HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/15/2008-RegularJuly 15, 2008
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, July 15, 2008, 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: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue, expressed his concerns with renewable energy credit
purchases because the credits do not accomplish any savings in energy.
Michael Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court, asked Council to examine Transfort fares as they are
not priced fairly for all citizens and will not entice new riders.
Fred Kirsch, 509 South Bryan Avenue, Community For Sustainable Energy, stated Transfort should
be expanded to conveniently serve all citizens of the city.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, thanked the City Manager for supporting the Foxes baseball
team. He also thanked Council for the 4th of July celebration in City Park but he expressed his
displeasure with a band that played at that celebration.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated his concerns with the slowness ofthe development
process in Fort Collins.
Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive, stated transportation issues need to be become a priority for
Council and she asked Council to address transportation in a timely fashion.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Roy asked for information about the pricing for Transfort fares. He stated the
renewable energy credits policy is being reviewed but it takes time to determine a better way to
utilize the funds to support renewable energy. He stated this Council had never defeated a
development proposal or an incentive package for development.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the development process results in an excellent development as an
end product. She asked when the Transfort Master Plan would be ready for Council consideration.
City Manager Atteberry stated it should come before Council in the next six months. Council is
July 15, 2008
scheduled to discuss items in the next months that contain transportation components, such as the
Downtown River District Report, South College Corridor Plan and the 2009 Budget Exceptions.
Councilmember Troxell asked ifthe City reviewed any complaints concerning a band's performance
at City Park. City Manager Atteberry stated the complaint would be shared with the 4th of July
planning committee.
Councilmember Troxell stated transportation issues need to be addressed on a regional basis and a
regional system should be developed to best serve the citizens.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for discretion to be used when choosing bands for celebration events
such as the 4th of July. Transportation issues need to be addressed but the proposal brought toward
last year for the creation of a regional transit authority was not a well -designed proposal that would
benefit Fort Collins. He did support a regional approach to resolving transportation issues in a more
democratic way than the formation of an RTA.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Metropolitan Planning Organization continues to seek funding
alternatives to help address transportation issues in Northern Colorado.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the I-25/392 interchange was a joint project between the City and the Town
of Windsor that was working to resolve issues with an interchange that is not currently serving the
public. He noted renewable energy credits and new trends in renewable energy were the topic of a
Council work session, available on the City's website. Platte River Power Authority will make a
decision this summer about investing $20-60 million in wind power and will be moving away from
renewable energy credits.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry requested postponement of Item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076,
2008, Appropriating Funds in the Downtown Development Authority Fund for Expenditure in
Accordance with the Downtown Plan of Development to August 19th to allow time for a joint work
session with the Downtown Development Authority. He asked that Council take no action on Item
# 12 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sanitary Sewer
Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on City Property to New Belgium Brewing
Company, Inc. at the request of the applicant.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Readiniz of Ordinance No. 074, 2008 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light
and Power Fund for Capital Expansion at the Portner Substation and Capital Additions to the
Timberline Substation.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008, authorizes the
appropriation of $4,017,604 in prior year reserves in the Light and Power Fund for substation
2
July 15, 2008
facilities. The funds will be used to supplement existing appropriations for the Portner
Substation, located west of the Transfort facility. In addition, the appropriation will also
purchase and install two transformers and foundations for the Timberline Substation, south
of Prospect Road.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Light and Power Fund for Energy_Star/Energy Efficiency Programs and Authorizing
the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating
Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008, appropriates funds
received from three grants received from the State of Colorado's Governor's Energy Office
totaling $75,000. Combined with the Utilities matching funds, $50,000 will be used for each
of three programs: ENERGY STAR for New Homes, Home Performance with ENERGY
STAR (for existing homes) and Residential Solar Program (Photovoltaic).
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2008, Appropriating Funds in the Downtown
Development Authority Fund for Expenditure in Accordance with the Downtown Plan of
Development.
Ordinance No. 076, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008,
appropriates $2,800,000 from the Downtown Development Authority Operations and
Maintenance 2004A DDA Bond Project and the 2007A Bond Project fund for the purchase
of the Elks Building, 140 East Oak Street. The DDA Board has authorized the expenditure
on this project.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2008, Amending Sections 2-30, 2-32 and 2-34 of the
City Code Pertaining to Notice of Public Meetings of the City Council and City Council
Committees.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008, makes several
amendments to the provisions of the City Code dealing with the public notice requirements
for regular and special meetings of the City Council.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2008, Amending Section 4.5(b) of the Land Use
Code of the Cily Pertaining to Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008, amends the
permitted use list of the Low Density Mixed -use Neighborhood (L-M-N) to cap the number
of residents in a Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence allowed as a Basic Development
Review at 15 clients. The Ordinance also adds Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence
to be allowed as a Type Two Review but with an unlimited number of clients.
July 15, 2008
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.080 2008. Authorizing the Conveyance of a Stormwater
Filtration and Detention Easement at the Gardens on Spring Creek (Horticulture Center) to
Colorado State University.
CSU has approached the City with an interest in constructing a water quality control project
to treat storm flows from CSU's main campus. The majority of the project will occur on
CSU's property adjacent to the City's Horticulture Center property. However, due to design
constraints, CSU is requesting a stormwater easement to accommodate a portion of this
project on City property. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1,
2008, authorizes the conveyance of a28,581 square foot permanent easement for stormwater
filtration and detention over a portion of the Horticulture Center property.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Sanitary
Sewer Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on City Property to New Belgium
Brewing Company, Inc.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008, authorizes the
conveyance of a sanitary sewer easement and a temporary construction easement on City
property, located at 625 Ninth Street, to the owner of the adjacent property, New Belgium
Brewery, Inc., to connect the Brewery's new building to the City of Fort Collins sewer
system. The Brewery has agreed to pay the City a fee of $1000 for the easements and to
restore the easement areas when construction is complete.
13. Second Readies of Ordinance No. 082, 2008, Vacating a Street Right -of -Way on Block 142
Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 1, 2008, vacates Lincoln
Place right-of-way, located within Library Park, in preparation for the City's conveyance of
a portion of the block to the Fort Collins Regional Library District.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2008, Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code to include
Art Gallery Permits.
This Ordinance will amend the City Code to include the fees and approval process for Art
Gallery Permits.
15. Items Relating to Relocating Certain Provisions of the City Code Regarding Unreasonable
Noise and Nuisance Gatherings to Chapter 17, Relocating Provisions Regarding Snow
Removal to Chapter 20, and Making Amendments to the Penalty Provisions for Civil
Infractions.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2008, Relocating Certain Provisions of the City
Code Regarding Unreasonable Noise and Nuisance Gatherings to Chapter 17 and
Relocating Certain Provisions Regarding Snow Removal to Chapter 20.
July 15, 2008
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2008, Amending Certain Sections of the City
Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining the Penalties for Civil Infraction Violations
Ordinance No. 084, 2008, would relocate certain provisions within Chapter 17 and 20 of the
City Code in order to place them logically within the Code for consistency and clarity of
enforcement mechanisms.
Ordinance No. 085, 2008, would clarify the penalties for civil infractions. Under this
Ordinance, the third and subsequent violations of the same Code provision within a twelve-
month period of time could be charged and prosecuted as criminal misdemeanors.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2008, Extending the Contracts of the City's Service
Providers for Employee Benefits Programs to December 31, 2009.
The vendors providing life insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, and transplant
insurance for City employees have serviced the City of Fort Collins for many years. This
Ordinance will approve an extension of the current agreements with these vendors for an
additional year to allow for sufficient time and resources for a competitive process to be
completed in 2009.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2008, Authorizing the Lease of the Prairie Ridge
Natural Area for Dryland Wheat Farming for up to Three Years.
The Ordinance will authorize the lease of the Natural Area owned jointly by the Cities of
Loveland and Fort Collins, located south of Fort Collins and west of Taft Hill Road. The
property has been leased to the same tenant for eight years and will be used for rotational
wheat crops.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Waterline
Easements and Two Temporary Construction Easements on City Property to the North Weld
County Water District.
The North Weld County Water District and East Larimer County Water District are in the
process of acquiring the necessary easements for their waterline transmission project
("NEWT") which is scheduled to begin construction in January 2009. The City of Fort
Collins Parks Department owns two parcels of land on which the Districts have requested
an easement for their project. The North Weld County Water District has agreed to pay the
City a fee of $1000 for the easements and will restore the easement areas when construction
is complete.
July 15, 2008
19. Resolution 2008-064 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort
Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the
recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds.
20. Resolution 2008-065 Authorizing a Grant Aereement with the State of Colorado for the
Power Trail.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to enter into a grant agreement with the State
of Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. The grant
funds will enable the City to extend the Power Trail south of Harmony to Trilby Road.
21. Resolution 2008-066 Makine Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
A vacancy currently exists on the Cultural Resources Board due to the resignation of Jack
Steele. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers David Roy and Lisa Poppaw
conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Anne Macdonald to fill the
vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010.
A vacancy currently exists on the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignation
of Alyson McGee. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers David Roy and Lisa
Poppaw conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Sondra Carson to fill
the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011.
A vacancy currently exists on the Senior Advisory Board due to the resignation of Judy
Vasiliauskas. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers David Roy and Lisa Poppaw
conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Joan Deines to fill the vacancy
with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011.
A vacancy currently exists on the Women's Commission due to the resignation of Patricia
Stewart. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers David Roy and Lisa Poppaw
conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Becky Goldbach to fill the
vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2009.
Vacancies currently exist on the Youth Advisory Board due to the resignations of Matt
Strauch and Scott Umbriet. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Lisa Poppaw
and David Roy conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Vivian Acott
and Lisa Parker to fill the vacancies with terms to begin immediately and set to expire on
December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010 respectively.
Gel
July 15, 2008
22. Routine Easements.
A. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, for a right-of-way easement to install
pad transformer to accommodate increased electric service, located at 220 East Oak.
Monetary consideration: $10.
B. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from 6617 South
College LLC, for a right-of-way easement to install pad transformer to accommodate
REA transfer for the southwest enclave annexation, located at 6617 South College.
Monetary consideration: $1000.
C. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Margaret D.
Wyatt, for a right-of-way easement to underground existing electric system, located
at 6530 South College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $3,800.
D. Easement for construction and maintenance ofpublic utilities from Janet E. Michaud,
to install a 3 phase switch cabinet to underground existing electric system, located
at 6805 South College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $500.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2008 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light
and Power Fund for Capital Expansion at the Portner Substation and Capital Additions to the
Timberline Substation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Light and Power Fund for Energy Star/Energy Efficiency Programs and Authorizing
the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating
Budget.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2008, Amending Sections 2-30, 2-32 and 2-34 of the
City Code Pertaining to Notice of Public Meetings of the City Council and City Council
Committees.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2008, Amending Section 4.5(b) of the Land Use
Code of the City Pertaining to Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Stormwater
Filtration and Detention Easement at the Gardens on Spring Creek (Horticulture Center) to
Colorado State University.
July 15, 2008
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2008, Vacating a Street Right -of -Way on Block 142
Established as Part of the 1873 Map of the Town of Fort Collins.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2008, Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code to include
Art Gallery Permits.
15. Items Relating to Relocating Certain Provisions of the City Code Regarding Unreasonable
Noise and Nuisance Gatherings to Chapter 17, Relocating Provisions Regarding Snow
Removal to Chapter 20, and Making Amendments to the Penalty Provisions for Civil
Infractions.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2008, Relocating Certain Provisions of the City
Code Regarding Unreasonable Noise and Nuisance Gatherings to Chapter 17 and
Relocating Certain Provisions Regarding Snow Removal to Chapter 20.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2008, Amending Certain Sections of the City
Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining the Penalties for Civil Infraction Violations.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2008, Extending the Contracts of the City's Service
Providers for Employee Benefits Programs to December 31, 2009.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2008, Authorizing the Lease of the Prairie Ridge
Natural Area for Dryland Wheat Farming for up to Three Years.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2008, Authorizing the Conveyance of Two Waterline
Easements and Two Temporary Construction Easements on City Property to the North Weld
County Water District.
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2008, Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code by
Adding Regulations Pertaining Specifically to Dirt Yards and Dilapidated Fences.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2008 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Reflect
the Adoption of the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson noted Item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2008, Amending
Section 4.5(b) of the Land Use Code of the City Pertaining to Shelters for Victims of Domestic
Violence would provide an important benefit to the community.
July 15, 2008
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government has named the
ClimateWise Program as one of the 50 most innovative programs in the world. He noted this year's
Bike Week, held the week of June 23, had a record participation with over 22,000 vehicle miles
reduced through that week.
He stated Money Magazine has named Fort Collins as #2 on its "100 Best Places to Live" list. He
noted the City's Employee Wellness Program has received the Gold "Well Workplace" Award from
Wellness Council of America.
Resolution 2008-067
Authorizing and Directing Staff to Prepare an Urban Renewal Plan and
Existing Conditions Study for the Prospect South Area, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council established an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to provide assistance to
redevelopment projects in specified areas of the city. The Prospect South Area is identified as a
Targeted Redevelopment Area in City Plan. Capstone Development Corporation is proposing a
mixed -use redevelopment project, including student housing on the edge of CSU's Main Campus,
along with transit oriented design features adjacent to the Mason Corridor, and storm water
management for an historically f ood prone site. The costs of redevelopment are significant and
utilization of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) from the URA is needed to make the projectfinancially
feasible. Staff is seeking Council's authorization to proceed with the preparation of an Existing
Conditions Survey and draft an Urban Renewal Plan for the Prospect South Area.
BACKGROUND
In 1982, the Fort Collins City Council created an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and designated
itself as the governing board (known as the "Authority'). The boundaries of the URA are the
municipal limits. The Fort Collins URA was created to prevent and eliminate conditions in the
community related to certain "blight factors, " as defined in the State 's Urban Renewal Laws. State
Statutes allow the URA broad powers to carry out its statutory mandate. Included are the powers
to enter into contracts, borrow funds, and acquire property voluntarily or by eminent domain,
among others. Urban renewal projects may be financed in a variety of ways. URAs are authorized
to issue bonds and accept grants from public or private sources. The principal method offinancing
urban renewal projects is through obligations secured by property tax or sales tax increments from
the project area, or "tax increment financing" (TIF). The URA exercises its powers by planning and
carrying out urban renewal plans in urban renewal areas.
Urban Renewal Plan Areas have the following objectives that are consistent with City Plan:
0
July 15, 2008
PRINCIPLE GM-8
"The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in areas within the
Growth Management Area boundary. "
POLICY GM-8.1
"Redevelopment and infill development will be encouraged in targeted locations. The
purpose ofthese 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 ... A
major goal is to increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents
and businesses and, where necessary, provide stimulus to redevelop. These areas
should be defined from City Plan, Subarea Plans, Zoning and locational criteria
such as:
• Underutilized land;
• Areas already undergoing positive change, which is expected to continue;
• Areas where infrastructure capacity exists;
• Areas where public investment is warranted from a policy perspective;
• Areas with special opportunities, such as where major public or private investment
is already planned;
• Transportation opportunities:
o along travel corridors
o along enhanced travel corridors"
POLICY GM-8.5
"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. "
The area west of College Avenue and south of Prospect Road has been identified as a targeted
redevelopment area in City Plan and directly correlates to the overall plan of the Mason Corridor
enhancements.
The following are the boundaries of the area staff will study (see attached map) for the potential
designation as the Prospect South Urban Renewal Plan Area:
North: Prospect Road, beginning one-half block East of College Avenue and extending to
the BNSF railroad tracks one block West of College Avenue;
East: The north -south alley that runs between South College Avenue and Remington Street;
South: Johnson Avenue; and
West: The BNSF railroad tracks; however, there is one small parcel west of the railroad
and south of Prospect that will also be studied
10
July 15, 2008
Staff will further define the boundary as the evaluation of the existing conditions survey proceeds
and a more in-depth assessment regarding the needs of the area is made.
The major purpose of establishing a Prospect South Urban Renewal Plan Area would be to permit
the utilization of tax increment financing (TIF) in redevelopment projects. TIF is a tool that is
commonly used throughout Colorado for a variety of redevelopment and economic development
purposes. Timnath, Loveland (Centerra), Westminster/Thornton, and many other Front Range
communities use TIF as a principal tool for funding public improvements related to redevelopment
and non -redevelopment sites. TIF has proven an effective tool by these communities to overcome
significant public improvement costs to facilitate development to assist in producing a healthy
economy in a competitive regional market. Given the lack of economic tools at the City's disposal
and the effectiveness of TIF, staff believes that utilizing TIF is the most effective tool to help keep
the targeted redevelopment areas competitive with these other communities. The obvious advantage
of using TIF is that public assistance toward the development is driven by enhancements to the
assessed valuation of the property and is funded through property tax revenues versus sales tax
:ra WIMI I
Citystaffhas been approached by Capstone Development Corporation who has determined this area
is a key location for its proposed mixed -use redevelopment project. The proposed project includes
student housing on the edge of CSU's campus, transit oriented design features along the Mason
Corridor, and storm water managementfor this historicallyf oodprone site. All indications are that
Capstone is ready to move forward with its redevelopment plans, however, the costs of
redevelopment are significant. The use of TIF is key to Capstone's redevelopment plans for the site
and for making the mixed -use student housing project feasible. The use of other public and private
financing mechanisms is also anticipated.
The Existing Conditions Survey (a.k.a. "Blight Study') will describe the conditions in line with
statutory definitions that constitute "blight" that exist in the study area. Consideration should then
be given to the creation ofan Urban Renewal Plan for the area to first ofall eliminate the conditions
that constitute "blight" and to further promote the goals and objectives of City Plan.
Authorizing staff to proceed with conducting the Existing Conditions Survey and preparation ofthe
Prospect South Urban Renewal Plan does not commit the Council to formally adopting the survey
and plan at this time. City Council will, however, eventually adopt a resolution of necessityfinding
that blight exists within all, or a portion of, the study area and determining that the rehabilitation
and/or redevelopment of the area is in the interest ofthe public health, safety, morals or welfare of
the residents of Fort Collins, and adopt another resolution officially establishing the Prospect South
Urban Renewal Plan Area. The Plan will examine the feasibility and desirability of implementing
an urban renewal program and will make recommendations for correcting those conditions
contributing to "blight".
Staff has discussed the need for an existing conditions evaluation as a proper process for
determining ifan urban renewal area is needed. Staffhas notified Larimer County ofthe intention
to evaluate the area with an Existing Conditions Survey. Staffcontinues to meet with the County staff
to identify specific details regarding the financial impacts to the County. The public outreach will
11
July 15, 2008
attempt to create strong community collaboration similar to that of the North College area without
the need for an additional Citizen Advisory Group. This outreach includes individual contacts with
property owners, at least one public open house, and written notification has been sent to property
owners and tenants in the study area. "
Christina Vincent, Urban Renewal Planner, stated the proposed resolution would authorize staff to
prepare an Existing Conditions Study and Urban Renewal Plan for the Prospect South area. The area
contains 27 acres. An Urban Renewal Plan would allow for the use of tax increment financing and
evaluate the opportunities in redevelopment areas, allow an economic stimulus using the tax
increment financing and provide needed improvements and public benefit. It promotes infill
development and is a targeted redevelopment area within the City. Capstone Development has
proposed a student housing project on 10 acres within the area. The Study is proposed for a larger
area to evaluate the needs of the area, as the corridor has not been redeveloped in decades. The
Capstone Project would be a mixed -use development located in close proximity to the Mason
Corridor that would meet student housing needs. The location of the development is on the site of
the Spring Creek Flood of 1997, so creative stormwater management practices need to be put into
place.
Expensive fixes to stormwater issues and the high price of the land are barriers to development of
this area. There is a $1 million to $2 million gap in the financing of the proposed redevelopment.
Tax increment financing could be used to bridge the gap and would not place additional taxes onto
the current property owners and no taxing district would be formed. The first step in this process
is for Council to authorize staff to conduct an Existing Conditions Study and prepare an Urban
Renewal Plan. Staff has contacted individual property owners and written notification of this
process was sent to property owners and tenants. At least one open house will be held and other
districts such as the County and Poudre School District will be notified of the proposed Urban
Renewal Plan.
Walker May, 431 Office Park Drive, Capstone Development Manager, stated Capstone is the leading
student house developer in the nation. One of Capstone's current programs is developing the
campus edge, using mixed -use, urban infill development. This is a smart, sustainable form of
development as it places a large number of students within walking and biking distance to a campus,
takes pressure off streets and moves students out of single-family neighborhoods. The South
Prospect property is an ideal location for this type of development as it is located within close
walking and biking distance to CSU and has the potential for a URA to be formed. CSU expects to
grow in the next 15 years and will not have campus housing to provide to those students. The Mason
Corridor development will provide transportation options to campus, downtown and beyond. The
high -density, mixed -use development is the type of growth and redevelopment the City has hoped
would be placed along the Mason Corridor. There are barriers that affect the economics of the
project: the high cost of land, expensive City impact fees, costly floodplain designation and
subsequent stormwater improvements and the current lower, affordable rental rates that exist in the
city which would lower revenues for the project. Capstone is seeking a public/private partnership
to enable this development to proceed.
12
July 15, 2008
Cheryl Olson,126 West Harvard, a property owner involved in the transaction with Capstone, stated
six acres of her property have been vacant since the flood of 1997 and have contributed no income
to the owners, the City or the County for over 10 years. The economics of development have
prevented the sale of the property. The property is located in a prime location for student housing
and the community needs more places for students to live. She urged Council to support the
development of an urban renewal plan to assist with the high costs of redeveloping this area.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, asked for an explanation of tax increment financing and a cost
benefit analysis of the project.
Pete Seale,1837 Scarborough Drive, stated CSU plans to expand by 5000 students in the next five
years and this project would be an ideal solution for housing those students.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked if the use of eminent domain would be authorized
to acquire property for the project.
Councilember Ohlson stated this resolution would authorize an Existing Conditions Study and more
discussion on the financial aspects of the project would occur at a later date. He asked if the Study
would cover a larger area than the property where Capstone proposes to build the student housing.
Vincent stated the boundary is larger than the Capstone proposed development so staff can evaluate
the entire existing conditions of the area.
Councilmember Brown asked what type of retail would be included in the Capstone development.
Vincent stated the area is zoned Employment, which allows a wide use of retail options. The
Capstone proposal includes shops and consumer retail but not establishments serving alcohol.
Councilmember Brown asked how dependent this project was on the development of the Mason
Corridor. City Manager Atteberry stated the Mason Corridor is an important component of the
Capstone development, but the temporary delay in federal funding for the Mason Corridor should
not prevent the Capstone development from moving forward.
Councilmember Brown asked if the solutions to the stormwater issues associated with this area will
have an impact downstream and cause the City to spend a large amount of funds to correct. Bob
Smith, Water Planning an Development Manager, stated there will not be any negative impacts
downstream from the project.
Councilmember Roy asked for the cost of staff time spent on this project. Joe Frank, Advance
Planning Director, stated this was a significant project and he would provide the number of hours
already spent on this project and the cost.
Councilmember Roy asked for an explanation of tax increment financing (TIF) and its relationship
to the Urban Renewal Authority. Frank stated adoption of an urban renewal plan establishes a base
level of tax increment. For the next 25 years, any additional taxes generated in excess of the base
dollar amount as a result of taxable improvements or increases in value, the increase in taxes accrues
13
July 15, 2008
to the Urban Renewal Authority for use to build infrastructure or other amenities for the benefit of
the public.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the tax increment was based on any improvements to a property or
if it was determined on any increase in value of a property. Frank stated the increment the URA will
receive will include taxes from taxable improvement and property taxes that result from an increase
in the value. The theory behind an urban renewal authority is that there would be no change in those
areas, but for the action of the urban renewal authority enhancing and making public improvements.
City Attorney Roy stated when a general reassessment of the property in the district occurs, the tax
base and the increment are proportionally adjusted. The TIF would include all taxes collected above
the base that is locked in at the time the Urban Renewal Plan is adopted, but a reassessment is
apportioned between the base and the TIF.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if planning fees were collected to offset the cost of staff time in
assessing proposed developments. Frank stated development fees are collected to help pay for the
cost of staff review of proposed developments. The URA collects only property tax and does not
collect any impact fees. City Manager Atteberry stated development pays a large percentage of the
cost of the development process and the General Fund also pays a portion. Mike Freeman, Chief
Financial Officer, stated the Advance Planning staff are not part of the cost of the development
process fees. Current Planning, building inspection, development review staff, transportation and
utilities collect the impact fees. City Manager Atteberry stated as the URA begins operation, the
General Fund would subsidize the URA for a time, but the goal is for the URA to be self-sustaining.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if eminent domain will be used to acquire property within the URA
boundary. Frank stated URAs do have the power of eminent domain and each urban renewal plan
adopted by the City has retained the ability to use eminent domain only as a tool of last resort. There
are no plans being considered that would use eminent domain. City Atteberry stated the Capstone
development is a voluntary transaction between a developer and a property owner and eminent
domain would not be appropriate.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the boundary for the proposed urban renewal plan was not set
further east. Vincent stated the boundaries for the Existing Conditions Study follow parcel lines to
be consistent with ownership and to allow the evaluation to be as thorough as possible.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2008-067.
Councilmember Troxell stated the proposed area fits the description of an Urban Renewal Authority
and the Capstone Project would be greatly beneficial to both CSU and the community. The URA
is an appropriate solution to assist in development of the site.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the project is greatly needed and the infill and redevelopment
opportunity will benefit the city.
14
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated the resolution authorizes the Existing Conditions Study and
preparation of an urban renewal plan but no approval is being given to any project at this time.
Councilmember Brown stated the Capstone project would be a unique solution to problems created
by passage of the 3-unrelated ordinance and will improve neighborhoods where students did reside.
Councilmember Manvel stated the area is appropriate for an urban renewal plan to aid in
redevelopment of the aging area.
Councilmember Roy stated the growth projected for CSU enrollment means housing solutions for
those students need to be addressed. He asked if areas south of the proposed URA area following
the Mason Corridor should be included in the proposed URA. He encouraged the developer to strive
to attain Gold LEED rating with the development. This project is a good example of infill
development that is good for both CSU and the City.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the project meets the criteria for infill development, fits Fort Collins and
meets other needs.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 088, 2008,
Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code by Adding Regulations Pertaining
Specifically to Dirt Yards and Dilapidated Fences, Adopted as amended on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
Costs to the City to enforce the codes are anticipated to be covered by the current operating budget
for the Neighborhood and Building Services Department (NBS).
Property owners will have expenses related to correcting violations and complying with the
codes/standards.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance addresses physical deterioration of properties that affect the well-being of
neighborhoods in Fort Collins. The proposed regulatory tools would enhance the City's ability to
provide the community with improved preventative measures.
15
July 15, 2008
BACKGROUND
Discussions emerged in 2005 among concerned citizens, community interest groups and City
Council about the physical condition ofbuildings, rental standards, and exterior premises nuisance
codes. Revisions to occupancy limits and other neighborhood quality -of -life code changes
precipitated the discussions. Concerns have been directed at physically neglected properties that
can accelerate the deterioration of neighborhoods. Property maintenance conditions and related
complaints that are not addressed by existing code provisions were the focus.
There has been extensive public outreach seeking recommendations from City boards and
commissions, the real estate and rental industry, neighborhoodgroups and individual citizens. Four
City Council Work Sessions have occurred: September 2006, August 2007, February 2008 and
March 2008.
In response, staffproposes to add two provisions to Chapter 20 ofthe Municipal Code dealing with
dirt yards and dilapidated fences and walls for all violations visible from public right-of-way or
ground level of neighboring properties.
RECENT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL
(See attachment ]for March 11, 2008 Work Session Summary)
Below are Council's suggested revisions from the work sessions specifically related to exterior -
premises nuisance codes. In italics are responses and references where they are addressed in the
proposed code language.
A. Severe weathering of exterior building/structure surfaces (walls, etc.) because of
deteriorated protective coating (paint) and severely damaged roofing allowing water into
the building are covered by the Dangerous Building Code and should be eliminatedfrom the
proposed Exterior -Premises Nuisance Codes (removed from Exterior -Premises Nuisance
Codes.)
B. Bringforwardfor Council consideration an ordinance that adds exterior nuisance codes that
will apply to all properties within the City of Fort Collins.
C. Enforce the proposed codes from all public rights -of -way and ground level of neighboring
properties (included in the ordinance).
D. Provide reasonable lengths oftime for people to correct violations. This is already required
by Code Sec. 19-66(a)(1), Rules for Civil Infractions. The length of time is determined by
the severity of the condition as well as other mitigating factors.
E. Bring more detailed information and provide a matrix explaining all possible assistance
programs for owner -occupied properties with low incomes (See Attachment 2).
F. Place emphasis on assisting people with available resources to address violations before
utilizing enforcement efforts or issuing citations.
16
July 15, 2008
G. Explore including fences that are dilapidated or of inappropriate materials, e.g., plastic
sheeting, metal roofing/building panels, plywood/OSB sheathing, scraps, etc. (The
Ordinance requires that fence and wall repairs must be made with compatible materials of
comparable composition, color, size, shape and quality.)
Exterior -Premises Nuisance Provisions
Originally, the exterior premises nuisance provisions being considered included four items: (])dirt
yards; (2) dilapidated fences and walls; (3) peeling paint; and (4) deteriorated roofs/gutters.
Council directed staff to remove items (3) and (4) - peeling paint and deteriorated roofs/gutters.
Ifadopted, these nuisance provisions (dirt yards and dilapidated fences and walls) will be added to
Chapter 20 of the City Code and will apply to violations visible from any public right-of-way
(including alleys) orfrom the ground level ofadjacentproperties. Violations will be civil infractions
and subject to civil penalty. Persons not in compliance will be given a reasonable amount of time
for compliance and extensions will be granted for mitigating circumstances such as weather,
working with assistance programs, etc.
The proposed Exterior -Premises Nuisance provisions are summarized as follows:
• Yards: No less than eighty percent (80916) of any yard area, excluding
sidewalks and driveways, must be covered with grass, ground cover
plants or other landscaping material, such as mulch, decorative
gravel, stone or paving bricks. Ground cover consisting of crushed
rock, gravel, or similar material must be one quarter (114) inch or
larger in size and shall be maintained at a depth that is sufficient to
cover all exposed areas of dirt.
• Fences and Walls: All fences and walls must be maintained so that they are structurally
sound and in good repair so that there are no broken, loose,
damaged, removed or missing parts (i.e., pickets, slats, posts, wood
rails, bricks, panels). Repair offences and walls must be made with
compatible materials ofcomparable composition, color, size, shape
and quality of the fence or wall to which the repair is being made.
Assistance Programs Available (See attachment 2 for detailed matrix)
Assistance Programs are summarized below as requested by City Council.
The main source for financial assistance for low-income, owner -occupied properties would be from
the Lorimer Home Improvement Program (LHIP). A summary of this program is:
• Contact person — Amy Irwin — Loveland Housing Authority — 970-667-3232
17
r
July 15, 2008
• This program is funded with federal, state, county and local money, and it is
administered through the Loveland Housing Authority.
• Low-income families may qualify for 0 — 5% interest loans up to $24,999 (most
repairs are much lower cost than this).
• Home improvementprojects include repairs such as roofreplacement or repair, new
siding, exterior paint, some fence repairs or replacement, etc.
• The application process is very simple, and City or LHIP staff can assist people
through this process.
• The City of Fort Collins contributed $60,000 in 2005 to this program for home
improvement projects in Fort Collins.
• In 2007, 12 loans were given. Between January 2004 and August 2005, 17
households received loans. In August 2005, there was a waiting list of 26
households.
• Amount available for loansf uctuates each year depending upon how much collected
from current loans (average 12 loans per year at approximately $9, 000 per loan).
• Since yards and fences would not qualify for a LHIP loan, additional funds could be
added to this program specifically for Exterior -Premises Nuisance Code violations
(yards and fences) and can be set aside to assist people who qualify and need
assistance to comply.
• LHIP is willing to have these set up as grants rather than loans which would cost
less to administer. If it is set up as a grant program, an ongoing annual allotment
will be needed versus a loan program which can be self-sustaining.
• Staff could pursue additional funding for LHIP to use specifically for exterior -
premises property maintenance concerns either this fall as part of the City's
competitive process or through the next Budgeting for Outcomes process (2010-
2011).
Volunteer Programs
Neighborhood Services and CSU provide significant volunteer programs that assist many
neighborhood projects every year. These include Adopt -A -Neighbor, Fall Clean-up, and CSUnity.
In the past two years, these programs have utilized over 2,000 volunteers to assist with
approximately 160 neighborhood projects. Many of these projects included yard clean-up, fence
repair, landscape work painting, etc. Neighbors have reported that the volunteers were kind,
respectful and a valuable resource.
18
July 15, 2008
When appropriate, Neighborhood Services would also utilize other volunteer -based programs and
agencies including Fort Collins Board of Realtors, Group Workcamps Foundation, Habitat for
Humanity, United Way, Jaycees, Volunteers ofAmerica, Interfaith Council, and Northern Colorado
Homebuilders' Association. In addition, Neighborhood Services could utilize and partner with
Resource and other local businesses as a possible source of low-cost landscaping and fence
materials. This would be done by staff matching the particular need with the appropriate agency
available to assist.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Extensive public outreach has occurred over the past two years.
Boards and Commissions (see Attachment 3 for minutes)
Planning and Zoning Board Work Session — July 13, 2007
Affordable Housing Board — September 6, 2007 and June 5, 2008
Building Review Board — July 26, 2007 and April 24, 2008
Public meetings, presentations and outreach
• Open Public Meetings —January 25, 2007; February 1, 2007; July 24, 2007
• Small stakeholder meetings — March — May 2007
• Newspaper columns and newsletter articles — 2007 and 2008
• North Fort Collins Business Association presentation — September 26, 2007
• Affordable Housing Coalition presentation — October 17, 2007
• Associated Students of Colorado State University — October 31, 2007
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors — January 15, 2008 and January 29, 2008
• Colorado Apartment Association presentation —March 18, 2008
• Center for Public Deliberation Capstone discussion —April 21, 2008
Feedback varied significantly with opinions on both sides of the issues. There is a general concern
for the potential financial hardship new codes can place on low-income residents.
Timeline
An educational promotion for the Exterior -Premises Nuisance provisions will occur during the
remainder of 2008. Enforcement will commence on January 1, 2009. Standard operating policy
will be to: (1) first focus on alternative resolutions for the violations through assistance programs
and volunteer efforts prior to taking enforcement action; and (2) provide citizen friendly
informational materials that detail options available. The use of enforcement will be reserved and
used as a last resort to obtain compliance. "
Jeff Scheick, Planning Development and Transportation Director, stated the concerns about exterior
property maintenance standards are directed at physically neglected properties that can accelerate
neighborhood deterioration and cause a decline in property values. Peeling paint and deteriorating
19
July 15, 2008
roof gutters will be addressed in the International Property Maintenance Code that will be brought
to Council in September. Council has expressed concerns about assisting homeowners to comply
with the provisions in this ordinance. Staff will help the community by utilizing assistance and
volunteer programs, where available and appropriate, in order to help people comply before
enforcement is used. If enforcement is necessary, it will be done by the existing compliance
inspectors and no additional staff will be added. Rules for civil infraction require a reasonable
amount of time be allowed for correction of the violation. Staff will work with property owners to
develop a timeline to make compliance achievable. All contacts will be made through a citizen -
friendly letter and personal contact by Neighborhood Services staff with information and options
about assistance and volunteer programs prior to using enforcement.
Staff has examined property maintenance standards in other comparable communities in Colorado
and across the country in the development of these regulations. The proposed standard for yards is
that no less than eighty percent (80%) of any yard area, excluding sidewalks and driveways, must
be covered with grass, ground cover plants or other landscaping material, such as mulch, decorative
gravel, stone or paving bricks. 80% was derived to ensure the standard was applied to a yard that
needed a significant amount of work and not one that had a small, bare patch. It also matches with
the weed ordinance that states weeds cannot be more than 20% of a landscaped area. The
determination of a dirt/dead yard situation will be made based on what a person of average height
could see when standing. The regulation of dilapidated fences will ensure the fences are in good
structural shape and repairs are made consistent with the materials used in the rest of the fence.
Assistance programs are available for homeowners not in compliance with the regulations. The
Larimer County Home Improvement Program (LHIP), funded with federal, state and local money
is willing to partner with the City by administering this section of the program if money is given
specifically for items in yards and fences. The application process is relatively simple and City staff
and LHIP staff can assist people through the process. Money given to assist people with yards and
fences could be given as loans or grants. Grants cost less to administer but need an ongoing funding
source. A loan program could be self-sustaining, except for the cost of administration. LHIP
currently has limited funds available to assist low-income property owners with home improvement
repairs and those funds can only be used for home improvement projects, possibly fence repair but
not for dirt yard improvement. LHIP is willing to administer the program if the City is willing to
make additional money available to assist low-income property owners with dirt/dead yards and
fences. Many volunteer organizations are also available to provide assistance with neighborhood
projects.
A. J. Feldman, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed ordinance as it will require additional
funding from the City. He did not think the issue of dirt yards and fences was a big problem in Fort
Collins and the determination of dirt/dead yards and fences would be subjective.
Martha Denny, 1756 Concord, supported adding dirt yards and dilapidated fences to the property
maintenance code and encouraged Council to expand the ordinance by including dead trees and
shrubbery.
20
July 15, 2008
Mel Hilgenberg,172 North College, asked about the magnitude of dead yards and dilapidated fences,
who will enforce the ordinance and how will it be enforced. He asked if the Housing Authority
would be involved in assisting people to reach compliance.
Pete Seale,1837 Scarborough Drive, stated appearance does matter and he supported the ordinance.
Fences that are falling down are eyesores in a neighborhood and should be addressed. Neighborhood
groups will help seniors and low-income families with the required repairs.
Wendy Parker, 2904 Tharp Drive, Fort Collins Board of Realtors representative, stated the Board
opposed the ordinance as only a few homes in Fort Collins have dead yards or dilapidated fences and
the regulations are not necessary.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, stated a problem with dead yards and poor fences does exist but
her concerns were that the ordinance states property owners not in compliance will be given "a
reasonable amount of time" to comply but there is no definition of "reasonable." The home owner
bears too great a burden to comply with this ordinance as many people are experiencing financial
hardships because of the economy. LHIP loans must be repaid. The proposed assistance also relies
too heavily on volunteer help.
George Smith, 1717 Cedar, opposed the ordinance as any problems with yards and fences in Fort
Collins is not great enough to warrant this level of regulation.
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, supported passage of the ordinance as the appearance of
neighborhoods is a factor in safety and crime prevention. The ordinance reinforces that a value is
placed on maintaining one's landscape and he requested Council add dead trees and shrubs to
dirt/dead yards and dilapidated fences.
Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive, urged Council not to adopt the ordinance as it places a
burden on property owners and will affect affordable housing.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, encouraged Council not to adopt the ordinance as the costs to
property owners would be too great.
Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court, stated his appreciation for removing peeling paint and
roofing from the ordinance.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Troxell asked what number of yards and fences in the city would be considered
problems and who would be responsible for enforcement. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services
Manager, stated a study done by staff last summer in the northwest quadrant of the city showed 106
potential violations of the dirt yard standard and 15 fence violations. At that time, staff only viewed
properties from the public street. The Code Compliance Inspectors in Neighborhood Services would
be responsible for enforcement of the Code.
21
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Troxell asked for the fine schedule for infractions. Sowder stated the fine schedule
would follow the civil infractions as listed in the City Code, with a $100 fine for the first violation.
The fine would not be imposed until all efforts to provide assistance and a sufficient amount of time
for the property owner to correct the problem.
Councilmember Troxell stated adding more restrictions on properties without enforcing the current
restrictions will not solve the problem of property maintenance and will not result in better
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if there was currently any recourse if a property has a dirt front yard.
Sowder stated a dirt yard would not be in violation of the present Code.
Councilmember Brown asked if Larimer County has agreed to expand its LHIP program to include
dirt yards and dilapidated fences. Sowder stated she has spoken with the Larimer County Home
Improvement Program Board and it has agreed to accept money specifically set aside to administer
this program to provide assistance for yards and fences. The program is already in place to handle
home improvement projects. The City would provide funds to LHIP and it would administer those
funds for Fort Collins residents who would apply to receive assistance specifically for yards and
fences.
Councilmember Brown asked if weeds were considered ground cover for a yard. Sowder stated the
yard coverage includes anything green that grows or non -vegetation such as mulch and gravel.
Councilmember Brown asked for the specifics of the loans LHIP makes to low-income residents.
Sowder stated the loans are dependent on the person's ability to pay back the loan; some loans are
deferred until the property is sold. The interest ranges from 0-5%, and, the repayment schedule
depends on the property owner's ability to pay. Sowder will provide information about the handling
of loans in default in this program.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if vegetable gardens would be allowed in a front yard. Sowder stated
vegetable gardens in the front yard are currently allowed under the Code and would continue to be
allowed under the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the terminology could be changed from "nuisance" to "good
neighbor" in the ordinance. City Attorney Roy answered in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the assistance program would include grants for low-income
homeowners as well as loans and if $25,000 was available to provide those grants. City Manager
Atteberry stated the City could provide $25,000 on a one-time basis, then the program could go
through the BFO process.
City Manager Atteberry asked if staff had examined the possibility of administering an assistance
program through the City instead of using LHIP. Sowder stated Neighborhood Services could
administer a grant program with specific criteria through its current Neighborhood Grant Program,
but using LHIP is a good collaboration as it already has the program in place and start-up money
22
July 15, 2008
would not be needed to begin another administrative process. LHIP is willing to administer the
program using either grants or loans, as long as the City has provided funding for these specific
items. It costs less to administer grants; however, the program is not self-sustaining as there is no
payback but would need a continual funding stream.
Councilmember Ohlson noted his preference for providing grants for low-income property owners
to enable them to purchase materials and administering those grants through a City program. City
Manager Atteberry stated staff would analyze both options and determine whether using LHIP or
administering grants through the Neighborhood Services program is a better option.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there was a balance to be maintained between the role of the City in setting
property maintenance standards and property owner rights. Front yards and fences tend to be part
of a public interface. Backyards are more private areas and not in the public eye. He asked if any
consideration was given to exempting back yards from the proposed standard and what would be the
process of detection, inspection and enforcement for back yards. Sowder stated enforcement would
be done on a property where it is visible from either a public right-of-way, including an alleyway,
or the ground level of a neighboring property. Code compliance inspectors only go onto private
property when property owners request them to do so in order to view something. One option would
be to specify that violations would only be addressed if they were seen from the public street or
sidewalk as opposed to an alley or a neighboring property. There are potential problems with
including back yards and fences in the regulation as there could be an issue of ownership of a
dilapidated fence since it could be located on a property line.
Councilmember Roy asked for more information on requiring property owners to remove dead trees
and shrubbery. City Manager Atteberry stated staff would provide that information.
Councilmember Manvel asked if most properties with dirt yards and dilapidated fences became that
way through neglect or because the owners could not afford to keep up their property. Sowder stated
there was no way to determine the cause until regulation is put into place and statistics are gathered
on violations that are issued.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if addressing only violations that could be seen from the public street
or sidewalk would include backyards that could be seen from the street. Sowder stated any part of
a yard that could be seen from a street or sidewalk would fall under the proposed standards.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 088, 2008 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated living next door to a property that has a dirt front yard is a problem
and can lower property values. Appearances matter and allowing properties to have dirt yards and
dilapidated fences deteriorates the quality of life in neighborhoods. Neighboring communities have
already put these standards into place. Assistance will be offered to aid property owners in bringing
their properties into compliance and enforcement will be used as a last resort. He supported
amending the ordinance so that it only applied to violations visible from the street and sidewalk and
eliminated backyard violations.
23
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Manvel asked if changing the terminology from "nuisance" to "good neighbor" was
possible. City Attorney Roy stated the issue is larger than just changing this ordinance. An entire
chapter of the City Code is devoted to the regulation of nuisances. Declaring a condition a nuisance
is one justification for regulating the condition. Many other changes need to be made to be
consistent within the Code. He would review the possibility of changing the terminology within this
ordinance as long as the change does not undermine the validity of the regulation.
Councilmember Manvel noted changing the terminology within the ordinance may not be necessary
as most people will not read the ordinance but using different terminology in material provided to
the public could be a better approach.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the proposed regulations could be included in a different part of the Code
and not be placed under the Nuisance chapter. City Attorney Roy stated, from a legal standpoint,
there was no problem with declaring these violations a nuisance in the ordinance, explaining the
justification in terms of a nuisance and using the terminology "good neighbor policy" in material
provided to neighbors. Removing the term "nuisance" from the ordinance itself will require further
legal review.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the goal was to make this ordinance user friendly and not to eliminate
all nuisance ordinances.
Councilmember Manvel made a friendly amendment to add a provision that enforcement only
applies to areas visible from the public street. Councilmember Ohlson accepted the amendment.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if further direction was needed for staff to review the ramifications of
removing the term "nuisance" from the ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated direction has been
received to review the term "nuisance" and he will provide Council a recommendation about revising
the language.
Councilmember Manvel clarified the amended motion does not contain any reference to revising the
term "nuisance" and he noted the City Attorney will review the issue of using the term "nuisance"
throughout the City Code and will give Council a legal opinion at a later date.
Councilmember Roy asked how this amendment to the motion would affect enforcement by
Neighborhood Services. Sowder stated staff would only apply this Code to any areas of a yard that
are visible from the public street or sidewalk. Staff would not apply the Code to areas of yards that
might be visible from alleys or the ground level of a neighboring property.
Councilmember Roy stated he could not support the amended motion as he had seen properties in
his district where violations were visible from alleys and enforcement should include areas of yards
visible from alleyways.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the proposed ordinance only addresses dirt yards and fences in ill
repair that could be removed or fixed and does not address other violations or problems.
24
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Roy noted the violations on properties he had seen in his district were not dirt yards
or rundown fences.
Councilmember Brown stated he could not support the motion as adding these standards will place
a too great a burden on low income property owners. It is an intrusion on neighbors and is not
encouraging neighbors to help neighbors.
Councilmember Troxell stated regulating dirt yards and fences would only lead to further regulations
of private properties and pits neighbor against neighbor.
Councilmember Roy stated staff and Council has worked many months to develop this ordinance
and, while it does not provide solutions to other problems that exist with homeowner properties, it
is a step in the right direction and can be strengthened at a later date.
Councilmember Manvel stated assistance will be provided for property owners who cannot afford
to bring their property into compliance. Properties that do not comply with the proposed standards
lower the value of homes in a neighborhood and these standards will make a difference to neighbors
who have to live near such properties. There are those who do not care about the effect of the
appearance of their properties on their neighbors and having an enforceable code will allow the City
to address egregious problems.
Councilmember Poppaw stated this ordinance will encourage neighbors to be good neighbors and
care for their property. The assistance measures will alleviate some of the financial burden this
ordinance could cause.
Councilmember Ohlson stated low income property owners will benefit from these standards and
the assistance offered. Loans through existing programs and grants with volunteer help to assist in
repair will be available to those who qualify. The ordinance will not pit neighbor against neighbor
but will avoid conflicts between neighbors as enforcement will based on standards the code
compliance inspectors can measure.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the amended ordinance will benefit Fort Collins, does not intrude into back
yards and provides assistance to those who cannot afford to bring their properties into compliance.
The vote on the motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,
and Roy. Nays: Brown, Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Jeff Scheick noted Neighborhood and Building Services has recently received the Building Code and
Inspection Service Analysis from the Insurance Service Office (ISO), which is the organization
whose primary mission is to provide advisory insurance underwriting and rating information to
insurers utilizing a building code effectiveness grading classification. In 2005, the City scored a "9"
for commercial and "4" for residential, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best. The ISO has
done another assessment of the City for 2007 and scored the City at a "2" for both commercial and
25
July 15, 2008
residential. The scoring is based on the adopted Building Codes, the updates with respect to the
International Building Code and the International Energy Conservation Code, the qualifications of
the building inspectors and the number of inspections done.
Items Relating to the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan,
Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The latest capital cost estimate for the regional improvements is $12.5 million. A FEMA grant of
$3 million reduces the costs to be shared by the Town of Wellington, Larimer County and the City
of Fort Collins to $9.5 million. Fort Collins'share is about $1.9 million. This will not require an
increase in Fort Collins stormwater rates nor significantly affect the 30 year stormwater program
build out.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-068AuthorizingExecution ofanlntergovernmentalAgreementEstablishing
the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority as a Separate Governmental Entity and
Approving the Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater Master Plan.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2008 Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code to Reflect
the Adoption of the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan.
As requested by City Council in 2004, City staff along with representatives from Lorimer County,
the Town of Wellington, and other agencies and interests, have prepared a proposed Boxelder
Regional Stormwater Master Plan. The same group also studied options for implementation and
is recommending a Regional Stormwater Authority.
Staff believes the proposed Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan will be beneficial to the
citizens of Fort Collins because it will protect the health, property, safety and welfare of the City;
the ecological health of Boxelder Creek will be enhanced; pollution will be reduced; and is cost
effective.
It is to the City's advantage to participate in the proposed regional authority because it makes
already cost effective improvements more economical by sharing costs; it avoids substantial public
infrastructure costs for road crossings; it equitably shares the cost between participating agencies;
it provides economic benefits by removing undeveloped lands with frontage along I-25 from the
f oodplain; and it provides the means to begin to solve stormwater problems in areas that will likely
be in the City limits in the future.
The interests ofthe City are protected by inclusion oflanguage to ensure a holistic approach toward
stormwater quality best management practices, stream stability, and habitat enhancement; by
M
July 15, 2008
inclusion of an impact fee to equitably recover costs from properties when they develop; and by
representation on the Authority Board to influence Authority direction.
BACKGROUND
PROPOSED BOXELDER REGIONAL STORMWA TER MASTER PLAN
In 2004, City Council adopted the stormwater basin master plan for the Boxelder basin west ofI--25.
A master plan for the portion of the basin east of I-25 was not adopted because of the need to
develop a regional approach with adjacent government agencies.
The City of Fort Collins, Lorimer County and the Town of Wellington, along with representatives
from the Colorado Department of Transportation, private property owners, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, the Boxelder Sanitation District and two irrigation and reservoir companies
formed a team known as the Boxelder Alliance to provide funding and direction for the development
of the regional master plan.
The Master Plan contains 512.5 million in regional flood control projects which benefit the Town
of Wellington, Larimer County, and the City of Fort Collins. These improvements would be funded
by the participating agencies. The characteristics of the Boxelder Basin, the history of the Basin,
the potential for damages, and the proposed improvements are summarized in the attached Proposed
2006 Boxelder Creek Stormwater Master Plan Summary. (See Attachment 1) Ofparticular interest
to City Council may be the fact that the proposed Master Plan only reduces flows in the overflow
area next to I-25; flood flows along historic Boxelder Creek south of County Road 54 are not
changed.
Intergovernmental Agreement for Stormwater Cooperation
Stormwater Authority
The proposed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the participating agencies would form
an Authority to jointly fund, build, own and operate the regional stormwater facilities in the
Boxelder Creek Basin.
County public improvement districts, county local improvement districts, municipal special
improvement districts, Title 32 special districts and a regional Stormwater authority were
researched as various ways to fund the improvements. The selected option was a regional
Stormwater Authority (Authority) supported by a monthly stormwaterfee and a plant investment fee.
A feasibility study was completed to determine each entity's appropriate share, the optimum level
for the Authority's average fees and the timing of the improvements in the basin.
Key provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement to form the Authority are:
The service area of the Authority is those lands tributary or contributing runoff to Boxelder
Creek
27
July 15, 2008
• The Authority would fund the design, construction and operation and maintenance of the
regional stormwater improvements.
• The Authority would be primarily a funding mechanism, not another significant layer of
government with multiple employees.
• Fort Collins would pay its share from existing stormwater utilityfees collected in the basin.
• Wellington and Lorimer County would enact new fees for their shares ofthe improvements.
• The Authority would be governed by a five member Board of Directors. Each Member
(County, Town and City) selects one Director. There are two unaffiliated Directors; one
selected jointly by the County and Town, and one selected jointly by the County and City.
At least one of these unaffiliated Directors shall not be employed by or be an elected official
of any Member. Each Director has one vote.
• The Authority can only be dissolved by unanimous vote ofthe Members, and only ifall debts
of the Authority have been paid or provided for.
• The Authority would cooperate and collaborate to improve stormwater quality and protect
and enhance Boxelder Creek
• An Authority Manager would be hired or the Authority would contract for services. The
Manager would likely be employed on apart -time basis and could bean employee of one of
the Members.
• The IGA sets a range of average monthly fees for developed properties and plant investment
fees for newly developing properties anticipated by the authority. Once proposed by the
Authority's board of directors, unanimous approval from participating jurisdictions would
be required to approve any changes to the range offees. The Directors have the authority
to set the fees within the range set in the IGA.
• Financial participation would be determined by each jurisdiction's developed area in the
basin. As annexation and development occur over time, participation by the jurisdictions
would change accordingly. Overall, it is estimated County properties would pay for
approximately 50116, Town of Wellington 30%, and the City of Fort Collins 20%. These
numbers could change slightly if Timnath extends its GMA north of Mulberry Street.
In order to estimate what each entity's overall share of the regional improvements would be, the
following table showing the current and projected future totals for each jurisdiction was prepared.
Jurisdiction
Current Area
Current (%)
Current with GMA Area
GMA (%)
Fort Collins
4,080 acres
12 %
6,198 acres
17.7 %
Wellington
1,811 acres
5 %
2,131 acres*
6 %
Timnath
1,685 acres**
4.8 %
Larimer County
29,182 acres
83 %
25,079 acres
71.5 %
* Estimate because Wellington's GMA is being developed at this time.
* * Includes the recently proposed GAM expansion north of Mulberry Street. Assumes Timnath
participation based on those lands tributary to Boxelder Creek north of Prospect Street per
the proposed IGA between Timnath and the County.
Larimer County and the Town of Wellington are scheduled to consider this item later in July, after
City Council consideration. At this time staff does not have the exact dates for these discussions.
July 15, 2008
City Council Work Session
City Council discussed this item at its May 27, 2008 Work Session. A summary of that discussion
is included in Attachment 2.
Council asked staffto recalculate the benefit/cost ratio using only benefits normally used by the City
(i.e., excluding certain indirect benefits.) With the recently revised cost estimate of $12.5 million
and using the City's standard method, the revised benefit to cost ratio for the entire basin is 1.48.
Council asked staff to ensure the Authority would use a common holistic approach toward
stormwater quality best management practices, stream stability, and habitat enhancement and
protection. The IGA includes language such that the creek is protected and enhanced as the master
plan is implemented. As feasible, projects will include the design ofpermanent natural habitat and
other natural features. Specifically, items considered would include the enhancement and
restoration of native vegetation, wildlife habitat, naturally meandering stream channel topography
and other similar natural features. Specifically targeted are the lowest quality reaches of the
stream, which will result in a more consistent stream from an ecological perspective. All
improvements of the Authority will be designed utilizing best management practices so as to
minimize the potential impacts to stream water quality.
Council asked staff to ensure the Authority would integrate the stormwater master plan with trails
and buffers along the creek corridor. The IGA provides that the Authority would cooperate and
collaborate with other governmental entities and property owners, to incorporate and to encourage
the design ofimprovements to provide for natural habitatpreservation and restoration, preservation
ofview sheds and aesthetic values, transportation connections, such as trails, and to advance other
compatible public purposes and uses.
Council asked staff to provide responses to comments by the Water Board, Natural Resources
Advisory Board and Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. Responses not covered elsewhere
in this Agenda Item Summary are covered in Attachment 3.
Public Outreach
The process of informingproperty owners located in the basin during the development of the master
plan began in early 2005 and continues today. A variety of communication tools such as customer
mailings, web pages, press releases, media interviews, public and one-on-one meetings, open
houses, and outreach to both internal and external groups were used.
During the development of the master plan, the Alliance met on a monthly basis. These meetings
were open to the public with many interested parties attending. Open houses were held and
newsletters were mailed to properties located in the basin throughout the development ofthe master
plan. Also, property owners and key entities did have a representative on the Alliance and were an
integral part in the development of the master plan.
29
July 15, 2008
A second phase of the outreach program is being initiated by Larimer County and the Town of
Wellington regarding the formation of their stormwater utilities.
City Boards and Commissions
The Water Board discussed this matter at its April 2008 and June 2008 meetings. Excerpts of the
Water Board's meeting minutes and a letter from the Board is included in this packet. (See
Attachment 4) The Natural Resources Advisory Board discussed this matter at its April and May
2007 meetings andpasseda recommendationfor adoption. A letter with the NaturalAreas Advisory
Board recommendation and excerpts of the Board's minutes are included in this packet. (See
Attachment 5) The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this item at its May 2007 work session,
expressing general support of the master plan. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
discussed this item at its May 2008 meeting and an excerpt of those minutes is included in this
packet. (See Attachment 6)
ITEMS TO CONSIDER REGARDING THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY
• Execution ofan IGA wouldformalize cooperation betweenjurisdictions andensure equitable
participation.
• To mitigate the flooding hazards on Boxelder Creek, it's more efficient to take a regional
approach.
• The IGA enables staff to initiate regional discussions on compatible public purposes and
uses such as, stormwater quality, natural resource protection and enhancement, and trails.
• Creation of an Authority creates an organization supported by multiple jurisdictions that
would be advantageous in the application ofgrants.
• The enactment offees by the County and Wellington enables their financial participation in
the improvements. The City of Fort Collins would not have to do it alone.
• Currently the City's share is relatively small compared to the others.
• Boxelder Creek has a long history of flooding. The master planned improvements reduce
flood damages on existing structures and removes the overtopping of roadways used by
property owners and emergency response vehicles.
• The master plan strives to achieve a balance between reducing flood damages and
maintaining the natural functions of Boxelder Creek.
• There will be economic benefits for removing undeveloped lands with frontage along 1-25
from the floodplain.
• After construction of the improvements, maintenance of the improvements will be shared.
• For the area south of Prospect, Timnath has declined to participate in the regional
improvements and is proceeding with the construction ofits own improvements. Timnath has
submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to the Countyfor review and
approval. The CLOMR is the first step in the federal process to ultimately revise the
federally designated FEMA floodplain map in Timnath.
• If Fort Collins chooses not to participate, the Countyplans to assign a FEMA-approved $3
million PDMgrant for Phase 1 of the Boxelder improvements to Wellington. The County
would then decline to participate in any future cooperative efforts in regard to stormwater
on Boxelder Creek. If this happens, it is anticipated Wellington would do the same. This
30
July 15, 2008
would result in the loss ofpartners for Fort Collins in regional stormwater cooperation both
strategically and financially.
If the other jurisdictions decide to continue efforts on Boxelder Creek and the City chooses
not to, then the City will lose its "place at the table " to participate in the discussions. "
Bob Smith, Water Planning and Development Manager, stated in 2004, Council requested staff
develop a Master Plan for Boxelder Creek. A regional improvements Plan has been developed that
will require $12.5 million to implement with the funding proposed to be provided jointly by the
Town of Wellington, the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County. Boxelder Creek is a basin
covering approximately 260 square miles. Boxelder Creek has a floodplain covering 5,000 square
miles and history of flooding that impacts multiple jurisdictions. The Master Plan improvements
are proposed in four key areas: a Clark Reservoir detention facility, Edson Detention Pond, middle
Boxelder Creek improvements and the Larimer and Weld Canal Crossing.
Larimer County has been approved for a FEMA pre -disaster mitigation grant of $3 million to help
fund these improvements. The $3 million grant includes a $1 million match with 50% provided by
Latimer County, 30%provided by Wellington and 20%provided by Fort Collins. The City's portion
of the match would be $200,000. Revenues are appropriated in the Boxelder Basin budget for the
match.
It could take ten years or more to finish the improvements, but when they are completed,
approximately 2500 acres of land will be removed from the floodplain. About 1400 acres of those
2500 acres is currently vacant, with 500 acres located within City limits or the Growth Management
Area. The improvements will remove 306 structures from the floodplain and road overtopping
designation from 33 road crossings.
Staff has determined that a Stormwater Authority is the most logical mechanism to fund the
proposed improvements. The proposed Stormwater Authority would be governed by a 5-member
board, one member appointed by each agency, one member appointed by the City and the County
and a member appointed by Wellington and the County. The Authority would be a financing
vehicle, not another layer of government and would foster the opportunity to apply for grants since
it would be a multiple -agency organization. It would have uniform fees and impact fees in the Basin.
Property in Fort Collins, Wellington or the County would all have the same fee. The
intergovernmental agreement would set a range on the rates and monthly and impact fees. The IGA
contains provisions for the protection and enhancement of the environmental features on Boxelder
Creek. Maintenance of the facilities is also addressed in the IGA.
Timnath has submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to the County for its own
project to build and address its floodplain needs. If the City does not participate in the IGA, the
County and Wellington will continue to pursue the grant. The County will decline to participate in
any stormwater programs on Boxelder Creek or with a stormwater authority that might be formed
to fund the remaining projects.
Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and Field Services Manager, stated participation in the Boxelder
IGA will provide a positive benefit to the citizens of Fort Collins. Protecting over 300 structures
from the threat of flooding and reducing or eliminating road overtopping on 33 road crossings will
31
July 15, 2008
protect the health and safety of citizens. A partnership with the other agencies will share the costs
and make the project more economically feasible. Road infrastructure costs will be reduced and the
Project would assist with economic development in the area.
Provisions have been added to the IGA that provide for the design of Authority projects to protect
and enhance environmental aspects of the projects. The IGA also contains the provision that the
Authority will collaborate with public agencies and private property owners to support preservation
of habitats, viewsheds and aesthetics and trails and transportation connections. Even though both
the City and County have a 100-foot buffer zone along Boxelder Creek, a trail could be located
within the buffer zone, provided it is compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the
natural habitat. The Master Plan does provide some protection for the riparian corridor as it will
eliminate the overflow but will maintain the flows within Boxelder Creek.
The City's interests have been protected in the IGA. Council would appoint one member to the
Authority's Board and jointly appoint another member with Larimer County. A range limit has been
placed on rates and fees. Member agency approval will be necessary to change the rate and fee limits
as well as to allow the Authority to issue debt. The costs of implementing the improvements to the
Basin will be shared by member agencies.
Lori Brunswig, 1901 Ridgewood Road, stated the Master Plan will cost considerably more than $12
million to implement and she asked for clarifications of the cost of the Plan.
Larry Noel, Mayor of Wellington, urged Council to approve the IGA and the Plan as it will be
beneficial to both Wellington and Fort Collins.
Marc Engemoen, Larimer County Public Works Director, expressed the County Commissioners'
support for the formation of the Boxelder Stormwater Authority as it will help to protect lives and
property.
Larry Lorentzen, Wellington Town Administrator, supported the regional effort to form a stormwater
authority and he stated Wellington has adopted the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan and
created a stormwater enterprise to collect stormwater fees. The Town Board will consider the IGA
next week.
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant, stated the Water Board voted against the proposed Master Plan
because current City stormwater fees would be funding this project that would remove developable
land from the floodplain along I-25 and not require future developers to pay the expense to meet the
City's floodplain regulations. Rising gas prices will keep citizens from driving long distances to
shop and will make any development along I-25 riskier. The Plan would subsidize I-25
development. He did not support the Master Plan or IGA.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, questioned the amount of staff time spent on this project. She
did not support the Plan.
32
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Brown asked if the City's stormwater fees will increase if this project moves
forward. Hibbard stated the project should not cause stormwater fees to increase, based on the
projected 25-year build -out.
Councilmember Brown asked about the consequences if the City does not approve the Plan or IGA.
Hibbard stated the County has informed staff that if the City chooses not to participate, the County
and Wellington would accept the $3 million FEMA grant and build the Clark reservoir project,
which is primarily beneficial to the Town of Wellington. The Town of Timnath is proceeding with
building its flood control improvements on the lower portion of the Basin, which will leave the
middle portion of the Basin, which is located in the City limits or in the GMA, for the City to fund
improvement projects on its own, at a cost much greater than the $1.2 million the City would
contribute with the proposed Plan.
Councilmember Brown asked ifAnheuser-Buschwas located in the floodplain in this area. Hibbard
answered in the negative.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the County would make any improvements to Edson Reservoir or
modifications to Boxelder Creek, which are located outside the City's GMA, if Council chooses not
to approve the Plan. Hibbard stated the County has indicated it will not make any of these
improvements. Much of the area currently in the County is also contained in the City's GMA and
will be annexed into the City at some point in time. Areas such as the commercial zone at I-25 and
Mulberry are located in the County and have severe stormwater problems. Establishing the
Authority now starts the funding stream in the County to help address those areas that may be
annexed into the City at a future date.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would happen to Wellington should the Plan not be approved
by Fort Collins and if staff would help Wellington if the Plan was not approved. Hibbard stated
Wellington would proceed with the County and improvements to Clark Reservoir would be made,
which would be beneficial to Wellington. The City has provided grant writing expertise with the
application to FEMA and that expertise has been beneficial to Wellington. Staff could provide some
expertise and guidance to Wellington but could not be involved in a major project unless it benefitted
Fort Collins.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what other projects would be approved with the adoption of the Plan.
Hibbard stated the Master Plan takes a comprehensive look at drainage improvements, including
sizing culvert crossings for all the roads and the total Master Plan includes the cost of those culverts.
Those costs are not typically paid out of the Stormwater Fund and might be projects that are never
built. In addition to the $12.5 million in regional improvements, the Plan includes costs for road
improvements that are part City, part County and part Wellington responsibilities that will be made
in the future. The Master Plan provides the criteria by which to size the culverts under those roads
at a total cost of approximately $10 million that are not necessarily being funded as a part of the
regional improvements. The overall Boxelder Master Plan restated some of the costs associated with
Boxelder Creek at Prospect Road which is in the City limits and contained in the 2004 Master Plan.
The consultant included those costs in the proposed Master Plan to make the Plan a basin -wide
model. The improvements to Boxelder at Prospect Road have already been approved as a part of the
2004 Master Plan. The IGA addresses the $12.5 million in regional improvements.
33
July 15, 2008
Mayor Hutchinson noted approval of the Master Plan is not the same as appropriating the funds for
all the improvements listed in the Plan. The proposed IGA focuses on a part of the Master Plan.
Hibbard stated the Master Plan will contain statements indicating there are other projects that should
be addressed, if development proceeds in the area.
Councilmember Manvel asked why a copy of the Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater Master Plan
was not included with the Resolution. Smith stated the Master Plan examines a system as a whole,
from one end of the basin to the other, from Clark Reservoir to the Poudre River under 1-25 and
Prospect. All the improvements west of I-25 have already been approved as part of the 2004 Master
Plan, including stability and erosion control along Boxelder Creek and improvements to Prospect
and Mulberry. The proposed improvements are those determined to have a regional benefit, at a cost
of $12.5 million, and relate to reducing the flows for the members of the Authority. The focus is the
regional Master Plan associated with the IGA.
Councilmember Manvel asked what would happen if Council did not approve the Master Plan.
Smith stated approval of the IGA needs to include approval of the Regional Master Plan, which
contains $12.5 million in improvements.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if CSU had reviewed the proposed Plan. Hibbard stated CSU has not
reviewed the Plan as it is in Master Plan form. When the design stage of the project is reached and
decisions need to be made as to the specific type of best management practices to be used, whether
creation of wetlands or restoration of the creek, staff could ask CSU to review the design. The
Master Plan contains two items not included in the $12.5 million: $10.1 million for improvements
at Prospect and Boxelder Creek as it was already approved in the 2004 Master Plan and $9.6 million
for various roadway crossings in the Basin.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if using stormwater funds for these improvements would benefit and
subsidize landowners and developers without requiring them to pay their fair share as removal of
their land from the floodplain will increase the value of that land. Hibbard.stated vacant property
does not pay stormwater fees. When a property is developed, an impact fee is paid by the
development that covers the cost of a portion of the improvements previously made and paid for by
the rate payers. The development then pays its share of the rates, along with all the other rate payers
so that the development stays current.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the impact fee was the same, regardless of where a property is
located. Hibbard stated the fee is the same as everyone shares in the responsibility for the mediation
of flood waters. In this Basin, the floodplains were widened in 2001 when the rainfall standard was
changed which devalued many properties. Smith stated the fees in City Code are based on the
amount of runoff or the demand a property places on the system. There is no difference in fees based
on zoning or other criteria.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for clarification of the goals and policy used for the planning of the Master
Plan. Hibbard stated the policy is to protect the health, safety and property of the citizens of Fort
Collins. All Master Plans recommend projects that should be built based upon the benefits to
existing structures. These projects do take vacant land out of a floodplain, but that is not the reason
the improvements are proposed. The impact fee was put into place to balance the potential inequity
9M
July 15, 2008
of someone getting "a free ride" based upon projects that previous rate payers have paid for. The
impact fee is also based on the imperviousness of a development to ensure it is paying for the
demands being placed on the system.
Mayor Hutchinson noted taking land out of the floodplain is a secondary benefit from these
improvements but the policy is structured so that development is not subsidized. Hibbard stated
policy would need to be changed if the City wanted to charge more for people who own property in
floodplains. The impact fee was designed to ensure that development paid its fair share and was not
subsidized.
Councilmember Manvel asked what other major stormwater projects are being planned. Hibbard
stated the Old Town Basin and the Canal Importation Basin are the most capital intensive.
Upcoming projects in the Old Town Basin include projects through the Old Town area west to
LaPorte and Shields. The Canal Importation Basin currently has the Red Fox Meadows project
underway and another $20-$30 million in projects are left to be built in that Basin. Old Town Basin
and the Canal Importation Basin were essentially built out before the advent of the modern
stormwater system and are the basins that need the most improvements.
Councilmember Manvel asked what the consequences would be if the fee policy for stormwater fees
was reconsidered. Hibbard stated a large amount of funding for projects could be affected if the fee
policy were changed. If the goal is to make stormwater fees less expensive, there are options
available such as adopting a lower level of protection. The current Policy is that a project is included
in the Master Plan if it will save money for citizens in the long run.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the benefits provided by these improvements were calculated.
Hibbard stated the benefit to cost ratio of 1:48 was the benefit for the entire project, not just for Fort
Collins. All the projects work together to produce the final outcome. The calculations were based
on the cost of damages caused by a 100-year flood, the damages caused by a 50-year flood, the
damages caused by a 25-year flood, combining them with probability analysis, annualize that statistic
and compare to present worth. The calculation does not take into account any increased value of
land or loss of life.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the fee policy can be changed at a later date and the planning for this
Master Plan was done in accordance with current policy. Hibbard stated this plan is in compliance
with current policies.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for the benefits of proceeding with the Regional Stormwater Authority.
Hibbard stated regional cooperation will ensure each party pays its fair share of the improvements.
It is a major milestone to have two other jurisdictions to partner with this project and to address these
regional improvements, as well as other improvements such Mulberry and I-25. This regional
cooperation will make it easier for the City to annex areas in the GMA that have already had these
stormwater improvements added so the City will not have to pay for those improvements at a later
date.
Councilmember Roy stated the IGA has strict guidelines regarding changes and it will be difficult
for Fort Collins to leave the Regional Stormwater Authority at a later date, if it chose to do so. He
35
July 15, 2008
asked for the total cost of executing the entire Master Plan by the Authority. Smith stated the cost
is $12.5 million for the regional components. Hibbard stated the Plan does restate improvement
projects contained in the 2004 Master Plan at Boxelder Creek and Prospect. The Regional Authority
will not pay for those improvements as that area is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City of Fort
Collins and benefits only the City. The Town of Wellington is establishing a stormwater utility that
will pay for some of the regional components but will also cover costs for projects that will benefit
only Wellington.
Councilmember Roy asked if the Regional Authority would have the ability to make all the
improvements listed in the Plan, including those improvements that are also included in the 2004
Master Plan. Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Authority is being charged with
implementing the Master Plan, in accordance with the Master Plan, which clearly identifies the
improvements that are considered regional improvements. The Plan also identifies improvements
that will be undertaken by individual jurisdictions.
Councilmember Roy asked if a monetary value was assigned to any loss of riparian area with the
removal of land from the floodplain. Hibbard answered in the negative.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the improvements would not change any of the creek flows within
Boxelder Creek but the floodplain changes would be made in areas that are dry, except during a 50
or 100-year flood. There will not be any change to riparian habitat. Hibbard stated the flows in
Boxelder Creek through the central part of the Basin, as it relates to the City's GMA primarily, will
stay the same. Staff did ecological assessments along the Creek and discovered that the locations
where the improvements will occur are in portions of the Creek that have been impacted greatly by
people. Implementing these projects will raise the quality of the Creek so it is a more consistent
stream from beginning to end. In some areas there could be minor loss of riparian habitat but other
areas will have the habitat enhanced.
Councilmember Roy asked how many homes and structures in the Basin are eligible for flood
insurance. Smith stated all homes are eligible for flood insurance, whether or not they are located
in a floodplain. It was not known how many structures in the area have flood insurance.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Troxell asked for information about the Boxelder Alliance and stated many areas
of expertise were represented on the Alliance and the relationships built in that group were valuable
in regional cooperation to solve the stormwater issues. Smith stated the Alliance, composed of 10
different agencies and interests, helped direct the development of a master plan and looked at
strategies to fund the improvements.
Councilmember Troxell noted without regional cooperation the projects could be completed but
would occur in a haphazard manner. Smith stated each site would have to comply with floodplain
regulations but could still proceed individually.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, adopt Resolution
2008-068.
36
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated the cost benefit analysis should have included the cost of damage to
ecological systems. The proposed improvements did not use 21 st century methods to tame natural,
healthy ecological processes such as flooding. Trails should not be placed in a buffer zone located
around the Creek. He did not support the Plan.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Alliance and City staff followed long-standing City policies in
developing the Master Plan.
Councilmember Roy stated his concernwith the organization and governance of the Boxelder Basin
Regional Stormwater Authority. Any amendments to the Plan take a unanimous vote of all the
entities involved in the agreement, which would be difficult to accomplish. Authorizing the creation
of the Authority is creating a separate governmental entity and removes the ability to make policy
and ownership of the projects from Council.
Councilmember Troxell stated protection of life and property is important and the proposed
stormwater improvements will accomplish that goal. A regional solution will benefit all and will
be a good use of public funds.
Councilmember Manvel stated the current stormwater policy was the basis for the development of
the proposed Plan. The current policy should be reevaluated at a later date. He asked for a revision
to the Plan to make it clear the only projects financed under the Plan are the regional improvements
and not the additional improvements in the City. Daggett stated there is agreement among the
members in the Authority to add a provision to Section 5.01 to clarify that the Regional Authority
will only have the authority to collect rates, fees and charges will be only for funding regional
improvements as described in the Plan.
Councilmember Brown stated Boxelder Creek floods, takes lives, destroys property, washes out
roads and causes millions of dollars in damage. The proposed improvements will fix those problems
for a small amount of funds instead of delaying those improvements to a later date and spending
more money.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Regional Authority is a funding mechanism and does not set policy.
It is a regional partnership that protects the City's interests and it is to the advantage of the City to
participate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, and Troxell. Nays:
Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 089 on First Reading. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, and Troxell. Nays: Poppaw,
and Roy.
37
July 15, 2008
Meeting Extended
City Manager Atteberry stated consideration of the Metropolitan District Service Plans is time -
sensitive and needs to be considered at this time. If a Metro District Policy is adopted, there are two
projects, one on Harmony and one on Mulberry, that are anticipated to pursue a Metro District.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to suspend the rules and
extend the meeting. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2008-069
Adopting a Policy Concerning the Approval of
Metropolitan District Service Plans Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
There is no direct financial impact to the City when a Metropolitan District is formed to finance and
install public infrastructure related to a development project. The financial impact is to theproperty
owners within the Metropolitan District who pay a property tax to the District to pay for the
infrastructure construction related to the development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council is being asked to consider adopting a policy regarding the formation of
Metropolitan Districts. Metropolitan Districts are a common tool used in Colorado to assist in
financing significant infrastructure related to developing property. In the past, the City of Fort
Collins has not encouraged the use of Districts. Recently, the City has been asked to consider the
use of Districts and staffhas drafted a proposed policy on their use and presented the Policy to the
Council Finance Committee and the entire City Council in a work session. The City's proposed
Policy includes a variety of proposed restrictions on the use of Metropolitan Districts that are
outlined in the Agenda Item Summary and Resolution 2008-069.
BACKGROUND
Overview of Metropolitan Districts
A Metropolitan District is a type ofspecial district authorized by Title 32 of the Colorado Revised
Statutes. Special districts authorized by Title 32 are quasi -municipal corporation and are political
subdivision of the State of Colorado. They are able to issue tax-exempt financing to finance a
portion of the total cost of public infrastructure and may also own, operate and maintain public
improvements and facilities.
W
July 15, 2008
As of Apri12008, the number of Title 32 Districts within the State of Colorado totaled 1, 698.
Within the total there are the following types:
Metropolitan Districts
1,052
Water or Sanitation Districts or Both
277
Fire Protection Districts
126
All Others (Parks and Recreation, Health Services, etc.)
243
Total of Title 32 Districts in the State 1,698
Metro Districts are the most common type of Title 32 District within the State of Colorado,
commonly used in both residential and commercial developments in other communities. In Northern
Colorado all the larger cities allow for Metropolitan Districts. The City of Boulder is the only city
that staff could identify in the state that does not allow metro districts.
A Metropolitan District isformed once a "service plan "is submitted to and approved by the
jurisdiction in which the property is located. The Service Plan is similar to a City Charter
or State Constitution in that it outlines the purpose of the Metropolitan District and its
functions and powers.
The service plan is submitted to the government agency within which the development is
proposed.
The service plan is the essence of the Metropolitan District. It outlines key points such as:
• A description of the capital improvements to be constructed and/or funded.
• A map of the District's boundaries.
• An estimate of population and valuation for assessment purposes.
• A financial plan showing how improvements and/or services will be financed.
• A preliminary schedule showing when debt will be issued.
It is very important that the service plan reflect the policy goals and objectives ofthe City. The City
Council is the deciding body regarding whether a service plan meets the City's policy goals and
objectives — the City Council has the sole discretion to approve or not approve a service plan.
A Metropolitan District is a government entity recognized under Colorado law. It has a Board of
Directors that meet on a regular basis and the District will often hire staff (usually a professional
management company, general counsel and finance personnel). The Board of Directors are
publicly accountable and must conduct open meetings with proper notice given to the public and
must maintain minutes of all meetings.
A Metropolitan District Board must:
adopt an annual budget at a public hearing.
39
July 15, 2008
complete an annual audit by June 30th.
file an annual report to the City that includes information on the progress of the District in
implementing the service plan.
The main purpose of a Metropolitan District is to fund infrastructure that facilitates the overall
development which typically includes the following types of improvements:
• Street Improvements
• Stormwater Improvements
• Transportation Improvements
• Parks and Recreation Improvements
• Water Improvements
• Sanitary Sewer Improvements
• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) for above items
Once the District has been formed and service plan is approved, the District may issue tax-exempt
bonds, to be repaid by the mill levy and the full faith and credit of the District. This would be
similar to debt that the City may issue that is backed by general obligation property taxes.
Recommended Fort Collins Policies Relating to Metro Districts
Historically, the City of Fort Collins has not encouraged the formation of Metropolitan Districts.
The use of Metropolitan Districts has grown statewide from 295 in 1999 to 1052 in 2008, and now
nearly all Front Range municipalities allow for their formation. Fort Collins is the only
municipality in Northern Colorado that does not allow Metropolitan Districts, which puts the City
at a disadvantage in a competitive marketplace. Staffbelieves that Metropolitan Districts are an
appropriate tool to offer developers with certain provisions being put in place that are described
later in this agenda item summary.
Metropolitan Districts allowfor the developer to publiclyfinance significant infrastructure related
to the development of an overall project. The developer is then allowed through the District to pay
for those improvements over time through the District's assessment ofa property tax that generally
lasts for 20 to 25 years, or until the debt is repaid. The City is not involved in the financing of the
infrastructure, the burden to repay the debt falls with the property owners in the District area. No
liabilityfor making payments falls to anyone outside the District and therefore there is not liability
for the City or other residents outside the District.
Metropolitan Districts are very common in the development community. They allow a developer to
finance significant infrastructure costs and amortize the cost over time, with future property owners
and tenants paying the cost. In a project that did not include the formation of a Metropolitan
District, the developer has to secure private financing for infrastructure improvements. The
Developer then spreads that cost over the development through the sale of raw or developed land
and/or through lease/rents.
m
July 15, 2008
There are potential downsides to allowing Metropolitan Districts. These include having multiple
governmental entities within the City, and the potential loss oftax revenues to the State of Colorado
and Federal Governments. However, staff sees more positives in allowing Metropolitan Districts
than in continuing to discourage their formation. Staff is recommending that the City Council
consider imposing several policies that would limit the usage of Metropolitan Districts. The
proposed policies are summarized as follows:
Metropolitan Districts should be allowed for projects that are mostly commercial, with the
exception of mixed use projects, where it is recommended that halfthe assessed value ofthe
project must come from the commercial component of the project. Staff's recommendation
is to focus the use of Metropolitan Districts on commercial projects which is consistent with
the City's attention to sustaining and growing primary employment and encouraging major
retail center redevelopment and development.
Metropolitan District funds could be used to payfor significant inf •astructure improvements
such as:
• Major arterial, and arterial roadways
• Regional stormwater improvements
• Regional water/wastewater improvements
• Public/private improvements such as open space, regional trail connections
The intent ofthe Metropolitan District is to help f nance major infrastructure thatfacilitates
an overall commercial or mixed use project not to take the place of all typical developer
required infastructure improvements.
3. Metropolitan Districtfunds can be usedforpayingfor enhancements or improvements above
City requirements:
Public amenities
Landscaping
Other projects that the City may deem to be important
Often times, a commercial developer will voluntarily propose enhancements that are above
and beyond City requirements. It is advantageous to the developer to allow them to finance
these enhancements through the Metropolitan District and advantageous to the City in that
the overall quality of the development is enhanced.
4. An overall cap on the Metropolitan District of40 mills would be established. Staffbelieves
it is important to limit the overall tax liability to future property owners and tenants within
the Metropolitan District. A 40 mills cap is sufficient to allow the District to finance
significant infrastructure while also limiting the tax liability. It is recommended that the
Metropolitan District Board decide how much of the overall cap to allocate to operations
and maintenance versus the repayment of debt, as long as the 40 mills cap is not exceeded.
41
July 15, 2008
5. The Metropolitan District would have an overall time limit of 40 years. Given that the
purpose of the District is to finance significant infrastructure, it makes sense to then limit
how long the Metropolitan District can be in place. Given that most Districts will finance
their debt over 20 to 25 years and that debt it generally issued 3-5 years following the
formation of the District, 45 years is sufficient time for the District. It is further
recommended that the time limitfor the Metropolitan District would start upon the adoption
of the Service Plan."
City Manager Atteberry stated it is expected that two projects will come forward for a November
election if a Metro District Policy is adopted. One project would be in the Harmony corridor and
the other would be in the Mulberry/Timberline area. An election would be necessary and would be
held in November. Information concerning the Districts and their service plans must be submitted
to the County Clerk's office in a timely fashion. This resolution will adopt the Policy and the two
projects are separate issues not under consideration by Council at this time.
Mike Freeman, Chief Financial Officer, stated the purpose of a Metro District is to fund commercial
development and associated infrastructure. A question was raised by the Finance Committee as to
how a Metro District might apply to a mixed -use development which would include housing. One
of the challenges with the Metro District Policy is that a variety of potential policy questions could
arise with different developments that the Policy could not address. Staff is proposing a revision to
the Policy that would limit mixed -use projects to those that are predominantly commercial with
minimal residential housing. Each Service Plan will be approved on a case -by -case basis by Council.
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant, opposed the Metro District Policy concept as it privatizes profit
and socializes cost. The City of Boulder does not allow metro districts as the districts are quasi -
governmental taxing, bonding, zoning authorities within the City that can be odds with the City. The
District's elected Boards are not as accountable to the public. Metro districts allow private
developers on private property to issue tax-exempt bonds that gives private development the same
tax breaks as not -for -profit organizations.
Rich Shannon, Pinnacle Consulting, stated he has worked with metropolitan districts for ten years
and problems associated with a metro district are the exception, rather than the rule. Over 1000
metro districts have been formed and many cities use them to support public policy goals. He
encouraged Council to adopt the Metro District Policy with specific guidelines for the development
community. Offering the tool of metro districts as a finance mechanism to fund expensive infill
development would provide a great benefit to the City.
Marcus McCaskin, attorney, Grimshaw & Herring Law Firm, stated his firm represents many metro
districts in the State. The proposed Policy sets the framework for how the districts will be handled
in the City. He was available to answer any general questions regarding metro districts.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed the Metro District Policy as it will not help the City and
will subsidize private development.
42
July 15, 2008
City Attorney Roy stated the Policy has been revised in Section D to read "all Districts and all
persons or entities developing property within a District must comply with all provisions of the City
Code and Land Use Code and all related standards." Section E has been revised to add "However,
mixed use proposals may be considered on a case by case basis." The proposed revision to Section
E is an attempt to address the concern that was expressed about mixed -use not being defined or being
defined in the wrong way but the idea is to address a mixed -use proposal on a case -by -case basis.
Section F (2) has been revised to add "by way of example, Metro District funds could be used to pay
for essential infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to the following: (a) major
arterial, and arterial roadways; (b) regional stormwater improvements; (c) regional water/wastewater
improvements; and (d) public/private improvements such as open space and regional trail
connections." This revision provides an illustration of the kinds of situation where a metro district
may be acceptable and to answer the concern of using a metro district to fund basic infrastructure
instead of using them to fund infrastructure that is more regional in nature that would not necessarily
be required of the developer.
Councilmember Ohlson stated a metro district is not to be used to fund the normal expenditures that
developers would usually pay for developments such as residential streets and stormwater but was
to be used for issues that are above and beyond those normal expenditures. He asked if the Policy
was "ironclad" about that intent.
Mayor Hutchinson noted a metro district would be an instrument to build better and enhanced
infrastructure. He asked for language to clarify that a metro district is not for basic infrastructure
improvements. City Attorney Roy suggested language that would read in Section F.1: "Formation
of a District will not be favorably received if the District will be used to fund basic infrastructure
requirements normally required of developers." Mayor Hutchinson suggested a revision to Section
F.2: "not to pay for essential infrastructure improvements but to pay for infrastructure enhancements
above basic improvements."
Councilmember Manvel stated the proposed addition of Section F.2 was not necessary.
Councilmember Ohlson asked how difficult it was to revise the Policy. City Attorney Roy stated the
Policy is a guide only and nothing in the Policy is intended to limit the discretion of the Council
which retains full authority regarding the terms and limitations of all District Service Plans. The
Policy is not legally binding and Council has the discretion, on a case -by -case basis, to approve or
disapprove a particular proposal. If Council determines the Policy does not operate in a manner
Council desires, it can amend the Policy.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the Finance Committee was clear that a metro district was not to be
used for residential development. In the past, metro districts have been used for residential
development with disastrous results.
Councilmember Manvel suggested changing Section E to read "....Predominantly commercial as
used in the Policy shall mean that the assess value derived from non-residential usage is no less than
90% of the assessed value of the project." With the constraints of the Gallagher Amendment, this
would mean a mixed -use proposal would be 75% commercial and 25% residential. He also
43
July 15, 2008
suggested adding "Special circumstances and special cause must be demonstrated for exceptions to
be granted" to the end of Section E. City Manager Atteberry stated those changes would be
workable.
Councilmember Manvel asked Mr. Shannon to comment on the proposed change to the Policy. Mr.
Shannon stated the change should be fine as it does send a message that Council will allow the use
of metro districts on a conservative basis. The Policy does allow Council the discretion to make
exceptions when a project is presented that Council likes and adds significantly to the community.
The 90% figure may not mean much to the development community. City Manager Atteberry noted
the figure is helpful to staff and does express Council's desire to focus on commercial development.
Staff would discourage a developer from bringing a residential proposal to Council for a metro
district.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the Policy is primarily in support of commercial development as use of
metro districts for residential development has caused many problems in other places in the past.
Meeting Extended
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown to suspend the rules
and extend the meeting past midnight.
Councilmember Poppaw objected to continuing the discussion on metro districts at such a late hour
as citizens who may have wanted to comment on the topic have already gone home.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the Metro District Policy was a time -sensitive issue and should soon
be completed. He supported continuing the discussion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy asked for citizen input.
Nancy York, asked about the consequences to Fort Collins citizens if a project that is financed by
a metro district is not completed.
Gary Wockner, stated allowing metro districts is a huge decision that will affect how the city grows
and develops for a long time. He did not approve of changing the language in the Policy without
more consideration and he did not think the discussion should continue past midnight.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what the consequences would be if the Policy were not adopted and
the two proposed projects did not make the November election. Freeman stated the impact to the
City will not be terrible but staff has been working for months to craft a policy that would work for
M,
July 15, 2008
Council and allow the two proposed projects to place a metro district proposal on the ballot for
November.
Councilmember Ohlson noted there is a cost to establishing a metro district and he asked for more
clarity in the future about the costs of establishing metro districts and URAs and who will benefit
from the formation of these financial plans.
Mayor Hutchinson stated information about who benefits and who pays for a metro district will be
presented when each proposal is considered under the Metro Policy. The resolution under
consideration sets a policy to allow Council to formally consider metro districts but does not
approve specific metro districts. City Manager Atteberry stated information on individual projects
will include specifics as to benefits and costs of the project. Adoption of this Policy preserves a tool
to be used by an applicant with a proposed development that Council can take under consideration
and decide whether the proposed project is beneficial to the city.
Councilmember Poppaw asked for specific information requested by Council to be provided in a
more timely manner. She asked how a dispute between the City and the board of a metro district
would be resolved and if Council will have any jurisdiction over the Board. Freeman stated a metro
district is a separate governmental entity under State law. The purpose of a metro district is set in
the service plan and the proposed Policy states the purpose of the district will be limited to only
building infrastructure for commercial projects. The powers of the district are approved by Council
when the district is formed. It the district acts outside the bounds of its service plan, the City would
have recourse against it. If the district does what is stated in the service plan that was approved by
Council, no other recourse is available.
Councilmember Poppaw questioned the language in the Policy which states "special circumstances
and special cause must be demonstrated for exceptions to be granted" and she asked if the Policy
could be amended by future Councils. She believed the definition of "predominantly commercial"
as no less than 90% of the assessed value could be changed under "special circumstances." City
Manager Atteberry stated future Councils have the ability to amend any policy a Council adopts.
The language does allow some flexibility and consideration of a project that is special and unique
that could be brought before Council. A project that utilizes a metro district might also look at other
options for financing infrastructure improvements. Council will have the ability to decide if using
a metro district is an appropriate tool for a proposed project.
Councilmember Ohlson stated a Metro District Policy should be put in place to see how it works.
Amendments can be made to the Policy at a later date. He requested specific information on each
project about the costs to the state and federal governments when a metro district is put in place. He
did not agree with allowing a development to have 25% residential, as would be allowed with the
proposed amendment, as that could become disastrous with those households having tax rates that
are three times higher than the rest of the residential property in For Collins. Any fine-tuning of the
Policy can be done later.
Councilmember Roy stated a metro district would be in existence for 40 years and could not be
dissolved, once it was put into place.
45
July 15, 2008
Councilmember Manvel asked for an explanation of "multiple -district structures" and the statement
"it is the intent of the City that citizen/resident control of Districts is encouraged to occur as early
as possible." Freeman stated situations could occur where a project is phased in and the timing of
those phases would create multiple districts. Approval of multiple districts would have to be
approved in the service plan and by Council. When districts are first formed, they are generally run
by the developers as there are no tenants. In a multiple -district scenario, the idea is for the tenants
and/or citizens, if some residential is included, to take control of the district and make decisions.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2008-069, as amended.
Councilmember Poppaw stated not enough time has been allowed for consideration of the proposed
Policy, with amendments.
Councilmember Roy stated the there could be a large, long term impact of establishing metro
districts, and not enough time has been given for consideration of the proposed Policy.
Councilmember Ohlson stated Council has great control over the formation of metro districts as the
Policy requires individual projects receive Council approval before a metro district can be formed.
He did not believe having more time to consider the proposed Policy would result in a substantially
better Policy than the one that is proposed. City Manager Atteberry stated he would conduct a
review of the process to bring proposed policies before Council to ensure Council has enough time
for consideration.
Councilmember Roy stated the Metro District Policy creates the ability to have different entities that
are run by people not elected by the citizens of Fort Collins.
Councilmember Ohlson noted all City rules, regulations, design standards, and development process
will be in place for a project requesting establishment of a metro district. He asked what powers a
metro district board would have. City Manager Atteberry stated all Land Use Code provisions and
the development process must be followed for each project. Freeman stated the only authority
granted to a metro district board is to finance infrastructure projects for a certain period of time,
limited to 40 years, with an assessed mill levy that will has a cap.
Councilmember Roy asked how citizens could seek relief if the metro district does not work.
Freeman stated the purpose of the district was to finance infrastructure. Problems could arise if the
project was not built and there was difficulty in repaying the debt issued to build the infrastructure,
and the property owners would need to handle the situation through the district. Having Council
only consider projects that are legitimate projects that have gone through conceptual review and
have an infrastructure plan, is in the Metro District Plan to minimize any potential long-term
problems.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, and Troxell.
Nays: Poppaw, Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
m
July 15, 2008
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to cancel the regular
meeting of August 5, 2008, for National Neighborhood Night Out. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson,
Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel to adjourn the meeting
to 6:00 p.m., August 12, 2008 for apre-application hearing for Loveland Commercial, North College
and Willox. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Mayor
ATTEST: �p
City Clerk
47