,
to eliminate unfavorable existing conditions and prevent further deterioration. This Plan intends
to accomplish the City’s development objectives for improving the viability of the commercial
corridor by creation of the Plan Area and the implementation of the Midtown Project within the
Plan Area.
The driving interest in adopting this Plan and implementing the Midtown Project is to begin
offering tax increment financing (TIF) as a tool to stimulate and leverage both public and private
sector development (including redevelopment), to help remedy adverse conditions and prevent
the spread of further deterioration. It is the intent of this Plan for any renewal undertakings and
activities pursued under this Plan as part of the Midtown Project and other implementation
actions that they be done in a responsive manner, with full consideration for interests and
concerns of property owners in the Plan Area. Such undertakings and activities are anticipated
to occur incrementally over a substantial period of time, with the potential for Authority
financing to provide the impetus and means to undertake these undertakings and activitiesat a
faster pace than might occur otherwise.
The Plan effort originated in response to the Midtown Redevelopment Study adopted in 2010
where one of the primary action items for implementation concluded the need for an Existing
Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan.
The Plan has been made available to City of Fort Collins residents. Input was solicited of area
residents, property owners and business owners and tenants prior to completion of the Plan.
Notifications of public hearings and an open house were provided to property owners, tenants,
and residents within and surrounding the study area stating the following: time, date, place,
and a description of the Plan Area and of the general scope of the Midtown Project under the
Plan.
Meetings were held before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council in spring 2011 to
receive comments and input on this Plan. To the extent provided in Colorado Public Records
Deleted: public
Deleted: s
Deleted: the
Deleted: establishment
Deleted: of
Deleted: development projects
Deleted: to
Deleted: Development and redevelopment is
Deleted: this
Deleted: redevelopment
Deleted: as
Deleted: Urban Renewal
Deleted: (URP)
Deleted: its
15.g
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
6
Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Title 24, Article 72, Part 2 as the same may be amended from time to time,
and pursuant to policies adopted by the Authority, project plans and proposals will be made
available to the public.
In addition, in connection with review of the Plan and amendment of the Plan to adopt the Tax
Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall, additional public notice, solicitation of comments,
and public hearing were conducted, including review by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning
Board on May 6, 2013, culminating in a public hearing before the City Council on May 7, 2013.
Description of the Plan Area
The Plan Area, as modified on December 1, 2015, is approximately 167.8 acres, including certain
portions of the South College Avenue right-of-way. The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan
identifies this area as a commercial corridor. The City of Fort Collins Zoning Map indicates this
area is primarily zoned C-commercial with some additional zones; HC – Harmony Corridor, E –
Employment, and CC-Community Commercial.
The Plan Area is depicted on the Boundary Map on the following page (Figure 1). A legal
description of the area is attached hereto as Appendix A.
Description of the Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South
The Tax Increment Financing District - Prospect South (the “Prospect South TIF District”) is
depicted on the Boundary Map in Figure 2. A legal description of the district is attached hereto
as Appendix B.
Description of the Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall
The Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall (the “Foothills Mall TIF District”) is depicted
on the Boundary Map in Figure 3. A legal description of the district is attached hereto as
Appendix C.
Deleted: 660
Deleted: with 404 parcels of private property
Deleted: The boundary of the Plan Area to which
this Plan applies generally includes those properties
located within the area bounded by:¶
¶
<#>Prospect Road on the north;¶
<#>The Burlington Northern SantaFe (BNSF) railroad
right-of-way on the west;¶
<#>An irregular line following commercial parcels
typically one or two parcels deep to the east; and¶
<#>Fairway Lane on the south.¶
15.g
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
7
Figure 1: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary
15.g
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
8
Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South
15.g
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
9
Figure 3: Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall
15.g
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
10
2. Blight Conditions
Before an urban renewal plan can be adopted by the City, the determination that an area
constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical, environmental, and
social factors. Blight is indeed attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination,
tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration of an area. The definition of a blighted
area is premised upon the definition articulated in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows:
“Blighted area” means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by
reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially
impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of
housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
d Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
e Deterioration of site or other improvements;
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;
g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable;
h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other
causes;
i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in
because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective
design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities;
j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property;
k.5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of
municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of
sites, building, or other improvements; or
l. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or
tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property
in an urban renewal area, "blighted area" also means an area that, in its
present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the
factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k.5) of this subsection (2),
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality,
retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (l), the fact that an
owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion of
such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner
has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing
condemnation.
To be able to use the powers of eminent domain, “blighted” means that five of the eleven
factors must be present (C.R.S. § 31-25-105.2(2)(a)(I)):
15.g
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
11
(a) “Blighted area” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 31-25-
103 (2); except that, for the purposes of this section only, “blighted area” means
an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at
least five of the factors specified in section 31-25-103 (2)(a) to (2)(l), substantially
impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of
housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
Source: Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2).
Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of
whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law. First, the absence of
widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of
blight. The definition of “blighted area” contained in the Urban Renewal Law is broad and
encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify
condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration.” Tracy v. City of
Boulder, 635 P.2d 907, 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
Second, the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an
area constitutes a blighted area. A determination of blight is based upon an area “taken as a
whole,” and not on a building-by-building basis. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban
Renewal Authority, 473 P.2d 978, 981 (Colo. 1970).
Third, a governing body’s “determination as to whether an area is blighted….is a legislative
question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted.” Tracy, 635 P.2d at 909. A court’s
role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to independently verify if the conclusion
is based upon factual evidence determined by the City Council at the time of a public hearing to
be consistent with the statutory definition.
Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the Midtown Existing Conditions
Survey, dated April 2011, the City Council, by Resolutions 2011-080 and 2011-081, both adopted
on September 6, 2011, and ratified and reaffirmed by City Council on February 28, 2013, in
Resolution 2013-014 and on May 7, 2013, in Resolution 2013-043, made a finding that the Plan
Area was “blighted” as defined by the Urban Renewal Law, by the existence of the following
seven factors:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout
c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
e. Deterioration of site or other improvements
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
k.5. Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or
substantial underutilization or vacancy of buildings, sites, or improvements
15.g
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
12
The City Council also found that these factors, taken together, substantially impair the sound
growth of the City, constitute an economic and social liability, and negatively affect the public
heath, safety and welfare of the community. Based on evidence of the “blighted” factors, the
Plan Area is appropriate for authorized renewal undertakings and activities of the Authority as
part of the Midtown Plan pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law.
3. Plan Objectives
The overall objective of this Plan is for the Midtown Project to remediate unfavorable existing
conditions and prevent further deterioration by implementation of the relevant provisions
contained in the following documents:
City Plan (The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan)
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
Fort Collins Infill Infrastructure Report
City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan
Mason Corridor Economic Study
Midtown Redevelopment Study
To do this, this Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around the Plan
Area with a combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public investment. The
Plan will assist progress toward the following additional objectives:
To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through
cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed
improvements.
To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of
the City.
To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements.
To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and
complementary to unique circumstances in the area.
To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land.
To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety.
To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities.
To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and conditions.
To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Plan Area.
To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when such
opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political limits of the
Authority to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide relocation benefits,
and pursue redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation projects.
15.g
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
13
4. Authorized Urban Renewal Undertakings and Activities
To support progress toward the objectives, the Authority may undertake as part of the Midtown
Project any of the following renewal undertakings and activities, as deemed appropriate for the
elimination or prevention of blight factors within the Plan Area, pursuant to the Urban Renewal
Law:
Public Improvements and Facilities
The Authority may cause, finance or facilitate the design, installation, construction and
reconstruction of public improvements in the Plan Area. In order to promote the effective
utilization of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the Plan Area, the Authority may, among
other things, enter into financial or other agreements with the City of Fort Collins to provide the
City with financial or other support in order to encourage or cause the City to invest funds for
the improvement of storm drainage, street conditions and other infrastructure deficiencies in
the Plan Area.
Cooperative Agreements
For the purposes of planning and implementing this Plan, the Authority may enter into one or
more cooperative agreements with the City or other public entities. Such agreement may
include provisions regarding Midtown Project financing and implementation; design, location,
construction of public improvements; and any other matters required to implement this Plan.
Potential entities include but not limited to: Xcel Energy, Qwest, Comcast, Poudre Valley Fire
Authority, Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District.
Purchase of Property
In the event that the Authority finds it necessary to purchase any real property for the
MidtownProject to remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law and this Plan, the
Authority may do so by any legal means available, including the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. If the power of eminent domain is to be
exercised for the purpose of transfer of property to another private person or entity, the
Authority’s decision whether to acquire the property through eminent domain shall be guided
by the following criteria, with the understanding that these guidelines shall not be construed to
constrain the Authority’s legal ability to exercise the power of eminent domain:
All requirements of the Urban Renewal Law, including eminent domain procedures, have
been met.
Other possible alternatives have been thoroughly considered by the Authority.
Good faith negotiations by the Authority and/or the project developer have been
rejected by the property owner.
Reasonable efforts have been undertaken to: (a) understand and address the property
owner's position and his or her desires for the property and for any existing business on
the site, and (b) work with the owner to either include the owner in planning the
proposed development or purchase the property and relocate the owner in accordance
with the Urban Renewal Law on terms and conditions acceptable to the owner.
Deleted: p
Deleted: an
Deleted: urban renewal p
Deleted: project
15.g
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
14
Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Prep
The Authority may on a case-by-case basis, elect to demolish or to cooperate with others to
clear buildings, structures, and other improvements. Development activities consistent with
this Plan may require such demolition and clearance to eliminate unhealthy, unsanitary, and
unsafe conditions, eliminate obsolete and other uses detrimental to the public welfare, and
otherwise remove and prevent the spread of deterioration.
Property Disposition
The Authority may sell, lease, or otherwise transfer real property or any interest in real property
subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions, including architectural and design controls,
time restrictions on development, and building requirements, as it deems necessary to develop
such property.
Redevelopment Agreements
The Authority may enter into redevelopment agreements with property owners or developers
in the Plan Area to facilitate participation and assistance that the Authority may choose to
provide to such owners or developers. These may include provisions regarding project
planning, public improvements, financing, design, and any other matters allowed pursuant to
the Urban Renewal Law.
Relocation Assistance
It is not expected that the activities of the Authority will displace any person, family, or
business. However, to the extent that in the future the Authority may purchase property
causing displacement of any person, family, or business, it shall develop a relocation program to
assist any such party in finding another location pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law, and
provide relocation benefits consistent with the Urban Renewal Law. There shall be no
displacement of any person or business without there being in place a relocation program,
which program shall become a part of this Plan when adopted.
Hiring
The Authority may employ consultants, agents, and employees, permanent and temporary, and
it shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation.
Legal Authority
The Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban Renewal Law.
Catalyst and Enhancement Projects
Rehabilitation and redevelopment of the properties surrounding the Plan Area that will
continue to foster cleanup, preservation and redevelopment of nearby properties. Additional
public infrastructure, not limited to pedestrian amenities, enhanced landscaping, public
transportation improvements, public utilities, or public art and architectural features as well as
access to services, meeting facilities and shopping options may also further redevelopment of
the Plan Area.
15.g
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
15
5. Development Standards and Procedures
All development within the Plan Area shall conform to the Land Use Code and any site specific
zoning regulations or policies which might impact properties, all as in effect and as may be
amended from time to time. While State statute authorizes the Authority to undertake zoning
and planning activities to regulate land use, maximum densities, and building requirements in
the Plan Area, the City will regulate land use and building requirements through existing
municipal codes and ordinances.
6. Conformance
Urban Renewal Law
This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of the
Urban Renewal Law.
City Plan
The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan, describes desirable land use and
transportation patterns, with goals and policies for those topics along with community
appearance and design, the environment, open lands, housing, the economy, and growth
management.
Briefly summarized, the land use pattern envisioned by these plans for the Plan Area is a
commercial corridor well-integrated with surrounding development. The Plan Area is
envisioned to evolve with improved community design and streetscapes, in an interconnected
framework of streets and blocks. One of the purposes of this Plan is to implement the vision for
the Plan Area as a commercial corridor with mixed-use residential improvements, as well as
create a connection to the Mason Corridor for improved transit circulation.
This Plan is intended to provide mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan, and
therefore it is in direct conformance with City Plan. The following excerpts from City Plan
highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Urban Renewal Plan. These are representative
excerpts, and not an all-inclusive listing of relevant statements:
Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the
community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood
Principles and Policies.
Policy EH 4.1: Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas
Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood
Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support
redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and
15.g
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
16
Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability
chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives.
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.
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. The purpose of these
areas is to:
Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas.
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.
Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs,
housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips.
Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists.
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 “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 5.2: Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
“community spine” of the City along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The “community
spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and
urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and
redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixed-
use activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College
Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over
time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment.
Policy LIV 5.3: Policy LIV 5.3 – Identify Additional Redevelopment and Infill Areas as
Appropriate
Deleted: c
Deleted: c
15.g
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
17
Utilize subarea plans to help designate areas for redevelopment and infill that are not identified
on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Within these plans, support the
development of appropriate design standards to protect the character of neighborhoods and to
ensure conformance with City Plan.
Principle LIV 34: General Commercial Districts will include a wide range of community and
regional uses, in various sizes and scales, designed for convenient access by all modes of
travel, efficient circulation, and a comfortable pedestrian environment.
Policy LIV 34.2: Mix of Uses
Although many existing General Commercial Districts in the City consist of single-use
commercial centers today, the incorporation of a broader mix of uses is desirable over time:
Principal uses: Retail, restaurants, office, and other commercial services.
Supporting uses: Entertainment, high-density residential, day care (adult and child), and
other supporting uses.
Policy LIV 34.3: Support the Revitalization of Existing Strip Commercial Corridor Developments
Encourage and support the gradual evolution of existing, auto-oriented strip commercial areas
to a more compact, pedestrian and transit-oriented pattern of development over time through
infill and redevelopment. Establish enhanced walking connections between destinations.
Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and
hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity
centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an
environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing.
Policy LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment
Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through
infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of
land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes.
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation
Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of
mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide high-frequency/high
efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the
city.
Policy LIV 43.3: Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along Enhanced
Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of
uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient
automobile use.
15.g
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
18
7. Midtown Project Financing
Specific Midtown Project undertakings and activities may be financed in whole or in part by the
Authority, under the tax increment financing (TIF) provisions of CRS § 31-25-107(9)(a) of the
Urban Renewal Law, or by any other available source of financing authorized to be undertaken
by the Authority pursuant to CRS § 31-25-105 of the Urban Renewal Law. The Authority is
authorized as part of the Midtown Project to:
Finance renwal undertakings and activities within the Plan Area with revenues from
property tax increments, sales tax increments, interest income, federal loans or grants,
agreements with public, quasi-public or private parties and entities, loans or advances
from any other available source, and any other available sources of revenue.
Issue bonds and incur other obligations contemplated by the Urban Renewal Law in an
amount sufficient to finance all or any part of a renewal undertaking or activity within
the Plan Area.
Borrow funds and create indebtedness in any authorized form in carrying out this Plan.
Any principal and interest on such indebtedness may be paid from property tax increments,
sales tax increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or properties legally available to the
Authority. Such methods may be combined to finance all or part of the Midtown Plan
undertakings and activities.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Boundaries
If permissible by the Urban Renewal Law, the Authority is authorized to create TIF districts
within the Plan Area that can include, but are not limited to a single parcel or multiple parcels
for a qualified Midtown Project undertaking or activity. Accordingly, the Plan may be amended
when the TIF district is decided upon by the Authority, and incremental property tax and/or
sales tax revenues attributable to the redevelopment in the Plan Area to pay the indebtedness
incurred by the Authority. The Prospect South Tax Increment District was established when this
Plan was adopted. The Foothills Mall Tax Increment District was established when the Plan was
amended on May 7, 2013. Additional TIF districts may be established in the future by
amendment of this Plan.
Prospect South Tax Increment District
The primary method of financing the Midtown Project undertaken in furtherance of this Plan in
the Prospect South Tax Increment District shall be the use of property tax increment financing
pursuant to Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S. All property taxes collected within the Prospect South
Tax Increment District shall be divided as follows:
a) That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by
or for each public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in
the Prospect South Tax Increment District last certified prior to the effective date of approval of
this Plan or, as to an area later added to the Prospect South Tax Increment District, the
effective date of the modification of this Plan
Deleted: projects
Deleted: urban renewal projects
Deleted: project
Deleted: Plan
Deleted: project
Deleted: projects
Deleted: Urban Renewal
Deleted: Urban Renewal
Deleted: Urban Renewal
15.g
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
19
for such purpose, shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes
collected by or for such public body.
b) The portion of such property taxes in excess of the amounts described in paragraph a),
above, shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund to fund the Authority’s
obligations with respect to any renewal undertaking or activity for the Prospect South Tax
Increment District, including payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due
in connection with the bonds, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by (whether
funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or
in part, the renewal undertakings and activities for the Prospect South Tax Increment District,
or to make payments under an agreement executed pursuant to Section 31-25-107(11).
c) When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest thereon
and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, but in no event later than 25
years following the adoption of this tax allocation provision, any excess property tax collections
not allocated pursuant to this paragraph or any Cooperation Agreement between the Authority
and the City or other taxing jurisdiction, shall be paid into the funds of said jurisdiction or public
body. Unless and until the total property tax collections in the Prospect South Tax Increment
District exceed the base year property tax collections in the Prospect South Tax Increment
District, as provided in paragraph a), above, all such property tax collections shall be paid into
the funds of the appropriate public body. The Authority reserves the right to enter into
Cooperation Agreements with select taxing jurisdictions relative to allocation of incremental tax
revenues.
d) In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in
Larimer County, which are subject to division of valuation for assessment between base and
increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for assessment to be allocated as
provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law.
Foothills Mall Tax Increment District
The primary method of financing the Midtown Project undertaken in furtherance of this Urban
Renewal Plan in the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District shall be the use of property tax and
sales tax increment financing pursuant to Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S. For purposes of the tax
allocation provision of this Plan related to the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District, the term
sales tax shall mean the sales tax imposed by the City at a rate of 2.25% (or such lesser rate as
agreed to by the City and the Authority (subject to any contractual obligations of the Authority))
on sales of goods and services that are subject to municipal sales taxes pursuant to the Fort
Collins Municipal Code (as it may exist from time to time). All property taxes and sales taxes
collected within the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District shall be divided as follows:
a) That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by
or for each public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in
Deleted: project
Deleted: Urban Renewal projects
Deleted: projects
15.g
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
20
the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District last certified prior to the effective date of approval of
this tax allocation provision or, as to an area later added to the Foothills Mall Tax Increment
District, the effective date of the modification of this Urban Renewal
Plan for such purpose, and that portion of City sales taxes equal to the amount collected
within the boundaries of the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District in the twelve‐month period
ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of the approval of this tax
allocation provision, shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are
all other taxes collected by or for such public body.
b) The portion of such property taxes and sales taxes in excess of the amounts described in
paragraph a), above, shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund to fund
the Authority’s obligations with respect to any renewal undertakings and activities for the
Foothills Mall Tax Increment District, including payment of the principal of, the interest on, and
any premiums due in connection with the bonds, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred
by (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) the Authority for financing or
refinancing, in whole or in part, the renewal undertakings and activities for the Foothills Mall
Tax Increment District, or to make payments under an agreement executed pursuant to Section
31-25-107(11).
c) When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest thereon
and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, but in no event later than 25
years following the adoption of this tax allocation provision, any excess property and sales tax
collections not allocated pursuant to this paragraph or any Cooperation Agreement between
the Authority and the City or other taxing jurisdiction, shall be paid into the funds of said
jurisdiction or public body. Unless and until the total property and sales tax collections in the
Foothills Mall Tax Increment District exceed the base year property and sales tax collections in
the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District, as provided in paragraph a), above, all such property
and sales tax collections shall be paid into the funds of the appropriate public body. The
Authority reserves the right to enter into Cooperation Agreements with select taxing
jurisdictions relative to allocation of incremental tax revenues.
d) In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in
Larimer County, which are subject to division of valuation for assessment between base and
increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for assessment to be allocated as
provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law.
Tax Increment Reimbursement
Tax increment revenues may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs
incurred for improvements related to a renewal undertaking or activity to pay the debt
incurred by the Authority with such entities for renewal undertakings and activities . Tax
incremental revenues may also be used to pay bonded indebtedness, financial obligations and
debts of the Authority related to any renewal undertakings and activities under this Plan.
Deleted: project
Deleted: Urban Renewal projects
Deleted: project
Deleted: urban
Deleted: and purposes
Deleted: urban
15.g
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
21
8. Modifications to the Plan
This Plan may be modified pursuant to requirements and procedures set forth in CRS §31-25-
107 of the Urban Renewal Law governing such modifications or amendments to the extent such
modifications or amendments do not conflict with the agreements. Nothing herein shall be
construed to require the Authority to first obtain the permission of any party to an Agreement
prior to amending or modifying this Plan.
9. Reasonable Variations
The Authority shall have the ability to approve reasonable variations (as determined by the
Board) from the strict application of these Plan provisions, so long as such variations reasonably
accommodate the intent and purpose of this Plan and the Urban Renewal Law. Plan provisions
may be altered by market conditions, redevelopment opportunities and/or the needs of the
community affected by the Plan.
10. Effective Date of the Plan and TIF Provisions
This Plan and the Prospect South TIF District provision took effect on September 6, 2011. The
Foothills Mall TIF District provision took effect on May 7, 2013. Except as otherwise permitted
under the Urban Renewal Law, the term of the TIF period is twenty-five (25) years from the
effective date the adoption of the relevant TIF provision, unless the Authority deems, to the
extent consistent with the terms in the Agreements, that all undertakings and activities to
accomplish the Midtown Project have been completed and all debts incurred to finance such
undertakings and activities and all expenses of the Authority have been repaid. In that event,
the Authority may declare the Plan fully implemented.
Deleted: p
15.g
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
22
Appendix A – Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA
[Need to add the legal description from Exhibit E of the Midtown
Resolution]
Deleted: A tract of land located in Sections 23, 24,
25, 26, 35 and 36 of Township 7 North, Range 69
West and in Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 North,
Range 69 West, all of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado,
contained within the following described area;¶
¶
Beginning at the center of South College Avenue
with its intersection with the easterly extension of
the southerly right of way of Prospect Road, the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description;
THENCE westerly along the said extended line and
along the said southerly right of way to the west line
of the plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE
southerly, westerly and southerly along the said
west line to the southerly line of the said plat of
“Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE easterly and
southerly along the said southerly line to the
westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE
easterly and radially to the said right of way to the
easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE
southerly along the said easterly right of way to the
east west centerline of the said Section 26; THENCE
easterly along the said east west centerline and
returning to the said easterly right of way of the
BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along
the said easterly right of way to the south line of the
said Section 26; THENCE westerly along the said
south line and returning to the said easterly right of
way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing
southerly along the said easterly right of way to the
north line of the said Section 2; THENCE easterly
along the said north line and returning to the said
easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE
continuing southerly along the said easterly right of
way to the north line of the plat of “George T.
Sanders Co. P.U.D.”; THENCE easterly along the said
north line to the westerly right of way of Fossil
Boulevard; THENCE southerly along the said
westerly right of way to the westerly extension of
the southerly right of way of West Fairway Lane;
THENCE easterly along the said extended line and
along the said southerly right of way, its easterly
extension and along the southerly right of way of
Fairway Lane to the southerly extension of the east
line of the plat of “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway
Estates”; THENCE northerly along the said extended
line and along the said east line of the “Replat Of A
Part Of Fairway Estates”, along the east line of the
plat of “Replat Of A Part OF Lot 7, Lot 8, Lot 9, And A
Part Of Lot 10 Of the Replat Of A Part Of Fairway
Estates” and continuing along the east line of the
said plat of “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates”
and its northerly extension to the southwest corner
of that certain tract of land as described in a
23
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REVISED MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA
THREE TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 23, 24, 25, AND 26 OF TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE
69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
TRACT 1 (PROSPECT SOUTH TIF DISTRICT):
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE WITH ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF PROSPECT ROAD, THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID EXTENDED
LINE AND ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF
"GRIFFIN PLAZA SUBDIVISION"; THENCE SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE
SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID PLAT OF "GRIFFIN PLAZA SUBDIVISION";
THENCE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE BNSF RAILWAY; THENCE EASTERLY AND RADIALLY TO THE SAID RIGHT OF
WAY TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE BNSF RAILWAY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE
SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF " WHOLE FOODS
CENTER"; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF
TRACT "E" OF THE PLAT OF "UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER"; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE
SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID TRACT "E"; THENCE EASTERLY
ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH
COLLEGE AVENUE, SAID POINT HEREINAFTER TO BE REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE
EASTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF RUTGERS AVENUE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG
THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE "RUTGERS BUILDING
CONDOMINIUMS"; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF THE PLAT OF "RAISING CANE'S"; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE
TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SAID PLAT OF "RAISING CANE'S"; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG
THE SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF "A REPLAT OF A PART OF
TRACT 1, REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 AND LOTS 1 TO 7 INCLUSIVE OF BLOCK 1 OF THE ST. VRAIN
SUBDIVISION"; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY OF REMINGTON STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SPRING PARK DRIVE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY LINE
OF THE PLAT OF "HUMAN BEAN AT SPRING CREEK"; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID
EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF
LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 OF THE PLAT OF "MORAN'S SUBDIVISION" TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
OF EAST STUART STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST
STUART STREET AND TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST 180 FEET OF LOT 5 OF THE PLAT OF
"MAYNARD SUBDIVISION"; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID LOT 5; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO
THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2 OF THE PLAT OF "A REPLAT OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION BEING A
RESUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 350 FEET OF LOTS 3 & 4 OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION"; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF THE
SAID PLAT OF "A REPLAT OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 350
FEET OF LOTS 3 & 4 OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION" TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID PLAT OF
"A REPLAT OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 350 FEET OF LOTS
3 & 4 OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION"; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE
EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST 240 FEET OF LOT 2 OF THE SAID PLAT OF "MAYNARD SUBDIVISION";
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERLY 232 FEET OF THE SAID PLAT OF "MAYNARD SUBDIVISION";
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
WESTERLY 213 FEET OF LOTS 14 AND 1 OF THE SAID PLAT OF "MAYNARD SUBDIVISION"; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF PARKER STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID
15.g
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
24
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY
THROUGH BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF "I.C. BRADLEY'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS";
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT
OF WAY OF EAST PROSPECT ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 2 (COLLEGE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY):
BEGINNING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A", BEING THE INTERSECTION OF TRACT E,
UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 1 DESCRIBED ABOVE
TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
FRONTAGE ROAD (KANE CONCOURSE AS SO DESIGNATED ON SOUTH COLLEGE HEIGHTS FIFTH
SUBDIVISION) WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF RUTGERS AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRINCETON
ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND AGAIN ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST DRAKE ROAD;
THENCE SOUTHERLY TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST DRAKE ROAD; THENCE ALONG
THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE ACCESS
ROAD DEDICATED ON THUNDERBIRD ESTATES SIXTH SUBDIVISION; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID ACCESS ROAD TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID ACCESS ROAD; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE ACCESS ROAD DEDICATED ON THUNDERBIRD
ESTATES SIXTH, SEVENTH AND NINTH SUBDIVISIONS TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SWALLOW ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SWALLOW ROAD AND THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1 OF THE "REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J,
AND VACATED SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING"; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID NORTH LINE TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 25, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 3 DESCRIBED
BELOW; THENCE 100.00 FEET WESTERLY, CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF
TRACT 3, TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE AS DEDICATED BY PLAT OR DEED AS FRONTAGE ROAD, OR AS DEDICATED AS STATE
HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY WHERE NO ADDITIONAL FRONTAGE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS, TO
THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DRAKE ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF DRAKE ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 3 (FOOTHILLS TIF DISTRICT):
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE ALONG THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1 OF THE "REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J, AND VACATED
SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING" AND THE WESTERLY EXTENSION
THEREOF, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 314.48 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1) ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF REMINGTON STREET, S00°05'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; 2) ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; 3)
S51°41'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 145.40 FEET; 4) S89°35'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 138.50 FEET; 5)
N00°05'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 141.63 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY AND ITS EASTERLY EXTENSION, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 357.21 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT K, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING; THENCE ALONG
THE WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID TRACT K THE
FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1) ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS
STREET, S00°14'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 215.33 FEET; 2) 23.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT
CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
15.g
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
25
91°36'53", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S46°03'22"E A DISTANCE OF 21.51 FEET; 3) 11.02 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 360.77 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
01°45'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N89°00'07"E A DISTANCE OF 11.02 FEET;
4) N89°52'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 173.52 FEET; 5) N00°07'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 230.12 FEET TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT B OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S
EXPANSION; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACTS B AND A OF SAID
FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION, N89°52'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 996.10 FEET TO
A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STANFORD ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1) ALONG THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT B OF SAID FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION,
387.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
1,319.30 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°48'53", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°17'12"W A
DISTANCE OF 385.79 FEET; 2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S16°41'39"W, A
DISTANCE OF 93.03 FEET; 3) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION
MALL EXPANSION, S16°41'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 482.09 FEET; 4) CONTINUING ALONG SAID
EASTERLY BOUNDARY, 327.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,114.57 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°50'30", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S08°16'21"W A DISTANCE OF 326.44 FEET; 5) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY
BOUNDARY, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET; 6) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY
BOUNDARY, S05°51'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 110.54 FEET; 7) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY
BOUNDARY AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 451.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 2012 AT RECEPTION NO. 20120076539 IN THE
OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF THE TRACTS DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO.
20120076539, RECEPTION NO. 20050022855, AND RECEPTION NO. 2001099396, THE FOLLOWING
SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N45°08'53"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET; 2) S89°51'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 214.00 FEET; 3)
312.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
398.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44°59'59", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N67°38'53"W A
DISTANCE OF 304.93 FEET; 4) N45°08'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET; 5) 275.94 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 351.34 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 45°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N67°38'54"W A DISTANCE OF 268.90 FEET; 6)
S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 199.36 FEET; 7) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT
CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A
CHORD WHICH BEARS S44°51'06"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY; THENCE S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF
66.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY
PARKWAY; THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N45°08'54"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF EAST MONROE DRIVE;THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 12.16 FEET; 2) 146.82 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 221.32 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°00'29", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S70°50'52"W A DISTANCE OF
144.14 FEET; 3) S51°50'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 327.70 FEET; 4) 179.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A
TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
37°32'46", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S70°37'00"W A DISTANCE OF 175.98 FEET; 5)
S89°23'22"W, A DISTANCE OF 138.44 FEET; THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO
THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD
WHICH BEARS S44°23'23"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1) ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF STRACHAN
SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING, SO0°19'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 576.93 FEET; 2) CONTINUING
15.g
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
26
ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S45°28'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 44.78 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
SAID STRACHAN SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING; THENCE S03°2610"W, A DISTANCE OF 105.31
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AS
SHOWN ON THE FIRST REPLAT OF 1ST CHOICE BANK OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE N88°14'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 154.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH
COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4 - CREGER PLAZA
SUBDIVISION; THENCE N00°32'51 "W, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
MATTERHORN P.U.D.; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH
COLLEGE AVENUE THE FOLLOWING TEN (10) COURSES: 1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY
OF LOT 1, MATTERHORN P.U.D., N44°33'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 9.22 FEET; 2) ALONG THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 1 AND 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D., N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
503.93 FEET; 3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D.,
S53°56'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 44.81 FEET; 4) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 2, 3, 4,
5 AND 11 OF SOUTH MESA SUBDIVISION AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF,
N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 561.00 FEET; 5) N89°51'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 10.71 FEET;
6) N09°43'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 22.91 FEET; 7) 29.36 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 167.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
10°02'32", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N04°42'09"E A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET; 8)
N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 198.22 FEET; 9) S89°58'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 7.27 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT B, VILLA P.U.D.; 10) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
LOT B, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 226.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY
OF TRACT A, RICHIE'S EXPRESS CARWASH SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, MOURNING
SUBDIVISION, N89°59'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 665.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF MCCLELLAND DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID MOURNING
SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N00°39'53"E, A DISTANCE
OF 20.17 FEET; THENCE 23.39 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°21'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N45°20'23"E A DISTANCE OF 21.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF WEST FOOTHILLS PARKWAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MOURNING SUBDIVISION PLAT; THENCE
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 213.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 69.10 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
24°44'46", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N77°38'30"E A DISTANCE OF 68.57 FEET TO THE
WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, RICHIE'S EXPRESS CARWASH SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG
SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°04'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 14.69 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 407.26 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4)
COURSES: 1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
78.17 FEET; 2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
86.83 FEET; 3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N89°59'07"W, A DISTANCE
OF 37.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, MOURNING SUBDIVISION;
4) N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 870.84 FEET (BEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MOURNING SUBDIVISION, THE POUDRE VALLEY
MOTORS SUBDIVISION, AND THE REPLAT OF THE SWALLOW SUBDIVISION); THENCE
S89°57'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALL PLATS REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE TRACT DESCRIPTIONS ARE PLATS OF RECORD WITH THE
CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY
15.g
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
27
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT IS BASED UPON PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLATS AND DEEDS AND
NOT UPON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY.
15.g
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\MID TOWN URBAN RENEW PLAN AREA\LEGAL\ MID TOWN
URP rev10- 2015.doc
Appendix B – Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – PROSPECT SOUTH
A tract of land located in Sections 23 and 24 of Township 7 North, Range 69 West West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained
within the following described area;
Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly
extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road, the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along
the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”;
THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line
of the said plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE easterly and southerly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly
and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the northerly line of the plat of
“ Whole Foods Center”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the westerly
Deleted: Page Break
15.g
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
29
line of Tract “E” of the plat of “University Shopping Center”; THENCE southerly along the
said westerly line to the southerly line of the said Tract “E”; THENCE easterly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of South College Avenue; THENCE
easterly to the intersection of the easterly right of way of South College Avenue with the
northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly
right of way to the easterly line of the “Rutgers Building Condominiums”; THENCE
northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “Raising Cane’s”;
THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of
“Raising Cane’s”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of
the plat of “A Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of
Block 1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to
the westerly right of way of Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly
right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive; THENCE westerly along
the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat
of “Human Bean At Spring Creek”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and
along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of
“Moran’s Subdivision” to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE
northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of
the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5; THENCE westerly along the
said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of “A Replat of Maynard
Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard
Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of
Lot 1 of the said plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the
West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision” to the northerly line of the said
plat of ”A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of
Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the
easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”;
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the
southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213
feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker
Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of
way of the north-south alley through Block 1 of the plat of “I.C. Bradley’s Addition To
The City Of Fort Collins”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to
the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road; THENCE westerly along the said
southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
All Plats referred to in the above described description are Plats of record with the Clerk
and Recorder of Larimer County.
15.g
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
30
I hear by state that the above description was prepared by me and is true and correct to
the best of my professional knowledge belief and opinion. The above described tract is
based upon previously recorded plats and deeds and not upon an actual field survey.
Wallace C. Muscott
Colorado P.L.S. 17497
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 20, 2011
15.g
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
31
Appendix C – Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – Foothills Mall
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 AND THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE
SIXTH P.M.; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25, AND CONSIDERING
THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 AS HAVING AN
ASSUMED BEARING OF S00°04’53”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS NORTH
END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 20123, AND ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 2-1/2"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 14823, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1 OF THE “REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G,
AND J, AND VACATED SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING” AND THE
WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 314.48 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES:
1) ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET,
S00°05'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
2) ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET,
N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET;
3) S51°41'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 145.40 FEET;
4) S89°35'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 138.50 FEET;
5) N00°05'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 141.63 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS EASTERLY
EXTENSION, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 357.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF TRACT K, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID
TRACT K THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES:
1) ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS STREET, S00°14'56"E,
A DISTANCE OF 215.33 FEET;
15.g
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
32
2) 23.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91°36'53", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S46°03'22"E A DISTANCE OF 21.51 FEET;
3) 11.02 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 360.77
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°45'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N89°00'07"E A DISTANCE OF 11.02 FEET;
4) N89°52'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 173.52 FEET;
5) N00°07'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 230.12 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
TRACT B OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACTS B AND A OF SAID FOOTHILLS
FASHION MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION, N89°52'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 996.10 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STANFORD ROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7)
COURSES:
1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT B OF SAID FOOTHILLS FASHION
MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION, 387.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,319.30 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 16°48'53", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°17'12"W A DISTANCE OF 385.79
FEET;
2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S16°41'39"W, A DISTANCE OF
93.03 FEET;
3) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL
EXPANSION, S16°41'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 482.09 FEET;
4) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, 327.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,114.57 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°50'30", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°16'21"W A
DISTANCE OF 326.44 FEET;
5) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
170.00 FEET;
6) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S05°51'32"E, A DISTANCE OF
110.54 FEET;
7) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 451.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
15.g
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
33
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 2012 AT RECEPTION NO.
20120076539 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE TRACTS DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS
RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20120076539, RECEPTION NO. 20050022855, AND
RECEPTION NO. 2001099396, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES:
1) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N45°08'53"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET;
2) S89°51'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 214.00 FEET;
3) 312.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 398.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44°59'59", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N67°38'53"W A DISTANCE OF 304.93 FEET;
4) N45°08'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET;
5) 275.94 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 351.34 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N67°38'54"W A DISTANCE OF 268.90 FEET;
6) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 199.36 FEET;
7) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S44°51'06"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY;
THENCE S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 66.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY;
THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N45°08'54"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF EAST MONROE DRIVE;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES:
1) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 12.16 FEET;
2) 146.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 221.32 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°00'29", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S70°50'52"W A DISTANCE OF 144.14 FEET;
15.g
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
34
3) S51°50'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 327.70 FEET;
4) 179.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 273.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°32'46", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S70°37'00"W A DISTANCE OF 175.98 FEET;
5) S89°23'22"W, A DISTANCE OF 138.44 FEET;
THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S44°23'23"W
A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2)
COURSES:
1) ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF STRACHAN SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING,
S00°19'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 576.93 FEET;
2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S45°28'37"E, A DISTANCE OF
44.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
HORSETOOTH ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID STRACHAN SUBDIVISION,
SECOND FILING;
THENCE S03°26'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 105.31 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE FIRST REPLAT OF 1
ST
CHOICE BANK OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE N88°14'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 154.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4 – CREGER
PLAZA SUBDIVISION;
THENCE N00°32'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
MATTERHORN P.U.D.;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE
FOLLOWING TEN (10) COURSES:
1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MATTERHORN P.U.D., N44°33'53"E,
A DISTANCE OF 9.22 FEET;
2) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 1 AND 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D.,
N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 503.93 FEET;
3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D.,
S53°56'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 44.81 FEET;
4) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 11 OF SOUTH MESA
SUBDIVISION AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, N00°19'07"W, A
DISTANCE OF 561.00 FEET;
5) N89°51'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 10.71 FEET;
6) N09°43'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 22.91 FEET;
15.g
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
35
7) 29.36 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 167.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°02'32", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N04°42'09"E A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET;
8) N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 198.22 FEET;
9) S89°58'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 7.27 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT B,
VILLA P.U.D.;
10) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT B, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
226.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, RICHIE’S
EXPRESS CARWASH SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, MOURNING SUBDIVISION, N89°59'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
665.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MCCLELLAND DRIVE
AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID MOURNING SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N00°39'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 20.17
FEET;
THENCE 23.39 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°21'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N45°20'23"E
A DISTANCE OF 21.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
WEST FOOTHILLS PARKWAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MOURNING SUBDIVISION PLAT;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE OF
213.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 69.10 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 24°44'46", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N77°38'30"E A DISTANCE OF 68.57
FEET TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, RICHIE’S EXPRESS CARWASH
SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°04'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 14.69 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE
OF 407.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE
FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES:
1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
78.17 FEET;
2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
86.83 FEET;
3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N89°59'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
37.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, MOURNING SUBDIVISION;
4) N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 870.84 FEET (BEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MOURNING SUBDIVISION,
THE POUDRE VALLEY MOTORS SUBDIVISION, AND THE REPLAT OF THE SWALLOW
15.g
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
36
SUBDIVISION);
THENCE S89°57'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 89.729 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS
AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND.
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT IS BASED UPON PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLATS AND
DEEDS AND NOT UPON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY.
JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\MID TOWN URBAN RENEW PLAN AREA\LEGAL\ Foothills TIF
Lgl 2012 rev1-21-13.docx
15.g
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
Midtown Plan Area Substantial Modification
Josh Birks, Director, Economic Health Office; and Patrick Rowe,
Interim Redevelopment Coordinator
12-01-15
Past Actions
• 2011 - Create the Midtown Urban Renewal
Plan and Prospect South Tax Increment
District
• 2013 – Amend the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan to include the Foothills Mall
Tax Increment District
Tonight’s Action
• Substantially modify the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan to exclude all already not
currently in the Prospect South or
Foothills Tax Increment Districts (and a
connection along S. College Avenue
right-of-way)
Existing Boundary
Revised
Boundary
Why the change?
• Reaction to House Bill 2015-1348 (“HB15-1348”)
• An effort to minimize the impact of HB15-1348 on the two
existing tax increment districts within the current plan
• Clarify that any future urban renewal activities in the
excluded area will comply with HB15-1348
• Without adverse affects on the existing and future
activities in the two existing districts
Authorized Activities
This resolution:
1. Substantially modifies the plan area –
removing the “Excluded Area” as
shown on the map
2. Modifies the definition of “project” within
the Midtown Plan to clarify the plan
refers to a single project
• Blight remediation and prevention
RESOLUTION 2015-107
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND APPROVING A SECOND SUBSTANTIAL
MODIFICATION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution 82-10
establishing within the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) the Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the "Authority") and designating the City Council to serve
as the Authority’s Board of Commissioners (the “Authority Board”); and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-081
approving the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the “Original Plan”) in accordance with the
Colorado Urban Renewal Law, C.R.S. Sections 31-25-101, et seq. (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Plan identifies and legally describes approximately 658.5 acres
of land as being within the Plan’s boundaries as depicted on the map attached as Exhibit “A” and
legally described in the attached Exhibit “B” (the “Plan Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Plan was adopted to facilitate the elimination and prevention of
blighted areas within the Plan Area by promoting and assisting undertakings and activities within
the Plan Area involving the development, redevelopment and rehabilitation of properties within
the Plan Area as part of a single “urban renewal project,” as this term is defined and used in the
Act (the “Midtown Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Plan also established a tax increment financing district
within the Plan Area known as "Prospect South,” which district is depicted on Exhibit “A” (the
“Prospect TIF District”); and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, City Council adopted modifications to the Original Plan
(the “First Amended Plan”) in Resolution 2013-043, which established within the Plan Area a
second tax increment financing district known as “Foothills Mall”, which district is also depicted
on Exhibit “A” (the “Mall TIF District”); and
WHEREAS, the Prospect TIF District and the Mall TIF District shall be jointly referred
to as the “TIF Districts;” and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the Authority Board adopted Resolution No. 077
submitting to the Council for its future consideration a substantial modification of the First
Amended Plan under the Act (the “Authority Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, the substantial modification proposed in the Authority Resolution modifies
the First Amended Plan in two respects; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Original Plan, the Authority has provided assistance to
several urban renewal undertakings and activities within the TIF Districts as part of the Midtown
Project (the “Existing Undertakings”); and
Packet Pg. 252
WHEREAS, in May 2015 the Colorado General Assembly adopted House Bill 2015-
1348 (“HB-1348”) which amended the Act to require, beginning January 1, 2016, that
municipalities having an urban renewal authority must follow a negotiation and binding
mediation process with other affected taxing entities for any proposed modification to an urban
renewal plan that would add a new “urban renewal project” to the plan; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Original Plan with the intent and expectation that
it would describe and authorize the Midtown Project as only one “urban renewal project,” as this
term is defined in the Act, within which any number of undertakings and activities could occur,
such as the Existing Activities; and
WHEREAS, these HB-1348 amendments to the Act have created considerable
uncertainty as to when the City will be required to follow this negotiation and binding mediation
process in the future when new undertakings or activities are being proposed under the First
Amended Plan and how this process might affect the Existing Undertakings; and
WHEREAS, City staff has therefore recommended to City Council that the First
Amended Plan be modified by amending language in the First Amended Plan to make clear that
the First Amended Plan identifies and authorizes only one “urban renewal project,” that being
the Midtown Project; and
WHEREAS, the first modification amends the wording of the First Amended Plan to
make clear that the First Amended Plan identifies and authorizes only one urban renewal project,
the Midtown Project (the “First Modification”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(7), City Council hereby finds that the
First Modification will not be a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan because the
First Modification does not result in any substantial change in the land area, land use, design,
building requirements, timing or procedure as previously approved in the First Amended Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the second modification excludes from the Plan Area approximately 490.7
acres of land that are currently not located in either of the TIF Districts except for certain
portions of South College Avenue that are not in the TIF Districts that will remain in the Plan
Area in order to connect the two TIF Districts (the “Second Modification”), which excluded land
is depicted on the attached Exhibit “C” and legally described in the attached Exhibit “D” (the
“Excluded Area”); and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Second Modification, the new plan area of the First
Amended Plan will be reduced to approximately 167.8 acres of land, which area is depicted on
Exhibit “C” and legally described in the attached Exhibit “E (the “New Plan Area”); and
WHEREAS, since the Second Modification results in a substantial change of the First
Amended Plan’s land area, although it will be a decrease and not an increase in land area, under
Section 31-25-107(7) the Second Modification is arguably a substantial modification of the First
Packet Pg. 253
Amended Plan that is subject to the notice, hearing and other applicable requirements of Section
31-25-107; and
WHEREAS, one of these requirements is in Section 31-25-107(1)(b) and it requires that
an urban renewal authority, within thirty days of commissioning a blight study for an area
proposed to be included in a new or existing urban renewal plan, to mail notices that it is
commencing the blight study to all fee title owners of private property in the proposed study area
at their last-known address of record; and
WHEREAS, since under the proposed First Modification and Second Modification
(jointly, the “Modifications”) no new land is being added to the Plan Area, but instead is
removed, and since the remaining New Plan Area has been previously determined to be a
blighted area under the Act by Council in its Resolutions 2011-080 and 2011-081, both adopted
on September 6, 2011, the Authority found in the Authority Resolution that there was no need
for a blight study for the Modification and, therefore, that the notice called for under Section 31-
25-107(1)(b) was not required, which finding the Council hereby adopts; and
WHEREAS, the Authority Board nevertheless directed in the Authority Resolution that
the Authority mail notices of the Modifications to all fee title owners of private property in the
Plan Area and to notify them in the notice that a blight study involving their properties would not
be conducted for the Modifications for the reasons stated in the Authority Resolution (the “Blight
Study Notice”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority mailed the Blight Study Notice to all required property
owners on October 21, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a) requires the City Council or the Authority, at
least thirty days prior to the Council conducting a hearing to consider a substantial modification
of an urban renewal plan, to submit to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners (the
“County”) the proposed modification and an “urban renewal impact report” if the County’s
property taxes will be collected and used under the substantial modification; and
WHEREAS, the Authority Board found in the Authority Resolution that it was not
necessary to submit an “urban renewal impact report” to the County since the Second
Modification simply removes the Excluded Area from the Plan Area and the Excluded Area is
not currently in one of the TIF Districts, so no County property tax increment has been or is
being collected from the Excluded Area and used under the First Amended Plan, which finding
the Council hereby adopts; and
WHEREAS, the Authority Resolution therefore directed the Authority to submit a
written notice to the County describing the Modification and stating that the Modifications
have no impacts on the County as such impacts are defined in Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a)(I)-(V)
(the “County Notice”); and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2015, the Authority submitted the County Notice to the
County; and
Packet Pg. 254
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2105, City Council adopted Resolution 2015-084
directing that the Modification be submitted to the City’s Planning and Zoning Board as required
by Section 31-25-107(2) and to the Poudre School District (the “School District”) as required by
31-25-107(9)(d); and
WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(2) required City Council to submit the Modification to
the City’s Planning and Zoning Board prior to the Council approving the Modification so that the
Planning and Zoning Board could review the Modification and provide its written
recommendation to the Council on the sole question of whether the Modification is in conformity
with the City’s general plan for development of the City as a whole, which is the City’s
comprehensive plan titled “City Plan – Fort Collins” and dated February 15, 2011 (“City Plan”);
and
WHEREAS, at its October 8, 2015 meeting the Planning and Zoning Board considered
the Modification as required by Section 31-25-107(2) and adopted a resolution finding that the
First Amended Plan as amended by the Modification is in conformity with City Plan; and
WHEREAS, since the Excluded Area and the New Plan Area include within each of
them both single- and multiple-family residences, Section 31-25-107(9)(d) arguably requires that
the School District be notified of the Modification to participate in an advisory capacity
concerning the proposed Modification if it desires to; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2015, the City submitted the Modification to the School
District; and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2015, City Council adopted Resolution 2015-090 setting
December 1, 2015, as the date of the Council’s hearing to consider approval of the Modification,
as required by Section 31-25-107(3)(a); and
WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(3)(a) also required that notice of the December 1, 2015,
public hearing be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least thirty
(30) days before the hearing with the notice describing the time, date, place and purpose of the
hearing and generally identify the portions of the Plan Area affected by the Modification and
outline the general scope of the Modification (the “Published Notice”); and
WHEREAS, the Published Notice was published on October 25, 2015, in the Fort Collins
Coloradoan, a newspaper of general circulation within the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(4)(c) also required that reasonable efforts be made to
provide written notice of the Council’s public hearing to all property owners, residents, and
owners of business concerns in the Plan Area at their last known address of record at least thirty
(30) days before the scheduled hearing and that such notice contain the information required by
Section 31-25-107(3)(a) for the Published Notice (the “Mailed Notice”); and
Packet Pg. 255
WHEREAS, the Mailed Notice was mailed to all required property owners, residents and
business owners on October 30, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the changes proposed in the First Modification and the Second Modification
have been made to the First Amended Plan resulting in the “Midtown Urban Renewal Plan”
dated December 1, 2015, which is attached as Exhibit “F” (the “Second Amended Plan); and
WHEREAS, on this day, December 1, 2015, City Council has conducted a noticed public
hearing on the Second Amended Plan in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Act;
and
WHEREAS, based on City Council’s review of the Second Amended Plan and the record
before it at the hearing, the Council hereby finds and determines that Council’s approval of
Second Amended Plan is in the best interest of the City and its citizens, it is consistent with the
purposes of the Act, and it satisfies all applicable requirements of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth
herein and the Council hereby makes and adopts all of the findings and determinations set forth
in those recitals. In addition, all attached exhibits are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth
herein.
Section 2. That in addition to the findings and determinations made in Section 1, the
Council hereby finds, determines, declares, ratifies and reaffirms the following with respect to
the Modification of the First Amended Plan as now reflected in the Second Amended Plan:
(a) The New Plan Area was previously declared by Council in its Resolutions 2011-
080, 2011-081, 2013-014 and 2013-043 (collectively, the “Midtown Resolutions”) to be a
blighted area by reason of the presence of seven factors as defined in the Act, which
factors, taken together, substantially impair the sound growth of the City, constitute an
economic and social liability, and negatively affect the public health, safety, morals and
welfare of the City.
(b) The boundaries of the New Plan Area have been drawn as narrowly as the
Council determines feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of
the Second Amended Plan.
(c) The Second Amended Plan meets the requirements of Section 31-25-105.5(2) of
the Act, and the Authority is authorized to acquire any interest in property (including a
fee interest, for subsequent transfer to a private party) by any means available, including,
without limitation, by exercise of the power of eminent domain under the terms and
conditions of the Second Amended Plan and any other requirements of any applicable
law.
Packet Pg. 256
(d) The Council’s decision to authorize the use of eminent domain in the Second
Amended Plan is based on its findings that the New Plan Area is a blighted area as
defined in the Act.
(e) The Existing Undertakings that currently constitute the Midtown Project have
been commenced no later than seven (7) years from the effective date of Resolution
2011-081.
(f) The Second Amended Plan requires full compliance with all statutory
requirements applicable to the exercise of eminent domain by the Authority, which
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
(1) Prior to the commencement of negotiation of an agreement for
redevelopment or rehabilitation of property acquired or to be acquired by eminent
domain, the Authority shall have provided notice and invited proposals for
redevelopment or rehabilitation from all property owners, residents, and owners
of business concerns located on the property acquired or to be acquired by
eminent domain in the New Plan Area by mailing notice to their last known
address of record.
(2) In the case of a set of parcels to be acquired by the Authority in
connection with the Midtown Project, at least one of which is owned by an owner
refusing or rejecting an agreement for the acquisition of the entire set of parcels,
the Authority must make a determination that the redevelopment or rehabilitation
of the remaining parcels is not viable under the Second Amended Plan without the
parcel at issue.
(3) Acquisition of any property by eminent domain shall be for the purpose of
preventing or eliminating conditions of blight without regard to the economic
performance of the property to be acquired.
(4) The Authority shall have adopted relocation assistance and land
acquisition policies to benefit displaced persons that are consistent with those set
forth in Article 56 of Title 24, C.R.S., to the extent applicable to the facts of each
specific property, and, at the time of the relocation of the owner or the occupant,
shall provide compensation or other forms of assistance to any displaced person in
accordance with such policies, and, in the case of a business concern displaced by
the acquisition of property by eminent domain, the Authority shall make a
business interruption payment to the business concern not to exceed the lesser of
$10,000 or one-fourth of the average annual taxable income shown on the three
most recent federal income tax returns of the business concern.
(5) In any case where the acquisition of property by eminent domain by the
Authority displaces individuals, families, or business concerns, the Authority shall
make reasonable efforts to relocate such individuals, families, or business
concerns within the New Plan Area, where such relocation is consistent with the
Packet Pg. 257
uses provided in the Second Amended Plan, or in areas within reasonable
proximity of, or comparable to, the original location of such individuals, families,
or business concerns.
(6) The Second Amended Plan meets the requirements of the Act, and the
principal public purpose for adoption of the Second Amended Plan is to facilitate
redevelopment of the New Plan Area in order to eliminate or prevent the spread of
a physically blighted area as defined in the Act.
(g) To the extent any relocation of individuals or families will be required in
connection the Second Amended Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those
individuals and families in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within
their means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families.
(h) To the extent any relocation of business concerns will be required with the
Second Amended Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business
concerns in the New Plan Area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with
respect to public utilities and public and commercial facilities.
(i) The Second Amended Plan was approved within one hundred twenty (120) days
of commencement of the first public hearing on the Second Amended Plan.
(j) Section 31-25-107(4)(e) does not apply because the Council did not fail to
previously approve the Second Amended Plan.
(k) The City or the Authority will adequately finance any additional County
infrastructure and services required to serve development within the New Plan Area for
the period in which all or any portion of the property taxes described in Section 31-25-
107(9)(a)(II) and levied by the County are paid to the Authority.
(l) The Second Amended Plan conforms to City Plan as a whole.
(m) The Original Plan and the First Amended Plan have afforded, and the Second
Amended Plan will continue to afford, maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the New Plan
Area by private enterprise.
(n) There is no land that constitutes agricultural land as defined in Section 31-25-
103(1) that is being added to the New Plan Area.
(o) There is no open land within the meaning of Sections 31-25-107(5) and (6) that is
being added to the New Plan Area.
Section 3. That the Second Amended Plan is hereby adopted and, as so adopted, is
intended to supersede and replace in all respects the Original Plan and the First Amended Plan.
However, the Midtown Resolutions and all of Council’s findings and determinations in them
Packet Pg. 258
shall remain in full force and effect as applied to the New Plan Area except to the extent
expressly superseded or updated by this Resolution.
Section 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to promptly deliver a certified copy
of this Resolution with all attached exhibits to the Larimer County Assessor as required by
C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(10).
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins on
this 1st day of December A.D. 201 5.
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 259
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !!!!!
! !!!!!
! ! ! ! !
SHIELDS
COLLEGE
DRAKE
PROSPECT
LEMAY
HORSETOOTH
MASON
HARMONY
BOARDWALK
JOHN F KENNEDY
LANDINGS
REMINGTON
TROUTMAN
LEMAY
SWALLOW
STOVER
LAKE
CENTRE
COLUMBIA
OAKRIDGE
WHEATON
WABASH
MEADOWLARK
TROUTMAN
COLONY
SENECA
BOARDWALK
HINSDALE
STANFORD
BROOKWOOD
STUART
MANHATTAN
KEENLAND
PITKIN
WHALERS
CENTENNIAL
PARKWOOD
WELCH
RICHMOND
RESEARCH
STARFLOWER
MONROE
CENTER
MATHEWS
TICONDER
OGA
HIGHCASTLE
WINDMILL
Exhibit "B" Page 1 of 3 b
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Exhibit B (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "B" Page 2 of 3 b
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Exhibit B (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "B" Page 3 of 3 b
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Exhibit B (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # # #
# # # #
# #
# #
# #
# # # #
# ###
# # # #
#
# # # #
# # # # # #
######
# # # # # #
# # # # # #
# # # # # # #
SHIELDS
COLLEGE
DRAKE
PROSPECT
LEMAY
HORSETOOTH
MASON
HARMONY
BOARDWALK
JOHN F KENNEDY
LANDINGS
REMINGTON
LEMAY
STOVER
SWALLOW
STUART
CENTRE
COLUMBIA
OAKRIDGE
WHEATON
WABASH
MEADOWLARK
TROUTMAN
COLONY
HINSDALE
STANFORD
BROOKWOOD
MANHATTAN
WHALERS
CENTENNIAL
WELCH
Exhibit "D" Page 1 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "D" Page 2 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "D" Page 3 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "D" Page 4 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "D" Page 5 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "D" Page 6 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "D" Page 7 of 7 d
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Exhibit D (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "E" Page 1 of 5 e
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Exhibit E (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "E" Page 2 of 5 e
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Exhibit E (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "E" Page 3 of 5 e
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Exhibit E (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "E" Page 4 of 5 e
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Exhibit E (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Exhibit "E" Page 5 of 5 e
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Exhibit E (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Midtown
Urban Renewal Plan
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins and
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Adopted: September 6, 2011 (Including Tax
Increment Financing District-Prospect South)
Amended: May 7, 2013 to add Tax Increment
Financing District-Foothills Mall
Amended: December 1, 2015, to exclude 490.7 acres from the Plan Area
and to clarify that this Plan authorizes and describes only one urban
renewal project
Prepared By:
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
f
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
2
This page intentionally left blank.
f
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
3
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4
2. Blight Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
3. Plan Objectives .......................................................................................................... 11
4. Authorized Urban Renewal Undertakings and Activities ......................................... 12
Public Improvements and Facilities .............................................................................. 12
Cooperative Agreements .............................................................................................. 12
Purchase of Property .................................................................................................... 13
Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Prep ............................ 13
Property Disposition ..................................................................................................... 13
Redevelopment Agreements ........................................................................................ 13
Relocation Assistance ................................................................................................... 14
Hiring ............................................................................................................................. 14
Legal Authority .............................................................................................................. 14
Catalyst and Enhancement Projects ............................................................................. 14
5. Development Standards and Procedures ................................................................. 14
6. Conformance ............................................................................................................. 14
Urban Renewal Law ...................................................................................................... 14
City Plan ........................................................................................................................ 15
7. Midtown Project Financing ....................................................................................... 17
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Boundaries ....................................................... 18
Prospect South Tax Increment District ......................................................................... 18
Foothills Mall Tax Increment District ............................................................................ 19
Tax Increment Reimbursement .................................................................................... 20
8. Modifications to the Plan .......................................................................................... 21
9. Reasonable Variations .............................................................................................. 21
10. Effective Date of the Plan and TIF Provisions ............................................................. 21
Appendix A – Legal Description ........................................................................................ 22
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA ................................ 22
Appendix B – Legal Description ........................................................................................ 27
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – PROSPECT SOUTH .... 27
Appendix C – Legal Description ........................................................................................ 29
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – Foothills Mall............ 29
List of Figures
Figure 1: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary ........................................................... 6
Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South ............................................ 7
Figure 3. Tax Increment Financing District -- Foothills Mall…………………………………………..8
f
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
4
1. Introduction
The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is a plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority (Authority) and the City of Fort Collins (the City), pursuant to the
provisions of the Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 et seq. (Urban
Renewal Law). Terms used in the Plan have the same meaning as in the Urban Renewal
Law.
The jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority are the same as the boundaries of the
City. Within the City boundaries there may be one or more urban renewal plan areas.
This Plan describes the framework for certain urban renewal undertakings and activities
constituting a single “urban renewal project”, a this term is defined and used in the
Urban Renewal Law, and other authorized activities under the Urban Renewal Law
(Midtown Project) in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (Plan Area), located in the
City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado.
This Plan was prepared for adoption by the City Council in recognition that the Midtown
Commercial Corridor requires a coordinated, cooperative strategy, with financing
possibilities, to eliminate unfavorable existing conditions and prevent further
deterioration. This Plan intends to accomplish the City’s development objectives for
improving the viability of the commercial corridor by creation of the Plan Area and the
implementation of the Midtown Project within the Plan Area.
The driving interest in adopting this Plan and implementing the Midtown Project is to
begin offering tax increment financing (TIF) as a tool to stimulate and leverage both
public and private sector development (including redevelopment), to help remedy
adverse conditions and prevent the spread of further deterioration. It is the intent of
this Plan for any renewal undertakings and activities pursued under this Plan as part of
the Midtown Project and other implementation actions that they be done in a
responsive manner, with full consideration for interests and concerns of property
owners in the Plan Area. Such undertakings and activities are anticipated to occur
incrementally over a substantial period of time, with the potential for Authority
financing to provide the impetus and means to undertake these undertakings and
activities at a faster pace than might occur otherwise.
The Plan effort originated in response to the Midtown Redevelopment Study adopted in
2010 where one of the primary action items for implementation concluded the need for
an Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan.
The Plan has been made available to City of Fort Collins residents. Input was solicited of
area residents, property owners and business owners and tenants prior to completion of
the Plan. Notifications of public hearings and an open house were provided to property
owners, tenants, and residents within and surrounding the study area stating the
f
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
5
following: time, date, place, and a description of the Plan Area and of the general scope
of the Midtown Project under the Plan.
Meetings were held before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council in spring
2011 to receive comments and input on this Plan. To the extent provided in Colorado
Public Records Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Title 24, Article 72, Part 2 as the same may be
amended from time to time, and pursuant to policies adopted by the Authority, project
plans and proposals will be made available to the public.
In addition, in connection with review of the Plan and amendment of the Plan to adopt
the Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall, additional public notice,
solicitation of comments, and public hearing were conducted, including review by the
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on May 6, 2013, culminating in a public hearing
before the City Council on May 7, 2013.
Description of the Plan Area
The Plan Area, as modified on December 1, 2015, is approximately 167.8 acres, including
certain portions of the South College Avenue right-of-way. The City of Fort Collins
Structure Plan identifies this area as a commercial corridor. The City of Fort Collins
Zoning Map indicates this area is primarily zoned C-commercial with some additional
zones; HC – Harmony Corridor, E – Employment, and CC-Community Commercial.
The Plan Area is depicted on the Boundary Map on the following page (Figure 1). A legal
description of the area is attached hereto as Appendix A.
Description of the Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South
The Tax Increment Financing District - Prospect South (the “Prospect South TIF District”)
is depicted on the Boundary Map in Figure 2. A legal description of the district is
attached hereto as Appendix B.
Description of the Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall
The Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall (the “Foothills Mall TIF District”) is
depicted on the Boundary Map in Figure 3. A legal description of the district is attached
hereto as Appendix C.
f
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
6
Figure 1: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary
f
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
7
Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South
f
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
8
Figure 3: Tax Increment Financing District – Foothills Mall
f
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
9
2. Blight Conditions
Before an urban renewal plan can be adopted by the City, the determination that an
area constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical,
environmental, and social factors. Blight is indeed attributable to a multiplicity of
conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration
of an area. The definition of a blighted area is premised upon the definition articulated
in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows:
“Blighted area” means an area that, in its present condition and use and,
by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors,
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality,
retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or
usefulness;
d Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
e Deterioration of site or other improvements;
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or
utilities;
g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title
nonmarketable;
h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire
and other causes;
i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work
in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration,
defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate
facilities;
j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property;
k.5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high
levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization
or vacancy of sites, building, or other improvements; or
l. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the
tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion
of such property in an urban renewal area, "blighted area" also
means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by
reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in
paragraphs (a) to (k.5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs
or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the
provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic
or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety,
f
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
10
morals, or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (l), the fact that
an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the
inclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not
mean that the owner has waived any rights of such owner in
connection with laws governing condemnation.
To be able to use the powers of eminent domain, “blighted” means that five of the
eleven factors must be present (C.R.S. § 31-25-105.2(2)(a)(I)):
(a) “Blighted area” shall have the same meaning as set forth in
section 31-25-103 (2); except that, for the purposes of this section only,
“blighted area” means an area that, in its present condition and use and,
by reason of the presence of at least five of the factors specified in section
31-25-103 (2)(a) to (2)(l), substantially impairs or arrests the sound
growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing
accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
Source: Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2).
Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination
of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law. First, the
absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself,
preclude a finding of blight. The definition of “blighted area” contained in the Urban
Renewal Law is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so
dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of
deterioration.” Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P.2d 907, 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
Second, the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination
that an area constitutes a blighted area. A determination of blight is based upon an area
“taken as a whole,” and not on a building-by-building basis. Interstate Trust Building Co.
v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 473 P.2d 978, 981 (Colo. 1970).
Third, a governing body’s “determination as to whether an area is blighted….is a
legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted.” Tracy, 635
P.2d at 909. A court’s role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to
independently verify if the conclusion is based upon factual evidence determined by the
City Council at the time of a public hearing to be consistent with the statutory definition.
Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the Midtown Existing
Conditions Survey, dated April 2011, the City Council, by Resolutions 2011-080 and
2011-081, both adopted on September 6, 2011, and ratified and reaffirmed by City
Council on February 28, 2013, in Resolution 2013-014 and on May 7, 2013, in Resolution
f
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
11
2013-043, made a finding that the Plan Area was “blighted” as defined by the Urban
Renewal Law, by the existence of the following seven factors:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout
c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
e. Deterioration of site or other improvements
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
k.5. Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal
services or substantial underutilization or vacancy of buildings, sites, or
improvements
The City Council also found that these factors, taken together, substantially impair the
sound growth of the City, constitute an economic and social liability, and negatively
affect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Based on evidence of the
“blighted” factors, the Plan Area is appropriate for authorized renewal undertakings and
activities of the Authority as part of the Midtown Plan pursuant to the Urban Renewal
Law.
3. Plan Objectives
The overall objective of this Plan is for the Midtown Project to remediate unfavorable
existing conditions and prevent further deterioration by implementation of the relevant
provisions contained in the following documents:
City Plan (The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan)
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
Fort Collins Infill Infrastructure Report
City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan
Mason Corridor Economic Study
Midtown Redevelopment Study
To do this, this Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around
the Plan Area with a combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public
investment. The Plan will assist progress toward the following additional objectives:
To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through
cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build
needed improvements.
To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound
growth of the City.
To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements.
f
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
12
To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and
complementary to unique circumstances in the area.
To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land.
To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and
safety.
To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities.
To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and
conditions.
To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Plan
Area.
To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when
such opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political
limits of the Authority to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide
relocation benefits, and pursue redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation
projects.
4. Authorized Urban Renewal Undertakings and
Activities
To support progress toward the objectives, the Authority may undertake as part of the
Midtown Project any of the following renewal undertakings and activities, as deemed
appropriate for the elimination or prevention of blight factors within the Plan Area,
pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law:
Public Improvements and Facilities
The Authority may cause, finance or facilitate the design, installation, construction and
reconstruction of public improvements in the Plan Area. In order to promote the
effective utilization of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the Plan Area, the
Authority may, among other things, enter into financial or other agreements with the
City of Fort Collins to provide the City with financial or other support in order to
encourage or cause the City to invest funds for the improvement of storm drainage,
street conditions and other infrastructure deficiencies in the Plan Area.
Cooperative Agreements
For the purposes of planning and implementing this Plan, the Authority may enter into
one or more cooperative agreements with the City or other public entities. Such
agreement may include provisions regarding Midtown Project financing and
implementation; design, location, construction of public improvements; and any other
matters required to implement this Plan. Potential entities include but not limited to:
Xcel Energy, Qwest, Comcast, Poudre Valley Fire Authority, Poudre Valley Rural Electric
Association and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District.
f
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
13
Purchase of Property
In the event that the Authority finds it necessary to purchase any real property for the
Midtown Project to remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law and this
Plan, the Authority may do so by any legal means available, including the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. If the power of
eminent domain is to be exercised for the purpose of transfer of property to another
private person or entity, the Authority’s decision whether to acquire the property
through eminent domain shall be guided by the following criteria, with the
understanding that these guidelines shall not be construed to constrain the Authority’s
legal ability to exercise the power of eminent domain:
All requirements of the Urban Renewal Law, including eminent domain
procedures, have been met.
Other possible alternatives have been thoroughly considered by the Authority.
Good faith negotiations by the Authority and/or the project developer have been
rejected by the property owner.
Reasonable efforts have been undertaken to: (a) understand and address the
property owner's position and his or her desires for the property and for any
existing business on the site, and (b) work with the owner to either include the
owner in planning the proposed development or purchase the property and
relocate the owner in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law on terms and
conditions acceptable to the owner.
Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Prep
The Authority may on a case-by-case basis, elect to demolish or to cooperate with
others to clear buildings, structures, and other improvements. Development activities
consistent with this Plan may require such demolition and clearance to eliminate
unhealthy, unsanitary, and unsafe conditions, eliminate obsolete and other uses
detrimental to the public welfare, and otherwise remove and prevent the spread of
deterioration.
Property Disposition
The Authority may sell, lease, or otherwise transfer real property or any interest in real
property subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions, including architectural and
design controls, time restrictions on development, and building requirements, as it
deems necessary to develop such property.
Redevelopment Agreements
The Authority may enter into redevelopment agreements with property owners or
developers in the Plan Area to facilitate participation and assistance that the Authority
may choose to provide to such owners or developers. These may include provisions
regarding project planning, public improvements, financing, design, and any other
matters allowed pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law.
f
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
14
Relocation Assistance
It is not expected that the activities of the Authority will displace any person, family, or
business. However, to the extent that in the future the Authority may purchase
property causing displacement of any person, family, or business, it shall develop a
relocation program to assist any such party in finding another location pursuant to the
Urban Renewal Law, and provide relocation benefits consistent with the Urban Renewal
Law. There shall be no displacement of any person or business without there being in
place a relocation program, which program shall become a part of this Plan when
adopted.
Hiring
The Authority may employ consultants, agents, and employees, permanent and
temporary, and it shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation.
Legal Authority
The Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban Renewal
Law.
Catalyst and Enhancement Projects
Rehabilitation and redevelopment of the properties surrounding the Plan Area that will
continue to foster cleanup, preservation and redevelopment of nearby properties.
Additional public infrastructure, not limited to pedestrian amenities, enhanced
landscaping, public transportation improvements, public utilities, or public art and
architectural features as well as access to services, meeting facilities and shopping
options may also further redevelopment of the Plan Area.
5. Development Standards and Procedures
All development within the Plan Area shall conform to the Land Use Code and any site
specific zoning regulations or policies which might impact properties, all as in effect and
as may be amended from time to time. While State statute authorizes the Authority to
undertake zoning and planning activities to regulate land use, maximum densities, and
building requirements in the Plan Area, the City will regulate land use and building
requirements through existing municipal codes and ordinances.
6. Conformance
Urban Renewal Law
This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of
the Urban Renewal Law.
f
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
15
City Plan
The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan, describes desirable land
use and transportation patterns, with goals and policies for those topics along with
community appearance and design, the environment, open lands, housing, the
economy, and growth management.
Briefly summarized, the land use pattern envisioned by these plans for the Plan Area is a
commercial corridor well-integrated with surrounding development. The Plan Area is
envisioned to evolve with improved community design and streetscapes, in an
interconnected framework of streets and blocks. One of the purposes of this Plan is to
implement the vision for the Plan Area as a commercial corridor with mixed-use
residential improvements, as well as create a connection to the Mason Corridor for
improved transit circulation.
This Plan is intended to provide mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan,
and therefore it is in direct conformance with City Plan. The following excerpts from
City Plan highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Urban Renewal Plan. These
are representative excerpts, and not an all-inclusive listing of relevant statements:
Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the
community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and
Neighborhood Principles and Policies.
Policy EH 4.1: Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas
Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and
Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section,
to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community
and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital
investment, and public incentives.
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.
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.
The purpose of these areas is to:
Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial
areas.
f
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
16
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.
Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to
jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips.
Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists.
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
“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 5.2: Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
“community spine” of the City along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The
“community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in
streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to
support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of
transit-supportive, mixed-use activity centers over time. Established residential
neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by
improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted
for infill or redevelopment.
Policy LIV 5.3: Policy LIV 5.3 – Identify Additional Redevelopment and Infill Areas as
Appropriate
Utilize subarea plans to help designate areas for redevelopment and infill that are not
identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Within these plans,
support the development of appropriate design standards to protect the character of
neighborhoods and to ensure conformance with City Plan.
Principle LIV 34: General Commercial Districts will include a wide range of community
and regional uses, in various sizes and scales, designed for convenient access by all
modes of travel, efficient circulation, and a comfortable pedestrian environment.
Policy LIV 34.2: Mix of Uses
Although many existing General Commercial Districts in the City consist of single-use
commercial centers today, the incorporation of a broader mix of uses is desirable over
time:
f
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
17
Principal uses: Retail, restaurants, office, and other commercial services.
Supporting uses: Entertainment, high-density residential, day care (adult and
child), and other supporting uses.
Policy LIV 34.3: Support the Revitalization of Existing Strip Commercial Corridor
Developments
Encourage and support the gradual evolution of existing, auto-oriented strip commercial
areas to a more compact, pedestrian and transit-oriented pattern of development over
time through infill and redevelopment. Establish enhanced walking connections
between destinations.
Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations
and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban
activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density
housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing.
Policy LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment
Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts
through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that
include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all
transportation modes.
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized
Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote
walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide
high-frequency/high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity
centers and districts in the city.
Policy LIV 43.3: Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along
Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities
and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use.
7. Midtown Project Financing
Specific Midtown Project undertakings and activities may be financed in whole or in part
by the Authority, under the tax increment financing (TIF) provisions of CRS § 31-25-
107(9)(a) of the Urban Renewal Law, or by any other available source of financing
authorized to be undertaken by the Authority pursuant to CRS § 31-25-105 of the Urban
Renewal Law. The Authority is authorized as part of the Midtown Project to:
Finance renewal undertakings and activities within the Plan Area with revenues
from property tax increments, sales tax increments, interest income, federal
f
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
18
loans or grants, agreements with public, quasi-public or private parties and
entities, loans or advances from any other available source, and any other
available sources of revenue.
Issue bonds and incur other obligations contemplated by the Urban Renewal Law
in an amount sufficient to finance all or any part of a renewal undertaking or
activity within the Plan Area.
Borrow funds and create indebtedness in any authorized form in carrying out
this Plan.
Any principal and interest on such indebtedness may be paid from property tax
increments, sales tax increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or properties
legally available to the Authority. Such methods may be combined to finance all or part
of the Midtown Plan undertakings and activities.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Boundaries
If permissible by the Urban Renewal Law, the Authority is authorized to create TIF
districts within the Plan Area that can include, but are not limited to a single parcel or
multiple parcels for a qualified Midtown Project undertaking or activity. Accordingly,
the Plan may be amended when the TIF district is decided upon by the Authority, and
incremental property tax and/or sales tax revenues attributable to the redevelopment
in the Plan Area to pay the indebtedness incurred by the Authority. The Prospect South
Tax Increment District was established when this Plan was adopted. The Foothills Mall
Tax Increment District was established when the Plan was amended on May 7, 2013.
Additional TIF districts may be established in the future by amendment of this Plan.
Prospect South Tax Increment District
The primary method of financing the Midtown Project undertaken in furtherance of this
Plan in the Prospect South Tax Increment District shall be the use of property tax
increment financing pursuant to Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S. All property taxes
collected within the Prospect South Tax Increment District shall be divided as follows:
a) That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each
year by or for each public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in
the Prospect South Tax Increment District last certified prior to the effective date of
approval of this Plan or, as to an area later added to the Prospect South Tax Increment
District, the effective date of the modification of this Plan
for such purpose, shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other
taxes collected by or for such public body.
b) The portion of such property taxes in excess of the amounts described in
paragraph a), above, shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund
to fund the Authority’s obligations with respect to any renewal undertaking or activity
for the Prospect South Tax Increment District, including payment of the principal of, the
interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds, loans or advances to,
f
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
19
or indebtedness incurred by (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) the
Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, the renewal undertakings and
activities for the Prospect South Tax Increment District, or to make payments under an
agreement executed pursuant to Section 31-25-107(11).
c) When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest
thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, but in no
event later than 25 years following the adoption of this tax allocation provision, any
excess property tax collections not allocated pursuant to this paragraph or any
Cooperation Agreement between the Authority and the City or other taxing jurisdiction,
shall be paid into the funds of said jurisdiction or public body. Unless and until the total
property tax collections in the Prospect South Tax Increment District exceed the base
year property tax collections in the Prospect South Tax Increment District, as provided in
paragraph a), above, all such property tax collections shall be paid into the funds of the
appropriate public body. The Authority reserves the right to enter into Cooperation
Agreements with select taxing jurisdictions relative to allocation of incremental tax
revenues.
d) In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations
in Larimer County, which are subject to division of valuation for assessment between
base and increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for assessment to be
allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with the
Urban Renewal Law.
Foothills Mall Tax Increment District
The primary method of financing the Midtown Project undertaken in furtherance of this
Urban Renewal Plan in the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District shall be the use of
property tax and sales tax increment financing pursuant to Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S.
For purposes of the tax allocation provision of this Plan related to the Foothills Mall Tax
Increment District, the term sales tax shall mean the sales tax imposed by the City at a
rate of 2.25% (or such lesser rate as agreed to by the City and the Authority (subject to
any contractual obligations of the Authority)) on sales of goods and services that are
subject to municipal sales taxes pursuant to the Fort Collins Municipal Code (as it may
exist from time to time). All property taxes and sales taxes collected within the Foothills
Mall Tax Increment District shall be divided as follows:
a) That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each
year by or for each public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in
the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District last certified prior to the effective date of
approval of this tax allocation provision or, as to an area later added to the Foothills
Mall Tax Increment District, the effective date of the modification of this Urban Renewal
Plan for such purpose, and that portion of City sales taxes equal to the amount collected
f
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
20
within the boundaries of the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District in the twelve‐month
period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of the approval of
this tax allocation provision, shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are
all other taxes collected by or for such public body.
b) The portion of such property taxes and sales taxes in excess of the amounts
described in paragraph a), above, shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a
special fund to fund the Authority’s obligations with respect to any renewal
undertakings and activities for the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District, including
payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with
the bonds, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by (whether funded,
refunded, assumed, or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or
in part, the renewal undertakings and activities for the Foothills Mall Tax Increment
District, or to make payments under an agreement executed pursuant to Section 31-25-
107(11).
c) When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest
thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, but in no
event later than 25 years following the adoption of this tax allocation provision, any
excess property and sales tax collections not allocated pursuant to this paragraph or any
Cooperation Agreement between the Authority and the City or other taxing jurisdiction,
shall be paid into the funds of said jurisdiction or public body. Unless and until the total
property and sales tax collections in the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District exceed the
base year property and sales tax collections in the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District,
as provided in paragraph a), above, all such property and sales tax collections shall be
paid into the funds of the appropriate public body. The Authority reserves the right to
enter into Cooperation Agreements with select taxing jurisdictions relative to allocation
of incremental tax revenues.
d) In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations
in Larimer County, which are subject to division of valuation for assessment between
base and increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for assessment to be
allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with the
Urban Renewal Law.
Tax Increment Reimbursement
Tax increment revenues may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs
incurred for improvements related to a renewal undertaking or activity to pay the debt
incurred by the Authority with such entities for renewal undertakings and activities. Tax
incremental revenues may also be used to pay bonded indebtedness, financial
obligations and debts of the Authority related to any renewal undertakings and activities
under this Plan.
f
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
21
8. Modifications to the Plan
This Plan may be modified pursuant to requirements and procedures set forth in CRS
§31-25-107 of the Urban Renewal Law governing such modifications or amendments to
the extent such modifications or amendments do not conflict with the agreements.
Nothing herein shall be construed to require the Authority to first obtain the permission
of any party to an Agreement prior to amending or modifying this Plan.
9. Reasonable Variations
The Authority shall have the ability to approve reasonable variations (as determined by
the Board) from the strict application of these Plan provisions, so long as such variations
reasonably accommodate the intent and purpose of this Plan and the Urban Renewal
Law. Plan provisions may be altered by market conditions, redevelopment opportunities
and/or the needs of the community affected by the Plan.
10. Effective Date of the Plan and TIF Provisions
This Plan and the Prospect South TIF District provision took effect on September 6,
2011. The Foothills Mall TIF District provision took effect on May 7, 2013. Except as
otherwise permitted under the Urban Renewal Law, the term of the TIF period is
twenty-five (25) years from the effective date the adoption of the relevant TIF provision,
unless the Authority deems, to the extent consistent with the terms in the Agreements,
that all undertakings and activities to accomplish the Midtown Project have been
completed and all debts incurred to finance such undertakings and activities and all
expenses of the Authority have been repaid. In that event, the Authority may declare
the Plan fully implemented.
f
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
22
Appendix A – Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA
THREE TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 23, 24, 25, AND 26 OF TOWNSHIP 7
NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
TRACT 1 (PROSPECT SOUTH TIF DISTRICT):
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE WITH ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF PROSPECT
ROAD, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG THE SAID EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF “GRIFFIN PLAZA SUBDIVISION”; THENCE
SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID PLAT OF “GRIFFIN PLAZA SUBDIVISION”; THENCE
EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE BNSF RAILWAY; THENCE EASTERLY AND RADIALLY TO THE
SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE BNSF RAILWAY;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF THE PLAT OF “ WHOLE FOODS CENTER”; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID
NORTHERLY LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT “E” OF THE PLAT OF “UNIVERSITY
SHOPPING CENTER”; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID TRACT “E”; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE, SAID POINT HEREINAFTER TO BE REFERRED TO AS POINT “A”; THENCE
EASTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH
COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF RUTGERS AVENUE;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY
LINE OF THE “RUTGERS BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE
SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF “RAISING CANE’S”;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
SAID PLAT OF “RAISING CANE’S”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY
LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF “A REPLAT OF A PART OF TRACT 1,
REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 AND LOTS 1 TO 7 INCLUSIVE OF BLOCK 1 OF THE ST. VRAIN
SUBDIVISION”; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF REMINGTON STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE
SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SPRING PARK
DRIVE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE
SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF “HUMAN BEAN AT
SPRING CREEK”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG
THE SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 OF
THE PLAT OF “MORAN’S SUBDIVISION” TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST
STUART STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST
STUART STREET AND TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST 180 FEET OF LOT 5 OF THE
PLAT OF “MAYNARD SUBDIVISION”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY
LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID LOT 5; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE
SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2 OF THE PLAT OF “A REPLAT
OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 350 FEET OF LOTS 3
& 4 OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY
LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF THE SAID PLAT OF “A REPLAT OF
MAYNARD SUBDIVISION BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 350 FEET OF LOTS 3 &
4 OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION” TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID PLAT OF ”A
REPLAT OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 350 FEET
f
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
23
OF LOTS 3 & 4 OF MAYNARD SUBDIVISION”; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID
NORTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST 240 FEET OF LOT 2 OF THE
SAID PLAT OF “MAYNARD SUBDIVISION”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID
EASTERLY LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
NORTHERLY 232 FEET OF THE SAID PLAT OF “MAYNARD SUBDIVISION”; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE
WESTERLY 213 FEET OF LOTS 14 AND 1 OF THE SAID PLAT OF “MAYNARD
SUBDIVISION”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ITS
NORTHERLY EXTENSION TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF PARKER STREET;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY THROUGH BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF “I.C.
BRADLEY’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS”; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG
THE SAID EASTERLY ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
EAST PROSPECT ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 2 (COLLEGE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY):
BEGINNING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT “A”, BEING THE INTERSECTION OF TRACT
E, UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH
COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT
1 DESCRIBED ABOVE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FRONTAGE ROAD (KANE CONCOURSE AS SO DESIGNATED
ON SOUTH COLLEGE HEIGHTS FIFTH SUBDIVISION) WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY OF RUTGERS AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY, TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRINCETON ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND AGAIN ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST DRAKE ROAD;
THENCE SOUTHERLY TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST DRAKE ROAD;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE
NORTH LINE OF THE ACCESS ROAD DEDICATED ON THUNDERBIRD ESTATES SIXTH
SUBDIVISION; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID ACCESS ROAD TO
THE EAST LINE OF SAID ACCESS ROAD; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF THE ACCESS ROAD DEDICATED ON THUNDERBIRD ESTATES SIXTH, SEVENTH AND
NINTH SUBDIVISIONS TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SWALLOW
ROAD; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF SWALLOW ROAD AND THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1 OF THE “REPLAT OF TRACTS F,
G, AND J, AND VACATED SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING”;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID NORTH LINE TO THE
WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 3 DESCRIBED BELOW; THENCE 100.00 FEET
WESTERLY, CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 3, TO THE
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH
COLLEGE AVENUE AS DEDICATED BY PLAT OR DEED AS FRONTAGE ROAD, OR AS
DEDICATED AS STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY WHERE NO ADDITIONAL FRONTAGE
ROAD RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS, TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DRAKE ROAD;
THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DRAKE ROAD; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 3 (FOOTHILLS TIF DISTRICT):
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE ALONG
THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1 OF THE “REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J, AND
VACATED SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING” AND THE WESTERLY
EXTENSION THEREOF, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 314.48 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
f
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
24
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1) ALONG THE
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET, S00°05'37"W, A DISTANCE OF
50.00 FEET; 2) ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET,
N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET; 3) S51°41'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 145.40 FEET; 4)
S89°35'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 138.50 FEET; 5) N00°05'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 141.63 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS EASTERLY
EXTENSION, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 357.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF TRACT K, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING; THENCE ALONG THE
WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID TRACT K THE
FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1) ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
MATHEWS STREET, S00°14'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 215.33 FEET; 2) 23.98 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 91°36'53", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S46°03'22"E A DISTANCE OF 21.51
FEET; 3) 11.02 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF
360.77 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°45'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N89°00'07"E
A DISTANCE OF 11.02 FEET;
4) N89°52'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 173.52 FEET; 5) N00°07'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 230.12
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT B OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL
FOLEY’S EXPANSION; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACTS B AND
A OF SAID FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION, N89°52'46"E, A DISTANCE
OF 996.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STANFORD
ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN
(7) COURSES: 1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT B OF SAID FOOTHILLS
FASHION MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION, 387.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,319.30 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
16°48'53", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°17'12"W A DISTANCE OF 385.79 FEET; 2)
CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S16°41'39"W, A DISTANCE OF 93.03
FEET; 3) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL
EXPANSION, S16°41'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 482.09 FEET; 4) CONTINUING ALONG SAID
EASTERLY BOUNDARY, 327.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE
LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,114.57 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°50'30", AND A
CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°16'21"W A DISTANCE OF 326.44 FEET; 5) CONTINUING ALONG
SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET; 6) CONTINUING
ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S05°51'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 110.54 FEET; 7)
CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION,
S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 451.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY
OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED
OCTOBER 30, 2012 AT RECEPTION NO. 20120076539 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF
THE TRACTS DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20120076539,
RECEPTION NO. 20050022855, AND RECEPTION NO. 2001099396, THE FOLLOWING
SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO
THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A
CHORD WHICH BEARS N45°08'53"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET; 2) S89°51'07"W, A
DISTANCE OF 214.00 FEET;
3) 312.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 398.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44°59'59", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N67°38'53"W A DISTANCE OF 304.93 FEET; 4) N45°08'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET;
5) 275.94 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 351.34 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N67°38'54"W A DISTANCE OF 268.90 FEET;
6) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 199.36 FEET; 7) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A
TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S44°51'06"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A
f
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
25
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY;
THENCE S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 66.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY; THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N45°08'54"W A DISTANCE
OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EAST MONROE
DRIVE;THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES: 1) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 12.16 FEET; 2) 146.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 221.32 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 38°00'29", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S70°50'52"W A DISTANCE OF 144.14
FEET; 3) S51°50'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 327.70 FEET; 4) 179.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF
A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.41 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 37°32'46", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S70°37'00"W A DISTANCE OF 175.98
FEET; 5) S89°23'22"W, A DISTANCE OF 138.44 FEET; THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S44°23'23"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1)
ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF STRACHAN SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING,
S00°19'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 576.93 FEET; 2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY
BOUNDARY, S45°28'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 44.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID
STRACHAN SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING; THENCE S03°26'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 105.31
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AS
SHOWN ON THE FIRST REPLAT OF 1ST CHOICE BANK OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE N88°14'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 154.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4 –
CREGER PLAZA SUBDIVISION; THENCE N00°32'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF MATTERHORN P.U.D.; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE FOLLOWING TEN (10) COURSES: 1)
ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MATTERHORN P.U.D., N44°33'53"E, A
DISTANCE OF 9.22 FEET; 2) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 1 AND 2,
MATTERHORN P.U.D., N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 503.93 FEET; 3) ALONG THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D., S53°56'23"W, A DISTANCE OF
44.81 FEET; 4) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 11 OF SOUTH
MESA SUBDIVISION AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, N00°19'07"W, A
DISTANCE OF 561.00 FEET; 5) N89°51'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 10.71 FEET;
6) N09°43'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 22.91 FEET; 7) 29.36 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 167.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 10°02'32", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N04°42'09"E A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET; 8)
N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 198.22 FEET; 9) S89°58'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 7.27 FEET TO
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT B, VILLA P.U.D.; 10) ALONG THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT B, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 226.70 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, RICHIE’S EXPRESS CARWASH SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AND ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, MOURNING SUBDIVISION, N89°59'07"W, A
DISTANCE OF 665.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
MCCLELLAND DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID MOURNING SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N00°39'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
20.17 FEET; THENCE 23.39 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°21'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N45°20'23"E A DISTANCE OF 21.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF WEST FOOTHILLS PARKWAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MOURNING
f
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
26
SUBDIVISION PLAT; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE,
S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 213.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 69.10 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°44'46", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N77°38'30"E A DISTANCE
OF 68.57 FEET TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, RICHIE’S EXPRESS CARWASH
SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°04'53"W, A DISTANCE
OF 14.69 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1,
S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 407.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: 1)
ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 78.17
FEET; 2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
86.83 FEET; 3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N89°59'07"W, A
DISTANCE OF 37.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, MOURNING
SUBDIVISION;
4) N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 870.84 FEET (BEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MOURNING SUBDIVISION, THE
POUDRE VALLEY MOTORS SUBDIVISION, AND THE REPLAT OF THE SWALLOW
SUBDIVISION); THENCE S89°57'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ALL PLATS REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE TRACT DESCRIPTIONS ARE PLATS OF
RECORD WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND
OPINION. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT IS BASED UPON PREVIOUSLY RECORDED
PLATS AND DEEDS AND NOT UPON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY.
JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
f
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
27
Appendix B – Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – PROSPECT SOUTH
A tract of land located in Sections 23 and 24 of Township 7 North, Range 69 West West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained
within the following described area;
Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly
extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road, the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along
the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”;
THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line
of the said plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE easterly and southerly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly
and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the northerly line of the plat of
“ Whole Foods Center”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the westerly
line of Tract “E” of the plat of “University Shopping Center”; THENCE southerly along the
said westerly line to the southerly line of the said Tract “E”; THENCE easterly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of South College Avenue; THENCE
easterly to the intersection of the easterly right of way of South College Avenue with the
northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly
right of way to the easterly line of the “Rutgers Building Condominiums”; THENCE
northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “Raising Cane’s”;
THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of
“Raising Cane’s”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of
the plat of “A Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of
Block 1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to
the westerly right of way of Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly
right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive; THENCE westerly along
the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat
of “Human Bean At Spring Creek”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and
along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of
“Moran’s Subdivision” to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE
northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of
the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5; THENCE westerly along the
said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of “A Replat of Maynard
Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard
Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of
Lot 1 of the said plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the
West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision” to the northerly line of the said
plat of ”A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of
f
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
28
Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the
easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”;
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the
southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213
feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker
Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of
way of the north-south alley through Block 1 of the plat of “I.C. Bradley’s Addition To
The City Of Fort Collins”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to
the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road; THENCE westerly along the said
southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
All Plats referred to in the above described description are Plats of record with the Clerk
and Recorder of Larimer County.
I hear by state that the above description was prepared by me and is true and correct to
the best of my professional knowledge belief and opinion. The above described tract is
based upon previously recorded plats and deeds and not upon an actual field survey.
Wallace C. Muscott
Colorado P.L.S. 17497
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 20, 2011
f
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
29
Appendix C – Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – Foothills Mall
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 AND THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE
SIXTH P.M.; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25, AND CONSIDERING
THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 25 AS HAVING AN
ASSUMED BEARING OF S00°04’53”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS NORTH
END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 20123, AND ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 2-1/2"
ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 14823, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1 OF THE “REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G,
AND J, AND VACATED SERVICE ROAD, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING” AND THE
WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 314.48 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES:
1) ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET,
S00°05'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
2) ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMINGTON STREET,
N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET;
3) S51°41'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 145.40 FEET;
4) S89°35'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 138.50 FEET;
5) N00°05'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 141.63 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS EASTERLY
EXTENSION, N89°52'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 357.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF TRACT K, SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID
TRACT K THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES:
1) ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MATHEWS STREET, S00°14'56"E,
A DISTANCE OF 215.33 FEET;
f
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
30
2) 23.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91°36'53", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S46°03'22"E A DISTANCE OF 21.51 FEET;
3) 11.02 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 360.77
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°45'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N89°00'07"E A DISTANCE OF 11.02 FEET;
4) N89°52'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 173.52 FEET;
5) N00°07'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 230.12 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
TRACT B OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACTS B AND A OF SAID FOOTHILLS
FASHION MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION, N89°52'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 996.10 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STANFORD ROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7)
COURSES:
1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT B OF SAID FOOTHILLS FASHION
MALL FOLEY’S EXPANSION, 387.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,319.30 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 16°48'53", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°17'12"W A DISTANCE OF 385.79
FEET;
2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S16°41'39"W, A DISTANCE OF
93.03 FEET;
3) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL
EXPANSION, S16°41'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 482.09 FEET;
4) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, 327.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,114.57 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°50'30", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S08°16'21"W A
DISTANCE OF 326.44 FEET;
5) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
170.00 FEET;
6) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, S05°51'32"E, A DISTANCE OF
110.54 FEET;
7) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY AND ITS SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION, S00°08'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 451.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
f
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
31
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 2012 AT RECEPTION NO.
20120076539 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE TRACTS DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS
RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20120076539, RECEPTION NO. 20050022855, AND
RECEPTION NO. 2001099396, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES:
1) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N45°08'53"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET;
2) S89°51'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 214.00 FEET;
3) 312.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 398.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44°59'59", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N67°38'53"W A DISTANCE OF 304.93 FEET;
4) N45°08'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 129.24 FEET;
5) 275.94 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 351.34 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N67°38'54"W A DISTANCE OF 268.90 FEET;
6) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 199.36 FEET;
7) 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S44°51'06"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY;
THENCE S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 66.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY;
THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS
N45°08'54"W A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF EAST MONROE DRIVE;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES:
1) S89°51'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 12.16 FEET;
2) 146.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 221.32 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°00'29", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S70°50'52"W A DISTANCE OF 144.14 FEET;
f
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
32
3) S51°50'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 327.70 FEET;
4) 179.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 273.41 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37°32'46", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S70°37'00"W A DISTANCE OF 175.98 FEET;
5) S89°23'22"W, A DISTANCE OF 138.44 FEET;
THENCE 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S44°23'23"W
A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2)
COURSES:
1) ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF STRACHAN SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING,
S00°19'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 576.93 FEET;
2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S45°28'37"E, A DISTANCE OF
44.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
HORSETOOTH ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID STRACHAN SUBDIVISION,
SECOND FILING;
THENCE S03°26'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 105.31 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE FIRST REPLAT OF 1
ST
CHOICE BANK OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE N88°14'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 154.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4 – CREGER
PLAZA SUBDIVISION;
THENCE N00°32'51"W, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
MATTERHORN P.U.D.;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE
FOLLOWING TEN (10) COURSES:
1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, MATTERHORN P.U.D., N44°33'53"E,
A DISTANCE OF 9.22 FEET;
2) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 1 AND 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D.,
N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 503.93 FEET;
3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 2, MATTERHORN P.U.D.,
S53°56'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 44.81 FEET;
4) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 11 OF SOUTH MESA
SUBDIVISION AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, N00°19'07"W, A
DISTANCE OF 561.00 FEET;
5) N89°51'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 10.71 FEET;
6) N09°43'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 22.91 FEET;
f
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
33
7) 29.36 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 167.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°02'32", AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N04°42'09"E A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET;
8) N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 198.22 FEET;
9) S89°58'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 7.27 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT B,
VILLA P.U.D.;
10) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT B, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
226.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, RICHIE’S
EXPRESS CARWASH SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, MOURNING SUBDIVISION, N89°59'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
665.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MCCLELLAND DRIVE
AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID MOURNING SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N00°39'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 20.17
FEET;
THENCE 23.39 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89°21'00", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N45°20'23"E
A DISTANCE OF 21.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
WEST FOOTHILLS PARKWAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MOURNING SUBDIVISION PLAT;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE OF
213.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 69.10 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 24°44'46", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N77°38'30"E A DISTANCE OF 68.57
FEET TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 1, RICHIE’S EXPRESS CARWASH
SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, S00°04'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 14.69 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, S89°59'07"E, A DISTANCE
OF 407.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE
AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THE
FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES:
1) ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N00°19'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
78.17 FEET;
2) CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF
86.83 FEET;
3) ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1, N89°59'07"W, A DISTANCE OF
37.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, MOURNING SUBDIVISION;
4) N00°04'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 870.84 FEET (BEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MOURNING SUBDIVISION,
THE POUDRE VALLEY MOTORS SUBDIVISION, AND THE REPLAT OF THE SWALLOW
f
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
34
SUBDIVISION);
THENCE S89°57'07"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 89.729 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS
AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND.
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT IS BASED UPON PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLATS AND
DEEDS AND NOT UPON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY.
JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
f
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Exhibit F (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Janet Miller, Assistant Human Resources Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2015, Amending Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and
Setting the Compensation of the Municipal Judge.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to set the 2016 salary for the Municipal Judge. Market data and performance are
considered when determining City employee compensation. City Council met in executive session on
November 10, 2015 to conduct the annual performance review of Municipal Judge, Kathleen Lane. Market
data has been provided to Council and the employee. This Ordinance establishes the 2016 salary of the
Municipal Judge.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In order to attract and retain a high caliber workforce, the City is committed to paying employees a salary that
is market based and competitive. The Municipal Judge’s salary is benchmarked against Colorado data. Job
performance is an important factor when determining salary.
The City Council and the Municipal Judge meet formally twice a year to discuss performance, goals and
objectives.
In 2015, the compensation* and retirement contributions to the Municipal Judge included the following:
2015 Compensation and Retirement
2015 Annual
Salary $ 109,365
ICMA (457) $ 3,281
ICMA (401) $ 10,937
Total Monetary Compensation $ 123,583
*Amount is calculated based on 0.8 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)
The Municipal Judge was eligible for health and welfare benefits consistent with other City staff as well as paid
time off.
Health and Welfare Benefits
Annual
Medical Insurance $ 8,940
Dental Insurance $ 540
16
Packet Pg. 311
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
Life Insurance $ 191
Long Term Disability $ 505
Leave Benefits
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Resolution 2014-096, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and
Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation
to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to
reflect Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane’s salary beginning January 4, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
16
Packet Pg. 312
Establishing the Compensation of the Municipal Judge
12/1/15 Janet Miller, Asst. HR Director
16.a
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3854 : Salary-Municipal Judge)
Compensation Philosophy
2
Competitive rate
Fair and understandable methodology
Based on established market
Based on performance
16.a
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3854 : Salary-Municipal Judge)
Methodology
Market
• Colorado data
• 10 Front Range cities
• Benchmark data collected
• Annual salary
• Car allowance
• Retirement
3
16.a
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3854 : Salary-Municipal Judge)
Municipal Judge
Market Summary
4
* Data as of 10/19/2015
COLORADO
Employee
Data
Market
Data
Ahead /
(Behind)
Salary $136,706 $136,757 ‐0.04%
Retirement $17,772 $15,558 14.23%
Total $154,478 $152,315 1.42%
16.a
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3854 : Salary-Municipal Judge)
5
16.a
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3854 : Salary-Municipal Judge)
ORDINANCE NO. 160, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-606 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
SETTING THE COMPENSATION OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the Municipal Judge; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is committed to compensating its employees in a
manner that is fair, competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes
not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and
amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and
WHEREAS, each year the City Council conducts a review of the past year's performance
and the next year’s goals of the Municipal Judge; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees
a competitive salary based on established market data, and is adjusting the salary of the
Municipal Judge to bring that salary more in line with the appropriate market data; and
WHEREAS, the City’s philosophy is to reward performance that meets or exceeds
expectations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the base salary of the Municipal Judge
should be established at the amount of $_________ effective January 4, 2016, so that the total
compensation of the Municipal Judge for 2016 will be $_____________.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-606. Salary of the Municipal Judge.
The base salary to be paid to the Municipal Judge for working 0.8 FTE shall be
one hundred nine thousand three hundred sixty-five dollars
($109,365)________________ per annum, payable in biweekly installments,
which sum shall be charged to general government expense.
Packet Pg. 318
Section 3. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 4, 2016.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2016.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 319
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Janet Miller, Assistant Human Resources Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2015, Amending Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and
Setting the Compensation of the City Attorney.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to set the 2016 salary for the City Attorney. Market data and performance are
considered when determining City employee compensation. City Council met in executive session on
November 10, 2015 to conduct the annual performance review of City Attorney, Carrie Daggett. Market data
has been provided to Council and the employee. This Ordinance establishes the 2016 salary of the City
Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In order to attract and retain a high caliber workforce, the City is committed to paying employees a salary that
is market based and competitive. The City Attorney’s salary is benchmarked against Colorado and national
market data. Job performance is an important factor when determining salary.
The City Council and the City Attorney meet formally twice a year to discuss performance, goals and
objectives.
In 2015, the total compensation for the City Attorney included the following:
2015 Compensation and Retirement
Annual
Salary $ 177,000
ICMA (457) $ 5,310
ICMA (401) $ 17,700
Total Monetary Compensation $ 200,010
The City Attorney was eligible for health and welfare benefits consistent with other City staff as well as paid
time off.
Health and Welfare Benefits
Annual
Medical Insurance $ 8,940
Dental Insurance $ 540
Life Insurance $ 310
Long Term Disability $ 818
17
Packet Pg. 320
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 2
Leave Benefits
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (9 days per year)
Resolution 2014-096, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and
Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation
to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to
reflect City Attorney Carrie Daggett’s salary beginning January 4, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
17
Packet Pg. 321
Establishing the Compensation of the City Attorney
12/1/15 Janet Miller, Asst. HR Director
17.a
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3855 : Salary-City Attorney)
Compensation Philosophy
2
Competitive rate
Fair and understandable methodology
Based on established market
Based on performance
17.a
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3855 : Salary-City Attorney)
Methodology
Market
• Two data groups
• 9 Western region peer cities (national)
• 10 Colorado cities (Front Range)
• Benchmark data collected
• Annual salary
• Car allowance
• Retirement
3
17.a
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3855 : Salary-City Attorney)
City Attorney
Market Analysis Summary
4
NATIONAL
Employee
Data
Market
Data
Ahead /
(Behind)
Salary $177,000 $181,659 (2.56%)
Retirement $23,010 $25,627 (10.21%)
Total $200,010 $211,359 (5.37%)
* Data as of 10/19/2015
COLORADO
Employee
Data
Market
Data
Ahead /
(Behind)
Salary $177,000 $178,411 (0.79%)
Retirement $23,010 $20,363 13.00%
Total $200,010 $204,354 (2.13%)
17.a
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3855 : Salary-City Attorney)
ORDINANCE NO. 161, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-581 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND SETTING THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner that is
fair, competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees
a competitive salary based on established market data, and is adjusting the salary of the City
Attorney to bring that salary more in line with the appropriate market data; and
WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Attorney to conduct a review and
establish goals for her performance; and
WHEREAS, the City’s philosophy is to reward performance that meets or exceeds
expectations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes the base salary of the City Attorney for 2016
should be established at the amount of $___________ per annum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-581. Salary of the City Attorney.
The base salary to be paid the City Attorney shall be one hundred seventy-seven
thousand dollars ($177,000)___________________ per annum, payable in biweekly
installments. Sixty (60) percent of such sum shall be charged to general government
expense, twenty (20) percent to the City water utility and twenty (20) percent to the City
electric utility.
Section 3. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 4, 2016.
Packet Pg. 326
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 327
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Janet Miller, Assistant Human Resources Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2015, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and
Setting the Compensation of the City Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to establish the 2016 salary of the City Manager. Market data and performance are
considered when determining City employee compensation. City Council met in executive session on
November 10, 2015 to conduct the annual performance review of City Manager, Darin Atteberry. Market data
has been provided to Council and the City Manager. This Ordinance establishes the 2016 salary of the City
Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In order to attract and retain a high caliber workforce, the City is committed to paying employees a salary that
is market based and competitive. The City Manager’s salary is benchmarked against Colorado and national
market data. Job performance is an important factor when determining salary.
The City Council and the City Manager meet formally twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the
coming year.
In 2015, the compensation and retirement contributions to the City Manager included the following:
2015 Compensation and Retirement
Annual
Salary $ 244,839
ICMA (457) $ 7,345
ICMA (401) $ 24,484
Car Allowance $ 9,000
Total Monetary Compensation $ 285,668
The City Manager was eligible for health and welfare benefits consistent with other City staff as well as paid
time off.
Health and Welfare Benefits
Annual
Medical Insurance $ 8,940
Dental Insurance $ 540
18
Packet Pg. 328
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 2
Life Insurance $ 426
Long Term Disability $ 1,131
Leave Benefits
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Resolution 2014-096, which established the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and
Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation
to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to
reflect City Manager Darin Atteberry’s salary beginning January 4, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
18
Packet Pg. 329
Establishing the Compensation of the City Manager
12/1/15 Janet Miller, Asst. HR Director
18.a
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3853 : Salary-City Manager)
Compensation Philosophy
2
Competitive rate
Fair and understandable methodology
Based on established market
Based on performance
18.a
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3853 : Salary-City Manager)
Methodology
Market
• Data used to benchmark salary and “total compensation”
• 9 Western region peer cities (national data)
• 10 Colorado cities
• Average actual salary of benchmark organizations
• “Total compensation”
• Annual salary
• Car allowance
• Retirement
3
18.a
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3853 : Salary-City Manager)
City Manager
Market Summary
4
* Data as of 10/19/2015
NATIONAL
Employee
Data
Market
Data
Ahead /
(Behind)
Salary $244,839 $236,411 3.56%
Retirement $31,829 $42,399 ‐24.93%
Total $285,668 $284,010 0.58%
COLORADO
Employee
Data
Market
Data
Ahead /
(Behind)
Salary $244,839 $203,226 20.48%
Retirement $31,829 $28,966 9.88%
Total $285,668 $238,464 19.80%
18.a
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3853 : Salary-City Manager)
ORDINANCE NO. 162, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-596 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND SETTING THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner that is
fair, competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes
not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and
amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Manager to conduct a review and
establish next year’s goals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees
a competitive salary based on established market data, and is adjusting the salary of the City
Manager to bring that salary more in line with the appropriate market data; and
WHEREAS, the City’s philosophy is to reward performance that meets or exceeds
expectations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the base salary of the City Manager should be
established at the amount of $ _______________ effective January 4, 2016, so that the total
compensation of the City Manager in 2016 will be $______________.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-596. Salary of the City Manager.
The base salary to be paid the City Manager shall be two hundred forty-
four thousand eight hundred thirty-nine dollars ($244,839)_________________
per annum, payable in biweekly installments. Forty (40) percent of such sum
shall be charged to the city electric utility, twenty (20) percent to the city water
utility and forty (40) percent to general government expense.
Packet Pg. 334
Section 3. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 4, 2016.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 335
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, President City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Vice President City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
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
Regular Meeting
December 1, 2015
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General
Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2016; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify
such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2016
Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; no staff presentation; 2 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2015, includes the GID’s
annual appropriation for 2016 at $193,877. This item also sets the GID mill levy for 2016 at 4.924
mills, which will generate approximately $280,000 for fiscal year 2016. The mill levy remains
unchanged from previous years. Additional revenue for the GID from automobile specific ownership
taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated in 2016 to total $33,000 resulting in an
expected revenue total of $313,000 for 2016.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 BOARD
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 1, 2015
General Improvement District No. 1 Board
STAFF
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement
District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2016; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify such Levy to the Board
of Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Appropriation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2015, includes the GID’s annual
appropriation for 2016 at $193,877. This item also sets the GID mill levy for 2016 at 4.924 mills, which will
generate approximately $280,000 for fiscal year 2016. The mill levy remains unchanged from previous years.
Additional revenue for the GID from automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest
earnings are anticipated in 2016 to total $33,000 resulting in an expected revenue total of $313,000 for 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 3, 2015 (PDF)
2. Boundary map (PDF)
3. Ordinance No. 067 (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 2
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 3, 2015
General Improvement District No. 1 Board
STAFF
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District
No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2016; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify such Levy to the Board of
Commissioners of Larimer County; and Making the Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Appropriation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sum of $280,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2016 imposed
within the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID) boundaries. Additional revenue for the GID from
automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated in 2016 to total
$33,000 resulting in an expected revenue total of $313,000 for 2016. The Ordinance appropriates funds in the
amount of $193,877 for the operation of the GID in 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The recommended appropriations for this amount are as follows:
GID Expenses:
$ 26,000 to be used for other capital improvements in the downtown area
$ 14,314 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
$ 1,563 for miscellaneous expenses
$115,000 for transfer to other funds
$193,877 Total
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance includes the GID’s annual appropriation for 2016 at $193,877. This item also sets the GID mill
levy for 2016 at 4.924 mills, which will generate approximately $280,000 for fiscal year 2016. The mill levy
remains unchanged from previous years. Additional 2016 revenue includes automobile specific ownership
taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest which together are projected to be $33,000 in fiscal year 2016.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Boundary map (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 3
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 3, 2015 (3827 : SR 067 GID Budget)
ATTACHMENT 2 1.2
Packet Pg. 4
Attachment: Boundary map (3827 : SR 067 GID Budget)
ORDINANCE NO. 067
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 2016;
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY
TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY;
AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 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 2016
to pay the cost of operating the GID; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 4.924 mill will result in $280,000 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 Colorado
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 39-5-128(1) requires certification of any tax levy to the
Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15 of each year; 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 2016 is
anticipated to be $33,000; 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, 2016, and ending December 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the City Council previously approved in Ordinance No. 153, 2014,
the GID’s budget for the period beginning January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2016,
which budget remains unchanged for 2016.
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:
1.3
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: Ordinance No. 067 (3827 : SR 067 GID Budget)
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 2016, 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, 2015.
Section 2. That the City Clerk is hereby designated as the Secretary of the General
Improvement District No. 1 and is hereby authorized and directed to certify such mill 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, 2016, and ending
December 31, 2016, the sum of ONE HUNDRED NINTEY THREE THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($193,877) to be raised by taxation and additional
revenue to be expended for the authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
November, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of December, A.D.
2015.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of December, A.D. 2015.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
1.3
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: Ordinance No. 067 (3827 : SR 067 GID Budget)
RESEARCH
MONROE
CENTER
SPRING PARK
STUART
Streets
Foothills Mall
I
Legend
###
# # #
New Plan Area
Excluded Area
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Proposed Plan Area Boundary ‐ Midtown
Exhibit "C" Page 1 of 1 c
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Exhibit C (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
SPRING PARK
STOVER
STUART
STOVER
Streets
Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area")
Foothills Mall
I
Legend
Foothills Mall Boundary
! ! ! !
! !!! Prospect South Boundary
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Existing Plan Area Boundary ‐ Midtown
Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 a
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Exhibit A (3867 : URA Midtown Modification RESO)
Warranty Deed Recorded April 2, 2002 at Reception
No. 2002038320 records of the Clerk and Recorder
of the said Larimer County; THENCE easterly along
the southerly line of the said tract described at
Reception No. 2002038320 to the southwest corner
of the plat of “Fort Collins Supportive Housing
Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the southerly
line of the said plat to the southeast corner of the
said “Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision”;
THENCE northerly along the easterly line of the said
plat to the southerly right of way of East Harmony
Road; THENCE easterly along the said southerly ...
15.g
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Copy of Midtown Plan with Midtown Modifications redlined (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
STOVER
SWALLOW
LAKE
STUART
CENTRE
COLUMBIA
OAKRIDGE
WHEATON
WABASH
MEADOWLARK
TROUTMAN
COLONY
HINSDALE
STANFORD
BOARDWALK
BROOKWOOD
MANHATTAN
WHALERS
CENTENNIAL
PARKWOOD
WELCH
RICHMOND
RESEARCH
STARFLOWER
MONROE
CENTER
MATHEWS
TICONDEROGA
WINDMILL
SPRING PARK
STOVER
STOVER
STUART
PARKWOOD
Streets
Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area")
Foothills Mall
I
Legend
####
####New Plan Area
Excluded Area
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Proposed Plan Area Boundry - Midtown
EXHIBIT B
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment2: Exhibit B (3540 : URA-Modify Midtown Plan Area RESO)
15.d
Attachment: Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
STOVER
STUART
STOVER
Streets
Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area")
Foothills Mall
I
Legend
Foothills Mall Boundary
!!!!
!!!!Prospect South Boundary
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Existing Plan Area Boundry - Midtown
EXHIBIT A
15.d
Attachment: Urban Renwal Authority Resolution No. 077 (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
STOVER
STUART
STOVER
Streets
Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area")
Foothills Mall
I
Legend
Foothills Mall Boundary
!!!!
!!!!Prospect South Boundary
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Existing Plan Area Boundary - Midtown
ATTACHMENT 1
15.a
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Existing Plan Area (3831 : URA Midtown Modification)
ASSISTANT TECHNICAL COORD
PUBLICITY/MARKETING TECH
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT
COUNCIL AGENDA COORDINATOR
GALLERY COORDINATOR
EXHIBIT A
a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Exhibit A (3851 : Pay Plan ORD)