HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/02/1999-RegularFebruary 2,1999
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1999,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Mason, Smith and Wanner.
Councilmembers Absent: Kneeland arrived at 6:10 p.m.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Richard Dunn, Co-chair of the Council for a Northeast Bypass, thanked staff and Council for their
work regarding the truck route selection.
Matt Leetham, 2936 Bozeman Court, spoke regarding an incident with handicapped parking on
private property and asked for assistance in enforcement.
Lou Lachman, AARP representative, expressed appreciation for the path between the Senior Center
and Rolland Moore Park.
David Lipp, 626 Remington, thanked a number of City departments with which he has had positive
contacts and noted problems he has had with several other departments. He stated that at the last
meeting Councilmember Byrne made an egregious remark regarding victims in response to citizen
participation comments that he made at the last Council meeting. He spoke on behalf of Shelly
Stephens.
David Lauer, 1404 Robertson Street, spoke regarding the need for minority representation on the
Citizen Review Board. He spoke regarding Councilmember Byrne's comments regarding
victimization at the last Council meeting.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Smith noted the constraints regarding handicapped parking enforcement on private
property. He spoke regarding the importance of transportation connections such as the path between
the Senior Center and Rolland Moore Park. He commented concerning the annual Boards and
Commissions application process and encouraged people to apply for a broad range of boards.
El
February 2, 1999
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would like to see the Citizen Review Board process proceed
and spoke regarding the status of the process.
Councilmember Mason stated that Council does not condone any type of harassment and spoke
regarding the purpose of the Citizen Review Board.
Councilmember Byrne apologized for his remarks regarding victimization at the last meeting. He
noted that there is a process to make police misconduct complaints and spoke regarding the intent
of the Citizen Review Board.
Councilmember Kneeland thanked Assistant City Manager Atteberry for his response to a call from
Mr. Lipp regarding a woman who receives Section 8 vouchers and is fighting eviction.
Councilmember Wanner spoke regarding the Citizen Review Board appointment process and stated
that he would not support changing the process at this point.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding the expansion of the Citizen Review Board and
improvements to the Boards and Commissions recruitment process.
City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding enforcement concerning handicapped parking complaints
and the City's volunteer "citation" program.
Aizenda Review
City Manager Fischbach noted that there is a revised Agenda Item Summary for item #15 Resolution
99-14 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County
for the Provision of Social and Human Services for the First Half of 1999.
Consent Calendar
Consideration and approval of the Council meeting minutes of January 5, 1999, January 19,
1999, and the special meeting minutes of January 12, 1999.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11, 1999, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund for the Renovation of the Kitchen at the
Catholic Charities Northern Mission.
Ordinance No. 11, 1999, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 19, 1999,
and appropriates unanticipated revenue in the Community Development Block Grant fund
for the kitchen renovation at the Catholic Charities Northern Mission.
!y7
February 2, 1999
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1999, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Latimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
On November 17, 1998, Ordinance No. 195, 1998, appropriating $202,101 for Fort Collins
Police Services as the administrator of the Multi -jurisdictional Drug Grant, was adopted on
second reading. At the time the agenda summary was prepared for Ordinance No. 195, 1998,
Fort Collins Police Services neglected to include $22,966 in unanticipated revenue from the
Task Force participating agencies. These dollars ($22,966) represent a portion of the
$202,101 match that participating agencies must provide. The required City of Fort Col lins
match share of $87,608 is already appropriated and available. Ordinance No. 12, 1999, was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 19, 1999.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1999, Authorizing the Grant of a Non -Exclusive
Utility Easement on the Ute-Snowy Ridge Property to the South Fort Collins Sanitation
District.
Ordinance No. 13, 1999, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 19,
1999, authorizes the grant of a non-exclusive utility easement on the Ute-Snowy Ridge
Property.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 15, 1999 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
Funds were appropriated in 1998 for specific purposes as described below, but not spent.
The unspent funds were added to fund reserves at the end of 1998. Appropriations were
typically not spent because:
• There was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 1998 and thus there was no
known vendor or binding contract to encumber the funds for expenditure in 1999.
• The project for which the funds were originally appropriated could not be completed
during 1998 and, therefore, appropriation of those funds is necessary for completion
of the project in 1999.
This ordinance reappropriates the 1998 funds for the same uses in 1999 as were originally
approved by Council in 1998.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 16, 1999, Approving the Terms of the Lease Agreement for
101 Remington Street, Suites F, M, O and O.
Adoption of this Ordinance authorizes the terms of the lease for 101 Remington Street and
will permit the Larimer County Treasurer's office to remove the Leased Property from the
tax rolls in accordance with Section 31-15-(801 and 802) C.R.S. This will result in lower
43
February 2, 1999
lease costs for the City. In order to have this leased space become tax exempt, it is necessary
to have the Council approve the terms of the lease by Ordinance.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 1999, Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Way for Stetson
Creek Drive as Dedicated on the Stetson Creek P.U.D., First Filing Plat.
This ordinance vacates a portion of the street right-of-way for Stetson Creek Drive. The plat
of Stetson Creek P.U.D., First Filing dedicated rights -of -way for future street intersections
along Stetson Creek Drive. Not all of the street intersections are proposed to be used by the
development proposal Stetson Creek, 5th Filing, Townhomes at Stetson Creek and therefore
the right-of-way for one of the intersections is no longer necessary and proposed for vacation
at this time. As there are currently utilities in place that cross this area, the street right-of-
way will be retained as a utility easement.
14. Items Relating to Traffic Signal Safety on US Highway 287 (College Avenue Corridor).
A. Resolution 99-13 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation Allocating $72,600 of
Unanticipated Revenue for Safety Improvements to 18 Traffic Signals on the College
Avenue Corridor.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1999, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund For Safety Improvements to 18 Traffic Signals on
the College Avenue Corridor.
The City of Fort Collins successfully applied for Federal Highway safety dollars in 1998.
Traffic Operations applied for $72,600 that would be used for upgrading eighteen (18) traffic
signals on the College Avenue Corridor from Cherry Street to Boardwalk.
The upgrades includes new signal heads and faces (8 inch heads to 12 inch heads) to improve
visibility. Backplates on the signal heads that eliminate background light are also included
in the project. The improving of visibility will reduce accidents along the corridor.
15. Resolution 99-14 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Latimer County for the Provision of Social and Human Services for the First Half of 1999.
This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Latimer County for the purpose of providing social and human services to the City of Fort
Collins for the first half of 1999. The Resolution also allocates one-half of the funds from
the 1999 budget for these purposes. Since 1981, the City has contracted with Larimer
County to allocate and administer the distribution of human services funds via the Human
Resource Grant Program administered by the County. Due to changes in the process of
February 2, 1999
administering these grants, the funding allocations will be made each six months, rather than
on an annual basis, as in the past.
16. Routine Deeds and Easements.
A. Deed of Dedication for Easement from Symbios, Inc., for a utility easement located
at the northwest corner of Harmony Road and County Road No. 9. Monetary
consideration: $10.
B. Deed of Dedication for Right -of -Way from the Archdiocese of Denver, for a Right -
of -Way Dedication on Seton Street, located east of South Lemay Avenue and north
of Southridge Greens Boulevard. Monetary consideration: $10.
C. Deed of Dedication for Easement from Rose Development Group, Ltd, (Kenneth
Scavo), for a sanitary sewer easement located north of West Stuart Street and east of
South Overland Trail. Monetary consideration: $10.
D. Deed of Dedication for Easement from Willing Acres Company, for grading and
slope easements located at South Shields Street and north of Trilby Road, as well as
Trilby Road and east of Shields Street. Monetary consideration: $10.
E. Right -of -Way Dedication from Odum Enterprises, for a right-of-way dedication for
Willox Lane and College Avenue, located at the southwest corner of North College
Avenue and Willox Lane. Monetary consideration: $]0.
F. Right -of -Way Dedication from Odum Enterprises, for a right-of-way dedication for
Willox Lane, located on the south side of Willox Lane and west of North College
Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10.
G. Drainage Easement from Odum Enterprises, for a storm drainage and detention
easement, located at the southwest corner of Willox Land and North College
Avenue. Monetary consideration: $ 10.
H. Deed of Dedication for a permanent slope easement from Buderus Family Farm,
LLC, located on the south side of East Vine Drive and Yz mile west of Interstate 25.
Monetary consideration: $10.
I. Deed of Dedication for a permanent slope easement from Linda and Robert Buderus,
located on the north side of East Vine Drive, east of the railroad tracks, and 1400 feet
east of County Road 9E. Monetary consideration: $10.
45
February 2, 1999
J. Deed of Dedication for a permanent slope easement from Hartshorn Farm, Inc.,
located on the north side of East Vine Drive and 1/2 mile west of Interstate 25.
Monetary consideration: $10.
K. Deed of Dedication fora permanent slope easement from Marilyn and Herbert Pedri,
located on the south side of East Vine Drive and 2000 feet west of I-25. Monetary
consideration: $10.
L. Deed of Storm Drainage Easement from Marilyn and Herbert Pedri for storm
drainage, located on the south side of East Vine Drive and 200 feet west of I-25.
Monetary consideration: $0.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11, 1999, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund for the Renovation of the Kitchen at the
Catholic Charities Northern Mission.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 12, 1999, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Latimer County Multi -Jurisdictional Drug Task Force.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13, 1999, Authorizing the Grant of a Non -Exclusive
Utility Easement on the Ute-Snowy Ridge Property to the South Fort Collins Sanitation
District.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
if. First Reading of Ordinance No. 15, 1999 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 16, 1999, Approving the Terms of the Lease Agreement for
101 Remington Street, Suites F, M, O and O.
13. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 17, 1999, Vacating a Portion of the Right -of -Way for Stetson
Creek Drive as Dedicated on the Stetson Creek P.U.D.. First Filing Plat.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1999, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Transportation Services Fund For Safety Improvements to 18 Traffic Signals on the College
Avenue Corridor.
46
February 2, 1999
22. Items Relating to Affordable Housing.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 19, 1999, Revising the Definitions for "Affordable
Housing Project" and "Affordable Housing Unit", Revising the City's Development
Review Fee Waiver Provisions for Affordable Housing and Revising the City's
Impact Fee Delay Program for Affordable Housing.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, 1999, Repealing Article IX of Chapter 5 of the
City Code Regarding the Offset of Impact Fees for Affordable Housing.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Mason spoke regarding item #15 Resolution 99-14 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter
into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County, for the Provision of Social and Human
Services for the First Half of 1999. He noted that funding recommendations are made by a nine -
member citizen advisory committee and asked about increasing City representation on the
committee because of the proportion of funding provided by the City.
Councilmember Smith noted that a number of agencies receiving funds through this process also
receive CDBG funding and asked about the possibility of combining the grant application processes.
He spoke regarding County library funding.
Councilmember Wanner agreed with the comments made by Councilmember Mason regarding the
funding.
Mayor Azari suggested feedback from the funding committee regarding how the new process is
working.
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported on post-Superbowl problems in two parts of town, primarily in the
Old Town area, where there was property and vehicle damage. He noted that 25 trained and
equipped officers were at the scene, and additional trained and equipped officers were needed.
Additional training and equipment had been planned for September, 1999, and staff is now looking
at speeding up the time frame for obtaining this training and equipment. He stated that the incident
47
February 2, 1999
was resolved when tear gas was used and that only one arrest was made because of the lack of
manpower.
Councilmember Wanner stated that there have been five substantial civil disturbances of this nature
in Fort Collins in the past two years. He supported obtaining training and equipment for additional
officers quickly.
Councilmember Byrne spoke regarding the widespread acceptance of this type of disturbance and
the need for people to obey the law.
Councilmember Kneeland noted that a small segment of the population is causing problems and any
solution to the problem needs to preserve the ability of the community to enjoy the downtown and
other public areas.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Mason reported on the Finance Committee's discussions regarding affordable
housing, the ten-year budget plan, and revenue raising mechanisms.
Councilmember Byrne reported that the Finance Committee also discussed gearing up for the next
budget cycle and ideas to set goals for the budget.
Councilmember Bertschy on the regional cities meeting hosted in Fort Collins, and discussions
regarding the I-25 corridor and regional interagency cooperation.
Councilmember Smith reported on the Legislative Review Committee's discussions concerning
legislation regarding responsible growth and CML lobbying efforts.
Resolution 99-15
Amending the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On October 5, 1998 the Board of County Commissioners recommended unanimously to the Larimer
County Planning Commission that they "not approve the proposed amendment to the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan. " As a result, City staff recommended that City Council pull the Item f rom the
October 6 Agenda and consequently pull the same item from the October 21 agenda of the Larimer
County Planning Commission. The following issues were identified for further discussion:
W.
February 2, 1999
Other sites for the Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) and Medium Density Mixed -
Use Neighborhood (MMN) land uses should be explored within the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area as an alternative to the proposed location (Hansen Property), including locations east
and west of'Timberline Road.
The proposed land uses should be explored for the potential of integrating these uses into
the adopted TDU Program to achieve the upzoning.
Determining a new schedule for making a joint decision on the item.
As a follow-up, staff scheduled a joint Council Growth Management Committee Lorimer County
Commissioners/Larimer County Planning Commission meeting on December 8, 1998. Staff
provided an assessment of alternative locations and the group concluded that the original location
recommended by staff was still appropriate to add the NCC and MMN land uses to the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan within the Hansen, Rennot, Johnson properties.
The second issue discussed was incorporating the proposed land uses into the adopted TDU
Program, and application of TDU's inside the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (UGA). An
agreement was reached by the group to assess this item separately as a future discussion. Staff has
proceeded with a first step and scheduled a joint staff meeting in February.
With the first two issues resolved, a revised hearing schedule was developed by staff to include the
following dates:
Board of County Commissioners: January 25, 1999.
Fort Collins City Council: February 2, 1999.
Larimer County Planning Commission: February 18, 1999.
BACKGROUND:
In March 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County adopted the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan as well ascertain actions to implement this Plan. The preparation of the Plan was a joint
effort of the City and County staffs and took more than two years to finish. The success of the Plan
depended upon the advice of the many residents and property owners in the area.
During the final days of the planning process a few, new issues arose. One of these issues relates
to a property within the planning area located on the west side of Timberline Road, approximately
1'/2 miles south of Harmony Road (south of and adjacent to the Willow Springs development). The
Hansen family (owners) has been using the 70 acres (+/-) property over the past thirty years for
farming purposes.
Ma
February 2, 1999
In developing the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the future uses of the Hansen property as well
as adjoining properties were discussed at length by staff, consultants and input from the public.
Several alternative land use plans were developed early on in the planning process and eventually
a single, draft Land Use Framework Plan was selected for further detailed analysis and public
comment. During the final months of the public comment stage, Doug Hansen, representing his
parents, asked that the draft Plan be revised to maintain the land use designations as shown on the
City's Structure Plan, an element of the City's comprehensive plan. The adopted Structure Plan
map shows the Hansen Farm as Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential (MMN), and includes a
Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC). Prior to and at adoption, the draft Fossil Creek
ReservoirArea Plan has shown this same property as Low Density Mixed -Use Residential (LMN).
This issue was brought to Mr. Hansen's attention with the realization that MMN and LMN land use
designations were actually included in the preliminary land use alternatives for this area, and as
a result of continued public opposition by area land owners and developers, both uses were removed
from the plan. Mr. Hansen was informed by City planning staff in early February that even though
these uses were not presently included in the final plan, City and County staff and Consultants were
still under the direction to support the City Structure Plan and show both the Medium Density
Mixed -Use Residential, andNeighborhood Commercial Centerin the Fossil Creek ReservoirLand
Use Framework Plan.
Initial opposition by area land owners and developers to showing the two land uses in the
Framework Plan (Chapter 2 of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan) was centered around the
notion that what both the Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential and Neighborhood Commercial
Center uses represented was too intense for the Fossil Creek Reservoir area. In addition, developers
expressed concern that the market would not support a neighborhood commercial shopping center
size development south of Harmony Road, due to several other shopping centers being planned
along the Harmony Road Corridor.
However, in working through many of these and other issues throughout the planning process, the
final Framework Plan as contained in Chapter 2 of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, which
acknowledged the Fossil Creek Area as a future urban area, received substantial supportfrom the
community. Furthermore, since the summer of 1996, the market has changed somewhat regarding
commercial shopping center development along Harmony corridor. Recent development activity
has shown that additional neighborhood shopping centers that were shown on the City Structure
Plan have not occurred as originally anticipated (with grocery stores) and instead other commercial
uses have been planned along Harmony Road. Along with the projected future residential
development within the Fossil Creek Reservoir area, this further supports the need for an eventual
neighborhood commercial center south of Harmony Road.
Prior to adoption of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and during the public review period, Mr.
Hansen requested placing these two land uses back on the Framework Plan and map. Again both
the City and County appointed and elected officials indicated their supportfor the Hansen's request
to further implement the City Structure Plan. However, since this change came up so late in the
planning process, they were concerned that the surrounding property owners had not been given
50
February 2, 1999
sufficient opportunity to learn more about what these designations mean. Therefore, amending the
Framework Plan and map was tabled until surrounding property owners were notified and given
an opportunity to understand the changes and provide comment (see attached Exhibit B).
In May written notification was sent to the adjacent property owners and an adoption schedule was
identified. In response to this notification, a significant number of area residents were concerned
about the impacts of the proposed uses. As a result, a series of neighborhood meetings were held
to continue working through issues between staff, neighbors, land owners and developers (see
meeting log attached). In assessing the appropriate location and size of the proposed land uses,
staff determined that the NCC and MMN land use designations should be located on three properties
including the Hansen, Rennat, and Johnson parcels. Based on input received, adjustments to the
policy language and map have been made (see attachment).
Making these changes will require an amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan which
requires the approval by both the City and County. There are certain "steps" to making an
amendment to the Plan including several opportunities for public testimony at formal public
hearings. "
Pete Wray, City Planner, presented background information regarding the item and showed slides
of the area. He spoke regarding the Fossil Creek planning, review and public participation processes
and presented the staff recommendations.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution
99-15.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for the County's point of view regarding the matter.
Russ Legg, Chief Larimer County Planner, stated that the Board of County Commissioners had an
opportunity to look at the alternatives and that the County is pleased that the City is looking at the
possibility of transferable density units inside the growth management area. He noted that the
County Planning Commission will be looking at the issue on February 18.
Councilmember Byrne asked what factors are reviewed to determine that the supporting residential
area is sufficient to make a neighborhood commercial center viable. Wray stated that staff identified
the existing and future neighborhoods in the southeast part of the City. Joe Frank, Director of
Advance Planning, stated that one consideration in reducing the size of the center was the size of the
market area.
Councilmember Mason asked if this will be discussed by the Council Growth Management
Committee. Greg Byrne, Community Planning and Environmental Services Director, stated that the
matter is scheduled for the next meeting of the Growth Management Committee.
Eerik Rennat, 1001 Strachan Drive, speaking on behalf of his parents who own a parcel directly
affected by the proposal, expressed concerns about the plan and the process and stated objections that
he believes have not been adequately heard. He questioned commercial viability, spoke regarding
51
February 2, 1999
traffic hazard concerns and the railroad as a barrier, and stated that there is no documentation that
alternate sites have been considered.
Doug Hansen, representing his parents who own a farm at 6029 South County Road 11, stated that
no development plans are in place for the property. He spoke regarding the City Structure Plan, the
concept of self supporting neighborhoods in City Plan, and the transportation options available in
the area. He stated that his family's plans for development of the property are relatively long term,
which is consistent with the requirement that there be an adequate number of homes in the area to
support the neighborhood commercial center when it is finally built. He spoke regarding the need
to establish a consistent land use structure in the area.
Councilmember Mason asked about the staff analysis of alternate locations for the center. Greg
Byrne stated that alternative locations were reviewed and evaluated at a joint meeting of the Growth
Management Committee and County representatives.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about traffic concerns for this location. Wray stated that
transportation modeling assessment was conducted during the Fossil Creek area planning, and he
outlined transportation planning for the area to improve connectivity. Frank stated that the railroad
is a barrier to connectivity and that this is the best location for a neighborhood commercial center
needed to meet the future needs of the area given the circumstances.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about allowable uses in the MMN area. Frank outlined the
allowable uses.
Councilmember Byrne stated that he would support the motion and commended the County for its
cooperation.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the motion and commended those who have worked
hard to get to this point.
Councilmember Smith clarified that this Resolution does not accomplish the zoning, and that the
zoning will take place at the time of annexation.
The vote on Councilmember Mason's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Smith stated that transferrable development units (TDU's) is a critical issue and
asked that this be discussed at the next City/County joint meeting.
52
February 2, 1999
Resolution 99-16
Adopting the Priority Affordable Housing
Needs and Strategies Report, Adopted as Amended
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" report discusses a variety of ways that the
City can be smarter in using its funding for affordable housing. Regardless of whether any
additionalfunds become available, those strategies shouldhelp the City be more effective at meeting
the housing needs of its low-income citizens.
The report analyzes the number of affordable housing units needed in Fort Collins. It concludes that
just over 4,400 units would be required to meet the community's need for affordable housing from
1999 to 2008. City Council has a range of funding choices, framed by two options -- to add no
funding to affordable housing, or to add enough to potentially meet the need in the next 10 years.
In 1999, the City's existing resources should be enough to fund 285 units. If no additional funding
is made available by the Cityfar new units, then approximately 2,874 units could be funded by 2008.
That would leave the community in need of about 1,542 units. On the other hand, if enough City
funding was added to increase the number of units funded by 10% each year, the City could
potentially fund 4,542 units (126 more than it needs) by 2008. These two options are illustrated by
the charts on the following page.
For both charts, the federal sources of funding for new unit production include 60% of the City's
1999-2000 CDBG allocation and 90% of'its 1999-2000 HOME allocation. It also includes 90% of
estimated "program income, " or payments to be made on loans from those federal programs. Any
growth in the "Federal Funding" column is attributable to growth in program income. The local
source of funding for new unit production includes the current balance of the Affordable Housing
Fund ($478,083 at the end of 1998), funds currently budgeted for the Affordable Housing Fund
($283,000 in 1999), less funds to support the Larimer Home Improvement and Impact Fee Rebate
Programs. It does not include Cityfunds for staff who work on affordable housing planning and
programs.
The Larimer Home Improvement Program (LHIP) has received $22,500 annually from the
Affordable Housing Fund, and the report proposes continuation of that funding.
53
February 2, 1999
Sumrory of hits that Could be Furdeed Wth no Increase to CityContribution
YEAR
# NEW UNITS
TO FUND
TiMIRAL
FUNDING
CfTY
FUNDING
REBATES
&LE111)
1998
n/a
478,083
478,083
1999
285
1,425,000
283,(M
283,000
2000
310
1,437,900
283,(X)O
100,327
200I
308
1,424,(M
283,(M _
22,500
2002
301
1,471,900
283,000
22,500
2003
296
1,507,300
283,000
22,500
2004
289
I54ZWO
283,000
22,500
2005
291
1578200
283,0OD
22500
2006
274
1613,600
283,000
22,500
2007
267
1649100
-
283,000
22,500
2008
261
1684,600
283,000
22,500
TOTAL 1
2.874 1
$ 15,334,300
$ 3,308,083
$ 1,041,410
Staff and the Affordable Housing Board support ending the Impact Fee Rebate program in favor of
establishing a competitive process. However, there are 11 qualified projects that have received
preliminaryapprovalfromthe Planning and Zoning Board. These projects need Impact Fee Rebate
program funds to remain feasible. To be fair to those projects, $816,4/0 from the Affordable
Housing Fund should be set aside for these Rebates.
To meet the proposedfunding goalsfor New Units, Rebates, and LHIP, the City would need to make
an ongoing appropriation of about $21,400 to the Affordable Housing Fund in 2000 and an
additional $179,900 in 2001. Each year thereafter, it would need to make ongoing appropriations
ranging from $235,800 to $624,400.
Summary of Funding Needed to Reach 10-year Goals for NewWt Production
YEAR
#NEWUNITS
TO FUND
FEDIItAI,
FUNDING
CITYFUNDING
TOTAL$ ADDITIONAL$
REBATES
&LHIP
1998
n/a
478,083
478,083
1999
285
1,425,0 0
283,000
0
283,OOD
2000
314
1,437,900
304,390
21,390 11
100,327
2001
345
1,424,000
484,34)
179,910 _
22,500
2002
379
-
1,471,900
720,141
235,841
22500
2003
417
1,507,3W
1,011,298
291,158___.
22,500
2(X)4
459
1,542700
1.351,753
340,455
22,5W
2005
505
1.578200
1,748,867
397,114
22,50D
2006
555
1,613,600
2,211.439
462,572
22,
2007
611 _
1,649,100
2,746,175
537,736
22,50D
2008
672
1,694,600
3.373,583
_
624408
22,500
TOTAL
4,542
$ 15,334300
$ 14,716.029
$ 1,041,410
54
February 2, 1999
The report also proposes investigation of the feasibility of a Land Banking Program for Affordable
Housing. A team of City staff and community leaders has developed the program concept, and is
preparing to begin a detailed financial feasibility analysis. The team's preliminary budget request
is for $500,000 per year in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
BACKGROUND:
The goal of the "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" study is to help the City be
more strategic in getting housing assistance to the people who need it most. It is also about using
City resources smarter, to get the most "bang for the buck. " The study began with an investigation
of what kind of'affordable housing exists in this community, what kinds are needed, and what the
most urgent need is. It includes an assessment of existing financial resources that support affordable
housing, both public and private. The report also contains a description of the roles of various
players in the affordable housing community within Fort Collins, including a comprehensive
analysis of current City roles, responsibilities and programs. Finally, it presents recommendations
from stuff and the Affordable Housing Board for the City's future roles, responsibilities, and
programs, including specific and measurable goals, objectives and strategies for meeting its
affordable housing needs. The strategies would be effective regardless of whether additional
funding is made available. However, if the goals and objectives are not fully funded, the numbers
of units to be funded should be recalculated.
The strategies can be summarized as follows:
1. Use the City's subsidy dollars to help affordable housing projects leverage funding from
other sources.
2. Award an average of $5, 000 per unit to projects from CDBG, HOME, program income, and
the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
3. Use 60% of CDBG, 90% of HOME, and 90% of program income dollars for awards to
affordable housing projects.
4. Replace the Impact Fee Rebate program with a competitive process.
5. Award approximately 70% of the City's subsidy dollars to projects that will provide
affordable rental housingfor very low-income households (at or below 50% ofAMI). Equal
priority should be given to two types of project - (1) those that would build new units; and
(2) those that would preserve existing affordable rental projects.
6. Award Private Activity Bondfinancing to projects that willprovide affordable rental housing
for low-income households (between 50% and 60% of AMI).
7. Award approximately 30% of the City's subsidy dollars to homeownership programs or
projects. The vast majority would be awarded to potential first-time homebuyers through
the existing Homebuyer's Assistance Program.
55
February 2, 1999
8. All projects that receive ,funding must commit to keeping their units affordable for a
minimum of 20 years. The highest priority should be given to projects that will commit to
permanent affordability.
9. Award most funding as loans, not grants.
10. The City needs to actively solicit private developers to work in Fort Collins, and assist
existing developers to increase their capacity to create more affordable units.
11. Funding targets must remain flexible, to allow CDBG and HOME program dollars to be
fully utilized.
Conclusions — Fort Collins' Priority Affordable Housing Needs:
• Rental Housing. This community's highest priority needs to be producing new rental units
affordable to households earning below 50% ofAMI. In 1997, there were approximately 2,230
of these very low-income family or elderly households paying over 30% of their income for rent.
This community also needs to maintain a supply of multifamily rental units that are affordable
for people earning 50% to 80% of AMI. In 1997, there were approximately 710 of these low-
income family or elderly households paying over 30% of their income for rent.
• For Sale Housing. This community needs to continue to help first time homebuyers earning
below 80% ofAMI to get into affordable homeownership. In 1997, there were approximately 960
of these low-income family households (earning between 50% and 80% of AMI) that could
become first time homebuyers with downpayment or closing cost assistance.
• Housing Production. This community needs to be more proactive in identifying and securing
sites forfuture affordable housing development, it needs to examine any regulatory barriers and
consider reforming them, and it needs to be supportive of proposed developments in their quest
for identifying development subsidies. In addition, it needs to preserve its existing affordable
housing stock.
There are a number of assumptions underpinning staff's estimate of the number of affordable
housing units needed in Fort Collins. It is based on datafrom HUD, which has run projections from
the 1990 census to estimate the 1997 need. In order to compensate for the impact of student
households, the need was restricted to only family and elderly households. This gives a very
conservative estimate of units needed. The estimate of very -low income households who currently
need affordable rental housing (2,230) is much higher than the potential pool of first time
homebuyers (960). To account for growth in the need for affordable housing into the future, an
annual growth factor of 3% has been added to the 1997 figures. Therefore, the goal for funding
units becomes 3,087 for rental housing and 1,329 for homeownership assistance. The numbers are
split, 70% renter to 30% potential homebuyers, so staff proposes that the City's financial resources
be allocated proportionately.
56
February 2, 1999
Strategies for meeting Fort Collins' Priority Affordable Housing Needs:
1. Use the City's subsidy dollars to help affordable housing projects leverage funding from
other sources. The fundamental role of the City in affordable housing production is to provide
enough funding to projects, early in their planning process, so that their developers can
approach other funding sources with concrete evidence that the City supports project.
Leveraging public and private, national, state and local funding sources is the key.
2. Award an average of $S,OOOper unit to projects from CDBG, HOME, program income, and
the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Staff estimates that an average $5,000 per unit subsidy
would be enough to leverage other funding sources. Actual awards should vary based on the
relative merits of different project proposals. For example, relatively more funding should be
awarded to projects serving lower incomes. In addition, the amount per unit should increase
over time as construction costs and sale prices increase. These figures need to be reevaluated
periodically. The value of incentive programs like priority processing, development review
fee waiver, and impact fee delay would not be included in the $5,000.
3. Use 60% of CDBG, 90% of HOME, and 90% of program income dollars for awards to
affordable housingprojeets. This is essentially a continuation of existing practice, from over
the past 5 years.
4. Replace the Impact Fee Rebate program with a competitive process. Currently the City's
Affordable Housing Fund is being used to provide impact fee rebates or offsets. This program
was designed as an administrative mechanism to refund some of the Impact Fees paid by
affordable housing projects, using General Fund dollars. It is a simple way to counter
charges that the City's impact fees are too high. However, it does not allow the City any
flexibility to fund either the projects that best meet its priorities or the projects that most need
its assistance. This report proposes eliminating that program in favor of a competitive
process.
5. Award approximately 70% of the City's subsidy dollars to projects that will provide
affordable rental housingforvery low-income households (at orbelow 50%ofAM7). Equal
priority should be given to two types of projects: (1) those that would build new units; and
(2) those that would preserve existing affordable rental projects. There are a number of
existing subsidized apartment complexes that are affordable to very low-income households
that are in danger of being lost to the affordable housing stock. The preservation of those
units should be as important as building new units.
6. Award Private Activity Bond financing to projects that will provide affordable rental
housing for low-income households (between 50% and 60% of AMI). This category of
renters is also in need of help, but to much less an extent than those earning below 50% of
AMI. Although rents that are affordable to people earning 60%gfAMI are close to the City's
current average rents, new units cannot be built at that rent level without assistance of some
kind. Private Activity Bonds (PABs) are designed to produce such units.
57
February 2, 1999
7. Award approximately 30% of the City's subsidy dollars to homeownership programs or
projects. The vast majority would be awarded to potential first-time homebuyers through
the existing Homebuyer's Assistance Program. This will result in a reduction of the amount
offunding that is currently available to help first-time homebuyers. While the City recognizes
the value of homeownership, the number of very low-income renters who need affordable
housing is so overwhelming that it should give the highest priority, and the vast majority of
its resources, to serving that population.
8. All projects that receive funding must commit to keeping their units affordable for a
minimum of 20 years. The highest priority should be given to projects that will commit to
permanent affordability. Housing affordability is not a short-term problem. Therefore, in
order to receive City subsidies or incentives, housing projects must commit to keeping their
units affordable for a minimum of 20 years. Those that commit to longer periods should
receive preference. The highest priority and level of'support should be given to those that
commit to permanent affordability. Most buildersoffor-salehomes will consider this standard
too difficult to meet. It will effectively eliminate their interest in applying for City subsidies.
However, those that can assure the ongoing affordability of the homes they sell may be able
to access the 30% of subsidy dollars set -aside for homeownership.
9. Award mostfunding as loans, not grants. Loans enable the City to recycle funding that can
be usedforfuture affordable housing projects. Only not -for -profit organizations that promise
permanent affordability should receive grants. For -profit rental developers may receive low -
interest loans, with terms that can be negotiated on a case -by -case basis. Homebuyer
Assistance is already being provided as a no -interest loan, due on sale of the home.
10. The City needs to actively solicit private developers to work in Fort Collins, and assist
existing developers to increase their capacity to create more affordable units. The City's
direct roles in affordable housing do not include acting as a developer. Therefore it needs to
work in partnership with the private sector, both for -profit and not for -profit.
11. Funding targets must remain flexible, to allow CDBG and HOME program dollars to be
fully utilized. Some options include:
a. Set aside some funding for specific types of mid -year projects.
b. Make small awards to assist low-income rental units (50 to 60% of AMI), but only if
there are not enough feasible projects that will serve 50% AMI or less.
C. More than 30% of total funds available could be awarded to homeownership programs
or projects, but only if there are not enough feasible projects that will serve renters
earning 50% AMI or less.
d. Private Activity Bonds could be used for low -interest mortgage loans, if there are no
feasible rental projects to use them.
e. Program income and Affordable Housing Fund dollars could be held for future funding
rounds.
0
February 2, 1999
Previous Council Actions:
The 1997-99 Staff Work Plan calls for an Affordable Housing Needs Study to be completed in the
summer of 1998. The first phase of the "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" report
was presented to City Council at its study session on June 9, 1998. Based on that information, City
Council approved Resolution 98-125 Establishing Affordable Housing Priorities at its August 18,
1998 meeting.
The second phase of the report, with enhanced "Goals and Strategies, " was presented to City
Council at its study session on October 27, 1998. Since then, staff and the Affordable Housing
Board have worked together to revise the "Goals and Strategies" and prepare them for adoption
by City Council.
Citizen Participation:
After the October Study Session, the draft report was widely distributed to the following groups of
interested parties:
• U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, Denver Office
• Colorado Division of Housing
• Colorado Housing Finance Agency
• Larimer County Commissioners
• Fort Collins CDBG Commission
• Affordable Housing Coalition of Larimer County
• Larimer County Office on Aging, Senior Attainable Housing Committee
• Not -for -profit developers
• For -profit developers
• Realtors
Public comments were reviewed by staff and the Affordable Housing Board, and incorporated into
the document as appropriate. A summary of the comments and responses has been added to the
report, in Appendix 4. The same people have been mailed copies of the "Final Draft" of the report,
so that they might be prepared to comment on it at the upcoming City Council meeting.
59
February 2, 1999
Affordable Housing Board Recommendation:
The Affordable Housing Board has been closely involved in the development of the study, especially
"The City of Fort Collins' Role" and the "Goals and Strategies... " chapters. Since the October 27th
Study Session, the Board has held 6 meetings to review and debate the document. At a special
meeting on January 14th, 1999, the Board voted to support adoption of'the study by City Council.
Attached is a memo from Bob Browning, Chairman, explaining the Board's position."
City Manager Fischbach noted that material relating to the CSU student population and the ten-year
budget was included in Council's reading material.
Greg Byrne, Community Planning and Environmental Services Director, summarized the proposed
changes to the City's affordable housing policies and priorities.
Ann Watts, City Planner, presented a summary of strategies, including leveraging other funding
sources. She stated that the $5,000/unit figure used to calculate the amount of money needed to meet
the goals is an average and will vary based on the relative merits of different projects. She spoke
regarding the percentage of CDBG money used for housing production over the past five years. She
stated that one of the key issues in process is replacing rebates with competition. She spoke
regarding the recommended priorities and the potential financial impact of the program.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Resolution
99-16 as amended with the suggestion that the City fully fund the program, amounting to
approximately $13 million over the next ten years.
Councilmember Smith clarified that the motion includes a close inspection of budget effects in two
years.
Councilmember Wanner stated that the policy is a total review every two years.
Councilmember Mason asked when the City can expect to receive census data, noting that many of
the assumptions are based on 1990 census data. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated that the detailed
socioeconomic data can be expected by mid 2001.
Joy Allen, ASCSU member, spoke regarding the importance of affordable housing and making sure
that students are included as a priority.
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, commended the work that has gone into the report and
spoke in support of the new emphasis on lower income groups. She supported land banking and
involving the university to play a larger role in student housing.
Ernest Giron, Director for Catholic Charities Northern, expressed concerns that the use of 65% of
CDBG funds for housing would impact other nonprofit groups such as his agency.
K1
February 2, 1999
Rusty Collins, Neighbor -to -Neighbor, commended the staff work on this item and stated that this
report is a proactive step regarding affordable housing. He supported continuing research regarding
land banking.
Karen Girard, Executive Director of Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, supported
Councilmember Warmer's amendment to the Resolution.
City Attorney Roy read proposed language to be inserted in the Resolution for the amendment
suggested by Councilmember Wanner: to add a new Section 2 stating "That the Council hereby
expresses its support for fully funding, over a period of the next ten years, the new unit production
goals found on pages 70-71 of the report."
Councilmember Wanner stated that this would meet the intent of his proposed amendment.
Councilmember Mason asked for an estimate of the in -kind cost for staff who work on affordable
housing issues.
Councilmember Bertschy clarified that students would not be excluded if they met the criteria.
Watts stated that students would be included if they meet the criteria.
Councilmember Smith asked if CSU could apply for these monies as a provider of affordable
housing and if CSU has ever applied for such funds. City Manager Fischbach stated that this is on
the agenda to discuss with CSU at the next CSU Liaison Committee meeting.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding the competitive nature of the program and university
housing goals.
Councilmember Smith requested information regarding what percentage of students the university
is planning to provide housing for and spoke regarding the importance of creating new units.
Mayor Azari spoke regarding new opportunities for leveraging funds and new partnerships.
Councilmember Smith asked about the County's commitment to affordable housing and suggested
exploring opportunities to include the County in the affordable housing solution.
Councilmember Byrne asked if the affordable housing picture is getting better or worse and what
impact the implementation of City Plan might have on affordable housing. Greg Byrne stated that
nothing has been built and marketed at this point under the new land use code and that much of the
increase in the median price of homes is due to changes in the size of the median home. He stated
that the problem is getting worse because of the rates of growth, the loss of housing stock, and
changes in the service sector of the economy.
Councilmember Wanner spoke regarding concerns expressed about the loss of social services
funding. Greg Byrne stated that there is a 15% cap regarding this funding.
61
February 2, 1999
Councilmember Mason spoke regarding protection of existing trailer parks and the impact of
creating low paying jobs by bringing in low paying retail stores. He suggested discussion of a policy
to set aside some portion of the first year's sales tax from "big box" retail stores to subsidize
affordable housing. He spoke regarding the fears of neighborhoods relating to affordable housing,
and suggested that members of the Affordable Housing Board attend neighborhood meetings.
Councilmember Kneeland stated that she would support the Resolution and spoke regarding the need
to have a full spectrum of housing available for the community. She suggested putting together a
slide show to show the successful affordable housing projects in the community.
Councilmember Byrne stated that he would support the motion and commended the work on this
strategy.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding the loss of housing stock and future needs for affordable
housing.
Mayor Azari stated that other cities have similar affordable housing problems and the need to
become more aggressive to gain access to new funding.
The vote on Councilmember Warmer's motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to
Affordable Housing, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
Definitions of Affordable Housing Projects and Affordable Housing Units: The financial impact
from this change is described below, as it affects the Impact Fee Delay Program. Other programs
are not significantly qflected by this revision.
Development Review Fee Waiver: There will be no significant impact.
Impact Fee Delay: To qualify as an Affordable Housing Project under the revised definition, a
residential project would have to make at least 10% of its units affordable and restrict them for at
least 20 years so they could only be sold (at an affordable price) to low-income households. Any
project that meets that standard would be eligible for the delay of all impact fees on the entire
project. Previously, at least 50% of the units had to be affordable to be eligible for this program,
without any restrictions on occupancy or duration of'affordability. Presumably, the reduction from
the 50% to the 10% standard should increase the number of eligible projects. However, the addition
62
February 2, 1999
of the 20-,year occupancy/affordability restrictions may cause private for -profit developers of for -
sale housing to avoid the program entirely.
Financial impacts from a deferral of certain impact fees fall into three categories: (1) permanent
reduction in the fiscal year spending base (2) lost interest income for all funds, and (3) reduced debt
service coverage for bonds. Lost interest income is the most significant impact to the City.
However, this loss to the City is less than the savings generated for the developer. This program
saves a typical project about $500 per unit, at a cost to the City of about $300-350 per unit. Over
$150 is "created" by the difference in interest rates between construction interest loans and the
City's investments.
City staff knows of 590 rental units and 167for sale units that either were built in 1997-1998 or will
be built in 1999, for an average annual production of about 250 units. All of them would be eligible
for this program under the proposed regulations. If production continues at that level, Impact Fee
Delays could cost the City roughly $80,000 annually, but would save developers over $120,000.
City staff hopes that there will be an increase in affordable housing production with the
implementation of the "Goals and Strategies" detailed in the "Priority Affordable Housing Needs
and Strategies" report. The ultimate goal is to fund 3,087 rental units and 1,329 homebuyers
between 1999 - 2008. If this goal is realized, Impact Fee Delays on these units could cost the City
about $1.44 million over 10 years, or an average of roughly $144, 000 per year. The program could
save developers almost $2.16 million, or $216,000 per year.
The chart on the following page demonstrates these calculations:
Financial Impact Analysis of the Impact Fee Delay Program
63
February 2, 1999
PER
- ...
RENTAL
FOR SALE
---- .
FOR SALE
_.-------
1 .,.
restricted (min 10%) unrestricted (max 90%)
Estimated amount of fees delayed
7,000 1
14,000 .`
14,000 `
....,.._.,..._... .. _...._......__ __
_g constmchon loan terms
LInterests
_....
9
. c._,.
5 `
..,_........ :.... ..
5 '
aved b y Developers @ ,9%
473
525
Cost to City of foregoing interest @ :6%r
315
350 �
350 i
Difference ._. ... _...
... 158
........ 175 i....I
175 _... _...
ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION
_
RENTAL
FORSALE
TOTAL
_FORSALE
restricted (min 10%) l
unrestricted (max 90%)
Number of units built or pearlanned, 1997-1999
590
72
95 .Z
757
average er ...
g Q.. Y
197
-......... ,. 24..._i
,.,
_.... .. 32.,_..�_
252.
_ ..._. .._ .�_
Interest saved by Developers@ _19%
_
,.. _.
92,9251
.._.. ..
12600 '
,�.......... :....,..
16625
,.....
122,150
Cost to City of foregoing interest @
16%
61,950 1
8,400
11,083 ;
81,433
__... ... .. ...
Difference
i
......,, .I
30,975 i
._....._.. _ ......
4,200
......._..
5,542
. .....
40,717
I
10-YEAR PRODUCTION GOALS
RENTAL
FOR SALE
FOR SALE ''.
TOTAL
:restricted
(min 10%)
unrestricted (max 90%)',
Funding goal for 1999-2008
3,087 !
133�
1,196 4
4,416
_ Y P.
Interest saved b Developers @
9%
..
1,458,608
69,773
_
627,953 j
2,156,333
--- --.
Cost to City of toregomg interest @
_._. ..� ---- --,
16%
972,405
..,...-- c-.
46 515 :
....---..__._ ._.....
418,635
......._..
1,437,555
Difference _..... ._..__._�
203.
486, _
23258
._.. ,�.. �_..
i
209,318 1
..... .
E
_.--
718,778
.__..
'.' Only units that are restricted as affordable for 20 years are included in this column.
..__....,___..min.. _.._... __....__, , ._..._..___ „ ..... _
3 Units in this column are unrestricted, but eligible because they are part of an affordable project.
The City's goal is to fund 1,329 homet1 yers, but that does little to create new construction Therefore this:
...__. _.. ...,d�._._..... ....._____ __..... ............. ...... m __ . _...,....
estimate is very high.
------------
4 Assumes the maximum, 90%, of the eligible for sale production will be unrestricted.
Impact Fee Rebate: The current annual average of rebates is about $113,000 per year. If the
Ordinance is adopted, the Rebate Program would be eliminated except for eleven (H) projects
which have received preliminary planning approval from the City and have financially relied on
receiving a rebate of fees from the City. Thus, $816,410 from the Affordable Housing Fund will
need to be earmarked to cover the costs from these projects if they are completed. Assuming the
Affordable Housing Fund continues to receive a budget of at least $283, 000 a year, there will be
sufficient funds to cover the estimated costs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 19, 1999, Revising the Definitions for "Affordable Housing
Project" and "Affordable Housing Unit, " Revising the City's Development Review Fee
Waiver Provisions for Affordable Housing and Revising the City's Impact Fee Delay
Program for Affordable Housing.
On August 18, 1998, City Council adopted Resolution 98-125 identifying the City's priority
affordable housing needs. The City Council intends to target City resources on priority needs. The
existing affordable housing incentives offered in the Land Use Code and the City Code do not
64
February 2, 1999
necessarily target those priorities. They do not share a common definition ofaffordable housing and
so, in some ways, they function at odds with one another.
Staff has worked with the Affordable Housing Board to create definitions of an affordable housing
project, rental unit and for sale unit. Applying those definitions throughout the Codes will help
clarify the City's affordable housing incentive programs and make them easier to work with. Staff
and the Affordable Housing Board have also agreed to propose revising the Development Review
Fee Waiver so that the proportion of fees waived would equal the proportion of affordable units
within an affordable housing project. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed
changes at its November 19, 1998 meeting. That Board requested the addition of a 20-year
minimum affordability period and a more detailed analysis of financial impacts. The result is
Ordinance No. 19,1999, which revises the definitionsfor "Affordable housing project, " "Affordable
housing unit for rent" and "Affordable housing unit for sale" in the Land Use Code, the
Transitional Land Use Regulations, and the City Code. It revises Fort Collins' Development Review
Fees Waiver for Affordable Housing in both the Land Use Code and the Transitional Land Use
Regulations. Finally, this Ordinance revises Fort Collins' Impact Fee Delay Program for
Affordable Housing in the City Code.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, 1999, Repealing Article IX oj'Chapter 5 of the City Code
Regarding the Offset of Impact Fees for Affordable Housing.
One of the programs established by the City of Fort Collins to promote the development of
affordable housing units inside the city limits is known as the Development Impact Fee Rebate
Program. The program provides a partial rebate to an affordable housing developer of the impact
fees paid to the City, other governmental entities, and/or special purpose utility districts. Currently,
the amount of per unit rebate is based on a graduated scale dependent upon the commitment of the
developer to provide units as certain income levels, with higher rebates given for housing units
reserved for lower income families. In mid-1996, the City Council asked the Affordable Housing
Board to re-examine the Rebate Program and to consider making rebates based on a percentage of
fees paid instead of flat dollar amounts. The Board has reexamined the Program and in the context
of the recently completed `Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies "report now believes
the Rebate Program should be eliminated and eventually replaced with a competitive process.
Elimination of the Rebate Program would not affect the Development Impact Fee Delay Program.
If adopted, the proposed Ordinance would eliminate the Rebate Program except for eleven (11)
projects that have received preliminary planning approval and have financially relied on receiving
a rebate of fees from the City. Thus, $816,410 from the Affordable Housing Fund will need to be
earmarked to cover rebates for these projects if they are completed. Assuming the Affordable
Housing Fund continues to receive a budget of at least $283, 000 a year, there will be sufficientfunds
to cover the estimated costs.
65
February 2, 1999
BACKGROUND:
L First Reading of Ordinance No. 19, 1999, Revising the Definitions for "Affordable Housing
Project" and "Affordable Housing Unit", Revising the City's Development Review Fee
Waiver Provisions for Affordable Housing and Revising the City's Impact Fee Delay
Program for Affordable Housing.
The 1997-99 Staff Work Plan calls for an Affordable Housing Needs Study to be completed in the
summer of 1998. The "Draft Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies Study" was
presented to City Council at its Study Session on June 9, 1998. This phase of the Study included an
investigation of what kind of affordable housing exists in this community, what kinds are needed,
and what the most urgent need is. The revised study, with enhanced "Goals and Strategies, " was
presented to City Council at its Study Session on October 27, 1998. Since then, staff and the
Affordable Housing Board have been working together to revise the "Goals and Strategies" and
prepare them for adoption by City Council.
Staff believes there is sufficient information from the research to form a reasonable recommendation
in regard to the community's priority affordable housing needs. City Council, at its August 18, 1998
meeting, approved Resolution 98-125 Establishing Affordable Housing Priorities.
To implement these priorities, staff and the Affordable Housing Board worked together to propose
revisions to the City's existing Affordable Housing Programs. The Affordable Housing Board voted
to support these revisions at its September 3, 1998 regular meeting. After learning of the Planning
and Zoning Board's recommendations, it voted to support requiring minimum 20-year occupancy
and affordability periods at its January 7, 1999 regular meeting.
Changes to the definitions of "Affordable housing project" and "Affordable housing unit, " as well
as revisions to the Development Review Fees Waiver and Impact Fee Delay Program forAffordable
Housing are included in this Agenda Item.
Definitions of Affordable Housing Projects and Affordable Housing Units : All programs are
proposed to use the same definition of affordable housing. This requires revision to the Land Use
Code, the Transitional Land Use Regulations and the City Code.
Staff and the Affordable Housing Board recommend changing the definition of "Affordable housing
project" as it exists in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code. Currently, a project qualifies as
affordable if 30% of its units will be affordable. The revised definition would decrease that to 10%,
and would add 20-year occupancy and affordability restrictions. It would read as follows:
Affordable Housing Project shall mean a development project in which: (1) at least
seventy-five (75) percent of the gross acreage to be developed under the plan is to be
developed as residential dwelling units or mobile home park spaces; (2) thirty (50)
at least ten (1lt} percent of said dwelling units or spaces (the "affordable housing
units ") are to be available for rent or purchase on the terms described in Section -
the definitions of "Affordable housing unit for sale" or
Februars2, 1999
-`Affordable housing unitfor rent" (as applicable); rtrm&(3the construction of the
dwelling till its or spaces is to occur as part of die initial phase of the project anal (i)
prior to the construction of the market rate units or (it) oil a proportional basis,
according to the same ratio cis the number of affordable mots bears to the number
of the market rate outs; and (4) the units will be required, by binding legal
instrument acceptable to the City and duh� recorded with the Lorimer Count), Clerk -
and
Recorder, to be occupied by and affordable to low-income households for at
least 20 vears.
Stuff and the Affordable Housing Board ul.rn reconimend adding new definitions of an "Affordahle
housing unit for rent" and an "Affordable housing unit for sale - to Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code. A variety of definitions afcin "Affordable housing unit" are now found is cGf Brent sections
of the Land Use Code and the ON, Code. Instead, each program should adhere to a single,
conhnonh' accepted definition of'an "Affin-dable housing unit. " The new definitions wondd read as
follows:
Affordable housing unit for rent shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for
rent on terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty (80) percent or
less of the median income of city residents, as adjusted,for family size, and paving
less than thirty (30) percent of their gross income.for housing, including rent and
utilities. The unit must be occupied by and affordable to such low-income
household(s) for a period of not less than twenty (20) vears.
Affordable housing unit for sale shall mean. a dwelling unit which is available for
purchase on terms that would he affordable to households earning eight), (80)
percent or less of the median income of city residents, as adjusted for family sir e, and
paying less than thirty-eight(38)percentoftheirgrossirncomeforhousing including
principal, interest, taxes, insurance, utilities and honneowraers'associationfees. The
unit must be occupied by and affordable to such low-income household(s)for a
period of not less than twenty (20) years.
All three definitions should he added to Section 29-1 of the Transitional Land Use Regulations.
Thev should also replace Section 26-631 of the Cite Code, which affects the Impact Fee Delos,
Progrcon.
Affordable gross rents will be established In- the City's Advanced Planning DeparnmenI liaised on
the Department of Housing and Urban Developnient's (HUD) estimate of Area Median Fanaly
Income, which is generally released each Januarv. The calculation of affordable gross rents
assin nes an average of 15 persons per bedroom. in 199& affordable rents were.
67
February 2, 1999
Affordable home sale prices will be estimated by the City's Advanced Planning Department based
on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) estimate of Area Median Family
Income, which is generally released each January. The calculation may be modified more frequently
to reflect changes in prevailing interest rates or other terms. In 1998, estimated affordable sale
prices were calculated as follows:
Development Review Fee Waiver: Section 2.2.3(E)(3) of the Land Use Code and Section 29-3(c)
of the Transitional Land Use Regulations provide for an "Affordable Housing Exemption" from
Development Review Fees. It currently allows for these fees to be reduced by one-half (112) if at least
fifty-one percent (51 %) of the dwelling units within the project are affordable to individuals earning
between 80% and 95% of median income. This is no longer consistent with the City's definition of
affordable housing.
There is no need for these sections to contain the definitions of "Affordable housing project, "
"Affordable housing unit for rent, " and `Affordable housing unit for sale. " Readers should refer
to the definitions in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code or Section 29-1 of the Transitional Land Use
Regulations (as applicable).
Staff and the Affordable Housing Board propose that fees be waived in direct proportion to the
number of dwelling units within the project that are affordable. At least 10% of the dwelling units
February 2, 1999
must be affordable in order to meet the definition of "Affordable housing project" and receive any
waiver. For example, if a project proposes 75% of its units as affordable housing, then the City
would waive 75% of its normal development review fees and the project would pay only 25% of
those fees.
The program would continue to require that the project verify the percent of units that are affordable
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If the project composition has changed so that
fewer units meet the definition of affordable housing, then the developer would be required to pay
development review fees for those units that are no longer affordable. If the project mentioned
above drops from 75% affordable to 50% affordable, then it would owe an additional 25% of its
normal development review fees before it could receive a certificate of occupancy.
Impact Fee Delay: "Deferral of Fees forAffordable Housing" currently exists in two places in the
City Code. Section 7.5-26 authorizes the deferral of "...fees established under this Article..." No
specific fees are mentioned in this section, but it is assumed that they include all capital
improvement expansion fees, including Library, Community Parkland, Police, Fire, General
Government, and Street Oversizing. Section 26-632 authorizes the deferral of fees related to
utilities, and specifically lists "...the Water Plant Investment Fee ("WPIF"), Sewer Plant Investment
Fee ("SPIF"), Storm Drainage Basin Fee and the Raw Water Requirement In -Lieu Cash
Payment... "
Each Section of the City Code that describes this program should use the same definition of
"Affordable housing project, " "Affordable housing unitfor rent" and "Affordable housing unitfor
sale" as the Land Use Code. Therefore Section 26-631 should be replaced by those definitions.
Ordinance No. 147, 1996, changed Section 26-632 to eliminate the requirement to secure the future
payment of deferred fees by means of a letter of credit or certificate of deposit. A similar change
was not implemented for Section 7.5-26, although it may have been the intent of the City Council
to do so. This change should be made to keep the two sections consistent with each other.
Section 7.5-26 and Section 26-632 both state that "...fees... shall... be deferred until the date of
issuance of a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or permanent)... " There is an additional
sentence at the end of Section 26-632 that states "The city shall not issue any certificate of
occupancy, whether temporary or permanent, for the occupation of any building or structure for
which a deferral offees has been obtained pursuant to this Section until such time as such deferred
fees have been fully paid." That sentence is redundant and unnecessary. In the interest of matching
sections, it should be deleted.
Section 7.5-26 should be revised to read "With respect to any building permit for a dwelling unit
which is contained within or which contains constitutes an affordable housing project..." This
would match the existing phrase in Section 26-632.
II. First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, 1999, Repealing Article IX of Chapter 5 of the City Code
Regarding the Offset of Impact Fees for Affordable Housing.
.'
February 2, 1999
In 1994, the City Council established the Development Impact Fee Rebate Program as an
administrative program permitting a partial rebate of City impactfees for the purpose of promoting
the development of additional affordable housing units. Fees eligible for rebate include almost all
City fees as well as fees from special purpose utility districts and the school district.
The Affordable Housing Board considered proposing a series of changes to the Rebate Program but
in the context of the recently completed `Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies "report
now believes the Rebate Program should be eliminated and eventually replaced with a competitive
process.
This Ordinance would eliminate the Rebate Program except for eleven (H) projects which have
received preliminary planning approval from the City and have financially anticipated rebates.
The projects listed below, if completed, have an estimated cost of $816,410.
$103,070 CARE Eagle Tree (17 rental units @ 50% AMI, 5 @ 45% & 14 @ 40%)
35,040 FCHA, Parkway Townhomes (12 homeownership units @ 50% AMI)
19,710 C&A Scenic Views, Saddle Ridge (27 homeownership units @ 80%AMI)
10,220 Brandt, Willow Wood (14 homeownership units @ 80%AMI)
207,450 Brisben, Buffalo Run (13 rental units @ 40% AMI & 73 @ 50%)
179,580 Brisben, Bull Run (35 rental units @ 50% AMI & 141 @ 60%)
96,360 FCHA, Via Lopez (33 homeownership units @ 50% AMI)
2,920 Habitat for Humanity, Albion Way (I homeownership unit @ 50% AMI)
2,920 Habitat for Humanity, Albion Way (1 homeownership unit @ 50% AMI)
86,140 Brisben, Country Ranch (118 rental units @ 60%AMI)
73,000 CARE, Windtrail (50 rental units @ 55%AMI)
$816,410 Approximate Total
Assuming the Affordable Housing Fund continues to receive a budget of at least $283,000 a year,
there will be sufficient funds to cover the estimated costs.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD RECOMMENDATION.
The Affordable Housing Board, at its regular monthly meeting on September 3, 1998, voted to
support the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and City Code. These revisions affect the
definitions of "Affordable housing project" and "Affordable housing unit, " the Development Review
Fees Waiver and the Impact Fee Delay Program for Affordable Housing. After learning of the
Planning and Zoning Board's recommendations, it voted to support requiring minimum 20-year
occupancy and affordability periods at its January 7, 1999 regular meeting.
The Affordable Housing Board, at its regular monthly meeting on January 7, 1999, agreed that the
Development Impact Fee Rebate Program should be eliminated and eventually replaced with a
competitive process."
70
February 2, 1999
Ann Watts, City Planner, presented background information regarding the two proposed Ordinances.
Councilmember Smith asked if there will be a periodic review to determine if the program is
working. Watts stated that a monitoring process could be established.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he received a call from a citizen questioning a twenty-year
affordability period and the difficulty it could create in attracting private investors. Watts stated that
the majority of affordable rental housing is built through the low income tax credit program and that
the minimum affordability period for that program is fifteen years, although more points are awarded
to projects that commit to longer periods of affordability and most projects that are funded commit
to at least thirty years of affordability.
Councilmember Bertschy asked about the practice for private lenders. Watts stated that most
affordable housing projects in an effort to minimize their loan payments would extend their
amortization terms.
Bob Browning, Chair of the Affordable Housing Board, spoke regarding the perspective of the Board
and the rationale for the two proposed Ordinances.
Mayor Azari expressed appreciation for the work of the Affordable Housing Board
Betty Maloney, 1309 City Park Avenue, commended the efforts of the Affordable Housing Board
and expressed a concern that changing from rebates to a competitive process could be a handicap
for nonprofit agencies.
Sister Mary Alice Murphy, Director of CARE Housing, spoke regarding the change in the way
rebates are offered and urged that the rebate program not be eliminated. She urged language that
would state the program as a competitive process for rebates. She spoke regarding housing for
students, cooperation with CSU, and County funding.
Lou Stitzel, President of TRAC Homes, cautioned that in attempting to produce predictability and
stability, creativity and flexibility can be lost. She stated that having just one type of competitive
process may cause difficulties.
Councilmember Wanner stated that under this program agencies will have money up front rather
than rebates and that the process will provide room for flexibility and creativity.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Ordinance
No. 19, 1999 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
71
February 2, 1999
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance
No. 20, 1999 on First Reading.
Councilmember Mason emphasized the importance of monitoring the program to make certain that
nonprofit agencies are not losing their ability to get funding.
Councilmember Wanner stated that it is important to maintain healthy nonprofit agencies in this
community. He stated that the intent is to stimulate affordable housing and to give the City what
it pays for. He thanked the staff and Affordable Housing Board for their participation in this process
and spoke regarding the land banking program.
The vote on Councilmember Warmer's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Mason spoke regarding e-mail communications concerning the issue of inclusionary
zoning and asked if Council is interested in discussing the issue.
Councilmember Wanner stated that he is interested in discussing the issue and supported the Merrill
proposal.
Adjournment
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adjourn the meeting
to 6:00 p.m. on February 9, 1999. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
72