HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/05/2019 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Kristin Stephens, District 4, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Julie Pignataro, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Emily Gorgol, District 6 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
Regular Meeting
November 5, 2019
Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen
Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such
materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than
two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented.
NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to
election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which
the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and
activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call
221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Proclamations and Presentations
5:15 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring November 2019 as Native American Month.
B. Proclamation Declaring November 16-24, 2019, as Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week.
C. Proclamation Declaring November 2019 as Transgender Acceptance Month.
D. Proclamation Declaring November 30, 2019, as Small Business Saturday.
E. Proclamation Declaring November 4-10, 2019, as Drone Safety Awareness Week.
F. Proclamation Declaring November 4-8, 2019, as Law Enforcement Records and Evidence
Personnel Week.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
• CALL MEETING TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar
and considered separately.
o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion Items.
o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion Items.
• PUBLIC COMMENT
Individuals may comment regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar and items not
specifically scheduled on the agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development
application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to the
Council.
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the table in the lobby (for recordkeeping
purposes).
• All speakers will be asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand,
and then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for
those who are not able to stand while waiting).
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and to
keep comments brief. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be
provided to the City Clerk.
• A timer will beep once and the timer light will turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of
speaking time remain, and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has
ended.
[**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development,
citizens should consult the Development Review Center page on the City’s website at
fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 221-6750.]
• PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
City of Fort Collins Page 3
Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the
important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone
may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered
separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under
Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by City Council with
one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of:
● Ordinances on First Reading that are routine;
● Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine;
● Those of no perceived controversy;
● Routine administrative actions.
If the presiding officer determines that the number of items pulled from the Consent Calendar by
citizens is substantial and may impair the Council’s ability to complete the planned agenda, the
presiding officer may declare that the following process will be used to simplify consideration of the
Citizen-Pulled Consent Items:
(1) All citizen-pulled items (to be listed by number) will be considered as a group under the heading
“Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.”
(2) At that time, each citizen wishing to speak will be given a single chance to speak about any and all
of the items that have been moved to that part of the agenda.
(3) After the citizen comments, any Councilmember may specify items from the list of Citizen-Pulled
Consent Items for Council to discuss and vote on individually. Excluding those specified items, Council
will then adopt all “Citizen-Pulled Consent Items” as a block, by a single motion, second and vote.
(4) Any Citizen-Pulled Consent Items that a Councilmember has asked to be considered individually
will then be considered using the regular process for considering discussion items.
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 1, 2019 Regular Council Meeting and the
October 8, 2019 Adjourned Council Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 1, 2019 regular Council meeting
and the October 8, 2019 adjourned Council meeting.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2019, Adopting the 2020 Budget and Appropriating the Fort
Collins Share of the 2020 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvements Funds for the Northern
Colorado Regional Airport.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, adopts the 2020
budget for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport and appropriate Fort Collins’ share of the 2020
fiscal year operating and capital funds for the Airport. The City’s 50% share of the 2020 Airport
operating budget is $646,445 and 50% share of the 2020 capital budget is $740,500, for a total City
appropriation of $1,386,945.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2019, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year
2020 and Fixing Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2020.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, sets the 2020
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Budget.
The following amounts will be appropriated:
City of Fort Collins Page 4
DDA Public/Private Investments and Programs $3,918,409
DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 959,165
Revolving Line of Credit Draws $6,400,000
DDA Debt Service Fund $8,256,548
The Ordinance sets the 2020 mill levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax
year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority's financial plan for
2020.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2019, Making Appropriations and Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations for the Spring Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project and Related Art in Public Places.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, appropriates $656,500
from the Wastewater Fund cash reserves to replace of a section of sewer main that is at risk of
imminent failure. On July 14, 2019, a section of the Spring Creek Trunk Sewer, located between
Stover and Ukiah Lane, collapsed and needed an emergency repair on a 20-foot section of the
pipeline. Subsequent televising of the rest of the 500-foot section of pipeline has found that it is
structurally compromised and should be replaced. In addition, significant longitudinal cracks were
found in the 100-foot section of pipe just downstream. This section of pipe is the original 24-inch
clay. Staff is recommending lining this section of pipe at the same time. This appropriation will allow
for these sections of pipe to be replaced this winter rather than through the next budget cycle in
2021.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Related to Water, Wastewater and Electric Rates, Fees, and Charges Applied Under an
Income-Qualified Assistance Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, amends Section 26-
724 of City Code, Chapter 26, pertaining to Utility Services to provide inclusivity for low-income
customers, focusing on qualification criteria and program descriptions.
6. Items Relating to 2020 Utility Rates.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Revise Water Rates, Fees and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Revise Stormwater Rates, Fees and Charges.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, adjust monthly
charges for electric, water, wastewater, and storm water services in 2020. The revenue
requirements to support the 2020 budget will require increasing monthly charges for electric service
by 5.0% and stormwater service by 2.0%. While there is no overall percentage increase planned for
the Water or Wastewater Funds, there are minor rate class adjustments proposed based on recent
cost-of-service model updates. Upon adoption, these rates would be effective January 1, 2020.
City of Fort Collins Page 5
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2019, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to
the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2020 and Ending December 31, 2020; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Property
Taxes Payable in 2020.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, amends the adopted
2020 Budget and sets the amount of $632,403,387 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2020. This
appropriated amount does not include what is also being appropriated by separate Council/Board of
Director actions to adopt the 2020 budgets for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of
$352,000, the 2020 budget for GID No. 15 (Skyview) of $1,000, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
2020 budget of $5,952,249 and the Downtown Development Authority 2020 budget of $19,534,122.
The sum of these ordinances results in City-related total appropriations of $658,242,758 in 2020.
This Ordinance also sets the 2020 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
8. Items Relating to the 2019 Fee Update.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2019, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Implement the Phase III Increases for the Capital Expansion Fees and Increase for
Inflation the Capital Expansion Fees and the Transportation Expansion Fee.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding Calculation and Collection of Development Fees Imposed for the Construction
of New or Modified Electric Service Connections.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise the Water Supply Requirements Fee.
The purpose of this item is to review fee updates associated with Electric Capacity Fees, Water
Supply Requirement Fees, Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Step III of the 2017 Capital
Expansion Fees (CEFs). Fee updates have been reviewed by Council Finance Committee twice, and
at the November 8th Council Work Session Council was fully supportive of brining fees forward for
Council adoption. Staff met with nine organizations across the City in the summer of 2019 and
overall organizations were supportive of the approach and cadence.
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total cost
impact. Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the 2019 fee
update, fee phasing will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in
2021.
Development Review/Building Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have
been decoupled and will come forward once finalized.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Clarify the Application of Certain Water-Related Fees to Different Forms of Fraternity and
Sorority Housing.
The purpose of this item is to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to clarify the application of certain
water-related fees to different forms of fraternity and sorority housing.
City of Fort Collins Page 6
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2019, Authorizing the City's Conveyance of Land to Facilitate
the Replatting of the Lot on which the City's Foothills Activity Center is Located.
This item approves the exchange of deeds between the City, the developer of the Foothills Mall (the
“Mall”) and the owner of the Macy’s store in the Mall. This exchange of deeds is needed to replat the
lot on which the City’s Foothills Activity Center (the “FAC”) is now located to eliminate small
encroachments that currently exist between the City’s FAC lot and adjacent properties owned by the
Mall developer and Macy’s. This replatting will remove these encroachments and ensure that the
FAC, as built, is located entirely and correctly within the City’s replatted lot.
11. Resolution 2019-105 Expressing Support for Legislation by the Colorado General Assembly
Regarding Executive Sessions for Matters Pertaining to Issues of Competition in Providing Local
Telecommunications Facilities and Services.
The purpose of this item to consider a resolution supporting potential legislation by the General
Assembly confirming home-rule municipalities’ authority and authorizing other cities and towns to
hold executive sessions for matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing local
telecommunications facilities and services such as high-speed broadband internet and ancillary
services, including without limitation matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales
and marketing, development phasing of such services in addition to any other matter allowed under
the Colorado Open Meetings Law or the Colorado Open Records Act.
END CONSENT
• CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
• STAFF REPORTS
A. Staff Report: Fort Collins Utilities Smart Energy Provider Designation (staff: John Phelan)
• COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
• CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
City of Fort Collins Page 7
Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
● Staff presentation (optional)
● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three minute limit for each citizen)
● Council questions of staff on the item
● Council motion on the item
● Council discussion
● Final Council comments
● Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2019, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by
Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Hughes Stadium Site
Rezoning and Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District
Map. (staff: Cameron Gloss, Tom Leeson; 20 minute staff presentation; 2 hour discussion)
The purpose of this item is to rezone 164.55 acres located on the west side of Overland Trail and
north of CR32 (parcel # 9720100913) with one condition and to place the property into the
Residential Sign District. City Council initiated the rezoning on July 16, 2019 and directed City staff
to prepare a rezoning application and make a recommendation regarding the appropriate zoning.
The site is currently zoned Transition (T) and staff recommends placement into the Residential
Foothills (RF) and Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone districts. A recommended
condition of the rezone requires that future development in the portion zoned Residential Foothills
district meet the requirements of a Cluster Plan pursuant to Land Use Code Section 4.3(E)(2). The
request places the property into the Residential Sign District. The Planning and Zoning Board on a
4-2 vote recommended that City Council not adopt the staff proposed zoning and instead zone the
property entirely Residential Foothills.
• CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
• OTHER BUSINESS
A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers
(Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to
initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not
originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)
• ADJOURNMENT
A. Consideration of a motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 12, 2019, for the annual
evaluations of the City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Judge.
“I move that Council adjourn this meeting to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, in order to
consider a motion to go into executive session to conduct annual performance reviews of the
Council’s direct report employees, and for such other business as may come before the Council.”
City of Fort Collins Page 8
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business
commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City
Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending
at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting
which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council
meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the history and culture of our great nation have been significantly
influenced by American Indians and indigenous peoples: and
WHEREAS, the contributions of American Indians have enhanced the freedom,
prosperity, and greatness of America today, and
WHEREAS, their customs and traditions are respected and celebrated as part of a rich
legacy throughout the United States, and
WHEREAS, Native American Awareness Week began in 1976 and recognition was
expanded by Congress and approved by President George Bush in August 1990, designating the
month of November as National American Indian Heritage Month; and
WHEREAS, in honor of National American Indian Heritage Month, community
celebrations as well as numerous cultural, artistic, educational and historical activities have been
planned; and
WHEREAS, in honor of National American Indian Heritage Month we remember the
rich culture that has been part of the Fort Collins and Northern Colorado area.
NOW, THEREFORE I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of November 2019, as
NATIVE AMERICAN AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all our citizens to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies and
activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 9
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the week before Thanksgiving is recognized as National Hunger and
Homelessness Awareness Week, and observed in Fort Collins to bring awareness of these
nationally recognized humanitarian issues to the attention of the Fort Collins community; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is committed to raising awareness to combat hunger and
homelessness in every part of our city and to provide additional resources that citizens need; and
WHEREAS, organizations like Catholic Charities Northern, Fort Collins Rescue
Mission, Faith Family Hospitality, Homeward Alliance, Homeward 2020, Neighbor to Neighbor,
Outreach Fort Collins, Salvation Army, the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center for Hope, the Food
Bank for Larimer County and SummitStone Health Partners are working together to lower the
homelessness and food insecurity rate in Fort Collins and lessen the impact of these issues on
both those experiencing them and those who are indirectly affected; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins and local organizations acknowledge there are many different
reasons people are homeless such as economic issues, mental health and addiction, and rent
hikes, that can make it difficult to secure stable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Food Bank for Larimer County distributed food for more than 7.57
million meals in 2018 through its network of food pantries, partner agencies, Kids Cafe sites, and
other community organizations; and
WHEREAS, last year the Fort Collins Rescue Mission provided 311,372 nights of
shelter to those in need, and continues to provide assistance through services such as food boxes,
clothing, furniture and transportation assistance, ensuring our fellow citizens receive essential
support,
NOW, THERFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the week of November 16-24, 2019, as
HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS AWARENESS WEEK
and I call this observance to the attention of our citizens.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
ATTEST: Mayor
______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 10
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is committed to making this community a more
inclusive, diverse and welcoming place for all; and
WHEREAS, we invite all residents of Fort Collins to join in these efforts, because a
community that is inclusive and diverse is a safer and stronger community; and
WHEREAS, this month is an opportunity to inspire, inform and educate our community
about the contributions of and challenges faced by the transgender and gender non-binary
community; and
WHEREAS, this month we remember on this day those in the transgender community
who have lost their lives. This month marks the twentieth year of the Transgender Day of
Remembrance. On November 20, we memorialize and honor the members of the transgender
community who have been killed as a result of being who they are, such as Angie Zapata, an 18-
year-old Greeley resident who was killed in 2008; and
WHEREAS, this month, and in all months, we strive to create greater awareness of the
transgender community, in memoriam, in honor and in celebration, striving to create an
environment, now and in the future, that fosters acceptance and discourages and condemns
violence.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of November, as
TRANSGENDER ACCEPTANCE MONTH
in the city of Fort Collins in honor of those lost and those living in the transgender community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 11
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is a place where small businesses create the majority of jobs in
our community and offer unique products and services at the holidays; and
WHEREAS, we want to urge the community to support these businesses because of their
important place in our economy; and
WHEREAS, small businesses are supported by such organizations as the Campus West
Merchant Association, the Downtown Business Association, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of
Commerce, the Larimer Small Business Development Center, the Midtown and North Fort Collins
Business Associations, and the River District; and
WHEREAS, Small Business Saturday, a national day supported by the U.S. Small
Business Administration that encourages people to “Shop Small,” is a good reminder that shopping
locally supports small business; and
WHEREAS, Small Business Saturday is a movement that reminds us to shop locally every
day of the year; and
WHEREAS, the money spent in Fort Collins stays in Fort Collins to support basic City
services and keep our community thriving.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim November 30, 2019, the Saturday after Thanksgiving, as
SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY
in Fort Collins in honor of small businesses in Fort Collins and their importance in the community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the commercial and recreational use of unmanned aircraft systems, or
drones, has increased dramatically in the past decade, with a myriad of uses continually
developing; and
WHEREAS, public safety agencies, such as Fort Collins Police Services and Poudre Fire
Authority, use drones to diagram traffic accidents quickly while keeping officers safe, map crime
scenes, aid in search and rescue incidents, survey large structure fires and wildland fires, and to
manage responses to natural disasters and hazardous materials incidents; and
WHEREAS, FCTV, the City’s government cable station, uses drones for video
production and showcasing our City from unique vantage points; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado State University Drone Center assists with drone enabled
research, including agriculture imaging and analysis, GIS applications, aerial mapping for
geological structures and watershed, and engineering for sensor integration in the area of gas and
particle detection; and
WHEREAS, the increasing use of drones has led the Federal Aviation Administration to
create regulations to ensure drones are flown safely and responsibly and commercial drone pilots
are required to receive training and be licensed by the FAA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has regulations restricting the use of drones in City
parks and natural areas for safety and natural resource protection reasons and is creating a
vertical air park for recreational drone use,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
declare the week of November 4-10, 2019, as
DRONE SAFETY AWARENESS WEEK
and urge all drone operators to fly RITE-Register your drone; Interact and engage with others in
the drone community; Train and familiarize yourself with your drone; and Educate yourself on
the rules to ensure safety for all when using a drone.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
ATTEST: Mayor
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 13
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, dedicated law enforcement records and evidence personnel serve Fort
Collins and provide a vital service; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement records and evidence personnel are crucial to assisting law
enforcement agencies in the identification, pursuit, capture, and processing of suspects; and
WHEREAS, these professionals continually use their expertise and experience in
maintaining criminal justice agency records, evidence, and statistics, providing data for
improving apprehension strategies; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and committed personnel who staff law
enforcement records and evidence is materially influenced by the people’s attitude and
understanding the importance of the work they perform; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement records and evidence personnel serving the city of Fort
Collins have exhibited professionalism, efficiency, and compassion during the performance of
their essential duties in the past year; and
WHEREAS, residents of Fort Collins are encouraged to recognize our city’s law
enforcement records and evidence personnel for their valuable contributions to our law
enforcement community.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim November 4 through November 8, 2019, as
LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS AND
EVIDENCE PERSONNEL WEEK
in the city of Fort Collins in honor of the men and women whose diligence and professionalism
enhance our City services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 1, 2019 Regular Council Meeting and the October 8,
2019 Adjourned Council Meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 1, 2019 regular Council meeting and the
October 8, 2019 adjourned Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. October 1, 2019 (PDF)
2. October 8, 2019 (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 15
City of Fort Collins Page 265
October 1, 2019
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Atteberry, Daggett, Coldiron
AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Stacy Lynne discussed research she has completed on the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland and
Larimer County.
George Grossman, Happy Lucky's Tea House, discussed the staff recommendation to move
forward with plan A1 for the Linden Street renovation which will remove 30 parking spaces. He
questioned how the loss of parking will affect the vitality of business on Linden and the
surrounding area. He stated this plan is a direct threat to small business whereas alternative B can
meet all the original goals and new goals of the renovation.
Mary Copco, Fort Collins Symphony Executive Director, thanked Council for Fort Fund's support
of its 70th season.
Wes Kenny, Fort Collins Symphony Maestro, discussed the history of the Symphony and
introduced principal trumpet player Stan Curtis.
Stan Curtis played excerpts from the upcoming Symphony concert.
Susan Wilmer, Old Firehouse Books, opposed the proposed renovation plan for Linden Street
given the loss of parking spaces in the recommended plan.
Wally VanSickle, landlord of 201 Linden Street, supported the Linden Street renovation but
opposed the loss of parking as part of the staff recommendation of plan A1. He supported
alternative B.
Kathryn Dubiel stated there have been several instances wherein the public has not been informed
about various City occurrences such as the public forum for the Planning, Development and
Transportation Director candidates.
Mike Pruznick stated his project to build a fossil free demo home was blocked by Ordinance No.
070 and suggested it be reviewed stating it is critical the City limit artificial barriers to fossil fuel-
free housing.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 266
Nick Francis, Partners in Climate Action, PICA, stated PICA has started two more working groups,
one on solar and distributed energy resources and one on air quality. He announced a public forum
on October 14th at the Senior Center.
Eric Sutherland stated Council is being routinely misinformed on legal matters, including a matter
in district court related to the electric enterprise utility. He also discussed the I-25/Prospect metro
district.
Jerell Clobber, Salus, expressed concern about the implementation of the Linden Street renovation
stating no quantitative analysis has been done. He stated the removal of parking spaces will have
a significant negative economic impact on the area.
Virginia (no last name given), Locks and Mane Hair Salon, requested Council take up the issue of
the Linden Street renovation under Other Business so as to address concerns related to parking.
Nancy York stated priorities should be reset directing staff work and finances toward reducing
greenhouse gases given the climate emergency declaration. She suggested making transit free
could aid in that goal.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Mayor Troxell summarized the citizen comments.
Councilmember Cunniff requested staff input regarding the public forum announcement for the
Planning, Development, and Transportation Director candidates. Deputy City Manager Jeff
Mihelich replied the outreach for the forum included emails and a public posting. He stated a
couple dozen residents attended the forum; however, staff would welcome the opportunity to have
conversations related to additional public input.
Mayor Troxell requested staff input related to the Linden Street project. Chad Creger, City
Engineer and Interim Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, stated there was an
open house last night and discussed the 75 conversations staff has had with area business owners
over time. He noted the recommended plan came from conversations with the businesses and
property owners, not from staff. He stated the recommended plan gives better spaces for
pedestrians and the urban design and the ability to bridge the gap between Old Town Square and
the River District. Creger stated parking will be addressed by creating more efficient parking in
the area which has resulted in a minimum of 17 additional spaces, more efficient wayfinding for
Old Firehouse Garage, an overall marketing campaign for downtown parking, and adjusting garage
fees down during construction.
Mayor Troxell noted Council has received a letter from area business owners in support of option
A1 as recommended by staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens asked if speeds will be lowered on Jefferson Street if parking were to be
added there. Creger replied staff is working with CDOT to create bulb outs to lessen the distance
to cross Jefferson.
Councilmember Cunniff asked why particular striping patterns are required as part of the Linden
Street construction. Creger replied diagonal parking leaves less room on the sidewalk for
additional place-making and urban design characteristics. Moving parking to parallel allows for a
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 267
wider sidewalk that is more accommodating of pedestrians. He noted there will be no curbs in the
design but there will be planters and tables.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if it would be possible to switch between parking types. Creger
replied staff has examined that option; however, if diagonal parking is allowed, a separate
construction process would need to occur in the future to switch it to parallel as the space where
the cars would be in a diagonal arrangement would be the space where plantings and other place-
making aspects would be located.
Councilmember Cunniff asked why free parking in the garage is not being considered for the time
during construction. Creger replied that could certainly be an option and staff does recognize the
parking impacts will be significant during construction.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if any policy conclusions regarding downtown parking have
resulted in suggested changes. City Manager Atteberry replied in the negative.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would prefer to have some flexibility in the parking
configuration that would allow for some trees, but movable seating and planters.
Councilmember Summers agreed with Councilmember Cunniff's concerns and stated he spent
several hours chatting with people in the area last week. He stated it would be nice to have some
options in terms of the final design and stated his concern is the impact on businesses during
construction. He encouraged staff to remain as flexible as possible and stated outreach is going to
need to intensify as construction begins.
Councilmember Gutowsky expressed empathy with the small business owners noting their profit
margins are extremely small. She noted if those businesses leave, the quaintness of Old Town
leaves.
Mayor Troxell noted Council did receive a letter signed by 16 businesses on Linden and Walnut
in support of plan A1 and six speakers against it this evening. He noted pavers that are part of the
infrastructure provide the striping; therefore, changing that later in the design will be difficult. He
also noted attention needs to be paid toward meeting the City's obligations with regards to the
public/private partnership in the parking garage.
Councilmember Gutowsky noted constituents are concerned about the number of festivals that
may be occurring on the street as she has been told they are bad for businesses. She asked how
many are anticipated to occur. Crager replied there are no planned festival additions; this just
provides flexibility in the future.
City Manager Atteberry stated the normal protocol in this case would involve him sending a memo
to Council in its Thursday packet that will include a staff suggestion about how to proceed. Staff
will then do so unless hearing otherwise from Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gutowsky, to adopt and
approve all items on the Consent Agenda.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 268
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Susan Gutowsky, District 1
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2019, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Data
and Communications Fund for Implementation of Electronic Plan Review. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 17, 2019, appropriates funds
from the reserves of the Data and Communications fund for implementation of electronic plan review
as part of the building permit process.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2019, Amending the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct
Map to Reflect Changes in County Precinct Boundaries and Waiving the Redistricting
Requirement of Section 7-87(d) of the City Code. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 17, 2019, aligns City precinct
boundaries with County precinct boundaries as required by Section 7-66 of the City Code. None of the
divided precincts affect Council district boundaries.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2019, Vacating Portions of Rights-of-Way Dedicated on
the Waterfield Third Filing Plat. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 17, 2019, vacates various
rights-of-way dedicated on the Waterfield Third Filing plat that are no longer necessary or desirable to
retain for roadway purposes. The rights-of-way vacation includes various public road rights-of-way
within the Waterfield development. The property is being sold to a new developer who is proposing a
revised project layout. The existing on-site road rights-of-way need to be vacated prior to recording
the new plat. The vacation will not impact any existing rights-of-way of adjacent public streets (North
Timberline Road, East Vine Drive, East Suniga Road, Merganser Drive (south of Suniga Road),
Turnberry Road or Conifer Street). The property is currently proposed to be replatted as Waterfield
Fourth Filing.
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2019, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves, Unanticipated
Revenue and Authorizing Transfer of Funds for the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund
Program. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to authorize the transfer of funds from the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to
the General Fund and appropriate therein and to appropriate reserves and current year revenue from
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Economic Development Program funds in the General Fund to
create the City of Fort Collins Revolving Loan Fund for small businesses and startup companies
operating in Fort Collins. The City will use the funds to support access to capital for small businesses
in Fort Collins, which have historically not had access to traditional financial capital markets (“under
banked” or “non-bankable”) The demographic focus of this program will be low-income, minority,
veteran, and women-owned small businesses.
6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2019, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated
Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts of
Funds or Projects. (Adopted)
The purpose of this Annual Adjustment Ordinance is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues
or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that
were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2019 annual budget appropriation. The
unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions, donations and grants that
have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 269
7. Items Relating to Objects Obscuring Traffic Control Devices. (Adopted)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2019, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins as it
Relates to Objects Obscuring Traffic Control Devices.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2019, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code as it Relates
to Objects Obscuring Traffic Control Devices.
The purpose of this item is to consider revisions to the Fort Collins City Code and the City Traffic Code
as they relate to the responsibilities for pruning private trees, shrubs or other plants that overhang or
otherwise encroach on the public right-or-way. The changes will make the requirements in the two
Codes consistent and provide a level of flexibility for City staff to immediately address issues of safety
in the public right-of-way at its own expense, if needed.
8. Resolution 2019-094 Approving the Purchase of Two Biogas Powered Generator Sets from
Woodward, Inc. as an Exception to the Competitive Purchasing Process. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to approve an exception to the competitive purchasing process for the
purchase of two biogas powered combined heat and power (CHP) generator sets for the Drake Water
Reclamation Facility (DWRF) in support of the City’s climate action plan (CAP) goals. Woodward has
been collaborating with City staff and consultants for several years working in the design of a cost-
efficient combined heat and power (CHP) system that can utilize biogas produced at DWRF.
Purchasing the CHP generator set through Woodward provides the most economical procurement
while allowing Woodward to leverage equipment provided by the company, its vendors, and clients.
9. Resolution 2019-095 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Regarding Use of
the Munroe Canal. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to approve execution of an agreement between the City of Fort Collins,
through Fort Collins Utilities, and multiple other parties regarding operations of the Munroe Canal that
supplies water to Fort Collins Utilities via the Pleasant Valley Pipeline. The agreement mainly outlines
roles and responsibilities among these parties that have been vague since pipeline operations started
in 2003 and will greatly improve future operations, but also includes reasonable payments to the North
Poudre Irrigation Company for its operational efforts.
10. Items Relating to Agreements for Delivery of Horsetooth Reservoir Water During the
Temporary Shutdown of the Horsetooth Reservoir Soldier Canyon Outlet. (Adopted)
A. Resolution 2019-096 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Between the City
of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District,
the North Weld County Water District, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Acting By and Through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline Water Activity Enterprise Regarding a
Supplemental Means to Deliver Horsetooth Reservoir Water to the Fort Collins Water Treatment
Facility and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Plant (Pleasant Valley Pipeline Modifications and
Use).
B. Resolution 2019-097 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Between the City
of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District,
the North Weld County Water District, and the City of Greeley Regarding a Supplemental Means
to Deliver Horsetooth Reservoir Water to the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility and Soldier
Canyon Water Treatment Plant (Greeley Infrastructure Modifications and Use).
C. Resolution 2019-098 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Between the City
of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District,
and the North Weld County Water District Regarding a Supplemental Means to Deliver
Horsetooth Reservoir Water to the Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility and Soldier Canyon
Water Treatment Plant (Project Work - New Infrastructure - New Property Rights).
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 270
The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Manager to execute three agreements between
combinations of the City of Fort Collins (City), Fort-Collins Loveland, East Larimer County, and North
Weld County water districts (the Tri-Districts), the City of Greeley (Greeley), and the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District (Northern Water) regarding a project to provide a temporary backup water
supply pumping system during an October-November 2020 shutdown of the Soldier Canyon Dam
Outlet pipeline (Soldier Canyon Outlet) which conveys water from Horsetooth Reservoir to the two
drinking water treatment plants serving Fort Collins and surrounding areas. The pumping system is
intended as a backup supply system to the primary Cache la Poudre River water supply during the 60-
day long planned outage of the Soldier Canyon Outlet.
Three separate agreements are needed because each agreement concerns discrete aspects of this
project, involving specific infrastructure and set of entities: (A) an agreement between the City, the Tri-
Districts, and Northern Water regarding the use of Northern Water’s Pleasant Valley Pipeline; (B) an
agreement between the City, the Tri-Districts, and Greeley regarding the use of Greeley’s
infrastructure; and (C) an agreement between the City and the Tri-Districts regarding the ownership,
design, construction, and operation of new infrastructure.
11. Resolution 2019-099 Adopting an Updated Process for City Council Evaluation of the
Performance of the City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Judge and Establishing Benchmark
Cities. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to modify the performance evaluation process for the City Manager, City
Attorney and Chief Judge to add flexibility in the timing of performance and salary information and
discussions. The item also provides a recommended list of compensation benchmark cities for
Council’s direct report employees.
END CONSENT
CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
Councilmember Summers commented on Item No. 7, Resolution 2019-094 Approving the
Purchase of Two Biogas Powered Generator Sets from Woodward, Inc. as an Exception to the
Competitive Purchasing Process, as being a good news item and a step toward furthering climate
action goals.
Councilmember Cunniff thanked the ad hoc committee for their work on Item No. 10, Resolution
2019-099 Adopting an Updated Process for City Council Evaluation of the Performance of the
City Manager, City Attorney and Chief Judge and Establishing Benchmark Cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens expressed support for Item No. 4, First Reading of Ordinance No. 120,
2019, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves, Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing Transfer of
Funds for the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund Program, noting it shows the City's support
for small businesses. She requested an update on City Gives as per Item No. 5, First Reading of
Ordinance No. 115, 2019, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in
Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts of Funds or Projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens commended the process regarding Item No. 10, Resolution 2019-099
Adopting an Updated Process for City Council Evaluation of the Performance of the City
Manager, City Attorney and Chief Judge and Establishing Benchmark Cities.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 271
STAFF REPORTS
Poudre Fire Authority Metrics. (staff: Ron Simms)
Fire Chief Tom DeMint stated Poudre Fire Authority is proud to be collecting data and is proud of
the results.
Ron Simms, Planning and Analysis Chief, discussed the Poudre Fire Authority metrics and stated
this particular metric, the percent of time PFA intercedes in the flashover, which is when
everything in a single room reaches its ignition temperature, has been very successful for PFA. If
fire fighters can intercede prior to flashover, they can succeed in keeping the fire contained to the
room, there is a greater potential for life safety throughout the structure, and there will be less
damage.
Councilmember Pignataro asked why flashover happens more quickly in today's environment.
Simms replied most items were constructed from natural materials in the past and newer items are
constructed of more hydrocarbons, such as polyesters; therefore, fire reaches its higher
temperatures much quicker.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens asked about community risk reduction, especially with regard to mobile
home parks noting a great deal of educational efforts have been ongoing. Simms replied PFA has
had a long-term program targeting specific neighborhoods that may be less advantaged and have
less access to basic fire protection systems. The community outreach director has canvassed
several mobile home parks with bilingual fire fighters or social work students to install smoke
detectors at no charge, change batteries, provide public education, and ask critical questions on
health care needs.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Gutowsky reported on the dedication of the Sugar Beet Park at Lemay and Vine.
Councilmember Cunniff also reported on the Park dedication and its large number of attendees.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens reported on the SAVA soiree event and the Open Streets event.
Councilmember Summers reported on the Constitution Day event at Veterans Plaza at Spring
Canyon Park.
Councilmember Gutowsky reported on the Life Saver Breakfast put on by the Suicide Prevention
Alliance.
Mayor Troxell reported on the 100th celebration of WWV, the oldest still running radio station
which broadcasts time signals globally. He also reported on CSU and the City hosting the
Passenger Rail Association and Colorado Railroad Board.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 272
DISCUSSION ITEMS
12. Resolution 2019-100 Regarding Immigration Conditions at the Southern Border of the United
States and Its Impact on the Fort Collins Community. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to acknowledge the impact that national events have on the immigrant
communities within Fort Collins, state that Fort Collins welcomes those lawfully seeking asylum, and
to encourage participation with public safety agencies and in the decennial Census. The resolution
also calls upon the United States Congress and the Trump administration to take action to prevent any
inhumane treatment at the southern border and to quickly create a sustainable pathway for immigration
into the United States, and sets out related follow up actions.
Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Manager, stated this Resolution is the result of an iterative process
and review by the Legislative Review Committee and it addresses the engagement of immigrant
communities from a public safety perspective around reporting and witnessing crime as well as
from a representation standpoint around engaging in the 2020 census. It advocates for immigration
reform at the federal level, specifically around a sustainable pathway to immigration, instructs
language to that effect in the Legislative Policy Agenda, and states that Council will engage our
federal delegation in an upcoming meeting in October.
Marr stated the next steps are the Legislative Policy Agenda work, continuing the relationship-
building that is part of the community trust initiative, and the October meeting with federal
representatives.
Deirdre Sullivan, The Family Center/La Familia Executive Director, thanked Council for the
Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month proclamation and stated this resolution is needed. She
commended the work the City has done to build trust in the community.
Daniel Scott stated he is a first generation Mexican-American and he commended the resolution
as being extremely important in helping integrate immigrant families.
Councilmember Gorgol thanked the Legislative Review Committee and staff for their work on this
resolution stating it captures some of the issues residents are feeling and works toward providing
a welcoming community for immigrants.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt
Resolution 2019-100.
Councilmember Summers stated much of this has to do with national policy and suggested it would
be helpful to have a broader context.
Councilmember Summers made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to amend the
resolution to include additional language related to work by Colorado's legislators at a national
level.
Councilmember Summers stated it is important to recognize what local congressional leaders are
doing on a national level to address these concerns.
Councilmember Cunniff stated Councilmember Summers' additions seem factual and suggested a
language change related to his third whereas clause. Councilmember Summers replied his
language related to the Director of Child Welfare for Health and Human Services is factual.
Councilmember Gorgol stated her understanding was the resolution should focus on local concerns
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 273
and questioned how these amendments help support those. Councilmember Summers replied it is
important for individuals to know their national elected representatives who have actual
responsibilities on these issues are working on them.
Councilmember Gutowsky agreed with Councilmember Gorgol about the focus of the resolution
being local. She stated she would like the resolution to be a statement of support and celebration
of the community's immigrants.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated she does not see a need to call out individuals in this resolution
and stated it should focus on how national policy is affecting people in the local community.
Councilmember Summers stated he appreciates the comments and withdrew his motion.
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew his second.
Councilmember Summers made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gutowsky, to withdraw
sections 3-6 of the resolution given comments made about the local focus.
Councilmember Summers stated he would like to withdraw those sections in order to keep the
resolution locally focused.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated the reason some citizens do not feel comfortable is due to the
national policy confusion and inability to act on pathways to citizenship. She stated she would not
support a motion to remove those sections.
Councilmember Gorgol stated she would also support retaining those sections as they reference
what Council can do as a local entity.
Councilmember Pignataro stated she does not see the proposed inclusion as being related to
sections 3-6.
Mayor Troxell stated sections 3-6 appropriately call on the legislative and executive branches to
put forth solutions that address the issue. He stated what is happening at the federal level is not
serving the local community.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed support for the inclusion of the sections as they place
responsibility on the administration and both houses of congress to help fix the situation and
address issues with the census. He stated he would not support the motion to withdraw sections
3-6.
Councilmember Summers stated the reality is this resolution does not share anything with national
leaders they do not already know. He stated offering a narrow, simplistic solution may do more
harm than good.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated taking care of the people in this community is what is important
and suggested informing national leaders about the impact of these issues on a local level is not a
bad thing. She stated it is the duty of local leaders to hold the national government accountable
for years of bad immigration policy that has led to a crisis.
Councilmember Summers agreed Council needs to be concerned about people in this community;
however, he disagreed the proposed resolution is the right way to go about that. He stated Council
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 274
should take action to help residents of this community. Mayor Troxell replied this resolution does
not preclude that.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Summers. Nays: Stephens, Troxell,
Gutowsky, Pignataro, Cunniff and Gorgol.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on the original motion was as follows: Yeas: Stephens, Troxell, Gutowsky, Pignataro,
Cunniff and Gorgol. Nays: Summers.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
RESULT: ADOPTED [6 TO 1]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Julie Pignataro, District 2
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
NAYS: Summers
13. Items Relating to the Northfield Metro District Nos. 1 through 3 Consolidated Service Plan. ()
A. Resolution 2019-101 Reconsidering, Rehearing and Approving the Consolidated Service Plan for
Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3.
B. Resolution 2019-102 Making Findings, Determinations and Conclusions Denying on Rehearing
the Consolidated Service Plan for Northfield Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3.
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider on rehearing approval of the Northfield
Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 3 Consolidated Service Plan (the “Service Plan”) or, alternatively,
to deny the Service Plan on rehearing. Resolution 2019-101 is what Council should adopt to approve
the Service Plan. Resolution 2019-102 is what Council should adopt to deny the Service Plan. If
Resolution 2019-102 is adopted to deny the Service Plan, Council should also decide in Section 5 of
the Resolution what its reasons are for denial on the basis of non-compliance with the Council’s current
Metro District Policy (Policy). The Policy contemplates that only Service Plans that provide
“extraordinary public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City” are favored for
approval.
The developer of the proposed Northfield Development has submitted the Service Plan to support the
proposed development of approximately 56 acres located north of Vine Street on the west side of
Lindenmeier Road/Lemay Avenue (southeast of the Lake Canal and north of the to-be designated
historic Alta Vista neighborhood). The development is anticipated to include 442 residential units and
a mixed-use center that will offer light commercial use on the first floor, residential for-rent units on the
second floor, and small amenities open to the public. The project has committed to provide
approximately 15 percent for-sale affordable housing units. A Mill Levy Cap of 50.00 mills has been
proposed under the Service Plan to support the project.
As per the Council’s Metro District Policy, proceedings for a public hearing for a Metro District Service
Plan public hearing are as follows:
1. Announcement of item
2. Consideration of any procedural issues
3. Explanation of the application by City staff
4. Presentation by the applicant (suggested time: 15 minutes)
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 275
5. Public testimony regarding the application
6. Rebuttal testimony by the applicant (suggested time: 10 minutes)
7. Councilmember questions of City staff and the applicant
8. Motion, discussion and vote by City Council.
The public hearing for this Service Plan was previously noticed in accordance with Council’s Metro
District Policy to be conducted at Council’s August 20, 2019, meeting. However, Council voted at that
meeting, as authorized in Section 2.c. of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, to continue this matter to
the Council’s next regular meeting, which is this September 3, 2019, meeting. The applicant mailed
on August 22, 2019, notice of this continuance to the fee-title owners of property within the proposed
Districts and published this notice in the Coloradoan on August 24, 2019.
At its September 3, 2019 meeting, the Council adopted a motion to again continue the hearing,
rescheduling the hearing for the September 17, 2019 meeting. At its September 17, 2019, meeting,
City Council voted to deny approval of the Service Plan. However, at its September 24, 2019, meeting,
City Council voted to reconsider and re-hear the application, which was scheduled for this October 1,
2019 meeting.
City Attorney Daggett reviewed the hearing process for the item and noted it includes two
resolutions, one of approval and one of denial.
Mayor Troxell outlined the time limits for speakers and requested the applicants identify
themselves. He noted that all comments received prior to and at the first hearing are part of the
record of this hearing.
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, noted Council's read before memo included an error related
to the maximum debt authorization for the Northfield Metro District. That number should have
been $16 million.
Birks reviewed the project stating it will be a multi-phased project with a total of 442 residential
units, 65 of which must be affordable. He stated the City's metro district policy ensures metro
districts provide extraordinary public benefits and this project provides several.
Birks detailed the four primary changes made since the September 17th service plan considered by
Council: the LEED Gold standard, a target HERS rating of 35-49, and rooftop solar will now apply
to all 442 units, not just the market-rate units and affordable units offered on the rental market
must average 60% AMI across the number of rental units.
Jason Sherrill, Landmark Homes, thanked Council for reconsidering this item. He noted the
location of the project is within walking distance of Old Town and stated the opportunity for this
type of development will not exist again. Sherrill detailed the application of the LEED Gold
standard, HERS ratings, and rooftop solar to the affordable housing units. He also noted Mercy
Housing is planning to provide 96 affordable units and stated Council can be guaranteed the
affordable units will be provided due to the service plan requirements.
Mr. Sherrill discussed the attainable housing and public improvement provided by the project. He
anticipated the project will not reach the $16 million debt cap based on existing market factors and
noted metro districts are much more equipped to take on ongoing maintenance than an HOA. He
stated a metro district is the perfect vehicle to bring affordability, attainability, LEED Gold
standards, high energy efficiency standards, and commitments to public improvements to the
market.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 276
Nick Francis, Partners in Climate Action, PICA, discussed the response his organization submitted
to this proposal and stated he did not hear responses to some questions that were part of that
response. He noted the applicant has been very responsive to the concerns and interests of Council
and commended the improvements to the proposal over time.
Eric Sutherland thanked Council for incorporating written comments received from the previous
hearing into this hearing. He stated this proposal creates three metro districts with a single service
plan and argued that is not a good practice given the physical separation of the Mercy Housing
aspect. He asked why the entity to which that land is ultimately conveyed should not have
complete control of its own destiny through democratic processes.
Mr. Sutherland stated the legislative intent of the statute is to have one service plan for one metro
district. He thanked the individuals who have worked to ensure the City's metro district policy
advances the objectives discussed within the City organization.
Mr. Sherrill thanked Mr. Francis for his acknowledgement and stated the team at Green Insight
will provide the extraordinary LEED Gold outcome.
Councilmember Gorgol requested staff input as to Mr. Sutherland's comments related to multiple
service plans for multiple metro districts and the associated enforceability thereof. Deputy City
Attorney John Duval replied there is nothing in the state statutes that prohibits Council from
approving a consolidated service plan for multiple metro districts; however, it could also be done
separately. He stated it is likely being proposed as a multi-district plan as the districts are going
to have to operate together to provide the various public improvements but deferred to the applicant
to further address that question.
Robert Rogers, attorney for Landmark Homes, replied there was a time in Colorado wherein the
vast majority of service plans for multiple districts were submitted separately; however, there are
now many more consolidated service plans due to administrative advantages. He stated it is easier
for the city to assert its contractual privity for enforcement in a consolidated plan.
Councilmember Gorgol asked if the metro district board would oversee the entire consolidate area
or if each metro district would have its own board. Mr. Rogers replied it is three separate boards
that will typically hold joint meetings early on and move into separate meetings as property starts
to turn over to residents.
Councilmember Gorgol asked how the board moves from being developer-controlled to resident-
controlled. Mr. Rogers replied the state statute allows lot buyers to be immediately eligible to be
an elector in district elections. He stated there are director elections every two years under the
statute with staggered four-year terms.
Councilmember Gorgol asked if there is a time after which the developer is no longer allowed to
be on the board. Mr. Rogers replied in the negative but noted the service plan urges an expedient
transition. It is generally up to the residents as to when they want to vote themselves onto the
board.
Councilmember Gorgol asked what happens at the end of the 20-year deed restriction on the
affordable units. Birks replied the deed restriction would apply to the for sale affordable units and
with the likely outcome that Mercy Housing will be the residential developer and will use low-
income tax credits, there is a different standard applied, which is usually 30 to 40 years. If for sale
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 277
housing is delivered with a 20-year deed restriction, the unit can return to the market after 20 years
unless some other type of intervention with reinvestment takes place to keep the unit affordable.
Councilmember Summers asked why there are three metro districts instead of one. Mr. Rogers
replied there are a few factors, one of which is different use types resulting in different mill levy
sensitivities. Additionally, it may be that a determination is made in the future to split the different
services between the districts. He noted that all three districts may not need to be used depending
on how the development proceeds and any unused district could be dissolved, which is common.
Councilmember Summers asked about the composition of the metro district boards. Mr. Rogers
replied there would be five seats on each of the three boards and as soon as residents move into
the district boundaries, they are immediately eligible to run in the next election.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if the metro districts are along geographical boundaries. Mr.
Rogers replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if renters can serve on a metro district board. Mr. Rogers replied
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if there would ever be a case wherein a resident would be part of
multiple districts. Mr. Rogers replied districts can overlap which is one benefit of a consolidated
service plan that would provide an aggregate mill levy cap.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if there will be an enhanced crosswalk or overpass to provide a
crossing of Suniga. Mr. Sherrill replied the approved PDP provides an easement for the regional
trail which will be the primary crossover. The design of the crossing has yet to be finalized. Birks
noted there is also a pedestrian crossing at Lemay.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked about the advantages of Fort Collins' metro district guidelines.
Birks replied the debt cap and mill cap limit the overall burden to a homeowner over time.
Additionally, the operations and maintenance mill levy is capped and additional disclosures are
required that are not part of the statute. The development agreements often include additional
securities to ensure the public benefits and other promises within the service plan are delivered.
Deputy City Attorney Duval noted Fort Collins' agreements also provide for very specific
enforcement provisions and residents can also request amendments to the service plans as they
begin to take over the districts.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked how many years it will take to pay off the debt mill levy. Birks
replied there are several variables; however, there is a financial plan exhibit within the service plan
that is based on the best estimate of absorption of the units. Mr. Rogers replied the typical debt
issuance is structured to be a 30-year obligation based on the imposition of the agreed upon mill
levy, which in this case is maxed out at 40 mills.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked if the public benefits must be completed prior to the City issuing
certificates of occupancy. Birks replied this question is addressed in detail at the development
agreement phase and different aspects of the public benefits will be tied to the pace of development
and the completion of certain components. He noted Council will have the opportunity to provide
guidance regarding the development agreement.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 278
Councilmember Gutowsky asked what assurance the City has that Mercy Homes will fulfill its
obligation to the development. Mr. Sherrill replied Landmark Homes has a signed letter of intent
and a contract is ready to be executed upon approval of the metro district; however, he
acknowledged there is no guarantee at this point. Birks noted the service plan requires 65
affordable units with a service plan that details how that is going to be delivered, and it must be
delivered prior to the second half of the building permits being issued.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked why the affordable housing cannot be dispersed among the
market rate homes. Mr. Sherrill replied Mercy Housing has stated it is an extraordinary logistical
challenge to attach an affordable unit to an attainable or market unit and soliciting low-income
housing tax credits would be difficult. He also noted FHA project approval can be difficult or
impossible to attain if an affordable unit is mixed into a market project.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if there is a cap on the dollar amount of annual mills collected.
Birks replied there is not a cap on the dollar amount; however, there is a total debt cap and a mill
cap. He noted the service plan allows for refunding within the 40-year timeframe and it would be
encouraged when it generates a benefit.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if it is fair to say there is a potential outcome of the tax liability
increasing faster than inflation. Birks replied the debt is capped; therefore, if revenue is coming
in more quickly than expected, the debt will be retired more quickly, and given that the debt can
only be used for a given set of public improvements, there would not be a reason to issue more
debt without amending the service plan.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if up to half of the units could be built prior to the construction of
any affordable units. Deputy City Attorney Duval replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Cunniff asked how the debt load only increased by $30,000 when energy
efficiency components are now being added to the affordable units. Mr. Sherrill replied some
elements of the public benefits were removed or reduced.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, to adopt
Resolution 2019-101.
Councilmember Cunniff thanked staff and the developer for their work on the item; however, he
stated he would not support the motion stating there is not a proportional benefit to the
homeowners. He also noted Fort Collins has been able to finance and construct public
improvements and infrastructure without the existence of metro districts meaning they are not a
necessity for development in this part of the city. He stated this is not the only way to achieve the
goal of adding affordable housing units and there is no guarantee these will be built. He stated the
city's policies need to be reevaluated to include additional assurances.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated that while metro districts are not necessary for development and
there may be other policies to gain affordable housing, not other policies have been used and this
project could provide much needed affordable and attainable units. She stated the project provides
extraordinary benefits in terms of energy efficiency.
Councilmember Gorgol stated she feels the applicant heard her concerns about the energy
efficiency being extended to the affordable units and noted that while other means of attaining
affordable housing could occur, those policy decisions have yet to be made.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 279
Councilmember Pignataro commended the additional work but stated she will not support the
motion given the affordable housing segregation.
Councilmember Gutowsky expressed concern regarding notification provided to home buyers and
stated the public benefits do not necessarily warrant the additional metro fees. She stated it is
important to protect future homebuyers from entering into a situation that may place them in
financial jeopardy.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens requested details on the paperwork a homeowner would receive. Birks
replied there are at least three distinct ways by which a home buyer would be made aware of their
added property tax mill: at closing through the enhanced disclosure requirement, by reviewing the
property tax bill, and on the Multiple Listing Service listing.
Councilmember Gutowsky stated it is very important that affordable housing be disbursed
throughout a development.
Councilmember Summers expressed concern that opposing this would cause the city to miss out
on energy efficient affordable housing that is within a market development. He commended the
developer for returning with an enhanced proposal.
Mayor Troxell stated he would support the motion and commended the affordable and energy
efficiency components of the proposal.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Summers, Gorgol, Stephens and Troxell. Nays:
Gutowsky, Pignataro and Cunniff.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gorgol, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 2019-102 indefinitely. Yeas: Pignataro, Cunniff, Summers, Gorgol,
Stephens, Troxell and Gutowsky. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2019, Approving a One-Time Payment of Accrued, Unused
2018 Paid Time Off Hours to the City Manager and City Attorney. (Defeated)
The purpose of this item is to approve a one-time payment of accrued, unused 2018 paid time off
hours to the City Manager and City Attorney.
Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer, stated the City Manager and City Attorney reached
and exceeded their carryover for vacation in 2018 and were unable to use some of their 2018
holiday hours which do not carry over. The ad hoc direct compensation committee recommended
that the Council consider this proposal.
Kathryn Dubiel stated it is the nature of high salaried positions that some vacation time will be
lost. She suggested accrued leave benefits could be donated to benefit other members of the
organization rather than be paid out as suggested. She outlined other things that could be done
with this money in the community.
Mayor Troxell stated the vacation and holiday hours are benefits outlined with the contracts of the
City Manager and City Attorney but were not addressed when compensation was considered. He
noted Council has encouraged its three direct employees to utilize their vacation time.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 280
Councilmember Summers asked how many hours can be carried over. Roche replied the annual
carryover is 780 hours by contract for all three employees.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if this is the first year this has happened. Roche replied it has
been cumulative; however, this is the first year she is aware of that the employees have reached
their carryover cap and lost time.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if payment for these hours is part of the employees' contract.
Roche replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if other City employees who do not use their vacation can be paid
for the time. Roche replied employees are encouraged to take time off, but in rare instances when
that cannot occur, a manager can ask for an exception to be made for carryover time.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if an exception to carry over time could be granted in this case.
Roche replied the carryover could be extended in the contract, but the contract would need to be
opened for discussion for that to occur.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if there is a flex policy for employees who work on holidays.
Roche replied employees can bank holidays they work and take them at another time. Holiday
and overtime pay are used for employees who are required to work on holidays.
Councilmember Gorgol requested clarification that employees cannot receive a payout. Roche
replied that is correct.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked over how long a time period this has been accruing. City
Manager Atteberry replied he has never reached the maximum and lost time in his 15 years as City
Manager. He stated carrying over the time to next year could exacerbate the problem and
explained the anomaly for 2018 was the formation of the broadband utility.
City Attorney Daggett stated this is the first time this has occurred for her as well; however, it did
not take her as long to get there.
Councilmember Summers stated it is obvious these employees have to work on holiday Mondays
when Council meets on Tuesday.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, to adopt
Ordinance No. 116, 2019, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens noted this is an anomaly and stated it is important for people to take time
off; however, there are times when that is impossible. She noted these employees are aware they
do not work just 40 hours a week and suggested the possibility of Council taking time off during
the summer to allow the same for staff.
Councilmember Pignataro stated she cannot support the motion and stated there are benefits and
burdens to being in positions that are this high. She stated this is taxpayer money and there is no
guarantee it will not happen again. She stated it is not fair to taxpayers or other City employees.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he greatly appreciates the work done by these employees, but he
does not believe this is the proper solution. He stated the amount of payout in question is five
times the total amount the seven Councilmembers get paid per year.
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 281
Councilmember Gorgol expressed concern about the precedent being set by this and about the
message being sent to other employees of the City.
Councilmember Gutowsky stated constituents have expressed the overwhelming opinion that this
payout would not be fair as other employees within the organization do not have the same
opportunity.
Mayor Troxell stated he would support the motion as this is a contractual obligation the City has
to these exceptional employees. He noted the extra work on broadband was an extension of the
job descriptions.
RESULT: DEFEATED [3 TO 4]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Ken Summers, District 3
AYES: Summers, Stephens, Troxell
NAYS: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Cunniff
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
OTHER BUSINESS
Councilmember Cunniff asked what is being considered regarding affordable housing beyond the
fee impact study that is one of the proposed mid-cycle budget offers. Deputy City Manager
Mihelich replied all other affordable housing related items, such as accessory dwelling units,
linkage fees, and others, will be coming before Council in the form of worksession items over the
next several months.
A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers
(Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate
and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating
from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn to 6:00 PM October 8th, 2019
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adjourn this
meeting to 6:00 PM Tuesday, October 8th, 2019, to consider a proposed Executive Session and for
such other business as may come before the Council.
RESULT: ADOPTED [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Julie Pignataro, District 2
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
AWAY: Summers
October 1, 2019
City of Fort Collins Page 282
The meeting adjourned at 10:17 PM.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins Page 1
October 8, 2019
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting – 6:00 PM
• ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell
ABSENT: Cunniff
Staff present: Atteberry, Daggett, Coldiron
1. Consideration of a motion to adjourn into executive session.
Councilmember Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Summers, that the City
Council go into executive session for the purpose of meeting with City staff to discuss real property
acquisitions for the Natural Areas Department, as permitted under Article II, Section 11(a) of the
City Charter, Section 2-31(a)(3) of the City Code and Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-
402(4)(a).
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Cunniff attended the executive session by phone.)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Ken Summers, District 3
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell
ABSENT: Cunniff
• ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: October 8, 2019 (8412 : minutes-10/1, 10/8)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Jason Licon, Airport Director
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2019, Adopting the 2020 Budget and Appropriating the Fort Collins
Share of the 2020 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvements Funds for the Northern Colorado Regional
Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, adopts the 2020 budget for the
Northern Colorado Regional Airport and appropriate Fort Collins’ share of the 2020 fiscal year operating and
capital funds for the Airport. The City’s 50% share of the 2020 Airport operating budget is $646,445 and 50%
share of the 2020 capital budget is $740,500, for a total City appropriation of $1,386,945.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 121, 2019 (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 35
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 15, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Jason Licon, Airport Director
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2019, Adopting the 2020 Budget and Appropriating the Fort Collins Share
of the 2020 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvements Funds for the Northern Colorado Regional
Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt the 2020 budget for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport and appropriate
Fort Collins’ share of the 2020 fiscal year operating and capital funds for the Airport. The City’s 50% share of
the 2020 Airport operating budget is $646,445 and 50% share of the 2020 capital budget is $740,500, for a total
City appropriation of $1,386,945.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional aviation facility
and became owners and operators of the Northern Colorado Regional Airport, located ten miles southeast of
downtown Fort Collins, just west of Interstate 25. The Airport is operated as a joint venture between the City of
Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with each City retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in
policymaking and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs
associated with the Airport. Airport governance and management is set forth in the Amended and Restated
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Joint Operation of the Airport dated January 22, 2015, as amended June
7, 2016 between the Cities (IGA).
The Airport’s mission is to provide a fiscally sustainable airport to the region with facilities that meet the highest
FAA standards for safety and efficiency while ensuring the long-term ability of the Airport to serve Northern
Colorado as a transportation hub and a global gateway for commerce. According to a 2013 State of Colorado
study, the Northern Colorado Airport provides a regional economic impact of approximately $129.4 million
annually.
All revenues derived from the Airport are applied to both operating and capital expenditures. Each City
contributes equal funding, when necessary, for Airport operating and capital needs as defined in the IGA.
External funding is also received through grants that are applied for and received by the Airport for eligible
projects from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Colorado Department of Transportation Division of
Aeronautics.
The 2020 Airport budget reflects a change in the way the City of Fort Collins provides funding to cover operational
costs of the Airport. In 2019 direct contributions by the City were discontinued and revenues are now being
ATTACHMENT 1
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (8420 : SR 121 Airport Budget)
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 2
received by the Airport in the form of rent paid by the City under a land lease for a portion of jointly-owned Airport
property now being used for the Northern Colorado Regional Law Enforcement Training Center (Training Center
Lease).
This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort Collins 50% share ($646,445) of the 2020 Airport operating budget
($1,292,890) and 50% share ($740,500) of the 2020 capital budget ($1,481,000), for a total appropriation of
$1,386,945 by the City. The City of Loveland will be appropriating the other 50% of the total 2020 Airport budget
($2,773,890). The Airport’s operating budget is used to maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all
regulatory standards for safety and security and to achieve goals set by the Northern Colorado Regional Airport
Commission. The Airport’s capital budget will be used to complete improvement projects, including the design
for a new commercial terminal building and associated support infrastructure, and the repaving of an existing
aircraft taxiway.
Below are the external financial resources and required grant matches that are expected through federal and
state grants, and from airport revenues to fund the 2020 capital budget:
FAA Grants $835,000
State Grants $87,000
Airport Revenues $59,000
Airport Reserves $500,000
Total $1,481,000
The $500,000 item is an appropriation for use by the Northern Colorado Regional Airport Commission consistent
with the approved 2020 Budget for high priority projects. This Airport Reserve appropriation does not require
any additional funding from the Cities.
The Northern Colorado Regional Airport Commission approved the proposed 2020 Airport Budget and
recommended it for approval by the Fort Collins and Loveland City Councils on August 15, 2019. The City of
Loveland’s City Council will consider the 2020 Airport budget concurrently, with First Reading scheduled for
October 15, 2019 and Second Reading scheduled for November 5, 2019.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance appropriates the City’s 50% share of the annual budget for fiscal year 2020 for the Northern
Colorado Regional Airport, which totals $1,386,945 and is 50% of the $2,773,890 total combined 2020 Airport
operating and capital budget. The proposed budget does not include financial contributions from the City’s
General Fund as it has in previous years, as the anticipated Airport revenues will increase in 2020, primarily as
a result of the Training Center Lease payments by both Cities. The City of Loveland manages the Airport’s
budget and finances under the IGA; however, each City Council must approve the annual budget under the IGA
and, since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50%
portion of the total Airport budget.
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (8420 : SR 121 Airport Budget)
25',1$1&(12
2)7+(&281&,/2)7+(&,7<2))257&2//,16
$'237,1*7+(%8'*(7$1'$335235,$7,1*7+()257&2//,16
6+$5(2)7+(),6&$/<($523(5$7,1*$1'&$3,7$/,03529(0(17
)81'6)257+(1257+(51&2/25$'25(*,21$/$,53257
:+(5($6 LQ WKH&LW\ RI )RUW&ROOLQV DQG WKH&LW\ RI/RYHODQG WKH ³&LWLHV´
:+(5($6SXUVXDQWWRWKH,*$WKH&LW\RI/RYHODQGKROGVRQEHKDOIRIERWK&LWLHVWKH
UHYHQXHV RI DQG RWKHU ILQDQFLDO FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WKH $LUSRUW LQ D IXQG ZKLFK LQFOXGHV
XQDSSURSULDWHGDQGXQHQFXPEHUHGUHVHUYHV WKH³$LUSRUW)XQG´
,QWURGXFHGFRQVLGHUHGIDYRUDEO\RQILUVWUHDGLQJDQGRUGHUHGSXEOLVKHGWKLVWKGD\RI
2FWREHU$' DQGWREHSUHVHQWHGIRUILQDOSDVVDJHRQWKHWKGD\RI1RYHPEHU$'
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
0D\RU
$77(67
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&LW\&OHUN
3DVVHGDQGDGRSWHGRQILQDOUHDGLQJRQWKHWKGD\RI1RYHPEHU$'
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
0D\RU
$77(67
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&LW\&OHUN
2.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Ordinance No. 121, 2019 (8420 : SR 121 Airport Budget)
1
RESOLUTION # R-6-2019
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2020 AIRPORT BUDGET AND
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCILS OF FORT COLLINS
AND LOVELAND
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins (“Fort Collins”) and the City of Loveland
(“Loveland”) jointly own and operate the Northern Colorado Regional Airport (the
“Airport”) pursuant to that Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Joint Operation of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (the “IGA”), dated January
22, 2015, as amended; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the IGA, the two Cities formed the Northern Colorado
Regional Airport Commission (“Commission”) and granted the Commission certain
authority, including the authority to develop the Airport budget; and
WHEREAS, the two Cities reserved to themselves the authority to approve the annual
Airport budget and the authority to approve each Cities’ annual contributions to and
appropriation of the Airport budget; and
WHEREAS, Airport staff has prepared the annual Airport budget for fiscal year 2020
(the “2020 Airport Budget”) and the Commission has reviewed the 2020 Airport Budget,
which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, after such review, the Commission approves the 2020 Airport Budget, and
recommends approval by the two City Councils along with appropriation of the necessary
funds for such 2020 Airport Budget.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NORTHERN COLORADO
REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the 2020 Airport Budget attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is hereby
approved.
Section 2. That the Commission recommends that the Fort Collins City Council and the
Loveland City Council each approve the 2020 Airport Budget. The Commission further
recommends that the City Councils approve each City’s annual contributions to and
appropriation of the 2020 Airport Budget.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall be effective as of the date and time of its adoption.
EXHIBIT A
2.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Ordinance No. 121, 2019 (8420 : SR 121 Airport Budget)
2.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Ordinance No. 121, 2019 (8420 : SR 121 Airport Budget)
2015 Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Budget 2020 Budget
OPERATING REVENUES
Hangar Rental 103,211 109,066 115,834 117,155 122,000 150,000
FBO Rent 69,486 78,216 78,216 98,060 88,250 88,250
Gas and Oil Commissions 148,955 119,168 152,779 199,017 155,000 180,000
State & County Aircraft Fuel Tax 70,292 88,103 107,181 112,080 112,000 113,000
Land Lease 185,497 207,553 193,554 232,541 235,000 644,000
Terminal Lease and Landing Fees 6,157 12,682 11,087 8,342 11,000 9,000
Parking 12,850 10,595 13,595 12,850 12,000 10,000
Miscellaneous 20,385 15,953 31,585 31,168 21,500 18,900
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 616,833 641,336 703,831 811,213 756,750 1,213,150
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personal Services 383,813 443,315 549,856 552,509 649,532 703,430
Supplies 38,162 41,753 41,130 55,943 63,000 74,500
Purchased Services 323,364 363,855 364,460 1,111,515 557,882 514,960
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 745,339 848,923 955,446 1,719,967 1,270,414 1,292,890
OPERATING GAIN (LOSS) (128,506) (207,587) (251,615) (908,754) (513,664) (79,740)
NONOPERATING
REVENUES (EXPENSES)
City Conributions 355,000 405,000 520,000 485,000 355,000 0
Passenger Facility Charge 878 0 0 0 0 0
Interest Income 22,177 8,584 25,965 31,930 20,000 20,000
Capital Expenditures (1,100,931) (1,187,394) (878,970) (986,124) (989,250) (1,481,000)
TOTAL NONOPERATING
REVENUES (EXPENSES) (722,876) (773,810) (333,005) (469,194) (614,250) (1,461,000)
NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS (851,382) (1,292,271) (584,620) (1,377,948) (1,127,914) (1,540,740)
Capital Contributions 863,207 985,995 831,535 986,124 892,500 922,000
CHANGE IN NET POSITION 11,825 (306,276) 246,915 (391,824)(235,414)(618,740)
Reserve Appropriation 335,000 335,000 500,000 500,000
2020 Airport Budget
2.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Ordinance No. 121, 2019 (8420 : SR 121 Airport Budget)
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director
Kristy Klenk, Financial Coordinator
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2019, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020 and Fixing
Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2020.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, sets the 2020 Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) Budget.
The following amounts will be appropriated:
DDA Public/Private Investments and Programs $3,918,409
DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 959,165
Revolving Line of Credit Draws $6,400,000
DDA Debt Service Fund $8,256,548
The Ordinance sets the 2020 mill levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002.
The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority's financial plan for 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Regarding public comment received on First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2019, at the regular meeting of
City Council on October 15, 2019, Council requested the DDA provide a memo with an explanation for how the
DDA Act (Title 31, Article 25, Part 8, C.R.S., as amended) would interrelate with Poudre School District Ballot
Issue 4A, should this specific ballot item be approved by voters in November 2019. A memo is attached.
(Attachment 2)
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. DDA Memo (PDF)
3. Ordinance No. 122, 2019 (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 44
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 15, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director
Kristy Klenk, Financial Coordinator
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2019, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020 and Fixing
Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2020.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to set the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Budget.
The following amounts will be appropriated:
DDA Public/Private Investments and Programs $3,918,409
DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 959,165
Revolving Line of Credit Draws $6,400,000
DDA Debt Service Fund $8,256,548
The Ordinance sets the 2020 mill levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002.
The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority's financial plan for 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The DDA was created in 1981 with the purpose, according to Colorado state statute, of planning and
implementing projects and programs within the boundaries of the DDA. By state statute the purpose of the ad
valorem tax levied on all real and personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five (5)
mills, shall be for the budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development
that specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes of the
state statute and the Plan of Development, the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various tax increment
bonds, which require debt servicing.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The DDA is requesting approval of the DDA Public/Private Investments and Programs budget for fiscal year
2020 in the amount of $3,918,409 and DDA Operation and Maintenance budget for fiscal year 2020 in the
amount of $959,165. It is requesting appropriation of up to $6,400,000 for the 2020 Line of Credit draws. It is
also requesting approval of the DDA debt payment commitments in the amount of $8,256,548 for 2020
obligations.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 2
Uses:
Alley Operations $ 106,870
Alley Capital Reserve Replacement 159,048
Downtown Wayfinding 40,000
Elks Lot Pre-Development 1,028,034
Elks Lot Construction Capital 1,839,941
Façade Grant Program 315,518
Gateway Entrances 55,000
Nighttime Economy Economic Impact Study 35,000
Old Town Square Operations 28,152
Old Town Square Capital Reserve Replacement 70,078
Urban Micro-Space Design Plan 105,814
Warehouse Operations 15,220
Other Public/Private Investments & Programs 119,734
Total $3,918,409
The 2020 Operations and Maintenance budget is projected as follows:
Uses:
Personnel Services $642,502
Contractual Professional Services 270,902
Purchased Supplies and Commodities 22,367
Other 23,394
Total $959,165
The 2020 Line of Credit draws, whose debt service payment will be made from the debt service fund, is projected
to fund up to $6,400,000.
Uses:
Old Firehouse Alley Parking Garage IGA Payment $ 300,000
Multi-Year Reimbursement Payments 621,361
Project Management Fees 111,092
Capital Asset General Maintenance 551,400
Capital Asset Reserve 186,058
Capital Asset Reserve & Replacement Annual Program 70,150
Future Public/Private Investments & Programs 4,559,939
Total $6,400,000
The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service payments
for 2020.
Uses:
Debt Payment: 2020 $8,256,548
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 12, 2019 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its
proposed budget for 2020 totaling $19,534,122 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment
of administrative costs incurred by the DDA.
3.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Boundary Map (PDF)
2. DDA Resolution 2019-03 Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy (PDF)
3. DDA Resolution 2019-04 Determining and Recommending the 2020 Budget (PDF)
4. DDA Resolution 2019-05 Appropriation of the 2020 Line of Credit Draw Service (PDF)
5. DDA Resolution 2019-06 Appropriation for Debt Service (PDF)
6. DDA Resolution 2019-07 Appropriation of Public-Private Investments & Programs (PDF)
3.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
ATTACHMENT 2
3.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: DDA Memo (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE
FORT COLLINS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 2020 AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) has been
duly organized in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) Section 31-25-804;
and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2019, DDA Board of Directors (the “DDA Board”), acting
under the provisions of C.R.S. Section 31-25-816, adopted a proposed and recommended DDA
budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020, as reflected in DDA Board Resolutions 2019-
04, 2019-05, 2019-06 and 2019-07 (the “Budget”), and determined the mill levy necessary to
provide for payment during fiscal year 2020 of properly authorized operational and maintenance
expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate the sum of NINETEEN
MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-
TWO DOLLARS ($19,534,122) from the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund and the DDA
Debt Service Fund for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020, and ending December 31, 2020,
to be used as follows;
DDA Public/Private Investments & Programs (O&M Fund) $3,918,409
DDA Operations & Maintenance (O&M Fund) 959,165
2020 Revolving Line of Credit Draws 6,400,000
DDA Debt Service Fund 8,256,548
Total $19,534,122
WHEREAS, the DDA Board, as reflected in DDA Board Resolution 2019-03, has
recommended to the Council that pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-817 the Council set a mill levy
of five (5) mills, unchanged since 2002, upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable
property within the DDA District, such levy representing the amount of taxes necessary to provide
for payment during the 2020 fiscal year for all properly authorized operational and maintenance
expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 39-5-128(1) requires certification of this mill levy to the
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
3.c
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Ordinance No. 122, 2019 (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
-2-
Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the Budget established under C.R.S.
Section 31-25-816(1).
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2020 for expenditure from
the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund for the Downtown Development Authority
Public/Private Investments and Programs the sum of THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINE DOLLARS ($3,918,409), to be expended to
fund the payment of the DDA-related obligations that have been entered into or will be entered
into in furtherance of the DDA’s approved plan of development.
Section 4. That there is also hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2020 for expenditure
from the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund for the Downtown Development Authority
Operation and Maintenance the sum of NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($959,165), to be expended for the authorized purposes of
the DDA.
Section 5. That there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2020 for expenditure from
the Downtown Development Authority 2020 Line of Credit draws the sum of up to SIX MILLION
FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,400,000), to be used to finance DDA projects
or programs in accordance with the DDA Plan of Development, including the multi-year
reimbursement payments and capital asset maintenance obligations.
Section 6. That there is hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2020 for expenditure
from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund the sum of EIGHT MILLION
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT DOLLARS
($8,256,548), for payment of debt service on previously issued and outstanding bonds, and for
payment on the 2020 Line of Credit draws.
Section 7. That the DDA’s mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the
assessed valuation of all taxable property within the DDA District shall be five (5) mills to be
imposed on the assessed value of such property as set by state law for property taxes payable in
2020, which levy represents the amount of taxes necessary to provide for payment during fiscal
year 2020 of all properly authorized operational and maintenance expenditures to be incurred by
the DDA, as appropriated herein. The City Clerk shall certify said mill levy to the County Assessor
and the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, no later than December
15, 2019.
3.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Ordinance No. 122, 2019 (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
3.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Ordinance No. 122, 2019 (8422 : SR 122 DDA Budget)
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Theresa Connor, Water Engineering Field Operations Mgr
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2019, Making Appropriations and Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations for the Spring Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project and Related Art in Public Places.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, appropriates $656,500 from the
Wastewater Fund cash reserves to replace of a section of sewer main that is at risk of imminent failure. On
July 14, 2019, a section of the Spring Creek Trunk Sewer, located between Stover and Ukiah Lane, collapsed
and needed an emergency repair on a 20-foot section of the pipeline. Subsequent televising of the rest of the
500-foot section of pipeline has found that it is structurally compromised and should be replaced. In addition,
significant longitudinal cracks were found in the 100-foot section of pipe just downstream. This section of pipe
is the original 24-inch clay. Staff is recommending lining this section of pipe at the same time. This
appropriation will allow for these sections of pipe to be replaced this winter rather than through the next budget
cycle in 2021.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 123, 2019 (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 52
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 15, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Theresa Connor, Water Engineering Field Operations Mrg
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2019, Making Appropriations and Authorizing Transfers of Appropriations
for the Spring Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project and Related Art in Public Places.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this appropriation request of $656,500 from the Wastewater Fund cash reserves is to allow for
the replacement of a section of sewer main that is at risk of imminent failure. On July 14, 2019, a section of the
Spring Creek Trunk Sewer, located between Stover and Ukiah Lane, collapsed and needed an emergency repair
on a 20-foot section of the pipeline. Subsequent televising of the rest of the 500-foot section of pipeline has
found that it is structurally compromised and should be replaced. In addition, significant longitudinal cracks were
found in the 100-foot section of pipe just downstream. This section of pipe is the original 24-inch clay. Staff is
recommending lining this section of pipe at the same time. This appropriation will allow for these sections of
pipe to be replaced this winter rather than through the next budget cycle in 2021.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On Sunday, July 14, 2019, Fort Collins Utilities on-call crews responded to a citizen call and found that a section
of the 24-inch Spring Creek Trunk Sewer had collapsed in a farm field just south of Prospect Avenue. They
quickly recognized that contractor assistance would be needed and called in assistance with bypass pumping
and construction of the repair. As the repair was underway, it was found that the 24-inch clay sewer was
completely gone and all that remained was a 21-inch fiberglass pipe liner. The liner had a date stamp of 1988 on
it. There was no record of the pipe liner within Utilities databases. A repair was made on the 21-inch pipe liner for
an approximate 20-foot section of pipe. Subsequent televising of the pipe has found that the entire 500-foot
section of pipeline is in compromised condition. Staff recommends replacement. Staff also recommends using
Cured In Place Pipe lining in a 100-foot section of pipe where there is significant cracking in the original 24-inch
clay trunk sewer to restore structural integrity of that pipe section. Staff recommends an off-cycle offer to
complete the work this winter instead of waiting to put in a BFO offer for 2021.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The impact of this $656,500 appropriation from cash reserves is not significantly detrimental to the long- term
financial resiliency of the Fund for the following reasons:
1. The 2019-20 Budgeting for Outcomes effort set aside $2.2M of anticipated revenues for future capital
improvements to the existing infrastructure.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8424 : SR 123 Spring Creek Sewer Appropriation)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 2
2. At the end of 2018, the Wastewater Fund held $42.8M in cash of which $22.2M is not required for minimum
reserves or prior appropriations making it available for appropriation.
This appropriation includes $6,500, or 1%, for Art in Public Places.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 19, 2019 meeting, the Water Board recommended City Council approve the appropriation to
fund the renewal of the Spring Creek Truck Sanitary Sewer from Stover Street to Ukiah Lane.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map (PDF)
2. Water Board minutes, September 19, 2019 (draft) (PDF)
4.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8424 : SR 123 Spring Creek Sewer Appropriation)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS OF
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SPRING CREEK SANITARY TRUNK
SEWER PROJECT AND RELATED ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”), which includes
a Wastewater Utility that provides wastewater service; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility includes a wastewater collection system, which
includes the Spring Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer, a 24-inch pipe that conveys wastewater; and
WHEREAS, Utilities completed emergency repairs on a portion of the Spring Creek Trunk
Sanitary Sewer in July 2019, and subsequent analyses have identified nearby sections of the Spring
Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer between Stover Street and Ukiah Lane that are at risk of imminent
failure; and
WHEREAS, Utilities staff has recommended that such repairs be made as soon as
practicable and before the winter, rather than waiting for the next budgetary cycle; and
WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of controlling wastewater in a sanitary manner and in
compliance with all applicable laws and rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and
determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Wastewater
Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Wastewater Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof
from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for
which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the
funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital
project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose
specified in the appropriation ordinance; and
WHEREAS, this Project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as
such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be
4.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Ordinance No. 123, 2019 (8424 : SR 123 Spring Creek Sewer Appropriation)
-2-
transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places
program; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter, the appropriation
of reserves for the Project from the Wastewater Fund and the transfer of a portion of those
unexpended and unencumbered appropriated funds to the Art in Public Places program established
by City Code Section 23-304(a) will be used for Wastewater purposes and improvements in
connection with the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves
in the Wastewater Fund the sum of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($656,500) for the Spring Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project and appropriated
therein as follows:
Spring Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Project $650,000
Art in Public Places Project (Artwork) 5,070
Art in Public Places Project (transfer to Cultural Services
Fund for APP Operations)
1,300
Art in Public Places Project (transfer to Cultural Services
Fund for APP Maintenance)
130
TOTAL $656,500
Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ONE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,300) in the Wastewater Fund is authorized for transfer to the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program
Operations.
Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
DOLLARS ($130) in the Wastewater Fund is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and
Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance.
4.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Ordinance No. 123, 2019 (8424 : SR 123 Spring Creek Sewer Appropriation)
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
4.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Ordinance No. 123, 2019 (8424 : SR 123 Spring Creek Sewer Appropriation)
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Theresa Connor, Water Engineering Field Operations Mgr
Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Deputy Director, Customer Connections
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Related to Water, Wastewater and Electric Rates, Fees, and Charges Applied Under an Income-Qualified
Assistance Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, amends Section 26-724 of City
Code, Chapter 26, pertaining to Utility Services to provide inclusivity for low-income customers, focusing on
qualification criteria and program descriptions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 124, 2019 (PDF)
5
Packet Pg. 58
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 15, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Theresa Connor, Water Engineering Field Operations Mrg
Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Deputy Director, Customer Connections
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Related to Water, Wastewater and Electric Rates, Fees, and Charges Applied Under an Income-Qualified
Assistance Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt a routine revision to Section 26-724 of City Code Chapter 26 pertaining to
Utility Services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
After one year of administering IQAP, Utilities staff has identified the following routine changes needed to achieve
inclusivity for low-income customer participation and address certain barriers recognized by qualifying low
income customers during the original IQAP roll-out. These changes do not affect low income customer rates;
they focus only on qualification criteria and program description language.
The specific City Code changes focus on:
Adding customer qualification for any one utility service; and
Removing exception language to qualify customers residing in multi-family properties and accommodate
residential arrangements where customers are not able to hold utility water service accounts in their names;
and
Adding language that allows enrollment into IQAP in both the preceding and current LEAP program year.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Both the Fort Collins Utilities Water Board and Fort Collins Energy Board were provided a memo that was sent
to City Council on July 19, 2019, at their August board meetings providing details on the recommended updates
to IQAP.
ATTACHMENTS
1. IQAP Staff Update memo, July 19, 2019 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
5.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8426 : SR 124 IQAP)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATED TO WATER, WASTEWATER AND ELECTRIC RATES, FEES, AND
CHARGES APPLIED UNDER AN INCOME-QUALIFIED ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as
will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other obligations as set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein are necessary to
produce sufficient revenues to provide the utility services described herein; and
WHEREAS, the revenue from the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein
shall be used to defray the costs of providing such utility services as required by the Charter and
the City Code; and
WHEREAS, as presented at the January 30, 2018, City Council work session, staff has
identified benefits available through an Income-Qualified Assistance Program (“IQAP”) that
improves adoption of conservation practices by qualifying low-income ratepayers who “opt-in” to
receive discounts that produce reasonable utility bill affordability; and
WHEREAS, based on direction provided by the City Council on January 30, 2018, staff
developed optimal program components, requirements, and utility service discounts for residential
water, wastewater, and electric services, as further set forth in Ordinance No. 054, 2018, as adopted
by Council on May 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, Articles III, IV, and VI of Chapter 26 of the City Code establish the water,
wastewater, and electric utilities as utility services furnished by and respective enterprises of the
City; and
WHEREAS, such provisions require periodic updating and modification for purposes of
clarification and to ensure that the Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to
issues identified by staff, customers, and citizens and changing technology for and manner of
delivering utility services; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities staff has identified provisions of Chapter 26 of the Code
where clarification of IQAP qualification and program practices are required to better inform
customers and align with current utility practices; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered proposed water and wastewater-related rate
adjustments for IQAP at its September 19, 2019, regular meeting, and recommended approval of
the proposed adjustments; and
5.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Ordinance No. 124, 2019 (8426 : SR 124 IQAP)
-2-
WHEREAS, the Energy Board considered proposed electric-related rate adjustments for
IQAP customers at its August 8, and September 12, 2019, regular meetings, and supported
approval of the proposed adjustments; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the City
Code to adjust the scope and rate of the electric and water-related rates, fees, and charges as set
forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-724 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-724. - Residential income-qualified assistance program.
. . .
(b) Qualification. As set forth in this Section, a discount on certain components of City utility
service rates applied under this Chapter shall be available for qualified customers who satisfy the
following criteria:
(1) Maintain an account in the customer's name directly for City residential electric
and/or water and/or wastewater utility services; and
(2) Have an annual household income that qualifies for the Larimer County Low-Income
Energy Assistance Program (LEAP); and
(3) One or more users at the account address apply for and enroll in LEAP during the
preceding or current LEAP program year (November 1 through April 30), and when LEAP
qualification is based on a member of the household other than the customer, the customer
produces proof of lawful presence in the U.S. in the valid forms accepted by LEAP; and
(4) Exercise reasonable efforts to improve the water and energy efficiency of the account
premise, participate in Active Energy Management Education sessions, and meet program
milestones determined according to guidelines established by the Utilities Executive
Director, which guidelines may include procedures for disenrollment.
(c) Applications. Applications for discounts under this Section must be submitted annually in
accordance with an administratively established schedule available from the Fort Collins Utilities.
(d) Rates. The discounts applied to monthly base and volumetric rates for qualified IQAP
customers shall be as set forth in Sections 26-127(a), 26-280, 26-464(c), and 26-465(c) of this
5.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Ordinance No. 124, 2019 (8426 : SR 124 IQAP)
-3-
Code on meter readings during the period of August 1 through July 31 (beginning October 1, 2018
and ending July 31, 2021).
(e) Appeal of decision. A decision that an applicant does not qualify to participate in this
program, except when the decision is based on lack of qualification for LEAP, may be appealed
to the Utilities Executive Director, who shall, prior to making his or her decision, and as he or she
deems appropriate, confer with one (1) or more financial experts in reviewing such appeal,
including LEAP officials.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
5.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Ordinance No. 124, 2019 (8426 : SR 124 IQAP)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to 2020 Utility Rates.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Revise Water Rates, Fees and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to Revise Stormwater Rates, Fees and Charges.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, adjust monthly charges for
electric, water, wastewater, and storm water services in 2020. The revenue requirements to support the 2020
budget will require increasing monthly charges for electric service by 5.0% and stormwater service by 2.0%.
While there is no overall percentage increase planned for the Water or Wastewater Funds, there are minor rate
class adjustments proposed based on recent cost-of-service model updates. Upon adoption, these rates would
be effective January 1, 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Five items from First Reading of 2020 Utility Rates were identified for staff to provide follow-up. These are
summarized below, along with responses from staff.
1. Question about whether this rate increase was independent of the TOD rate structure and tiered
rates. Council still expects a full report on usage patterns and what bills were as a result of these
changes.
RESPONSE: The 5% electric rate increase is independent of the rate structure change and was incorporated
into the 2019-2020 budget cycle prior to deployment of the TOD rate structure. The rate increase is necessary
6
Packet Pg. 63
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 2
to increase operating revenue enough to offset operating expenses, so that reductions in reserves does not
continue and funds can be set aside for future capital improvements.
The transition to time-of-day (TOD) rates for residential customers occurred one year ago, in October 2018.
Staff is planning to compile the full year of data, summarize both financial and consumption impacts related to
the rate structure change, and provide to City Council in 1st quarter of 2020.
2. Concern that it is not obvious to the average layperson how rates are equitable. Need to do more
work to educate on this. Request for additional documentation on this prior to second reading.
RESPONSE: Staff provided a memo to the City Manager regarding this topic on September 26, which
highlights cost differences between rate classes for electric and water. (Attachment 2)
Rate brochures are provided to customers annually, typically mailed in December, and include information
regarding rate changes. There is also information for customers on our website regarding rates, at
<https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/rates>, and information on utility rates allocation, at
<https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/rates/utility-rates-allocation/>.
3. Council Finance Committee requested a new chart that demonstrates rate impacts for customers
who do not live within the Fort Collins water utility territory. Request that this be provided prior to
Second Reading.
RESPONSE: Staff has compiled a graph below that shows costs for customers that live in different parts of the
city, where some services may be provided by a bordering water and/or wastewater district instead of Fort
Collins Utilities. The costs for water and wastewater services in these areas do vary depending on the district.
Those customers that live in south Fort Collins and are served by Fort Collins/Loveland Water District and
South Fort Collins Sanitation District have the lowest combined costs, at $160.75 per month. Those customers
that receive all four services from Fort Collins Utilities have a slightly higher combined cost at $172.70 per
month. Customers in the northwest part of the city that are served by West Fort Collins Water District are the
next highest at $193.22 per month. And those customer in the northeast part of the city, and served by
Boxelder Sanitation and ELCO Water, are the highest at $205.10 per month for all four services.
Final approved 2020 rate increases for each of the bordering districts were not available to show 2020 rate
comparisons, therefore 2019 rates were used.
A map is provided as Attachment 3 showing the area of Fort Collins where customers receive all for services
from Fort Collins Utilities and the area where customers are served by bordering districts.
6
Packet Pg. 64
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 3
In the Council First Reading material, the following table used an average electric rate increase of 5.0% to
show the year-over-year rate comparison for Fort Collins Utilities’ residential customers, while the actual
impact for these customers is 5.2%. This table has been modified below. This changes the average monthly
bill by 15 cents and increases the blended impact from 2.3% to 2.4% overall.
Utility 2019 2020 $ Change % Change
Electric $ 74.64 $ 78.52 $ 3.88 5.2%
Water $ 47.88 $ 48.07 $ 0.19 0.4%
Wastewater $ 34.45 $ 34.24 $ (0.21)-0.6%
Stormwater $ 15.73 $ 16.04 $ 0.31 2.0%
Total Average Bill $ 172.70 $ 176.88 $ 4.18 2.4%
Comparative Residential Monthly Bill
Fort Collins Utilities
Additionally, the 2019 electric average amount shown above was calculated using TOD rates, where the 2019
average used in prior year material (i.e. rate brochure sent to customers in Dec 2018 for 2019 rates) was
calculated using the residential tiered rate structure. Minor differences arise as an estimate for average “on-
peak” consumption is used, which factors into the amount for the TOD calculation. This causes variations
between estimates and actuals for a given year, given on-peak percentages will fluctuate. Staff provides rate
comparisons to be representative of a typical residential customer’s bill but realizes there are varying factors
that come into play when trying to compare rates to other communities and bordering districts.
4. Question about whether we have any way for consumers to have a device that can show where
they are with consumption/usage. Do we provide information on this that is easy for customers to
find?
RESPONSE: Utilities offers several options for customers to view their electricity use in detail so that they can
better understand and manage their home usage in response to time of day pricing.
6
Packet Pg. 65
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 4
• Monitor-My-Use is a free online tool for customers. By setting up an online profile with Fort Collins Utilities
you have access to this free tool that allows viewing of your electricity and water usage on a daily basis.
<https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/manage-your-account/monitor-my-use>
• In partnership with the Poudre River District Public Library, customers can check out a Home Energy
Monitor via the library’s loan program. Patrons of the Library can check out a device and by making a
phone call to the Peak Partners program during which they identify the loaner device a signal is sent to the
electric meter in their home to “pair” with the electric meter. This device can wirelessly connect with a Fort
Collins Light and Power electric meter (no electrician installation is needed) for near-real time readout of
the whole house energy consumption. Users can then turn on/off different appliances and get near-
instantaneous (less than 10 sec) feedback of the electricity use.
• Customers can also purchase their own home energy monitor which can link to the electric meter in the
same way as the library loan program. Fort Collins Utilities strongly recommends that customers check out
a unit from the library before purchasing their own Home Energy Monitor to confirm successful pairing with
the meter, as there could be radio range or Wi-Fi interference issues. Given the large variety of make and
models of Home Energy Monitors in the market, Fort Collins Utilities cannot guarantee all of them will work
with the electric meter. If a customer wants to purchase their own Home Energy Monitor, the “Rainforest
EMU-2” (same model as the library owns) have been tested and verified for compatibility and cybersecurity
requirements. More information on purchasing and setting up a home energy monitor is available at
<https://www.peakpartnersfortcollins.com/how_home_energy_monitor_program_works>
5. Question about the increase for IQAP and whether this would be in line with cost of living
increases.
RESPONSE: Income Qualified Assistance Program (IQAP) customers will continue to receive a 23% rate
reduction for applicable services and will also receive direct assistance from the Low-Income Energy
Assistance Program (LEAP). More customers are likely to qualify for LEAP (and therefore IQAP) due to new
requirements for LEAP eligibility which changed from income limits of up to 165% of federal poverty level index
to up to 60% of state median income level. The LEAP office estimates a 15% increase in LEAP eligible
participants at the state level.
In addition to the rate reduction from IQAP and the direct assistance provided through LEAP, IQAP customers
are eligible to receive indirect conservation and efficiency services and upgrades at no cost though the Larimer
County Conservation Crops, the Colorado Affordable Residential Energy Program and/or the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP). However, staff can evaluate how IQAP can be calculated based on cost-of-living
going forward and present findings to Council as part of the TOD analysis first quarter 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Memo Explaining Customer Classes with Higher Blended Costs, September 26, 2019 (PDF)
3. Fort Collins Utilities Service Areas (PDF)
4. 2018 Electric Cost of Service Model Update (PDF)
5. Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (PDF)
6. Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (PDF)
7. Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (PDF)
8. Ordinance No. 128, 2019 (PDF)
6
Packet Pg. 66
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 15, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Eric Potyondy, Legal
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to 2020 Utility Rates.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Revise Water Rates, Fees and Charges.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2019 Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Revise Stormwater Rates, Fees and Charges.
The purpose of this item is for Council to consider adjusting monthly charges for electric, water, wastewater, and
storm water services in 2020. The revenue requirements to support the 2020 budget will require increasing
monthly charges for electric service by 5.0% and stormwater service by 2.0%. While there is no overall
percentage increase planned for the Water or Wastewater Funds, there are minor rate class adjustments
proposed based on recent cost-of-service model updates. Upon adoption, these rates would be effective January
1, 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Electric Fund
The electric rate ordinance proposed for 2020 rates includes the following items:
A proposed 5% increase for the Electric Fund in 2020, which was included as part of the 2019-2020 City
Manager’s Recommended Budget
Changes to retail rates driven by proposed wholesale rate structure changes
The residential solar credit rate for excess generation proposed to remain at the current amount for 2020
Reducing the Green Energy subscription price by 30% to account for non-carbon resources in the overall
electricity mix.
ATTACHMENT 1
6.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
Staff is proposing a 5% overall rate increase for the Electric Fund in 2020 to increase operating revenues enough
to offset operating expenses, so that reductions in reserves stop and funds can be set aside for future capital
improvements.
The electric cost-of-service (COS) model is updated every two years, with the last update occurring in 2018.
The resulting rate class impacts being proposed for 2020 are not tied to model updates, and instead are due to
a combination of varying levels to which customers classes use the distribution system, as well as structure and
component changes in wholesale rates. As shown in the table below, the impacts are greater on a percentage
basis for the residential and small commercial classes and less for industrial and substation customers.
The ten-year rate forecast recognizes the increased cost of operations along with investments in environmental
initiatives and system infrastructure renewal. The increase in 2020 would generate additional revenue that
remains within the distribution utility of the City and will result in positive operating income being generated for
this Enterprise. Implementing these increases in 2020 compensates for the reduction in Reserves which has
occurred over the previous three budget cycles (2013-2018).
Changes in Wholesale Costs
Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) has proposed changes to the wholesale rate structure for 2020 related
to recent updates to the wholesale rate model. While the proposed wholesale structure is a departure from
having only a basic energy charge and a coincident peak charge, the changes will not impact how retail rates
are structured for billing Fort Collins’ retail customers in 2020. However, these changes will have financial
implications as to how it affects various customer rate classes, mostly dependent on load factors.
Existing wholesale rates are based on two components:
a seasonal energy charge, per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and
a seasonal coincident peak demand charge, per kilowatt (kW)
The proposed wholesale rates for 2020 will include the following charges:
Fixed monthly owner charge, based on the percentage of average annual energy sales
transmission charge, per kW, based on non-coincident peak
seasonal generation charge, per kW, based on coincident peak
energy charge, per kWh (no longer seasonal)
o based on a dispatchable fixed charge for all energy supplied,
o plus, a weighted ratio of
variable dispatchable energy
variable intermittent energy
2020
% Increase
Residential 5.2%
Small Commercial 4.4%
Mid‐sized Commercial 3.1%
Large Commercial 2.7%
Industrial 0.6%
Substation 0.0%
Rate Class
6.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 3
Additional Platte River changes include:
adding the month of September to the “summer” season, in addition to the months of June, July, and
August.
Implementing a 75% demand ratchet for both the non-coincident peak charge (NCP) and coincident peak
(CP) charge, which will increase demand costs in non-summer months of the year, but is driven by peaks
that occur during the summer months
Without making an adjustment to demand costs at the retail level, the wholesale demand ratchet would drive a
~$1.5M revenue shortfall. While these costs are incurred during the non-summer months, staff is proposing the
summer demand charge for retail customers be increased to offset this amount because the cause of the
increased cost is higher summer peak demands. The impact would be an increase in the summer months from
$11.98 / kW to $13.27 / kW.
The Electric Rates Ordinance changes the Code to match Platte River’s change in the summer season and
extend the summer period for commercial customers to include the month of September. Residential customers
will continue with a five-month summer season, as previously established for time-of-day (TOD) pricing, which
already includes September as a summer month.
The wholesale energy component will no longer be seasonal, therefore eliminating the need for seasonal energy
charges at the retail level, other than in cases where wholesale demand charges are collected via an energy
charge (i.e. TOD pricing will continue to have a seasonal on-peak charge, but not a seasonal off-peak charge)
The mix of wholesale costs will shift slightly higher (~2%) for demand and slightly lower for energy, therefore
having varying effects for retail rate classes. Generally, higher load factor customers (i.e. large commercial and
industrial) will benefit from this shift, while other rate classes will be negatively impacted.
The table below shows how the component charges will change for 2020 for residential TOD customers, given
the changes to distribution and wholesale costs that comprise each charge.
6.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 4
Green Energy Program
Platte River provides renewable energy in the general resource mix (formerly Tariff 1) through the supplemental
Tariff 7, which is based on individual member City commitments. Tariff 7 will continue through 2020 based upon
the current structure. All renewable energy sources are expected to be included in the primary wholesale tariff
starting in 2021, and Tariff 7 will be eliminated.
The Green Energy Program provides an option for customers to subscribe to renewable electricity, in
predetermined “blocks” or up to 100% of their usage. The price premium has been based upon the tariff 7 cost,
which in 2019 is 2.5 cents per kWh. The retail price premium is currently 2.65 cents per kWh after the inclusion
of PILOTs.
The current program does not account for the amount of non-carbon resources provided to customers as part of
the overall resource mix. Given that non-carbon resources make up at least 30% of electricity, customers who
pay the total premium on 100% of their monthly kilowatt-hour use are buying more than 100% renewable energy.
Staff is recommending the Green Energy Rate be modified to account for the base resource mix. The proposed
approach adjusts the amount of renewable energy purchased by a factor of 70% of kWh use. This adjustment
means the current premium charge of 2.65 cents per kWh would be reduced in 2020 to 1.9 cents per kWh. The
overall decrease in revenue to the utility, at the current participation rate related to this adjustment, is ~$125,000,
but may be partially offset by increased participation in the program.
Staff has also determined that as a consequence of this change in program logic, the Green Energy program
will no longer be eligible for certification under the Green-e® Energy Program (green-e.org/programs/energy).
The primary reason is that some of the non-carbon resources in the base mix do not quality as Green-e®
certifiable sources (e.g. the hydro and older wind). Green-e® has provided a valuable external certification for
the Green Energy (and previously Wind Power) Program. However, it’s structure will be limiting to Utilities options
to provide renewable choices for customers moving forward. Several key points related to this change include:
Staff has no evidence that Green-e certification remains an important factor for customers. Annual letters
are sent out to subscribers regarding Green-e® certification with no feedback from customers and staff has
discussed this topic with key accounts and business subscribers.
Utilities will save approximately $3,500 annually to not have to go through the certification process.
There is a requirement to notify existing subscribers that the program is no longer certified. Staff will be
communicating the lower pricing to existing customers and can incorporate this requirement into the same
mailing.
6 percent
c. Fixed Charge Per account $ 6.40 17.9% $ 7.55 $ 8.00
b. Distribution facilities charge
(included in each component below for billing purposes)
d. Energy and demand charge
1. Summer
(a) On-Peak Per kWh $ 0.2055 6% $ 0.2183 $ 0.2585
(b) Off-Peak Per kWh $ 0.0437 -5% $ 0.0414 $ 0.0710
2. Non-summer.
(a) On-Peak Per kWh $ 0.1824 0% $ 0.1815 $ 0.2195
(b) Off-Peak Per kWh $ 0.0419 -1% $ 0.0414 $ 0.0710
e. Energy efficiency tier charge, for total consumption over 700
kWh in a billing month Per kWh $ 0.0183 17.9% $ 0.0216 $ 0.0229
2020
Billed
Charge
Description Unit
2019
Component
Charge
2020 %
Change
2020
Component
Rate
a. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT)
Per kWh $ 0.0217 17.9% $ 0.0256
6.a
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 5
Utilities will be able to provide customers with detailed accounting of their sources of electricity as a Green
Energy program subscriber, in a similar fashion to that required by Green-e®.
Staff is recommending this pricing change for 2020 as an interim step prior to a more comprehensive revisions
for the Green Energy Program for 2021. By 2021, the new Roundhouse wind and Rawhide Prairie solar projects
will be operational, and the legacy Tariff 7 commitments may be absorbed into the primary wholesale tariff.
These major changes to the renewable energy sources for Fort Collins customers will necessitate an overhaul
of the Green Energy Program. Staff will incorporate this effort into 2020 work plans with the intent being to
provide customers with options to achieve 100% renewable energy from local and utility scale sources as the
overall resource mix evolves towards the 2030 goal of 100% renewable electricity.
Residential Solar Net Export Credit
Residential solar customers currently receive full retail credit rate for solar energy which they generate and
consume within their home and for solar energy generated in excess of what their home is consuming (net
export). Retail electricity rates include approximately 2.2 cents per kWh related to the cost of service for
operations and maintenance of the distribution system.
Fort Collins customers’ increasing adoption of solar energy systems provides long-term opportunities and
challenges for Utilities, for customers and for the community’s climate and energy goals. While Fort Collins
remains in the early phases of solar adoption, it is important to recognize that the current financial structures are
not sustainable if continued indefinitely. Staff is recommending a multi-step process with the objectives of:
Continuing to support a robust local solar adoption rate and solar industry presence, and
Providing a glide path for residential rate structures which aligns with the community’s goal to achieve 100%
renewable electricity by 2030.
The analysis required to review the goals, targets, rates, pricing, policies and business models for solar and
distributed energy resources will be incorporated into the Our Climate Future planning process to update the
City’s energy and climate plans. The outcome for the effort will be to establish a sustainable financial model for
distributed energy resources and a predictable path and timeline for customers and trade allies which recognizes
the value of both the distribution grid system and individual assets to create Fort Collins energy future.
As an initial step, staff is recommending that the effective residential solar credit rate for net excess generation
be maintained at the current amount for 2020. This proposed change in approach does not affect the customer
value for self-consumed solar energy. Because Fort Collins’ advanced electric meters measure and record the
net electricity consumption or net electricity export every 15 minutes, all self-consumed solar is always credited
at the full retail rate. It is only the excess solar energy that is returned to the distribution system that is impacted
by this proposal.
By holding the effective solar net export credit flat in 2020, the rate begins to address the inequity caused by
solar customers not contributing to the distribution system annual costs. The approach of holding the net export
compensation flat creates a gradual shift where the expected increases in wholesale costs will approach the
solar net export rate in the future. Note that other factors, including strategies related to fixed (or base) charges
for all customers may impact this approach in future years.
The initial impact on solar customers in 2020 is relatively small, as the average impact is expected to be
approximately $1.10 less compensation per month. This is approximately 2% of the annual system value. With
simplified modeling, this approach would reduce the cost recovery of a typical solar system by approximately
$450 over ten years. From the Utilities perspective, implementation of this strategy would have an impact of
approximately $2M over ten years.
6.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 6
Rate Strategy Overview: The rate strategy that was developed as part of the Strategic Financial Plan in 2016
provides for objective rate adjustments based on financial metrics. This strategy is included in the stochastic
financial modeling for the plan and serves as the basis of the rate projections presented to Council since 2016.
The following criteria objectively determine when, why and how much rates should be adjusted to maintain the
financial health of each utility:
1. Adjust electric rates sufficient to meet Platte River Power Authority wholesale rate adjustments.
2. If the previous 3 years have averaged negative operating income, raise rates next year to the lesser of 5%
or the level sufficient to have offset the average operating loss.
3. If debt coverage is less than 2.0, increase rates the lesser of 5% and a level sufficient to raise the debt
coverage ratio to 2.1 the next year.
4. If the Available Reserve fund balance is projected to be negative at the end of any year, increase rates the
lesser of 5% and an amount sufficient to increase reserves to the minimum required reserve.
5. Add up all the previous criteria driven rate adjustments and take the lesser of 5% and the sum as the
recommended rate adjustment.
The table below shows how the criteria led to the requested rate adjustments for this budget cycle:
Oct '18 CURRENT
Criteria 2019 2020 2020 2021
1.4% 1.4% 0.3%
1. PRPA wholesale energy costs 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
2. 3 yr ave Operating Income < 0 5.0% 3.0% 3.9% TBD
3. Debt Coverage Ratio < 2.0 TBD
4. Available Reserves less Capital Need < 0 TBD
Sum of Above 6.4% 5.8% 5.3%
5. Lesser of 5.0% or the sum of above 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% TBD
Increase Carried Forward 1.4% 0.8% 0.3% TBD
TBD - to be determined in the 2021-22 Budget cycle
6.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 7
Electric Rate Trend: Below are charts for these two utilities showing the adjustments to rates that have been
implemented since 2007, along with the forecasted rate adjustments being proposed in this budget. The table
below each chart shows the rate adjustments that are anticipated to be necessary over the next 10 years to
provide adequate revenues to maintain the financial health as determined by the bond rating agencies criteria
for assessing new debt issuances.
Stormwater Fund
The 2% stormwater increase for 2019 is intended to raise operating revenues modestly to increase the debt
capacity of the Enterprise. This is in anticipation of significant debt being needed for the capital improvements
necessary to complete the initial buildout of the stormwater infrastructure. Similar, modest adjustments of less
than 3% may be necessary over the coming decade depending on the timing and scale of the necessary capital
investments.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
% Rate Increase
Electric Monthly Rates
Purchased Power
Distribution System
Energy Services
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Rate Increase 3.5%1.8%5.0%5.0%2-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%1-3%
Debt Issuance $M $20.0
$165M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026 in addition to the current capital appropriations.
Criteria 2019 2020
1. 3 yr ave. Operating Income < $0 - -
3. Debt Coverage Ratio < 2.0 - -
4. Available Reserves less Capital Need < 0 * 2.0% 2.0%
Sum of Above 2.0% 2.0%
5. Lesser of 5.0% or the sum of above 2.0% 2.0%
* This is an estimate in lieu of the capital improvement plan
being prioritized. It will be necessary to increase revenues
to support the significant capital needs for this utility
6.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 8
The graph below shows the rate history and forecast for the Stormwater Fund. There was a 5% increase in
2017, no increase in 2018, and 2% in 2019, along with 2% proposed for 2020. The forecast for future years
includes a 1%, or less, increase each year.
Water and Wastewater Funds
Staff is proposing no changes in total revenue for the Water and Wastewater Funds for 2020. While there are
no overall changes to these funds, staff recently updated the cost-of-service models for each fund, which is done
every two years. These model updates are driving some minor rate class adjustments. The proposed
adjustments consider variations over the past two years in customer counts, consumption data, and costs related
to operating and maintenance, as well as capital projects.
The graph below shows the proposed rate class adjustments by customer class for the Water Fund. The
adjustments range from (1.3%) to 0.9%. The biggest driver is related to variations in overall consumption,
generally during the summer months when outdoor irrigation occurs. The peaking factor (peak day consumption
compared to average day consumption) for the residential class has increased, on average, thereby driving an
increase in the allocation of water production expenses to this class of customers, albeit minor. The residential
class is proposed to increase 0.4%, the duplex class is proposed to increase 0.8%, and the multi-family class is
proposed to increase 0.9%. The commercial class has decreased peak day flows slightly, which along with other
minor changes, is reflected in the proposed 1.3% rate decrease for 2020.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
% Rate Increase
Stormwater Monthly Rate Changes
6.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 9
The graph below shows the rate history and forecast for the Water Fund. No change occurred for 2019 and no
overall change is proposed for 2020. Future year proposals are for a 3% rate increase each year.
The graph below shows the proposed rate class adjustments by customer class for the Wastewater Fund, which
range from (0.6%) to 1.5%. While wastewater billing is tied to indoor water consumption, there are other factors
that play into wastewater utility costs. One example is effluent charges, which includes surcharges for
biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids, which are collected from commercial customers that
exceed certain thresholds. The biggest drivers in the wastewater changes are related to a combination of the
variability in the wastewater flows, and associated strengths of that waste, since the last model update. The
outcome of the recent model update shows the residential class decreasing 0.6%, the duplex class increasing
0.1%, the multi-family class increasing 1.4%, and the commercial class increasing 1.5%, for 2020.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
% Rate Increase
Water Fund Annual Rate Changes
6.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 10
The graph below shows the rate history and forecast for the Wastewater Fund. No change occurred for 2019
and no overall change is proposed for 2020. Future year proposals are for a 2% increase each year.
Typical Residential Utility Bill
The typical residential customer’s total utility bill will increase in 2020, under the proposed rate changes, by 2.3%
on average, per month. The table below shows the impacts of all the proposed rate changes on the utility bill
of a typical residential customer.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
% Rate Increase
503 - Wastewater Fund Rate Changes
6.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 11
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Electric Rate Ordinance - In 2020, the proposed 5.0% increase would add an estimated $6.5M to operating
revenues which will partially address the ongoing operating loss. The attached one-page budget summary for
the Light and Power Enterprise Fund shows the budget assuming this proposed 5.0% rate increase is adopted.
Because reserves have been drawn down already any reduction in the proposed 5.0% rate increase would need
to be offset by a corresponding amount in the accepted budget Offers.
Stormwater Rate Ordinance - In 2020, the proposed 2.0% increase would add an estimated $0.3M to operating
revenues. In the near term this modest rate increase will allow the utility to build up reserves to strengthen the
utility’s financial position ahead of anticipated debt issuances. The attached one-page budget summary for the
Stormwater Enterprise Fund shows a contribution to reserves in both years. In the long term this will increase
the debt capacity necessary to finance the remaining stormwater infrastructure.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 12, 2019 meeting, the Energy Board voted unanimously to support the 202 electric rate increase
and changes as proposed by staff.
At its September 19, 2019 meeting the Water Board voted unanimously that City Council approve the proposed
2% increase to Stormwater as well as the rate class adjustments for Water and Wastewater for 2020, as
proposed by staff.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Key Accounts have been communicating the 5.0% overall electric rate increase, 2% stormwater increase, and
the rate class adjustments to water and wastewater rates being proposed for 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Energy Board minutes, September 12, 2019 (draft) (PDF)
2. Water Board minutes, September 19, 2019 (draft) (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Utility 2019 2020 $ Change % Change
Electric $64 74.$37 78.$ 3.73 5.0%
Water $ 47.88 $07 48.$ 0.19 0.4%
Wastewater $45 34.$24 34.$ (0.21)‐0.6%
Stormwater $ 15.73 $04 16.$ 0.31 2.0%
Total Average Bill $ 172.70 $73 176.$ 4.03 2.3%
Average Residential Monthly Bill
Fort Collins Utilities
6.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 26, 2019
TO: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
FROM: Randy Reuscher, Lead Analyst, Utility Rates
THROUGH: Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Lance Smith, Director, Financial Planning & Analysis
RE: Utility Rates - Explanation of Customer Classes with Higher Blended Costs
Bottom line:
The tables below summarize the per kilowatt-hour and per thousand-gallon charges by rate class.
Background
As the tables above show, the overall blended cost for providing electric and water services to
utility customers vary between rate classes. This variation is attributable to the allocation of
costs between the rate classes through the various fixed and variable charges. This allocation of
costs is done through a Cost of Service (COS) study every 2 years to ensure costs are shared
equitably between rate classes.
2018 Blended
Electric Rate Class Charge / kWh
Residential 10.4 cents
Small Commercial 9.7 cents
Mid-size Commercial 8.8 cents
Large Commercial 8.2 cents
Industrial 6.9 cents
Substation 6.5 cents
2018 Blended
Water Rate Class Charge / 1,000 Gallons
Residential $5.30
Small Commercial $4.00
Large Commercial $2.80
Industrial $1.90
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
ATTACHMENT 2
6.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Memo Explaining Customer Classes with Higher Blended Costs, September 26, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
The most significant differences between the rate class charges are:
1) Load factors are the main driver for differences in unit costs for each rate class.
Each class consists of customers with similar load factors, which is the ratio of the peak
day demand to the average daily demand. The amount of infrastructure needed to serve a
rate class is a function of the rate class’s load factor. Some rate classes utilize more
infrastructure to provide them services than other rate classes. For example, the cost to
serve residential customers with electric service is higher, on a per unit basis, than the
cost to serve industrial customers because industrial customers typically own their own
distribution transformers and require less, if any, secondary cable to serve them.
2) Customers only pay for the infrastructure needed to serve them. An industrial
electric customer that pulls electricity directly from the substation, for example, does not
use the local distribution system, whereas a residential or small commercial relies on the
distribution system to get electricity from the substation to their home or business.
Therefore, there are different cost allocations to each of the customer classes.
3) Component Charges – Component charges are not a factor in determining “how much”
revenue should be collected from a rate class but is something to be considered if trying
to compare the base kWh charge for one class to the kWh charge of another class. While
each electric rate class is allocated both energy and demand costs, some rate classes are
billed these costs through only an energy component (residential customers), while others
classes have these costs broken out into an energy component, a demand component, and
a coincident peak component (large commercial/industrial customers), or some variation
of the above. If one only considers a portion of the total charges to a rate class, such as
only considering energy costs, an inaccurate picture emerges.
If there is a desire for additional information regarding varying unit costs for electric and water
services amongst rate classes, please let me know and more details can be provided. I have
attached a short overview of the last Electric Cost of Service study, completed in 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
6.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Memo Explaining Customer Classes with Higher Blended Costs, September 26, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
S Taft Hill Rd
Laporte Ave
Giddings Rd
S County Road 19
E County Road 54
N Taft Hill Rd
Main St
N County Road 5
S County Road 5
E Vine Dr
Ziegler Rd
S Lemay Ave
E Douglas Rd
S College Ave
W
C
o
u
n
ty R
o
a
d
3
8
E
E County Road 52
Strauss Cabin Rd
S Shields St
E Mulberry St
N Shields St
E Mulberry St
E Vine
Dr
S County Road 5
Ziegler Rd
S Shields St
Legend
Customers Receiving 4 Fort Collins Utility Services (69,290)
Customers Receiving 1,2 or 3 Fort Collins Utility Services (19,640)
City Limits
Growth Management Area
FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SERVICE AREA ATTACHMENT 3
6.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Fort Collins Utilities Service Areas (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
1
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
970.224.6003 – TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
2018 Electric Cost-of-Service (COS) Model Update
Utility staff recently completed the electric cost of service (COS) study update in 2018 (last
updated in 2016) to determine necessary changes for 2019.
The City of Fort Collins Utilities Financial Management Policies 4.2.a.2 states:
“Utility rates will be based upon the cost-of-service approach to reflect full
distribution costs to appropriate rate classes in order to effect equitable sharing of costs”
To accommodate this requirement, a COS study is undertaken every two years to determine if
current revenue generated by each customer class is within reasonable bounds of its cost to
serve and, if not, to make recommendations to correct this difference. In addition, a COS study
provides data on various disaggregated cost elements for analyzing the impacts of customer
behavior and setting customer specific contract rates.
The methodology used to perform the 2018 COS study is in accordance with the general
approach taught by the American Public Power Association (APPA) and the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) cost allocation manual.
The electric model was reviewed externally by NewGen Strategies, in 2016, to ensure allocation
methods being used are consistent with standard practice within the electric industry.
BACKGROUND
The COS study consists of the following steps:
Determine Revenue Requirements
Revenue requirements are determined in the budget process. For 2019, it was determined
a 5% overall revenue increase was necessary for the City of Fort Collins Light and Power
Utility to operate and maintain its distribution system and meet a wholesale rate increase,
as well as incorporate additional funding for energy services programs.
Functionalization of System Costs
Functionalization is the arrangement of costs according to functions performed by the Light
and Power Utility such as substations, circuits, transformers, services, meters and customer
accounts. The Utility uses Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) accounting
numbers, which help to categorize plant-in-service assets, depreciation, operations and
maintenance (O&M) and construction-in-progress costs. This step is necessary to allocate
the functionalized costs to the customer classes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
ATTACHMENT 4
6.d
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: 2018 Electric Cost of Service Model Update (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
2
Load Analysis
The 2018 COS study uses actual load data to develop allocation factors based on customer
class load patterns. Key elements are -
Hourly demands of the customer class at the time of the monthly coincident system
peak are used to allocate wholesale demand costs.
Hourly demands of the customer class at the time of the monthly maximum peak
are used to allocate distribution facilities costs.
Fort Collins charges a coincident peak rate for medium and large commercial customer
classes, and in addition, has AMI metering to collect interval data on customers in the
remaining customer classes, which provides complete data for all facets of the load analysis
for the COS study.
2019 Rate Recommendations
A COS model is detailed and methodological and the outputs serve as a guide to adjusting the
cost burdens among customer classes.
The overall revenue increase proposed for 2019 is 5.0% at the retail level
3.6% is related to distribution system increases
1.4% is related the PRPA wholesale increase
The following chart summarizes the COS results and the recommended rate changes:
The rate class adjustments incorporate the wholesale and distribution components. The
contributions are displayed in the table below. The impacts vary slightly by rate class, ranging
from 1.3% to 1.8% for wholesale expenses and from 3.3% to 3.9% for distribution expenses.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
6.d
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 2018 Electric Cost of Service Model Update (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
3
Expenses for the utility are recovered through monthly billing charges. Approximately 72% of
total utility costs are associated with wholesale expenses for purchased power energy and
purchased power demand, which covers the generation and transmission aspects of providing
electric service. The remaining costs are associated with the distribution utility, which are
broken out in the graph below, as a percentage of total costs, and make up the other 28% of
total utility costs.
Capital projects vary significantly from year to year. To level these expenses, a 10-year average,
including 5 years of historical data and 5 years of projected budget data, is used. From this, the
average depreciation is subtracted and the result (known as capital in-excess of depreciation) is
functionalized using existing depreciation allocations. This value represents those capital
expenses necessary, beyond routine replacement levels, to keep the system operational.
The revenue generated from each rate class is shown in the graph below.
Rate Class
Wholesale
Costs
Distribution
Costs
Overall
Increase
Residential 1.3% 3.5% 4.8%
Small Commercial 1.4% 3.7% 5.1%
Mid-sized Commercial 1.5% 3.9% 5.4%
Large Commercial 1.6% 3.7% 5.3%
Industrial 1.8% 3.3% 5.1%
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
6.d
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 2018 Electric Cost of Service Model Update (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
4
Utility systems are built to deliver service to all customers at any given time and approximately
72% of the utility budget is for the operation, maintenance and debt of the generation,
transmission and distribution facilities of this system. Costs related to generation and
transmission are contained within the energy and demand charges of the wholesale rate.
To appropriately allocate costs related to the wholesale demand costs, customer class hourly
demands at the time of Platte River Power Authority’s monthly system peaks must be
incorporated. In addition, costs related to the distribution facilities are allocated using the
estimated customer class contribution to the sum of the customer class maximum peaks. This
latter calculation is the proxy for evaluating customer class demands upon the distribution main
feeder circuits and substations.
The utility has adopted a coincident peak contribution rate structure for medium and large
commercial customer classes. These two classes account for approximately one-half of the
system energy use. To administer this rate, hourly data for each customer in these classes is
collected, which provides accurate data for these customers’ peak contributions to both the
system monthly peaks, as shown in the graph below, as well as the sum of the customer class
maximum peaks.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
6.d
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: 2018 Electric Cost of Service Model Update (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
5
The traffic signal, street lighting and floodlighting classes’ demand contributions are
determined using load calculations and assuming coincidence with summer and winter peak
times.
The remaining classes’ (Residential, Residential Demand, General Service and General Service
25) load data is available through the AMI hourly data we now have as a result of the AMI
metering project. In addition to these demand estimates, we can also accurately estimate the
maximum monthly aggregate demand for each customer class necessary for developing
allocation factors for allocating many of our distribution facilities related costs.
After it is determined how much should be collected from each rate class, based on the COS
outputs, adjustments are made to billing determinants to complete the process.
By utilizing an industry standard approach to cost allocation, the utility is able to ensure that
each rate class is contributing fairly to the utility.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 99DB2361-FF68-420A-8E2F-EA495C47565B
6.d
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: 2018 Electric Cost of Service Model Update (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 125, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
AND UPDATING RELATED PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein are necessary to
produce sufficient revenues to provide the utility services described herein; and
WHEREAS, revenues from the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein
shall be used to defray the costs of providing such utility services as required by the Charter and
the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City purchases bulk wholesale electric power from Platte River Power
Authority (“PRPA”) pursuant to an Amended Contract for Supply of Electric Power and Energy,
dated May 30, 2019; and
WHEREAS, Utilities staff has determined the increased local distribution costs will require
an additional average 5% rate increase in 2020 in order to remain consistent with Article XII,
Section 6, of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, in addition to adjusting electric rates, Utilities staff has identified formatting
and maintenance updates to Chapter 26 of the City Code necessary to improve the clarity with
which electric rates are stated; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Board considered the proposed electric rates and methods of
application at its September 12, 2019 regular meeting, and provided recommendations of approval
of proposed rate sets to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the
following electric rate adjustments and City Code rate language clarifications for all billings issued
with meter readings on or after January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise the electric rates, fees and charges as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
6.e
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-2-
Section 2. That Section 26-391 (a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by addition of two new definitions to read as follows:
…
Component energy charge/credit shall mean the base rate for energy consumption or net-metered
generation, which is combined with the PILOT and distribution facilities charge (where indicated)
for the “billed charge” or “bill credit” reflected on a customer’s utility bill.
…
Billed charge shall mean the charge appearing on a residential or small commercial customer’s
utility bill, reflecting the combined total of PILOT, component energy charge, and distribution
facilities charge (where indicated). For other commercial services, this charge adds only PILOT to
the designated component charge, as indicated in the respective rate table for the service class.
Bill credit shall mean the credit appearing on a residential customer’s bill, reflecting the combined
total of component energy credit and distribution facilities credit (where indicated).
…
Section 3. That Sections 26-464 (c), (d), (e), (f), (p), and (r) of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-464. - Residential energy service, schedule R.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following
charges applied to all energy consumption on or after January 1, 2020.
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
a. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant
to this Section
6 percent
b. Fixed Charge
Per
account
$7.55 $8.00
c. Distribution facilities charge (applied to energy
charges in d.1. and d.2. below)
Per kWh $0.0256
d. Wholesale Energy Charge (combined energy and demand costs)
1. Summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of May, June, July, August,
and September
6.e
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-3-
(a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh
$0.2183 $0.2585
(b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0710
2. Non-summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of January through
April and October through December.
(a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh
$0.1815 $0.2195
(b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0710
e. Energy efficiency tier charge, per kilowatt hour
for total consumption over 700 kWh in a billing
month (regardless of on-peak or off-peak)
Per kWh
$0.0216 $0.0229
f. Income-qualified assistance discount. Discount applied to
effective monthly charges in "a.", "b.", "c." and “d.” for IQAP
participating residential customers, as further described in
Section 26-724 of the Code.
23 percent
(d) Medical assistance program.
. . .
(3) a. Durable Medical Equipment (DME). The discounted monthly rates for customers with
electrical durable medical equipment only shall be the sum of the following charges,
applied to all energy consumption on or after January 1, 2020:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
1. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this
Section
6 percent
2. Fixed Charge
Per
account
$7.55 $8.00
3. Distribution facilities charge (applied to energy
charges in 4.a) and 4.b) below)
Per kWh
$0.0256
4. Energy and demand charge
a) Summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of May, June, July, August,
and September
6.e
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-4-
(i) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh
$0.1528 $0.1891
(ii) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0290 $0.0578
b) Non-summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of January through April
and October through December.
(i) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh
$0.1271 $0.1618
(ii) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0290 $0.0578
5. Energy efficiency tier charge, per kilowatt hour
for total consumption over 700 kWh in a billing
month (regardless of on-peak or off-peak)
Per kWh
$0.0216 $0.0229
(4) a. Air Conditioning (A/C). The discounted monthly rates for customers with medical
needs requiring air conditioning only shall be the sum of the following charges, applied to all
energy consumption on or after January 1, 2020:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
1. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this
Section
6 percent
2. Fixed Charge
Per
account
$7.55 $8.00
3. Distribution facilities charge (applied to
energy charges in 4.a) and 4.b) below)
Per kWh $0.0256
4. Energy and demand charge
a) Summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of May, June, July, August,
and September
(i) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh 0.0414 $0.0710
(ii) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0710
b) Non-summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of January through
April and October through December.
(i) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh $0.1815 $0.2195
(ii) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0710
6.e
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-5-
5. Energy efficiency tier charge, per kilowatt
hour for total consumption over 700 kWh in a
billing month (regardless of on-peak or off-
peak)
Per kWh $0.0216 $0.0229
(5) a. Durable Medical Equipment (DME) & A/C. The discounted monthly rates for
customers with electrical durable medical equipment and medical needs requiring air
conditioning shall be the sum of the following charges, applied to all energy consumption
on or after January 1, 2020:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
1. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to
this Section
6 percent
2. Fixed Charge
Per
account
$7.55 $8.00
3. Distribution facilities charge (applied to
energy charges in 4.a) and 4.b) below)
Per kWh $0.0256
4. Energy and demand charge
a) Summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of May, June, July, August,
and September
(i) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0710
(ii) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0290 $0.0578
b) Non-summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of January through
April and October through December.
(i) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh $0.1271 $0.1618
(ii) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0290 $0.0578
5. Energy efficiency tier charge, per kilowatt
hour for total consumption over 700 kWh in a
billing month (regardless of on-peak or off-
peak)
Per kWh $0.0216 $0.0229
. . .
(e) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at the
premium per kilowatt hour set forth in this Subsection (e). The utility may establish and offer
6.e
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-6-
voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable
energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(f) Excess capacity charge. The monthly capacity charge kilowatt set forth in this Subsection (f)
may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance with the
provisions of the Electric Service Standards.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kW $2.32 $2.46
. . .
(p) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator’s consumption of energy from the utility and production of energy
that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly basis. The
energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at the
applicable rates under Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by the
customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows, applied to all
generation returned to the grid on or after January 1, 2020.
Description Unit
Component
Credit
Bill Credit
1. Distribution facilities credit (applied to credits in 2. and
3. below)
Per kWh $0.0217
2. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months
of May, June, July, August and September
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding holidays) Per kWh $0.2183 $0.2400
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0631
3. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months
of January through April and October through December
6.e
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-7-
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding holidays) Per kWh $0.1815 $0.2032
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0631
. . .
(r) Net metering—Community solar projects.
. . .
(3) The customer's consumption of energy from the utility and interest in the production of
energy that flows into the utilities' distribution system shall be measured on a monthly
basis. The energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at
the applicable rates under Subsection (c) of this Section. The method used to measure
energy produced and issue credits under this Section shall be the same for subscriber-
owned facilities and dedicated program-managed facilities. The energy produced by the
customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows, applied to all
generation returned to the grid on or after January 1, 2020.
Description Unit
Component
Credit
Bill Credit
1. Distribution facilities credit (applied to credits in 2.
and 3. below)
Per kWh $0.0109
2. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months of May,
June, July, August and September
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh $0.2183 $0.2292
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0523
3. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months of January
through April and October through December
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh $0.1815 $0.1924
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0523
Section 4. That Sections 26-465 (c), (e), (f), (q), and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-465. - All-electric residential service, schedule RE.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate.
(1) The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following charges, applied to
all energy consumption on or after January 1, 2020.
6.e
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-8-
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
a. Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this
Section
6 percent
b. Fixed Charge Per account $7.55 $8.00
c. Distribution facilities charge (applied to
charges in d.1. and d.2. below)
Per kWh $0.0330
d. Energy and demand charge
1. Summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of May, June, July and
August, and September
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh
$0.2183 $0.2664
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0789
2. Non-summer. For billings based on consumption during the months of January through April
and October through December.
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding
holidays)
Per kWh
$0.1815 $0.2274
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0789
e. Income-qualified assistance program ("IQAP") discount.
Discount applied to monthly charges in "b.", "c." and “d”
above for IQAP participating residential customers, as further
described in Section 26-724 of the Code
23 percent
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at the premium
per kilowatt hour set forth in this Subsection (d). The utility may establish and offer voluntary
programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy
resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(e) Excess capacity charge. The monthly capacity charge kilowatt set forth in this Subsection
(e) may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance with the
provisions of the Electric Service Standards.
6.e
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-9-
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kW $2.32 $2.46
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract
basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined
by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following:
(1) Monthly standby distribution charge:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted standby service, this charge shall be
in lieu of the distribution facilities charge
Per kW $2.34 $2.48
For all metered kilowatts in excess of the
contracted amount
Per kW $7.00 $7.42
. . .
(q) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility and production of energy
that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly basis. The
energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at the
applicable rates under Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by the
customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows, applied to all
generation returned to the grid on or after January 1, 2020.
Description Unit
Component
Credit
Bill
Credit
1. Distribution facilities credit (applied to credits in 2. and
3. below)
Per kWh $0.0279
2. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months of May,
June, July, August and September
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding holidays) Per kWh $0.2183 $0.2462
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0693
3. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months of January
through April and October through December
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding holidays) Per kWh $0.1815 $0.2094
6.e
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-10-
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0693
(r) Net metering—community solar projects.
...
(3) The customer's consumption of energy from the utility and interest in the production of
energy that flows into the utilities' distribution system shall be measured on a monthly
basis. The energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at
the applicable rates under Subsection (c) of this Section. The method used to measure
energy produced and issue credits under this Section shall be the same for subscriber-
owned facilities and dedicated program-managed facilities. The energy produced by the
customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows, applied to all
generation returned to the grid on or after January 1, 2020.
Description Unit
Component
Credit
Bill
Credit
1. Distribution facilities credit (applied to credits in 2. and
3. below)
Per kWh $0.0141
2. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months of May,
June, July, August and September
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 2 pm to 7 pm, excluding holidays) Per kWh $0.2183 $0.2324
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0555
3. Energy and demand credit - For billings based on generation during the months
of January through April and October through December
a) On-Peak (Mon-Fri, 5 pm to 9 pm, excluding holidays) Per kWh $0.1815 $0.1956
b) Off-Peak Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0555
. . .
Section 5. That Sections 26-466 (c), (d), (e), (q), and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-466. - General service, schedule GS.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following charges:
6.e
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-11-
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
(1) Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this Section
6 percent
(2) Fixed Charge
a. Single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service Per account $4.77 $5.63
b. Single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere
service
Per account $14.09 $16.61
c. Three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service Per account $7.27 $8.58
d. Three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere
service
Per account $17.24 $20.32
(3) Distribution facilities charge (added to
demand and energy charges below for “Billed
Charge” shown in (5))
Per kWh $0.0324
(4) Demand charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of June, July, August,
and September
Per kWh $0.0314
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May
and October through December
Per kWh $0.0192
c. The meter reading date shall generally
determine the summer season billing months;
however, no customer shall be billed more than
four (4) full billing cycles at the summer rate
(5) Energy charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of June, July, August,
and September
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.1115
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May
and October through December
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0986
c. The meter reading date shall generally
determine the summer season billing months;
however, no customer shall be billed more than
four (4) full billing cycles at the summer rate
6.e
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-12-
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at the
premium per kilowatt hour set forth in this Subsection (d). The utility may establish and offer
voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by
renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
Unit Component Charge
Billed Charge
(including PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(e) Excess capacity charge. The monthly capacity charge per kilowatt set forth in this
Subsection (e) may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance
with the provisions of the Electric Service Standards.
Unit Component Charge
Billed Charge
(including PILOT)
Per kW $2.32 $2.46
. . .
(q) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility and production of energy
that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly basis. The
energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at the
applicable rate as outlined in Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by the
customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows:
Description Unit Component Credit
a. Energy credit for billings based on generation
during the months of June, July, August, and
September
Per kWh $0.0414
(r) Net metering—community solar projects.
. . .
(3) Both the customer's consumption of energy from the utility and interest in the production
of energy that flows into the utilities' distribution system shall be measured on a monthly
basis. The energy from Fort Collins Utilities consumed by the customer shall be billed at
the applicable seasonal tiered rate as outlined in Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy
produced by the customer's portion of the qualifying facility shall be credited to the
customer monthly as follows:
6.e
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-13-
Description Unit
Component
Credit
a. Energy and demand credit Per kWh $0.0414
Section 6. That Sections 26-467 (c), (d), (e), (f) and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-467. - General service 25, schedule GS25.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following charges:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
1.Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this Section
6 percent
2. Fixed Charge
a. Single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service Per account $4.99 $5.29
b. Single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service Per account $14.71 $15.60
c. Three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service Per account $7.60 $8.06
d. Three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service Per account $18.00 $19.08
3. Distribution facilities charge (applied to energy
charges in 5. below)
Per kWh $0.0257
4. Demand charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings
in the months of June, July, August, and
September
Per kW $9.69 $10.27
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May
and October through December
Per kW $5.53 $5.86
c. The meter reading date shall generally
determine the summer season billing months;
however, no customer shall be billed more than
four (4) full billing cycles at the summer rate
5. Energy charge
6.e
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-14-
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings
in the months of June, July, August, and
September
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0711
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May
and October through December
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0711
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at the
premium per kilowatt hour set forth in this Subsection (d). The utility may establish and offer
voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by
renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
Unit Component Charge
Billed Charge
(including PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(e) Excess capacity charge. The monthly capacity charge kilowatt set forth in this Subsection
(e) may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance with the
provisions of the Electric Service Standards.
Unit Component Charge
Billed Charge
(including PILOT)
Per kW $2.32 $2.46
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract
basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined by
the customer and approved by the utility according to the following:
(1) Monthly standby distribution charge
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted standby service, this charge shall be in
lieu of the distribution facilities charge
Per kW $4.25 $4.51
For all metered kilowatts in excess of the
contracted amount
Per kW $12.77 $13.53
. . .
(r) Net metering .
6.e
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-15-
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility and production of
energy that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly
basis. The energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at
the applicable rate as outlined in Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by
the customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows:
Description Unit Bill Credit
a. Energy credit for billings based on generation during the months of
June, July, August, and September
Per kWh $0.0414
Section 7. That Sections 26-468 (c), (d) through (g), and (u) of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-468. - General service 50, schedule GS50.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following charges:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
(1) Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this Section
6 percent
(2). Fixed Charge Per account $12.62 $13.37
(3) Coincident demand charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings in
the months of June, July, August, and September
Per kW $13.68 $14.50
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter readings
in the months of January through May and October
through December
Per kW $10.39 $11.01
c. The meter reading date shall generally determine
the summer season billing months; however, no
customer shall be billed more than four (4) full billing
cycles at the summer rate
(4) Distribution facilities charge Per kW $8.69 $9.21
(5) Energy charge
6.e
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-16-
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings in
the months of June, July, August, and September
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0439
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter readings
in the months of January through May and October
through December
Per kWh $0.0414 $0.0439
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at the
premium per kilowatt hour set forth in this Subsection (d). The utility may establish and offer
voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by
renewable energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(e) Excess capacity charge. The monthly capacity charge per kilowatt set forth in this Subsection
(e) may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance with the
provisions of the Electric Service Standards.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kW $2.32 $2.46
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract
basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined
by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following:
(1) Standby distribution charge.
a. Monthly standby distribution charge shall be the sum of the following charges:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted standby service, this charge shall be in lieu
of the distribution facilities charge
Per kW $5.46 $5.79
For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted
amount
Per kW $15.92 $16.87
6.e
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-17-
. . .
(g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires excess circuit
capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity of a backup circuit
connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at
least sufficient to meet probable backup demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer
and approved by the utility according to the following:
(1) Monthly charge shall be the sum of the following charges:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted backup capacity per month Per kW $1.11 $1.18
Metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount Per kW $3.36 $3.56
. . .
(u) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility and production of
energy that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly
basis. The energy from the utility consumed by the customer-generator shall be billed at
the applicable rate as outlined in Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by
the customer-generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows:
Description Unit Bill Credit
a. Energy credit for billings based on generation during the months of
June, July, August and September
Per kWh $0.0414
Section 8. That Sections 26-469 (c), (d) through (g) and (v) of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-469. - General service 750, schedule GS750.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following charges:
6.e
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-18-
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
(1) Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this Section
6 percent
(2) Fixed Charge Per account $24.49 $25.96
a. Additional charge for each additional metering
point
Per account $14.94 $15.83
(3) Coincident demand charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings in
the months of June, July, August, and September
Per kW $13.47 $14.28
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May and
October through December
Per kW $10.23 $10.84
c. The meter reading date shall generally determine
the summer season billing months; however, no
customer shall be billed more than four (4) full
billing cycles at the summer rate
(4) Distribution facilities charge
a. First seven hundred fifty (750) kilowatts Per kW $9.44 $10.01
b. All additional kilowatts Per kW $5.58 $5.91
(5) Energy charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings in
the months of June, July, August, and September
Per kWh $0.0407 $0.0431
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May and
October through December
Per kWh $0.0407 $0.0431
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at the
premium per kilowatt hour set forth in this Subsection (d). The utility may establish and offer
voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable
energy resources in support of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
6.e
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-19-
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(e) Excess capacity charge. The monthly capacity charge per kilowatt set forth in this Subsection
(e) may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in accordance with the
provisions of the Electric Service Standards.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kW $2.32 $2.46
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract
basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined
by the customer and approved by the utility according to the following:
(1) Standby distribution charge.
a. Monthly standby distribution charges shall be paid in the following amounts
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted standby service, this charge shall be in lieu
of the distribution facilities charge.
Per kW $3.77 $4.00
For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted
amount
Per kW $11.34 $12.02
. . .
(g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires excess circuit
capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity of a backup circuit
connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract basis at a level at
least sufficient to meet probable backup demand (in kilowatts) as determined by the customer
and approved by the utility at the following rates:
(1) Monthly charge.
6.e
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-20-
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted backup capacity per month Per kW $0.78 $0.82
Metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount Per kW $2.33 $2.47
. . .
(v) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility and production of energy
that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly basis. The
energy consumed from the utility by the customer-generator shall be billed at the applicable
rate as outlined in Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by the customer-
generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows:
Description Unit Bill Credit
a. Energy credit for billings based on generation during the months of
June, July, August, and September
Per kWh $0.0407
Section 9. That Sections 26-470 (c), (d), (e), and (s) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-470. - Substation service, schedule SS.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule shall be the sum of the following charges:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
(1) Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and franchise.
A charge based on all component charges pursuant to this Section.
6 percent
(2) Fixed Charge Per account $58.20 $61.69
(3) Coincident demand charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings in
the months of June, July, August, and September
Per kW $13.27 $14.07
6.e
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-21-
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May and
October through December
Per kW $10.08 $10.68
c. The meter reading date shall generally determine
the summer season billing months; however, no
customer shall be billed more than four (4) full
billing cycles at the summer rate
(4) Distribution facilities charge Per kW $4.72 $5.00
(5) Energy charge
a. Summer. For billings based on meter readings in
the months of June, July, August, and September
Per kWh $0.0401 $0.0425
b. Non-summer. For billings based on meter
readings in the months of January through May and
October through December
Per kWh $0.0401 $0.0425
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including, but not limited to, energy
generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to customers at a
premium per kilowatt hour. The utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed
to increase and enhance the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support
of Council-adopted policy applicable to the utility.
Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Per kWh $0.0175 $0.019
(e) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on an annual contract
basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand (in kilowatts) as determined
by the customer and approved by the utility at the following rates:
(1) Standby distribution charge.
a. Monthly standby distribution charge:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
Contracted standby service, this charge shall be in
lieu of the distribution facilities charge.
Per kW $2.81 $2.98
6.e
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-22-
For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted
amount
Per kW $8.43 $8.94
. . .
(s) Net metering.
...
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility and production of energy
that flows into the utility's distribution system shall be measured on a monthly basis. The
energy consumed from the utility by the customer-generator shall be billed at the applicable
rate as outlined in Subsection (c) of this Section. The energy produced by the customer-
generator shall be credited to the customer monthly as follows:
Description Unit
Bill
Credit
a. Energy credit for billings based on generation during the months of June,
July, August, and September
Per
kWh
$0.0401
Section 10. That Section 26-471 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-471. - Special area floodlighting, schedule FL.
. . .
(b) Monthly rate. The monthly rates (including a six (6) percent charge in lieu of taxes and
franchise) are as follows:
(1) Charge per lamp, mercury vapor:
Description
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
a. One hundred seventy-five (175) watt
$18.67 $19.79
b. Two hundred fifty (250) watt $21.99 $23.31
c. Four hundred (400) watt $28.82 $30.55
(2) Charge per lamp, high-pressure sodium:
6.e
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-23-
Description
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
a. Seventy (70) watt $7.89 $8.36
b. One hundred (100) watt $11.16 $11.83
c. One hundred fifty (150) watt $17.65 $18.71
d. Two hundred fifty (250) watt $22.50 $23.85
e. Four hundred (400) watt $29.73 $31.51
(3) Charge per lamp, LED:
Description
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(including
PILOT)
a. Fifty-four (54) watt $7.74 $8.20
b. Seventy-two (72) watt $9.00 $9.54
Section 11. That Section 26-472 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-472. - Traffic signal service, schedule T.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates (including a six (6) percent charge in lieu of taxes and
franchise) shall be the sum of the following charges:
Description Unit
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(including
PILOT)
(1) Fixed charge Per account $80.66 $85.50
(2) Energy charge Per kWh $0.0750 $0.0795
(3) Service extensions and signal installations
made by the utility shall be paid for by the City
General Fund, subject to material and
installation costs at the time of installation
Section 12. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all energy
consumption on or after January 1, 2020.
6.e
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-24-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.e
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Ordinance No. 125, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 126, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS TO REVISE WATER RATES, FEES, AND
CHARGES AND UPDATING RELATED PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as
will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other obligations as set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein are necessary to
produce sufficient revenues to provide the utility services described herein; and
WHEREAS, the revenue from the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein
shall be used to defray the costs of providing such utility services as required by the Charter and
the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Article III, Chapter 26 of the City Code establishes the water utility as a utility
service furnished by and an enterprise of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Code Sections 26-126 and 26-127 concern various water-related rates,
fees, and charges; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-118 requires that the City Manager analyze the
operating and financial records of the utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City
Council user rates or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council
adjustment of the water-related rates, fees, and charges as set forth herein to be effective January
1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance does not increase water rates for the fund as a whole, although
there are variations for individual customer rates classes based on recent cost-of-service model
updates;
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed water-related rates, fees, and
charges adjustments for 2019 at its meeting on September 19th, 2019, and recommended approval
of the proposed adjustments by a unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the City
Code to adjust the scope and rate of the water-related rates, fees, and charges as set forth herein.
6.f
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings
contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-118(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-118. – Determination of user rates.
. . .
(c) In addition to the monthly service charges set forth in §§ 26-126 and 26-127, there
shall be a charge for payments in lieu of taxes and franchise (PILOT). The charge shall be six and
zero-tenths (6.0) percent of said monthly service charges billed pursuant to said §§ 26-126 and 26-
127.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 26-126 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-126. - Schedule A, flat rates for unmetered construction water use.
For residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter size greater
than one (1) inch, no flat unmetered water service will be provided. For residential and
nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter size of one (1) inch or less, the
following flat rates will apply per month until the permanent meter is set:
Category
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(with PILOT)
¾-inch construction service, flat charge per month $29.56 $31.33
1-inch construction service, flat charge per month $56.36 $59.75
Section 3. That Section 26-127 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-127. - Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall pay the sum of the following
changes:
6.f
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-3-
Category
Component
Charge
Billed
Charge (with
PILOT)
a. Base monthly charge for residential customers with one (1)
dwelling unit
$16.93 $17.94
b. Quantity monthly charge for residential customers with one
(1) dwelling unit (volumetric)
Tier 1 - For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per
month, per one thousand (1,000) gallons
$2.621 $2.779
Tier 2 - For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per
month, per one thousand (1,000) gallons
$3.012 $3.193
Tier 3 - For all additional gallons used per month, per one
thousand (1,000) gallons
$3.465 $3.673
c. Income-qualified assistance discount. Discount applied to
monthly base and Tier 1 volumetric charges for IQAP
participating residential customers in properties with one (1)
dwelling unit, as further described in Section 26-724 of the
Code.
23 percent
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall pay the sum of the following
charges:
Category
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(with PILOT)
a. Base monthly charge for residential customers with two (2)
dwelling units
$17.88 $18.95
b. Quantity monthly charge for residential customers with
two (2) dwelling units (volumetric)
Tier 1 - For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per
month, per one thousand (1,000) gallons
$2.271 $2.407
Tier 2 - For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per
month, per one thousand (1,000) gallons
$2.610 $2.766
Tier 3 - For all additional gallons used per month, per one
thousand (1,000) gallons
$3.003 $3.183
c. Income-qualified assistance discount. Discount applied to
monthly base and Tier 1 volumetric charges for IQAP
participating residential customers in properties with two (2)
dwelling units, as further described in Section 26-724 of the
Code.
23 percent
6.f
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-4-
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units shall pay the sum of the
following charges:
Category
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(with PILOT)
a. Base monthly charge for residential customers with more
than two (2) dwelling units
First dwelling unit $12.86 $13.64
Second and each additional dwelling unit $4.28 $4.53
b. Quantity monthly charge for residential customers with
more than two (2) dwelling units (volumetric)
Winter - per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter
season months of November through April
$1.870 $1.982
Summer - per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
summer season months of May through October
$2.337 $2.477
The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal
monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be
billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer
quantity charge.
c. Income-qualified assistance discount. A discount applied
to the monthly base and volumetric charges above for IQAP
participating residential customers in properties with more
than two (2) dwelling units who hold water and wastewater
service accounts in their own names, subject to Section 26-
724 of the Code.
23 percent
(b) Nonresidential rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential, except for special users as described in Subsection 26-
127(c) below, customers shall pay a base monthly charge based on meter size as
follows:
Meter Size (inches)
Monthly Base
Charge
Billed Charge (with
PILOT)
¾ $15.06 $15.97
1 $42.02 $44.54
1½ $114.25 $121.10
2 $172.17 $182.50
3 $262.60 $278.36
6.f
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-5-
4 $412.26 $437.00
6 $799.74 $847.72
8 $1,412.81 $1,497.58
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay monthly charges as follows:
Category
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(with PILOT)
Winter - per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter
season months of November through April
$2.095 $2.221
Summer - per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
summer season months of May through October
$2.619 $2.776
The meter reading date shall generally determine the
seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer
shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the
summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Nonresidential customers shall also pay monthly water use
charges in excess of the amounts specified in the following table:
Category
Component
Charge
Billed Charge
(with PILOT)
Winter - per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter
season months of November through April
$3.010 $3.191
Summer - per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the
summer season months of May through October
$3.765 $3.991
The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal
monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be
billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer
quantity charge.
. . .
(c) High volume industrial rates. High volume industrial rates apply to any customer with an
average daily demand in excess of two million (2,000,000) gallons per day. The specific rate
for any qualifying customer shall be based upon the applicable peaking factor for that customer
as follows:
6.f
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-6-
Peaking Factor
Monthly Charge per
Thousand Gallons
Billed Charge (with
PILOT)
1.00—1.09 $1.64 $1.74
1.10—1.19 $1.70 $1.80
1.20—1.29 $1.76 $1.86
1.30—1.39 $1.81 $1.91
1.40—1.49 $1.87 $1.98
1.50—1.59 $1.91 $2.03
1.60—1.69 $1.97 $2.09
1.70—1.79 $2.03 $2.16
1.80—1.89 $2.08 $2.21
1.90—1.99 $2.15 $2.28
> 2.00 $2.20 $2.33
(d) Service outside the City. The monthly charge for water taken through a meter by a user outside
the City limits shall be the same as for like service within the City limits as specified in
Subsections (a) and (b) of this Section.
(e) Rates by special water services agreement. The rate structure and associated charges for water
service pursuant to a special water services agreement approved by the City Council pursuant
to Section 26-130 shall be as set forth in said agreement.
Section 4. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for meter readings
on or after January 1, 2020, and in the case of fees not based on meter readings, shall be effective
for all fees paid on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.f
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-7-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.f
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Ordinance No. 126, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO REVISE WASTEWATER RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as
will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other obligations as set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein are necessary to
produce sufficient revenues to provide the utility services described herein; and
WHEREAS, the revenue from the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein
shall be used to defray the costs of providing such utility services as required by the Charter and
the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Chapter 26 of the City Code establishes the wastewater utility as
a utility service furnished by and an enterprise of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Code Sections 26-280 and 26-282 concern various wastewater-related
rates, fees, and charges; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 requires that the City Manager analyze the
operating and financial records of the utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City
Council user rates or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council
adjustment of the wastewater-related rates, fees, and charges as set forth herein to be effective
January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance does not increase wastewater rates for the fund as a whole,
although there are variations for individual customer rates classes based on recent cost-of-service
model updates; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed wastewater-related rates, fees, and
charges adjustments for 2020 at its meeting on September 19, 2019, and recommended approval
of the proposed adjustments by a unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the City
Code to adjust the scope and rate of the water-related rates, fees, and charges as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
6.g
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-2-
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings
contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-277(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-277.- Determination of user rates; annual adjustment.
. . .
(c) In addition to the monthly service charges set forth in §§ 26-279, 26-280 and 26-282, there
shall be a charge for payments in lieu of taxes and franchise (PILOT). The charge shall be six
and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of said monthly service charges billed pursuant to said §§ 26-
279, 26-280 and 26-282.
Section 3. That Section 26-280 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-280. - Service charges established by category.
The schedule of rates for each category described in § 26-279 shall be as follows:
Category
Class of
Customer
Rate Component
Charge
Billed
Charge
(with
PILOT)
A
Single-family
residential user (flat
rate)
Per month $39.81 $42.20
Single-family
residential user
(metered water use)
1. Per month (base) $17.79 $18.86
2. Plus, per 1,000 gallons per month
(volumetric)
$3.456 $3.664
3. Income-qualified assistance discount.
Discount applied to monthly base and volumetric
charges for IQAP participating residential
customers, as further described in Section 26-724
of the Code.
23 percent
6.g
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-3-
Note:
1. For single family customers who have not yet established a
winter quarter water use at the service address, a system
average of 4,000 gallons per month shall be billed.
2. After establishment of a winter quarter water use at the
service address, the monthly amount billed shall be based on a
minimum of 3,000 gallons per month.
B
Duplex (two-family)
residential users (flat
rate)
1. Per month (base) $55.47 $58.79
2. Income-qualified assistance discount.
Discount applied to monthly base charge for
IQAP participating residential customers, as
further described in Section 26-724 of the Code.
23 percent
Duplex (two-family)
residential users
(metered water use)
1. Per month (base) $20.54 $21.77
2. Plus, per 1,000 gallons per month, to be
calculated on a monthly basis (volumetric)
$3.084 $3.269
3. Income-qualified assistance discount.
Discount applied to monthly base and volumetric
charges for IQAP participating residential
customers, as further described in Section 26-724
of the Code.
23 percent
Note:
1. For duplex customers who have not yet established a winter quarter
water use at the service address, a system average 6,200 gallons shall be
billed.
2. After establishment of a winter quarter use at the service address, the
monthly amount billed shall be based on a minimum of 4,000 gallons per
month.
C
Multi-family
residential user (more
than two dwelling units
including mobile home
1. Base charge per month per dwelling unit
served (base)
$2.79 $2.96
2. Plus, per 1,000 gallons per month (volumetric) $3.547 $3.760
6.g
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-4-
parks) and winter
quarter based
nonresidential user
3. Income-qualified assistance discount.
Discount applied to monthly base and volumetric
charges for IQAP participating residential
customers in properties with more than two (2)
dwelling units who hold water and wastewater
service accounts in their own names, subject to
Section 26-724 of the Code.
23 percent
Note:
1. For multi-family customers who have not yet established a winter
quarter water use at the service address, a system average of 3,200 gallons
per living unit shall be billed. However, Category D rates will apply to
multi-family residential units under construction during the period of
service from the installation of the water meter to the date the certificate of
occupancy is issued.
2. After establishment of a water quarter use at the service address, the
monthly amount billed shall be per 1,000 gallons of winter quarter water
use, calculated on a monthly basis.
D
Minor nonresidential
user
1. Per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured
sewage flow or winter quarter water use,
whichever is applicable, to be calculated on a
monthly basis, plus the following applicable base
charge:
$3.342 $3.543
2. Size of water meter (inches) Base charge
¾ or smaller $9.64 $10.22
1 $22.26 $23.59
1½ $44.80 $47.49
2 $76.66 $81.26
3 $122.50 $129.85
4 $193.46 $205.07
6 $848.08 $898.97
6.g
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-5-
8 $979.23 $1,037.99
E and F
Intermediate
nonresidential user and
Significant industrial
user
User shall pay an amount calculated to include:
1. Rate per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured
wastewater flow or winter quarter water use per
month, whichever is applicable;
$3.342 $3.543
2. PLUS a surcharge per million gallons for each
milligram per liter of suspended solids in excess
of 235 milligrams per liter;
$3.887 $4.121
3. PLUS a surcharge for the following:
a. per million gallons for each milligram per liter
of BOD in excess of 265 milligrams per liter; or
$3.239 $3.433
b. per million gallons for each milligram per liter
of COD in excess of 400 milligrams per liter; or
$2.044 $2.167
c. per million gallons for each milligram per liter
of TOC in excess of 130 milligrams per liter,
$6.052 $6.416
whichever is applicable.
The user shall pay the calculated amount based
on 1, 2 and 3 above, plus the applicable base
charge set forth below:
Size of water meter
(inches)
Base charge
¾ or smaller $9.64 $10.22
1 $22.26 $23.59
1½ $44.80 $47.49
2 $76.66 $81.26
3 $122.50 $129.85
6.g
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-6-
4 $193.46 $205.07
6 $848.08 $898.97
8 $979.23 $1,037.99
G
User outside City
limits
The rate for users outside the City limits shall be the same as
for like service inside the City limits as is specified in
Categories A—F and H in this Section.
H Special with agreement
The rate pursuant to a special wastewater services agreement
approved by the City Council pursuant to § 26-290 shall be set
forth in said agreement.
Section 4. That Section 26-282(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-282. - Wastewater strength or industrial surcharges and categories established.
(a) A monthly wastewater strength surcharge shall be paid by customers located either inside or
outside the City limits in accordance with the following schedule:
Parameter Excess over (mg/l)
Rate per thousand
gallons
Billed Charge (with PILOT)
BOD 355 $0.003504 $0.003714
COD 540 $0.002303 $0.002441
TOC 170 $0.007316 $0.007755
TSS 365 $0.003526 $0.003738
. . .
Section 5. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for meter readings
on or after January 1, 2020, and in the case of fees not based on meter readings, shall be effective
for all fees paid on or after January 1, 2020.
6.g
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-7-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.g
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Ordinance No. 127, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 128, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO REVISE STORMWATER RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
City Charter, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the
collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce
revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other obligations as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein are necessary to
produce sufficient revenues to provide the utility services described herein; and
WHEREAS, the revenue from the rates, fees or charges for utility services set forth herein
shall be used to defray the costs of providing such utility services as required by the Charter and
the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Article VII, Chapter 26 of the City Code establishes the stormwater utility as
a utility service furnished by and an enterprise of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Council has adopted stormwater basin and citywide master plans
recommending stormwater facilities necessary to provide for proper drainage and control of flood
and surface waters within Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 168, 1998, determining that all
lands within the city benefit by the installation of such stormwater facilities; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-513 imposes stormwater utility fees on all parcels of
land within the city to pay for the operation, maintenance, administration and routine functions of
the existing and future City stormwater facilities established within the city; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-514 sets forth the manner in which stormwater utility
fees are to be determined; and
WHEREAS, the proposed stormwater utility fee adjustment reflects an increase of 2.0%;
and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed stormwater utility fee adjustments
at its meeting on September 19th, and recommended approval of the proposed adjustments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 26-511, the City Manager recommends the
proposed stormwater utility fee for 2020; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the City
Code to adjust the scope and rate of the stormwater utility fee as set forth herein.
6.h
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Ordinance No. 128, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-514(a)(3) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-514. - Determination of stormwater utility fee.
(a) The stormwater utility fee shall be determined as set forth in this Section and shall be based
upon the area of each lot or parcel of land and the runoff coefficient of the lot or parcel. For the
purposes of this Section, the total lot or parcel area shall include both the actual square footage of
the lot or parcel and the square footage of open space and common areas allocated to such lot as
provided in Paragraph (4) of this Subsection. The stormwater utility fee shall recover the costs of
both operations and maintenance and a portion of capital improvements. The Utilities Executive
Director shall determine the rates that shall apply to each specific lot or parcel of land within the
guidelines herein set forth and shall establish the utility fee in accordance with the rate together
with the other factors set forth as follows:
. . .
(3) The base rate for the stormwater utility fee shall be $0.00453 per square foot per
month for all areas of the City.
. . .
Section 3. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all fees accruing
on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.h
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Ordinance No. 128, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.h
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Ordinance No. 128, 2019 (8427 : SR 125-128 Utility Rates)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2019, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the
Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1,
2020 and Ending December 31, 2020; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Property Taxes Payable in 2020.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 15, 2019, amends the adopted 2020
Budget and sets the amount of $632,403,387 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2020. This appropriated
amount does not include what is also being appropriated by separate Council/Board of Director actions to
adopt the 2020 budgets for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $352,000, the 2020 budget for
GID No. 15 (Skyview) of $1,000, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) 2020 budget of $5,952,249 and the
Downtown Development Authority 2020 budget of $19,534,122. The sum of these ordinances results in City-
related total appropriations of $658,242,758 in 2020. This Ordinance also sets the 2020 City mill levy at 9.797
mills, unchanged since 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (PDF)
7
Packet Pg. 127
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 15, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2019, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2020
and Ending December 31, 2020; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Property Taxes Payable in 2020.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to amend the adopted 2020 Budget. This Ordinance sets the amount of $632,403,387
to be appropriated for fiscal year 2020. This appropriated amount does not include what is also being
appropriated by separate Council/Board of Director actions to adopt the 2020 budgets for the General
Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $352,000, the 2020 budget for GID No. 15 (Skyview) of $1,000, the Urban
Renewal Authority (URA) 2020 budget of $5,952,249 and the Downtown Development Authority 2020 budget of
$19,534,122. The sum of these ordinances results in City-related total appropriations of $658,242,758 in 2020.
This Ordinance also sets the 2020 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council previously adopted the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget and appropriated monies for expenditure in fiscal
year 2019. State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover expenses for the
ensuing year (2020) based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading must occur before the last day of
November and is currently scheduled for November 5, 2019.
The Net City Budget, as amended, is broken down as follows:
ATTACHMENT 1
7.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
This Ordinance also sets the 2020 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
2020 Revenue Update
Overall, most significant City revenues are coming in at, or above, the 2019 budget except for Sales Tax.
Although total revenue for 2019 is on track to support 2019 expenses, the 2019 Sales Tax base, upon which
2020 growth is calculated, is now expected to be lower than budget. Based on 2019 YTD sales tax growth of
2.1% and increasing talk of a possible recession, the growth of 2020 Sales Tax is now conservatively being
estimated at 1.5%, compared to 3.0% in the 2020 Budget.
Thus, it is necessary for the City to reduce ongoing expenses in 2020 to align with the reduced forecast for 2020
Sales Tax revenue. The decreased forecast for Sales Tax revenue primarily impacts the General Fund and
Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) Fund; but also impacts the funds associated with the three dedicated quarter-
cent sales tax initiatives (Street maintenance, Natural Areas and CCIP). The total reduction of anticipated
revenue from Sales Tax in 2020 is about $1.8M, with the General Fund portion being just under $1.1M.
Fund balances are also strong with non-restricted reserves available to fund one-time expenses. The $2.2M
contingency reserve in the General Fund remains untouched. Overall, modest revenue growth is still forecasted
for 2020.
Recommended 2020 Ongoing Expense Reductions
There are a few different opportunities that helped align ongoing expenses to the reduced Sales Tax revenue
projections. First, there is the interest rate favorability associated with the debt offering for the Police Regional
Training Facility and the I-25/Prospect Interchange projects in the amount of $350k in the General Fund. Second,
there is ongoing fuel and maintenance savings within Transfort which will reduce the contribution from the
General Fund by $200k. And third, significant underspend and rising reserve balances in the Benefits Fund
allows for the ongoing expense reduction to departments based on reduced contributions to the Benefits Fund.
This third opportunity reduced the 2020 appropriation in most City funds and equates to just over $1.2M savings
in the General Fund.
Additionally, some funds had residual, unused ongoing revenue in 2020 that can be applied to offset expenses.
Lastly, 2018 fund balances are available in some funds to offset one-time expenses. These changes to revenue
and available reserves are summarized in the table below. The ‘Subtotal of Funding Changes’ line at the bottom
Original Revised
2020 2020 Change
Operating $609.2 $615.7 6.5
Debt 14.9 14.6 (0.3)
Capital 27.4 28.0 0.5
Total City Appropriations* $651.6 $658.2 $6.6
Less
Internal Service Funds ($85.6) ($85.2) 0.4
Transfers to Other Funds (51.5) (52.8) (1.3)
GIDs (0.2) (0.4) (0.2)
URAs (6.0) (6.0) 0.0
DDA (14.5) (19.5) (5.0)
Total ($157.7) ($163.8) ($6.1)
Net City Budget $493.9 $494.4 $0.5
* Includes GID #1, GID #15, URA and DDA all of which are appropriated in separate ordinances
TOTAL BUDGET (in millions)
7.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
of Table #1 indicates the estimated Sales Tax shortfalls are covered and displays the amount of funding available
by fund for the 2020 Revision requests.
Table #1 - Summary of 2020 Revenue Changes and Available Reserves (values in $k)
The revenue and reserves shown in Table #1 above are available to fund the recommended additions to the
2020 Budget. Table #2 below summarizes those proposed additions per the City Council work sessions on
September 10 and 24.
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Capital
Expan-
sion KFCG CCIP
Natural
Areas
Trans-
porta-
tion Water
Wastew
ater
Storm-
water
Self
Insur-
ance
Broad-
band
Summary of Funding Changes
- Reduced 2020 Sales Tax (ongoing) ($1,052) ($397) ($117) ($117) ($117)
- Debt service favorability (ongoing) 350
- Fuel Savings (ongoing) 200
- Benefits Fund (ongoing) 1,224
- Unused 2020 Ongoing Revenue 70 398 15 5,300 1,700 165 195
- New Broadband PILOT Revenue 195
- Available Reserves 2,700 11,100 2,400 2,700 1,900 8,300
- Less: 2019 Reappropriation (1-Time) (340) (28) (584)
- Less: 2019 Supplementals (1-Time) (62) (20)
Subtotal of Funding Changes 987 2,298 11,100 1,975 2,583 281 1,194 5,300 1,700 8,300 165 195
7.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
Table #2 - Summary of 2020 Recommended Additions:
Table #3 below summarizes the available funding (displayed at the bottom of Table #1 above). The 2020 Budget
Revision Offers are then summarized into ongoing/one-time expenses and then subtracted from the available
funding. In all cases, there is enough available funding to support the proposed 2020 Budget Revision Offers.
Additionally, fund balances remain strong and well above minimum fund balance requirements.
Fund / Revision Requested FTE Ongoing $ One-Time $ Total
General Fund
Developing Equity Gaps Analysis, Indicators, and Principles - - 120,000 120,000
East Mulberry Corridor Plan Update and Annexation Assessment - - 175,000 175,000
Park Improvement Project Support - - 50,000 50,000
Continued Voluntary Compliance Support for Outdoor Residential Wood Burning - 0.25 FTE 0.25 18,638 - 18,638
Chief Privacy Officer with Records Management Responsibility (start date of 1 Mar 2020) 1.00 93,750 17,962 111,712
Ongoing Agreements from 2018 Collective Bargaining - 585,000 - 585,000
Sales Tax Technician - 1 FTE 1.00 50,585 - 50,585
Affordable Housing Impact Fee Study - - 75,000 75,000
Connexion Digital Equity Program - 195,000 - 195,000
Mobile Home Park Neighborhood Improvement and Community Building Grant Fund - - 50,000 50,000
Mobile Home Park Public Engagement and Owner-Renter Handbook - - 10,200 10,200
Childcare Access and Affordability Funding - - 25,000 25,000
Reduce Plastic Pollution-Outreach and Data Collection - - 35,000 35,000
Effective, Innovative and High Performing Board - - 30,000 30,000
Total General Fund 2.25 942,973 588,162 1,531,135
Capital Expansion Fund (General Government)
New Block 32 Parking Structure Design - - 1,515,000 1,515,000
Block 32 & 42 Plan Refresh - - 300,000 300,000
Total Capital Expansion Fund - $0 $1,815,000 $1,815,000
Self Insurance Fund
Security Specialist - 1.0 FTE 1.00 113,400 - 113,400
Total Self Insurance Fund 1.00 $113,400 $0 $113,400
Water/Wastewater Funds
Evaluation of Microplastics and Impact on River Health - - 35,000 35,000
Emerging Contaminants-Public Education and Outreach to Protect River Health - - 15,000 15,000
Urban Lakes Water Quality Management Policy & Guidance Development - - 100,000 100,000
Total Water/Wastewater Funds - $0 $150,000 $150,000
Stormwater Fund
Northeast College Corridor Outfall A4 (Lemay) Stormwater Lateral Design and Construction - - 959,500 959,500
Total Stormwater Fund - $0 $959,500 $959,500
Broadband Fund
Connexion Digital Equity Program - PILOT to the General Fund - 195,000 - 195,000
Total Broadband Fund - $195,000 $0 $195,000
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 3.25 $1,251,373 $3,512,662 $4,764,035
7.a
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 5
Table #3 - Available Revenue and Reserves net of the additional 2020 Revisions (Values in $k)
Note: This table only displays funds supporting the 2020 Budget Revision Offers
The 2020 Budget Revisions allow the City to align ongoing expenses with reduced revenue forecasts from Sales
Tax. Conversely, the City is also able to fund a small number of additions to the 2020 Budget, which address
Council priorities and other capital projects and design work that benefit our community.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance amends the City Budget for fiscal year 2020 and represents the annual appropriation for fiscal
year 2020 in the amount of $632,403,387, excluding the GID’s, URA’s and DDA’s. The Ordinance also sets the
City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Boards and commissions were engaged during the development of the original 2019-20 Budget. The only
changes to the 2020 appropriations are the 2020 Revision Offers, which do not go through the Budgeting for
Outcomes (BFO) process. Rather, those items that met the specific criteria for the 2020 Revision process were
thoroughly vetted by City staff, the executive management team, and by Council at a Council Finance Committee
meeting on August 19 and then at City Council Work Sessions conducted on September 10 and 24.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Significant public outreach was conducted as part of the development of the original 2019-20 Budget.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Capital
Expan-
sion Water
Wastew
ater
Storm-
water
Self
Insur-
ance
Broad-
band TOTAL
Available Revenue and Reserves 987 2,298 11,100 5,300 1,700 8,300 165 195 36,078
2020 Budget Revision Requests
Ongoing Requests (943) (113) (195) (1,251)
One-Time Requests (588) (1,815) (75) (75) (960) (3,513)
Total of 2020 Revisions (943) (588) (1,815) (75) (75) (960) (113) (195) (4,764)
Net Impact (positive = available) $44 $1,710 $9,285 $5,225 $1,625 $7,341 $52 $0
7.a
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 15, 2019 (w/o attachments) (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2020; AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2020, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020;
AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2020
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, the City Council adopted on second reading
Ordinance No. 133, 2018, approving the biennial budget for the years beginning on January 1,
2019, and January 1, 2020 (the “Biennial Budget”); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to
the 2020 budget adopted as part of the Biennial Budget approved by the City Council in Ordinance
No. 133, 2018; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 4 of the City Charter requires that, before the last day of
November of each fiscal year, the City Council shall appropriate, on a fund basis and by individual
project for capital projects and federal or state grant projects, such sums of money as it deems
necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during the ensuing fiscal year, based upon the
budget as approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 5 of the City Charter provides that the annual appropriation
ordinance shall also fix the tax levy in mills upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable
real property within the City, such levy representing the amount of taxes for City purposes
necessary to provide for payment, during the ensuing fiscal year, for all properly authorized
expenditures to be incurred by the City, including interest and principal of general obligation
bonds; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council, upon
the City Manager’s recommendation, to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered
appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital
project, provided: (i) that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains
unchanged, (ii) the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or (iii)
the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds
the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance
(collectively, the “Transfer Criteria”); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended all the transfers described herein and
determined that they each satisfy one or more of the Transfer Criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is
necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare and, therefore, wishes to authorize the
expenditures described in this Ordinance.
7.b
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council, having reviewed the City Manager's recommended
changes to the 2020 Proposed Appropriations section of the Biennial Budget, as shown on pages
43 through 48 thereof, a copy of which is on file with the office of the City Clerk, and as shown
in the 2020 Budget Revisions also on file with the City Clerk, hereby amends the Biennial
Budget to reflect the following changes and adopts said Biennial Budget as amended:
Existing Additions Reductions As Amended
GENERAL FUND $157,588,615 $1,842,035 $2,653,593 $156,777,057
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Golf $3,682,166 $0 $22,893 $3,659,273
Light & Power
Operating Total $141,592,003 $0 $195,853 $141,396,150
Capital Projects:
Art in Public Places 14,076 0 0 14,076
Dist. System Impr. & Replacement 1,584,100 0 0 1,584,100
L&P Vehicle Storage Building 170,000 0 170,000 0
Service Center - L&P 950,000 170,000 0 1,120,000
Substation Cap Project 624,000 0 0 624,000
Capital Projects Total 3,342,176 170,000 170,000 3,342,176
Total Light & Power $144,934,179 $170,000 $365,853 $144,738,326
Storm Drainage
Operating Total $10,972,178 $0 $104,973 $10,867,205
Capital Projects:
2017 - Remington St Storm Sewer 2,546,200 0 0 2,546,200
2018 - Mail Crk Palmer Passway 1,408,900 0 0 1,408,900
North College Corridor Outfall A4 (Lemay) 0 950,000 0 950,000
Art in Public Places 25,462 9,500 0 34,962
CMMS - Maintenance Management 152,000 0 0 152,000
Developer Repays 100,000 0 0 100,000
Master Planning 450,000 0 0 450,000
Stormwater Flood Warning System 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000
Utility Service Center Phase 2 100,000 0 0 100,000
7.b
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-3-
Stormwater Basin Improvements 17,500 0 0 17,500
Capital Projects Total 6,300,062 959,500 0 7,259,562
Total Storm Drainage $17,272,240 $959,500 $104,973 $18,126,767
Wastewater
Operating Total $18,455,218 $50,000 $117,425 $18,387,793
Capital Projects:
Art in Public Places 19,560 0 0 19,560
2019 - DWRF Carbon Add Phase 1 500,000 0 0 500,000
2019 - North College WW Improvement 711,000 0 0 711,000
Service Center Improvements 17,500 0 0 17,500
CMMS - Maintenance Management 221,500 0 0 221,500
Collection System Small Projects 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000
Cured in Place Pipe 600,000 0 0 600,000
Polution Control Cap Replacement 50,000 0 0 50,000
Water Reclamation Replacement Program 2,456,000 0 0 2,456,000
Capital Projects Total 6,075,560 0 0 6,075,560
Total Wastewater $24,530,778 $50,000 $117,425 $24,463,353
Water
Operating Total $25,704,618 $100,000 $163,149 $25,641,469
Capital Projects:
Service Center Improvement 35,000 0 0 35,000
2019 - Environmental Learning Center Dam 250,000 0 0 250,000
CMMS - Maintenance Management 346,750 0 0 346,750
Distribution System Repl Small Projects 1,540,000 0 0 1,540,000
Water Production Replacement Program 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000
Water Quality Cap Replacement 50,000 0 0 50,000
Watershed Protection 80,000 0 0 80,000
Capital Projects Total 3,301,750 0 0 3,301,750
Total Water $29,006,368 $100,000 $163,149 $28,943,219
Broadband
Operating Total $6,685,000 $195,000 $0 $6,880,000
Capital Projects:
Broadband Capital Interest 5,827,788 0 0 5,827,788
Capital Projects Total 5,827,788 0 0 5,827,788
Total Broadband $12,512,788 $195,000 $0 $12,707,788
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $231,938,519 $1,474,500 $774,293 $232,638,726
7.b
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-4-
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Benefits $39,162,216 $0 $14,971 $39,147,245
Data & Communications 10,901,337 0 88,836 10,812,501
Equipment 14,394,169 0 63,136 14,331,033
Self Insurance 4,789,061 113,400 15,849 4,886,612
Utility Customer Service & Administration 19,138,390 0 211,462 18,926,928
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $88,385,173 $113,400 $394,254 $88,104,319
SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT SERVICE
FUNDS
Capital Improvement Expansion $4,015,000 $1,815,000 $0 $5,830,000
Capital Leasing Corporation 5,138,351 0 347,819 4,790,532
Cemeteries 729,126 0 10,038 719,088
Conservation Trust
Operating Total $548,507 $0 $2,642 $545,865
Capital Projects:
Trail Acquisition/Development 1,010,547 0 0 1,010,547
Capital Projects Total 1,010,547 0 0 1,010,547
Total Conservation Trust $1,559,054 $0 $2,642 $1,556,412
Cultural Services & Facilities
Operating Total $4,870,458 $5,390 34,247 $4,841,601
Capital Projects:
Art in Public Places 41,969 11,700 0 53,669
Capital Projects Total 41,969 11,700 0 53,669
Total Cultural Services & Facilities $4,912,427 $17,090 $34,247 $4,895,270
General Employees' Retirement $6,029,250 $0 $0 6,029,250
Keep Fort Collins Great
Operating Total $26,252,462 $0 $110,806 $26,141,656
Capital Projects:
City Bridge Program 1,700,000 0 0 1,700,000
Capital Maintenance 2,141,298 0 0 2,141,298
Transportation Small Capital 125,000 0 0 125,000
Capital Projects Total 3,966,298 0 0 3,966,298
Total Keep Fort Collins Great $30,218,760 $0 $110,806 $30,107,954
Museum $1,110,377 $0 $16,063 $1,094,314
Natural Areas 12,795,748 0 78,540 12,717,208
7.b
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-5-
Neighborhood Parkland Fund $408,634 0 9,686 $398,948
Parking $2,858,577 0 29,859 $2,828,718
Perpetual Care 36,035 0 0 36,035
Recreation 7,938,947 0 64,277 7,874,670
Sales & Use Tax 8,452,062 0 103,900 8,348,162
Transportation CEF 3,509,919 0 2,642 3,507,277
Transit Services
Operating Total $18,127,640 $0 $1,314,658 $16,812,982
Capital Projects:
5307 Pass-Thru 1,271,040 1,271,040
CMAQ CNG BUS CO-2019-0010-00 937,500 500,000 1,437,500
Capital Projects Total 2,208,540 500,000 0 2,708,540
Total Transit Services $20,336,180 $500,000 $1,314,658 $19,521,522
Transportation Services 27,872,174 0 210,662 27,661,512
SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT SERVICE
FUNDS $137,920,621 $2,332,090 $2,335,839 $137,916,872
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Capital Projects Fund
Operating Total $82,805 $500,000 $0 $582,805
General City Capital Projects:
Arterial Intersection Imprvmnt - CCIP 400,000 0 0 400,000
Bicycle Infrastructure Im - CCIP 350,000 0 0 350,000
Bus Stop Improvements - CCIP 100,000 0 0 100,000
City Bridge Program 600,000 0 0 600,000
Block 32 Redevelopment 0 300,000 0 300,000
Block 32 Redevelopment - Parking 0 1,515,000 0 1,515,000
Linden Street Renovation - CCIP 2,898,000 0 0 2,898,000
Mountain Avenue Reshaping 100,000 0 0 100,000
Nature in the City - CCIP 185,608 0 0 185,608
Pedestrian Sidewalk - ADA - CCIP 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000
North Mason Street 200,000 0 0 200,000
Northeast Community Park 3,550,000 0 0 3,550,000
Transfort Bus Replacements - CCIP 0 0 500,000 -500,000
Total General City Capital Projects $9,483,608 $1,815,000 $500,000 $10,798,608
Total Capital Projects Fund $9,566,413 $2,315,000 $500,000 $11,381,413
Community Capital Improvement Fund
General City Capital Projects:
7.b
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-6-
Affordable Housing Capital Program 400,000 0 0 400,000
Arterial Intersection Imprvmnt - CCIP 400,000 0 0 400,000
Bicycle Infrastructure Im - CCIP 350,000 0 0 350,000
Bus Stop Improvements - CCIP 100,000 0 0 100,000
Gardens Visitor Ctr Expansion - CCIP 40,000 0 0 40,000
Lincoln Avenue Bridge 36,000 0 0 36,000
Nature in the City - CCIP 200,000 0 0 200,000
Pedestrian Sidewalk - ADA - CCIP 1,100,000 0 0 1,100,000
Poudre River Project 50,000 0 0 50,000
Linden Street Renovation - CCIP 2,898,000 0 0 2,898,000
Willow Street Improvements - CCIP 11,000 0 0 11,000
Total Community Capital Improvement Fund $5,585,000 $0 $0 $5,585,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $15,151,413 $2,315,000 $500,000 $16,966,413
TOTAL CITY FUNDS $630,984,341 $8,077,025 $6,657,979 $632,403,387
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated out of the revenues of the City, for the fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2020, and ending December 31, 2020, the sum of SIX HUNDRED
THIRTY-TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
EIGHTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($632,403,387) to be raised by taxation and otherwise, which sum
is deemed by the City Council to be necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during said
budget year, to be divided and appropriated for the purposes shown in Section 2 above.
Section 4. Mill Levy.
a. That the mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of
all the taxable real property within the City of Fort Collins shall be 9.797 mills to be imposed on
the assessed value of such property as set by state law for property taxes payable in 2020, which
levy represents the amount of taxes for City purposes is necessary to provide for payment during
the 2020 budget year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the City, including
interest and principal of general obligation bonds.
b. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 9.797 mills to the County Assessor and
the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, in accordance with the applicable
provisions of law, as required by Article V, Section 5 of the City Charter and no later than
December 15, 2019.
7.b
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
-7-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
October, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
7.b
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Ordinance No. 129, 2019 (8428 : SR 129 Budget 2020)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Jennifer Poznanovic, Project and Revenue Manager
John Duval, Legal
Eric Potyondy, Legal
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the 2019 Fee Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2019, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Implement the Phase III Increases for the Capital Expansion Fees and Increase for Inflation
the Capital Expansion Fees and the Transportation Expansion Fee.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding Calculation and Collection of Development Fees Imposed for the Construction of
New or Modified Electric Service Connections.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Revise the Water Supply Requirements Fee.
The purpose of this item is to review fee updates associated with Electric Capacity Fees, Water Supply
Requirement Fees, Wet Utility Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees
(CEFs). Fee updates have been reviewed by Council Finance Committee twice, and at the November 8th
Council Work Session Council was fully supportive of brining fees forward for Council adoption. Staff met with
nine organizations across the City in the summer of 2019 and overall organizations were supportive of the
approach and cadence.
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total cost impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the 2019 fee update, fee
phasing will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
2019 fee updates include: Electric Capacity Fees, Water Supply Requirement Fees, Wet (Water, Wastewater
and Stormwater) Utility Plant Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees.
8
Packet Pg. 140
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
• Electric Capacity Fees as proposed
• Water Supply Requirement Fee as proposed
• 100% of proposed 2017 Capital Expansion Fees (Step III)
• Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (inflation only)
Development Review/Building Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have been
decoupled and will come forward once finalized.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. This resulted in the completion of two studies, the Capital
Expansion Fee Study dated August 2016 (CEF Study) for the neighborhood park, community park, fire, police
and general government capital expansion fees (CEFs) and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study
dated April 2017 (TCEF Study) for the transportation capital expansion fee (TCEF).
Development related fees that are approved by Council are CEFs, the TCEF, five Utility Fees and Building
Development Fees.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined that
updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees updates should occur together each
year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for CEFs, the TCEFs and Development
Review/Building Fees every four years. This requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal
(RFP) process where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the consultant are also verified by City staff.
For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These are internal updates by City staff with
periodic consultant verification. In the future, fee study analysis will be targeted in the odd year before
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). In years without an update, an inflation adjustment occurs.
8
Packet Pg. 141
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 3
Below is the current fee timeline:
Phase I of the fee updates included CEFs, TCEFs, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were
adopted in 2017. Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs and Step II of CEFs and TCEFs, which were approved in
2018. Development review and building permit fees were originally included in Phase II but were decoupled
from the 2018 update.
In Phase I (2017), the CEFs were increased to 75% of the amounts recommended in the CEF Study and the
TCEF was increased to 80% of the amounts recommended in the TCEF Study. In Phase II (2018), the CEFs
were increased to 90% of the amounts recommended in the CEF Study and the TCEF was increased to 100%
of the amounts recommended in the TCEF Study. This Ordinance implements Phase III by increasing the
CEFs to 100% of the amounts recommended in the CEF Study.
Due to the concern in the development and building community around fee changes, Council asked for a fee
working group to be created to foster a better understanding of fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In
August of 2017, the Fee Working Group commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders –
citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The Fee Working Group met 14 times
and was overall supportive of the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
The 2019 phase III update includes Electric Capacity Fees, Water Supply Requirement Fees, Wet Utility Plant
Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing will
be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
Development Review/Building Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have been
decoupled and will come forward once finalized. The 2019 Fee Working Group is focused on Development
Review/Building Fees only and met four times as of mid-September. The 2019 Fee Working Group consists of
a balanced group of stakeholders – citizens, business-oriented individuals and City staff.
2019 Utility Fee Updates
The proposed changes to Utility Fees for a single-family, residential home include a 1.7% increase to the
Electric Capacity Fee (ECF) and increases to the three Wet Utility Fees ranging between 1.5% and 6.7%. The
Water Plant Investment Fee (PIF) is proposed to increase 6.7%, the Wastewater PIF is proposed to increase
1.5% and the Stormwater PIF is proposed to increase 3.3% from current fee levels.
The chart below summarizes the proposed Utility Fees for a single-family home, assuming an 8,600 square
feet lot and 4 bedrooms:
8
Packet Pg. 142
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 4
It should be noted that the cost of water and water storage is increasing at a rate well above other
development costs. At the time the City began the community outreach for the 2020 Development Fees the
best estimate we had was the previous estimate of $74M. Since that time a more comprehensive estimate
which also accounts for potential mitigation costs which may or may not be realized has been developed. The
City did not feel that it was fair to adjust the Water Supply Requirement for 2020 after conducting the
outreach. The City will update the costs as more information becomes available and mitigation requirements
are refined and update the Water Supply Requirement fee on a 2 year cycle with the next update coming in
2022.
2019 Capital Expansion Fee Updates
The chart below shows the current and proposed fee updates for CEFs:
Step III - Full fees proposed in 2017 with inflation
Land Use Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Step III
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
w Inflation
TCEF
Total w
Inflation
Total %
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,855 $2,619 $454 $254 $619 $5,801 12.6% $2,336 8.9%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,483 $3,506 $614 $344 $834 $7,782 12.6% $4,338 8.0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,712 $3,828 $668 $374 $911 $8,493 12.6% $5,632 7.5%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,740 $3,868 $679 $379 $925 $8,591 12.6% $6,586 7.1%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,053 $4,312 $756 $423 $1,029 $9,573 12.6% $7,059 7.2%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $572 $320 $1,564 $2,456 12.6% $8,594 3.1%
Office and Other Services 0 0 $572 $320 $1,564 $2,456 12.6% $6,331 3.7%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $134 $74 $369 $577 12.6% $2,043 3.1%
Step III fees are a 12.6 % increase from current fee levels (Step II). CEF fee increases are 100% of full fee
levels recommended in 2017. The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation. The
Engineering News Record for TCEFs.
Comparison Charts
Fort Collins proposed fees are in the upper-middle of the pack:
8
Packet Pg. 143
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 5
The following chart shows neighboring cities across water districts with and without raw water. Fort Collins
fees are in line with neighboring cities:
Fort Collins fees and the cost of code is leveling as a percentage of median new home sales price:
8
Packet Pg. 144
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 6
Below is the 2019 fee roadmap:
May June/July August October November 1/1/2020
Capital Expansion Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Transportation CEFs
Electric Capacity Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Water Supply Requirement CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Wet Utility Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Building Development Fees Working Group Working Group
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
2019 fee updates were discussed with Council Finance Committee in May and August of 2019. Fee updates
will result in an increase to fee payers.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
2019 fee updates were discussed with Council Finance Committee in May and August of 2019. Council
Finance Committee recommended bringing the topic forward at the October 8th Council Work Session. From
the Work Session, Council recommended ordinance readings in November 2019 as next steps.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In an effort towards better communication, outreach and notification of impact fee changes, staff met with nine
organizations across the City in the summer of 2019.
8
Packet Pg. 145
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 7
Overall, organizations were supportive of the approach and cadence. There was acknowledgement that
regular fee updates are necessary.
Staff also heard:
• Supportive of 2018 fee group recommendations
• Progressive fees/if where possible
• Investigate revenue alternatives to support parks refresh & maintenance
• Explore stronger support for affordable housing
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions - development standards going forward, alignment on total cost including operations
and maintenance
Additional communications to existing non-residential customers impacted by excess water use surcharges, as
well as customer feedback, is included in the Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges attachment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (PDF)
2. Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (PDF)
3. Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (PDF)
4. Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (PDF)
5. EAC Capital Expansion Fees Memo Final (PDF)
6. Work Session Memo on 2019 Fee Updates 2019-10-11 (PDF)
7. Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges(PDF)
8
Packet Pg. 146
1
2019 Fee Update
October 8, 2019
Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Agenda
2
• Fee Scope, Timeline & Background
• Proposed 2019 Fee Updates – Effective in 2020
• Comparison Charts
• Community Outreach Feedback
• Council Direction
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Why Do We Have Impact Fees
3
Capital Expansion Fees
• New development pays a proportionate share of
infrastructure costs to “buy-in” to the level of service
• Fee revenue used to build new service capacity
• In place since 1996
Development Review Fees
• Fees are intended to recoup the cost to the City for ensuring
compliance with:
• Planning, zoning and architectural/design standards
• Adopted master plans
• Building codes / resident safety
Utility Plant Investment Fees
• Provides a mechanism for new development to reimburse
existing utility customers for existing infrastructure
• Fee revenue used to build additional infrastructure
The concept of growth paying for the impact of growth is a policy
decision that City Council made and continues to support
Fee Revenue Used to Add Infrastructure Needed Because of Growth
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Fee Coordination
4
Objective:
• Review fee updates together to
provide a holistic view of the total
cost impact
• Bring impact fees forward per a
defined cadence….. 2 - 4 years
Type of Fee Fee Name
Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park
Capital Expansion Community Park
Capital Expansion Fire
Capital Expansion Police
Capital Expansion General Government
Capital Expansion Transportation
Utility Water Supply Requirement
Utility Electric Capacity
Utility Sewer Plant Investment
Utility Stormwater Plant Investment
Utility Water Plant Investment
Building
Development
Development Review, Building
Permit & Engineering Fees
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Fee Timeline
5
Detailed fee studies:
• 4 years for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees
• 2 years for Utility fees
In years without updates, an annual inflation adjustment occurs
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update
Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update
Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update
Water Supply Requirement Update Update Update
Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update
Building Development Fees Update Update
Fee Working Group Active Active Active
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Fee Overview:
Methodologies
Different methodologies used across fee categories:
• Level of Service or Buy-in: Fees are set by assessing City’s capitalized assets or “level
of service” and who’s using the assets. Development “buys in” to that level of service
• Plan-based: Fees are set based on a capital improvement plan and development pays a
portion of their impact on that plan
• Hybrid: fees assessed using aspects of plan and level of service
• Cost Recovery: fees are assessed based on recovering all or a portion of the cost of
administering a particular program
6
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Overview of Fees
7
Fee Methodology Calculation
Capital Expansion (CEFs) Level of Service Asset Value/ Who’s Using
Transportation Capital
Expansion (TCEFs)
Plan-based Capital Improvement Plan &
Vehicle Miles Travelled, Type of
Land Use
Utility Plant Investment:
Electric PIFs, Stormwater
Level of Service Asset Value/ Who’s Using
Raw Water/ Cash-in-Lieu Hybrid
(recommended)
Future water storage + Value of
current assets
Utility Plant Investment:
Water, Wastewater
Hybrid Capital Improvement Plan &
Current Asset Values
Development Review Cost Recovery Cost Recovery at 100% per code
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
8
• Review of impact fees together is beneficial
for understanding the full impact of fee updates
• Overall, sound methodologies, calculations
and inputs
• The third-party fee audit revealed how the City
spends and collects impact fees is sound
• Impact fee amenities add to property value,
but views differ as to what extent they impact
housing costs
Key Findings
• Impact fees are complicated and difficult to
communicate across the community
• Park impact fees are the only category where
impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built
• Need to identify new revenue sources for park
refresh and maintenance in the future
• If less than recommended is approved,
alternative revenue sources will be needed
Fee Group Findings
Fee Group Validated Integrity in Fee Development and Expenditures
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
9
Utility Fees
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
10
Utility Fees
Utility Fee Current
Charge
2020
Charge $ Change % Change
Electric Capacity Fee $1,537 $1,563 $ 26 1.7%
Water PIF $ 3,826 $ 4,084 $ 258 6.7%
Wastewater PIF $ 3,537 $ 3,590 $ 53 1.5%
Stormwater PIF $ 1,548 $ 1,600 $ 52 3.3%
Water Supply Requirement* $11,160 $13,838 $ 2,678 24.0%
• Assumes residential, single-family home with an 8,600 square feet lot and 4 bedrooms
*Charges for going over annual water allotment are tied to increase in Water Supply Requirement
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
11
Water PIFs
Customer Class Criteria Current Charge 2020 Charge $ Change % Change
Single Family 8,600 sq ft 3,826 4,084 $ 258 6.7%
Duplex & Multi‐family 3,435 sq ft 1,423 1,546 $ 123 8.6%
Commercial
Meter Size
3/4" by tap size 7,930 8,790 $ 860 10.8%
1" by tap size 20,960 23,060 $ 2,100 10.0%
1 1/2" by tap size 43,510 45,610 $ 2,100 4.8%
2" by tap size 72,450 78,820 $ 6,370 8.8%
WATER Plant Investment Fees
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
12
Wastewater PIFs
2018 2020 Change in Proposed %
Customer Class Volume Volume Volume PIF Change
GPD GPD GPD $
Single family residential 230 229 -0.4% 3,590 1.5%
Duplex and Multi-family 170 165 -2.9% 2,590 0.1%
Commercial
Meter Size - inches
3/4 490 492 0.4% 7,710 2.6%
1 1,080 1,096 1.5% 17,190 3.8%
1.5 2,070 2,063 -0.3% 32,350 2.0%
2 4,300 4,281 -0.4% 67,120 2.0%
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
13
Stormwater PIFs
Rate Class 2019 2020 $ Change % Change
Gross Area Developed (sq ft) 8,600 8,600
Common Area Allocation (sq ft) 6,156 6,156
Base Rate (per acre*) $9,142 $9,447
Runoff Coefficient 0.5 0.5
Total Fee $1,548 $1,600 $52 3.3%
Gross Area Developed (sq ft) 43,560 43,560
Base Rate (per acre*) $9,142 $9,447
Runoff Coefficient 0.8 0.8
Total Fee $7,314 $7,558 $244 3.3%
Commercial
Stormwater Plant Investment Fee
Residential
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
14
Capital Expansion Fees
Step III
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Capital Expansion Fees
Step III
15
• Step III fees are an 12.6% increase from current fee levels (Step II)
• CEF fee increases are 100% of full fee levels recommended in 2017
• Inflation: CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Engineering News Record for TCEFs
Step III - Full fees proposed in 2017 with inflation
Land Use Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Step III
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
w Inflation
TCEF
Total w
Inflation
Total %
Increase
w Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,855 $2,619 $454 $254 $619 $5,801 12.6% $2,336 8.9%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,483 $3,506 $614 $344 $834 $7,782 12.6% $4,338 8.0%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,712 $3,828 $668 $374 $911 $8,493 12.6% $5,632 7.5%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,740 $3,868 $679 $379 $925 $8,591 12.6% $6,586 7.1%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $3,053 $4,312 $756 $423 $1,029 $9,573 12.6% $7,059 7.2%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $572 $320 $1,564 $2,456 12.6% $8,594 3.1%
Office and Other Services 0 0 $572 $320 $1,564 $2,456 12.6% $6,331 3.7%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $134 $74 $369 $577 12.6% $2,043 3.1%
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
16
Fee Comparisons and
Outreach
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Fee Comparison:
For Median New Home Sales Price $488K*
17
Fort Collins Proposed Fees in the Upper-Middle of the Pack
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Neighboring Cities
New Median Sales Comparison with Fees
18
Fort Collins Fees are Inline with Neighboring Cities
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Fort Collins Fee Stack
Median New Home Sales
19
Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling %
of Median New Home Sales Price
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Summer 2019 Outreach
20
Organization
Affordable Housing Board
Building Review Board
Economic Advisory Commission
Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Local Legislative Affairs Committee
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association
Super Issues Forum
Energy Board
Water Board
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2019 Outreach: What We Heard
21
Overall supportive of approach and cadence
We also heard:
• Acknowledgement that regular fee updates are necessary
• Supportive of 2018 fee group recommendations
• Progressive fees/if where possible
• Investigate revenue alternatives to support parks refresh & maintenance
• Explore stronger support for affordable housing
• Concerns about attainable housing - it may be less desirable to live here
• Policy questions - development standards going forward, alignment on total cost
(including operations and maintenance)
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2019 Roadmap
22
• All fee categories initially planed to update in 2019 except for Transportation CEFs
• Phasing complete after 2019 with regular two and four-year cadence beginning in 2021
• Building Development Fees decoupled from the 2019 update
May June/July August October November 1/1/2020
Capital Expansion Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Transportation CEFs
Electric Capacity Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Water Supply Requirement CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Wet Utility Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Ordinance Effective
Building Development Fees Working Group Working Group
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Direction Sought
23
Does Council support fee updates to come forward for
consideration in November (effective January 1, 2020)?
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Backup
24
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2017 Recap
25
Council directed stepped implementation for CEF & TCEF in 2017
Success Factors:
• Bringing fees together was good for
understanding the full impact of fees
• Formed citizen/staff working group
Lessons Learned:
• Fee increase recommendations were
significant, caused confusion in the community
• Difficult to explain with different methodologies
and qualitative aspect
Fee Status as of October 2017 Next Steps
CEFs • 75% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - three steps
TCEFs • 80% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - two steps
Electric Capacity • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
Raw Water • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2017 – Drivers of Fee Increases
26
Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed increase 71% to 79%):
• Fee based on replacement cost of existing infrastructure
• Cost of construction, land, water up significantly since last fee revision
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed changes -32% to 114%):
• Cost of construction up since last fee revision
• Current transportation plan & calculation shift
Electric Capacity Fees (2017 changes approximately -50% to 40%):
• Change in methodology from plan-based to “buy-in”
Raw Water Fees (effective 1/1/2018):
• New fee model - value of the existing water rights portfolio & growth related capital expenses
Large Increase Created Significant Business Community Concern
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2018 Recap
27
Fee Group overall supportive of the fee coordination process and proposed
fee updates
• Council asked for a fee working group to foster a better understanding of fees prior
to further fee updates
• Balanced group of stakeholders – citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff
and a Council liaison
• Met 14 times
Fee Status as of January 2019 Next Steps
CEFs • 90% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - three steps
TCEFs • 100% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - two steps complete
Utility PIFs • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
28
Recommendations
1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee Changes
2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact Fee Audit
3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible
4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks Buildout
5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh &
Maintenance
6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers
Fee Group Recommendations
Recommendations Reviewed with Council Finance in September….
Implemented as Appropriate Over Time
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: 2019 Fee Updates Council Work Session updated 2019-10-08 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
03/18/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers, Gerry Horak
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks,
Rachel Rogers, Travis Storin, Jennifer Poznanovic, Teresa Roche, Jamie
Heckman, Chris Martinez, Laurie Kadrich, Noelle Currell, Tom Leeson, Theresa
Connor, Lance Smith, John Voss, Shar Gerber, Katie Ricketts, John Duval, Ginny
Sawyer, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Dale Adamy, R1ST.org
Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:09 am
Approval of Minutes from the February 25th Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ross Cunniff moved for
approval. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. 2019 Fee Road Map
Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total cost
impact. Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the 2019 fee
update, fee phasing will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
2019 fee updates include: Development Review fees, Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement
fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council Finance Committee support the proposed 2019 roadmap for fee updates?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new
development related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are approved by
Council are six Capital Expansion Fees, five Utility Fees and 45 Building Development Fees.
ATTACHMENT 2 8.b
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined
that updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees updates should occur
together each year to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs),
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every four years. This
requires an outside consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process where data is provided by
City staff. Findings by the consultant are also verified by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study
is planned every two years. These are internal updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification.
In the future, impact fee study analysis will be targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes
(BFO).
Below is the current fee timeline:
Phase I of the fee updates included CEFs, TCEFs, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were
adopted in 2017. Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs and step II of CEFs and TCEFs, which were approved
in 2018. Development review and building permit fees were originally included in Phase II but were de-
coupled from the 2018 update.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
3
Due to the concern in the development and building community around fee changes, Council asked for a
fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of fees prior to discussing further fee
updates. In August of 2017, the Fee Working Group commenced comprised of a balanced group of
stakeholders – citizens, business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The Fee Working
Group met 14 times and was overall supportive of the fee coordination process and proposed fee
updates.
The 2019 phase III update includes Development Review fees, Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply
Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees.
After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates
beginning in 2021.
Below is the proposed 2019 fee roadmap:
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
We will be back to Council Finance in May for deep dive of Development Review and Capital Expansion
fees – goal is the same – effective 1/1/20. Outreach targeted for May / June - that may slip out a month
or so
ACTION ITEM:
Ken Summers; 45 Development Review fees. Is there a list? Cost recovery / cost drivers? Appraisal
updates for all facilities
Mike Beckstead; we will bring a list back in May and be very specific - which is why the outreach may slip
out a month - today is more about cost methodology and during the next agenda topic - we are going to
share how the methodology used to done and propose a new methodology – gets into exactly what you
are asking regarding development fees.
Mike Beckstead; each fee has some uniqueness in the methodology used to manage each fee -
depends on the fee and the nexus of what the fee is for - this is what drives the inputs to calculating the
fee
Mayor Troxell; I think the development review and building permit fees were looked at as part of fee
stack review.
Mike Beckstead; that is correct - we are doing a deep dive – there is a consultant involved - his report
came in last week – we are getting that type of guidance on how we might improve the usability and
ease of the fees plus the integrity of the fee that we are charging in the first place
March April May/June July August 1/1/2020
Capital Expansion Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Transportation CEFs
Electric Capacity Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Water Supply Requirement CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Wet Utility Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
Development Review Fees CFC Outrech CFC Council Effective
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
4
Ross Cunniff; I do support the Fee Roadmap for 2019 with the understanding that we will be diving into
development fees then capital expansion fees at the May Council Finance Meeting. Bigger picture was
mentioned earlier in the deck – when we didn’t have a roadmap like this we went 10-15 years without
an update so when the review finally took place there was an incredibly steep rate of change which was
painful for everyone. Trying to avoid that with this more deliberate review schedule.
Ken Summers; Fee Roadmap for 2019 is fine but I also look forward to the on-going discussions on how
we structure fees, etc.
Mayor Troxell; wet utility fees - wet is kind of a jargon - electric capacity fees is descriptive but utility is
not necessarily conveying a lot of information - I’m guessing that includes our water, wastewater and
stormwater together. What are they actually providing for?
Mike Beckstead; they are the plant investment fees a developer would pay for the needed infrastructure-
in those three utilities. The methodology for how those fees are calculated are consistent across all three
so that is where we came up with the name but I understand and agree that we need a better name to
describe what those fees are about.
Mayor Troxell; Is it water capacity?
Lance Smith; water fees - water supply requirement which is the actual raw water and then separate from
that is the plant investment fee which covers the cost of buying into the system
Wet Utility includes a water plant investment from treatment plant to tap
Wastewater plan investment fee covers treatment from your drain to the river
Stormwater covers the infrastructure needed to gather the water to get it to where it needs to go.
Mayor Troxell; electric capacity suggests a lot of things to me - that you are actually providing capacity.
I think we are providing a broad notion of capacity for the water to and from and water from above.
Mike Beckstead; Maybe a Utility Water PIF might work better - we will work on labels and will come back
with definition and clarity on what the fee is actually about. We will list them all out.
Ross Cunniff; one important difference - it might be useful to split these out when we talk about them at
the same time - Stormwater fees apply to the whole city of Fort Collins and others don’t.
B. Development Review Fee Update
Tom Leeson, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Director
Noelle Currell, Financial Planning and Analysis, Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City contracted with MGT Consulting Group (MGT) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the City’s
development review and building permit fees and to evaluate whether these fees are set at appropriate
levels, inclusive for all costs, and consistent with the City’s goals for percent of cost to recover, and how
fees compare to other communities regionally. This update to the City’s Development Review Fees is
part of the City’s coordinated fee update process that began in 2017.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
5
Staff and MGT Consultants also evaluated the methodology for calculating the fees and are requesting
feedback on changing the methodology for calculating building permit and plan check fees from using
the valuation of a project to using the square footage of a project. The methodology for calculating the
development review fees is remaining the same.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is Council Finance supportive of methodology changes for building permit fee calculations?
What cost recovery percentage should fees be based upon?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
City Fee Review Schedule
Phase I of the City’s coordinated fee update process included Capital Expansion Fees (CEF),
Transportation CEF, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were adopted in 2017. Phase II
included Wet Utility PIFs, which were approved in 2018. Development review and building permit fees
were originally included in Phase II but were de-coupled from that effort and will move forward with the
Electric Capacity Fees this year and will then be evaluated again in 2021.
The last comprehensive analysis of development review and building permit fees was conducted in
2008. For many years the City had a policy to recover 80% of fee-related services (with exceptions, i.e.,
over-the-counter permits), in 2011, staff conducted an internal study of the costs associated with
building permit and plan review fees based on City Council direction to change the cost recovery model
of collecting 80% of the costs to 100% of the costs (See Attachment 1 for 2011 Study). No changes to the
fees, with the exception of annual CPI increases, have been made to the fee schedule since 2011.
Purpose of Development and Building Permit Fee Study
The City contracted with MGT Consulting Group (MGT) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the City’s
development review and building permit fees and to evaluate whether these fees are set at appropriate
levels, inclusive for all costs, consistent with the City’s goals for percent of cost to recover, and how fees
compare to other communities regionally. Additionally, the consultants were tasked with evaluating if
the method of calculating the fee is up-to-date and if there was a different, more efficient methodology.
One of the issues raised by applicants during the City’s review of the development review process was
the complexity of the current fee schedule and the difficulty of estimating fees. An additional goal of the
study was to evaluate the methodology and fee schedule to look for ways to simplify and streamline.
Development and Building Permit Fee Approval
The City Manager is authorized to set fees based on the costs of providing development and building
permit review services, pursuant to City Code Sec. 7.5-2. The Land Use Code (Sec. 2.2.3.D) establishes
the cost recovery model for development and building permit fees:
(1) Recovery of Costs. Development review fees are hereby established for the purpose of recovering the
costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing and recording applications pertaining to development
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
6
applications or activity within the municipal boundaries of the City, and issuing permits related thereto.
The development review fees imposed pursuant to this Section shall be paid at the time of submittal of
any development application, or at the time of issuance of the permit, as determined by the City
Manager and established in the development review fee schedule.
(2) Development Review Fee Schedule. The amount of the City's various development review fees shall
be established by the City Manager, and shall be based on the actual expenses incurred by or on behalf
of the City. The schedule of fees shall be reviewed annually and shall be adjusted, if necessary, by the
City Manager on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the City to reflect the effects of inflation and
other changes in costs. At the discretion of the City Manager, the schedule may be referred to the City
Council for adoption by resolution or ordinance.
Development Review Fees and Calculation Methodology
The fees imposed on development review applications are intended to recover the costs associated with
staff time to review and process development proposals, such as (For a complete list of current fees
refer to Attachment 2):
• Project Development Plans (PDP)
• Major Amendments
• Overall Development Plans (ODP)
• Planned Unit Development (PUD)
• Rezoning
• Sign Permit
• Variances
Development review fees were last updated in 2008 and were not included in the 2011 internal fee
study, which only updated the building permit and plan check fees.
Development review fees are calculated by determining the time spent by each staff member on each
development application type (this includes staff members involved with processing the application
including City Planners, administrative staff, Building and Development Review Technicians, Engineers,
etc.) to determine the costs to the City to process and review. The methodology for calculating these
fees is remaining the same; however, the fee schedule is being simplified. Currently the fee schedule
includes the application fee as well as the cost of sending out the public notice, which will now be rolled
into the application fee.
Building Permit and Plan Check Fees and Calculation Methodology
The fees imposed on building permit applications are intended to recover the costs associated with staff
time to review and process building permit applications. Building permit applications are categorized by
building type, such as (For a complete list of current building permit types and fees refer to Attachment
3):
• A (Assembly)
• B (Business)
• E (Educational)
• R-1
• R-2
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
7
In addition to the building type categories mentioned above, there are also “over-the-counter” (OTC)
building permit applications for small projects that can be issued quickly with very limited review, such
as:
• Furnace replacement
• Air Conditioner
• Pool/spa
• Commercial roof replacement
Building permit fees are currently calculated based on the valuation, or construction costs, of the
proposed project. The building permit fees are calculated from the 2008 IBC Building Safety Journal for
commercial/industrial valuation minimums. The residential valuation minimums are also based on the
2008 IBC table, but have been slightly modified to accommodate for local conditions.
The valuation method can be difficult to estimate in the early stages of a project because in many cases
neither the applicant nor the staff has enough information to provide a valuation, which can lead to big
differences in the estimate provided and the actual fee. Furthermore, staff feels there is only a loose
correlation between the valuation of a project and the amount of time it takes to review, process the
application, and inspect the property.
While the valuation methodology is relatively common throughout the country, it is problematic for
staff to administer and is difficult for the applicants to understand and estimate. It can be difficult to
administer because staff must rely on the information provided by the applicant with respect to the
valuation and in most cases the valuation provided is at the very minimum or slightly above, even
though staff is aware that the valuation is most likely higher. This can lead to disagreements with
respect to the building permit fee and frustration by the applicants.
In researching best practices as part of this fee study, staff and the consultants found communities that
are changing from using the valuation of a project to calculate the fees to utilizing the square footage of
the project. The square footage of a project is not subject to disagreements as it is a definite quantity
provided within the application; it is a known quantity in the early phases of a project, so it provides a
stronger basis for calculating accurate fee estimates; and has a strong correlation to the amount of time
it takes to review and process an application.
For those reasons, staff is proposing to change the methodology for calculating building permit fees
from the valuation method to utilizing square footage and has asked MGT consultants to calculate the
updated fees utilizing this new methodology.
It should be noted that the “over-the-counter” permits such as furnace replacement and new air
conditioning units, are also currently calculated utilizing the valuation methodology. Since these permit
types do not have a square footage associated with them, staff is proposing to charge a flat rate fee
based on the average time to process these permit types. The review process for these permit types is
relatively simple and there is very little deviation from one permit to the next, so a flat rate fee would be
an accurate and efficient method.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
8
Engineering Inspection Fees
MGT Consultants were also asked to evaluate the City’s Engineering Inspection fees as part of this fee
study. The Engineering Inspection fees are intended to recover the costs associated with staff time to
field inspect the public infrastructure improvements associated with new developments. The
Engineering Inspection fees include such fees as (For complete list of Engineering Inspection Fees, refer
to Attachment 4):
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
9
• Sanitary Sewer Main
• Water Main
• Pedestrian Ramps
• Concrete or asphalt
• Sewer manhole
Engineering inspection fees are calculated by determining the time spent for each inspection type and
are based on the size or length of the infrastructure being inspected to determine the costs to the City.
The methodology for calculating these fees is remaining the same.
What the Fees are Intended to Cover
Development Review and Building Permit fees are intended to cover staffing resources and all
associated costs for providing the following services, including:
Plan review for development and building plan submittals
Plan review for minor amendments
Inspections – building, construction/engineering, zoning
Related customer/administrative services
o Permit issuance
o Fee collection
o Licensing
o Board Support – Building Review, Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals
o Records Management
Staffing resources and associated costs for providing ancillary, but critical services, from Management
Information Systems for the development, configuration and maintenance of our computer systems and
technologies are also included.
In 2008, it was determined to eliminate administrative costs and those associated with management
staff above the level of the direct managers of those providing development-related functions/activities.
The fees cover the follow costs/funds:
• General Fund – All of Current Planning, Customer & Admin Services, Building Inspection, Plan Check
and a portion of Advance Planning and Zoning.
• Transportation Fund– All of Engineering Development Review and portions of Customer & Admin
Services, Engineering Admin Support, Engineering Construction Inspection, Engineering Survey, and
Traffic Engineering.
• Data & Communications Fund - All of the Development Tracking System, direct support and portions
of GIS
Cost Recovery Policy
As was indicated above, the City had a policy to recover 80% of the costs of development through the
collection of fees for many years, and in 2011, staff conducted an internal study of the costs based on
City Council direction to change the cost recovery model of collecting 80% of the costs to 100% of the
costs. The 2011 internal fee study only evaluated building permit and plan check fees and did not
include development review fees. Additionally, the 2011 study appears to have compared overall
expenses to provide the review services and revenues generated by fees but did not conduct an in-
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
10
depth analysis of the actual cost per permit type. As a result, it did not provide a completely accurate
analysis of the cost to provide the development review services.
The MGT fee study evaluated every permit type offered and interviewed each staff member involved in
the development and permitting review process. The costs are calculated using the hourly rate and time
spent of staff providing the review, thus providing an accurate analysis of actual costs.
It should be noted that neither the development review fees nor the building permit fee calculations
include City wide overhead such as Financial Services, Human Resources or the City Attorney’s (CAO)
staff. For example, the CAO staff spend a considerable amount of time on development review projects
such as the drafting of all development agreements, public hearing support, land use code
interpretations, and review of staff reports.
Historic Development Review Expenses and Revenues
The following table shows the City’s historic expenses and revenues:
This graph demonstrates that during times when the economy is good, revenue outweighs
expenses; when the economy is in poor health, expense outweighs revenue (this is the expected
trend).
• Notes on spikes/changes:
o 2012:
Fees changed from 80% Cost Recovery to 100% Cost Recovery
Updated tables that are used for project valuation purposes (from 1982 UBC
tables to 2008 BSJ tables)
Recession Recovery
o 2014:
Major permits pulled – Mall & Woodward
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
11
Comparison of Peer Cities
As part of the fee study, MGT provided a comparative survey of Building Permit and Plan Check fees as a
baseline. The fees presented in the comparative study are for the existing City fees. The new fees will be
added to the comparative survey once the data and direction on methodology has been finalized. The
MGT project staff worked with City staff to create a list of example project fees to be compared with
similar fees in select peer cities. The City of Fort Collins provided MGT with twenty receipts from actual
work done by the City. The information contained in each receipt was then used to provide example
projects to the comparative jurisdictions and to calculate fees where applicable. See Attachment 5 for
the complete comparative survey.
Next Steps and Public Outreach
Based on the direction from Council Finance regarding the methodology of the building permit fees and
the cost recovery, staff will refine and calibrate the data from MGT Consultants and propose a final fee
schedule.
The timeline for this project will parallel the timeline for the Electric Capacity Fees update process, with
a Council work session in mid-summer and City Council adoption in the fall. A second Council Finance
meeting could be scheduled for early summer as well if necessary.
Staff will also engage in a robust public outreach process during the next six months, engaging with such
groups as:
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Super Issues Forum
• Northern Colorado Homebuilder’s
Association
• Downtown Development Authority
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Affordable Housing Board
• Human Relations Board
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Board of Realtors
• Building Review Board
• Housing Catalyst
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Tom Leeson; Water heater flat fee example - easier to calculate and understand – there was an evaluation done
on how long it takes to complete each type of permit / inspection and the flat fee rate is based on that.
Mayor Troxell; Is there a different type flat fee for each permit type? Is that a long list of things?
Tom Leeson; the list is included as an attachment to the AIS which includes 15-20 different types.
Mayor Troxell; Is there a process flow? Was it looked at via Lean principle perspective? No missed hand off
steps, etc.
Tom Leeson; that is part of the calibration we need to look at - The question is could we be more efficient in our
processes and are we spending too much time because our processes are inefficient? This is more related to the
amount of time an individual employee spends reviewing an application type less pass off time. We are not
recovering 100% as we don’t collect fees associated with time spent by CAO, and indirect cost drivers such as HR
and admin, etc.
Noelle Currell; interesting that a new furnace inspection is valuation based but the time spent by a building
inspector is the same no matter type of furnace. For Broadband every place in city will be touched (potholing or
boring) we made sure we captured and included those updates. We had to hire some additional engineering
inspector staff to handle the additional volume for Broadband - we did hire an additional inspector and we have
tentative plans to hire a second inspector to handle the volume. Engineering fees need to be set so we recover
costs of inspectors.
Mike Beckstead; I look at that chart and see a 15% increase in residential fees and a 50% increase in commercial
fees is - the magnitude of the change is a bit concerning. This is very similar to what we did when we did the
deep dive on capital expansion fees about 3 years ago - we looked at inputs and methodology - we are ending
up with the same kind of results this time 0 if we want to hit 100% cost recovery there will be some fairly
significant increase.
Darin Atteberry; this is not nor is it intended to be a profit center for the City of Fort Collins.
Mayor Troxell; Are any of the peer cities – 4 utility cities?
Darin Atteberry; Front Range and national peer cities – most are full service cities - some with university
presence - they have been scrubbed but they are not perfect - Front Range data set - we have our standard set
of peers that Council has generally accepted - when it comes to fees the local front range peer data is always
relevant.
Ross Cunniff; our cost of living should be factored into that because that will affect the salaries and cost of staff
time.
Ken Summers; what is the value of looking at Fort Collins versus peer cities across the nation?
Doesn’t mean anything to me relative to whether our fees are in alignment or not - more concerned and interest
in the cities around us.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
13
Darin Atteberry; Council has been interested in what is happening with our national peer cities - size wise - we
were asked to include national peer cities as well - over the years we have tried to include both because it has
been an ask of Council - never been a mandate or a driver – only for information
Ross Cunniff; educational - if it shows - we are moving from the median to somewhere different so is that really
the right direction?
Noelle Currell; lots of work from staff - Shar was very involved in requesting copies of actual building permits.
Mayor Troxell; Colorado Springs got away from stormwater and called it a rain tax -they got into issues federally
etc – regarding how they handled their stormwater. I think they reinstituted it - sometimes there are large
political factors that can skew things.
Ross Cunniff; big picture driver of all of this is fairness and predictability is part of being fair.
We have a set of services that need to be performed because of life safety, compliance with building code,
in that framework who is paying for the cost of having inspectors - it doesn’t tell me if we are more or less fair.
Ken Summers; Do we have any permits that are issued that do not require a follow up inspection?
Tom Leeson; the bulk majority of our building permits do require an inspection - we have planning fees that
eventually turn into building permits.
Ken Summers; we were erecting a pretty substantial sign at a church in Lakewood which required a
foundational base so we called the city to let them know that we were ready for them to come inspect – they
said we don’t do that – if your sign falls over that is on you - we paid for a permit just to provide income to the
city - we were following the specs from the sign company in preparation - I was shocked by the response.
Tom Leeson; We may have permits that don’t require an inspection but we still have staff time involved to
process applications – in almost every case zoning reviews the request so there would still be staff time involved
in any permit we process. If no inspection is required, it was not factored into the fee.
Mayor Troxell; Is there a purpose (purposeful purpose) for each of the fees and permits? (Improve safety,
community or other intended purpose). Purposes should be clear.
Mike Beckstead; when we come back in May we will bring fee level and clear purpose information. This is not a
revenue generator - it is cost recovery.
Noelle Currell; Historical Revenues / Expenses - several things have happened after 2011 – in 2018 we flipped
and did not generate as much revenue as expense. Tom could speak to the number of conceptuals coming in.
The 2014 spike was the Mall and the 2016 spike was Woodward. Larger projects take a lot of staff time such as
Montava currently. We have been able to upgrade our permitting system and process - new more user friendly
system for customers and staff and has added some great features.
Mike Beckstead; when we talk about percentage of cost recovery - part of the direction we are looking for is - Is
that by year or by building cycle / economic cycle - If we always had to match expenses to revenues – staff issue
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
14
based on revenues that come in - support staff we need to do these things - revenue might be a bit higher due
to cycle. Much harder to estimate over the cycle.
Gerry Horak; this slide indicates a surplus - anyone would ask ‘why are you going to charge more?’
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; two big spikes were specific projects - it would be interesting to try to filter them out -
The concept of one cycle helping to subsidize the next cycle doesn’t sound fair to me.
Someone who adds something to their house or builds a new business they are not ongoing customers in the
way utility customers are. Utility customers - taking some of these rates and fees to build future capacity - there
are future benefits. For a person who pays a one-time fee - they paid 50% more for cost recovery they will not
get more value in the future as opposed to utility example. Fairness - we should try to figure out a way to filter
out the Mall and Woodward - that would make some sense in trying to present this chart -the blue line and red
line should be closer to each other - they would fluctuate due to economic cycle.
Gerry Horak; 2014 Mall - the charges we gave to the mall were over what the cost of doing it. Do we change
according to scale? How are we looking at scale of projects?
Mike Beckstead; in that particular year that is true - this is where the over the cycle metric is key
Tom Leeson; NGT study - we are trying to understand the true cost per application type. In order to process a
project development plan – it will cost the city this amount because it will take this amount of staff hours - might
have more or less revenue because of the number of applications you get but per application type you would
have parity.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I would like to see this chart - some of this might be related to valuations going up faster than
costs.
Gerry Horak; moving ahead if you collected over $5M more than it doesn’t sound like a valid argument
Mike Beckstead; I agree with the optics - The charge would imply a surplus – that surplus was just part of the
General Fund that was used for normal General Fund activity – this is not isolated revenue - we don’t have a
fund just for development -
Ross Cunniff; we didn’t intentionally use this as a revenue generator
Mayor Troxell; as you begin to change your methodology more based on real costs – this is part of leading and
lagging – when you are capturing revenue vs. when the time expended - there is some delta that way.
Some staff availability time during slow times - the practice has been to contract and let go of contracts based
on needs - providing flexibility within the expense side. Trying to dial it in closer so you are more in line with
operational staff needed - what is needed to cover those costs.
Tom Leeson; we will be coming back to Council Finance in July with more detail. We will be going through a full
Fort Collins outreach process - will go through a very robust outreach process (boards, external stakeholders)
Lined up for Council adoption toward the end of the year.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
15
ACTION ITEM:
Gerry Horak; we need to get a stakeholder’s committee together – the Council and community will end up
focusing on dollars versus what the question really is; Is the methodology fair? What is the proper recovery? I
would recommend that we direct the City Manager to form a stakeholder committee before we get too far
down the road.
Ross Cunniff; what are development review fees for? Are they fair / what is the recovery rate?
Mayor Troxell; build that team into the outreach framework
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I would support that on consent - this is more than going to groups to explain it
I have also been hearing that roofing projects over the last few years - their roof never got inspected – I would
like some statistical valid survey of homeowner roofing projects asking are your satisfied with your level of
service? The development industry is part of the stakeholders for this – actual consumers are living on the
properties.
Tom Leeson; we did get behind on the roof inspections because of the numbers of inspections required but we
have caught up and are current but we can get this information.
Mike Beckstead; I am hearing you are positive with the methodology but let’s vet it with team
Ross Cunniff; what are they for? We have city attorney time and overhead time. Those are so indirect for the
development fee that it is probably not fair to roll those in - those are completely in control of Council how we
staff and budget those.
Ken Summers; 100% cost recovery – we need to understand what that means - allocating funds like a cost center
accounting sort of thing with departments that are funded already with General Fund monies,
Gerry Horak; do folks report their time for that? Are we going to do that in the future?
Tom Leeson; various departments have looked at that but we are not moving in that direction.
Mike Beckstead; a project breakdown system doesn’t exist today and we don’t currently have a system in place
Ross Cunniff; wondering with our new electronic review process - some of that could be automated - you are
taking a lot less time or more -
Gerry Horak; for the 21/ 22 budget - it would be nice to know the real numbers and be able to provide real data
to Council. Record how much time people actually spend on projects - example of working on Montava.
Ross Cunniff; one of the things you should discuss with the stakeholder group is your plans for assessing
efficiency - feed that into the equation and the discussion.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
16
C. URA Project
Josh Birks, Director, Economic Sustainability
Rachel Rogers, Sr. Specialist Economic Sustainability
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
City’s Tax Increment Contribution to the Proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review the proposed City property and sales tax increment contribution to the
proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Committee have any questions about the proposed tax increment contribution by the City in
support of the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan?
2. What additional information does the Committee feel Council will need in order to review this proposal?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of Fort Collins (the “City”) is considering the adoption of a new Urban Renewal Plan, at the intersection
of College Avenue and Drake Road, (the “Plan”) to direct the activities of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (the “Authority”), pursuant to the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, C.R.S. §31-25-101 et seq.
The Plan enables the use of Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) as a tool to stimulate and leverage both public and
private sector development, including redevelopment, to help remedy adverse conditions and prevent the
spread of further deterioration. The Plan effort originated in response to two proposals for private development
in the area. While these two projects are anticipated to occur in the near term, additional development and
redevelopment may occur incrementally over the life of the Plan.
In 2014, the Larimer County Tax Increment Financing Study Group (the “TIF Study Group”) was formed of
representatives from Larimer County, municipalities in the county currently using urban renewal (Fort Collins,
Loveland, and Timnath), five other municipalities, and selected taxing districts and special districts. The TIF Study
group:
Acknowledged the positive impact of TIF in providing needed financial support for redevelopment and
economic development investments in the County; and
Convened because of concerns about requirements to provide services to the new development created by
urban renewal supported by TIF.
The TIF Study Group had three primary objectives:
1. Develop a method to qualify and quantify the fiscal and economic impacts and financial risks of TIF
proposals;
2. Develop a way to evaluate the indirect impacts of TIF projects and corresponding financial effects on taxing
entities; and
3. Establish a framework for formal agreements that balance the benefits and risks among participating
entities in Larimer County.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
17
To achieve objective three (3) above. The Plan Area Review Committee (the “PRC”) recommends that the Plan
include a specific set of improvements to be funded in part or fully by TIF. This list of improvements would then
be attached to any intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) between the Authority and an impacted tax entity.
The intent is to provide a clear list of the uses of TIF prior to adopting the plan. Once all improvements on the list
are fully funded and constructed the collection of TIF would terminate with revenue reverting back to the
appropriate entity. This would apply to all incremental property tax revenue and sales tax revenue.
City Sales Tax Increment & Contribution:
In 2015, the State Legislature significantly revised the Urban Renewal Law. Aside from adjusting the composition
and size of the Board, the changes also required that the Authority negotiation an allocation of property and/or
sales tax increment with each impacted entity. Authority staff have held several discussions with the various
entities. However, little discussion has occurred with the City directly, which is technically a separate and
impacted entity as well.
Historically, the City has pledged 100 percent of the property tax increment into all projects. In addition, the City
dedicated 100 percent of the sales tax increment associated with the 2.25 percent general fund rate.
During discussions between the Authority and the impacted taxing entities a key concept continues to rise to the
top of the discussions. That concept is one of equity between the impacted taxing entities. This is central to the
County’s desire to include language about the City’s sales tax dedicated in the Intergovernmental Agreement
between it and the Authority. As such, staff recognizes that the new landscape of Urban Renewal will require
greater City participation than in the past. This participation will need to include sales tax increment as well.
The current proposal includes:
50 percent of the sales tax increment from the 2.25 percent general fund rate net of the existing King
Soopers sales will be allocated to the Authority;
The agreement would exclude any future increases to the general fund rate, explicitly referring to the
current 2.25 percent general fund rate;
Furthermore, the total revenue generated from sales tax increment will be capped at $10,144,496 based on
a 2 percent inflation factor, see Table 1 below.
Finally, the agreement between the City and the Authority will several provisions consistent with the other
taxing entities:
o TIF use will be limited to a list of public improvements within an attached exhibit with the ability to
escalate the costs based on the Engineering News Record inflation rate;
o The agreement will specify that it does not set precedent for future agreements; and
o The agreement will require an annual report be generated updating the City on the progress of the
plan.
Table 1
Estimated City Sales Tax Increment
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
18
Total City sales tax increment is estimated to be $677,000 annually or $23.3 million over the plan area period.
This represent approximately $13.3 million in time value adjusted dollars (assuming a 4.5 percent discount rate).
The current proposal from the Authority pledges 50 percent of the net new increment or approximately
$317,000 annually for a total of $10.1 million. This represents approximately $5.8 million in time value adjusted
dollars to support the College and Drake Plan.
The City will also receive Lodging Tax revenue, which is split between Visit Fort Collins and Fort Fund grant
dollars. It is estimated that approximately $110,000 annually will be generated from the proposed hotel for a
total of $3.9 million in total or $2.2 million in present value, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Estimated City Lodging Tax Increment
Other Entity Sales Tax Increment:
In addition, other taxing entities including the State of Colorado and Larimer County will receive additional sales
tax revenue from the project. Using the same assumptions regarding net new revenue the State will received
approximately $560,000 annually for a total of $18.3 million over the 25-year period, as shown in Table 3. The
County will receive approximately $155,000 annually split across the Base Tax and Mental Health Tax.
City of Fort Collins General Fund (2.25%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
2021 TOTAL
TOTAL General Fund $13,252,906 $676,654 $23,334,585
TOTAL City Pledged to Project
(50% of King Soopers and Spradley
Barr)
$5,753,078 $316,716 $10,144,496
City of Fort Collins Dedicated Sales Taxes
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
Natural Areas Tax (0.25%) $980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
Street Maintenance Tax (0.25%) $980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
Capital - CCIP (0.25%) $980,052 $52,874 $1,729,113
KFCG (0.85%) $3,332,176 $179,771 $5,878,983
Total Other City Sales Tax $6,272,331 $338,393 $11,066,321
TOTAL CITY SALES TAXES $19,525,237 $1,015,047 $34,400,906
Present
City of Fort Collins Lodging Tax (3%)
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
Hotel Site $2,226,648 $110,192 $3,939,769
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
19
Table 3
Estimated Sales Tax Increment, Other Entities
Policy Implications:
On September 30, 2014, the Authority adopted Revised Policies Relating to Financial Management for the Urban
Renewal Authority, that defined the way the Authority will reimburse developers using Tax Increment Financing
(“TIF”). The current policy stipulates that the Authority should (see Attachment 3 for the full policy):
Reimburse developers over time rather than upfront;
Encourage limiting the contribution to a developer at no more than 50 percent of the anticipated TIF
generated by that developer; and
Limit the TIF contribution to no more than 25 percent of a specific development’s cost.
While this policy governs the use of TIF by the Authority, and thus has been adopted by that body. No policy
exists guiding the City’s contribution of property or sales tax increment to a specific Urban Renewal Plan. This
may be a policy that City Council should consider evaluating and adopting.
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Josh Birks; key Dates; Per the email you each received, the April 16th Council Adoption has been delayed to some
date in the future due to ongoing negotiations. I would like to move forward with the IGAs in the cooperation
agreement in good faith - try to get those agreements done.
College and Drake Project
Increment Limitations
All Other Sales Taxes Generated
Annual Growth Rate 2.00%
Present Value 2021 TOTAL
All Parcels
State of CO (2.9%) $10,408,544 $560,485 $18,364,826
Larimer County (0.80% total) $9,977,701 $154,616 $5,066,159
Base Tax (0.55%) $1,974,034 $106,299 $3,482,984
Mental Health Tax (0.25%) $897,288 $48,318 $1,583,175
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
20
Policy Implications - city policy is the missing piece for the future
Ross Cunniff; it looks like the sales tax increment is based in part on our revenues. Are they going to be there
during this whole time frame?
Josh Birks; they are not based on Spradley Barr’s current operation as auto dealer - we have been calling it the
Spradley Barr parcel - but we will start referring to it as the project name which is Portico. Those are the
revenues going toward the Portico project. The hotel generates both sales and lodging tax.
Josh Birks; two things that have guided staff in making this proposal;
1) it is clear that the dedicated tax revenue should be left aside
2) we wanted to be mindful of not pledging sales tax that could be shifting from other parts of the community
We took the existing King Soopers out - we used average of all stores to give us a more accurate picture of a
traditional King Soopers in a highly functional location. Because King Soopers is not just a grocery store - we are
including some of that potential new sales from soft goods / general merch - not food
Ross Cunniff; are you taxing food sales to fund capital projects? Answer is no. I wouldn’t ask other entities to
dedicate thing – I don’t want to dedicate on our own. I think we should have a city policy and that would help
normalize this type of discussion. As you negotiate with the URA over our own increment contribution – you are
going off of existing URA policy - it would be useful to have an explicit policy statement.
ACTION ITEM:
Gerry Horak; whatever ends of being done for the 2.25 - it should be codified to a specific date when each tax
was passed – there are three of them. That way it is specific on when each tax changed becuase it could go
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
21
down also - makes it clear which taxes we are talking about – according to when tax was passed in 19xx and
20xx - says what it is - future council changes things -
Josh Birks; clarifying – we will be more clear on the actual tax
Gerry Horak; I am all for the policy and I don’t think this is very complicated.
Mayor Troxell; does this have anything to do with how we backfill?
Josh Birks; The school district has asked if there would be anyone in negotiations that would be willing to
guarantee their backfill revenues if that should change at some point in the future - I told them I would ask the
question in an open context.
Mike Beckstead; I don’t anticipate any backfill obligations on the city’s part for the city’s TIF that goes into this.
Ross Cunniff; I don’t think we should be guaranteeing another entity’s backfill.
Gerry Horak; I think the URA may be headed to mediation.
Josh Birks; any concerns with continuing to move forward with the cooperation agreement in parallel with the
policy conversation despite the fact that actual plan adoption may be postponed for several months?
Ross Cunniff; whoever we can get agreements with would be good.
D. Compensation Report Review
Jamie Heckman, Sr. Manager, Compensation
Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present an overview of the City’s compensation philosophy and practices, and a
summary of 2019 pay increases.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
No specific direction is sought. This item is informational only.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Total compensation (salary + benefits) comprises approximately 25% of the City’s operating budget. Council
approved a 3% budget pool for pay increases for the 2019-2020 budget.
With Council approval of Offer 6.10 in the 2016 Budget Revisions and Offer 42.6 in the 2017-2018 Budget, the
City launched a multi-year project to improve foundational classification and compensation systems to ensure
the City is well positioned to attract, retain, engage, develop and reward a diverse and competitive workforce to
meet the needs of the community now and in the future.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
22
The information presented in this item includes compensation philosophy, an overview of the job architecture
framework, market pricing and analysis methodology, establishment of the Pay Plan, and 2019 compensation
increases.
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Darin Atteberry; Thank you to Jamie and Teresa and the team that worked on this - our compensation
philosophy and practices continue to improve. SA Directors now manage to their budget and they have
guardrails to be accountable to. This is an important practice and a huge part of our budget. I am confident in
how it is being implemented and how the SA Directors has responded to these changes in the last few years.
Ross Cunniff; very helpful dialog - Do we track off cycle increases from year to year?
Jamie Heckman; we have started to track this historically - we had 30-35 off cycle increases in 2017 and 35 in
2018. We expect this number to remain fairly constant. There is a strong business case for each instance.
Mayor Troxell; this is really good work - consistent framework throughout
E. Revenue Update
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Year to date Sales and Use Tax revenue and planned actions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year to date (YTD) sales tax revenue is slightly behind budget through February and use tax is above budget for a
combined sales and use tax above budget. Sales tax is historically volatile in the first quarter. If sales tax growth
were to remain at the YTD rate, the revenue shortfall would be about $1.3M with a $750K shortfall to the
General Fund.
Staff is monitoring revenue to budget and is working to develop a rubric/trigger for when action should be taken
and a list of potential actions that could be taken depending on the magnitude of the shortfall.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Is CFC in agreement with the proposed monitoring of actual revenue to budget and the development actions
referenced above?
DISCUSSION /NEXT STEPS;
Ross Cunniff; Do we have an understanding of what fraction of the use tax is construction vs other?
Mike Beckstead; that information is part of the Sales Tax report – it shows business, construction, auto sales.
Mike Beckstead; February is historically a volatile month in fact the whole 1Q is so it hard to react just to
February.
1.7% conservative growth rate is we need to hit our budget numbers
We have a Monthly Financial Management Report – a slide with an example of data from the report.
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
23
Actions In Motion:
Committee to meet - three meetings are scheduled;
Monitor underspend - identify opportunities - develop a rubric of trigger points
Will watch closely. By mid-April we should have a good read on the entire first quarter revenue across
the city and will be in a much better position to discuss trigger points and actions.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; what is the right size for that contingency over time? sustain level - analysis reserve / flexible -
could be used in event that it is needed. Might be a good idea to include that in future budget cycles.
Mike Beckstead; we never had a contingency in place until the 17/18 budget cycle and we used a big piece of it.
It might be a good idea to have a revenue contingency fund included and to evaluate what is the right amount to
address possible fluctuations.
ACTION ITEM:
Ken Summer: It would be helpful to have a brief summary update economic report - only a few pages
• What is happening in our community / health of local economy - URA
• Total output as a community comparison YOY
• Revenue update - revenue / expense
• Key Developments - 1Q - businesses that close and open / locations / industries
• Building Permits YOY and quarterly comparison
• Innovations / new energy economy / e commerce updates
Mike Beckstead; Josh Birks and I can partner on the requested report. We should have the information for 1Q by
mid-April and we will target the first part of May for a Q1 report.
Darin Atteberry: Josh, Mike and I have discussed this report before - quick snapshot - a lot of the information
exists in the City Manager’s Report
Meeting adjourned at noon
ATTACHMENT 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 031819 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
05/20/19
10 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Jeff Mihelich, Mike Beckstead, Travis Storin,
Blaine Dunn, John Voss, Kevin Gertig, John Phelan, Terra Sampson, Theresa Connor,
Sean Carpenter, Lance Smith, Randy Reuscher, Jennifer Poznanovic, Carol Webb,
Jason Graham, Link Mueller, John Duval, Noelle Currell, Tyler Marr, Jo Cech,
Katie Ricketts, Zach Mozer, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Joel Stewart, Milliman, Dale Adamy, R1ST.org
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:14 am
Approval of Minutes from the April 15th, 2019 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ross Cunniff moved for
approval of the minutes. Ken Summers seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. GERP Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Blaine Dunn, Sr. Treasury Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The General Employee Retirement Plan “the Plan” was established in 1971 and was closed to new members in
1999. There are currently 392 total members left in the Plan including active employees, terminated vested
employees, and employees receiving a benefit. In 2018 the total pension liability was $66.2M and the fiduciary
net position (FNP) for the Plan was $43.1, leaving a net pension liability (NPL) of $23.2M. This was an increase of
$12M from the 2017 valuation. Staff evaluated increasing the supplemental contribution to help lower the NPL.
Through April 30, 2019, with strong investment returns driving a $9.1M recovery, the NPL is down to $14.1M.
Currently staff recommends making no changes to the supplemental contribution.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Finance support staff recommendation to hold 2019/2020 supplemental contribution at current level of
$1.12M?
Does Council Finance desire any additional information?
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Plan is overseen by the General Employees Retirement Committee (GERC). The GERC is comprised of 6
members, 1 from financial services, 4 current or former employees covered by the Plan, and 1 at large member.
The GERC administers the Plan including setting the investment policy and making any changes to assumptions
used in the actuarial valuations.
In 2018 the NPL increased by $12M from 2017, there were three major factors driving this increase:
• In 2018 the GERC adopted a new mortality table to better reflect how long people are currently living. With
the new mortality table there was an increase of $2.9M to the NPL.
• In 2018 the Plan had losses of -4.97% which reduced the FNP and increased NPL by $5.4M.
• With the above two changes the plan was projected to run out of money, creating a Depletion Date. When a
Depletion Date occurs, the Plan must use a different discount rate than adopted by the GERC. The new
discount rate is determined by Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards and must be
used for all years after the Depletion Date occurs creating a new hybrid discount rate for the Plan valuation.
The use of this new discount rate increased the NPL by an additional $4.0M.
Two factors will have the greatest impact on the Plan NPL moving forward: Supplemental contribution and
investment returns. With so few employees left in the Plan, participant contributions make up a fraction of
future obligations. In 2013 Council approved increasing the supplemental contribution to $1.12M annually. This
was to help reach full funding of the plan sooner than previously projected.
Based on the valuation ending December 31, 2018 the supplemental contribution would be needed into
perpetuity because of the depletion of assets in the plan. However, through April 30, 2019 the Plan has
experienced gains of 12.67%. The strong recovery leaves the NPL at an estimated $14.1M, a decrease of $9.1M
vs. the valuation date. With this decrease in NPL it is estimated the last supplemental contribution will be made
in 2041.
With strong investment returns to start the year staff recommends leaving the supplemental contribution at the
current level. Staff will continue to monitor the plan and make a recommendation on future contributions
following the next actuarial valuation.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Mike Beckstead; over the last 7 years we have brought our assumed discount rate down from around 7% in
2012 to 6.25% which we feel is right for long term health of the assets - we are more conservative than other
cities.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board - GASB rate is 5.56% on a blended basis - we are required to make a
change due to a depletion date at end of 2042
Mike Beckstead; 73-75% range funded (75-80% is the targeted funding percentage) current unfunded is
approximately 13% - Discount rate - earnings come down so our goal is to keep our unfunded percentage static
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; please add a new column for future charts (side by side) reflecting the amount in today’s dollars in
addition to the years’ dollars
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
3
Travis Storin; we think it is prudent to wait another year and hold where we are - if there is a change that needs
to be made, we will contemplate that as part of the next 2021-2022 BFO cycle
$1.3 - 1.8M is the range $1.8 = hitting full funded status by the time our youngest member turns 65 years old.
These amounts are spread across all funds depending on where the employee worked.
Mike Beckstead; I believe it is only a matter of time before a significant market correction - we would like to do
this as part of the BFO cycle so everything is on the table -
Ross Cunniff; I agree that buying when we are in a rebound is not when we should do something but when we
are at the bottom of the downturn - future growth. Could we anticipate / set aside half of that amount ($250K)
in the mid cycle budget -so that if things get bad, we have a bit of a cushion. This would be done with one-time
revenue not on-going.
Mayor Troxell; Good presentation - it looks like a perfect storm situation - December 2018 market events drove
a lot of the balances - I appreciate the look forward and I support bringing it to your analysis and
recommendation
Darin Atteberry; this is a very conservative plan - we inherited some really good work - it was conservative in the
first place - enrollments were stopped in 1999 - we are in really strong shape relative to the market of pensions.
We are talking about the cost of catching up and staying up, but it is not a complete rethink of our business like
we are seeing in other plans around the country.
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; I am assuming PFA does a similar analysis of their new defined benefit plan - I would like a memo.
City Finance is not involved with PFA.
Mike Beckstead; we will play with this in the revision process and we will be back next year to talk more.
B. EPIC Program Review – Capital Strategy – Energy Efficiency Loans
John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager
Sean Carpenter, Climate Economy Advisor
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item will provide an update since the November 2018 presentation to Council Finance regarding the Epic
Program and its capital strategy, including:
• Brief history of on-bill financing in Fort Collins;
• Program vision and objectives;
• Current status of the capital stack and;
o Ongoing conversations with potential external lenders;
o Next steps regarding securing and appropriation of third-party capital into a revolving loan fund.
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
4
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Council Finance Committee desire additional information prior to proceeding with consideration of
financial agreements?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Fort Collins’ innovative On-Bill Finance program supports a number of community and City Council priorities,
including ambitious goals around energy efficiency and renewables, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and
increased equity and wellbeing of all residents (see Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan). Meeting these
objectives will require, among other activities, that greater numbers of property owners undertake
comprehensive efficiency improvements in the coming years, particularly for older, less-efficient rental
properties which make up a large percentage of the City’s housing stock. An ongoing and attractive financing
structure to support energy efficiency retrofits will be a critical element for success moving forward.
On-Bill Financing 1.0
The Home Efficiency Loan Program (HELP, aka OBF 1.0) operated from January 2013 through early 2017 when
the maximum outstanding loan balance of $1.6M was reached. During this period 160 loans were made with a
median term of ten years, an average loan amount of $8,900 and a zero-default rate. Program processes and
interest rates varied over this time period, with a significant ramp up in 2016 with the Council directed interest
rate of 2.5% over all loan terms (Figure 1).
Figure 1. OBF 1.0 Loan Count and Loan Amount
Elevations Credit Union
Elevations Credit Union was selected through an RFP process for energy loan financing in 2017. Elevations offers
energy efficiency loans for credit union members with a range of interest rates, terms and qualifications, but
their product offerings are not “on-bill financing”. The Elevations loan continues to have Utilities staff qualify the
efficiency project based on the rebate measures in the Efficiency Works Home program. However, the loan
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
Apr Jul Sep Jan Jun Aug Oct Dec Mar Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
2013 2014 2015 2016
Loan Count
Loan Amount
Sum of LoanAmount Count of ProjectIdentifier
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
5
origination and servicing are independent of Utilities programs. Uptake of the program has been minimal, with
an average of three to five loans issued per month. With the implementation of Epic Loans, Elevations loans will
continue to be an option for interested customers.
Mayors Challenge / Epic Program
The Mayors Challenge was a yearlong competition that challenged leaders across the United States to uncover
and test bold, innovative ideas to confront the toughest problems faced by cities today
(www.mayorschallenge.bloomberg.org). Three-hundred and twenty-four cities joined the competition, and nine
were selected as winners of the 2018 Mayors Challenge. In January 2018 Fort Collins was selected as one of
thirty-five “Champion Cities” in the first phase of the competition, winning $100,000. In October 2018 Fort
Collins won the final phase of the competition and the associated $1M prize to implement the Epic Program.
The Epic Program was developed to improve energy efficiency of housing stock and the health, wellbeing and
equity of all residents, including Low and Moderate Income (LMI) families who rent. In addition to energy
efficiency upgrading, the Epic team is collaborating with Colorado State University to track and measure
improvements in indoor air quality and qualitative health data from residents living in upgraded properties. In
short, the Epic Program is trying to change how people think about the benefits of energy efficiency
improvements. It’s not about the houses, it’s about the people living in the houses.
Fort Collins has an unusually large proportion of rental properties; approximately 50% of the City’s total housing
stock are rentals, including approximately 25% of single-family homes. Much of our housing stock, particularly
rentals, are older and could benefit from energy efficiency upgrades. The Epic Program leverages the existing
Efficiency Works Homes program (administered in collaboration with Platte River Power Authority) and the
revitalized on-bill financing, with the Bloomberg project focus on low-to-moderate income renters and indoor
air quality and health / wellbeing improvements (Figure 2). The Epic Program team was inspired by new research
and studies around “social determinants of health” and the impacts of housing on health and wellbeing. This
project will address the “Climate Economy” via energy efficiency, and in so doing also address other important
“human centered” issues in our Community. The program seeks to simultaneously develop solutions for indoor
air quality and health / wellbeing, energy efficiency, the rental split incentive, on-bill financing, leveraging third
party capital, developing important partnerships, and spreading innovation.
Figure 2. Epic Program Structure
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
6
The Mayors Challenge award has a three-year performance period for implementing the winning idea. The 2021
goals for the Epic Program are:
1. Epic will upgrade 360 rental properties and 2,000 total homes
a. 16% of projects will be financed with an Epic Loan
2. Epic will demonstrate improved health and wellbeing, related to indoor air quality and living
environment
3. Savings from reduced energy use and lower utility bills will be available for other family priorities
4. Rental property owners will report financing is not a barrier to energy efficiency upgrades
On-bill financing, a critical piece of the Epic Program, was revitalized in August 2018 using the $100,000 award
from the champions phase of the Mayors Challenge to further develop the Epic Program idea. The Colorado
Energy Office also provided a $200,000 grant at that time to kick off the loan program. The grant agreement
with Bloomberg Philanthropies was completed in February 2019 and the initial $100,00 tranche of the $1M was
awarded. Another key milestone for setting up the Epic Loans are the revised financial officer’s rules and
regulations to allow simplified underwriting. Interest rates will be reassessed regularly and approved by the City
CFO, including adjustments based on external capital rates and adding a modest administrative premium in the
future. The loan interest rates, effective January 2019, are as follows:
Loan Term Interest Rate
3 or 5 years 3.49%
7 or 10 years 3.99%
15 or 20 years 4.49%
Financial services for the Epic Loan are delivered by Impact Development Fund, which was selected through a
competitive selection process in 2018. At a high level, the process relating to the efficiency and loan programs is:
• An efficiency assessment is conducted on the home by the EW-Home advisor/auditor.
• Opportunities for improved health, safety, comfort, and energy efficiency are identified and prioritized.
Standardized pricing with estimated energy savings can be provided for recommended insulation/ air sealing
improvements.
• If desired, the property owner can choose to pursue an Epic Loan, as follows:
o Customer completes application for a loan to financial services provider
o Epic Loan program manager reviews the project & provides initial loan approval
o Upon approval, the homeowner and contractor(s) coordinate the timing and completion of the
project
o After final loan approval by the Epic loan program manager, and receipt of the project completion
certificate, final inspections, and waiting the 72 hour right of rescission, loan funds are disbursed to
contractor(s) by financial services provider
o A UCC lien filing is recorded with Larimer County for the loan (by financial services provider)
o Closing documents are provided from financial services provider to the Utilities Billing Department
staff to set up the loan in the billing software
o Loan payments are added to the customer’s monthly utility services bill
Third Party Capital
Leveraging external capital is critical to achieving the long-term vision of the Epic Loans. The program
team seeks to design an “evergreen” revolving loan fund which:
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
7
• Supports residential energy efficiency upgrades for years to come;
• Scales to meet long-term efficiency objectives;
• Removes financial barriers to efficiency upgrades with attractive rates and terms;
• Aligns capital commitments with customer loan terms; and
• Minimizes the City and Utilities risk and administrative effort.
The Epic Loan is designed to balance the programmatic objectives and financial requirements of the City of Fort
Collins, while also meeting the needs and expectations of capital providers and Utilities customers.
The City of Fort Collins completed an RFP for qualified firms to provide capital in support of the Epic Loan. The
program team is currently in conversations with potential firms and hopes to finalize contracts in the near
future. Third party capital offers a continuing source of funds to meet increasing customer demand for energy
efficiency financing. Fort Collins Utilities will be the borrower and guarantor of the funds from capital providers,
and Fort Collins Utilities will in turn service the repayments to its capital lenders using repayment obligations
from customers to Utilities. In this on-bill financing model, capital providers will not be originating loans to, or
otherwise engaging directly with, Utilities customers. Instead, capital providers will lend or grant funds to the
City, and the City will undertake and / or oversee loan underwriting, origination and collections. Capital
providers will therefore have recourse to the Epic fund and repayments for funds borrowed, but not to
individual Utilities customers (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Capital and Repayment Structure
Capital sources for the Epic Loan need to align with the following high-level objectives:
• Attractive: The loan program must be able to provide attractive loan terms to customers, specifically
attractive interest rates.
• Scalable: The program must be scalable in support of Fort Collins ambitious energy goals. It is anticipated
that Fort Collins will upgrade thousands of homes in the coming years.
• Simple: The implementation and administration of the program must be as simple as possible for all parties,
including customers, Utilities, and the capital partners.
Potential Size of Loan Portfolio
During OBF 1.0 from July 2015 to February 2017, the rate of loan activity was equivalent to approximately 120
loans and $1M annually. To provide sufficient financing for the expected number of projects, the short-term (3-4
year) capital goal is $7M to $8M. This assumes $1.5M to $2M annually in energy efficiency project financing. The
longer-term capital goal is up to $16M in order to establish a self-sustaining revolving loan.
With a range of loan terms from 3 to 15 years, the expectation for a breakdown of necessary third-party capital
amounts and terms would be:
Capital
source Utilities Customers
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
8
Loan Term Percentage of Portfolio
3 & 5 years 30%
7 & 10 years 40%
15 years 30%
Potential Financial Solution
Utilities intends to create a sustainable cycle of loans and repayments similar in concept to a revolving loan
fund. Currently, the Epic Program team is engaged with the following capital sources and amounts, which will be
blended to create attractive interest rates that are below market rates for customers:
Capital Type Provider Term Rate Amount Status
Low or No
Cost
Bloomberg Philanthropies
– Champions Phase Award
N/A 0% $100,000 In hand or
recently
deployed
Bloomberg Philanthropies
- Award
N/A 0% $600,000 Committed
Colorado Energy Office –
Initial Grant
N/A 0% $200,000 In hand or
recently
deployed
Colorado Energy Office –
Grant or Loan
TBD TBD TBD Under
discussion
External
Market
National Commercial Bank 5 & 10
year
3.95% -
4.25%
$2,500,000 Under
discussion
National Commercial Bank 5 & 10
year
TBD TBD Under
discussion
National Green Bank 10 & 15
year
5.75% $2,500,000 Under
discussion
National impact investor 7 year 5-7% $2,500,000 Under
discussion
Internal
Repayments of previously
paid loans
N/A 0% $400,000 Committed
The City will blend capital sources and interest rates into loan offerings that recover the cost of capital and
include a modest administrative premium to cover administrative costs in the future. The example in Figure 4
shows how capital sources and interest rates can be calculated to understand total funds and average interest
rate, as well as broken down into short, medium and long-term rates and amounts. Figure 4 is an example of
how capital sources will determine the rate offered to customers based on loan term.
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
9
Figure 4. Example Capital Stack and Loan Terms
Flexible structures which minimize the need for the City to carry non-deployed debt capital, such as
lines of credit versus term loans, are being proposed. Other key considerations include the Light &
Power plans for a 2023 debt offering and the need to protect the AA- electric credit rating and
Broadband’s coverage covenants.
In all cases, Fort Collins Utilities would be the borrower, with the third-party funds being loaned to
customers by Utilities. Fort Collins Utilities would be responsible for the repayment to the capital
provider. In turn, Utilities customers carry the obligation for repayment of loans to the City via their
utility bill. Utilities has various code-specified tools for recourse of delinquent utility bills that makes
the risk profile for the Epic Loan portfolio extremely low. Third-party capital providers will have a
senior pledge on customer loan repayments and second position on Electric Utility revenues, after the
more senior pledge held by revenue bondholders.
Fort Collins Utilities recognizes that this proposed financing model is unique for a municipal-owned
utility, and as such we are committed to working with capital providers to “co-create” a viable and
scalable financing model that is workable and beneficial for all parties. We also intend to continually
Capital Sources Principal Rate
Equity
Bloomberg (grant) 10% $ 700,000 0.00%
Colorado Energy Office Grant 3% $ 200,000 0.00%
L&P available cap 6% $ 400,000 0.00%
Mission-driven Capital 0% $ - 0.00%
Debt
State of CO Loan 15% $ 1,000,000 1.75%
Nat'l Commercial Bank - 5 yr (Loan) 18% $ 1,250,000 3.95%
Nat'l Commercial Bank - 10 yr (Loan) 18% $ 1,250,000 4.25%
Nat'l Green Bank - 15 yr (Loan) 29% $ 2,000,000 5.75%
Total 100% $6,800,000 3.46%
Loans Offered Tranche 1 Tranche 2 Tranche 3 Total
Cost of Capital 2.71% 2.85% 4.60% 3.46%
Amount available $1,820,000 $2,480,000 $2,500,000 $6,800,000
Term offered 3-5 yr term 7-10 yr term 15 yr term -
Rate offered 3.75% 4.25% 4.75% 4.30%
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
10
search for new capital sources to add to the capital stack that provide the most desirable terms and
conditions for customers and the City.
Next Steps
The Epic Program team is currently in discussions with third-party capital providers to develop lending
agreements. The Epic Program team proposes the following review and approval process for lending
agreements:
• Staff will continue to move forward with developing finalized scopes and terms.
• Leadership stakeholders, such as City CFO and Utilities FP&A Director, will review agreements.
• CAO, particularly internal legal counsel, will review agreements. Bond counsel is not engaged.
• City Purchasing will review agreements.
• The Finance Committee has an additional review of lending agreements.
• Staff proceeds with City Council consideration via ordinance with a target approval of August 2019.
There will be a separate ordinance prepared for each lender.
The Epic Program team seeks guidance on the Finance Committee’s desire for additional information
before proceeding with City Council consideration of financial agreements.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
Mike Beckstead; solving for 10 year future – this is specific to solving for the 3 year future – coming up with a
blended cost of capital – set the future aside and just focus on $7-8M borrowing for today – dollar amount that
will get a lot done during time frame – then in 2024 -2025 we will be back planning how to replicate
Capital Stack and Loan Terms - we are hoping to come back with offers from external lenders
Mayor Troxell; this looks good - thank you for all of the hard work! Some of this is out of the Energy Efficiency
Works - you have had other communities’ approach you with similar concepts -
John Phelan; we have been working with the Colorado Energy office - funds that have provided and plan to
provide – their interest is looking at replication across the state. There was a Colorado Green Bank established
late in the Hickenlooper administration. Bloomberg is interested in Fort Collins success as well as they
are looking for scalability and replicability.
Mayor Troxell; SAR related to energy efficient Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program -
administer something like that through the Department of Energy
John Phelan, they developed something similar to CDBG during the Obama Administration (stimulus funding)
Fort Collins received a formulaic distribution based on our population size - there was some discussion at the
Mayor’s Conference about reestablishing that - we looked at that and realized It was likely to be one time funds
so we used that for a list of potential projects across the city. The 3rd party are probably the most scalable
continue to look for grants – health angle – energy efficiency angle – we anticipate that part being a continual
process.
Mike Beckstead; John just shared that we are looking at 3rd party external financing partners
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
11
Part of that is we want to borrow at a term that is at least greater than the term we lend at – we see pretty good
activity in the 5-10 year term lending range but we are finding it more difficult to find financing partners who
want to play in a 15-10 year term.
Biggest challenge has been getting the 15 year money in hand - we have a term sheet that goes out that far - we
have 5 different term sheets in hand - we do have viable leads that go out that far and we are hoping to come
back to Council Finance in July with 2-3 ready to proceed to contracts with by ordinance
Ken Summers; should we design a program for 5-10 year loans instead of longer term?
Mike Beckstead; we are trying to meet an objective to make projects more affordable for longer term
investments - if you are putting solar on your house or buying a new furnace - something with a long life - having
a 15-year loan would be helpful.
John Phelan; we have the flexibility to match the programmatic components with the financial components -
we have done that out to 20 years - we are constantly looking at the whole picture trying to solve for all of these
things simultaneously.
Mayor Troxell; very good
C. Fee Updates - Utility & Capital Expansion
Jennifer Poznanovic, Senior Manager, Sales Tax / Revenue
Lance Smith, Director, Utilities FP&A
Randy Reuscher, Lead Analysis, Utility Rate
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
CEF & Utility Fee Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total cost impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing
will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
2019 fee updates include: Development Review fees, Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement fees,
Wet Utility Plan Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
• Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
• Electric Capacity Fees as proposed
• Water Supply Requirement Fee as proposed
• 100% of proposed 2017 Capital Expansion Fees (Step III)
• Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (inflation only)
Development Review Fees will be reviewed at the June Council Finance Committee meeting.
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
12
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support the proposed fee updates and outreach plan?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are approved by Council are six
Capital Expansion Fees, five Utility Fees and Building Development Fees.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined that
updates should occur on a regular two and four-year cadence and fees updates should occur together each year
to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside
consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the
consultant are also verified by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These
are internal updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis
will be targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). In years without an update, an inflation
adjustment occurs.
Type of Fee Fee Name
Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park
Capital Expansion Community Park
Capital Expansion Fire
Capital Expansion Police
Capital Expansion General Government
Capital Expansion Transportation
Utility Water Supply Requirement
Utility Electric Capacity
Utility Sewer Plant Investment
Utility Stormwater Plant Investment
Utility Water Plant Investment
Building
Development
Development Review & Building
Permit Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
13
Below is the current fee timeline:
Phase I of the fee updates included CEFs, TCEFs, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were adopted in
2017. Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs and step II of CEFs and TCEFs, which were approved in 2018.
Development review and building permit fees were originally included in Phase II but were de-coupled from the
2018 update.
Due to the concern in the development and building community around fee changes, Council asked for a fee
working group to be created to foster a better understanding of fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In
August of 2017, the Fee Working Group commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – citizens,
business-oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The Fee Working Group met 14 times and was
overall supportive of the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
The 2019 phase III update includes Development Review fees, Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement
fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees. After the 2019 fee
update, fee phasing will be complete with regular two and four-year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
2019 Utility Fee Updates
The proposed changes to Utility Fees for a single-family, residential home include a 1.7% increase to the Electric
Capacity Fee (ECF) and increases to the three Wet Utility Fees ranging between 1.5% and 6.7%. The Water Plant
Investment Fee (PIF) is proposed to increase 6.7%, the Wastewater PIF is proposed to increase 1.5% and the
Stormwater PIF is proposed to increase 3.3% from current fee levels.
The two main drivers for the increases include:
• New capital project spending, which increases the overall value of the system
• Annual increases in construction costs, which also increases the replacement value of existing system
The proposed change to the Water Supply Requirement increases the cost of 1 acre-foot of required raw water
from $17,300 to $21,500, or 24%.
The primary drivers for this increase are:
• Updated construction cost estimates associated with the Halligan Water Supply Project
• Increasing costs of future water rights that will need to be acquired to optimize the water rights portfolio
The chart below summarizes the proposed Utility Fees for a single-family home, assuming an 8,600 square feet
lot and 4 bedrooms:
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
14
2019 Capital Expansion Fee Updates
The chart below shows the current and proposed fee updates for CEFs:
Step III fees are an 11% increase from current fee levels (Step II). CEF fee increases are 100% of full fee levels
recommended in 2017. The CPI-U index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood is used for CEF inflation. An inflation
estimate of 3.2% has been used, but an update will be available in August 2019.
Outreach Plan
In an effort towards better communication, outreach and notification of impact fee changes, staff plans to meet
with 15 organizations across the City in the summer of 2019.
Step III - Full fees proposed in 2017
Land Use Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Current
Total
Step III
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
w
Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,721 $2,430 $421 $236 $574 $5,152 $5,724 11%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,304 $3,253 $570 $319 $774 $6,911 $7,679 11%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,516 $3,552 $620 $347 $845 $7,543 $8,381 11%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,542 $3,589 $630 $352 $858 $7,630 $8,478 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,833 $4,001 $701 $392 $955 $8,502 $9,447 11%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $2,182 $2,424 11%
Office and Other Services 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $2,182 $2,424 11%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $124 $69 $342 $512 $569 11%
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
15
Below is the 2019 fee roadmap:
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS;
Non BFO year - cadence starts with this year’s work
This is a different Fee Working Group - focused on developers
Ross Cunniff; we had a Council liaison we didn’t re-assign - Is this an Administrative group or a Council group?
Mike Beckstead; I haven’t been too close to this as Tom Leeson and Noelle Currell pulled the team together
based on customers they thought would be impacted. The development fees per code are approved
administratively. I will get a list of who is on the committee and share that back.
Darin Atteberry; City Manager appointed with a Council liaison. Mike, let chat about the team makeup with
Tom Leeson.
Organization Staff
Affordable Housing Board All
Building Review Board All
Economic Advisory Commission All
Fort Collins Board of Relators All
Local Legislative Affairs Committee All
Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association All
Super Issues Forum All
Development Review Advisory Board Dev. Review
Downtown Development Authority Dev. Review
Housing Catalyst Dev. Review
North Fort Collins Business Association Dev. Review
Planning & Zoning Board Dev. Review
South Fort Collins Business Association Dev. Review
Energy Board Utilities
Water Board Utilities
March May June June/July August October 1/1/2020
Capital Expansion Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Effective
Transportation CEFs
Electric Capacity Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Effective
Water Supply Requirement CFC Outreach CFC Council Effective
Wet Utility Fees CFC Outreach CFC Council Effective
Development Review Fees CFC CFC CFC Outreach CFC Council Effective
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
16
Mayor Troxell; Council priority as it relates to affordability - add a dimension of regulatory elements that play
into affordability as it relates to some of the fees.
Jeff Mihelich; I hear you and I understand - we will be addressing this as a Council Priority
Mayor Troxell; we talk about Fee Stacking - more of the of the off costs that add to affordability
Randy Reuscher; Utility Fee slide - onetime fees for connection (buy-in) to the system - new development only
Water - driven by peak day flow by each category and total consumption - GPD = Gallons Per Day
Jennifer Poznanovic; five Capital Expansion Fees - Step III - 11% increase which brings them to full fee level
recommended in the 2017 study - Fee Roadmap - schedule - all fee categories updating in 2019 except
Transportation
Mayor Troxell; good outreach scheduled between now and August - I think you are on a good path -
Let’s do the plan and after we hear about the outreach we will reassess where we are as it goes to Council
Ross Cunniff; are Building Review Fees administrative?
Mike Beckstead; historically some of them have gone to Council for approval even though code lists them as
administratively approved.
Ross Cunniff; do we charge Development Review Fees based on cost or some average? I understand that
conversation is coming
Mike Beckstead; that is correct - Tom Leeson and Noelle Currell - their intent is to craft fees that cover 100% of
the cost of providing the service - no more - no less
ACTION ITEM:
Ross Cunniff; outreach - previous Fee Working Group provided a report. Are City Boards and Commissions
provide a copy? Can they be provided a copy? Include Boards and Commissions who participate in the
organized outreach.
Mayor Troxell; I am good
Ken Summers: I am good
D. Sidestream Treatment Project
Jason Graham, Director, Plant Operations
Carol Webb, Deputy Director, Utilities
Link Meuller, Special Projects Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to request an appropriation for additional funding for the Drake Water
Reclamation Facility (DWRF) Sidestream Treatment Project. This request is necessary to complete the permit-
required project within the required timeframe to meet DWRF’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phosphorus (P) Compliance Schedule deadline of December 31, 2020. Successful operation of this
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
17
infrastructure also will earn regulatory credits to delay future capital project expenses by upwards of 10 years.
This request is an off-cycle request vs. a mid-cycle request due to the regulatory nature and schedule deadlines
required by CDPHE.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Should staff move forward with this off-cycle appropriation request for the Sidestream Project?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The cost estimate at 60% project design, completed in January 2019, for the Sidestream Treatment project is
greater than the approved budget. The purpose of this agenda item is to request Council’s approval increase the
project budget from $4.3 million to $5.4 million for an additional appropriation of $1.1 million.
KEY PROJECT DRIVERS
The Sidestream Treatment project is necessary for DWRF to meet future nutrient water quality regulations by
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The DWRF National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit includes a phosphorus Compliance Schedule to ensure the City is successful in
meeting the required phosphorus limits by January 01, 2021. The Sidestream Treatment project is a necessary
addition required for DWRF to meet these proposed phosphorus standards.
Nutrient Removal Projects have been identified as part of the Utility’s Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) and
Master Planning efforts for the last ten years. The current CIP identified Nutrient Removal projects required to
meet future nutrient limits by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CDPHE and have future potential
costs of approximately $70 million by 2028. The Wastewater Utility has been actively planning to minimize this
cost as much as possible through participation in the CDPHE Nutrient Incentive Program and the AWWA Clean
Water Partnership. Participation in these programs could provide the City both schedule and financial relief of
up to 10 years.
A conceptual class 5 cost estimate of $4.3 million was developed for the 2017-2018 BFO cycle based upon
capacity, modeling, analogous projects and the available Sidestream Treatment technologies. As stated in the
BFO offer, the design was based on a conceptual design and a complete design could result in an increase or
decrease of the cost to meet the design deliverables. As designed progressed, additional detail, including
equipment selection, and other specifications resulted in increased project costs. A contingency in the additional
budget request has been included, appropriate for the current level of design. The following three major factors
impacted the budget requiring this appropriation request:
1. A new sludge feed pump station was required in addition to other improvements increasing construction
costs approximately $625,000. It had been anticipated, but not feasible, that the existing sludge pumps
could be used
2. Completion of the 60% design cost estimate (class 2) revealed an error in the original BFO class 5 estimate
allowing the original BFO request to be approximately $325,000 under-funded. In the future BFO offer
estimates, including backup documentation will be provide to management staff for review
3. The retirement of the Utilities’ lead programming engineer impacted the ability to self-perform all the
process programming, integration, and operator interface requirements of the plants. Additional support
from the equipment manufacturers and consulting engineers is required for process programming and
integration costing approximately $150,000
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
18
For the 2019-2020 BFO budget cycle, steps were taken to address the budgeting issues that occurred for this
project. Larger projects will start with a “design only” phase so that better construction estimates can be
obtained prior to appropriation.
The current DWRF discharge permit requires the City to be in compliance with nutrient regulations by January 1,
2021. The permit’s compliance schedule also indicates the construction must be started by December 31, 2019.
It is critical to begin construction as soon as possible in 2019 in order to give facility staff adequate time to
optimize the system to comply with required nutrient limits by the January 1, 2021 deadline.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In March 2013, the State of Colorado passed Regulation #85, requiring Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) with greater than 2 million gallons per day capacity to meet more stringent effluent water quality. The
regulation mandates that existing POTWs limit their effluent discharge on a monthly median value of Total
Phosphorus to 1.0 mg/L and Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) of 15 mg/L. DWRF currently meets the TIN limit but
the improvements installed with the Side Stream project are necessary to help meet the Total Phosphorus limit.
While phosphorus and nitrogen are building blocks of organic life, high concentrations in lakes, reservoirs and
receiving waters can lead to lower dissolved oxygen levels, poison aquatic life, and eutrophication. POTWs are
only one of three major sources of nutrient contamination of receiving waters (urban and agricultural non-point
source run-off being the other two) but are the easiest to regulate being a point source contributor.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
As project design evolved and the need for additional funding became apparent, the project team evaluate the
following project alternatives:
1. Value Engineering – The project team, including City staff, general contractor, and design engineer
evaluated construction and design variables that could be eliminated and / or reduced and still deliver an
effective project. While numerous items were removed or revised, this evaluation was not successful in
bringing the overall project costs down to within the available budget.
2. Not complete the project – This alternative would jeopardize not only immediate regulatory compliance
performance but future nutrient compliance issues as well.
3. Request $1.1 M as a mid – cycle appropriation request – This alternative would jeopardize the City’s ability
to comply with NPDES P Standard Compliance Schedule deadlines.
4. Request $1.1 M as an off – cycle appropriation request – This is the preferred and recommended alternative
by City Staff. This alternative is also recommended by the City’s Water Board.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This O appropriate $1,111,000 of Wastewater Fund Reserves for the DWRF Sidestream Treatment Project.
Adequate funds exist in the Wastewater Fund reserves to cover this request for additional appropriations. In the
latest 10-year Wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP), $89M of capital improvements were identified
and this is a relatively small increase. A rate increase beyond what is already planned will not be needed as a
result of this request.
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
19
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
The Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this appropriation at their April 18th, 2019
meeting.
Ross Cunniff; this looks great - confirming that this an appropriation out of the Wastewater Fund.
Jason Graham; that is correct
Ross Cunniff; what about the biosolids?
Jason Graham; the biosolids will continue to go to Meadow Springs Ranch which we have owned since the mid
90’s - 26,600 acres - about 30 miles north of Fort Collins adjacent to Soapstone Prairie (this function used to be
done at Prospect and I25). This project does not harvest biosolids as there isn’t a market for it currently - but
could be a potential revenue source in the future
Link Mueller; we are designing the system to be able to add on the harvesting aspect easily.
Ken Summers; slide 9 states - $80 -100M of capital work is expected to be needed between 2017 and 2026 in
addition to the current capital appropriations. What is current? not current? - what are some of those projects?
Jason Graham; we are discussing Regulation 85. Another regulation (31) comes in effect as of 2027 which has
the potential to drive down the regulations even more with phosphorus and nitrogen - Associated with that
level of compliance – this project does have the potential to offset the costs - we get credit for each year we are
compliant / stay below the black line. (see below)
Carol Webb; I believe that the $80-100M is the fund as a whole - we anticipate that much across the fund over
the next ten years. We already have projects that Council has appropriated dollars for.
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
20
Mike Beckstead; every 2 years we bring the long-term capital plans for each of the four utilities to Council
Finance. Anticipated capital spend and rate structure needed to support that We are planning to bring these
plans forward in November of this year. We could copy you on the last long-term financial plan if you would like.
Mayor Troxell; You need the financing now to meet construction start.
Jason Graham; we are hoping to bring this to Council in June (schedule permitting). O&M will be absorbed by
our staff – we have a contract for year 1 to maintain it as we start it up and get it going.
Meeting adjourned at 11:18 am
ATTACHMENT 3
8.c
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Approved CFC Minutes 052019 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
08/19/19
10 am ‐ noon
CIC Room ‐ City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers, Emily Gorgol
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, Travis Storin,
Lawrence Pollack, Jennifer Poznanovic, Kelley Vodden, Jennifer Selenske, Kerri Ishmeal,
Renee Callas, John Voss, Sean Carpenter, Terra Sampson, Kim DeVoe, John Duval, Tyler
Marr, Dave Lenz, Jo Cech, Katie Ricketts, Zach Mozer, Lance Smith, Joaquin Garbiso, Sue
Beck‐Ferkiss, Beth Sowder, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Kevin Jones, Chamber of Commerce
Dale Adamy, R1st.org
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 10:02 am
Approval of Minutes from the July 15, 2019 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Emily moved for approval of the
minutes as presented. Mayor Troxell seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously.
A. 2018 Fund Balance Review
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Status of Fund Balances and Working Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached presentation gives a status of fund balances and working capital. Fund balances are primarily
considered for funding one‐time offers during the Budgeting for Outcomes process. To a lesser extent, available
monies are also used to fund supplemental appropriations between BFO cycles.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
None, this is an update for Council Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
To communicate what funding is available to support emerging issues and initiatives in the next budget cycle. In
each fund the balances are shown vertically by the accounting classifications. The amounts are then additionally
categorized into Appropriated, Available with Constraints, and Available for Nearly Any Purpose.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2
Appropriated, Minimum Policy or Scheduled is comprised of minimum fund balances established by policy, funds
from the 2018 balance that have been appropriated in 2019, funds set aside for 2020 in the 2019‐2020 budget,
and amounts for projects specifically identified by voters. An example of the later is Community Capital
Improvements Plan.
Available with Constraints are those balances available for appropriation but within defined constraints. An
example is 4th of July donations. They are restricted for that purpose, but still available for appropriation.
Available for Nearly Any Purpose are balances that are available for appropriation at the discretion of the City
Council.
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
3
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
4
All City Funds ‐ Broadband will not be on the list until we develop a working capital position.
Ken Summers; where do we stand with reserves that have been used for Council Action in 2019?
Mike Beckstead; a bit of both ‐ very difficult to give a single answer as it varies by fund.
For the General Fund in 2018 ‐ we had $4.8M unassigned GF reserves at the end of 2017
How much we used – not sure but not all of it ‐ we would have to go through the entire budget document and
identify where we used reserves
During the year we keep track of the prior years’ reserves.
For example, some of the unspent was used for;
$49K for train horn noise,
$20K code enforcement of backyard burning / outdoor firepit
Some funds were also used for Short Term Rentals
Ken Summer; General Fund would be the one to keep the closet eye on
Trend line is a percent of annual operating expenses ‐ not all are green dollars we could spend ‐ some nuances in
the details – something less than 4‐5 months of capacity
Mayor Troxell; $4.7M loaned to URA ‐ was refinancing that the intention all along?
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
5
Mike Beckstead; yes, that was our intention is to refinance soon
Travis Storin; North College set a model for that
Mayor Troxell; good news
Mike Beckstead; our fund balances are healthy ‐ we have gone from mid 50’s to high 40’s in the last few years
‐ we are working with Moody’s because our fund balance is a big part of our credit rating ‐ we want to do some
data gathering beyond GFOA around where is the threshold that might put our credit rating at risk?
B. Comprehensive 2019 Fee Updates
Jennifer, Poznanovic, Revenue Manager
Lance Smith, Utilities, Director FP&A
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Comprehensive 2019 Fee Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coordination of Council approved fees began in 2016 to provide a more holistic view of the total cost impact.
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing
will be complete with regular two and four‐year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
2019 fee updates include: Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan Investment
Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees.
Staff proposes the following fee changes:
Wet Utility PIFs as proposed
Electric Capacity Fees as proposed
Water Supply Requirement Fee as proposed
100% of proposed 2017 Capital Expansion Fees (Step III)
Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (inflation only)
Development Review Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have been decoupled and
will come forward at a later date.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee support the following proposed next steps?
• October 8th: Council Work Session
• November 5th & 19th: Ordinance readings subject to Council direction
• 2021 updates effective January 2022
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development
related fees that require Council approval. Development related fees that are approved by Council are six
Capital Expansion Fees, five Utility Fees and Building Development Fees.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
6
Previously, fee updates were presented to Council on an individual basis. However, it was determined that
updates should occur on a regular two and four‐year cadence and fees updates should occur together each year
to provide a more holistic view of the impact of any fee increases.
Impact fee coordination includes a detailed fee study analysis for Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), Transportation
Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) and Development Review Fees every four years. This requires an outside
consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process where data is provided by City staff. Findings by the
consultant are also verified by City staff. For Utility Fees, a detailed fee study is planned every two years. These
are internal updates by City staff with periodic consultant verification. In the future, impact fee study analysis
will be targeted in the odd year before Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). In years without an update, an inflation
adjustment occurs.
Phase I of the fee updates included CEFs, TCEFs, Electric Capacity Fees, and Raw Water/CIL and were adopted in
2017. Phase II included Wet Utility PIFs and step II of CEFs and TCEFs, which were approved in 2018.
Development review and building permit fees were originally included in Phase II but were decoupled from the
2018 update.
Due to the concern in the development and building community around fee changes, Council asked for a fee
working group to be created to foster a better understanding of fees prior to discussing further fee updates. In
August of 2017, the Fee Working Group commenced comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – citizens,
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
7
business‐oriented individuals, City staff and a Council liaison. The Fee Working Group met 14 times and was
overall supportive of the fee coordination process and proposed fee updates.
The 2019 phase III update includes Electric Capacity fees, Water Supply Requirement fees, Wet Utility Plan
Investment Fees and Step III of the 2017 Capital Expansion Fees. After the 2019 fee update, fee phasing will be
complete with regular two and four‐year cadence updates beginning in 2021.
Development Review Fees were initially planned to be part of the 2019 update but have been decoupled and
will come forward at a later date. The 2019 Fee Working Group is focused on Development Review fees only and
has met three times as of mid‐August. The 2019 Fee Working Group consists of a balanced group of
stakeholders – citizens, business‐oriented individuals and City staff.
2019 Utility Fee Updates
The proposed changes to Utility Fees for a single‐family, residential home include a 1.7% increase to the Electric
Capacity Fee (ECF) and increases to the three Wet Utility Fees ranging between 1.5% and 6.7%. The Water Plant
Investment Fee (PIF) is proposed to increase 6.7%, the Wastewater PIF is proposed to increase 1.5% and the
Stormwater PIF is proposed to increase 3.3% from current fee levels.
The chart below summarizes the proposed Utility Fees for a single‐family home, assuming an 8,600 square feet
lot and 4 bedrooms:
2019 Capital Expansion Fee Updates
The chart below shows the current and proposed fee updates for CEFs:
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
8
Step III fees are an 11% increase from current fee levels (Step II). CEF fee increases are 100% of full fee levels
recommended in 2017. The CPI‐U index for Denver‐Aurora‐Lakewood is used for CEF inflation (1.3% in 2019).
Comparison Charts
Fort Collins proposed fees are in the upper‐middle of the pack:
The following chart shows neighboring cities across water districts with and without raw water. Fort Collins fees
are in line with neighboring cities:
Step III - Full fees proposed in 2017
Land Use Type Unit
N'hood
Park
Comm.
Park Fire Police Gen. Gov't
Current
Total
Step III
Total w
Inflation
%
Increase
w
Inflation
Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $1,721 $2,430 $421 $236 $574 $5,152 $5,724 11%
Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,304 $3,253 $570 $319 $774 $6,911 $7,679 11%
Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,516 $3,552 $620 $347 $845 $7,543 $8,381 11%
Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,542 $3,589 $630 $352 $858 $7,630 $8,478 11%
Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $2,833 $4,001 $701 $392 $955 $8,502 $9,447 11%
Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $2,182 $2,424 11%
Office and Other Services 0 0 $531 $297 $1,451 $2,182 $2,424 11%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 0 0 $124 $69 $342 $512 $569 11%
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
9
Fort Collins fees and the cost of code is leveling as a percentage of median new home sales price:
Community Outreach
In an effort towards better communication, outreach and notification of impact fee changes, staff met with 9
organizations across the City in the summer of 2019.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
10
Overall, organizations were supportive of the approach and cadence. There was acknowledgement that
regular fee updates are necessary.
Staff also heard:
Support for fee group recommendations
Concerns about attainable housing ‐ it may be less desirable to live here
Policy questions on development standards going forward, having alignment on total cost including
operations and maintenance
Below is the 2019 fee roadmap:
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Mayor Troxell; slide 7 ‐Fee Comparison for Median New Homes Sales Price
How do we evaluate our peer cities? Adjacent front range such as Severance, Firestone and others in
that space.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
11
Mike Beckstead; we could definitely expand this list to included others in the area ‐
Same median home price ‐we need to understand their fees well enough to know what they pay ‐ that is the
methodology behind this.
Darin Atteberry; Severance and Johnstown – benchmark cities have been more of a national market – with fee
competitiveness but that is not the market ‐ we want to bring relevant data to Council ‐ not just theoretical
Mike Beckstead; Do they have Impact Fees? If they do, we can certainly add them.
Darin Atteberry; Metro Districts change portfolio
Mayor Troxell; we don’t have insight on what to recommend ‐ some communities are not there yet but there is
a lot of activity.
Mike Beckstead; before we bring fees back in 2020 we will take a look at who best to compare with how and
why and come back with a list.
Emily Gorgol; CEF ‐ types of housing ‐ increase with inflation ‐ how can we somehow encourage smaller houses
to be built? ‐could fees not increased as much for building a smaller home?
Mike Beckstead; page 6 ‐ you can see the different size homes we apply fees to ‐ 90% of our fees are for 2200 sq.
ft and above so that is the majority of what is getting built. During the Fee Working Group discussions we talked
about expanding to 8 fee categories which will address part of what you are saying. The legal issue we wrestle
with is we can’t artificially raise one fee and lower another to motivate certain behaviors ‐fees have to be based
on a legal nexus – expand categories and maybe shift the line a little
Darin Atteberry; traffic modeling ‐ family multiple unit less travel in trips than single family ‐ driven by behaviors
not footprint ‐ lower trip generation ‐ lower rate
Smaller family size ‐ less trip generation ‐ lower rate
Council Policy ‐ you have different areas where you can affect cost but this is based on the legal nexus
Ken Summers; slide 7 ‐ CEP, impact fees are higher than other surrounding communities ‐ described as being in
the middle of the pack ‐ Worth noting that with all of our higher fees ‐ how low Utilities are in comparison to
others. Is that a reflection of owning our own electric? The breakdown is interesting.
Mike Beckstead; Timnath uses a Metro District as a revenue source (tax increment financing) for a lot of their
infrastructure so they have very low impact fees. Communities are at different stages of development in terms
of development fees. Others have crafted different types of revenue sources – there is a story behind the
numbers.
Ken Summers; future expansion here based on Metro District ‐ those builders still incur all of those capital
expansion fees. I attended a conference last week and we discussed affordable housing ‐ lobby federal
government for more money ‐ got into the nuts and bolts and drivers ‐ I agree with Emily ‐ smaller homes.
Maybe take a land bank community and dedicate it to smaller homes ‐ 10% of the cost of a house goes to fees ‐
All of the communities could get a better handle on this ‐ affordable housing piece is an issue for every
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
12
community nationwide ‐ we all need to take a look at fee waivers ‐ all of us are in the same boat in regards to
what it costs to build a house.
Mayor Troxell; under Longmont ‐ big utility gap ‐ counter to Fort Collins and Loveland ‐ they stand out and are
part of Platt River
Mike Beckstead; part of that is the favorability we have and the age of our infrastructure and our water rights ‐
Fees go up from $48K to $69K ‐ a 40‐45% increase because of the utility fees from the authorities not our
utilities ‐ you are seeing that in a lot of the sister communities
Emily Gorgol; will the outreach be done before working session?
Jennifer Poznanovic: Yes
Mayor Troxell; I think you are good to go for October
Darin Atteberry; greater segmentation in the market would be good ‐ some of the Northern Colorado
communities ‐ a lot of folks driving from / moving to
ACTION ITEM: regarding the discrepancy that Ken pointed out between Utilities and Capital Expansion Fees on
slide ‐ go forward but add a separate one pager providing more context for Council. It is an important question
that others are going to be asking. This is Phase 3 of the 3 Phase approach that Council came up with ‐ I
appreciate that we are back at this point and we are in the 3rd phase of ramping up ‐ it feels good that we took
the time to do that
Mike Beckstead; This will be the first time for cadence of 2‐year review cycle to be in place
C. Potential New Revenue Discussion
Mike Beckstead, CFO
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: 2019 Revenue Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Financial Services coordinates updates to existing council approved fees to provide council and the community a
holistic understanding of the cost impact of these changes. Consistent with that focus, staff has assembled the
current discussions occurring around needed revenue sources to facilitate a high‐level discussion of the
organization’s revenue needs and priorities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does Council Finance Committee have any concerns with the revenue opportunities under discussion?
Feedback and thoughts on prioritization?
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
13
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Mike Beckstead; What 2 or 3 revenue sources would be Council Priorities?
What might a new fee be to support? Priorities?
These would be new fees that would generate new revenue to accomplish something specific.
Darin Atteberry; If Council says Transit is a priority – you either reprioritize to get more money there
So that is a Budget for Outcomes conversation
Transit Master Plan ‐ We are through Phase 2 of a 3 Phase plan
We can either reprioritize existing money or create a new fee / revenue stream ‐ might be a redirection of
resources or an additional tax. The prioritization conversation is always on the table.
We have in our sights ‐ additional fees or tax ‐
candidly as a Council priority ‐ if you want to have a big impact on Transit, it will take some additional resources
Some say between $8‐16M per year to have a measurable impact ‐ probably won’t find that in our existing budget
Ken Summers; we need to take a more strategic and simplistic thinking in terms of our budget.
Basically our sales tax revenue is not keeping up with inflation ‐ something of concern to me when I look at our
financials – we are in good financial condition in terms of our reserves – my concern is when I look at the trend
line of flat or declining revenue that is not keeping up with inflation and we have expenses are increasing as twice
the inflation rate. The higher our taxes go, we basically encourage people to shop somewhere else.
We might have to invest money in areas that are going to bring people to Fort Collins to stay, recreate, shop and
dine. We can’t just look at it from taxing more or reallocating more resources – thus will require some real trade
offs ‐ would have to be more stop doings
Darin Atteberry; our hope – we are not just having one‐off conversations ‐ how we are translating the Council
priority list. We know we will be doing work in this space as part of the next budget cycle.
Fee to charge to increase supply of affordable housing in Fort Collins. At the time when a developer pulls their
fees – they would be charged a new affordable housing impact fee which would help build affordable units ‐ not
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
14
necessarily a novel concept – there are many states and cities that are doing this but it would be new to Fort
Collins. A couple years ago when we were doing the Foothills Mall study ‐ we chose not to move forward with it
But it is certainly a tool that is Council chooses to put Policy or regulatory tool in place ‐ this is one way to do that.
We have not made a recommendation whether or not this is the best tool.
Mayor Troxell; Affordable from what perspective ‐ I would encourage a broader perspective.
Darin Atteberry; I think we are talking more about affordable rather than attainable
Jeff Mihelich; we have a Working Session coming on Affordable Housing – the whole strategy ‐ 80% of AMI – we
can provide those options to Council
Darin Atteberry; there is alot more to it ‐ Are we going to allow tiny homes? More affordable types of
development? Increased density? All of those things need to be at play ‐ the context is much wider
Mayor Troxell; water fees and other districts being more – that goes right to the purchase price of the house
If we can moderate that ‐that is a $30K potential impact
Jeff Mihelich; possibly bring land bank properties into the mix which could lower some of the fees – go more to
cost of service ‐ tighten up fees ‐ a way to layer them all together and set up a matrix ‐ when to apply and when
not to
Darin Atteberry; can add $12 ‐ $30k per unit which equates to $90k over a 30‐year mortgage. That is why we are
having conversations about fees right now.
Emily Gorgol; in response to the prioritization question ‐ An Affordable Housing impact fee is part of the broader
affordable and attainable issue ‐ I would prioritize that along with Transit and then parks
Jeff Mihelich; that is in alignment with the Council Priorities
D.2020 Budget Revision Review
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: 2020 Budget Revision Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is to familiarize and seek feedback from the Council Finance Committee on the City
Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2020 Budget before the recommendations are reviewed and discussed at
the Council Work Sessions scheduled for September 10th and 24th. Based on direction from Council, the 2020 Budget
Revisions will be combined with the previously adopted 2019‐20 Biennial Budget. The 2020 Annual Budget
Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for 1st Reading on October 15 & 2nd Reading on November 5.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
- What questions or feedback does the Council Finance Committee have on the City Manager’s recommended
revisions to the 2020 Budget?
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
15
- Does the Council Finance Committee support moving forward with bringing the 2020 Budget Revisions to the
full City Council for the September 10th work session?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW:
The mid‐cycle Revision Process is different from the biennial Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process in that:
1) There is no broad request for new and innovative Offers. This is because we are operating within the approved
2019‐20 Biennial Budget and these revisions should be exceptions based on information not known at the time
the budget was adopted in 2018
2) Likewise, there is no review by BFO Teams or request for public engagement. However, the Executive
Leadership Team and City Manager conducted a comprehensive review to determine which requests should be
forwarded on for Council's consideration. Revised revenue projections and available fund reserves were
carefully considered when making these recommendations.
The 2020 Budget Revisions include both 1) reductions to 2020 ongoing expenses to align them with a decreased
2020 Sales Tax forecast and 2) additional Offers for Council’s consideration based on information that wasn’t
available at the time the 2019‐20 Budget was adopted. The following are key objectives which the 2020 Budget
Revision recommendations are intended to address:
• Matching appropriations for ongoing expenditures to current ongoing revenue estimates
• Council priorities
• Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance requirements
• High‐priority projects and other needs not known at the time of the adoption of the 2019‐20 Budget
The recommended 2020 Budget Revisions meet these goals. Recommended revisions to the 2020 Budget must also
meet one of the following criteria:
• The request is specifically directed by the City Manager or City Council
• The request is related to a previously approved Offer where either revenue shortfalls or unforeseen expenses
are significantly impacting the delivery of that program or service
On a related note, at the July 23, 2019 City Council work session on the Climate Action Plan update, some
Councilmembers expressed interest in considering 2020 Midcycle Revision Offers to support progress on the
CAP goals. At the work session, staff noted they are continuing to work on the 2018 community greenhouse gas
inventory and forecast to 2020, in light of improved new vehicle composition data staff received in July. By the
end of August, staff will be able to provide City Council with an update on the 2018 community carbon inventory
and a forecast for the 2020 goal.
The 2020 Mid‐cycle Revision Offers developed by staff and brought forward by the Budget Lead Team do not
address specific CAP requests, in light of the limited scope of the midcycle revision process and cautious
approach regarding future revenue projections. However, once the future greenhouse gas projections are clear,
Council may request supplemental appropriations at any time during the rest of 2019 and throughout 2020
necessary to help achieve the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan goals.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
16
REVENUE: Overall, most significant City revenues are coming in at, or above, the 2019 budget except for Sales
Tax. Although total revenue for 2019 is on track to support 2019 expenses, the 2019 Sales Tax base, upon which
2020 growth is calculated, is now expected to be lower than budget. Based on 2019 YTD sales tax growth of
1.8% and continued talk of a possible recession, the growth of 2020 Sales Tax is now conservatively being
estimated at 1.5%, compared to 3.0% in the 2020 Budget.
Thus, it is necessary for the City to reduce ongoing expenses in 2020 to align with the reduced forecast for 2020
Sales Tax revenue. The decreased forecast for Sales Tax revenue primarily impacts the General Fund and Keep
Fort Collins Great (KFCG) Fund; but also impacts the funds associated with the three dedicated quarter‐cent
sales tax initiatives (Street maintenance, Natural Areas and CCIP). The total reduction of anticipated revenue
from Sales Tax in 2020 is about $1.8M, with the General Fund portion being just under $1.1M.
ONGOING EXPENSE REDUCTIONS:
There are a few different opportunities to align ongoing expenses to the reduced revenue projections. First,
there was interest rate favorability associated with the debt offering for the Police Regional Training Facility and
the I‐25/Prospect Interchange projects in the amount of $350k in the General Fund. Second, there is ongoing
fuel and maintenance savings within Transfort which will reduce the contribution from the General Fund. Third,
significant underspend and rising reserve balances in the Benefits Fund allows for the ongoing expense
reduction to departments based on reduced contributions to the Benefits Fund. This third opportunity equates
to just over $1.2M savings in the General Fund.
Additionally, some funds had residual, unused ongoing revenue in 2020 that can be applied to offset expenses.
Lastly, 2018 fund balances are available in some funds to offset one‐time expenses. These changes to revenue
and available reserves are summarized in the table below. The Subtotal of Funding Changes line indicates that
all Sales Tax shortfalls are covered and indicates the amount of funding available by fund for the 2020 Revision
Requests.
Summary of 2020 Revenue Changes and Available Reserves (values in $k)
The reserves and revenue above are available to fund the recommended additions to the 2020 Budget. The
table below summarizes those proposed additions and Attachment #1 contains the details of those
recommended Offers.
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Capital
Expan-
sion KFCG CCIP
Natural
Areas
Trans-
porta-
tion
Storm-
water
Self
Insur-
ance
Broad-
band TOTAL
Summary of Revenue Changes & Reserves
-
Reduced 2020 Sales Tax (ongoing) ($1,052) ($397) ($117) ($117) ($117) ($1,800)
-
Debt service favorability (ongoing) 350 350
-
Fuel Savings (ongoing) 206 206
-
Benefits Fund (ongoing) 1,244 1,244
-
17
Summary of 2020 Recommended Additions:
2020 Budget Revision Requests - BY FUNDING SOURCE
Fund Revision Requested FTE Ongoing $ One-Time $ Total
General Fund Developing Equity Gaps Analysis, Indicators, and Principles - - 120,000 120,000
East Mulberry Corridor Plan Update and Annexation Assessment - - 175,000 175,000
Park Improvement Project Support - - 50,000 50,000
Train Horn Noise - Federal Lobbying - - 42,000 42,000
Continued Voluntary Compliance Support for Outdoor Residential Wood Burning - 0.25 FTE 0.25 18,638 - 18,638
Chief Privacy Officer with Records Management Responsibility (start date of 1 Mar 2020) 1.00 93,750 17,962 111,712
Ongoing Agreements from 2018 Collective Bargaining 585,000 - 585,000
Sales Tax Technician - 1 FTE 1.00 50,585 - 50,585
Total General Fund 2.25 747,973 404,962 1,152,935
Capital Expansion New Block 32 Parking Structure Design - - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Fund Block 32 & 42 Plan Refresh - - 300,000 300,000
(General Government) Total Capital Expansion Fund - $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Self Insurance Fund Security Specialist - 1.0 FTE (est. start date of 1 March 2020) 1.00 113,400 - 113,400
Total Self Insurance Fund 1.00 $113,400 $0 $113,400
Stormwater Fund Northeast College Corridor Outfall A4 (Lemay) Stormwater Lateral Design and Construction - - 959,500 959,500
Total Stormwater Fund - $0 $959,500 $959,500
Broadband Fund Income Qualified Connexion Credits 195,000 - 195,000
Total Broadband Fund - $195,000 $0 $195,000
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 3.25 1,056,373 3,164,462 4,220,835
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
18
After netting out the proposed additions fund balances are still strong and well above minimum fund balance
requirements.
Summary of Available Reserves and Revenue after Recommended Additions (Values in $k)
The 2020 Budget Revisions allow the City to align ongoing expenses with reduced revenue forecasts from Sales
Tax. Conversely, the City is also able to fund a small number of additions to the 2020 Budget, which address
Council priorities and other capital projects and design work that benefit our community
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Mike Beckstead; We have a 3% growth rate 2019 / 2018 base assumption for last BFO – we grew stronger in 18
than we thought we would ‐ adjusted the 2019 YOY growth needed to meet budget to 1.7% . Challenge gets to
this year we’ve only grown at 1.8% YTD ‐ is we took out one time events it goes down to 1.6%. We grew at 2.3
and 3.2 in 2017 and 2018 respectively. This is just sales tax – not use tax.
Staff Recommendation to modify 2020 Sales Tax forecast from 3% to 1.5%. That lowers revenue by $1.8M
Description
General
Fund -
Ongoing
General
Fund -
1-Time
Capital
Expan-
sion KFCG CCIP
Natural
Areas
Trans-
porta-
tion
Storm-
water
Self
Insur-
ance
Broad-
band TOTAL
Available Revenue and Reserves 748 2,298 11,100 1,975 2,583 281 1,194 8,300 165 197 28,841
2020 Budget Revision Requests
Ongoing Requests (748) (113) (195) (1,056)
One-Time Requests (405) (1,800) (960) (3,165)
Total of 2020 Revisions (748) (405) (1,800) 0000 (960) (113) (195) (4,221)
Net Impact (positive = available) $0 $1,893 $9,300 $1,975 $2,583 $281 $1,194 $7,340 $52 $2
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
19
$400K of that is in KFCG – rest from General Fund. Where do we make reductions of $1.8M?
How we closed the gap;
Darin Atteberry; medical claims ‐ you can have bad years and those numbers go crazy and vary.
We do have Stop Loss insurance. The higher claims do effect out fund. Our approach to Wellness has been very
effective. This is a particularly low year and that is always a good thing as we come to year end there could be
something that could impact that.
The overall benefits fund is $25M + and we watch that closely and we intentionally have drawn it down.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
20
Reappropriations shown in red address Ken’s question
Ross Cunniff; I assume new Council members know many of these funds are not mix and match
Mike Beckstead; yes, the color of money will be covered in our Council on Boarding later this week
Confirmed that there is a continency fund of $2.2M in case it is needed – inflation, etc. which we have not
touched.
Mayor Troxell; I am in support of where you are ‐ you have done a great job of delicately teasing out and putting
togethe a proposal that makes sense.
E. Epic Program – Long Term Financing
Travis Storin, Director Accounting
Sean Carpenter, Lead Specialist, Economic Sustainability
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Epic Homes 15‐year Capital Options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item will provide an update to Council Finance regarding the Epic Homes 15‐year capital options and
discussion of each. Topics include:
Review of capital recruitment process;
Importance of 15‐year capital in achieving desired program outcomes;
15‐year capital options;
Banking relationship with the national green bank; and
Interest rate swap background.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Does the Committee support funding a 15‐year Epic Loan option?
• Which 15‐year capital option does the Committee support?
• Does the Committee support staff analysis of the debt policy and the exception request if the variable‐rate,
collateralized option is desired?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Fort Collins’ innovative Epic Homes portfolio supports several community and City Council priorities, including
ambitious goals around energy efficiency and renewables, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased
equity and wellbeing of all residents. Meeting these objectives will require, among other activities, greater
numbers of property owners to undertake comprehensive efficiency improvements in the coming years,
particularly for older, less‐efficient rental properties which make up a large percentage of the City’s housing
stock. An ongoing and attractive financing structure to support energy efficiency retrofits will be a critical
element for success moving forward.
On‐Bill Financing (OBF) 1.0 (also known as the Home Efficiency Loan Program or HELP) operated successfully
from 2013 through 2016 when the encumbered funds reached the maximum outstanding loan balance of
$1.6M. At that time, Elevations Credit Union was selected through an RFP process to continue HELP for energy
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
21
loan financing. Utilities staff qualify the efficiency project based on the rebate measures in the Efficiency Works
Home program; however, the loan origination and servicing are independent of Utilities programs. With the
implementation of Epic Loans, Elevations loans will continue to be an option for interested customers.
Epic Loans began in August 2018 during the Champions Phase of the Bloomberg Mayors Challenge, using the
$100,000 award from the Champions Phase and a $200,000 grant from the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) to
revitalize on‐bill financing. Fort Collins is among nine winning cities for the Mayors Challenge, each receiving
$1M to implement their winning idea.
Leveraging external capital is critical to achieving the long‐term “revolving loan” vision of Epic Loans and offers a
continuing source of funds to meet increasing customer demand for energy efficiency financing. Epic Loans is
designed to balance the programmatic objectives and financial requirements of the City, while also meeting the
needs and expectations of capital providers and Utilities customers.
Council Finance Meetings Review
Staff presented to Council Finance in November 2018 regarding the program background and issuing an RFP for
third‐party capital sources. The City issued RFP #8842 in December 2018 and staff pursued conversations and
negotiations with respondents and other potential capital providers.
Staff presented to Council Finance in May 2019 regarding the potential capital sources and next steps for
bringing capital agreements to Council. Staff have continued negotiations with potential capital providers
(including a locally managed national bank, a regional bank, Colorado Clean Energy Fund, and the CEO) and
received Legal and Purchasing review of draft contracts.
Staff presented to Council Finance in July 2019 regarding capital agreement terms. Staff was directed to bring
two of the three capital sources to full Council for consideration. Staff was also directed to explore 15‐year
capital options and provide additional information on interest rate swaps to Council Finance.
Importance of 15‐year Capital
During prototyping for the Bloomberg Mayors Challenge competition, rental property owners reported that no
money down, affordable monthly payments are critical considerations, in particular for owners with multiple
units. OBF 1.0 proved these factors are also important for owner‐occupied properties, where many homeowners
preferred longer term loans which often allow for more comprehensive projects and /or solar installations with
affordable monthly payments. In 2016, Fort Collins Utilities implemented the Efficiency Works Neighborhood
pilot, with nearly 60 long term loans issued totaling over $750,000. An additional $1.5M in 15‐year capital for
Epic Loans would support approximately120 similar projects.
Throughout the program history (2013‐2019, including Elevations Credit Union loans), 35% of customers have
used longer loan terms to reduce monthly payments and / or undertake more comprehensive energy efficiency
projects. As a result, the longer‐termed loans account for a larger percentage of the total loan portfolio value, at
45%. When looking specifically at on‐bill financed loans (2013‐2016 and 2018‐2019), nearly 50% of customers
have used longer term loans (Table 1), accounting for approximately 60% of the on‐bill financed loan portfolio
value. In short, longer term loans are generally used for bigger, more comprehensive projects that can generate
increased benefits for the people who live in and / or own those homes, as well as positively impacting overall
City goals.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
22
Table 1. Summary of On‐Bill Financed Projects by Loan Term
3‐ & 5‐year loans 7‐ & 10‐year loans 15 (& 20) year loans
Projects 38 65 95
Percentage 19% 33% 48%
In order to keep monthly payments low and make energy retrofit projects attractive, longer loan terms are
required. With a 15‐year loan at the average long‐term loan amount of $13,000, monthly payments are $101.
These attractive monthly payments are critical for overcoming both upfront cost and continual cost barriers for
home and rental property owners considering energy upgrades.
15‐year Capital Options
Per Council Finance request, staff has identified the following four options for 15‐year capital:
1. Pursue an agreement with the national green bank for up to $2.5M with the required 50% deposit and
use an interest rate swap to stabilize variable rates (This is the staff recommendation.)
2. Use L&P Reserves to fund $1.5M, in addition to the current $1.6M that is currently deployed or has been
repaid
3. Use only the 15‐year funding available from CEO, Bloomberg, and repaid L&P Reserves
4. Implement a hybrid of Options 2 and 3, using L&P Reserves to provide backfill demand once other
Option 3 sources are exhausted
To provide sufficient financing for the expected number of projects, the short‐term (3‐4 year) capital goal is $7M
to $8M. This assumes $1.5M to $2M annually in energy efficiency project financing. As staff has outlined,
sufficient 15‐year capital is critical to the success of the overall program.
Option 1: National Green Bank
Staff has been in discussions with a national green bank to negotiate 15‐year loan terms, which were presented
and discussed at the July 15, 2019 Council Finance meeting. The terms include:
• Amount: Up to $2,500,000 (staff expects to only draw $1,500,000)
• Length: 15‐years inclusive of draw period
• Draw period: Up to 2 years with quarterly draws based on customer loans
• Variable rate: Wall Street Journal Prime + 0.25% (currently 5.50%)
• Collateral: City will deposit 50% of drawn amount into interest bearing account from L&P Reserves
(staff expects $750,000 deposit)
• Pre‐pay: City may pre‐pay in whole or in part at any time and without penalty
• Repayment position: Senior pledge on customer loan repayments and second position on Electric
Utility revenues, after the more senior pledge held by revenue bondholders
Banking Relationship
Staff issued RFP #8842 in December 2018, to which the Colorado Green Energy Fund was one of two
respondents. The Colorado Green Energy Fund has found and managed the relationship with a financier willing
to provide 15‐year terms (Figure 1). If this option is selected, Fort Collins Utilities would borrow from the
Colorado Green Energy Fund.
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
23
Figure 1. Banking Relationship with the Colorado Green Energy Fund and Commercial Bank
Policy Interactions
This Option has two interactions with Financial Policy #7 ‐ Debt.
The first interaction is the required 50% collateral, or credit enhancement. Staff assesses an appropriate use of a
credit enhancement via the collateral pledge.
The second interaction is the variable rate and/or derivative swap instrument. The proposed lender is offering a
variable interest rate for the loan duration. Staff has attempted to negotiate rate lock‐in rights during the draw
period, but the lender has been unable to flex. An alternative is to use an interest rate swap, which would
qualify as a derivative instrument and is covered by policy as an instrument the City should avoid. Staff assesses
a “plain vanilla” interest swap is a feasible solution, although it carries a cost premium, but it would effectively
“lock in” a fixed rate on the 15‐year note if City is unwilling to accept variable rate risk.
Interest Rate Swap
Interest rate swaps are a common financial instrument, used by a wide variety of businesses to manage their
debt service payments in a manner that best suits their organizational needs. For some entities, variable rates
are preferred; for others, fixed rate obligations are best. In this option, the City would negotiate with another
party (who prefers a variable rate interest obligation) and the City would exchange the variable rate obligation
under the proposed loan with the national green bank (Option 1) for the swap party’s fixed rate instrument
(Figure 2), using well established markets / providers for these types of financial transactions. The swap would
be based on the notional principal, and only the netted difference between fixed and variable interest rate
amounts is paid. The interest swap party would also agree to a settlement cadence.
Figure 2. Example of Cash Flows of Interest Rate Swap
•Midwest Commercial
Bank providing 15‐
year capital
Financier
•Colorado Green
Energy Fund
managing relationship
and finding financiers
(RFP respondent)
Broker •Fort Collins Utilities
borrowing from green
bank and issuing
loans to customers
Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
24
Option 2: Light & Power Reserves
Currently, $1.6M of L&P Reserves have been deployed for on‐bill financing since 2013, of which nearly $400,000
have been repaid without any losses to date. Option 2 would dedicate an additional $1.5M of L&P Reserves for
15‐year loans. Available Reserves at the end of 2018 were $8.4M. Anticipated 2019‐20 budget changes include a
2019 drawdown on Reserves by $340K and a 2020 increase on Reserves by $320K. The Capital Improvement
Plan will be updated in Fall 2019, prior to updating the Strategic Financial Plans for a November 2019
presentation to Council Finance.
There is no anticipated need to increase electric rates for a one‐time $1.5M appropriation of Reserves. However,
appropriating L&P Reserves for use in Epic Loans will make those funds unavailable for use in other future
capital projects, until such time that those funds are repaid by Epic Loan customers.
Option 3: 15‐year Funding from Grants and Low‐Cost Capital Only
There are currently other sources of limited 15‐year capital, which include:
Up to $1M low‐cost loan from CEO dedicated to 15‐year projects (to be presented to Council on
September 3, 2019)
Re‐allocation of up to $900K from Bloomberg and CEO grant funds, away from 5‐year and 10‐year
projects
Without external or Reserve financing, the full capital stack across all product offerings will support
approximately 130 fewer home upgrades for each “cycle” of the loan portfolio (e.g. each time the capital is lent,
repaid and therefore available to be re‐loaned), or approximately 370 projects versus an estimated 500 projects.
In this Option, the capital burn rate would be 1 to 1.5 years faster.
Option 4: Hybrid of Options 2 & 3 Using L&P Reserves After Other Sources Exhausted
A final Option is to use the 15‐year capital sources outlined in Option 3 above and use L&P Reserves
once all other sources have been exhausted.
15‐year Capital Option Analysis
Staff analysis of the benefits and challenges for each Option is outlined in Table 2. If supported by Council
Finance, staff recommends bringing Option 1 to full Council for consideration on October 1, 2019.
Table 2. Analysis of 15‐year Capital Options
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
25
Option Benefits Challenges
Option 1:
National Green
Bank (staff
recommendation)
Provides sufficient funding for
expected 15‐year projects
Scalable for the long‐term, and
replicable for other cities
Only market capital provider willing
to provide 15‐year terms, all other
market capital providers will not go
over 10‐year terms
Requires a 50% deposit into an
interest‐bearing account from L&P
Reserves
Requires a policy exception to use an
interest rate swap
Contingent on other low‐cost capital
sources to provide an attractive rate
for customers
Option 2: Light &
Power Reserves
Provides easy access to low‐cost
capital
Impacts the opportunity costs of
other important Utilities needs
Not scalable for long‐term, or
replicable for other cities
Option 3: 15‐year
Funding from
Grants and Low‐
Cost Capital Only
No additional capital agreements
needed (after CEO loan presented
to full Council)
Does not provide sufficient funding
for expected 15‐year projects
Not scalable for long‐term
Removes low‐cost capital from 5‐year
and 10‐year loans for blending to
create attractive customer rates
Option 4: Hybrid
of Options 2 & 3
Using L&P
Reserves After
Other Sources
Exhausted
No additional capital agreements
needed (after CEO loan presented
to full Council)
Not scalable for long‐term, or
replicable for other cities
Removes low‐cost capital from 5‐year
and 10‐year loans for blending to
create attractive customer rates
Impacts the opportunity costs of
other important Utilities needs
Next Steps
26
Travis Storin; credibility of the institution ‐ that is a key element as we go shop for this
Will have to be one of the large multi‐national banks we are targeting to take on this risk.
They do have the risk of defaulting ‐ it is a possibility and deliberate vendor selection is our mitigating measure.
Ross Cunniff; if the economy tanked, we could decide to not engage or draw the full amount, right?
Travis Storin; yes, the notional amount is going to be whatever we have drawn ‐ we will have a draw period on
the facility and only swap the amount we have drawn not the full amount ‐
Ross Cunniff; still some risk ‐ the advantage to program and to businesses that cannot make the cash flow work
Are powerful to me along with the ability to make this a sustainable proposition. My concern is I would not want
to make this a standing change to policy ‐ I would want to make it a case by case basis – so would need to be
very narrowly tailored for this circumstance ‐ vitally important program. I am supportive of moving forward ‐
we need to be careful sending the message – I don’t want us to be used as part of a portfolio
This is really a special case ‐ Fort Collins is not going to be a variable interest player ‐ bigger picture policy
perspective
Mike Beckstead; staff is very much aligned with that ‐ This is an exception specific to version 3.0. If we find this
works and would want to do it again ‐ we would need to come back to Council and share our experience for 4.0 ‐
we view this is a one‐time event as well.
Mayor Troxell; I would agree ‐ let’s keep it as a one‐time exception
Option 1 with the National Green Bank is my preference.
Question – with the interest rate swap how does the deposit play into that?
Travis Storin; the deposit scales with what we draw at a rate of 50% ‐ according to policy we are only to do this
when we run an NPV and this is still beneficial to City of Fort Collins. In this case there is really not an NPV to run
‐ more a deal or no deal – we are working with Lance Smith and we have determined that it is up to $750K
earmark on reserves which would go into an interest bearing account ‐ Comparable rates to a money market ‐
when we prepay or it matures, we would get those funds back
Sean Carpenter; The max loan amount would be $25K ‐ we have not issued any loans that large to date
The average loan amount is currently $14K so we anticipate $10‐14K will be the range for the vast amount of
these projects over 5, 10 or 15‐year terms
Mike Beckstead: the consumer chooses the term based on the value of the energy efficiency they want to put
into their properties – the savings from the improvements are hard to realize over a shorter term ‐ which
impacts their cashflow
Ken Summers: how many loans are we anticipating?
Travis Storin; our peak year was 2016 where we did 110 loans
Ken Summers; what happens if they default? Concerned about someone needing to borrow that amount over
such a long term
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
27
Mike Beckstead; we would have a lien on the house but our experience to date in the 4‐5 years of this program
is that we have not had a single delinquent loan ‐ part of that is the nature of what people are borrowing for –
they know with the lien in place that if they do sell we will get our piece.
Darin Atteberry; projects like new windows, furnaces, major capital equipment
Ross Cunniff; we are targeting certain types of projects that typically pay back similar or higher value on their
energy bill to what they are paying ‐ that is probably also why you would want to get the monthly cost down.
Travis Storin; one of our iterations was a strictly 3rd party bank that they would go to as a qualified borrower –
with much the same amount of rigor as a mortgage – not serviced on the bill so the protections were different –
the demand for that product has been pretty limited ‐ people like being able to pay it on their utility bill the on‐
bill portion is a positive.
Ken Summers; we are talking about modifying policy and additional risk – I am concerned on the trade‐off
standpoint
Mike Beckstead; might be helpful is we zoom out to 10K feet and provide some context ‐ we started this
program in 1012 using $800K from L&P reserves as the funding source for the loans and in 2014 Council
approved another $800K for additional loans ‐revolving. Currently there is $1.8M in reserves available for these
loans ‐ we can’t continue to use that funding methodology and make the volume of energy efficiency changes
we want to make in our community so we turned to how to use 3rd party capital ‐ we went to version 2.0 with a
local credit union but when we did that the number of loans tanked dramatically. Now we are at version 3.0
where we are trying to figure out how to get a competitive capital stack across 3 different terms providing home
energy efficiencies that would not happen without this type of financing ‐ a little bit of history on how we came
to this point. Our goal has been to figure out how we can use 3rd party capital as opposed to using our own
capital which comes with some risk.
Travis Storin; This is one component of the greater energy works portfolio ‐ of the energy efficiency
improvements that are made ‐ loans account for 25% of the expenditure and 15‐year loans count for 50% of
loans and for 60% of the dollars
80% of those who used 10‐15 year terms and on‐bill financing said that they would not have done it without the
10 or 15 year terms.
Mayor Troxell; this is a model ‐ some other municipalities are looking to us ‐
Sean Carpenter; that is right ‐ some of the support we are not talking about today includes the $200K grant we
received from the Colorado Energy Office – in the hopes that we can create a ‘cookbook’ to help other
communities replicate this in Colorado and elsewhere.
Travis Storin; the low cost capital is a critical success factor‐ for every loan 2/3 of the loan amount comes from a
market driven source
Mike Beckstead; To summarize, there are some questions and concerns, some things in the AIS that we will
want to clarify. But I believe we have the direction to bring this forward to Council on October 1st
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
28
Ken Summers; to do 15 years – we will need to make a policy exception and take on more risk I am trying to get
a handle on year 11‐15 – as opposed to years 1‐10 and the impact
Mike Beckstead; the consumer is making the choice – we are just providing the alternatives to match the savings
of the investment, the energy efficiency benefits and their cashflow
Meeting adjourned at 11:56 am
ATTACHMENT 4
8.d
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Draft CFC Minutes 081919 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Economic Health Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 24, 2019
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager;
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager;
Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
FROM: Denichiro “Denny” Otsuga, Chair – Economic Advisory Commission;
Connor Barry, Vice-Chair – Economic Advisory Commission; and
Members, Economic Advisory Commission for 2019
RE: 2019 CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE UPDATE
On July 17, the Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) received a presentation from Jennifer Poznanovic, and
Randy Reuscher, on the current progress of the 2019 Capital Expansion and Utilities Fee Review and update.
The purpose of this memorandum is to support currently proposed fee review and suggest methodologies for
systematizing future fee review.
Summary of Discussion:
The Commission and its members noted the following:
• Proposed fees appear to be in line with surrounding cities and that fees as a percentage of median home
sales price seem reasonable methodology.
- The Commission noted home size classification used should be updated in the future.
• Noted the Water Supply Requirement charge of ~24% was an outlier among the other fee adjustments.
- The Commission questioned whether the CPI for the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood was suitable and if
other measures should be considered in order to smooth any future adjustments.
• The changes required for funding continued park maintenance should be given a degree of priority in future
updates. The staff responded that such consideration was outside the scope of this study. The Council is
aware of the matter, and the changes are being considered for future studies.
• The presenters stated that addressing infrastructure need to meet the peak demand continues to be an
important factor, of the fee review and for utilities in particular.
- The staff responded that the current primary mechanism for addressing user behavior is education
while possible technological solutions or incentive structures have not been rigorously explored.
- The Commission believes that investigating the role of technology or incentives would be
meaningful. An incentive program could encourage adoption of more efficient technologies during
the design/construction stage or induce to participate in conservation practices by offering specific
rewards for adopting desired use behaviors (installing xeriscaping instead of turf, for example).
- The Commissions encourages staff to incorporate a study of technological or incentive solutions as
part of future fee reviews.
ATTACHMENT 5
8.e
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: EAC Capital Expansion Fees Memo Final (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
ATTACHMENT 6
8.f
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Work Session Memo on 2019 Fee Updates 2019-10-11 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
ATTACHMENT 6
8.f
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Work Session Memo on 2019 Fee Updates 2019-10-11 (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Customer Communication – Excess Water Use Surcharges
As outlined in the July 8 memo, staff communicated with existing non-residential customers who would be
affected by the 2020 increase in Excess Water Use (EWU) surcharges. Communication included an
online survey, customer letters, phone calls, public open houses and events and one-on-one consulting
with customers. Throughout the communication process, staff has continued to support existing
customers affected by the increase to find the best solutions for each customer.
Details of staff communication with existing non-residential customers with water allotments include:
• Created an online form for customers to provide written comment.
• Notified potentially impacted customers of the 2020 increase and opportunity to provide comment
(letters to approximately 350 customers, emails to 130 customers, July 2019; letters to
approximately 1,100 customers with allotments who have historically not exceeded their
allotment, scheduled to mail October 18).
o Communicated with customers with the highest potential EWU surcharges via direct
phone calls (July – August 2019).
• Hosted two public open houses to inform customers of supporting resources to mitigate impact
such as the Allotment Management Program (AMP), Ordinance No. 050,2019, and the Xeriscape
Incentive Program (XIP) for HOAs and commercial properties (June 24 and October 4).
• Hosted a public open house to launch AMP (July 9). Presented on AMP and XIP at the annual
Luncheon for Multifamily Owners and Property Managers (October 11)
o Events were advertised through postcards, emails, social media and a newsletter.
• During 2019, staff has worked with approximately 85 customers to evaluate their water use and
make recommendations.
Staff received the following feedback from customers:
• Increase is costly for existing customers and program support is needed to mitigate impacts.
• Many customers who exceed their allotment have requested allotment aggregation as outlined in
the October 1 memo regarding HOA Water Concerns and Landscape Transitions.
Staff continues to work with existing customers to address their feedback and concerns and support them
through various programs like AMP/XIP. A follow-up letter will be mailed to customers based on Council’s
decision regarding the proposed increase to EWU surcharges. Additionally, staff is continuing to evaluate
the aggregation of allotments and will report back to City Council with recommendations first quarter of
2020. Some of these topics also may arise in the February 25 City Council Work Session on the topic of
“Land/Water Nexus – Building a Resilient Community Landscape.”
ATTACHMENT 7
8.g
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
222 Laporte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.212.2900
V/TDD: 711
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 8, 2019
TO: Mayor Troxell and Councilmembers
FROM: Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Deputy Director, Customer Connections
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Information and outreach plan regarding proposed increase to Excess Water Use
surcharges scheduled for 2020
Bottom Line:
City Council may receive comments from current Utilities commercial water customers who will
be impacted by a proposed increase (24%) to the Excess Water Use surcharge. Customers
expressed significant concerns over the last increase (166%, effective January 1, 2018) and some
reached out to Councilmembers. This memo provides background on the Excess Water Use
surcharge and details about the outreach effort to inform affected customers earlier and provide
resources (e.g., the new Allotment Management Program) to mitigate impacts. Staff will share
results with Council in fall 2019 (currently slated for October 8 work session).
Key Terms:
• Non-residential Water Supply Requirement (WSR): Developers must provide water
supplies to meet the demands of a new development and to ensure a reliable source of
supply in dry years. The WSR methodology is generally reviewed every 5-7 years.
• Non-residential: All commercial, industrial, public entity, group housing, nursing
homes, fraternities, hotels, motels, commonly owned areas, club houses and pools;
includes HOA common spaces and irrigation accounts.
• Cash-in-lieu (CIL): A developer may pay cash instead of satisfying the WSR through
water rights. Existing customers may pay the CIL rate to increase their allotment. CIL is
based on the cost to develop additional water resources and is reviewed every two years.
• Allotment: Annual volume of water associated with a given tap (only taps installed after
1984). This volume is often associated with the WSR satisfied at the time of
development, but a customer may increase their allotment at any time.
• Excess Water Use (EWU) surcharge: A volumetric charge assessed on all water used
through the remainder of the calendar year once a customer has exceeded their annual
allotment (in addition to the applicable regular utility rates). This surcharge is tied to the
CIL rate. Revenue from the EWU surcharge goes toward acquiring, developing and
improving Utilities’ water supplies to address the impact of customers exceeding planned
water demands.
ATTACHMENT 7
8.g
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Page 2 of 3
History:
Utilities requires new development to provide water supplies to meet the demands of the new
development. Prior to 1984, these new accounts were not assigned an allotment. Beginning in
1984, Fort Collins Utilities started assigning new non-residential water taps an annual allotment
based on the volume of the Water Supply Requirement (WSR).
About 1,200 (34%) of non-residential water customers have an allotment. In any given year,
around 300 (10%) of non-residential taps exceed their allotment.
Customers typically exceed because:
1. They are using water inefficiently.
2. There has been a change in business type (e.g., gas station turns into a restaurant).
3. The allotment is too small for the property’s water need.
City Council approved significant modifications to the WSR (effective January 1, 2018), which
increased the CIL rate from $6,500 to $17,300, and the EWU surcharge from $3.06 per 1,000
gallons to $8.14 per 1,000 gallons in excess of the allotment. Some customers faced up to
$40,000 in EWU surcharges in 2018, with over half paying at least $4,000 and 30 paying over
$10,000 annually. Over 1,200 staff-hours were spent addressing customer concerns in 2018.
The primary customer concerns were:
1. In specific situations, customers could not mitigate impacts without costly solutions.
2. Dramatic cost increase (166%).
3. Not enough time to prepare for change, water efficiency projects or to factor into annual
budgeting.
Customer Resources:
Staff developed the Landscape Water Budget program, an allotment notification service,
expanded the leak notification service, and worked to get allotment information and use-to-date
on the new Utilities bill after the new Customer Information System is implemented. Learn more
at fcgov.com/commercial-irrigation.
Staff created the Allotment Management Program (AMP), Ordinance No. 050, 2019, to address
Concern 1 above. AMP supports customers whose allotments are too small for the water needs of
the landscape. The program provides qualified applicants a temporary waiver from the EWU
surcharges while they implement a landscape project to permanently reduce water use.
Customers can redirect money that would have been spent on EWU surcharges into a project that
will help to minimize or even avoid surcharges in the future. Learn more at fcgov.com/AMP.
The AMP application period launches in July 2019, and the first waiver will be made available to
customers implementing projects in 2020. AMP will help some, but not all, customers that may
be affected by the proposed 2020 EWU surcharge increase.
ATTACHMENT 7
8.g
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Page 3 of 3
2019 Outreach Plan:
In response to Concerns 2 and 3, staff has developed an outreach plan to inform and support
customers that may be affected by the increase in 2020.
• Create an online form for customers to provide written comment.
• Notify potentially impacted customers of the 2020 increase and opportunity to provide
comment (letters to approximately 350 customers, emails to 130 customers, July 2019).
o Reach out to customers with the highest potential EWU surcharges via direct
phone calls (July – August 2019).
• Public open house to launch the Allotment Management Program (July 9).
o Event advertised through postcards, emails and a newsletter.
• Follow-up informational event about AMP and other water efficiency programs and
services (September or October 2019).
As always, staff continues to support customers with strong customer service and connects
customers to the options that work best for them. In addition to these outreach efforts, Utilities
Finance is conducting outreach to developers impacted by the related CIL increase. Information
about this was presented to the Council Finance Committee on July 17.
CC: Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
Carol Webb, Utilities Deputy Director, Water Resources and Treatment Operations
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager
Mark Cassalia, Customer Accounts Manager
ATTACHMENT 7
8.g
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
970.224.6003 – TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 1, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Carol Webb, Utilities Deputy Director
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Leadership Planning Team Follow-Up – HOA Water Concerns and Landscape
Transitions
This memo is in response to questions from the September 30 Leadership Planning Team (LPT)
meeting regarding: 1) HOA water concerns and a suggestion that HOA water allotments be
aggregated to help avoid exceeding water allotments, and 2) a need for a transition plan for
landscaping as things move from bluegrass to xeriscapes and/or alternative landscapes. Questions
posed at LPT and staff responses are below.
1. HOA water concerns and aggregating water allotments
City staff is currently evaluating Utilities practices related to aggregating water allotments and
determining the potential benefits and challenges of doing so for both the Utilities and its customers.
While aggregating allotments may be reasonable in certain circumstances and may help certain
customers avoid excess water use fees, several challenges have been identified that warrant further
evaluation by staff. Challenges identified to date include:
ensuring that aggregating water allotments aligns with current City Code;
ensuring that aggregating and separating water allotments do not allow allotments to be
moved from one property to another;
determining if water efficiency would be negatively impacted; and,
whether Utilities billing and financial systems would support aggregating allotments in an
automated manner.
Staff will continue its evaluation in the coming months and report back to City Council with any
recommendations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9018911A-E926-424E-9C23-F3C5D987CC74
ATTACHMENT 7
8.g
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
2
2. A need for a transition plan for landscaping as things move from bluegrass to xeriscapes
and/or alternative landscapes
Staff is currently scheduled to present at the February 25 City Council Work Session on the topic,
“Land/Water Nexus – Building a Resilient Community Landscape”. The scope of this presentation
will include a discussion of managing transitions to more resilient, sustainable community
landscapes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9018911A-E926-424E-9C23-F3C5D987CC74
ATTACHMENT 7
8.g
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Customer Communication Excess Water Surcharges (8403 : 2019 Fee Update)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 130, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7.5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO IMPLEMENT THE PHASE III INCREASES FOR THE CAPITAL
EXPANSION FEES AND INCREASE FOR INFLATION THE CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES
AND THE TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION FEE
WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality having the full right of self-government
in local and municipal matters under the provisions of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, among the City’s home rule powers is the power to regulate, as a matter of
purely local and municipal concern, the development of real property within the City and
establish impact fees for such development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should contribute its
proportionate share of providing the capital improvements that are typically funded with impact
fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has broad legislative discretion in determining the
appropriate funding mechanisms for financing the construction of public facilities in the City;
and
WHEREAS, in early 2016, City staff initiated a comprehensive review of its various
impact fees now charged to new development, including its community parkland, neighborhood
parkland, police, fire protection and general government capital expansion fees (collectively,
“Capital Expansion Fees”), and the City’s street oversizing capital improvement expansion fee,
now called the transportation expansion fee (“TEF”); and
WHEREAS, as a result of that review, the City commissioned an impact fee study for the
Capital Expansion Fees that has resulted in the “Capital Expansion Fee Study” dated August
2016 (the “CEF Study”), which has identified the need to increase such Capital Expansion Fees
by various amounts; and
WHEREAS, the City also commissioned an impact fee study for the TEF that has
resulted in the “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Study” dated April 2017 (the “TEF
Study”), which has also identified the need to increase and decrease the TEF by various amounts
depending on the type of development proposed; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 7.5-18 provides that the Capital Expansion Fees and the
TEF shall also be increased or decreased annually for inflation; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 049, 2017, implementing,
beginning on October 1, 2017, the Phase I increases of the Capital Expansion Fees to 75% of the
increased amounts recommended in the CEF Study and of the TEF to 80% of the increased
Packet Pg. 255
-2-
amounts recommended in the TEF Study, but fully implementing the recommended reductions to
the TEF; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2018, implementing,
beginning on January 1, 2019, the Phase II increases of the Capital Expansion Fees to 90% of
amounts recommended in the CEF Study, plus inflation, and of the TEF to 100% of the amounts
recommended in the TEF Study, plus inflation; and
WHEREAS, based on the CEF Study and the general approach and direction of City
Council, including the Council Finance Committee, this Ordinance enacts Phase III of the
increases to the Capital Expansion Fees; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance increases the Capital Expansion Fees to 100% of the
amounts recommended in the CEF Study, plus inflation, beginning on January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance also increases the TEF, but for inflation only; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is in the
best interest of the City and its citizens and necessary for the protection of the public’s health,
safety and welfare, that the Capital Expansion Fees and the TEF be increased as hereafter
provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 7.5-28(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-28. - Community parkland capital expansion fee.
(a) There is hereby established a community parkland capital expansion fee which shall be
imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Article for the purpose of funding capital
improvements related to the provision of community parks, as such improvements may be
identified in the capital improvements plan for community parkland. Such fee shall be
payable prior to the issuance of any building permit for a residential structure. The amount
of such fee shall be determined per dwelling unit as follows:
Current2019
As of
October 1, 2017
As of January 1,
20192020
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft.
$1,102.00
$2,326.00
$1,751.00 $2,326.00
$2,619.00
Resid., 701 to 1,200 sq. ft.
1,414.00
3,114.00
2,432.00 3,114.00
3,506.00
Packet Pg. 256
-3-
Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft.
1,562.00
3,400.00
2,558.00 3,400.00
3,828.00
Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft.
1,628.00
3,436.00
2,585.00 3,436.00
3,868.00
Resid., over 2,201 sq. ft.
1,743.00
3,830.00
2,881.00 3,830.00
4,312.00
In the case of duplexes and multi-family structures, the amount of the fee for each dwelling unit
shall be based upon the average size of the dwelling units contained within each such structure.
Section 3. That Section 7.5-29(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-29. - Police capital expansion fee.
(a) There is hereby established a police capital expansion fee which shall be imposed pursuant
to the provisions of this Article for the purpose of funding capital improvements related to
the provision of police services, as such improvements may be identified in the capital
improvements plan for police services. Such fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of any
building permit for a residential, commercial or industrial structure. The amount of such fee
shall be determined as follows:
Current2019
As of
October 1, 2017
As of January 1,
20192020
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft.
$141.00
$226.00
$177.00 $226.00
$254.00
Resid., 701 to 1,200 sq. ft.
178.00
305.00
239.00 305.00
344.00
Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft.
198.00
332.00
260.00 332.00
374.00
Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft.
206.00
337.00
264.00 337.00
379.00
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
220.00
375.00
294.00 375.00
423.00
Commercial buildings (per 1,000
sq. ft.)
169.00
-4-
Section 4. That Section 7.5-30(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-30. - Fire protection capital expansion fee.
(a) There is hereby established a fire protection capital expansion fee which shall be imposed
pursuant to the provisions of this Article for the purpose of funding capital improvements
related to the provision of fire services, as such improvements may be identified in the
capital improvements plan for fire protection services. Such fee shall be payable prior to the
issuance of any building permit for a residential, commercial or industrial structure. The
amount of such fee shall be determined as follows:
Current2019
As of
October 1, 2017
As of January 1,
20192020
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft.
$281.00
$403.00
$316.00 $403.00
$454.00
Resid., 701 to 1,200 sq. ft.
357.00
546.00
428.00 546.00
614.00
Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft.
395.00
593.00
465.00 593.00
668.00
Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft.
410.00
603.00
473.00 603.00
679.00
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
440.00
671.00
526.00 671.00
756.00
Commercial buildings (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
339.00
508.00
395.00 508.00
572.00
Industrial buildings (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
80.00
119.00
93.00 119.00
134.00
In the case of duplexes and multi-family structures, the amount of the fee for each dwelling unit
shall be based upon the average size of the dwelling units contained within each such structure.
Section 5. That Section 7.5-31(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-31. - General governmental capital expansion fee.
(a) There is hereby established a general governmental capital expansion fee which shall be
imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Article for the purpose of funding capital
improvements related to the provision of general governmental services, as such
improvements may be identified in the capital improvements plan for general governmental
services. Such fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of any building permit for a
-5-
residential, commercial or industrial structure. The amount of such fee shall be determined
as follows:
Current2019
As of
October 1, 2017
As of January
1, 20192020
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft.
$330.00
$549.00
$431.00 $549.00
619.00
Resid., 701 to 1,200 sq. ft.
423.00
741.00
581.00 741.00
834.00
Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft.
465.00
809.00
634.00 809.00
911.00
Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft.
487.00
821.00
644.00 821.00
925.00
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
523.00
914.00
716.00 914.00
1,029.00
Commercial buildings (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
803.00
1,389.00
1,088.00 1,389.00
1,564.00
Industrial buildings (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
188.00
327.00
257.00 327.00
369.00
In the case of duplexes and multi-family structures, the amount of the fee for each dwelling unit
shall be based upon the average size of the dwelling units contained within each such structure.
Section 6. That Section 7.5-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-32. - Transportation expansion fee.
There is hereby established a transportation expansion fee which shall be imposed pursuant to
the provisions of this Article for the purpose of funding transportation improvements related to
the provision of transportation services. Such fees shall be payable prior to the issuance of any
building permit for a residential, commercial or industrial structure. These fees shall be deposited
in the “transportation improvements fund” established in § 8-87. The amount of such fee shall
be determined as follows:
TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION FEE SCHEDULE
Current2019
As of
October 1,
2017
As of January 1,
-6-
Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft.
3,112.00
5,596.00
4,404.00 5,596.00
5,632.00
Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft.
3,112.00
6,543.00
5,150.00 6,543.00
6,586.00
Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft.
3,112.00
7,014.00
5,520.00 7,014.00
7,059.00
Commercial
11,930.00
8,539.00
6,721.00 8,539.00
8,594.00
Office and Other Services
7,760.00
6,291.00
4,951.00 6,291.00
6,331.00
Industrial/Warehouse
1,130.00
2,030.00
1,598.00 2,030.00
2,043.00
Section 7. That Section 7.5-71(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-71. - Neighborhood parkland capital expansion fee.
(b) The amount of the fee established in this Section shall be determined for each dwelling unit
as follows:
Current2019
As of
October 1, 2017
As of January 1,
20192020
Resid., up to 700 sq. ft.
$1,300.00
$1,647.00
$1,343.00 $1,647.00
$1,855.00
Resid., 701 to 1,200 sq. ft.
$1,667.00
2,205.00
1,797.00 2,205.00
2,483.00
Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft.
$1,842.00
2,408.00
1,962.00 2,408.00
2,712.00
Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft.
$1,919.00
2,433.00
1,983.00 2,433.00
-7-
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 261
-8-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 262
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 131, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS REGARDING CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF
DEVELOPMENT FEES IMPOSED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF NEW OR MODIFIED ELECTRIC SERVICE CONNECTIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or
charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the
costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Sections 26-473 through 26-475, the City imposes
development fees for new or modified electric service connections, including an Electric
Capacity Fee (“ECF”) and a Building Site Charge (“BSC”); and
WHEREAS, the ECF is a one-time charge designed to recover the initial cost of adding
new development to the electric system, and the BSC is designed to recover actual time and
materials costs associated with building on site electric facilities at the specific development; and
WHEREAS, the ECF and BSC together represent the total electric plant investment fee
(PIF) for new development; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities staff uses an approved cost allocation methodology to
calculate ECF and BSC to assign costs based on actual system value, i.e. the “buy-in” approach
also used to calculate service connection fees for water and wastewater services; and
WHEREAS, the values and costs used in applying this cost allocation methodology are
updated on a two-year cycle; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Board considered the proposed 2019 ECF and BSC adjustments
at its meeting on September 12, 2019, and recommended approval of the adjustments; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to update the values and costs applied in calculating ECF and BSC for new
or modified electric service connections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-474(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 263
-2-
Sec. 26-474. Residential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(b) The ECF shall be the total of the dwelling unit charge and systems modification
charge, to be determined as follows:
(1) The dwelling unit charge shall be as follows:
a. For a single-family panel size with one hundred fifty (150) amp service
(nonelectric heat), per dwelling unit
$1,5371,563
b. For a single-family panel size with two hundred (200) amp service $1,8791,967
c. For a single-family with electric heat, per dwelling unit $2,5082,587
d. For a multi-family panel size with one hundred fifty (150) amp service (non-
electric heat), per dwelling unit
$1,3501,382
e. For a multi-family panel size with two hundred (200) amp service or with one
hundred fifty (150) amp service with electric heat, per dwelling unit
$2,0662,108
. . .
Section 3. That Section 26-474(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-474. Residential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(d) A Building Site Charge (“BSC”) for any new or modified residential service shall
consist of the total of the applicable charges as described in this Subsection (d), and shall
be paid as specified herein.
Packet Pg. 264
-3-
. . .
(2) When any new or modified residential service requires installation by the
Utility of secondary service the BSC shall include a secondary service charge
(SSC), and shall be paid at the time of building permit and based upon the current
rates as of the time of issuance of the building permit. The SSC for single-family
and duplex residences shall be the total of the secondary service charges,
determined as follows:
a. The secondary service charge shall be as follows:
Secondary
Service Size
Charge
(up to 65 feet)
Plus Per-Foot
Charge for
Each Foot Over 65
4/0 service 1,143.00 $1,248.00 7.05$8.70/Foot
4/0 Mobile Home Service 932.00 $987.00 N/A
. . .
Section 4. That Section 26-475(b) and (d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-475. Nonresidential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(b) The ECF shall be the total of the kVA service charge and systems modification
charge, to be determined as follows:
(1) The kVA service charge shall be determined as follows.
a. For customer electric loads served by the utility, the kVA service
charge shall be calculated as follows:
ECF shall be calculated as follows:
secondary metered services $/kW = 320.31 341.28 + 21 21.82 x
ln(kW)
primary metered services $/kW = 212.78227.04 + 7.895.93 x
ln(kW),
Where ln is the natural logarithm
Packet Pg. 265
-4-
kW is calculated as follows:
three phase services kW = A x V x SQRT(3) x PF x 0.3/1000
single phase services kW = A x V x PF x 0.3/1000
Where A is the requested amperage. V is requested line to line voltage. PF is the
power factor, which is assumed to be 0.9.
. . .
(d) A Building Site Charge (“BSC”) for extending primary circuitry to the
transformer for any new or modified nonresidential service shall be invoiced and paid in
the same manner and at the same time as the ECF is invoiced and paid pursuant to
Section§ 26-475(a). The BSC shall be the total of the primary circuit charge, transformer
installation charge and any additional charges, determined as follows:
(1) The primary circuit charge for service from the utility source to the
transformer shall be as follows:
a. For single-phase service, per foot of primary circuit $9.1218.54
b. For three-phase service, per foot of primary circuit $16.5827.61
(2) The transformer installation charge shall be as follows:
a. For single-phase service, per transformer $1,153.191,708.51
b. For three-phase service, per transformer $2,458.143,166.54
. . .
Section 5. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all fees paid
on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
Packet Pg. 266
-5-
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 267
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 132, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO REVISE SEWER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain, and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for water and for other utility services
furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other
obligations as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Chapter 26 of the City Code establishes and sets forth the
wastewater utility as a utility service furnished by and an enterprise of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Code Sections 26-283 and 26-284 provide for sewer plant investment
fees (“SPIFs”) to be based on and used for growth-related capital expansion costs of wastewater
collection, transmission, treatment, and administrative facilities that are reasonably related to the
overall costs of and required in providing wastewater services to serve new development; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-283 further requires that the City Manager annually
review the parameters and rates of the SPIFs and also requires that the City Manager present
such fees to the City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have also recommended to the City Council
adjustment of the SPIFs; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed SPIFs adjustments at its meeting
on September 19, 2019, and recommended approval of the proposed adjustments; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the
City Code to adjust the scope and rate of the PIFs as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-284 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-284. - Sewer plant investment fees and surcharges established.
(a) The schedule of sewer plant investment fees, subject to the exceptions and
additional requirements provided in this Section, is as follows:
Packet Pg. 268
-2-
Category SPIF
A Single-family
Per
dwelling
$3,537.003,590.00
B and C Duplex and Multi-family
Per each
dwelling
unit or
mobile
home space
$2,588.002,590.00
D, E, F Non-residential and Industrial
Water meter size (inches) Fee Fee
¾ $7,518.007,710.00
1 $16,553.0017,190.00
1½ $31,728.0032,350.00
2 $65,813.0067,120.00
3 and above
Calculated on an individual
basis based on peak wastewater
flow (determined in the manner
set forth hereinafter) but not
less than the charge for a two-
inch meter
G User outside
Same as equivalent category,
plus any special sanitation
district fees
H Special
Determined pursuant to
Subsection (d) of this Section
. . .
(d) The amount of the plant investment fee and surcharge for each nonresidential
surcharged user, users in Category H and any user that is expected to generate greater than
its proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant for the applicable category
(including both contributed wastewater volume and volume related to infiltration and
inflow), shall be calculated utilizing the following formula:
SPIF = Site Flow × [Flow$ + (BOD × BOD$
) + (TSS × TSS$)] + I&I Flow × [Flow$
+ (200 mg/l
× BOD$) + (250 mg/l × TSS$
)]
Packet Pg. 269
-3-
Where:
SPIF =
Plant investment fee for Category H users and users
discharging wastewater with average concentrations of
BOD and/or TSS which exceed those average
concentrations which are set forth in § 26-282(b) under
Category E-34
Site
Flow
=
The user's proportionate share of peak day flow at the
treatment plant based on site flow discharge from
user's site
I&I
Flow
=
That proportionate share of peak day flow due to
infiltration and inflow as allocated to user's site flow
discharge. I&I Flow is calculated based on Site Flow
multiplied by
46.5%
Flow$ =
Unit cost of facilities attributable to treating
wastewater flow
Per Gallon $9.199.81
BOD =
Average BOD concentration for user category or
measured BOD concentration for the user as
determined in accordance with Subsection (c) of this
Section, but not less than 200 mg/l
BOD$ = Unit cost of facilities attributable to treating BOD Per mg/l $0.01430.0147
TSS =
Average TSS concentration for user category or
measured TSS concentration for the user as determined
in accordance with Subsection (c) of this Section, but
not less than 250 mg/l
TSS$ = Unit cost of facilities attributable to treating TSS Per mg/l $0.01140.0117
. . .
(f) For purposes of this Section, the proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant
for users in Categories D, E and F shall be deemed to be:
Water Meter Size
(inches)
Peak Flow (gallons per day)
¾ 491
1 1,0811,045
1½ 2,0721,965
2 4,2984,077
Packet Pg. 270
-4-
3 and greater
Calculated on an individual basis based on user's proportionate
share of peak day flow at the treatment plant (including both
contributed wastewater volume and volume related to infiltration
and inflow) but not less than the peak day flow for a two-inch
meter
Section 4. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all fees paid
on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 271
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 133, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO REVISE THE STORMWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain, and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for water and for other utility services
furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other
obligations as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Article VII, Chapter 26 of the City Code establishes the stormwater utility
as a utility service furnished by and an enterprise of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Council has adopted stormwater basin and City-wide master plans
recommending stormwater facilities necessary to provide for proper drainage and control of
flood and surface waters within the City; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, City Council adopted ordinance No. 168, 1998, determining that all
lands within the City benefit by the installation of such stormwater facilities; and
WHEREAS, existing stormwater rate payers have paid for the design, right of way, and
construction of stormwater facilities identified in the drainage basin master plans that will benefit
and be utilized by new development; and
WHEREAS, City Council has determined that new development should pay its
proportionate share of the costs of capital stormwater facilities in existence at the time of
development in the form of a stormwater plant investment fee as established by City Code
Section 26-512 (“Stormwater PIF”); and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-511 requires that the City Manager review the rates
and parameters for the Stormwater PIF annually and present them to City Council for approval
no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have also recommended to the City Council
adjustment of the Stormwater PIF as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Stormwater PIF adjustments for at
its meeting on September 19, 2019, and recommended approval of the proposed adjustments;
and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the
City Code to adjust the scope and rate of the Stormwater PIF as set forth herein.
Packet Pg. 272
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-512 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-512. - Stormwater plant investment fees established.
. . .
(2) Plant investment fee base rate. The stormwater plant investment fee base rate is
hereby established as follows:
Per gross acre of area $9,1429,447
. . .
Section 3. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all fees paid
on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 273
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 134, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS TO REVISE WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins, to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain, and
provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for water and for other utility services
furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses, and other
obligations as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Article III, Chapter 26 of the City Code establishes and sets forth the water
utility as a utility service furnished by and an enterprise of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Code Sections 26-120 and 26-128 provide for water plant investment
fees (“WPIFs”) to be based on and used for growth-related capital expansion costs of water
supply, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution, and administrative facilities that are
reasonably related to the overall costs of and required in providing water services to serve new
development; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-120 further requires that the City Manager annually
review the parameters and rates of the WPIFs and also requires that the City Manager present
such fees to the City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have also recommended to the City Council
adjustment of the WPIFs, as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed WPIFs adjustments at its meeting
on September 19, 2019 and recommended approval of the proposed adjustments; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the
City Code to adjust the scope and rate of the WPIFs as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-128 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-128. Schedule C, water plant investment fees.
The water plant investment fee prescribed in § 26-120 shall be payable by users both
inside and outside of the City, as follows:
Packet Pg. 274
-2-
(1) Single-family residential buildings.
For a single-family residential lot greater than one-half (½) acre
in size, the lot size shall be deemed to be one-half (½) acre for
the purpose of this fee calculation. For each additional tap or
meters larger than three-fourths (¾) inch, the nonresidential rate
shall apply.
a. For the first three-fourths-inch water tap or meter
$730.00
b. For the first one-inch water tap or meter to
accommodate residential fire suppression systems based
upon the criteria established in the International Building
Code as adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of this
Code.
$1,237.00
c. Plus, for each square foot of lot area
$0.360.39
(2) Residential buildings of two (2) or more dwelling units
The fee will provide for one (1) tap per residential building and
an adequate number of additional taps to serve common irrigable
areas, if any. The number and size of taps shall be determined by
the Utilities Executive Director based upon the criteria
established in the Uniform Plumbing Code as amended pursuant
to Chapter 5 of this Code.
a. For each residential building unit
$530.00550.00
b. Plus, for each square foot of lot area
$0.260.29
(3) Mobile home parks
The size of the tap shall be determined by the Utilities Executive
Director based upon the criteria established in the Uniform
Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Code.
a. For each residential building unit
$530.00550.00
b. Plus, for each square foot of lot area
$0.260.29
(4) Hotels, rooming houses, sororities, fraternities and similar
uses.
The nonresidential rate shall apply.
(5) Nonresidential service
a. Service to all nonresidential taps, including, but not
limited to, taps for commercial and industrial service, shall
be charged according to the size of the meter pursuant to the
Packet Pg. 275
-3-
following schedule:
Meter Size (inches)
Non-residential
Plant
Investment Fee
¾ $7,940.008,790.00
1 $20,960.0023,060.00
1½ $43,520.0045,610.00
2 $72,470.0078,820.00
b. The fee for all meters larger than two (2) inches shall be
calculated by multiplying the estimated peak daily demand
by the following charge per gallon, but shall not be less than
the charge for a two-inch meter.
$4.995.23
Section 3. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all fees paid
on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 276
-4-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 277
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 135, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS TO REVISE THE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or
charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the
costs, expenses, and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a water utility that provides treated water service
to customers with its service area; and
WHEREAS, through various water supply furnishing or development programs, the City
has historically required that persons desiring new or increased water service from the water
utility, among other things, furnish or otherwise provide to the City certain rights to use water or
payments of cash-in-lieu thereof in order to offset the impacts of the requested water service,
which requirements are currently set forth in Sections 26-129 and 26-146 through 26-150 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins as the water supply requirements (“WSR”); and
WHEREAS, City staff has historically reviewed the WSRs periodically to ensure that the
rights to use water and cash payments received by the City are sufficient; and
WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the WSR and has determined that an
increase in the cash-in-lieu related excess water use surcharge rate is necessary to ensure that,
among other things, the impacts of new and increased water service are offset and that the water
utility has sufficient water supplies and infrastructure to serve customers of the water utility with
an adequate level of service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-129 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-129. - Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
The following fees and service charges shall be paid by water users, whether inside or outside
the City limits:
(a) Connection fees and service charges shall be as set forth in Subsection 26-712(b).
Packet Pg. 278
-2-
(b) The fire hydrant fees and charges shall be as follows:
(1) For installation of meter Per meter $43.00
(2) For removal of meter Per meter $43.00
(3) For daily rental for meter and fittings Per meter $8.60
(4) For water service
Per 1,000
gallons
$10.7213.36
A deposit may be required in the amount of the charges for the
anticipated water usage and rental.
(c) The fees and requirements for water supply shall be as follows:
(1) To satisfy Water Supply Requirement (WSR) with cash
payments
Per
acre-foot
of WSR
$17,300.00
21,500.00
(2) Excess water use surcharge assessed on commercial and
irrigation taps when water use is in excess of the applicable annual
allotment
Per 1,000
gallons
$8.1410.09
(3) The annual water allotment, based on the minimum WSR shall be as
follows:
Meter Size (inches)
Annual
Allotment
(gallons/
year)
¾ 293,270
1 739,680
1½ 1,538,020
2 2,577,480
Packet Pg. 279
-3-
Above 2
325,851
gallons per
acre foot of
WSR
. . .
Section 3. That the modifications set forth above shall be effective for all fees paid
on or after January 1, 2020.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 280
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Theresa Connor, Water Engineering Field Operations Mgr
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2019, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Clarify the Application of Certain Water-Related Fees to Different Forms of Fraternity and Sorority Housing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to clarify the application of certain water-
related fees to different forms of fraternity and sorority housing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
An applicant for a proposed land use change has brought to staff’s attention that the nature of fraternity and
sorority housing is changing from dormitory style housing with large commercial kitchens to multi-family style
housing without shared kitchens and bathrooms. Currently City Code has one category for fraternity and
sorority housing as a commercial customer which reflects the traditional dormitory style housing with a large
commercial kitchen and shared bathrooms.
As an example, consider a multi-family dwelling building. An application to use that multi-family dwelling
building as fraternity housing would cause a change in the water utility rates and fees to a commercial
customer. The increased water and wastewater plant investment fee requirements would be approximately
$230,000, despite the fact that there would be no required changes to the plumbing or number of fixtures in the
building.
In discussions with the applicant and their representatives, staff has learned that the nature of fraternity and
sorority is changing to be more flexible. The ability to staff the kitchens is causing fraternities and sororities to
move away from commercial kitchens towards self-contained units. This allows the owner of the building more
flexibility in future real estate markets if the fraternity or sorority decides to make a change in their housing
arrangement. Staff is proposing changes to City Code that create two categories of fraternity and sorority
housing: (1) dormitory (or traditional) fraternity and sorority housing; and (2) multi-family fraternity and sorority
housing. This would reflect the changing nature of fraternity and sorority housing and clarify the subsequent
collection of water and sewer plant investment fees and water supply requirements for these housing types.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None
9
Packet Pg. 281
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Water Board voted unanimously, 8-0 on September 19, 2019, to recommend approval of the
amendments.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Outreach was conducted with a land use applicant seeking to use multi-family housing units as a fraternity and
their legal and engineering team. They expressed agreement with the proposed changes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes Excerpt - Greek Housing (PDF)
9
Packet Pg. 282
Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES - WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
September 19, 2019, 5:30 p.m.
222 Laporte Avenue, Colorado River Community Room
09/19/2019 – Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES Page 1
Utilities Fall Code Update, Greek Housing Multi-Family
(Attachments available upon request)
City Code currently treats all fraternity and sorority housing as nonresidential (commonly
called commercial) customers. This is based on the assumption that this housing has a
commercial kitchen and dormitory style housing. However, an applicant has proposed
using a multi-family building as a fraternity, which has highlighted that this assumption is
not always correct. This update would allow for two categories of Greek Letter
Organization housing: dormitory (which includes a commercial kitchen) and multi-family.
Discussion Highlights: Board members commented on and inquired about various related
topics including the reason for differentiating Greek housing (staff replied that in City Code,
Greek Housing is mentioned separately) if Greek and commercial housing pays the same
rates; Mr. Boyle commented that the Greek letters on the sign automatically kicks up the
fee to commercial.
Board Member Andrew McKinley moved that Water Board recommends City
Council approve proposed amendments of City Code relating to Water Plant Investment
Fees, Water Supply Requirements, and Sewer Plant Investment Fees for housing
associated with Greek Letter Organizations.
Vice Chairperson Jason Tarry seconded the motion.
Discussion on the motion: None
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 8-0
ATTACHMENT 1
9.a
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - Greek Housing (8409 : Utility Services)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 136, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN WATER-RELATED FEES
TO DIFFERENT FORMS OF FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSING
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a water utility that provides treated water service
to customers in its service area and a wastewater utility that provides wastewater service to
customers in its service area; and
WHEREAS, as a prerequisite for treated water service, the City charges a water plant
investment fee (“WPIF”) pursuant to City Code Sections 26-120 and 26-128 and a Water Supply
Requirement (“WSR”) pursuant to City Code Sections 26-147 through 26-150; and
WHEREAS, as a prerequisite for wastewater service, the City charges a sewer plant
investment fee (“SPIF”) pursuant to City Code Sections 26-283 and 26-284; and
WHEREAS, various City Code provisions in Chapter 26, such as the WPIF, WSR, and
SPIF, parallel land use designations in the City Code, including those in the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, there are various Greek letter organizations (referred to as fraternities and
sororities) in Fort Collins that are associated with Colorado State University; and
WHEREAS, fraternities and sororities have historically housed members in dormitory-
style housing that typically include commercial or kitchens and common bathrooms but are now
more frequently housing members in multi-family dwelling housing; and
WHEREAS, under City Code, the WPIF and the WSR for a particular development
varies depending on whether the development requires “residential” water service (which
includes single-family, duplex, mobile home, and multi-family dwelling units) or
“nonresidential” water service (which includes all water service not included in the residential
water service category); and
WHEREAS, under City Code, the SPIF for a particular development varies depending on
whether the development is a “duplex and multi-family” or “non-residential and industrial”; and
WHEREAS, City Code has historically placed fraternity and sorority housing in the
nonresidential water service category, whether or not the housing is in the nature of multi-family
housing, and
WHEREAS, staff has recommended certain changes to portions of Chapter 26 of City
Code to clarify how the WPIF, the WSR, and the SPIF apply to fraternity and sorority housing
depending on whether it is dormitory-style housing or multi-family housing.
Packet Pg. 284
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 26-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-41. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
. . .
Fraternity and sorority houses shall mean the same as defined in the Land Use Code.
Fraternity and sorority multi-family housing shall mean any fraternity and sorority
houses that are organized as multi-family dwelling units with separate dwelling units that
include separate kitchens and bathrooms per dwelling unit.
Fraternity and sorority dormitory housing shall mean any fraternity and sorority houses
that do not meet the definition of fraternity or sorority multi-family housing.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 26-128 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-128. Schedule C, water plant investment fees.
The water plant investment fee prescribed in § 26-120 shall be payable by users both
inside and outside of the City, as follows:
(1) Single-family residential buildings.
For a single-family residential lot greater than one-half (½) acre
in size, the lot size shall be deemed to be one-half (½) acre for
the purpose of this fee calculation. For each additional tap or
meters larger than three-fourths (¾) inch, the nonresidential rate
shall apply.
a. For the first three-fourths-inch water tap or meter
$730.00
b. For the first one-inch water tap or meter to accommodate
residential fire suppression systems based upon the criteria
established in the International Building Code as adopted and
$1,237.00
Packet Pg. 285
-3-
amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Code.
c. Plus, for each square foot of lot area
$0.36
(2) Residential buildings of two (2) or more dwelling units (including
fraternity and sorority multi-family housing)
The fee will provide for one (1) tap per residential building and
an adequate number of additional taps to serve common
irrigable areas, if any. The number and size of taps shall be
determined by the Utilities Executive Director based upon the
criteria established in the Uniform Plumbing Code as amended
pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Code.
a. For each residential building unit
$530.00
b. Plus, for each square foot of lot area
$0.26
(3) Mobile home parks
The size of the tap shall be determined by the Utilities
Executive Director based upon the criteria established in the
Uniform Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of
this Code.
a. For each residential building unit
$530.00
b. Plus, for each square foot of lot area
$0.26
(4) Hotels, rooming houses, sororities, fraternities fraternity and
sorority dormitory housing, and similar uses.
The nonresidential rate shall apply.
(5) Nonresidential service
a. Service to all nonresidential taps, including, but not limited
to, taps for commercial and industrial service, shall be charged
according to the size of the meter pursuant to the following
schedule:
Meter Size (inches)
Nonresidential
Plant
Investment
Fee
¾ $7,940
Packet Pg. 286
-4-
1 $20,960
1½ $43,520
2 $72,470
b. The fee for all meters larger than two (2) inches shall be
calculated by multiplying the estimated peak daily demand by
the following charge per gallon, but shall not be less than the
charge for a two-inch meter.
$4.99
Section 4. That Section 26-148 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-148. - Water supply requirement (WSR); residential service.
(a) Residential service for WSR shall include single-family, duplex, mobile home,
and multi-family dwelling units, including fraternity and sorority multi-family
housing.
Section 5. That Section 26-149 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-149. - Water supply requirement (WSR); nonresidential service.
(a) Nonresidential service for WSR shall apply to all services not included in the
residential category and shall include, without limitation, all service to customers
for: commercial; industrial; public entity; group housing, such as nursing homes,
fraternities fraternity and sorority dormitory housing; hotels and motels; and
mixed-use purposes.
. . .
Section 6. That Section 26-206 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-206. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this Section:
. . .
Packet Pg. 287
-5-
Fraternity and sorority houses shall mean the same as defined in the Land Use Code.
Fraternity and sorority multi-family housing shall mean any fraternity and sorority
houses that are organized as multi-family dwelling units with separate dwelling units that
include separate kitchens and bathrooms per dwelling unit.
Fraternity and sorority dormitory housing shall mean any fraternity and sorority houses
that do not meet the definition of GLO multi-family housing.
. . .
Section 7. That Section 26-278 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-278. - Classification of users.
The users of the wastewater utility may be divided into various classifications, including but not
limited to,: single-family dwelling,; duplex,; multi-family dwelling which includes fraternity and
sorority multi-family housing; and nonresidential which includes fraternity and sorority
dormitory housing. Additional classifications may be established by the City for each
nonresidential user class. Mobile home parks are to be classified as multi-family dwellings.
Hotels, rooming houses, sororities, fraternities and similar uses are to be classified as
nonresidential uses. Each user shall be classed into one (1) of the following categories and
charged at the applicable rate:
(1) Category A: Single-family residential users (either flat rate or metered water use).
(2) Category B: Duplex (two-family) residential users (either flat rate or metered
water use).
(3) Category C: Multi-family residential users (more than two (2) dwelling units
including mobile home parks and fraternity and sorority multi-family housing).
(4) Category D: Minor nonresidential user. A minor nonresidential user is a user who
discharges only wastes of a type and strength normally discharged by private
residences. Category D shall also apply to multi-family residential units under
construction during the period of service from the installation of the water meter
to the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. All nonresidential users not
subject to the provisions of Categories C, E and F shall be classed as minor
nonresidential users in Category D.
. . .
Packet Pg. 288
-6-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 289
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director
Bob Adams, Recreation Director
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2019, Authorizing the City's Conveyance of Land to Facilitate the
Replatting of the Lot on which the City's Foothills Activity Center is Located.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item approves the exchange of deeds between the City, the developer of the Foothills Mall (the “Mall”)
and the owner of the Macy’s store in the Mall. This exchange of deeds is needed to replat the lot on which the
City’s Foothills Activity Center (the “FAC”) is now located to eliminate small encroachments that currently exist
between the City’s FAC lot and adjacent properties owned by the Mall developer and Macy’s. This replatting
will remove these encroachments and ensure that the FAC, as built, is located entirely and correctly within the
City’s replatted lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As part of the redevelopment of the Mall by its owner Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C. (“Walton”), Walton
and the City agreed that Walton would construct and then convey the FAC to the City. It was agreed that the
FAC would be built on Lot 20 (“Original Lot 20”) as shown on the existing plat of the Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Subdivision (“Mall Subdivision”).
As the FAC was being constructed, it was discovered that a small portion of the building owned by Macy’s
West Stores, Inc. (“Macy’s”), now existing on Lot 2 of the Mall Subdivision (“Original Lot 2”), encroaches upon
Original Lot 20, so the FAC had to be built to accommodate this encroachment. After the FAC was
constructed, it was discovered that small portions of the FAC, as built, encroach onto Macy’s Original Lot 2 and
onto Tract J of the Mall Subdivision (“Original Tract J”), which is owned by Walton. It was also discovered that
portions or the FAC’s roof overhang over Lot 8 of the Mall Subdivision (“Original Lot 8”), over Lot 1 of the Mall
Subdivision (“Original Lot 1”) and over Original Tract J. Walton also owns Original Lot 1 and Original Lot 8.
A map generally depicting all these encroachments is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Ordinance (collectively, the
“Encroachments”).
When Walton conveyed the FAC to the City in March of 2016, the City and Walton agreed that Walton would
prepare and present for approval through the City’s land-use process a replat of Original Lots 1, 2, 8 and 20
and a replat of Original Tract J to correct all the Encroachments and ensure that the FAC, as built, is located
entirely and correctly on a replatted Original Lot 20 (“Replatted Lot 20”). Walton is now going through this
replatting process.
10
Packet Pg. 290
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 2
This Ordinance, if adopted, will facilitate this replatting through the approval of two bargain and sale deeds
from the City. The first is the Bargain and Sale Deed attached as Exhibit “B” to the Ordinance by which the
City will convey to Macy’s an approximately 80-square-foot portion of Original Lot 20 to account for Macy’s
building’s existing encroachment on Original Lot 20 (“City to Macy’s Deed”). The second is the Bargain and
Sale Deed attached as Exhibit “C” to the Ordinance by which the City will convey to Walton an approximately
24-square-foot portion of Original Lot 20 to account for improvements on Original Tract J that now encroach on
Original Lot 20 (“City to Walton Deed”).
To further facilitate these replattings, Macy’s will be delivering to the City the Bargain and Sale Deed attached
as Exhibit “D” to the Ordinance by which Macy’s will convey to the City an approximately 18-square-foot
portion of Original Lot 2 to account for a portion of the FAC having been built on Original Lot 2 (“Macy’s to City
Deed”). Walton will also deliver to the City the Bargain and Sale Deed attached as Exhibit “E” to the
Ordinance by which Walton will convey to the City portions of the airspace above Original Lot 1, Original Lot 8
and Original Tract J to account for the overhangs of the FAC’s roof above these lots and tract (“Walton to City
Deed”). These overhangs are above approximately 469 total square feet of portions of Original Lot 1, Original
Lot 8 and Original Tract J.
Given the insignificant value of the very small slivers of land and airspace being exchanged that are
comparable in fair market value and considering that these exchanges are needed to account for the location
of the FAC as built on a Replatted Lot 20, there will be no exchange of money between the parties for these
conveyances.
City Code Section 23-111(a) provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, exchange or
otherwise dispose of real property owned by the City, provided the City Council finds by ordinance that such
sale or disposition is in the best interests of the City.
This Ordinance, if adopted, also authorizes the City Manager to sign on the City’s behalf, as the owner of
Replatted Lot 20, the new plat of the Mall Subdivision that creates Replatted Lot 20.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This has no financial impacts for the City.
10
Packet Pg. 291
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO
FACILITATE THE REPLATTING OF THE LOT ON WHICH
THE CITY’S FOOTHILLS ACTIVITY CENTER IS LOCATED
WHEREAS, as part of the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall (the “Mall”) by its owner
Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C. (“Walton”), Walton and the City agreed that Walton
would construct and then convey to the City the Foothills Activity Center (the “FAC”); and
WHEREAS, it was agreed that the FAC would be built on Lot 20 (“Original Lot 20”) as
currently shown on the existing plat of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision (“Mall
Subdivision”); and
WHEREAS, as the new FAC was being constructed, it was discovered that a small
portion of the building owned by Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (“Macy’s”), now existing on Lot 2 of
the Mall Subdivision (“Original Lot 2”), encroaches upon Original Lot 20, so the FAC had to be
built to accommodate this encroachment; and
WHEREAS, after the FAC was constructed, it was discovered that small portions of the
FAC (as built) encroach onto Original Lot 2 and onto Tract J of the Mall Subdivision (“Original
Tract J”);
WHEREAS, it was also discovered that parts of the FAC’s roof overhang portions of Lot
8 of the Mall Subdivision (“Original Lot 8”), Lot 1 of the Mall Subdivision (“Original Lot 1”)
and Original Tract J; and
WHEREAS, Walton owns Original Lot 1, Original Lot 8 and Original Tract J; and
WHEREAS, a map generally depicting all these encroachments is attached as Exhibit
“A” and incorporated herein by reference (collectively, the “Encroachments”); and
WHEREAS, when Walton conveyed the FAC to the City in March of 2016, the City and
Walton agreed that Walton would prepare and present for approval through the City’s land-use
process a replat of Original Lots 1, 2, 8 and 20 and a replat of Original Tract J to correct all the
Encroachments and ensure that the FAC, as built, is located entirely and correctly on a replatted
Original Lot 20 (“Replatted Lot 20”); and
WHEREAS, Walton is now going through this replatting process; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate this replatting, this Ordinance approves two bargain and sale
deeds from the City; and
WHEREAS, the first is the Bargain and Sale Deed attached as Exhibit “B” and
incorporated herein by reference with which the City will convey to Macy’s an approximately
Packet Pg. 292
-2-
80-square-foot portion of Original Lot 20 to account for Macy’s building’s existing
encroachment on Original Lot 20 (“City to Macy’s Deed”); and
WHEREAS, the second is the Bargain and Sale Deed attached as Exhibit “C” and
incorporated herein by reference with which the City will convey to Walton an approximately
24-square-foot portion of Original Lot 20 to account for improvements on Original Tract J
encroaching on Original Lot 20 (“City to Walton Deed”); and
WHEREAS, to further facilitate these replattings, Macy’s will be delivering to the City
the Bargain and Sale Deed attached as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference with
which Macy’s will convey to the City an approximately 18-square-foot portion of Original Lot 2
to account for a portion of the FAC having been built on Original Lot 2 (“Macy’s to City Deed”);
and
WHEREAS, Walton will also be delivering to the City the Bargain and Sale Deed
attached as Exhibit “E” and incorporated herein by reference with which Walton will convey to
the City airspace above approximately 320 square feet of Original Lot 1, 115 square feet of
Original Lot 8 and 34 square feet of Original Tract J to account for the overhangs of the FAC’s
roof above these lots and tract (“Walton to City Deed”); and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the City exchange these properties with
Macy’s and Walton with no payment of money between the parties considering the insignificant
value of the very small slivers of land and airspace being exchanged that are comparable in fair
market value and considering that these exchanges are needed to ensure that the FAC, as built, is
located entirely on one platted lot; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is
authorized to sell, convey, exchange or otherwise dispose of real property owned by the City,
provided the City Council finds by ordinance that such sale or disposition is in the best interests
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City hereby finds that the execution and delivery of the City to Macy’s
Deed and the City to Walton Deed are in the City’s best interests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also wishes to authorize the City Manager to execute on
the City’s behalf, as the owner of Replatted Lot 20, the new plat approved by the City for the
Mall Subdivision to create Replatted Lot 20.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That City Council hereby approves the City to Macy’s Deed and the City
to Walton Deed and the Mayor is authorized to execute both of them on the City’s behalf;
Packet Pg. 293
-3-
provided, however, that these two Deeds are only to be delivered to Macy’s and Walton,
respectively, if the Macy’s to City Deed and the Walton to City Deed are delivered first or
contemporaneously to the City. In addition, the Mayor is authorized, in consultation with the
City Manager and the City Attorney, to agree to revisions to any of these four deeds as he deems
necessary and appropriate to protect the City’s interests or to effectuate the purposes of this
Ordinance.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign on the City’s behalf, as
the owner of Replatted Lot 20, the new plat approved by the City for the Mall Subdivision to
create Replatted Lot 20.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
November, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of November, A.D.
2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 294
Lot 20
Lot 2
Lot 1
Lot 20
Air Space
Lot 8
Tract J
Tract J
Part of Lot 2
Macy's West Stores, Inc.
to the City of Fort Collins Part of Lot 20
the City of Fort Collins
to Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C.
Part of Lot 20
the City of Fort Collins
to Macy's West Stores, Inc.
Part of Lot 1, below elevation 5043.3'
Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C.
to the City of Fort Collins
Part of Tract J, above elevation 5037.9'
Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C.
to the City of Fort Collins
Part of Tract J
Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C.
to the City of Fort Collins
Part of Lot 8, above elevation 5037.9'
Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C.
to the City of Fort Collins
FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT
SUBDIVISION
Project No:
Reviewed:
Drawn by:
Field Book:
Date:
Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC
5750 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, CO
Quit Claim Parcel Exhibit
Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision
(970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Fort Collins, CO 1 of 1
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525
GROUP
1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105
0
U.S. SURVEY FEET
SCALE: 1"=30'
15 30 60
Quit Claim Parcel Exhibit
General Note:
This exhibit is for informational purposes
only. Refer to quit claim exhibits and
descriptions for additional information.
EXHIBIT PARCELS
ARE NOT SHOWN
TO SCALE
Packe
15969156
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
Attention: Kathy Golden
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
[Statutory Form - C.R.S. § 38-30-115]
[CONVENIENCE DEED – NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED]
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado (“Grantor”) with a legal address of ___________________________, for the
consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid,
hereby sells and conveys to MACY’S WEST STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation (“Grantee”),
which has an office at _____________________, all of Grantors’ right, title and interest in and to
the following real property, with all its appurtenances, located in the County of Larimer, State of
Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2019.
[Signature Page Follows]
b
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Exhibit B (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
[Signature Page to Bargain and Sale Deed – City of Fort Collins]
15969156
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Bargain and Sale Deed on the date
set forth above.
GRANTOR:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado
By:
Name: Darin A. Atteberry
Title: City Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________ )
The foregoing instrument Deed was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________,
2019, by Darin A. Atteberry, the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary
b
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Exhibit B (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969156
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
That part of Lot 20, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, recorded at the Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and
Recorder's Office on June 4, 2014 at Reception Number 20140028776 and located in the Southwest Quarter of Section
25, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado,
described as follows:
Beginning at the Northerly corner of said Lot 20, witnessed by a mag nail & 1-1/2" aluminum washer stamped PLS
38199 WC 82;
Thence South 45°09'24" East for 48.01 feet on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 20;
Thence South 44°51'09" West for 1.68 feet;
Thence North 45°08'52" West for 48.01 feet to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 20;
Thence North 44°51'07" East for 1.67 feet on said Northwesterly line to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 80 square feet, (0.00184 acres) more or less.
Basis of Bearing: The Northwesterly line of Lot 20, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, recorded at the
Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder's Office on June 4, 2014 at Reception Number 20140028776, bears
South 44°51'07" West, as witnessed on each end by a mag nail & 1-1/2" aluminum washer stamped PLS 38199 WC
82, with all bearings herein relative thereto.
I hereby state that the attached description was prepared by me or under my responsible charge using applicable
standards of practice and is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This is not intended to
represent a Land Survey Plat, Improvement Survey Plat or Improvement Location Certificate and is not a guarantee
or warranty, either expressed or implied. It is intended to describe the area illustrated on the accompanying exhibit.
October 17, 2017
Revised January 24, 2018
David J. Berglund, Colorado PLS 38199
For and on behalf of Farnsworth Group, Inc.
1612 Specht Point Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Phone: (970) 484-7477
b
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Exhibit B (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969156
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
b
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Exhibit B (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
15969147
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
Attention: Kathy Golden
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
[Statutory Form - C.R.S. § 38-30-115]
[CONVENIENCE DEED – NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED]
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado (“Grantor”) with a legal address of ___________________________, for the
consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid,
hereby sells and conveys to WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS VI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company (“Grantee”), which has an office at _____________________, all of Grantors’
right, title and interest in and to the following real property, with all its appurtenances, located in
the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2019.
[Signature Page Follows]
c
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Exhibit C (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
[Signature Page to Bargain and Sale Deed – City of Fort Collins]
15969147
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Bargain and Sale Deed on the date
set forth above.
GRANTOR:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado
By:
Name: Darin A. Atteberry
Title: City Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2019,
by Darin A. Atteberry, the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary
c
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Exhibit C (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969147
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
That part of Lot 20, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, recorded at the Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and
Recorder's Office on June 4, 2014 at Reception Number 20140028776 and located in the Southwest Quarter of Section
25, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado,
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northerly corner of Lot 20, said Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, witnessed by a mag
nail & 1-1/2" aluminum washer stamped PLS 38199 WC 82;
Thence South 45°09'24” East for 48.01 feet on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 20 to the Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing South 45°09'24” East for 14.05 feet on said Northeasterly line;
Thence South 44°51'08" West for 1.68 feet;
Thence North 45°08’52” West for 14.05 feet;
Thence North 44°51'09" East for 1.68 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 24 square feet, (0.00054 acres) more or less.
Basis of Bearing: The Northwesterly line of Lot 20, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, recorded at the
Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder's Office on June 4, 2014 at Reception Number 20140028776, bears
South 44°51'07" West, as witnessed on each end by a mag nail & 1-1/2" aluminum washer stamped PLS 38199 WC
82, with all bearings herein relative thereto.
I hereby state that the attached description was prepared by me or under my responsible charge using applicable
standards of practice and is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This is not intended to
represent a Land Survey Plat, Improvement Survey Plat or Improvement Location Certificate and is not a guarantee
or warranty, either expressed or implied. It is intended to describe the area illustrated on the accompanying exhibit.
October 17, 2017
Revised January 24, 2018
David J. Berglund, Colorado PLS 38199
For and on behalf of Farnsworth Group, Inc.
1612 Specht Point Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Phone: (970) 484-7477
c
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Exhibit C (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969147
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
c
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Exhibit C (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
15969240
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
Attention: Kathy Golden
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
[Statutory Form - C.R.S. § 38-30-115]
[CONVENIENCE DEED – NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED]
MACY’S WEST STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation (“Grantor”) with a legal address
of ___________________________, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good
and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to the CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (“Grantee”), which
has an office at _____________________, all of Grantors’ right, title and interest in and to the
following real property, with all its appurtenances, located in the County of Larimer, State of
Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2019.
[Signature Page Follows]
d
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Exhibit D (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
[Signature Page to Bargain and Sale Deed – Macy’s West Stores, Inc.]
15969240
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Bargain and Sale Deed on the date
set forth above.
GRANTOR:
MACY’S WEST STORES, INC.,
an Ohio corporation
By:
Name: Carl L. Goertemoeller
Its: Senior Vice President
STATE OF __________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2019,
by Carl L. Goertemoeller, as Senior Vice President of Macy’s West Stores, Inc., an Ohio
corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary
d
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Exhibit D (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969240
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
That part of Lot 2, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, recorded at the Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and
Recorder's Office on June 4, 2014 at Reception Number 20140028776 and located in the Southwest Quarter of Section
25, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado,
described as follows:
Beginning at the Westerly corner of Lot 20, said Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, witnessed by a mag nail
& 1-1/2" aluminum washer stamped PLS 38199 WC 23;
Thence North 44°08'54" West for 0.28 feet;
Thence North 44°56'52" East for 91.86 feet;
Thence South 45°08'52" East for 0.12 feet to a line common to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 20;
Thence South 44°51'07" West for 91.86 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 18 square feet, (0.00042 acres) more or less.
Basis of Bearing: The Northwesterly line of Lot 20, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision, recorded at the
Larimer County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder's Office on June 4, 2014 at Reception Number 20140028776, bears
South 44°51'07" West, as witnessed on each end by a mag nail & 1-1/2" aluminum washer stamped PLS 38199 WC
82, with all bearings herein relative thereto.
I hereby state that the attached description was prepared by me or under my responsible charge using applicable
standards of practice and is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This is not intended to
represent a Land Survey Plat, Improvement Survey Plat or Improvement Location Certificate and is not a guarantee
or warranty, either expressed or implied. It is intended to describe the area illustrated on the accompanying exhibit.
October 17, 2017
Revised January 24, 2018
David J. Berglund, Colorado PLS 38199
For and on behalf of Farnsworth Group, Inc.
1612 Specht Point Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Phone: (970) 484-7477
d
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Exhibit D (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969240
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
d
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Exhibit D (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
15969135
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
Attention: Kathy Golden
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
[Statutory Form - C.R.S. § 38-30-115]
[CONVENIENCE DEED – NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED]
WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS VI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
(“Grantor”) with a legal address of ___________________________, for the consideration of
Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and
conveys to the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado (“Grantee”), which has an office at _____________________, all of Grantors’ right,
title and interest in and to the real property, with all its appurtenances, located in the County of
Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2019.
[Signature Page Follows]
e
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
[Signature Page to Bargain and Sale Deed – Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C.]
15969135
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Bargain and Sale Deed on the date
set forth above.
GRANTOR:
WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS VI, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: W Foothills JV VI, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Sole Member
By: Foothills Alberta Member, LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company,
its Administrative Member
By:
Name: Donald G. Provost
Its: Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2019,
by Donald G. Provost, as Manager of Foothills Alberta Member, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, as Administrative Member of W Foothills JV VI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company, as the Sole Member of Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary
e
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
e
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Exhibit A
15969135
EXHIBIT A (CONT.)
e
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Exhibit E (8381 : Bargain and Sale Deed ORD)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Tyler Marr, Deputy Director, Information & Employee Services
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2019-105 Expressing Support for Legislation by the Colorado General Assembly Regarding
Executive Sessions and Electronic Communications Under the Colorado Open Meetings Law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item to consider a resolution requested by the City Council supporting potential legislation
by the General Assembly supporting potential legislation by the Colorado General Assembly that confirms and
expressly permits the City and other cities, town, or municipalities to hold executive sessions to consider
matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing telecommunications facilities and services. These
matters could include negotiations, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development phasing in
addition to any other matter allowed under the Colorado Open Meetings Law or the Colorado Open Records
Act. The Resolution also supports potential legislation clarifying the extent to which use of electronic mail by
elected officials to discuss pending legislation or other public business among themselves is considered a
“meeting” under that Law so that elected officials can effectively use this now common-place communication
technology within appropriate transparency requirements and other reasonable limitations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None - this Resolution is presented at City Council’s request.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under “Other Business” at the October 15, 2019, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to draft and
present for consideration a resolution supporting potential legislation by the Colorado General Assembly
expressly authorizing the use of executive session for municipalities considering matters pertaining to
competition in providing broadband internet and related services.
At a special election on November 7, 2017, City voters approved an amendment to the City Charter adding a
new Section 7 to Charter Article XII (“Section 7”). The City Charter is the organic law of the City, extending to
all local and municipal matters, and defines the home-rule authority of the City under Article XX of the
Colorado Constitution.
This new Section 7 authorizes the City Council and any board of commission established by Council under
Section 7 to go into executive session to consider “matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing
telecommunications facilities and services authorized in Article XII, Section 7 of the City Charter, including,
without limitation, matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development
phasing and any other matter allowed under Colorado law”.
The existing Colorado Open Meetings Law does not expressly include authority for such executive session.
11
Packet Pg. 318
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
The City believes that Section 7 authorizes executive session for this topic as a matter of home-rule authority
under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, notwithstanding that executive session for this purpose is not
expressly recognized in the Open Meetings Law.
Legislation could be introduced in the General Assembly to confirm the City’s home-rule authority by adding
this basis for an executive session to the list of statutorily authorized reasons for executive session in the
upcoming legislative session, along with any other conforming statutory changes. The proposed Resolution
expresses Council support for such potential legislation and authorizes City staff to support and/or participate
in legislation by the General Assembly in a manner consistent with Council’s Legislative Policy Agenda and the
findings of the Resolution.
In addition, the Open Meetings Law also provides in C.R.S. Section 26-6-402(2)(d)(III) that use of electronic
mail by elected officials to discuss pending legislation or other public business among themselves is subject to
the requirements of that Law. It would also be helpful if the Colorado General Assembly could consider and
further clarify the extent to which use of electronic mail by elected officials to discuss pending legislation or
other public business among themselves is considered a “meeting” under the COML so that elected officials
can effectively use this now common-place communication technology within appropriate transparency
requirements and other reasonable limitations.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Legislation clarifying the City’s authority in this area could avoid potential litigation and related costs.
11
Packet Pg. 319
-1-
RESOLUTION 2019-105
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION BY THE COLORADO GENERAL
ASSEMBLY REGARDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE COLORADO OPEN MEETINGS LAW
WHEREAS, the Colorado Open Meetings Law (Colorado Revised Statutes [“C.R.S.”]
Sections 26-6-401 to 26-6-402) (“COML”), in particular C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4) regarding
executive sessions, lists the purposes for which a local public body can hold an executive
session, none of which are directly applicable to issues of competition inherent in providing
telecommunications facilities and services by a city, town or municipality in competition with
private sector service providers; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the COML further provides in C.R.S. Section 26-6-
402(2)(d)(III) that use of electronic mail by elected officials to discuss pending legislation or
other public business among themselves is subject to the requirements of the COML; and
WHEREAS, as a home-rule municipality under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution,
the City’s Charter, adopted by the people of the City of Fort Collins, is the organic law of the
City, granting it authority over all local and municipal matters, and superseding within its
territorial limits and other jurisdiction any Colorado statutes conflict therewith; and
WHEREAS, at a special election on November 3, 2015, City voters authorized the City
to provide high-speed internet services, including, without limitation, high-bandwidth broadband
services, telecommunications services, and/or cable television services (collectively,
“Telecommunications Facilities and Services”) within the City’s growth management area; and
WHEREAS, at a special election on November 7, 2017, City voters approved an
amendment to the City Charter adding a new Section 7 to Charter Article XII (“Section 7”)
granting to the City Council certain powers related to the City providing Telecommunication
Facilities and Services, including the power by ordinance and without a vote of the City’s
electorate, to authorize the City’s Electric Utility to provide Telecommunications Facilities and
Services; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 011, 2018
implementing the authority granted in Section 7 by authorizing the City’s Electric Utility to
acquire, construct, provide, fund and contract for Telecommunication Facilities and Services;
and
WHEREAS, paragraph (d) of Section 7 and City Code Section 2-13 both grant to the City
Council and any board or commission established under subsection (e) of Section 7, the authority
to go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing
Telecommunications Facilities and Services, including, without limitation, matters subject to
negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development phasing and any other
Packet Pg. 320
-2-
matter allowed under Colorado law (the “Telecommunications Executive Session
Authorization”); and
WHEREAS, none of the purposes for which a local public body can hold an executive
session set forth in the COML are directly applicable to issues of competition inherent in
providing Telecommunications Facilities and Services by a local government in competition
with private sector service providers, which providers are not subject to the COML; and
WHEREAS, as a home-rule municipality under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution,
the City’s Charter, adopted by the people of the City of Fort Collins, is the organic law of the
City, granting it authority over all local and municipal matters, and superseding within its
territorial limits and other jurisdiction any Colorado statutes in conflict therewith; and
WHEREAS, as a home-rule municipality, the City of Fort Collins is specifically
empowered by Section 6 of Article XX to legislate upon, provide for, regulate, conduct, and
control local and municipal matters, including the powers set out in Sections 1, 4, and 5 of
Article XX and all other powers necessary, requisite or proper for the government and
administration of its local and municipal matters, including a variety of matters set forth in
Section 6; and
WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article XX specifically and expressly empowers the City, as a
home-rule municipality, to “add to, maintain, conduct and operate water works, light plants,
power plants, transportation systems, heating plants, and any other public utilities or works
…local in use and extent, in whole or in part, and everything required therefore….; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 088, 2018 established the City’s Telecommunications
Facilities and Services as a unit of the City’s Electric Utility and it constitutes a “public utility or
work” that is “local in use and extent” and authorized under Section 1 of Article XX of the
Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Executive Session Authorization is a valid exercise
of the City’s home-rule authority under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution as set forth
above; and
WHEREAS, although the City Council believes that its home rule authority authorizes
the executive sessions as described herein, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of
the residents of the City and consistent with the City’s Legislative Policy to support potential
legislation by the General Assembly that confirms and expressly permits the
Telecommunications Executive Session Authorizations and the corresponding ability of the City
and other cities, town, or municipalities to effectively and competitively provide local
telecommunications facilities and services such as high-speed internet and ancillary services to
residents of their jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, it would also be helpful if the Colorado General Assembly could consider
and further clarify the extent to which use of electronic mail by elected officials to discuss
pending legislation or other public business among themselves is considered a “meeting” under
Packet Pg. 321
-3-
the COML so that elected officials can effectively use this now common-place communication
technology within appropriate transparency requirements and other reasonable limitations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the residents of
the City and consistent with the City’s Legislative Policy to encourage and support potential
legislation by the Colorado General Assembly to amend the COML to affirmatively authorize
any local government body to go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to issues
of competition in the provision of telecommunications facilities and services to their residents,
including without limitation matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and
marketing, and development phasing of such facilities and services, together with other statutory
changes necessary to effectuate this authority, including but not limited to changes to the
Colorado Open Records Act.
Section 3. That the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the residents of
the City and consistent with the City’s Legislative Policy to encourage and support potential
legislation by the Colorado General Assembly to clarify when an email exchange among elected
officials constitutes a “meeting” subject to the requirements of the COML, including possible
identification of a safe harbor within which elected officials can communicate by electronic mail
without constituting a meeting in order to preserve and enable the use of this effective and now
common-place technology within appropriate transparency requirements and other reasonable
limitations.
Section 4. That City representatives, including the City Manager and City Attorney
(and their respective staffs, as appropriate), are authorized to suggest or support legislation by the
Colorado General Assembly consistent with the findings set forth in this Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 5th
day of November, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 322
Smart Energy Provider Designation
John Phelan, Energy Services Senior Manager
November 5, 2019
STAFF REPORT: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SMART ENERGY PROVIDER DESIGNATION
Fort Collins Utilities
2
STAFF REPORT: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SMART ENERGY PROVIDER DESIGNATION
Strategic Alignment
3
Environmental Health
• 4.3 Achieve 2020 Energy Policy
goals and work towards Climate
Action goals for carbon neutrality
High Performing
Government
• 7.6 Leverage data, metrics, and
benchmarks to guide decisions,
improve results, and enhance
service delivery
STAFF REPORT: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SMART ENERGY PROVIDER DESIGNATION
American Public Power Association
Smart Energy Provider Program
4
Smart Energy Provider (SEP) program is a new
national designation given by the American Public
Power Association
Designees exhibit leading practices in:
Smart Energy Information
Energy Efficiency and Distributed Energy
Resources
Environmental and Sustainability Initiatives
Communication, Education and Customer
Experience
STAFF REPORT: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SMART ENERGY PROVIDER DESIGNATION
• Fort Collins participated in the
technical committee to
establish, score and maintain
the SEP program
• Definition of best practices
• Question structure and
scoring matrix
• Promotion, recruitment
and mentoring of other
utilities
Fort Collins Role in the SEP
STAFF REPORT: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SMART ENERGY PROVIDER DESIGNATION
Thank you
6
STAFF REPORT: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES
SMART ENERGY PROVIDER DESIGNATION
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 5, 2019
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2019, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing
the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning and
Approving Corresponding Changes to the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to rezone 164.55 acres located on the west side of Overland Trail and north of
CR32 (parcel # 9720100913) with one condition and to place the property into the Residential Sign District.
City Council initiated the rezoning on July 16, 2019 and directed City staff to prepare a rezoning application
and make a recommendation regarding the appropriate zoning. The site is currently zoned Transition (T) and
staff recommends placement into the Residential Foothills (RF) and Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(LMN) zone districts. A recommended condition of the rezone requires that future development in the portion
zoned Residential Foothills district meet the requirements of a Cluster Plan pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 4.3(E)(2). The request places the property into the Residential Sign District. The Planning and Zoning
Board on a 4-2 vote recommended that City Council not adopt the staff proposed zoning and instead zone the
property entirely Residential Foothills.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
I. Site History
The subject property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins with City Council approval of the Hughes
Stadium Site Annexation Ordinance 123, 2018, on October 16, 2018. The property was placed into the
Transition (T) zone district.
The Hughes property was previously a federally owned parcel that was gifted to the Colorado Board of
Agriculture in September 1957 almost 10 years after the Horsetooth Reservoir construction started. The
Reservoir was completed in 1949, with the first water storage in Horsetooth Reservoir in January 1951.The
BLM first transferred the property to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and ownership was then
transferred to the Board of Agriculture. Other than a gravel pit fronting on Overland Trail that provided
extracted materials for the Horsetooth Reservoir construction, and dry land farming on the northernmost twenty
acres, the site remained vacant and in an unaltered state until the 1960s.
Hughes Stadium, and a large parking lot covering much of the site, was constructed in 1967 and opened in
1968. In addition to football games, the stadium hosted music concerts, rodeos, Ag Days, and other public
12
Packet Pg. 323
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
events. A regional stormwater detention pond of approximately 27 acres was constructed in 1997 on the
east/southeast portion of the site within the rodeo grounds that covered the previously mined area. The
detention pond was constructed as a result of the historic flood event and designed to accommodate
stormwater flows originating from the site as well as parcels to the north and northwest. In 2011, an 18-hole
disc golf course was developed by the City in conjunction with CSU within the detention pond area.
CSU closed Hughes Stadium before the 2017-2018 school year, after completion of the on-campus Canvas
Stadium. Site demolition and construction materials recycling and disposal was completed April - November
2018. The former stadium foundation remains about 10 feet below the ground surface.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Medium Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
(MMN); County FA-1
- Farming
POL (Public Open
Lands); County FA-1 -
Farming
Medium Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood
(MMN); County FA-1 -
Farming
POL (Public Open
Lands); County FA-1 -
Farming
Land
Use
Single and multi-
family residential
(Westgate); single-
family residential;
pasture
Pineridge Natural Area;
single family house.
Single and multi-family
residential (Trail West,
Willow Lane, Stadium
Heights); Drive-in Movie
Theater
Maxwell Natural Area;
vacant (owned by US
Bureau of Reclamation)
History of Long-Range Plans Pertaining to the Site
Designation of the Hughes Stadium site as an area slated for urban growth has changed substantially over the
last 50 plus years:
• 1967-The first “modern” comprehensive plan, “The Plan for Progress” was adopted. The Plan
recommended that an expressway be constructed west of Overland Trail connecting the “LaPorte area
southerly to the west border of Loveland”. The “CSU Stadium” was noted on the Plan and Light Industrial
land uses were recommended north of the Stadium along the west side of Overland Trail.
• 1974-The City’s first Open Space Plan, and also the first element of a new Comprehensive Plan, was
adopted. This Plan provided the initial strategy for acquiring and preserving land for open space (eventually
becoming the Natural Areas program). The Open Space Plan recommended acquisition of land areas within
the foothills designated for geologic hazard, all of which are located at elevations higher than the Hughes
site. (Attachment 1)
• 1979-Urban Service Area Study; City Council adopted the Land Use Policies Plan and included this land
use element in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA) adopted the
following year. Properties west of Overland Trail, except for the Miller Property abutting the Hughes
Stadium site to the north, were excluded from the UGA at that time.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
7. Design should consider wildlife habitat.
8. Design should address compatibility with existing and planned uses on adjacent public and private
lands.
• 1986-Urban Growth Area (UGA) amendment west of Overland Trail, adding 1,360 acres along the
Foothills and creation of a new Residential Foothills (RF) zone district allowing either a standard
subdivision of 1 dwelling unit per 2.29 acres or a “Cluster Development Plan with a gross density of 1
dwelling unit per acre. No structure could extend above the 5,250-foot elevation under the RF district.
• 1992-Natural Areas Policy Plan adopted that built upon the Open Space Plan and Foothills Area Study
and was an ‘element’ of the Comprehensive Plan. Maps contained within the Plan do not include the
Hughes Stadium site as part of the foothills resource area.
• 1997-First version of a new Comprehensive Plan, known as “City Plan,” adopted. The original City Plan
provided a fundamental shift in the community’s land use planning strategy, one that required the mixing of
residential densities and uses within newly developing areas. New land use designations shown on a
Structure Plan map were the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and the Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood. The Hughes Stadium site was located outside of the Growth Management Area (renamed
from the previous Urban Growth Area).
o The RF zone district was carried forward into City Plan recognizing the previous analysis and
policy direction of the Foothills Area Study.
o The Master Street Plan amended to remove the roadway extension of Overland Trail between
Drake and Harmony Roads.
• 2011-City Plan updated along with a parallel effort to update the Transportation Master Plan. Hughes
Stadium site identified as an “area for future GMA expansion”.
II. Applicable Development Standards
Division 2.9 - Amendment of Zoning Map
Applicable Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
2.9.2 - Applicability Only the Council may, after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board,
adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of
Division 2.9.
Complies
2.9.3 - Initiation An amendment to the Zoning Map may be proposed by the Council, the Planning
and Zoning Board, the Director or the owners of the property to be rezoned. On
July 16, 2019, City Council initiated the rezoning of the former Hughes Stadium
site.
Complies
2.9.4 - Text and Map
Amendment Review
Procedures
In order to approve a proposed rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-
judicial) the decision maker must find that it satisfies the following criteria: The
proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan); and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Board
and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed
uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited
to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and
natural functioning of the environment; (c) whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
Complies
12
Packet Pg. 325
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
III. Rezoning Procedural Overview
1. Neighborhood Meeting (August 8, 2019)
If a quasi-judicial map amendment is the subject of a known controversy, a neighborhood meeting may be
conducted prior to submittal of a formal development application. Staff convened a neighborhood meeting
in accordance with the Land Use Code on August 8, 2019.
2. Application Submittal
A formal rezoning application was submitted by City staff on August 23, 2019. Staff performed one round
of review through applicable City Departments and referral agencies.
3. Review of Applications
All City staff involved in the development review process reviewed the application.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Notice (REZ190001): March 22, 2019, Sign # 431
Written notice: September 5, 2019, 8,400 letters sent to both owners and renters.
Published Notice: Sept 8, 2019
5. Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on September 19, 2019, and made a formal
recommendation to City Council. In making its recommendation on a quasi-judicial rezoning, the Planning
and Zoning Board must make the following mandatory findings that the proposed amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
Further, the Board may consider the following factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater
management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern
6. City Council Public Hearing
The City Council will conduct a public hearing and decide on the proposed rezoning based on the quasi-
judicial rezoning review criteria.
IV. City Plan (Comprehensive Plan) Background
City Plan provides the primary adopted plan and policy document applied to rezoning applications. This
section summarizes the relevant policies applicable to the rezoning and the ‘place types’ depicted on the
recently revised Structure Plan Map. As necessary, this staff report includes analyses related to City Plan.
In April 2019, City Council adopted a revised City Plan that repealed and replaced the 2011 version.
A. City Plan Outcome Areas
The 2019 City Plan is organized based on seven outcome areas that form the basis of the City’s Budgeting for
Outcomes (BFO) process. These outcome areas are:
1. Neighborhood Livability and Social Health
2. Culture and Recreation
3. Economic Health
4. Environmental Health
5. Safe Community
6. Transportation
7. High Performing Community
12
Packet Pg. 326
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 5
Three core values guide the vision for City Plan: livability, community, and sustainability. Each outcome area
has a series of statements indicating how the principles and policies of each outcome area align with the core
values. Action plans accompany each outcome area to ensure implementation of City Plan. The applicable
vision statements are:
1. Neighborhood Livability and Social Health
• Encouraging a welcoming, equitable community that celebrates diversity
• Requiring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to serve existing development and new
growth
• Maintaining our unique character and sense of place
• Encouraging the development of quality and affordable housing options for residents of all
income levels
• Managing where and how the city grows in the future
• Reducing the impacts of our built environment on the natural environment
• Providing residents with opportunities to live healthy, safe, and active lifestyles
• Preserving historic resources and character-defining features that make Fort Collins unique
• Promoting the use of sustainable-building and site-design techniques
• Creating a distinctive and attractive community that is appealing to workers, visitors, and
residents
2. Culture and Recreation
• Increasing access to arts, culture and recreation opportunities for all residents and visitors
• Encouraging a welcoming, equitable community that celebrates diversity
3. Economic Health
• Reducing identified barriers of workforce attraction and retention, including access and
affordability of housing and childcare
• Environmental Health
• Providing access to natural areas and environmentally sensitive community separators to
create opportunities to experience nature
• Protecting, enhancing and restoring ecosystems in both urban and natural contexts
• Providing affordable and equitable access to nature and the environment
• Protecting and improving the quality of our air, water and night skies
4. Safe Community
• Using ecosystem services and other natural functions of the environment to enhance our
safety and help protect us from natural hazards
• Mitigating risks posed by natural hazards to businesses and property
• Encouraging healthy living through active transportation and physical activity
• Guiding development away from high-risk areas
5. Transportation
• Adapting to changes in technology, demographics and mobility-as-a-service with new
transportation modes and partnerships
• Identifying the types of transit services that can grow and leverage changing transportation
technologies, while still providing access to a broad section of the community to critical transit
services
• Integrating land use and transportation planning and investments
• Providing a safe, convenient and connected transportation network for all modes
• Building an equitable bicycle and pedestrian network to serve residents of all ages and
abilities
• Designing the City’s transportation facilities and network to be reliable, affordable, efficient,
connected and comfortable
12
Packet Pg. 327
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 6
6. High Performing Community
• Ensuring that all members of the community are involved in decision making
• Maintaining efficient and effective local government processes that reduce barriers to
innovation and economic development
• Using a triple bottom line that incorporates equity and considers the social, economic and
environmental impacts of decisions.
B. Trends and Forces Report
A report was prepared during the first phase of the City Plan Update that highlighted major trends and key
issues facing the community. This Trends and Forces Report highlighted those choices and trade-offs that
needed to be explored in light of both trends and existing conditions.
Of these trends, one of the major areas of focus for the City Plan update was the challenges that Fort Collins
faces in the provision of housing.
• Since 2000, Fort Collins and Larimer County have produced more jobs than housing units, and the jobs-
housing imbalance has recently accelerated. At the same time, rents and home prices in Fort Collins have
been increasing faster than wages.
• The demographic composition of Fort Collins is changing dramatically. The population is aging (particularly
those over the age of 65) and will represent a larger percentage of the City’s population in the future.
However, younger adults are also moving to Fort Collins in increasing numbers, attracted by employment
opportunities and quality of life. This trend is expected to continue. As a result, the composition of demand
for housing in Fort Collins will undoubtedly shift. Some of these shifts are being driven by younger
residents who prefer different housing options and from older residents who no longer have the desire
and/or ability to maintain their single-family home.
• The difficulty providing additional housing to meet our needs is increasingly constrained by a limited supply
of vacant land.
• Based on current trends, our supply of vacant land will be exhausted by 2040.
• Unlike the Hughes property, most of the vacant land in the GMA is not served by City sewer and water
utilities. This dynamic could impact the availability, timing, and pricing of future development.
This need for additional housing and a greater range of housing choice has become a growing community
concern over the last decade given changes to the jobs-housing balance and demographics. Public
engagement during the City Plan Update, which included the participation of nearly 4,000 members,
consistently showed housing availability and affordability as the top-cited community challenge. This has also
been borne out in results of recent Community Surveys where citizens have rated our housing affordability
lower than national and Front Range benchmarks.
C. Structure Plan Map
The Structure Plan Map in City Plan provides a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. It focuses
on the physical form and development pattern of the community, illustrating areas where new greenfield
development, infill, and redevelopment is likely to occur, as well as the types of land uses and intensities to
encourage. The Structure Plan:
• Guides future growth and reinvestment and serves as official Land Use Plan for the City;
• Informs planning for infrastructure and services;
• Fosters coordinated land use and transportation decisions within the city and region; and
• Helps implement principles and policies.
The Growth Management Boundary (GMA) was expanded during the 2019 Update to include the Hughes
Stadium site because of City Plan conclusions provided in 2011 and for the need of additional housing
12
Packet Pg. 328
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 7
described in the Trends and Forces Report. The revised GMA boundary is reflected on the Structure Plan
Map.
One of the most significant changes to the 2019 City Plan from the 2011 version is the use of “place types” on
the Structure Plan Map to describe future development character rather than land use districts. “Place type”
descriptions provide a set of visual and narrative criteria to describe the look, feel, and general character of a
part of the community. Thirteen (13) place types, describing three types of neighborhoods, eight districts, and
two open lands categories are depicted on the Structure Plan.
Two place types are designated on the Hughes Stadium site: Suburban Neighborhood on the west half and
Mixed-Use Neighborhood on the east half which are generally described below.
1. Suburban Neighborhood Place Type
Density
Between 2 and 5 principal dwelling units per acre
Principal Land Use
Single-family detached homes
Supporting Land Use
Parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship, accessory dwelling units in some locations
(where permitted by underlying zoning)
Key Characteristics/Considerations
Comprised of predominantly single-family detached homes
Neighborhood Centers may serve as focal points within Single-family Neighborhoods (see Neighborhood
Mixed-Use District)
Amenities and infrastructure encourage walking and biking, but transit service is typically more limited
Typical Types of Transit:
Limited local bus service with frequencies of approximately every 60 minutes; some locations may also be
served by flex services
2. Mixed Neighborhood Place Type
Density
Between 5 and 20 principal dwelling units per acre (typically equates to an average of 7 to 12 dwelling
units per acre)
Principal Land Use
Single-family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes and townhomes
Supporting Land Use
Accessory dwelling units, small-scale multi-family buildings, small-scale retail, restaurants/cafes,
community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship
Key Characteristics/Considerations (New Neighborhoods)
Provide opportunities for a variety of attached and detached housing options and amenities in a compact
neighborhood setting; some neighborhoods also include (or have direct access to) small-scale retail and
other supporting services
Neighborhood Centers should serve as focal points within Mixed-Neighborhoods (see Neighborhood
Mixed-Use District)
Typically located within walking/biking distance of services and amenities, as well as high frequency transit
Mixed-Neighborhoods built in a greenfield context should include a mix of housing options (lot size, type,
price range, etc.).
Where townhomes or multi-family buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a transition
in building height, massing, and form should be provided along the shared property line or street frontage.
As existing neighborhoods change and evolve over time, rezoning of some areas may be appropriate
when paired with a subarea or neighborhood planning initiative.
Typical Types of Transit
In areas on the lower end of the density range, service will be similar to Single-Family Neighborhoods; as
densities approach 20 dwelling units per acre, fixed-route service at frequencies of between 30-60 minutes
12
Packet Pg. 329
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 8
D. Use of the Structure Plan in a Rezoning Evaluation
City Plan sets specific direction on how the Structure Plan is to be used when evaluating a rezoning:
“How to Use the Structure Plan
The Structure Plan establishes a broad vision for future land uses in Fort Collins. In most cases, land
use categories generally follow existing parcel lines, roadways, and other geographic boundaries. If
the place type boundary shown on the Structure Plan map does not follow an existing parcel line, the
actual delineation of place types will be established at the time of a proposed rezoning and
development submittal.
Underlying zoning was reviewed and considered as updates to the Structure Plan were made to
ensure that consistency between planned land uses and zoning could be maintained to the maximum
extent feasible. However, in some instances, place type categories do differ from underlying zoning,
as was necessary to meet the broader objectives of the Plan. To fully achieve the Plan’s objectives,
rezoning may be required when some properties develop or redevelop in the future.
Future zone changes should generally adhere to the place type boundaries depicted in the Structure
Plan, but flexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted provided the proposed change is
consistent with the principles, goals, and policies contained in this Plan. Density ranges outlined for
each place type category are based on gross acreage and are intended to address overall densities
for a particular area rather than for individual parcels.
The Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a standalone tool; rather, it should be considered in
conjunction with the Transportation Plan, and the accompanying principles, goals, and policies
contained in this Plan”.
E. City Plan Principles and Policies
The rezoning application must also be evaluated based upon the principles and policies found in City Plan.
The most applicable principle and policies highlighted below reflect expressed community values related to
open land preservation, support for natural ecosystems, the efficient use of urban land and the need to supply
housing to meet both immediate and future needs.
Principle ENV 1: Conserve, create and enhance ecosystems and natural spaces within Fort Collins, the
GMA and the region.
POLICY ENV 1.1 - PUBLICLY CONTROLLED OPEN LANDS
Maintain a system of publicly controlled natural areas to maintain the integrity of wildlife habitat and
conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas, conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins’
diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad range of opportunities for educational, interpretive and
recreational programs to meet community needs
POLICY ENV 1.2 - LAND CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP
Continue to acquire, manage, maintain and enhance public open lands and natural areas in accordance with
the City’s Natural Areas Master Plan to ensure the protection of plants and animals in need of conservation
and their associated ecosystems; support biodiversity; control the invasion and spread of non-native plants;
improve aesthetics; and provide opportunities for appropriate public use.
12
Packet Pg. 330
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 9
POLICY ENV 1.3 - NATURE IN THE CITY
• Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources throughout the
GMA by:
• Directing development away from natural features to the maximum extent feasible;
• Identifying opportunities to integrate or reintroduce natural systems as part of the built environment to
improve habitat in urbanized areas and expand residents’ access to nature;
• Utilizing green infrastructure to manage stormwater and increase greenspace in public rights-of-way
and as part of public and private development; and
• Supporting the use of a broad range of native landscaping that enhances plant and animal diversity.
POLICY ENV 1.6 - WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Conserve and enhance wildlife movement corridors through a network of public open lands and natural habitat
buffers along natural features such as streams and drainageways.
Policy LIV 1.6 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilize the provision of public facilities and services to direct development to desired location, in accordance
with the following criteria:
Direct development to locations where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and
services such as water, sewer, police, transportation, schools, fire, stormwater management and
parks, in accordance with adopted levels of service for public facilities and services.
Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices.
Policy LIV 5.1 - HOUSING OPTIONS
To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including
mixed-used developments that are well served by public transportation and close to employment centers,
shopping, services and amenities.
Policy LIV 5.2 - SUPPLY OF ATTAINABLE HOUSING
Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including
housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options
could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle”
housing types.
Policy LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence
housing supply and expand housing choice.
V. ZONING SCENARIOS
Based on the two “place types” described in City Plan, as well as the site context and evaluation of public
comments received through the community engagement process, five prospective zoning districts were
considered: Residential Foothills (RF), Urban Estate (UE), Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN),
Medium-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) and Public Open Lands (POL). Five options were
developed that combined these first four districts as ‘scenarios’ that were included in the public evaluation.
The Public Open Lands district was not brought forward as this district is limited to publicly owned property.
The five scenarios are reflected in Attachment 7.
12
Packet Pg. 331
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 10
1. RF zoning on western half and LMN zoning on eastern half, with a requirement that the RF-zoned area
meet the standards for a “cluster plan”.
2. RF zoning on western half and MMN zoning on eastern half, with a requirement that the RF-zoned area
meet the standards for a “cluster plan”.
3. UE zoning on western half and MMN zoning on eastern half, with a requirement that the UE-zoned area
meet the standards for a “cluster plan”.
4. UE zoning on western half and LMN zoning on eastern half, with a requirement that the UE-zoned area
meet the standards for a “cluster plan”.
5. UE zoning on western half and a mix of MMN and LMN zoning on eastern half, with a requirement that the
UE-zoned area meet the standards for a “cluster plan”.
Article 4 of the Land Use Code provides use and development standards pertaining to various zone district and
the review process applicable to each use type. Allowed uses are as follows:
Article 4 of the Land Use Code provides use and development standards pertaining to various zone
district and the review process applicable to each use type. Allowed uses are as follows: BDR = Basic
Development Review Type 1 = Administrative Review Type 2 = Planning & Zoning Board Review
Land Use Residential
Foothills (RF)
Urban
Estate
(UE)
Low-Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
(LMN)
Medium-
Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborh
ood (MMN)
Public
Open
Lands
(POL)
Accessory buildings BDR BDR BDR BDR BDR
Accessory uses BDR BDR BDR BDR BDR
Farm animals Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Urban agriculture BDR BDR BDR BDR BDR
Agricultural activities Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 2
Off-site construction staging BDR BDR BDR BDR BDR
Wireless Telecommunication
Equipment
BDR BDR BDR BDR BDR
Neighborhood Parks BDR BDR BDR BDR BDR
Cemeteries Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 1
Short term primary rentals Prohibited BDR BDR BDR Prohibited
Shelters for victims of domestic
violence
BDR BDR BDR BDR Prohibited
Parks, recreation and other Open
Lands
Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Single-family detached dwellings Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Residential Cluster Developments Type 1 Type 2 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Single-family attached dwellings Prohibited Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Two-family dwellings Prohibited Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Group homes for up to 8 occupants Prohibited Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Group homes with More than 8
occupants
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 11
Land Use Residential
Foothills (RF)
Urban
Estate
(UE)
Low-Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
(LMN)
Medium-
Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborh
ood (MMN)
Public
Open
Lands
(POL)
Places of worship or assembly Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Community facilities Prohibited Prohibited Type 1 Type 1 Type 2
Neighborhood support/recreational
facilities
Prohibited Prohibited Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Seasonal overflow shelters Prohibited Prohibited Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Minor public facilities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Wildlife rescue and Education centers Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Prohibited Type 2
Convenience retail w/o fuel sales Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited
Restaurant, limited Mixed-use Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 1 Prohibited
Golf courses Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Prohibited Type 2
Childcare centers Prohibited Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Bed and Breakfast 6 or fewer beds Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Prohibited
Plant nurseries & greenhouses Type 2 Type 2 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Farmer’s Market if in a park or central
feature
Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 1 Prohibited
Large/farm animal Boarding Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Adult day/respite Care Prohibited Type 2 Type 1 Prohibited Prohibited
Small-scale reception centers Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Resource extraction Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Composting facilities Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited Prohibited Type 1
Accessory buildings/ uses <2,500 sq.
ft.
Prohibited Type 2 Type 2 BDR Prohibited
Accessory buildings/ uses >2,500 sq.
ft.
Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited BDR Prohibited
Neighborhood Center With at least 2
Commercial/service uses
Prohibited Prohibited Type 1 Prohibited Prohibited
Personal/business service shops Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited
Offices, financial Services, clinics Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 2 Prohibited
Small and medium- Scale solar
energy systems
Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Prohibited
Resource recovery Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Type 2
All uses that are not expressly allowed as permitted uses above are prohibited
Staff recommends Option 1 that provides the combination of the RF (conditioned upon the requirement for a
cluster development plan) and LMN zone districts. Clustering on the RF portion of the site will provide more
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 12
The RF District provides two options for development: single-family houses on individual lots at least 2.29
acres in size, or single-family houses clustered at a gross density of one unit per acre.
Three development plans have been approved and constructed within the Residential Foothills Zone: Burns
Ranch at Quail Ridge, The Ponds at Overland, and Bella Vira. All portions of these developments lying within
the RF zone district have been ‘cluster developments’.
Of these projects, the Ponds at Overland (1995) was the most controversial during the development review
process. The project was approved as a cluster plan of 284 single family lots on 284.23 acres, with clustering
at 3 to 5 units per acre on developed portions of the property. An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board
approval of the project to City Council from a citizen’s group “Friends of the Foothills” showed objections based
on perceived negative impacts of density, site grading, aesthetics to the foothills, traffic congestion, storm
drainage, wildlife habitat, trail access, and to impacts to noise, air, and community stress levels.
Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) District
The Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) district was created in 1997. The LMN district became the
predominant zoning district applied to vacant undeveloped parcels since that time. The purpose of the LMN
District expressed in the Land Use Code:
The Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of
low-density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a
neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a
neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living
in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places,
services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of
streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive
walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood
parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual
neighborhood.
For the purposes of this Division, a neighborhood shall be considered to consist of approximately
eighty (80) to one hundred sixty (160) acres, with its edges typically consisting of major streets,
drainageways, irrigation ditches, railroad tracks and other major physical features.
VI. REZONING EVALUATION
As stated, rezoning requests are principally evaluated based on compliance with City Plan and/or changed
conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property, although other factors may
be considered.
A. Mandatory Requirements
1. Consistency with City Plan (Zoning Map Amendment Requirement)
The proposed RF and LMN zoning district boundaries coincide with the Suburban Neighborhood and Mixed
Neighborhood ‘place type’ designations found on the City Plan Structure Plan Map and strike an
appropriate balance between adopted City Plan Environmental and Livability principles and policies.
2. Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding
Not applicable.
B. Additional Factors that May Be Considered
1. Compatibility with existing and proposed Uses (Additional Considerations per LUC)
The proposed zoning district boundary demarking the east/west zoning split aligns with the longitudinal
boundary of Residential Foothills (RF) zoning to the north that governs development on The Ponds at
12
Packet Pg. 334
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 13
Overland and Bella Vira neighborhoods. This zoning configuration, along with the condition that any future
development be a “cluster plan”, provides a clear transition from the City of Fort Collins natural areas along
the foothills and higher residential densities permitted along Overland Trail. Abutting neighborhoods to the
north and east are of a similar residential density and housing type mix as permitted in the LMN-zoned
portion of the site.
2. Adverse Impacts to the Natural Environment (Additional Considerations per LUC)
The property has been substantially altered from its natural condition; therefore, the rezoning will not result in
negative impacts to natural vegetation or surface water patterns. Site modifications began in the 1940’s
when a portion of the property fronting Overland Trail was mined for gravel used in the Horsetooth Reservoir
construction. The site was later cleared of natural vegetation, stream channels were removed, and the site
regraded to accommodate construction of Hughes Stadium and a heavily compacted parking area covering
more than 100 acres. Except for trees and shrubs planted approximately 10 years ago by CSU to enhance
property aesthetics, vegetation consists largely of invasive weedy species like cheatgrass, Canada thistle,
mullein, kochia, bindweed, and puncture vine. No cost analysis has been conducted with respect to restoring
the site to its original, natural condition, although, anecdotally, the costs appear to be significant.
The Natural Areas Department (Department) considers numerous criteria when prioritizing a site for
acquisition as a natural area. The Department may only acquire land from a willing seller if using dedicated
program funds. The following criteria are considered: current and potential wildlife habitat values; access to
nature for the community; value as buffer or addition to an existing natural area; existing condition of
property and the cost to restore; other conservation values such as scenic, community separator, agriculture,
cultural resources; alignment with City Plan goals and the Natural Areas Master Plan; and, education
opportunities.
The City did not attempt to purchase the site as there is not a willing seller and the criteria for acquisition
have not been met. From the perspective of Natural Areas staff, there would be significant opportunity costs
associated with a purchase. For example, funds directed to the Hughes site would not be available for
conservation in northeast Fort Collins which has no natural area sites. The Hughes site, on the other hand,
has nearby natural areas of over 1,000 acres with nearly 10 miles of trail as well as a large community park.
There will be little to no impacts to wildlife as no wetlands exist on the site and it provides limited resident
wildlife habitat. Clustering of development within RF-zoned areas provide an opportunity to connect with
wildlife movement corridors.
Prior to any future development on the site, an Ecological Characterization Study must be prepared by a
professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other related discipline. The study must
identify areas with wildlife, plant life and/or natural characteristics in need of protection.
The existing stormwater detention area known as the “rodeo pond” fronting Overland Trail has been sized to
accommodate local and regional stormwater runoff regardless of the zoning districts designated on the
property.
No evidence suggests that permitted density/activity under the proposed zoning will result in adverse
impacts to air quality when considering the regional impacts on Fort Collins’ air quality. The biggest air
quality problem near the Front Range foothills is ozone during the warmer months. Ozone patterns are the
result of urban emissions (vehicles, industry and oil & gas operations being the largest contributors)
photochemically aging as they travel west during the daytime upslope winds. This ozone impact would not
be the result of new construction on the Hughes site, just of transport of emissions from the Front Range
urban corridor. Particulate matter (PM2.5/PM10) levels along the Foothills are some of the lowest in the
community and generally lessen further from the I-25 corridor.
3. Logical and Orderly Development Pattern
The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern by:
12
Packet Pg. 335
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 14
• Providing a density and intensity gradient and land use transition between the developed character along
Overland Trail to the natural character of the Maxwell Natural Area abutting to the west.
• Placing the lowest housing density and opportunities to retain more land in an open state on the west
portion of the site.
• Placing comparable residential density along the east and northeast portions of the site towards existing
residential neighborhoods of similar density and housing mix.
• Orienting the LMN zone district toward Overland Trail which will provide a “neighborhood center” serving
the site and nearby residences.
• Allowing housing opportunities on the site where a full range of urban services- arterial streets, water,
sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electric power, schools and trails- are either presently available or can be
provided.
Specifically, to transportation, the City’s Master Street Plan will serve as a guide as it anticipated adequate
arterial capacity for growth in the area. If and when a development plan is submitted, a detailed traffic review
will be required and all Transportation Level of Service (LOS) standards must be met. Transportation-related
impacts may require improvements to the transportation system both adjacent and off-site for vehicular,
bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes.
VII. Condition of Approval
Land Use Code Section 2.9.4(I) allows conditions of approval to be imposed upon a rezoning. Staff
recommends that Council impose the condition of approval that any development within the portion of the
property zoned as Residential Foothills (R-F) be developed in clusters pursuant to Land Use Code Section
4.3(E)(2). Staff is recommending this condition of approval to provide a clear transition from the City of Fort
Collins natural areas along the foothills and place higher residential densities permitted along Overland Trail.
Clustering on the RF portion of the site will provide more habitat for wildlife corridors along the foothills, require
less new utility and street infrastructure, and better maintain a more ‘open’ character.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No significant impacts as the request is limited to rezoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing of the rezoning request on September 19, 2019,
and recommended, on a 4-2 vote, that City Council not adopt the proposed zone districts. Alternatively, the
Board recommended that the property be rezoned to Residential Foothills (RF) with the requirement that future
development meet the requirements of a Cluster Plan pursuant to Land Use Code Section 4.3 (E)(2).
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes are provided as Attachment 26.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
I. Neighborhood Meeting
Staff convened one neighborhood meeting in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2.9.4(B) on August 8,
2019. A neighborhood meeting to discuss potential redevelopment of the Hughes site was also held on April 4,
2019, and Colorado State University held two Listening Session (September 20, 2017, and October 18, 2017).
See Attachments 10-22 for the two neighborhood meeting summaries, individual public comments and the
Listening Session Feedback summaries.
II. Public Comments
A consistent theme throughout the public process has been the preference expressed by community members
that the site be retained in an undeveloped state and that views to the foothills be protected. Comments range
12
Packet Pg. 336
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 15
from the acquisition by a public agency as a protected Natural Area or Open Space to expanded use as a
recreational site.
During the rezoning neighborhood meeting, attendees expressed an overall preference for as much open
space as possible on the site to protect resources within the Maxwell Natural Area to the west, create a buffer
for wildlife in the area, protect views of the foothills for surrounding neighborhoods and keep the traffic impact
low. A slight preference for “clustering” on the western edge of the site was indicated.
Responses at the Hughes Stadium Open House on the question about which three characteristics are most
important for the site:
III. Scenarios Feedback
Of the 5 Scenarios presented at the neighborhood meeting (Attachment 7), support for Scenario 1 was most
prominent among attendees. Many comments related to Scenario 1 involved a desire for as much open space
as possible within the zone district configuration presented in Scenario 1.
Many comments included a desire for a “6th scenario,” zoned as “Public Open Lands” or “POL” only. Several
comments requested that at least half of the site be designated as Public Open Lands. Comments also
included a desire for even lower development density than Scenario 1 allows. Some of these concerns were
expressed in conjunction with a concern regarding traffic congestion and stress on existing road infrastructure
in the area, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Several comments expressed a desire for
affordable housing on the site.
Some benefits mentioned regarding Scenario 1 were made in contrast to the other Scenarios; across several
Scenarios, comments regarding a desire for the lower-density option (Scenario 1) were expressed. These
comments were made in conjunction with a desire to preserve views of the foothills with lower density housing,
a desire to keep development at 2 stories and a desire for low impact on existing wildlife in the area.
A small number of comments expressed interest in high-density housing options, citing the need for different
housing types and sizes correlated to affordability.
In order to understand the preferred site zoning after presenting the scenarios, staff presented a half sheet
empty site outline to allow attendees to draw in their preferred site zoning.
• Many drawings indicated a desire for “Public Open Lands” or POL across the entire site.
• Several other drawings indicated a preference for some development on the site with a protective
naturalistic or open space buffer along the western edge of the site.
12
Packet Pg. 337
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 16
ATTACHMENTS
1. 1974 Open Space Plan Map and Recommendations (PDF)
2. Foothills Issues Report (PDF)
3. Hughes Proposed Zone Districts (PDF)
4. Structure Plan Map (PDF)
5. City Plan Place Type Summaries-Suburban and Mixed Neighborhoods (PDF)
6. Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (PDF)
7. Maps of 5 Zoning Districts Scenarios Considered (PDF)
8. Memo-Air Quality Impacts of Foothills Development (PDF)
9. Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (PDF)
10. Public Comments Summary, September 3, 2019 (PDF)
11. Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (PDF)
12. Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (PDF)
13. Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (PDF)
14. Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (PDF)
15. Site Characteristics Most Important to Participants at Neighborhood Meeting (PDF)
16. Summary of Scenario Comments (PDF)
17. Other Comments from Neighborhood Meeting (PDF)
18. Citizen Comments Received (PDF)
19. Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (PDF)
20. OurCity Webpage comments (PDF)
21. First Neighborhood Meeting Comments (PDF)
22. Neighborhood Listening Session Attendee Feedback, September 20, 2017 (PDF)
23. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, September 19, 2019 (PDF)
24. Letter Regarding Emergency Access at Proposed Hughes Stadium Development (PDF)
25. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
12
Packet Pg. 338
1974 Open Space Plan
And Recommendations ATTACHMENT 1
12.a
Attachment: 1974 Open Space Plan Map and Recommendations (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.a
Attachment: 1974 Open Space Plan Map and Recommendations (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ATTACHMENT 2
12.b
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.b
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Foothills Issues Report (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ATTACHMENT 3
12.c
Attachment: Hughes Proposed Zone Districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
94 04 | STRUCTURE PLAN
Structure Plan
The Structure Plan map and accompanying place
types—or land use categories—provide a framework
for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. Five priority
place types have been identified to help illustrate the
challenges and opportunities associated with infill
and redevelopment, and the critical role it will play
in helping the community achieve its vision over the
next 10-20 years. Priority place types are identified
with a and described in more detail beginning on
page 103. Together, they provide direction on what
types of uses are encouraged where and at what
intensities.
The Structure Plan map illustrates how the
community will grow and change over time, serving
as a blueprint for the community’s desired future.
It focuses on the physical form and development
pattern of the community, illustrating areas where
new greenfield development, infill and redevelopment
are likely to occur, as well as the types of land uses
and intensities to encourage. The Structure Plan:
» Guides future growth and reinvestment and
serves as official land use plan for the City;
» Informs planning for infrastructure and services;
» Fosters coordinated land use and transportation
decisions within the city and region; and
» Helps implement principles and policies.
The Structure Plan, in conjunction with the
Transportation Plan and other supporting elements,
will be used to guide future development decisions,
infrastructure improvements, and public and private
investment and reinvestment in Fort Collins.
The Structure Plan Map serves as a blueprint for
the desired future development pattern of the
community, setting forth a basic framework for
future land use and transportation decisions. Upon
annexation or a request for rezoning, the Structure
Plan map and City Plan principles and policies
provide guidance for decision-makers to identify
specific zoning boundaries and zone districts during
the development review process. Neighborhood,
corridor and subarea plans supplement City Plan
with additional policy and land use or transportation
designations for specific geographic areas. In the
event of a conflict between a policy or designation in
City Plan and a subarea plan, the subarea plan shall
prevail.
The City maintains a number of adopted subarea
and neighborhood plans that include a land use
component. These plans are adopted by reference
and should be referred to for more detailed guidance.
PLACE TYPES
Districts
Downtown District
Urban Mixed-Use District
Suburban Mixed-Use District
Campus District
Neighborhood Mixed-Use District
Mixed Employment District
FORT COLLINS CITY PLAN 95
RICHARDS
LAKE PARK
GREENBRIAR PARK
SOFT
GOLD
PARK
RABBIT
BRUSH
PARK
LEGACY
PARK
LEE MARTINEZ
COMMUNITY
PARK
ALTA
VISTA
FREEDOM PARK
SQUARE
PARK
GRANDVIEW
CEMETERY
CITY PARK
NINE GOLF
COURSE
CITY PARK ROSELAWN
CEMETERY
ROGERS
PARK
EASTSIDE
PARK
OVERLAND
PARK
AVERY
PARK
EDORA
COMMUNITY
PARK
INDIAN
LILAC HILLS PARK
PARK
SPRING PARK
BLEVINS PARK
ROLLAND MOORE
COMMUNITY PARK
WOODWEST
PARK
LEISURE
PARK
BEATTIE
PARK
SPENCER
ROSSBOROUGH PARK
PARK
SPRING CANYON
COMMUNITY
PARK
COLLINDALE
GOLF
COURSE
96 04 | STRUCTURE PLAN
NEIGHBORHOODS
Neighborhoods are the primary building blocks
of the community. Whether existing or planned,
neighborhoods in Fort Collins will vary in the mix
of housing types and supporting uses that are
provided; the extent to which they are accessible to
adjoining districts, schools, parks, civic uses, transit
and other services; and their overall character and
form. Three types of neighborhoods are identified
on the Structure Plan map:
» Rural Neighborhoods;
» Suburban Neighborhoods; and
» Mixed-Neighborhoods P .
Routine reinvestment in existing properties and
some infill on vacant lots is to be expected in all
neighborhoods. The degree to which existing
neighborhoods are likely to experience more
significant changes during the planning horizon will
be influenced by location, the age and condition
of existing housing stock, and the availability of
vacant lots or larger plots of land. The City will
continue to use the subarea and neighborhood
planning process to address specific issues and
opportunities. Enhancing connectivity within and
between existing and future neighborhoods and
improving access to nature are priorities for all
neighborhoods.
COLLEGE AVE
LEMAY AVE
TIMBERLINE RD
SHIELD ST
TAFT HILL RD
TRILBY RD
HARMONY RD
EAST COUNTY ROAD 32
MULBERRY ST
PROSPECT RD
DRAKE RD
HORSETOOTH RD
¦¨§25
Rural
Neighborhoods
Suburban
Neighborhoods
Mixed-
Neighborhoods
ATTACHMENT 5
12.e
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: City Plan Place Type Summaries-Suburban and Mixed Neighborhoods (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
FORT COLLINS CITY PLAN 97
Rural
Principal Land Use
Single-family detached homes, agricultural uses
Supporting Land Use
ADUs, limited commercial/employment uses (such as home
occupations)
Density
Up to two principal dwelling units per acre
Key Characteristics/Considerations
» Support opportunities for rural lifestyles and
connectivity to open spaces.
» Rural Neighborhoods should be designed to maximize
the preservation of open space or agricultural lands
and/or act as a transition between natural and
protected lands and other, more-intense uses.
» Nonresidential uses are supported provided they
do not generate excessive noise, traffic or parking
requirements, or otherwise detract from the rural
character of these neighborhoods.
» Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, as well as transit
service, is limited.
Typical Types of Transit
None, densities are not sufficient to support transit.
Principal Land Use
Single-family detached homes
Supporting Land Use
Parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship,
ADUs in some locations (where permitted by underlying
zoning)
Density
Between two and five principal dwelling units per acre
Key Characteristics/Considerations
» Comprised of predominantly single-family detached
homes.
» Neighborhood Centers may serve as focal points within
Single-family Neighborhoods (see Neighborhood
Mixed-Use District).
» Amenities and infrastructure encourage walking and
biking, but transit service is typically more limited.
Typical Types of Transit
Limited local bus service with frequencies of approximately
every 60 minutes; some locations may also be served by
flex services.
Suburban
12.e
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: City Plan Place Type Summaries-Suburban and Mixed Neighborhoods (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
98 04 | STRUCTURE PLAN
Principal Land Use
Single-family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes and
townhomes
Supporting Land Use
ADUs, small scale multifamily buildings, small-scale retail,
restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks
and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship
Density
Between five and 20 principal dwelling units per acre
(typically equates to an average of seven to 12 dwelling
units per acre)
Key Characteristics/Considerations
(New Neighborhoods)
» Provide opportunities for a variety of attached and
detached housing options and amenities in a compact
neighborhood setting; some neighborhoods also
include (or have direct access to) small-scale retail and
other supporting services.
» Neighborhood Centers should serve as focal points
within Mixed-Neighborhoods (see Neighborhood
Mixed-Use District).
» Typically located within walking/biking distance of
services and amenities, as well as high-frequency
transit.
» Mixed-Neighborhoods built in a greenfield context
should include a mix of housing options (lot size, type,
price range, etc.).
Mixed P
(Existing Neighborhoods)
» While many existing Mixed-Neighborhoods may consist
predominantly of single-family detached homes today,
opportunities to incorporate ADUs or other attached
housing options of a compatible scale and intensity
may be feasible in some locations.
» The introduction of larger townhome or multifamily
developments into existing single-family
neighborhoods should generally be limited to edge or
corner parcels that abut and/or are oriented toward
arterial streets or an adjacent Neighborhood Mixed-Use
District where transit and other services and amenities
are available.
» Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are
proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a
transition in building height, massing and form should
be required along the shared property line or street
frontage.
» As existing neighborhoods change and evolve over
time, rezoning of some areas may be appropriate
when paired with a subarea or neighborhood planning
initiative. See the Priority Place Types discussion on
page 107 for more details about changes in existing
neighborhoods over time.
» While reinvestment in existing mobile home parks is
encouraged, redevelopment of existing parks is not.
Typical Types of Transit
In areas on the lower end of the density range, service
will be similar to Suburban Neighborhoods; as densities
approach 20 dwelling units per acre, fixed-route service
at frequencies of between 30 and 60 minutes becomes
Division 4.3 - Residential Foothills District (R-F)
(A) Purpose . The Residential Foothills District designation is for low density residential areas located
near the foothills.
(B) Permitted Uses .
(1) The following uses are permitted in the R-F District, subject to basic development review,
provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific
development plan:
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
4. Off-site construction staging.
5. Wireless telecommunication equipment.
(b) Any use authorized pursuant to a site-specific development plan that was processed and
approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in
compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat,
approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential
development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units),
provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and
conditions of said site-specific development plan.
(c) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was
permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect
for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on
March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use
only on such parcel of property.
(d) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
(e) Residential Uses:
1. Shelters for victims of domestic violence.
(2) The following uses are permitted in the R-F District, subject to administrative review:
(a) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the
Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Farm animals.
(3) The following uses are permitted in the R-F District, subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings.
2. Residential cluster developments.
3. Group homes.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
ATTACHMENT 6
12.f
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
1. Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education.
2. Places of worship or assembly.
3. Minor public facilities.
4. Wildlife rescue and education centers.
(c) Industrial uses:
1. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems.
(C) Prohibited Uses . All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or
(2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section
1.3.4 of this Code shall be prohibited.
(D) Land Use Standards .
(1) Density/Intensity of Development .
(a) Minimum lot area shall not be less than one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet
(2.29 acres).
(2) Dimensional Standards .
(a) Minimum lot width shall be two hundred (200) feet.
(b) Minimum depth of the front yard shall be sixty (60) feet.
(c) Minimum depth of the rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet.
(d) Minimum side yard width shall be fifty (50) feet.
(e) Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories.
(3) Location . No elevation of any building built on a lot in the R-F District shall extend above five
thousand two hundred fifty (5,250) feet above mean sea level.
(E) Development Standards .
(1) Street Connectivity and Design . The following standards shall apply to all development in the
Foothills Residential District:
(a) To the maximum extent feasible, streets shall be designed to minimize the amount of site
disturbance caused by roadway and associated grading required for their construction.
(b) Development in this District shall be exempt from the standards contained in Section
3.6.3, Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards.
(2) Site Design for Residential Cluster Development . Property in the Foothills Residential District
may be developed in clusters, subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In a
cluster development, lot sizes may be reduced in order to cluster the dwellings together on a
portion of the property, with the remainder of the property permanently preserved as public or
private open space. The following standards shall apply to cluster developments in this District:
(a) Only the uses specifically permitted in subsection (B) above shall be allowed.
(b) Minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board, provided that the
overall density of the cluster development is not greater than one (1) unit per gross acre.
(c) A cluster development shall set aside at least fifty (50) percent of the total land area of the
proposed development as private or public open space that is permanently preserved as
open space through dedication of ownership, if acceptable to the City, or placement of an
appropriate easement granted to the City or other nonprofit organization acceptable to the
City, with such restrictive provisions and future interests as may be necessary to ensure
the continuation of the open space use intended. As a condition of approval, the City may
12.f
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
also require the property owners to maintain the dedicated open space to city standards
through a maintenance agreement.
(d) Building envelopes shall be identified on the cluster development, and the minimum area
of lot, minimum width of lot, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard
and maximum building height shall conform to the requirements established in the
Residential Low Density District.
(e) The design of the cluster development shall be appropriate for the site, as demonstrated
by meeting the following criteria:
1. preservation of significant natural resources, natural areas and features, native
vegetation, open lands or agricultural property through maintenance of large,
contiguous blocks of land and other techniques.
2. provision of additional amenities such as parks, trails, common areas or access to
public recreational areas and open space.
3. minimizing the visual intrusion by dwellings and other structures and blocking of vistas
to the foothills and prominent mountain vistas by avoiding building in the center of a
meadow or open area.
4. protection of adjacent residential development through landscaping, screening,
fencing, buffering or similar measures.
5. the layout of lots on the cluster development is designed to conform to terrain and is
located so that grading and filling are kept to a minimum. Natural features such as
drainage swales, rock outcroppings and slopes shall be preserved.
6. taking into account the unique micro-climate of the foothills so that building envelopes
are selected and individual structures are built for protection from high winds and to
function with maximum conservation of energy.
7. if farm animals are intended to be allowed within the area, indicating those portions of
the area to be developed that will be reserved for the keeping of farm animals and the
mitigation efforts used to buffer these areas from surrounding uses.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 99, 1999 §17, 6/15/99; Ord. No. 204, 2001 §1, 12/18/01;
Ord. No. 104, 2006 §14, 7/18/06; Ord. No. 131, 2006 §3, 9/19/06; Ord. No. 192, 2006 §§16, 17,
12/19/06; Ord. No. 081, 2007 §9, 7/17/07; Ord. No. 073, 2008 §24, 7/1/08; Ord. No. 066, 2009
§17, 7/7/09; Ord. No. 096, 2013 §4, 7/16/13; Ord. No. 086, 2014 §45, 7/1/14; Ord. No. 129, 2017 ,
§ 7, 10/3/17; Ord. No. 063, 2018 , §§27, 28, 6/5/18)
12.f
Packet Pg. 368
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
(A) Purpose . The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a
predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that
serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential
characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs
of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to
gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community
by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point,
and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small
neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an
individual neighborhood.
Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with a Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial Center at its core. For the purposes of
this Division, a neighborhood shall be considered to consist of approximately eighty (80) to one
hundred sixty (160) acres, with its edges typically consisting of major streets, drainageways,
irrigation ditches, railroad tracks and other major physical features.
(B) Permitted Uses .
(1) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to basic development review,
provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific
development plan:
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
4. Off-site construction staging.
5. Wireless telecommunication equipment.
(b) Any use authorized pursuant to a site-specific development plan that was processed and
approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in
compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat,
approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential
development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units),
provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and
conditions of said site-specific development plan.
(c) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was
permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect
for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on
March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use
only on such parcel of property.
(d) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
(e) Residential Uses:
1. Shelters for victims of domestic violence for up to fifteen (15) residents.
2. Short term primary rentals.
(2) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review:
(a) Residential Uses:
12.f
Packet Pg. 369
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
1. Single-family detached dwellings.
2. Two-family dwellings.
3. Single-family attached dwellings.
4. Two-family attached dwellings.
5. Any residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings (limited to
eight [8] or less dwelling units per building) that contain fifty (50) dwelling units or less,
and seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less.
6. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons.
7. Mixed-use dwellings.
8. Extra occupancy rental houses with four (4) or more tenants.
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Places of worship or assembly with a building footprint which does not exceed a total
of twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet.
2. Public and private schools for college, university, vocational and technical education,
provided they are located within five hundred (500) feet of East Vine Drive or railroad
property abutting and parallel to East Vine Drive.
3. Minor public facilities.
4. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the
Parks and Recreation Policy Plan.
5. Cemeteries.
6. Community facilities.
7. Neighborhood support/recreational facilities.
8. Seasonal overflow shelters.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Bed and breakfast establishments with six (6) or fewer beds.
2. Child care centers.
3. Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use
dwelling units; retail stores; convenience retail stores; personal and business service
shops; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics;
community facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities; schools; child care
centers; limited indoor recreation establishments; open-air farmers markets; and
places of worship or assembly, dog day care, music studio, micro
brewery/distillery/winery.
4. Adult day/respite care centers.
(3) The following uses are permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board
review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Mobile home parks.
2. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph (2)(a)5 above.
3. Any residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings that contain
more than eight (8) units per building, or more than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more
than seventy-five (75) bedrooms.
12.f
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
(b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education,
and for vocational and technical training.
2. Golf courses.
3. Long-term care facilities.
4. Places of worship or assembly with a building footprint which exceeds a total of
twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet.
5. Wildlife rescue and education centers, provided that they are located within one
thousand (1,000) feet of East Vine Drive.
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
1. Neighborhood centers consisting of one (1) or more of the following uses: standard
and fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through facilities); artisan and
photography studios and galleries; or convenience retail stores with fuel sales that are
at least three-quarters (¾) mile from any other such use and from any gasoline
station; grocery store, health and membership club, provided that such use or uses
are combined with at least one (1) other use listed in subparagraph (B)(2)(c)3 above.
2. Enclosed mini-storage facilities, provided that they are located on property adjoining
the railroad property abutting and parallel to East Vine Drive, and are located within
five hundred (500) feet of such railroad property.
3. Limited indoor recreation establishments, provided that they are located within five
hundred (500) feet of East Vine Drive or of the railroad property abutting and parallel
to East Vine Drive.
4. Offices, financial services, clinics and artisan and photography studios and galleries
which are not part of a neighborhood center.
(d) Industrial Uses (provided they are located within five hundred [500] feet of East Vine
Drive):
1. Workshops and custom small industry.
2. Light industrial (production, assembly, packaging).
(e) Industrial Uses:
1. Small scale and medium scale solar energy systems.
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or (2)
determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section
1.3.4 of this Code shall be prohibited.
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density.
(a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District shall have
an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre of residential
land, except that residential developments (whether overall development plans or project
development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall have an overall minimum
average density of three (3) dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
(b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be nine (9)
dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, except that affordable housing projects
(whether approved pursuant to overall development plans or project development plans)
containing ten (10) acres or less may attain a maximum density, taken as a whole, of
twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
12.f
Packet Pg. 371
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Additionally, affordable housing projects containing more than ten (10) acres but no more
than twenty (20) acres may attain a maximum density, taken as a whole, of twelve (12)
dwelling units per gross acre of residential land so long as the term of lease or sale of all of
the dwelling units associated with the acreage exceeding ten (10) acres, but no more than
twenty (20) acres, are available on terms that would be affordable to households earning
sixty (60) percent or less, on average, of the area median income for the applicable
household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The dwelling units associated with
the acreage exceeding ten (10) acres, but no more than twenty (20) acres, shall not be
counted as contributing to the required percentage of affordable housing units necessary to
qualify as an affordable housing project. The number of dwelling units that must be
available to those earning sixty (60) percent or less, on average, of the area median
income shall be calculated as follows:
Number of Dwelling Units That Must Be Made Available to Households Earning Sixty (60)
Percent or less of the Area Median Income, Rounded to the Nearest Whole Number =
(Number of Total Dwelling Units Constructed ÷ Number of Total Gross Acres of Residential
Land) X Number of Acres Over Ten (10) Acres, Up To A Limit of Twenty (20) Acres.
(c) The maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan shall be twelve
(12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, and the maximum density of any
portion of a phase containing a grouping of two (2) or more multi-family structures shall be
twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
(2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual
development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In
order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met:
(a) A minimum of housing types is required on any project development plan as follows:
1. a minimum of two (2) housing types is required on any project development plan
containing at least fifteen (15) acres and less than twenty (20) acres.
2. a minimum of three (3) housing types is required on any project development plan
containing twenty (20) acres and less than thirty (30) acres, including such plans that
are part of a phased overall development; and
3. a minimum of four (4) housing types is required on any such project development plan
containing thirty (30) acres or more.
(b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions, garage placement, lot
sizes and lot dimensions shall be significantly and substantially varied to avoid repetitive
rows of housing and monotonous streetscapes. For example, providing distinct single-
family detached dwellings or two-family dwellings on larger lots and on corners and
providing small lot single-family dwellings on smaller lots abutting common open spaces
fronting on streets are methods that accomplish this requirement.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:
1. Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages.
2. Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages.
3. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than four thousand
[4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty [40] feet or less) if there is a difference
of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet between the average lot size for small lot
single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for single-family detached
dwellings with front or side loaded garages.
4. Two-family dwellings.
5. Single-family attached dwellings.
12.f
Packet Pg. 372
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
6. Two-family attached dwellings, the placement of which shall be limited to no more
than two (2) dwellings per two (2) consecutive individual lots.
7. Mixed-use dwelling units.
8. Multi-family dwellings containing more than three (3) to four (4) units per building;
9. Multi-family dwellings containing five (5) to seven (7) units per building.
10. Multi-family dwellings containing more than seven (7) units per building (limited to
twelve [12] dwelling units per building).
11. Mobile home parks.
(d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than eighty (80) percent or less than five
(5) percent of the total number of dwelling units.
(3) Neighborhood Centers.
(a) Access to Neighborhood Center. At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all
development projects greater than forty (40) acres shall be located within three thousand
nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarters [¾] mile) of either a neighborhood center
contained within the project, or an existing neighborhood center located in an adjacent
development, or an existing or planned Neighborhood Commercial District commercial
project, which distance shall be measured along street frontage, and without crossing an
arterial street. Neighborhood centers shall meet the requirements contained in
subparagraphs (b) through (e) below.
(b) Location. A neighborhood center shall be planned as an integral part of surrounding
residential development and located where the network of local streets provides direct
access to the center. Neighborhood centers that are located on arterial streets and that
include retail uses or restaurants shall be spaced at least three thousand nine hundred
sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarters [¾] mile) apart.
(c) Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include two (2) or more of the
following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood
support/recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly;
convenience retail stores; retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics with less than
five thousand (5,000) square feet of building footprint area; personal or business service
shops; standard or fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through facilities); small
animal veterinary clinics; convenience retail stores with fuel sales that are at least three-
quarters (¾) mile from any other such use and from any gasoline station; and artisan or
photography studios or galleries, dog day cares, music studios, micro-
breweries/distilleries/wineries, grocery stores and health and membership clubs. No drive-
in facilities shall be permitted. A neighborhood center shall not exceed (5) acres in size,
excluding such portion of the neighborhood center which is composed of a school, park,
place of worship or assembly and/or outdoor space as defined in subparagraph (e) of this
Section.
(d) Design and Access. The design of neighborhood centers shall be integrated with
surrounding residential areas by matching the scale of nearby residential buildings;
providing direct access from surrounding residential areas; creating usable outdoor
spaces; orienting building entrances to connecting walkways; and, to the extent reasonably
feasible, maintaining/continuing the architectural themes or character of nearby
neighborhoods.
(e) Outdoor Spaces. A publicly accessible outdoor space such as a park, plaza, pavilion or
courtyard shall be included within or adjacent to every neighborhood center to provide a
focal point for such activities as outdoor gatherings, neighborhood events, picnicking,
sitting and passive and active recreation.
12.f
Packet Pg. 373
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
(4) Blocks of Nonresidential Uses Along East Vine Drive. In order to establish a buffer and
transition from rail switching and industrial uses to the south, certain uses are permitted along
East Vine Drive, subject to the criteria below. Any development project that proposes uses
which are only permitted in the Zone District along East Vine Drive shall comply with the
following criteria:
(a) Any such development shall consist of multiple buildings cohesively planned and
designed.
(b) Any such development project must occupy at least one (1) entire block face, with East
Vine Drive forming one (1) side of the development project.
(c) A single tier of buildings facing only one (1) side of an internal street shall be permitted to
a maximum depth of three hundred (300) feet.
(d) A double tier(s) of buildings facing both sides of an internal street, with the land use
boundary change occurring along a mid-block line, shall be permitted to a depth of five
hundred (500) feet.
(e) To the extent reasonably feasible, loading docks, service bays and garage doors shall not
face East Vine Drive. The intent is for such facilities to face side yards or other internal site
areas and not public streets. If it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate the function of
the intended use without such facilities facing East Vine Drive, then such facilities shall be
completely incorporated into the architectural design of the building according to the
provisions of this Land Use Code.
(f) Any enclosed mini-storage facility shall include a caretaker's dwelling facing a local or
collector street, and any storage unit building frontage along the street shall consist only of
rear walls of storage unit buildings and landscaping. Fencing along streets shall be
wrought iron, or its visual equivalent, and any fencing along streets that exceeds four (4)
feet in height shall be placed in segments between buildings, and not as a continuous
perimeter fence.
(5) Facing Uses . To the extent reasonably feasible, land use boundaries in neighborhoods shall
occur at mid-block locations rather than at streets, so that similar buildings face each other.
(6) Small Neighborhood Parks . Either a neighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at
least one (1) acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of one-third (1/3) mile of at least
ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in any development project of ten (10) acres or larger as
measured along street frontage. Such parks shall meet the following criteria:
(a) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout
and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of
dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the
perimeter frontage of the park.
(b) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians
and open to the public.
(c) Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple-use turf areas, walking paths, plazas,
pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to enjoy.
(d) Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the city, be acquired
by the city (through dedication or purchase), or be privately owned and maintained by the
developer or property owners association.
(e) Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this
requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict
with other recreational and civic purposes of the park.
(7) Seasonal Overflow Shelters . Seasonal overflow shelters may be allowed in this zone district
only on parcels that abut an arterial street.
12.f
Packet Pg. 374
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
(8) Long Term Care Facilities - Independent Living Facility. Independent dwelling units shall not
occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the total gross floor area of a long-term care
development.
(9) Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Defined as Extra Occupancy Rental House. The maximum
number of dwelling units defined as Extra Occupancy Rental Houses shall be depicted on an
application for a Project Development Plan and shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the
total number of dwelling units of said plan.
(E) Development Standards .
(1) Streets and Blocks .
(a) Street System Block Size . The local street system provided by the development shall
provide an interconnected network of streets in a manner that results in blocks of
developed land bounded by connecting streets no greater than twelve (12) acres in size.
(b) Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections . If any block face is over seven hundred (700) feet
long, then walkways connecting to other streets shall be provided at approximately mid-
block or at intervals of at least every six hundred fifty (650) feet, whichever is less.
(2) Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Buildings.
(a) All nonresidential buildings permitted under this Section, including industrial buildings,
shall meet the standards for Mixed-Use and Commercial Buildings in Section 3.5.3.
(b) Maximum Size . No building footprint shall exceed a total of twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet, with the exception of schools and places of worship or assembly.
(c) Height . In order to encourage roof forms, dormers, windows, balconies and similar
features associated with occupied space, to the extent reasonably feasible, buildings or
parts of buildings shall be at least one and one-half (1.5) stories in height (with functional
and occupied space under the roof). The maximum height shall be two and one-half (2.5)
stories.
(d) Roof Form . Buildings shall have either: 1) sloped roofs; 2) combined flat and sloped
roofs, provided that the sloped portion(s) forms a substantial part of the building and is
related to the integral structure, entries and activity areas; or 3) flat roofs with building
massing stepped or terraced back to form usable roof terrace area(s). The minimum pitch
of any sloped roof shall be 6:12. Buildings containing more than four thousand (4,000)
square feet of gross floor area shall have at least three (3) roof planes that are directly
related to building facade articulations.
(e) Building Massing . No building permitted by this Section shall have a single
undifferentiated mass with a footprint over ten thousand (10,000) square feet. For any
building with a footprint in excess of ten thousand (10,000) square feet, walls that are
greater than seventy-five (75) feet in length shall incorporate recesses or projections
created by wall plane returns of at least thirty (30) feet; any such building shall be
differentiated into multiple sections of mass in order to achieve proportions that are
compatible in scale with adjacent residential neighborhoods.
(f) Orientation. Building entrances shall face and open directly onto the adjoining local street
with parking and any service functions located in side or rear yards and incorporated into
the development according to the provisions of this Code.
(g) Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited.
(h) Hours of Operation. The decision maker may limit hours of operation, hours when
trucking and deliveries may occur, and other characteristics of the nonresidential uses in
order to enhance the compatibility with residential uses.
(i) Drive-in Uses. Drive-in uses shall be prohibited.
12.f
Packet Pg. 375
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
(3) Maximum Residential Building Height . The maximum height of one-, two- and three-family
dwellings shall be two and one-half (2.5) stories.
(4) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight (8) Dwelling Units
and for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing between Four (4) and Eight (8) Dwelling Units When
Three (3) or More Stories in Height . Each multi-family dwelling containing more than eight (8)
dwelling units and each multi-family dwelling containing between four (4) and eight (8) dwelling
units, when located in a building of three (3) stories in height, shall feature a variety of massing
proportions, wall plane proportions, roof proportions and other characteristics similar in scale to
those of single-family detached dwelling units, so that such larger buildings can be aesthetically
integrated into the low density neighborhood. The following specific standards shall also apply
to such multi-family dwellings:
(a) Maximum Number. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be twelve (12).
(b) Orientation and Setbacks. Setbacks from the property line of abutting property
containing single- and two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
(c) Variation Among Repeated Buildings. For any development containing at least five (5)
but not more than seven (7) buildings, there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different
building designs. For any such development containing more than seven (7) buildings,
there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building designs. For all developments,
there shall be no more than two (2) similar buildings placed next to each other along a
street or major walkway spine. Distinctly different building designs shall provide significant
variation in footprint size and shape, architectural elevations and entrance features, within
a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics.
To meet this standard, such variation shall not consist solely of different combinations of
the same building features.
(d) Building Height. The maximum height of a multi-family building shall be three (3) stories.
Buildings with a setback of less than fifty (50) feet facing a street or single- or two-family
dwellings shall minimize the impact on the adjacent single- or two-family dwelling property
by reducing the number of stories and terracing the roof lines over the occupied space.
(e) Entrances. Entrances shall be clearly identifiable and visible from the streets and public
areas by incorporating use of architectural elements and landscaping.
(f) Roofs. Roof lines can be either sloped, flat or curved, but must include at least two (2) of
the following elements:
1. The primary roof line shall be articulated through a variation or terracing in height,
detailing and/or change in massing.
2. Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances, porches, garages, dormers, towers or
other architectural projections.
3. Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in the vertical plane.
4. Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be articulated by design details and/or
changes in materials and color.
5. Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by incorporating equipment screens of
compatible design and materials.
(g) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be articulated with projections,
recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar
features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled proportions similar to the
adjacent single- or two-family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, monotonous
undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be articulated with horizontal and/or
vertical elements that break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Facade articulation
can be accomplished by offsetting the floor plan, recessing or projection of design
12.f
Packet Pg. 376
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
elements, change in materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections shall fall
within setback requirements.
(h) Colors and Materials. Colors of nonmasonry materials shall be varied from structure to
structure to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality. Colors and
materials shall be integrated to visually reduce the scale of the buildings by contrasting
trim, by contrasting shades or by distinguishing one (1) section or architectural element
from another. Bright colors, if used, shall be reserved for accent and trim.
(i) Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area (excluding garages) shall be
fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §37, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 41, 1999 §§5, 6,
3/16/99; Ord. No. 99, 1999 §18, 6/15/99; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §§33—35, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 59,
2000 §§28—31, 6/6/00; Ord. No. 183, 2000 §§19—27, 12/19/00; Ord. No. 107, 2001 §§35—40,
6/19/01; Ord. No. 204, 2001 §§1, 26, 12/18/01; Ord. No. 087, 2002 §§24—27, 6/4/02; Ord. No.
177, 2002 §19, 12/17/02; Ord. No. 090, 2003 §11, 6/17/03; Ord. No. 091, 2004 §§27—30,
6/15/04; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §18, 12/21/04; Ord. No. 123, 2005 §§11—13, 11/15/05; Ord. No.
104, 2006 §§16—20, 7/18/06; Ord. No. 131, 2006 §3, 9/19/06; Ord. No. 192, 2006 §19,
12/19/06; Ord. No. 081, 2007 §§10—12, 7/17/07; Ord. No. 073, 2008 §24, 7/1/08; Ord. No. 079,
2008 §§1, 2, 7/15/08; Ord. No. 066, 2009 §19, 7/7/09; Ord. No. 068, 2010 §10, 7/6/10; Ord. No.
036, 2011 §§5, 6, 3/22/11; Ord. No. 130, 2012 §§1, 2, 11/20/12; Ord. No. 092, 2013 §§18—22,
7/16/13; Ord. No. 096, 2013 §§6, 7, 7/16/13; Ord. No. 086, 2014 §§47, 48, 7/1/14; Ord. No. 065,
2015 §§9, 10, 7/7/15 ; Ord. No. 110, 2015 §§5, 6, 9/15/15 ; Ord. No. 044, 2017 , §8, 3/21/17; Ord. No.
059, 2017 , §§ 13—15, 5/2/17; Ord. No. 129, 2017 , § 9, 10/3/17; Ord. No. 063, 2018 , §§31—37,
6/5/18; Ord. No. 019, 2019 , § 8, 2/19/19)
12.f
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment: Article 4 Use and Development Standards for RF and LMN zone districts (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios
POL
POL
MMN
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
RF
LMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
SCENARIO 1 (STAFF’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATION)
Key Characteristics:
• RF zoning on western half and LMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the RF zone
district to preserve open space.
• The LMN zoning on the eastern half supports
a mix of housing types and could include
neighborhood commercial services.
Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (MMN)
Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios
SCENARIO 2
Key Characteristics:
• RF zoning on western half and MMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the RF
zone district to preserve open space.
• The MMN zone on the eastern half of site
supports multiple housing types at higher
intensities than the LMN zoning in scenario 1.
• MMN zone also supports the potential for
neighborhood commercial uses.
SCENARIO 3
Key Characteristics:
• UE zoning on western half and MMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the UE
zone district to preserve open space adjacent
to foothills/natural areas.
• UE permits slightly higher density than RF and
allows for several additional housing types,
such as duplexes or townhomes.
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
RF
MMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
UE
MMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios
SCENARIO 4
Key Characteristics:
• UE zoning on western half and LMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the UE
zone district to preserve open space.
• UE permits slightly higher density than RF and
allows for several additional housing types,
such as duplexes or townhomes.
• The LMN zoning on the eastern half supports
a mix of housing types and could include
neighborhood commercial services.
SCENARIO 5
Key Characteristics:
• UE zoning on the western half and a mix
of LMN and MMN zoning on eastern half
transitions to lower intensity near the foothills/
natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the UE
zone district to preserve open space.
• UE permits slightly higher density than RF and
allows for several additional housing types,
such as duplexes or townhomes.
• The LMN & MMN zoning on the eastern half
supports a mix of housing types and could
include neighborhood commercial uses.
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
UE
LMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
UE
LMN
MMN
ATTACHMENT 8
12.h
Packet Pg. 381
Attachment: Memo-Air Quality Impacts of Foothills Development (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.h
Packet Pg. 382
Attachment: Memo-Air Quality Impacts of Foothills Development (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
32
Hughes Stadium Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting
August 8, 2019
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION ATTACHMENT 9
12.i
Packet Pg. 383
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Event summary
• Meeting held from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM
August 8, 2019
• Drake Centre, Fort Collins
• Approximately 265 attendees
• Approximately 30 staff members from
various departments
• Over 500 data points collected at the
meeting through various collection
methods
33
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 384
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Scenario 1 – Attendee Feedback
Total points made: 147
• Of the 5 Scenarios presented at the
neighborhood meeting, support for Scenario 1
was most prominent among attendees.
• Many comments related to Scenario 1 voiced
a desire for as much open space as possible
within the zone district configuration
presented in Scenario 1.
34
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Scenarios 2 – Attendee Feedback
Scenario 2, Total points made: 38
• Of those, about half expressed concern
of too much density
• Other concerns or comments related to
lack of existing resources, lack of school
capacity, environmental sustainability of
the homes and a preference for lower
density option
35
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Scenarios 3 – Attendee Feedback
36
Scenario 3, Total points made: 17
• Of those, several concerns related to the
scenario being “too dense”
• Several preferences for Scenario 1
• Several comments related to a preference
for open space
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Scenarios 4 – Attendee Feedback
Scenario 4, Total points made: 27
• Of those, about half expressed a desire
for public open space
• Several comments expressed a desire
for affordable housing
37
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Scenarios 5 – Attendee Feedback
38
Scenario 5, Total points made: 15
• About half of the comments expressed
concern that the scenario recommends
too much density
• Several comments expressed a desire
for public open space
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
39
INatural Areas
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 390
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
168 Total points made
In order to understand the preferred site
zoning after presenting the scenarios, staff
presented a half sheet empty site outline to
allow attendees to draw in their preferred site
zoning
• Many drawings indicated a desire for
“Public Open Lands” or POL across the
entire site.
• Many other drawings indicated a
preference for some development on the
site with a protective naturalistic or open
space buffer along the western edge of the
site.
40
Site Drawings
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 391
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Priority Site Characteristics
41
I want to preserve the views of
the foothills
24%
I want increased access to
nearby natural areas
18%
I want a landscaped buffer
towards the foothills
12%
I want to see primarily lower
density with single-family
homes
12%
Other
12%
I want to see a mix of housing
types and price options
available
9%
I want more frequent public
transit
5%
I want better pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure
5%
I want to be able to walk or
bike to nearby shopping and
amenities
3%
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
General Feedback
42
Overall, attendees expressed a preference for as
much open space as possible on the site to achieve
the following:
• Protect the Maxwell Natural Area to the west
• Create a buffer for wildlife in the area
• Protect views of the foothills for surrounding
neighborhoods
• Keep the traffic impact low
A slight preference for “clustering” on the western
edge of the site was indicated.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRESENTATION
12.i
Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Presentation (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Half-Sheet Site Drawing
In order to understand the preferred site zoning after presenting the scenarios, staff presented a half sheet empty site
outline to allow attendees to draw in their preferred site zoning.
Total drawings received: 87
Total data points received: 168 (indicating multiple preferences on a single sheet)
• Of those drawings, 27 out of 168 indicated “Public Open Lands Only” or a similar land use type across the entire
site
• Many drawings indicated a desire for several different site configurations, including the following:
o 26 out of 168 indicated preference for as much open space as possible with some development. Such
configurations included a desire for clustered housing on the eastern portion of the site with an “open
space” buffer along the western edge (21 out 168)
o Many of those drawings expressed a desire for Residential Foothills (RF) on much of the site or a portion
of the site (21 out of 168)
o Many drawings also included Low-Density Mixed-Use, mostly on the eastern portion of the site (21 out
of 168)
o A small number of drawings indicated Medium-Density Mixed-Use on a portion of the site, mostly on
the eastern portion (6 out of 168). A small number of drawings indicated a preference for Urban Estate
across the entire site (2 out of 168)
• A small number of drawings expressed preferences for very specific uses on the site:
o Several drawings included a preference for neighborhood commercial on the site (7 out of 168)
o Several drawings included a preference for workforce housing on a portion of the site (3 out of 168)
o Other drawings indicated preference for various site amenities, including a public park, more parking for
the adjacent Maxwell Natural Area, another stadium or concert venue and another reservoir (8 out of
168)
Half-Sheet Site Characteristics Feedback
In order to capture feedback regarding the most important site characteristics, we asked attendees to select their top 3
priority site characteristics. Characteristics selected based on prior neighborhood meeting feedback. We received 520
total data points from 193 different respondents. Those can be seen below in the following graphic:
I want to preserve the views
of the foothills
24%
I want increased access to
nearby natural areas
18%
I want a landscaped buffer
towards the foothills
12%
I want to see primarily lower
density with single-family
homes
12%
Other
12%
I want to see a mix of
housing types and price
options available
9%
I want more frequent public
transit
5%
I want better pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure
5%
I want to be able to walk or
bike to nearby shopping and
amenities
3%
ATTACHMENT 10
12.j
Packet Pg. 394
Staff also received written comments in the “other” category. Those are analyzed below.
Total half-sheet comments/subjects received: 106 respondents, 146 total data points
• Major themes:
o About half expressed a strong preference to retain the site for public open space
o About one-quarter expressed concern with traffic congestion related to increased housing density
o Nearly one-quarter expressed a need for more affordable housing
• Minor comments:
o Several comments referred to a need for neighborhood amenities, including a grocery store and small-
scale retail
o Several comments related to a concern about environmental impacts in the area, including impacts to
wildlife, native plant species, air quality and ozone
o Several comments expressed a desire for energy efficient homes on the site with opportunities for
transit access
o Several comments related to preservation of foothill views
o Several comments related to emergency access to the site with one road of ingress/egress
Scenarios Summary
Of the 5 Scenarios presented at the neighborhood meeting, support for Scenario 1 was most prominent among
attendees. Many comments related to Scenario 1 involved a desire for as much open space as possible within the zone
district configuration presented in Scenario 1.
Many comments included a desire for a “6th scenario,” zoned as “Public Open Lands” or “POL” only. Several comments
requested that at least half of the site be designated as Public Open Lands. Comments also included a desire for even
lower development density than Scenario 1 allows. Some of these concerns were expressed in conjunction with a
concern regarding traffic congestion and stress on existing road infrastructure in the area, including pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure. Several comments expressed a desire for affordable housing on the site.
Some benefits mentioned regarding Scenario 1 were made in contrast to the other Scenarios; across several Scenarios,
comments regarding a desire for the lower-density option (Scenario 1) were expressed. These comments were made in
conjunction with a desire to preserve views of the foothills with lower density housing, a desire to keep development at
2 stories and a desire for low impact on existing wildlife in the area.
A small number of comments expressed interest in high-density options, citing the need for different housing types and
sizes correlated to affordability.
Scenarios Feedback
For the 5 scenarios, we asked attendees to present “benefits” and “concerns” related to each scenario. We used large
poster boards to present the scenarios and asked people to write their comments on sticky notes and place them on the
boards.
Scenario 1: Clustered Residential Foothills on Western Portion and Low Density Mixed Use on the Eastern Portion
(Staff Recommendation)
Total points made: 147
• Of those, about one-third expressed interest in preserving as much open space as possible
• About one-quarter expressed interest in very low-density development that would retain views, buffer
development towards the foothills and preserve existing infrastructure and resources
12.j
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: Public Comments Summary, September 3, 2019 (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
• Several comments requested a “Public Open Lands” option
• Several comments expressed concerns about traffic congestion
• Several comments expressed concerns with the scenario’s overall density
• Other comments included a desire for more affordable housing, a desire for some small-scale commercial, a
desire to keep commercial off the site, and more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure needed in the area
Scenario 2: Clustered Residential Foothills on Western Portion and Medium Density Mixed Use on the Eastern Portion
Total points made: 38
• About half expressed concerns about too much density
• About one-quarter expressed interest in the entire site being public open space
• Other concerns or comments related to lack of existing resources, lack of school capacity, environmental
sustainability of the homes and a preference for a lower density option
Scenario 3 Clustered Urban Estate on the Western Portion and Medium Density Mixed Use on the Eastern Portion
Total points made: 17
• Several concerns related to the scenario being “too dense”
• Several comments expressed a preference for Scenario 1
• Several comments related to a preference for open space
• Other concerns or comments related to desire for affordable housing, a preference for Scenario 3, and a concern
about light pollution
Scenario 4: Clustered Urban Estate on the Western Portion and Low Density Mixed Use on the Eastern Portion
Total points made: 27
• About half expressed a desire for public open space
• Several comments expressed a desire for affordable housing
• Several comments related to a preference for Scenario 4
• Several comments related to traffic congestion
• Other comments or concerns included a preference for lower density development, clustered development, and
a preference for Scenario 1
Scenario 5 Clustered Urban Estate on the Western Portion, Low Density Mixed Use on Middle Portion and Medium
Density Mixed Use on the Eastern Portion
Total points made: 15
• About half of the comments expressed concern that the scenario recommends too much density
• Several comments expressed a desire for public open space
• Other comments or concerns include environmental degradation, traffic, and a preference for Scenario 5
Clustered Conditional Zoning: Participants asked to rate preference for clustered zoning on the site
• Participants showed slight preference for clustered zoning on the site
12.j
Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: Public Comments Summary, September 3, 2019 (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
WHAT IS ZONING?
• Zoning is the process of dividing land in a municipality
into zones in which certain land uses are permitted
or prohibited.
• Fort Collins currently has 28 zone districts.
• Most common zone districts near the Hughes
Stadium redevelopment site include: Low-Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (LMN), Medium-Density-Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(MMN), Residential Foothills (RF), Low-Density Residential (RL),
and Public Open Lands (POL).
Hughes Site
Transitional (T) Zoning
POL
RF
RL
NC
MMN
LMN
POL
The Ponds
Brown Farm
Quail Hollow
Maxwell Natural Area
P.O.E.T.
Prospect Rd
Drake Rd
Stuart St
Overland Trail
Unincorporated Fairbrooke
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
ATTACHMENT 11
12
Packet Pg.
WHO MAKES
THE DECISIONS?
Initiation of Rezoning
• City Council –or–
• Planning & Zoning Board –or–
• Director of Community Development &
Neighborhood Services –or–
• Owners of the property
to be rezoned
In this case, the City Council has initiated
the zoning on the site separate from a
development plan
The Planning & Zoning Board provides a
recommendation to City Council, but only City
Council may decide to adopt new zoning on
the site.
DECISION
12
Packet Pg.
WHAT ARE THE STEPS?
City staff will collect your feedback
on those proposals.
City staff will present that feedback
to City Council at a public hearing in
the coming months. Notification will
be sent for this hearing.
City staff prepares zoning scenarios
based on the City’s Structure Plan
City Council will
decide how to
proceed.
They could vote on one of
the configurations presented
by City staff.
They could direct City staff to
present other configurations.
Once the site zoning is decided, a developer may then
proceed with the submission of a development plan
depending on the zoning decision made by City Council
City Councilmembers have
directed City staff to recommend
zone districts on the site.
WE ARE
HERE
12
Packet Pg.
ZONE DISTRICT
CHARACTERISTICS
The following zone districts make up the most common residential districts within the
vicinity of the former Hughes Stadium site are the districts that are most likely to be
recommended for the site. The site can be made up of a combination of zone districts with
different levels of intensity at different areas of the site., the homes tend to be of a higher
price compared to other residential zone districts
RESIDENTIAL FOOTHILLS (RF)
• Development may be clustered or non-clustered.
• Requires large lots (2.29 acres) if homes are not clustered.
• Housing types: single-family detached dwellings.
• Because lots and homes are large, they tend to be of a higher price
compared to other residential zone districts.
• No open space requirement in a non-clustered development.
• Density: up to one dwelling unit per acre for a clustered development.
URBAN ESTATE (UE)
• Development may be clustered or non-clustered.
• Requires half-acre lots if homes are not clustered.
• Housing types: single-family detached, single-family attached,
and two-family dwellings.
• No open space requirement in a non-clustered development.
• Density: up to two dwelling units per acre.
LOW DENSITY MIXED USE
NEIGHBORHOOD (L-M-N)
• Provides opportunities for a variety of detached and attached housing
types and amenities in a neighborhood setting.
• Allows opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses, such as child
care, convenience stores, or medical clinics.
• Density: Between three and nine dwelling units per acre, or up
to 12 units per acre if units are designated as affordable.
MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED USE
NEIGHBORHOOD (M-M-N)
• Provides opportunities for a variety of detached and attached housing
options and amenities in a neighborhood setting.
• Multifamily buildings can be larger than LMN zone district.
• Allows opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses, such as child
care, convenience stores, or medical clinics.
• Density: minimum of 12 units per acre.
12
Packet Pg.
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Structure Plan Map
12.k
Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Hughes Site
Transitional (T) Zoning
POL
RF
RL
LMN
NC
MMN
NC
RL
RL
NC
MMN
LMN
POL
POL
UE
The Ponds
Brown Farm
Quail Hollow
Maxwell Natural Area
P.O.E.T. Avery
Park
Blevins
Middle
School
Prospect Rd
Drake Rd
Stuart St
Hampshire Rd
Overland Trail
Elizabeth St
Fairbrooke
Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (MMN)
Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (MMN)
Low Density Residential
(RL)
Urban Estate (UE)
Residential Foothills (RF)
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
Public Open Lands
(POL)
Transitional
(T)
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Existing Zoning Context
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
12.k
Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Housing Types
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
• Single, detached unit on its own lot
• Large variation in lot sizes and
configurations (e.g. front or alley-loaded)
• Typically 1-2 stories
TWO FAMILY DWELLING
(DUPLEX)
• Two attached units on a single lot
• Typically 1-2 stories
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED
(TOWNHOME)
• Attached units, each on their own lot
• Typically 1-3 stories
MULTIFAMILY (up to 12 units per bldg.)
• Multiple units per building
• Apartments or condominiums
• May include attached or surface parking
• Typically 1-3 stories
MULTIFAMILY (greater than 12 units per bldg.)
• Multiple units per building
• Apartments or condominiums
• Often part of a larger complex with
common space & amenities
• Usually includes surface parking
• Typically 2-3 stories
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Two Family (Duplex)
Multifamily
12 units/bldg. or less
Multifamily
12 units/bldg. or greater
X X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RF
UE
LMN
MMN
Neighborhood XX
Commercial *
• Different zone districts permit different types of housing
• There can be wide variation even among the same types of housing (size, height, design/style, etc.)
• Examples of common types of housing are illustrated below:
HOUSING TYPES BY ZONE:
* Some residential zone districts such as the
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and
Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood also
permit neighborhood commercial uses such as
child care, coffee shops, or medical clinics.
12.k
Key Characteristics:
• Smaller lots; intensity focused on a portion of the site
• Private or public open space on at least 50% of the site
• Higher density incentivizes open space
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Clustered Development
• Several Fort Collins zone districts, such as Residential Foothills (RF), allow clustered development
• Clustered developments incentivize higher density in exchange for preserving private/public open space
• Examples of clustered vs. non-clustered development patterns are illustrated below:
Clustered Development Non-Clustered Development
Privately-owned lots
Open space
(private or public)
Min. Lot Size: 2.29 acres
(in RF zone district)
Street
Street
Key Characteristics:
• Very large lots and low intensity
• No open space requirement
• Lower density than a clustered development
If Residential Foothills (RF) zoning is part of the Hughes site,
which type of development pattern is more appropriate?
Clustered Development
More Appropriate
Non-Clustered Development
More Appropriate
Unsure / No Preference
12.k
Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios
• City staff will provide City Council with a recommendation for site zoning.
• Staff’s draft recommendation (Scenario 1) is based on direction from the comprehensive plan
and community input.
• Community input on the zoning scenarios will also be shared with City Council.
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
RF
LMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
SCENARIO 1 (STAFF’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATION)
Key Characteristics:
• RF zoning on western half and LMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the RF zone
district to preserve open space.
• The LMN zoning on the eastern half supports
a mix of housing types and could include
neighborhood commercial services.
What benefits or concerns can you identify for each scenario?
Provide your input on sticky-notes below:
Benefits Concerns
Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (MMN)
Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (MMN)
Low Density Residential
(RL)
Urban Estate (UE)
Residential Foothills (RF)
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
Public Open Lands
(POL)
Zone District Legend
12.k
Packet Pg. 405
Attachment: Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios
• City staff will provide City Council with a recommendation for site zoning.
• Staff’s draft recommendation (Scenario 1) is based on direction from the comprehensive plan
and community input.
• Community input on the zoning scenarios will also be shared with City Council.
SCENARIO 2
Key Characteristics:
• RF zoning on western half and MMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the RF
zone district to preserve open space.
• The MMN zone on the eastern half of site
supports multiple housing types at higher
intensities than the LMN zoning in scenario 1.
• MMN zone also supports the potential for
neighborhood commercial uses.
What benefits or concerns can you identify for each scenario?
Provide your input on sticky-notes on the adjacent feedback board.
SCENARIO 3
Key Characteristics:
• UE zoning on western half and MMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the UE
zone district to preserve open space adjacent
to foothills/natural areas.
• UE permits slightly higher density than RF and
allows for several additional housing types,
such as duplexes or townhomes.
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
RF
MMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
UE
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios
• City staff will provide City Council with a recommendation for site zoning.
• Staff’s draft recommendation (Scenario 1) is based on direction from the comprehensive plan
and community input.
• Community input on the zoning scenarios will also be shared with City Council.
SCENARIO 4
Key Characteristics:
• UE zoning on western half and LMN zoning on
eastern half maintains lower intensity closest to
foothills/natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the UE
zone district to preserve open space.
• UE permits slightly higher density than RF and
allows for several additional housing types,
such as duplexes or townhomes.
• The LMN zoning on the eastern half supports
a mix of housing types and could include
neighborhood commercial services.
What benefits or concerns can you identify for each scenario?
Provide your input on sticky-notes on the adjacent feedback board.
SCENARIO 5
Key Characteristics:
• UE zoning on the western half and a mix
of LMN and MMN zoning on eastern half
transitions to lower intensity near the foothills/
natural area.
• Require a clustered development in the UE
zone district to preserve open space.
• UE permits slightly higher density than RF and
allows for several additional housing types,
such as duplexes or townhomes.
• The LMN & MMN zoning on the eastern half
supports a mix of housing types and could
include neighborhood commercial uses.
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
Reservoir
Dixon
Reservoir
UE
LMN
OVERLAND TRAIL
DRAKE
PROSPECT
STUART
Unincorporated
Larimer County
Unincorporated
Larimer County
POL
POL
MMN
RF RL
NC
Horsetooth LMN
HUGHES SITE REZONING
Zoning Scenarios Feedback
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Scenario 4 Scenario 5
12.k
Packet Pg. 408
Attachment: Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
NATURAL AREAS
Question: Can the City purchase the Hughes Stadium site and preserve it
as a natural area and did the City try to purchase the property?
Colorado State University owns the site. CSU has been clear that it wishes
to monetize the site and its focus has been the recruitment of a residential
development firm. The property currently is under contract to Lennar
Homes.
The Natural Areas Department may only acquire land from a willing seller.
The City did not attempt to purchase the site.
From the perspective of Natural Areas staff, there would be
significant opportunity costs associated with a purchase. For
example, funds directed to the Hughes site would not be
available for conservation in northeast Fort Collins which has no
natural area sites.
The Hughes site, on the other hand, has nearby natural areas of
over 1,000 acres with nearly 10 miles of trail as well as a large
community park.
Question: What are the criteria for acquisition of a site for designation as
a Natural Area?
The Natural Areas Department considers numerous criteria when
prioritizing a site for acquisition as a natural area. The following criteria are
considered:
• Alignment with City Plan goals and the Natural Areas Master Plan
• Current and potential wildlife habitat values
• Existing condition of property and the cost to restore
• Access to nature for the community
• Value as buffer or addition to an existing natural area
• Conservation values such as scenic, community separator, agriculture,
cultural resources
• Education opportunities
12.k
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: Staff presentation to Boards and Commissions (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ATTACHMENT 12
12.l
Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.l
Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.l
Packet Pg. 412
Attachment: Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.l
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.l
Packet Pg. 414
Attachment: Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.l
Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: Hughes Scenarios Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 417
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 418
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 419
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 422
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 423
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 1
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 424
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 2
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 425
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 2
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 426
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 2
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 427
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 3
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 428
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 3
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 429
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 4
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 430
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 4
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 431
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 5
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 432
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
SCENARIO 5
STICKY NOTE FEEDBACK ATTACHMENT 13
12.m
Packet Pg. 433
Attachment: Scenario 1-5 Sticky Note Feedback (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ATTACHMENT 14
12.n
Packet Pg. 434
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 435
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 436
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 437
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 438
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 439
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 440
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 441
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 442
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 443
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 444
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 445
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 446
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 447
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 448
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 449
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 450
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 451
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 452
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 453
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 454
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 455
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 456
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 473
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 493
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 494
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 495
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 496
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 497
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 498
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 504
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 505
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 506
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 507
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 508
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 509
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 510
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 511
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 512
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 513
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 514
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 515
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 516
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 517
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 518
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 519
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
12.n
Packet Pg. 520
Attachment: Hughes Zoning Drawings from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 521
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 522
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 523
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 524
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 525
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 526
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 527
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 528
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 529
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 530
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 531
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 532
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 533
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 534
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 535
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 536
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 537
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 538
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 539
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 540
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 541
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 542
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 543
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 544
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 545
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 546
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 547
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 548
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 549
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 550
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 551
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 552
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 553
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 554
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 555
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 556
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 557
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 558
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 559
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 560
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 561
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 562
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 563
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 564
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 565
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 566
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 567
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 568
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 569
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 570
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 571
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 572
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 573
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 574
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 575
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 576
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 577
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 578
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 579
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 580
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 581
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 582
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 583
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 584
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 585
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 586
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 587
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 588
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 589
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 590
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 591
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 592
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 593
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 594
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 595
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 596
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 597
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 598
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 599
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 600
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 601
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 602
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 603
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 604
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 605
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 606
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 607
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 608
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 609
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 610
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 611
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 612
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 613
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 614
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 615
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 616
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 617
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 618
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 619
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 620
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 621
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 622
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 623
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 624
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 625
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
ATTACHMENT 15
12.o
Packet Pg. 626
Attachment: Site Characteristics Most Important to
Half Sheet Site Drawings Half Sheet Comments
Open Space only 27 City Plan 5
Open space with some development 26 Save as open space 47
Recreation 6 Traffic 17
Clustered housing on eastern portion 21 School crowding 3
Open Space buffer 13 Housing density is too high 15
RF 21 Affordable housing needs 14
LMN 21 Environmental impact 12
MMN 6 Clustered development 6
Scenario 4 2 Neighborhood amenities 11
Scenario 1 3 Energy efficiency of homes 4
Commercial 7 Transit 2
Workforce housing 3 Want more density 1
Park 3 Views should be preserved 5
Maxwell area parking 1 Natural disasters/emergency access 4
Scenario 2 2
UE 2 Total 146
Stadium 3
Reservoir 1
Total 168
Scenario 1 Comments/Concerns Scenario 2 Comments/Concerns
Traffic 19 Scenario 2 too dense 14
Prefer a Scenario 6 12 Open space 7
Preserve open space 18 Prefer scenario 1 1
Prefer Scenario 1 22 Foothills buffer 1
Preserve views 7 Schools too crowded 2
Prefer 2 zones on site 2 Concerned about existing resources 4
Small scale commercial preferred 3 Traffic 1
Prefer large lots with single homes 5 Prefer lowest density 3
Foothills buffer 8 Density not in character with area 3
Too much density (scenario 1) 20 Good quality/sustainable design 2
Green buffer zones throughout 5
Concerned about existing resources 12 Total 38
Want affordable housing 4
Height restrictions 5
No small scale commercial 3
More bicycle infrastructure needed 2
Total 147
SUMMARY OF SCENARIO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT 16
12.p
Packet Pg. 627
Attachment: Summary of Scenario Comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Scenario 3 Comments/Concerns Scenario 4 Comments/Concerns
Scenario 3 too dense 6 Prefer 4 4
Prefer scenario 3 1 Affordable housing 4
Prefer scenario 1 3 Traffic 3
Open space 5 Prefer scenario 1 1
Affordable housing 1 Open Space 10
Light pollution 1 Prefer cluster 2
Prefer lower density 3
Total 17
Total 27
Scenario 5 Comments/Concerns
Scenario 5 is too dense 7
Open space 4
Environmental degredation 1
Concerns about infrastructure 1
Traffic 1
Prefer scenario 5 1
Total 15
12.p
Packet Pg. 628
Attachment: Summary of Scenario Comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
OTHER COMMENTS
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ATTACHMENT 17
12.q
Packet Pg. 629
Attachment: Other Comments from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.q
Packet Pg. 630
Attachment: Other Comments from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.q
Packet Pg. 631
Attachment: Other Comments from Neighborhood Meeting (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: FW: Montava Development Questions & Concerns (Council SAR#50728)
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:56:52 PM
Comments on Hughes rezoning.
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Marci White <MWhite@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:11 AM
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Montava Development Questions & Concerns (Council SAR#50728)
Good morning!!
Just in case you did not receive her response – I’ll log into the case file in Access.
Have a splendid day!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marci White
Business Support II
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6266 office
mwhite@fcgov.com
From: D/>Z d
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 6:44 PM
To: Marci White <MWhite@fcgov.com>
Cc: Lindsay Morgan D/>Z d
Subject: Re: Montava Development Questions & Concerns (Council SAR#50728)
Response Ms. White and Ms. Everette:
On Aug 13, 2019, at 6:40 PM, Lindsay Morgan < D/>Z d > wrote:
Dear Ms. White and Ms Everette,
Thank you for sending the information on the future Montava development project.
We also appreciate the website information. We did make it to the Open House at the
ATTACHMENT 18
12.r
Packet Pg. 632
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Drake Center and there was a very large crowd of people who care. At the moment we
are most concerned about the plans for the Hughes Stadium property and that is our
focus right now. It’s a very special property “jewel” that many of the citizens of Fort
Collins and beyond are concerned about. It deserves special, creative, multi-use
treatment because so many people who live here and others who come here enjoy the
open space, recreating, and finding peace in nature in multiple ways in the mountains
and on the reservoir for all the seasons. The plans presented to us will turn it into a
600-700 tract of homes, condos and apartments and would be very disrespectful to the
space and the citizens of our Fort Collins, not to mention the multitude of negative
aspects that would impact our city in other ways. We were pleased with the City
Council vote to keep control of the zoning and with effort and care we hope to create a
place that will have something for everyone.
We’re hoping for a more fair solution as we move into the future.
Many thanks for your time and response,
Lindsay Morgan
On Aug 13, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Marci White <MWhite@fcgov.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Morgan,
Thank you for your email to express your concern regarding the future
Montava and Hughes Stadium developments. Please see the following
response provided by Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager,
on behalf of Councilmember Ken Summers and City Manager Darin
Atteberry.
Kindly,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marci White
Business Support II
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6266 office
mwhite@fcgov.com
<image001.jpg>
Dear Ms. Morgan,
Thank you for your questions and comments about both the rezoning of
the former Hughes Stadium site and the Montava development project. I
will ensure that your comments are saved to the public record for both
projects. Below are status updates for the Montava and Hughes projects:
Montava Development
The Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan will be
presented to the Planning and Zoning Board this Thursday, August 15
starting at 6 p.m. at City Hall. After the Planning and Zoning Board
12.r
Packet Pg. 633
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
provides a recommendation, the project will be presented to City Council
for a final decision. The City Council hearings are scheduled for October
15 and November 5. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing and City
Council meetings will all include opportunities for public comment on the
proposed development. In addition, all written comments submitted in
advance of the hearings will be provided to the board and City Council for
their consideration. More information and updates on the project can be
found on the City’s webpage: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/Montava.
Rezoning of Hughes Stadium Site
City Council initiated the rezoning of the Hughes Stadium site last month,
and Council will also be the final decision maker on the zoning. I hope you
were able to make it to the open house last Thursday, but if not, more
information from that meeting can be found
here: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/hughes_stadium_redevelopment.
Because the zoning has not yet been designated for the site, the exact
review path and schedule for any development project is not yet known.
Once the zoning is designated on the site, a developer would have the
opportunity to submit a full development plan to fit the zoning. The
zoning will be decided by Council with a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Board. Once the hearings for the zoning are set, a
public notice will be sent to residents within the vicinity and public notice
will be posted on the project webpage.
How Public Comments Influence the Development Process
Throughout the zoning and development review process, we work to
ensure that every project receives careful consideration. We know that
each development shapes the community in lasting ways. Your comments
will remain a part of the public record as the proposal moves through
public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council.
Board members and Council members take all comments into
consideration when making development decisions.
Thank you again for your comments, and I encourage you to stay engaged
throughout the process.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
12.r
Packet Pg. 634
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Original Request
From: Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>
Date: August 9, 2019 at 5:57:50 PM EDT
To: Lindsay Morgan < D/>Z d >
Cc: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>, SAR Admin Team <SAR-
Admin-Team@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple Developers- Question and Concern
Lindsay
Thank you for your email and for expressing your concerns. The
development proposals in north Fort Collins has been underway for the
last couple of years and have the subject of several meetings with citizens,
as well as the City Council.
Proposed projects are still being worked on and there is no established
timeline as to what will happen and when. There are some master plans
available to the public, but as far as I know all the specifics have not been
finalized.
Information on the Montava project is available at
https://www.montava.com/
I will see what information is available for other proposed projects.
Montava | Fort Collins Colorado | Change Your Life
www.montava.com
Montava is a very unique community in "one of a kind" Fort Collins
Colorado; where front porches, parks, and agriculture merge to create a
truly unique living expereice. An agri-urban development
Ken Summers
Councilmember
District 3
Darin/SAR Team
Could you provide Lindsay some information and a status report and
explain the process for these projects.
Thank you,
Ken
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are
subject to public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).
To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive,
12.r
Packet Pg. 635
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email.
However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from
Council will remain private under CORA.
________________________________________
From: Lindsay Morgan < D/>Z d >
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:46:04 PM
To: Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>
Cc: Lindsay Morgan < D/>Z d >
Subject: Multiple Developers- Question and Concern
Dear Mr. Summers,
In the Coloradan today we were informed of the proposal to build
3,900-4,000 new homes in north Fort Collins. We have been following the
"Hughes Property" proposal recently…going to all the meetings and are
concerned about the dreadful, cramped, seriously uncreative and "Silicon
Valley-like" proposal ongoing in one of the precious property “JEWELS” of
Fort Collins. Little, if any thought has gone into the impact of 600-700 new
homes in that area vs the idea that it deserves way more thought and
inclusion of multi-use opportunities that could please way more people
than just those who need housing. It is such a shallow uncreative plan
with little thought of the future consequences on roads, traffic,
environmental concerns, etc...
Now we learn of 3,900-4,000 new homes being developed north of
town. Please tell us that it will take some of the pressure off building such
a large amount of residences on the Hughes property and some new ideas
that are more indicative of the multi-use and outdoor recreational
philosophy the residents of Fort Collins would like to see.
These are stressful, difficult times here in America and many of us are
losing hope that we have a voice that is seriously going to be heard by our
officials and big money. Please comment and reassure us that this is not
just another CSU Stadium affair and that those who make the decisions
are not just going thru the motions of public meetings so that they can say
that they did.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Morgan
District 5
D/>Z d
12.r
Packet Pg. 636
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Cc: Carrie Daggett
Subject: Fwd: Hughes Stadium Property
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:42:41 PM
Hi Sylvia -
Here is a Hughes stadium email for the record.
Delynn
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>
Date: August 14, 2019 at 3:44:28 PM MDT
To: Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>, Delynn Coldiron
<DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>
Subject: Fw: Hughes Stadium Property
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to
public disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote
transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive, unless the sender
puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins
can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under
CORA.
From: Ronda Simmons < D/>Z d >
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Stadium Property
Dear Councilman Cunniff, In the Coloradan today we were informed of the new proposal
to build 3,900-4,000 new homes in north Fort Collins. Alternately, we have been following
the "Hughes Property" proposal…going to all the meetings and extremely concerned
about the dreadful, cramped, seriously uncreative and "Silicon Valley-like" proposal
ongoing for one of the precious property “JEWELS” of Fort Collins. Little, if any thought
has gone into the impact of 600-700 new homes in that area vs the idea that it deserves
way more thought and inclusion of multi-use opportunities that could please way more
people than just those who need housing. It is such a shallow uncreative plan with little
thought of the future consequences on roads, traffic, environmental concerns, etc... Now,
today, we learn of 3,900-4,000 new homes being developed north of town. Please tell us
12.r
Packet Pg. 637
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
that it will take some of the pressure off building such a large amount of residences on the
Hughes property and some new ideas that are more indicative of the multi-use and
outdoor recreational philosophy the residents of Fort Collins would like to see. These are
stressful, difficult times here in America and many of us are losing hope that we have a
voice that is seriously going to be heard by our officials and big money. Please comment
and reassure us that this is not just another CSU Stadium affair and that those who make
the decisions are not just going thru the motions of public meetings so that they can say
that they did. Sincerely, Ronda Simmons District 5
12.r
Packet Pg. 638
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Gavin Kaszynski
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Development
Date: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:55:15 AM
I will keep this short.
I do not want to live in a community that feels it is OK to just take land from someone. That is
not who we are. If there is no collaborative way for the parties to work together then we must
allow CSU to do what it feels is in its best interest. It is after all their land. Re-zoning it to
open space will render it useless to CSU and is the very definition of a "taking." We are better
than that. Even if we assume the intentions of the activists are pure, we are forced with the
harsh reality that it is not our decision to make.
We should also remind ourselves of the Master Plan and its original intent for this space. Is
that document really meaningless? It is starting to appear that is the case. And finally, and
most importantly, what does this say about our commitment to affordable housing? Let's not
waltz blindly right into an unnecessary lawsuit. What a waste of time, resources, tax dollars
(on both sides, State and Local), and a wasted opportunity to show a real commitment to
working families - all for the sake of a heavy-handed government seizure. C'mon Fort Collins,
we are better than that.
Thanks, Gavin Kaszynski
12.r
Packet Pg. 639
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Barbara Graham
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes redevelopment
Date: Saturday, August 10, 2019 11:46:28 AM
I have been closely following the plans for the redevelopment site and agree with city staff
planners that a low density mixed use zoning on the east side and RF on the west would best
serve the community.
Priorities, would be lots of open space , landscaped buffer towards the foothills, and a coffee
shop.
Thanks, for all the amazing work that has gone into getting this project to a place, where
community input is more important than top dollar going to CSU coffers.
Well done!
Barbara Graham
3339 W Prospect
12.r
Packet Pg. 640
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Jodi Drisko
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: hughes redevelopment
Date: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:04:22 AM
Hi,
I attended the community open house on 8/8/2019 and some of the early community input
meetings. I live north of the Hughes site and am in support of the City's preferred zoning
recommendation (scenario 1). A mix of open space, park, frisbee golf course and different
housing types is a positive use of that space. It is unrealistic to think that a growing city will
keep such a large tract of land as open space with no development. We need responsible
development that includes trails, parks, open space and homes that are affordable to many
income levels, including affordable housing. There are not many retail establishments or
services in this part of the city, so some retail, restaurant and/or small commercial
establishments (small town center) would also be good. I know a traffic study won't be done
until there is a development plan, but I hope that roundabouts are considered to move traffic
more smoothly, rather than stop lights. Unfortunately the Drake/Overland intersection hasn't
already been converted to a roundabout.
I hope others who are supportive of responsible development will voice their opinion. As you
know, dissenting voices are more likely to respond.
thank you,
Jodi Drisko
12.r
Packet Pg. 641
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: matt clark
To: Development Review Comments
Cc: Renee Walkup
Subject: Hughes Site Rezoning
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:59:32 AM
Hi City Staff,
Hey nice job at the presentation at the Drake Center last week. Thanks for putting that
together.
Of the scenarios presented, I prefer #1 as I am for as few number of houses, peoples and cars
crowding the beautiful west side of Fort Collins. However, I wish there was another scenario
where there were even fewer houses that could be built than on this scenario #1.
I'd like to ask that within the LMN portion, any developer is incentivized to keep the density as
low as possible. I under stand it can be anywhere from 3 - 12 homes per acre. I prefer it
approach the lower end - as low as possible. It may be legal but it doesn't seem ethical that
CSU can gain additional money from the sale of the land if the developer is incentivized to
build more homes. (I'm told this is the current proposal - something like $16K per home if the
total is over 625 homes or something like that). This incentive shows CSU's complete
disregard for the uniqueness of this area. May I suggest if CSU truly wants to find more
affordable housing for their staff, which is their mantra, rather than just gain more money,
they look to the East for building low income housing. There is a ton of open land that
honestly does not have the beauty and uniqueness of the western parts of Fort Collins.
The foothills and the west side are a rare commodity of open space that I hate to see CSU and
a developer exploit. And once exploited, they are gone essentially forever. Whatever you can
do to redirect congested housing to the East and keep the west less congested and open to all
of Fort Collins is what I favor.
William Matt Clark
Property Owner at 1303 Catalpa Drive, 80521.
12.r
Packet Pg. 642
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Marcia Richards
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Stadium area
Date: Sunday, August 11, 2019 7:48:25 PM
We are hopeful that the Hughes Stadium area will be a low density housing, retail, park area. There are not many
undeveloped open space areas left on this side of town. And we have great concern for the potential for increased
traffic on Drake. Thank you
Marcia Richards
12.r
Packet Pg. 643
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Jordan Williams
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Stadium Development
Date: Saturday, August 10, 2019 9:37:38 AM
Hello,
While I was not able to make the open house this past week, my wife did attend and received
the City's very helpful handout.
My two priorities during this process are:
1) Maintaining the integrity of the open space surrounding Hughes Stadium
2) Creating affordable housing options, as CSU highlighted in the initial open houses
People who live on the west side of Fort Collins choose to stay here because of the open space
amenities and the ability to avoid the cookie-cutter developments so present in other parts of
Fort Collins (e.g. the southeast area). Since the Hughes Stadium site is unique due to its local
history and access to the foothills, it deserves special treatment rather than just serving as a
money maker for CSU and the developer.
If these two goals can be satisfied through existing zone districts, then I defer to City staff to
recommend the right combination. I know these two goals may seem like opposing ideals, but
I think there can be a balance that also fits within the developer's scope.
I also hope that any new development will create space for transportation improvements such
as the continuation of an Overland Trail bike path (north/south). Additionally, a focus on
"green" energy sources and LEED building certifications should be a priority in any new Fort
Collins development. We need more housing options in Fort Collins, but it should be done
with a focus on environmental and public health.
Thank you for your time and consideration. You may use my name in the public comments
section that our City Council will review. I live at 3024 Wells Fargo Dr.
Jordan Williams
3+21(180%(5
5('$&7('
UNC Master's Program Info
12.r
Packet Pg. 644
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Paul Katers
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Stadium Redevelopment
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:40:19 PM
To whom it may concern, my name is Paul Katers and I live at 2636 covington Ct, Fort
Collins, CO 80526.
I was able to attend the August 8th meeting but did not leave a comment at that time.
While I can see the problems that go along with buying the property as explained per the open
space representative that was present, i truly cannot see why the city would not want to
purchase this land.
1. Yes it is 10 million dollars and as the open space representative said, it would take several
million to fix it up, but why do people move to Fort Collins, want to stay living here, and
where do they like to recreate?
2. While it is alot of money, 10, 20, 50 100 years from now, I think we would look back and
say man, I am glad we preserved that land when we could. Or at the least, I am glad we only
built a small amount of houses.
3. The open space representative mentioned that there are minimal open spaces in the
Northeast portion of the city. Again, why do people move here? For the mountains and the
access to them.
4. Is it possible to purchase half of the land for 5 million?
5. Is it possible to pay CSU 2 million per year for the next 5 years? I can only assume the city
has hooked CSU many times with projects, developments, and costs.
6. Would it be possible to buy the land for 10 million and then just wait to renovate. Maybe a
million per year. It doesn't have to get done right away. Ask for volunteers. I for one would be
happy to donate my time to make this space better and keep it open.
I truly feel this an opportunity for the city to do the right thing, the thing that all city residents
can benefit from, the thing we would like to hand down to our kids and grand kids.
Please vote to keep this land open space. I, You, Your kids, Your family, will not regret it. Not
now, not ever.
Sincerely,
Paul Katers
12.r
Packet Pg. 645
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Jim Medlock
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 7:42:34 PM
To : Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
We were very encouraged by the preferred proposal of the Fort Collins Planning Department to rezone the Hughes
Stadium site into RF and LMN zones.
Our preferred use of the property would be as an addition to the Maxwell Natural Area but we understand the
financial issues the City and Natural Areas face which prevents the City from acquiring and developing the property
as a Natural Area.
We feel the staff’s proposal will encourage development of the Hughes Stadium site in a way that fits in with the
development currently in the vicinity of the site. We encourage the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend the
staff’s proposal for rezoning of the site be enacted and recommended to the City Council.
Jim and Tricia Medlock
3438 Golden Currant Blvd.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
12.r
Packet Pg. 646
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Benson,Delwin
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Stadium Site zoning and quality of outcomes
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:23:31 PM
To Whom it Concerns:
Unfortunately, open space was not a zoning option for us to consider. That would have been my
vote. You logically could have given that option owing to input given during CSU planning discussions
earlier by many attendees. Most questions that I heard at the recent meeting also dealt with open
space. The people seem to have it right.
The best use of the site is open space from the perspectives of a nearby resident in the area and
someone who works professionally toward maintaining nature and vistas. I moved nearby because it
was CSU property with limited uses, my subdivision clumped housing to provide more open space,
and the Maxwell Open Space borders our open space. Changing that paradigm by CSU and the city
would be unfortunate.
Your natural areas representative at the meeting indicated the site was not good wildlife habitat.
That is true only because it is not managed for wildlife, or anything specific for that matter, in this
transition period. It is in a valuable visual and animal corridor from Maxwell Open Space to Pineridge
Natural Area. Once developed, the corridor will be lost forever. Thoughtful iconic open space
beneath the “A” is an asset to Fort Collins. The current development under construction at Overland
and Drake Roads has negative impacts on movements of a mule deer herd. Adding development at
Hughes would likely be a last straw impact to that population’s location. Added visitors to the
existing open spaces would further convert trails into trenches from excessive uses.
If you must urbanize the site: create a regenerative project that builds upward not outward with
various size dwellings within; have parking garages; use and generate solar power into the grid;
recycle water; maximize well planned open space; provide commercial businesses on bottom floors
of tall buildings that meet community needs; and have commuter bus routes. Your Scenario #1
might allow for that if you insist on a quality project and not just quantity. Suggestions to mirror the
neighborhoods to the east could also create “black holes” with illicit uses as is the current problem.
If you want other ideas about using the area in open space with unstructured play areas for children,
then I’d be pleased to make input.
Del
It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness
Del and Jeannie Benson
3233 West Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
W,KE EhD Z^Z d
Take 6 courses and Graduate Certificate Online: Conservation Actions with Lands, Animals, and
People
Learn about land, wildlife and people management: www.LandHelp.info
12.r
Packet Pg. 647
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Steve Green
To: Development Review Comments
Cc: Alex Green
Subject: Hughs Stadium development suggestion
Date: Sunday, August 4, 2019 8:21:31 AM
Dear City of Fort Collins,
I own property at 3200 Azalea Dr #A5 in Fort Collin and would like to give some input into the
redevelopment of the old Hugh Stadium site.
My main comment / suggestion is to make certain that there is an adequate amount of area zoned for
commercial usage such as a supermarket and similar. The far west side of town could use a supermarket and
some other neighborhood commercial development. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you,
Steve Green for Green Family Partnership
PO Box 188
Golden, CO 80402
3+21(180%(55('$&7('
12.r
Packet Pg. 648
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Kelsey Schnoor
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughs Stadium development
Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:41:10 PM
Hi,
First off, thank you to all the City of Fort Collins Council members for their time and attention
to this important matter. This site is historic to Fort Collins and unique.
My concern for development of the Hugh stadium development site is the future (and
permanent) impact this will have on wildlife. Will there be a study to examine the impact on
how housing will impact wildlife migration? (Since the new neighborhood development will
disconnect the two existing nature areas). And if so, will the developer be held accountable to
incorporate solutions found in the study to aid wildlife?
Also, it would be great if the developer was required to keep the trails that connect Maxwell
and Pineridge public (both for wildlife migration and public use).
Thank you for your time,
Kelsey Schnoor
--
Kelsey Schnoor
Children's Ministry
300 Whedbee Street • Fort Collins, CO 80524
3+21(180%(55('$&7('
12.r
Packet Pg. 649
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Gretchen Menand
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Re: Hughes Redevelopment Neighborhood meeting
Date: Monday, August 12, 2019 4:06:35 PM
Hello - Thanks for sharing the engagement link. Where do I go to send comments/feedback on the
proposals? I seem to be having trouble finding that link. Thank you!
Gretchen
On Thursday, August 8, 2019, 09:27:03 AM MDT, Development Review Comments
<devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning, Gretchen –
Thank you for reaching out! Yes, the meeting tonight will be a “drop-in” style open house format. You are
welcome to arrive anytime between 5 and 8. We are encouraging folks to come after 5 to avoid the initial
rush that we are expecting. We will be collecting feedback at several stations and we will also be
encouraging community members to send further comment through email or the engagement site after
the meeting in order to collect it for the public record.
Here is that engagement site address: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/hughes_stadium_redevelopment We will
be posting materials there as soon as they are finalized.
Please let me know if you have further questions.
Thank you,
Sylvia
From: Gretchen Menand (0$,/5('$&7('
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 9:34 AM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment Neighborhood meeting
Hello - I was wondering if tomorrow night's neighborhood meeting re: the Hughes property is a drop in
kind of style (where neighbors can leave written feedback) or a presentation style format like the April 4
one? I see the 5 – 8 p.m. window. Thanks for your help,
Gretchen
12.r
Packet Pg. 650
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Casha Chenier
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Re: Hughes Stadium Rezoning - neighborhood meeting tonight
Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:29:36 PM
HI,
My question is, will my attendance (to the neighborhood meeting towards the development
review process for the old hghes stadium area) potentially give me any right to vote in
determining the outcome of the huges property? or am I invited only to be informed?
Personally I don't want any housing where hughes used to be. I don't want to ruin the natural
resource we have there.
Is there a petition I can sign to cast this vote?
Is there any way I can vote?
Thanks,
Casha
12.r
Packet Pg. 651
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
3>C9?8-36383>3+>/+D983817+:+7/8.7/8>09<>2/ ?12/='>+.3?7:<9:/<>C
377/.3+>/6C+=3>2+=>2/+?>29<3>C>9.9
(2/D983812/+<381>2/9?8-36383>3+>/==29?6.,/.98/ ,/09</+8C038+6
./@/69:7/8>:6+809<>2/ ?12/='>+.3?7:<9:/<>C3==?,73>>/.>9>2/3>C
(2/D983812/+<381=29?6.,/=/:+<+>/+8.+:+<>0<97+8C</@3/A9</@+6?+>398
90+8C./@/69:7/8>:6+8=09<>2/:<9:/<>C
(2/D983812/+<381=29?6.,/1?3./.:<37+<36C,C-977?83>C38:?>+8.>2/
8//.=90>2/3>C
6690>2/:?,63--977/8>=:</@39?=6C-966/->/.,C')=29?6.,//8>/</.38>9
>2/:?,63-</-9<.+8.38-6?./.+=:+<>90>2/D983812/+<381:<9-//.381=
#?<1<9?:</;?/=>/.+-9:C90>2/=+6/=-98><+->,/>A//8')+8. /88+<>2<9?12>2/
969<+.9#:/8</-9<.=->#&*/</-/3@/.>2+>.9-?7/8>>23=A//5*/+</38>2/
:<9-/==90</@3/A3813>*2+>3=-6/+<0<97>2/=>+<>3=>2+>>2/6+8.@+6?/09<>2/ ?12/=
'>+.3?7:<9:/<>C3=-+6-?6+>/.,+=/.?:98>2/./8=3>C+669A/.,C>2/D98381')A366</-/3@/
:/<69>=96.?:>9
69>=>2+>3=29A>2/ !6+8.@+6?/031?</3=./>/<738/.')
A366</-/3@/+8+..3>398+609<+8C69>=96.+,9@/>2/03<=>
*/589A0<97</+.381>2/
3>CG=6+8.?=/-9./>2+>>2/+669A+,6/./8=3>C3=./>/<738/.,C>A9>2381=>2/383>3+6D98381
-+>/19<C+==318/.>9>2/:<9:/<>C38>2/97:</2/8=3@/$6+83>C$6+8+8.>2/</=?6>=90+
D983817+:+7/8.7/8>:<9-/==98-/>2/:<9:/<>CD983813=-2+81/.0<97>2/:6+-/296./<
-+>/19<C90(<+8=3>398+63=><3->(#8/,
>2/'><?->?</$6+8!+:90>2/3>C$6+8
A+=</@/+6/.:?,63-6C09<>2/03<=>>37/ >./=318+>/= ?12/='>+.3?7:<9:/<>C>9,/0?66C
./@/69:/.A3>2899:/8=:+-/38-6?./.>2/</,C7+B373D381>2/./@/69:7/8>:9>/8>3+690>2+>
:<9:/<>C-97:+</.>98/+<,C+8.+.4938381:+<-/6=
(2/=/0+->=6/+.?=>9+=5C9?>2/=/;?/=>398=>9A23-2A/A9?6.+::</-3+>/+A<3>>/8
</=:98=/0<97C9?
*+=+8C-977?83>C38:?>-966/->/..?<381>2/3>C$6+8:<9-/==>2+>38.3-+>/.
9<>96638=</=3./8>=A+8>>2/ ?12/='>+.3?7:<9:/<>C>9,/0?66C./@/69:/.
<312>?:>9>2/!+BA/66"+>?<+6</+:<9:/<>C638/A/?8./<=>+8.>2/</3=+8G
,?00/<</;?3</. 0>2/</A+=-977?83>C38:?>90>2+>538.:6/+=/:<9@3./?=
A3>2>2+>/@3./8-/ 0>2/</A+=89>-977?83>C38:?>90>2+>538.13@/8>9>2/3>C
29AA+=>2+>./-3=3987+./+8.A297+./3>
'38-/>2/6+8.@+6?/3=./>/<738/.,C>2/D98381+8.>2/D98381A+=89>
/=>+,63=2/.+>>2/>37/>2+>>2/')&$,3.A+=+A+<./.+8.+ !6+8.
:<3-/+889?8-/.0<97C9?<:/<=98+6589A6/.1/.3.+8C98/C9?=?:/<@3=/9<
+8C98/C9?</:9<>>92+@/+-98@/<=+>3989<-98@/<=+>398=A3>2')-98-/<8381
+ (2/.<+0>38190>2/') ?12/='>+.3?7&$
, *2+>>2/D9838109<>2/ ?12/='>+.3?7:<9:/<>C=29?6.,/
- *2+>>2/D98381-6+==303-+>39809<>2/ ?12/='>+.3?7:<9:/<>C
=29?6.,/38>2/3>C$6+89<38>2/3>C$6+8'><?->?</$6+8+8.'><?->?</
$6+8!+:
8>2/A//5=>9-97/A/A366,/</;?/=>381</-9<.=90-977?83-+>398,/>A//8>2/3>C+8.
')98>23=>9:3-*/A9?6.635/>92/+<0<97C9?03<=>29A/@/<>9?8./<=>+8.C9?<.3</->
589A6/.1/90>2/=/7+>>/<=
12.r
Packet Pg. 653
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
*/+>$( '+</89>6+AC/<=</+6/=>+>/:<90/==398+6=9<./@/69:/<= 9A/@/<A/+</
</:</=/8>381+7+49<3>C90>2/-977?83>CA29+</-98-/<8/.+,9?>
7/<1/8-C</=:98=/+8.</=-?/09<>23=+</+
(<+003-+8.=+0/>C09<,35/<=+8.A+65/<=
(2//8@3<987/8>
>>+38+,6/A9<509<-/29?=381
$</=/<@381+8./8=?<381+--/==>9A2+>=97/-+66>2/E<9A8 /A/6F909<>96638=
(2+85C9?38+.@+8-/09<C9?<>37/+8./009<>38:<9@3.381?=A3>2+8=A/<=>99?<;?/=>398=
+8.>2/</;?/=>/..9-?7/8>+>398
'38-/</6C
$( ' /+./<=23:
!+<C<+8>
&/8//*+65?:
12.r
Packet Pg. 654
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
'>+>/7/8>/63@/</.>9>2/3>C9?8-36 ?8/
)URP 7HUHVD%UD\
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW &RQFXU
'DWH 6XQGD\$SULO $0
,VDZWKLVWKDWVRPHRQHSRVWHGDQGDJUHHFRPSOHWHO\LQVWHSV
7HUHVD%UD\
12.r
Packet Pg. 656
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
6HQWIURPP\L3KRQH
12.r
Packet Pg. 657
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Planning Actions to Transform Hughes Sustainably
May 30, 2019
CSU Board of Governors & CSU President Tony Frank:
PATHS - Planning Actions to Transform Hughes Sustainably is a group of Fort Collins residents who care about
our community and seek to ensure that the Hughes redevelopment meets the needs of the community, the City,
and CSU.
We want to express our dissatisfaction with the development plan proposed by Lennar, the Master Developer
CSU selected for the former Hughes Stadium site. We believe that Lennar is not the right developer for this
project.
We hereby request that the CSU Board of Governors decline to move forward with the Lennar plan. We ask that
CSU reissue an RFP for the project and select a better development plan for the Hughes Stadium site.
The Hughes Stadium property is an important part of this community that is adjacent to the natural area often
called “The Crown Jewel” of Fort Collins. There are so many ways this property could be developed that would
encompass the goals of the community; including residents, CSU faculty and staff and students, if we could just
be creative and see past a development and developer that do not have the best interest of Fort Collins in mind.
We believe the following facts should weigh heavily in any decision regarding Lennar, and should compel you to
withdraw from CSU's development contract with them:
1. Lennar is not the original bidder: The RFP was won by CalAtlantic, a company Lennar bought just
after the bidding process ended. Lennar became the Master Developer after this transaction. Lennar was not the
original applicant and did not win the RFP bid.
2. Lennar has failed to have any community outreach: CSU diligently collected a vast quantity of
community input during two lengthy neighborhood meetings held in September and October 2018. These
comments were cataloged and made available online. Lennar has summarily ignored this valuable resource.
Lennar has never contacted community members living near the former Hughes Stadium site. Their preliminary
design shows no sign of responding to the concerns expressed by the community at CSU's neighborhood
meetings.
12.r
Packet Pg. 658
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
3. Lennar’s plan provides no affordable housing: The City’s goal is that 10% of all housing in the City
will be affordable by 2040. To reach that level, more than 10% of the units in large new construction projects
must be made affordable. The City of Fort Collins defines affordable units as those set at a price families making
80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) can afford. Multi-family rental apartments should be priced at 60% AMI
or below to be considered affordable in Fort Collins. The Lennar proposal has no units targeted at those price
points. None. This is an especially egregious oversight given that many CSU graduates and the current workforce
could benefit from more affordable housing within City limits. Affordable housing was clearly identified as the
primary concern of Fort Collins residents in the recently completed Fort Collins City Plan and has been identified
by our City Council as a crisis needing immediate attention now and throughout the next decade. Fort Collins
needs developers that understand this concern, that take the time to listen to the community's voice, and develop
innovative solutions responsive to frequently expressed shared values.
4. Lennar’s plan offers no solutions to the transportation problems created by the Hughes
redevelopment: The Lennar preliminary plan submitted to the City states that Hughes residents will leave their
cars at home and ride bicycles. This unrealistic expectation reveals the extent to which Lennar has ignored the
transportation problems that this development would create. Building a project on the far edge of town
necessitates planning for current and future transportation linkages to the rest of the City. The street layout of
Lennar’s preliminary plan has no extra provisions for present or future transit connections.
5. Lennar’s plan has no integration with the Maxwell Natural Area: Fort Collins has an extensive
number of outdoor enthusiasts, and the Maxwell Natural Area is the single most heavily used natural area in Fort
Collins. Proximity to this natural area is a reason many residents have chosen to live near Hughes Stadium. Its
trails are easily accessible and, after a short hike, offer rewarding views. Connections can also be made to an
extensive network of nearby mountain biking trails. Lennar has ignored the importance of this treasured natural
area, providing little meaningful transition between densely developed single-family tract homes and a heavily
used and extremely popular natural area.
6. Lennar’s plan lacks any innovative strategy for energy efficiency and carbon emissions reductions:
The City has ambitious goals for energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gases, some of the strongest in the
nation. When Lennar first approached the City about its development plans, it requested to be allowed to build to
2009 building code standards. Turning back the clock to 2009 was justified, they claimed, because they intend to
install solar panels on most homes. When the City denied that request, Lennar then tried—without success—to
persuade the state legislature to pass a bill permitting builders to build to 2009 energy efficiency standards if solar
is offered. Now, with its preliminary plan submitted, we see that Lennar has failed to apply basic standards of
solar orientation in the design of its homes. By comparison, elsewhere in Fort Collins, residential projects at the
scale of the Hughes Stadium proposal are being built to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home
standard, with innovative solar, behind-the-meter storage, and Distributed Energy Resources Management
Systems (DERMS) solutions included. One project, Waterfield, is partnering with the National Renewable Energy
Lab (NREL) while another, Montava, is incorporating an innovative solar+storage+demand side management
system that has been field-tested in Arizona and is market ready for deployment in Colorado. Lennar has no such
examples to point to from their entire inventory of projects across the nation. A review of Lennar’s national
portfolio shows that this developer lacks the vision and innovation that Fort Collins residents expect and that other
builders are already applying in our city.
12.r
Packet Pg. 659
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
7. No Relief for Neighborhood Burdens: For CSU Governors that do not live in Fort Collins, it may be
difficult to understand that the local community regards the Hughes Stadium development plan through the lens of
the Canvas Stadium project and the impact it has had on surrounding neighborhoods. Events at Canvas Stadium
significantly impact surrounding residential neighborhoods today with noise, excess parking, greater foot-traffic
and congestion. CSU and the City have done an admirable job to lessen those impacts to the greatest extent
possible. However, significant neighborhood burdens remain. It is not lost on community members throughout
Fort Collins that the Hughes Stadium project is meant to earn top-dollar revenue for CSU so that it can retire as
much of the Canvas Stadium debt as possible. After inconveniencing surrounding neighborhoods during the
construction process of Canvas Stadium, then imposing additional burdens on the same neighborhoods during
event days, it is difficult for residents to understand how the CSU Board of Governors could select a Master
Developer that unapologetically ignores extensive community input already collected for them, maintains no
communication or contact with local residents, and fails to respond in their designs to long-term City development
goals and clearly stated shared values. By its actions and its actions alone, Lennar has proven to be not up to this
task. The CSU Board of Governors can and should do better.
The deficiencies in Lennar's plan are not simple errors or omissions that can be corrected by submitting a new
plan. These deficiencies reveal that Lennar is not responsive to community concerns, Lennar is not willing to
work creatively to help the city meet its long-range affordable housing, energy efficiency, and carbon reduction
goals, and Lennar is philosophically and operationally incapable of producing the quality project that the Hughes
Stadium site deserves.
We respectfully request that the CSU Board of Governors end its contract with Lennar, reissue an RFP for a
community friendly plan that is creative, innovative, and economically viable: truly a plan that CSU can be proud
to be part of.
The PATHS Leadership Team
Renee Walkup
Mary Grant
Nick Francis
Melissa Rosas
Nathalie Rachline
Patricia Ann Baron
Shirley Kendrick
Susan Taylor
12.r
Packet Pg. 660
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW ): +XJKHV6LWH5HGHYHORSPHQWPHHWLQJ
'DWH )ULGD\$SULO 30
5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
&ƌŽŵ͗ĞůLJŶŶŽůĚŝƌŽŶф K>/ZKEΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϯ͗ϭϰWD
dŽ͗ZĞďĞĐĐĂ ǀĞƌĞƚƚĞфƌĞǀĞƌĞƚƚĞΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ
7KDQNV
'HO\QQ
7HOO XV DERXW RXU VHUYLFH ZH ZDQW WR NQRZ
&ƌŽŵ͗<ƌŝƐƚŝŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐфŬƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϭϮ͗ϮϱWD
dŽ͗ĞůLJŶŶŽůĚŝƌŽŶф K>/ZKEΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&ǁĚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ
,ŝ͕
/ƚŚŝŶŬǁĞĂƌĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚĂďŽƵƚĞdžƉĂƌƚĞĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞ͘/ƐLJŽƵƌŽĨĨŝĐĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƐĞ
ĞŵĂŝůƐ͍
ĞƐƚǁŝƐŚĞƐ͕
<ƌŝƐƚŝŶ
<ƌŝƐƚŝŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐ
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϰ
tŝƚŚůŝŵŝƚĞĚĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĞŵĂŝůƐĂŶĚĂŶLJĨŝůĞƐƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƉƵďůŝĐĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞ
ƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŽůŽƌĂĚŽKƉĞŶZĞĐŽƌĚƐĐƚ;KZͿ͘dŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉĂƌĞŶĐLJ͕ĞŵĂŝůƐǁŝůůďĞǀŝƐŝďůĞŝŶĂŶ
12.r
Packet Pg. 661
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ŽŶůŝŶĞĂƌĐŚŝǀĞ͕ƵŶůĞƐƐƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌƉƵƚƐηWZ/sd ŝŶƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚůŝŶĞŽĨƚŚĞĞŵĂŝů͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĐĂŶ͛ƚŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĞŵĂŝůƚŽŽƌĨƌŽŵŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůůƌĞŵĂŝŶƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƵŶĚĞƌKZ͘
ĞŐŝŶĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͗
&ƌŽŵ͗DĂƌLJ^ƚĞŝŶĞƌф D/>Z d х
ĂƚĞ͗Ɖƌŝůϱ͕ϮϬϭϵĂƚϭϮ͗ϭϵ͗ϬϵWDDd
dŽ͗ŬƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ
'ŽŽĚDŽƌŶŝŶŐ<ƌŝƐƚĞŶ͕
DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐDĂƌLJ^ƚĞŝŶĞƌ͕ŵLJŚƵƐďĂŶĚWĞƚĞĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞYƵĂŝů,ŽůůŽǁ
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘tĞĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐůĂƐƚŶŝŐŚƚ͘
DLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂŶĚŽďũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗
7KH/HQQDUƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞůĂŝĚŽƵƚƚŚĞŝƌƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕WKH\DUHSURMHFWLQJVRPH
KRXVLQJXQLWV%DVHGRQFRQVHUYDWLYHHVWLPDWHVWKDWZLOOEHDERXWSHRSOHOLYLQJRQ
WKDWVLWH6RPHLV]RQHG
5)
)RRWKLOOV5HVLGHQWLDOZLWKDORZHUKRXVLQJGHQVLW\7KLV
PHDQVLQRUGHUWRSDFNLQKRXVLQJXQLWVWKH\ZLOOQHHGWRKDYHKLJKGHQVLW\KRXVLQJRQ
WKHQRQ5)SRUWLRQ
ŽŶĐĞƌŶƐǁĞƌĞďŽƵŐŚƚƵƉƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐdƌĂĨĨŝĐFLW\7UDIILF(QJLQHHU0DUWLQD:LONLQVRQ
UHSOLHGWKDWWKH\KDYHQRWORRNHGDWDQ\RIWKDW\HWVLQFHLW
VWRRHDUO\LQWKHSURFHVV
6FKRROV UHVSRQVHWRRHDUO\WRORRNDWWKDW
:LOGOLIHLPSDFW UHVSRQVHWRRHDUO\WRORRNDWWKDW
DLJŚƵƐďĂŶĚĂŶĚ/ďŽƚŚƵƐĞƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůƐĨƌŽŵŝdžŽŶĐƌĞĞŬƚŽDĂdžǁĞůůĨŽƌŚŝŬŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶďŝŬŝŶŐ͘
,ŽǁǁŝůůŝƚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚŽƐĞƚƌĂŝůƐ͘
dŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŶŽƚŝĐĞĂďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶĞǁĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůĞdžŐŽŝŶŐƵƉŽŶ
KǀĞƌůĂŶĚƚƌĂŝů͕ŶŽƚƚŽŵĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŚĞƉŽŶĚƐĂŶĚŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
DLJƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŝƐ/HQQDUKDVQRWDFWXDOO\SXUFKDVHGWKHSURSHUW\\HWEXWKDYHRQO\
VLJQHGDFRQWUDFWRILQWHQW7KHSURSHUW\LVQRW]RQHGWRDOORZWKLVW\SHRIEXLOGLQJDQGWKH
&LW\KDVWKHILQDOVD\RQWKDW7KLVSURSHUW\ZDVIRUPHUO\LQWKH&RXQW\DQGZDVUHFHQWO\
DQQH[HGWRWKH&LW\,WLVFXUUHQWLQ
7(
]RQLQJZKLFK,
PQRWH[DFWO\VXUHRIWKHGHWDLOVRI
EXWWKHNH\LVWKDWQRRQHFDQEXLOGDQ\WKLQJXQWLO&LW\&RXQFLOFKDQJHVWKDW]RQLQJWR
ZKDWHYHUWKH\QHHGWRKDYHWREXLOGDGHYHORSPHQW
&68LVD/DQG*UDQWVFKRRODQGWKHODQGZDVJLYHQLWE\WKH6WDWH)RUWKHPWRVHOORIIWKDW
ODQGVHHPVVKRUWVLJKWHGDWEHVW
tĞĂƌĞƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĂŐĂŝŶƐƚƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚůĂĐŬŽĨƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ŝƚƐĞĞŵƐƚŽŵĞ^hŝƐ
ĂƐƵƐƵĂůŐĞƚƚŝŶŐǁŚĂƚƚŚĞLJǁĂŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞƚŽƉĂLJƚŚĞƉƌŝĐĞ͘
DLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƚŽLJŽƵŝƐĂƐŽƵƌ ůĞĐƚĞĚĐŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌǁŚĂƚŝƐLJŽƵƌƐƚĂŶĚŽŶƚŚŝƐ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕͘ĂŶĚŚŽǁǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽLJŽƵƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 662
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ
DĂƌLJ^ƚĞŝŶĞƌ
12.r
Packet Pg. 663
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW ): +XJKHV6WDGLXPVLWHGHYHORSPHQW
'DWH )ULGD\$SULO 30
5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
&ƌŽŵ͗ĞůLJŶŶŽůĚŝƌŽŶф K>/ZKEΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϯ͗ϭϯWD
dŽ͗ZĞďĞĐĐĂ ǀĞƌĞƚƚĞфƌĞǀĞƌĞƚƚĞΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
,ĞƌĞLJŽƵŐŽ͘^ŽƌƌLJĂďŽƵƚƚŚĂƚ͘
7KDQNV
'HO\QQ
7HOO XV DERXW RXU VHUYLFH ZH ZDQW WR NQRZ
&ƌŽŵ͗<ƌŝƐƚŝŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐфŬƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϮ͗ϱϱWD
dŽ͗ĞůLJŶŶŽůĚŝƌŽŶф K>/ZKEΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&ǁĚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ĞƐƚǁŝƐŚĞƐ͕
<ƌŝƐƚŝŶ
<ƌŝƐƚŝŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐ
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϰ
tŝƚŚůŝŵŝƚĞĚĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĞŵĂŝůƐĂŶĚĂŶLJĨŝůĞƐƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƉƵďůŝĐ
ĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŽůŽƌĂĚŽKƉĞŶZĞĐŽƌĚƐĐƚ;KZͿ͘dŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉĂƌĞŶĐLJ͕ĞŵĂŝůƐǁŝůů
ďĞǀŝƐŝďůĞŝŶĂŶŽŶůŝŶĞĂƌĐŚŝǀĞ͕ƵŶůĞƐƐƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌƉƵƚƐηWZ/sd ŝŶƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚůŝŶĞŽĨƚŚĞ
ĞŵĂŝů͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĐĂŶ͛ƚŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĞŵĂŝůƚŽŽƌĨƌŽŵŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůů
12.r
Packet Pg. 664
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ƌĞŵĂŝŶƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƵŶĚĞƌKZ͘
ĞŐŝŶĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͗
&ƌŽŵ͗ΗdĂŵŬƵŶ͕DŝĐŚĂĞůΗф D/>Z d х
ĂƚĞ͗Ɖƌŝůϱ͕ϮϬϭϵĂƚϮ͗ϰϱ͗ϭϯWDDd
dŽ͗ΗŬƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵΗфŬƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶ͕
ŶLJǁĂLJ/ĐŽƵůĚƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂŵĞĞƚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐƵƐƐ^h͛ƐƉůĂŶƐ͘/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽĂ
ůĂƌŐĞƐĐĂůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĂŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͘
DŝĐŚĂĞůD͘dĂŵŬƵŶ͕WŚ
WƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŝŽŵĞĚŝĐĂů^ĐŝĞŶĐĞƐ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ^ƚĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϯ
KĨĨŝĐĞͲϵϳϬͲϰϵϭͲϯϰϴϰ
>ĂďͲϵϳϬͲϰϵϭͲϯϱϵϮ
ĞůůϵϳϬͲϵϴϴͲϰϰϱϯ
12.r
Packet Pg. 665
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP &DPHURQ*ORVV
7R 7HQDH%HDQH 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW ): +XJKHV6WDGLXPVLWHHDUO\FRPPHQWV
'DWH )ULGD\$SULO 30
^LJůǀŝĂĂŶĚdĞŶĂĞ͕
ŶŽƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͘/͛ůůďĞƉĂƐƐŝŶŐĂůŽŶŐŽĨƚŚĞŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƐ/ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐŽƚŚĂƚǁĞĐĂŶ
ŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŽĐĂƉƚƵƌĞĂůůŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘
ĂŵĞƌŽŶ
&ƌŽŵ͗ƌƵĐĞ,ĞŶĚĞĞф D/>Z d х
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕ƉƌŝůϬϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϭϬ͗ϰϰD
dŽ͗ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐфĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞͲĞĂƌůLJĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ
'ŽŽĚŵŽƌŶŝŶŐĂŵĞƌŽŶ͕
/ŚĂĚĂŶŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽĂƚƚĞŶĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐůĂƐƚŶŝŐŚƚƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐƐƚĂĚŝƵŵ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘/ǁĂŶƚĞĚƚŽĨŽƌŵĂůůLJŽĨĨĞƌĂĨĞǁĞĂƌůLJĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͗
ϭ͘ ůůŽĨƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶǁĞƌĞǁŝƚŚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐŝŶĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚŶŽĂůůĞLJƐ͘ŝƚLJWůĂŶ
ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐǁĞ͛ƌĞƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞǀŝďƌĂŶƚ͕ǁĂůŬĂďůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝƚŚĂĨŽĐƵƐŽŶǀŝƚĂůĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJĐĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘dŚĞ
ŐĂƌĂŐĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚƚŚŝƐĂŶĚŝŶƐƚĞĂĚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂŵĞĚŝŽĐƌĞ͕ŽůĚ
ĨĂƐŚŝŽŶĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘/ĨǁĞĂƌĞŝŶĚĞĞĚƚŽƚĂŬĞƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJďĞŝŶŐĂǁŽƌůĚĐůĂƐƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ǁĞ
ŶĞĞĚƚŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞǁŽƌůĚĐůĂƐƐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐĂŶĚŶŽƚĂĐĐĞƉƚĂϭϵϳϬ͛ƐĂŶĚϴϬ͛ƐƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƚŽŚŽǁǁĞ
ƉůĂŶĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘tĂůŬĂďůĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚƌĞĞůĂǁŶƐ͕ƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ĂĨŽĐƵƐŽŶĐŝǀŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂŶĚ
ƵƌďĂŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͘DŽŶƚĂǀĂŝƐĂŶĞdžĂŵƉůĞŽĨĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƐƚĞƉƐƵƉĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂ
ĚLJŶĂŵŝĐŵŽĚĞůŽĨĂϮϭƐƚĐĞŶƚƵƌLJĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘tŚĂƚŝƐďĞŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďLJ>ĞŶŶĂƌĂŶĚW>ŝƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐ
ƐŚŽƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĂŵĞŽůĚƚŝƌĞĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚƚŽƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘dŚĞĂƌŐƵŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝƐ͞ǁŚĂƚƐĞůůƐ͟ĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚ
ǁŽƌŬ͘tŝƚŶĞƐƐƚŚĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůƌĞĐĞƉƚŝŽŶŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶ^ƚĂƉůĞƚŽŶŝŶĞŶǀĞƌ͕ƌĂĚďƵƌŶ͕ĂŶĚ
ŽƚŚĞƌEĞǁhƌďĂŶŝƐƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŚŽŵĞŽĨ>ĞŶŶĂƌ͘
Ϯ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽƵůĚĞĂƐŝůLJďĞĂĐƚŝǀĂƚĞĚďLJĂŶƵƌďĂŶĐĞŶƚĞƌǁŚŝĐŚĐŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂ
ůĞĂĚŝŶŐĨĂĐĞŽƉĞŶŝŶŐŽŶƚŽKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝůĂŶĚƚƵƌŶŝŶŐŝŶǁĂƌĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐǀŝďƌĂŶĐLJŽŶƚŚĞ
ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͘ŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůŵŽĚĞůƐŝŶƚŚĞĞŶǀĞƌĂƌĞĂǁŝƚŚWĞĂƌů^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚƐ͕
ZŝŶŽĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐ͘^ŵĂůůƐĐĂůĞƌĞƚĂŝů͕ƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĐŽƵůĚĞĂƐŝůLJďĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕ĂŶĚ^h͘ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĐŽŵŝŶŐďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵďŝŬĞƌŝĚĞƐ
ĂŶĚŚŝŬĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐĐŽƵůĚĞĂƐŝůLJďĞĚƌĂǁŶƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŵĞŶƚƐŚĞƌĞ͘
ϯ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉĂƌŬ͕ƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞEtĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƐĂŵĂũŽƌĐŝǀŝĐƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚŽƌŐĂŶŝnjŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘/ƚǁŝůůĂĚĚǀĂůƵĞƚŽĞǀĞƌLJŚŽŵĞ
ŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂŶĚďĞĐŽŵĞƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŵĂƌŬĞƚŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞĨŽƌƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŶĞǁƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ/ƚ͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ůŽŽŬƐĂƉŽůŽŐĞƚŝĐĂŶĚĨŽƌŐŽƚƚĞŶ͘/ƚĂůƐŽĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞƐƚŚĞƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽĨĂĚĚŝŶŐǀĂůƵĞƚŽƚǁŝĐĞĂƐŵĂŶLJůŽƚƐ
ĂƐŝƚĐŽƵůĚ͘DĂŬĞŝƚĂŵĂũŽƌƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƚŚĞƵƌďĂŶĐĞŶƚĞƌƚŽŝƚ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞůĂLJŽƵƚŝƐƐŽ
ƉĞƌĨĞĐƚƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚǁŚLJŝƚŝƐŶ͛ƚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐƵƉŽŶƚŚĞ
12.r
Packet Pg. 666
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ƉůĂŶƐ͘
ϰ͘ KǀĞƌůĂŶĚƚƌĂŝůŚĂƐďĞĞŶƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŝŶŐĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJĨŽƌŵĂŶLJLJĞĂƌƐ͘tŝƚŚŽƵƚƐŝŐŶĂůƐ
ƚŚĞĨůŽǁŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŝƐĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂů͘/ǁŽƵůĚŐƵĞƐƐĂŶ>K^ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůŵŽƐƚƵŶƚŚŝŶŬĂďůĞŝŶƚŽĚĂLJƐƌĂƉŝĚůLJ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘dŚĞŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŝŐŶĂůƐǁŝůůƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĚĞŐƌĂĚĞ͕ŶŽƚŽŶůLJƚŚĞĚƌŝǀŝŶŐ
ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞďƵƚƚŚĞ>K^͘/ǁŽƵůĚƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƐŝŐŶĂůƐŶŽƚĞǀĞŶďĞƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĂƚDŽĚĞƌŶ
ZŽƵŶĚĂďŽƵƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞŵĂŶĚĂƚŽƌLJ͘
ϱ͘ KƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞŝƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚŚŝƐƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJĨŽƌĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝƚLJĨŽƌǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ
ĂŶĚĨŽƌĂĚĚŝŶŐǀĂůƵĞĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘/ĂŵŶŽƚŝŶƚŚĞĐĂŵƉǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐŚĞĞƌŝŶŐĨŽƌŝƚĂůůƚŽďĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĂƐ
ĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚďĞĞdžĐĞůůĞŶƚĨŽƌŵĂŶLJƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͕/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƐĞĞƚŚĞEĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂƐ
ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŐĞƚƚŝŶŐƐĞƌŝŽƵƐĂďŽƵƚĂĐƋƵŝƐŝƚŝŽŶ͘/ĚŽŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĞdžƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ
ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƚŽǁĞĂǀĞƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶĂǁĂLJƚŚĂƚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ
ĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐǁŚŝůĞĂĚĚŝŶŐǀĂůƵĞƚŽŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƚŽ
ďƵŝůĚƵƉŽŶƚŚĞŽƌŐĂŶŝĐĨĂƌŵŝŶŐŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚƚŚĂƚŝƐŵƵĐŚƚŽƵŐŚĞƌ͘
&ŽƌŐŝǀĞƚŚĞůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨŵLJĞŵĂŝůďƵƚƚŚŝƐƉĂƌĐĞůŚĂƐďĞĞŶƐĂĐƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌƐŽŵĂŶLJLJĞĂƌƐ͕
ƚŽŶŽǁĐŚĂŶŐĞŝƚƚŽƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐĂŵĂũŽƌĐŚĂŶŐĞĂŶĚŚĂƌĚƚŽĂĐĐĞƉƚ͘&ŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŽŽĐĐƵƌŝƚ
ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞǀĞƌLJƐƉĞĐŝĂůĂŶĚŶŽƚũƵƐƚƌƵŶŽĨƚŚĞŵŝůůƐƵďƵƌďĂŶƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘dŚĂƚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚŝƐƚŽƚĂůůLJ
ĂŶƚŝƚŚĞƚŝĐĂůƚŽŽƵƌEĂŶĚĚĞƐŝƌĞĚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘
dŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐŵLJĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƐĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ZĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
ƌƵĐĞ,ĞŶĚĞĞ
ƌƵĐĞ͘,ĞŶĚĞĞ͕W>
D/>EW,KE EhD ZZ d
12.r
Packet Pg. 667
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP &DPHURQ*ORVV
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
&F 7HQDH%HDQH
6XEMHFW ): 0D[ZHOO2SHQ6SDFH+XJKHV6WDGLXP'HYHORSPHQW
'DWH 0RQGD\$SULO $0
ŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƉƌĞĂĚƐŚĞĞƚ͘
&ƌŽŵ͗dĞĚ^ŚĞƉĂƌĚфd^, WZΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕ƉƌŝůϬϴ͕ϮϬϭϵϴ͗ϯϱD
dŽ͗ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐфĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗DĂdžǁĞůůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞͲ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
&ƌŽŵ͗<ĂƚŚLJ, D/>Z d
^ĞŶƚ͗^ƵŶĚĂLJ͕ƉƌŝůϬϳ͕ϮϬϭϵϰ͗ϯϰWD
dŽ͗dĞĚ^ŚĞƉĂƌĚфd^, WZΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖^ĂƌĂŚ<ĂŶĞф^<ĂŶĞΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗DĂdžǁĞůůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞͲ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ĞĂƌŝƚLJWůĂŶŶĞƌ͕
WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ͗
/ďĞůŝĞǀĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ,ƵŐŚĞƐƉůŽƚƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂůĂƌŐĞďƵĨĨĞƌͬƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶ
ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂƌĞĂĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌŽĨDĂdžǁĞůůŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞ
ŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨĞĞůŽĨƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞŶŽŶůLJďĞĂůůŽǁĞĚĞĂƐƚŽĨ
ƚŚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĂƌĞĂ͘dŚŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶͬƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚDĂdžǁĞůůŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ
ǁŚŝůĞƐƚŝůůĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽƉƌŽĐĞĞĚďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƐŵĂůůĞƌĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚ͘dŚĞĐŝƚLJ
ĚĞƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŽŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐƵĐŚĂnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂƐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐĨƌŽŵďĞŝŶŐ
ĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚŝƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŐĞƚĂ͞ĨƌĞĞƌŝĚĞ͟ďLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽ
ƚĂdžͲƉĂLJĞƌĨƵŶĚĞĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
DĂdžǁĞůů^ƉĂĐĞŝƐĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƌĞŚĞĂǀŝůLJƵƐĞĚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚŽďǀŝŽƵƐůLJĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJ
ǀĂůƵĞĚďLJŝƚƐƉĂƚƌŽŶƐ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨ,ƵŐŚĞƐƐƚĂĚŝƵŵƚŚĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞŝƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJŵŽƌĞ
ĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐĂůůLJƉůĞĂƐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďƵĨĨĞƌǁĞĐĂŶŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚŝƐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘
dŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌůŝƐƚĞŶŝŶŐ͕
<ĂƚŚLJ,ŝƌĚ
^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵDĂŝůĨŽƌtŝŶĚŽǁƐϭϬ
12.r
Packet Pg. 668
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 7+20$6
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV3URSHUW\81,48(2SHQVSDFHLQVLGH)&
'DWH )ULGD\$SULO 30
Dƌ'ůŽƐƐͲ
DƐ^ƚĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐͲ
ŐĂŝŶĂŶĚĂŐĂŝŶ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐŚĂƐŝŶƐŝƐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŵĞƌŝƚŽĨŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚǀŽƚĞƐ͕
ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐKE K&</EͲƚŚĞƌĞŝƐ
EKd,/E'ůŝŬĞŝƚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͕ŽƌĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞŶĞĂƌďLJ͘/ƚŝƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞĐŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐϭϬϬн
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJEKdďĞƌĞnjŽŶĞĚƐŽƚŚĂƚŝƚĐĂŶďĞƉĂǀĞĚĂŶĚĨŝůůĞĚǁŝƚŚϳϬϬŚŽŵĞƐ͘
dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŽƚŚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ;ĞůƐĞǁŚĞƌĞŝŶ&ŽƌŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂͿǁŚĞƌĞĂďƵŝůĚĞƌĐĂŶŵĂŬĞ
ĂƉƌŽĨŝƚͲƚŽƐĂĐƌŝĨŝĐĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƐƵĐŚĂďƵLJĞƌŝƐĂŶŝƌƌĞǀĞƌƐŝďůĞĂĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƌŽďŽƵƌ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽĨƉƌĞĐŝŽƵƐƐƉĂĐĞĨŽƌƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƌƐŽŵĞƐŝŵŝůĂƌůŽǁĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐƚŽƚĂůůLJŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚŽƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ&ǀĂůƵĞƐĂŶĚ
ĐŚŽƐĞŶĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶͲŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽĨƐƵĐŚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐ
ƵŶĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞ͘ĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJ͕ĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƐƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐŵĂŶLJĨŽůŬƐĂƌĞƉƵƌƐƵŝŶŐ͘ƵƚŶŽƚ
ŚĞƌĞ͊
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƚĂŬĞĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝŶĂǁĂLJ
ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŝƚƐǀĂůƵĞƐĂďŽƵƚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚĨƌŽŵƉƌŽĨŝƚͲƐĞĞŬŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJͲƉůĞĂƐĞKEKd
ƌĞnjŽŶĞƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞWĞŽƉůĞŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ŶĞĞĚĂďĞƚƚĞƌǁĂLJ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƚŝŵĞ͘
WRPIDUQVZRUWK
GL[RQFUHHNODQH
IRUWFROOLQVFR
3+21($1'(0$,/5('$&7('
33OHDVHFRQVLGHUWKHHQYLURQPHQWEHIRUHSULQWLQJWKLVHPDLO
12.r
Packet Pg. 669
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 0DU\*UDQW
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV 5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH
6XEMHFW +XJKHV5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQ
'DWH 0RQGD\0D\ $0
0U*ORVV0V7DWPDQ%XUUXVV 0V(YHUHWWH
,DPDUHVLGHQWRIWKH%HOOD9LUD6XEGLYLVLRQ ,PRYHGWR)RUW&ROOLQV\HDUVDJRDQGTXLFNO\IRXQG
+RUVHWRRWK 5HVHUYRLUDQGWKHZRQGHUIXOSHRSOHIURPDOORYHU)RUW&ROOLQVDQGWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHDZKR
IUHTXHQWWKHSDUNDQGWKHWUDLOV $QGOLNHPDQ\RWKHUV,ZRXOGORYHWRVHHWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXP6LWH
UHPDLQDQDWXUDOVSDFHIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\WRFRQWLQXHWRXVHDQGHQMR\ 7KDWEHLQJVDLG,DPDOVRD
UHDOLVWDQGDSUDJPDWLVW,NQRZWKDW&68KDVVSHFLILF ILQDQFLDOJRDOVWKH\QHHGWRDFKLHYHZLWKWKHVDOHRI
WKHSURSHUW\DQGWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVKDVUHYHQXHJRDOVWKH\QHHGWRPHHW 6R,XQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKLV
SURSHUW\ZLOOEHGHYHORSHG ,DPFRQFHUQHGDERXWKRZLWZLOOEHGHYHORSHG
$JDLQDVDUHDOLVWDQGDSUDJPDWLVW,KDYHVHULRXVFRQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWKHSURSRVHGSODQVXEPLWWHGE\
/HQQDUZKLFKLGHQWLILHVWRQHZKRPHVIRUWKLVFRPPXQLW\ )RUWKHVDNHRIWKLVGRFXPHQW,ZLOO
XVHWKHQXPEHUZKHQUHIHUULQJWRWKHKRXVLQJGHQVLW\ $V,DGGUHVVP\FRQFHUQV,DPDOVRIRUPDOO\
UHTXHVWLQJDFRS\RIWKHVWXG\LQFOXGLQJWKHFULWHULDIRUWKHVWXG\DQGWKHVWXG\UHVXOWVIRUHDFKRIWKHVH
FRQFHUQV 3OHDVHXQGHUVWDQGWKDW,PLJKWQRWEHXVLQJWKHH[DFWQDPHRIWKHVWXG\ KRZHYHUP\
GHVFULSWLRQVRIWKHFRQFHUQVKRXOGEHFOHDUDQGWKHUHVXOWLQJVWXG\UHTXHVWXQGHUVWRRG ,I\RXKDYHDQ\
TXHVWLRQVRUQHHGFODULILFDWLRQSOHDVHOHWPHNQRZ
6LQFHWKLVSURSHUW\LVULJKWXSDJDLQVWWKHIRRWKLOOVWKHUHZLOORQO\EHWZRZD\VLQDQGRXWRIWKH
GHYHORSPHQW ,QWKHHYHQWRIDGLVDVWHU IORRGLQJILUH&'&EUHDFK&685HVHDUFKFHQWHUEUHDFK
RURWKHUHPHUJHQF\
IRRWKLOOV
)LQDOO\,DPUHTXHVWLQJDQ (FRORJLFDO&KDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ6WXG\IRUWKH+XJKHV5HGHYHORSPHQWVLWH
,XQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKLVLVDQHPRWLRQDO LVVXHDQG\RXDUHUHFHLYLQJDJUHDWPDQ\TXHVWLRQVDQGUHTXHVWV ,
DSSUHFLDWH\RXUWLPHDQGHIIRUWLQUHVSRQGLQJWRP\LQTXLU\DQGUHTXHVWV 3OHDVHOHWPHNQRZLI\RXKDYH
TXHVWLRQVRUQHHGFODULILFDWLRQ
7KDQN\RXLQDGYDQFHIRU\RXUWLPHDQGKHOS
0DU\$OLFH*UDQW
12.r
Packet Pg. 671
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 7RGG:KLWH
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6LWH'HYHORSPHQWGDWDUHTXHVW
'DWH 7KXUVGD\$SULO $0
,ĞůůŽ^LJůǀŝĂ͕
/ǁĂƐǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽŝŶƋƵŝƌĞŝĨLJŽƵƉůĂŶƚŽŚĂǀĞŵĂƉƐŽĨǀĂƌŝŽƵƐƐŽŝůƐĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐĨƌŽŵ^^hZ'KƐŽŝů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ƐŽŝůĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͕ƐƵŝƚĂďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌŽĂĚƐ͕ĐŽƌƌŽƐŝǀŝƚLJ͕ΘĐͿ
ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚƚŚŝƐĞǀĞŶŝŶŐΖƐƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƐƵŝƚĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐŽŝůƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂ
ƉƌŝŝŵĂƌLJĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐĂŶLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌnjŽŶŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘/ǁŽƵůĚŶΖƚďĞƐƵƌƉƌŝƐĞĚŝĨ
ƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐŚƌŝŶŬͲƐǁĞůůĐůĂLJƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ͕ĂŶĚͬŽƌƌĂĚŽŶ͘
KƚŚĞƌŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚŝƐƐƵĞƐ͕ŽĨĨƚŚĞƚŽƉŽĨŵLJŚĞĂĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͘ŶLJŝŶĨŽĐŽƵůĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ
ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŽƵůĚĂůƐŽďĞŵƵĐŚĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞĚ͘
ǀŝƐƵĂůĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ
ůŝŐŚƚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ;Ğ͘Ő͕͘ƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨĐŽůĚͲƐƉĞĐƚƌƵŵďůƵŝƐŚ> ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ;ŐŽŽŐůĞ
ƐƚƵĚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌĚĞƚƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĞĨĨĞĐƚƐͿ
ƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ
ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŵŝŐƌĂƚŽƌLJĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ
ĂŝƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ
ŶŽŝƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĂĨƚĞƌ;ƚŚĞŚŽŐďĂĐŬĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂ
ƵŶŝƋƵĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŽƵŶĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂͿ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ
ŝŶĚƵĐĞĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĚƵĞƚŽĂŶLJůŽĐĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŵĂĚĞƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚǀĞŚŝĐůĞ
ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͕ƐĞĞŬŝŶŐƚŽƵƐĞKǀĞƌůĂŶĚĂƐĂǁĞƐƚĞƌŶďLJƉĂƐƐ
^ŽƌƌLJĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂƐƚŵŝŶƵƚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJĂƐ/ŚĂǀĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚƐŝŵŝůĂƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐŝŶŵLJ
ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͘/ΖĚůŝŬĞƚŽƐĞĞƚŚŝƐĚŽŶĞƌŝŐŚƚ͕ŝĨŝƚŝƐŐŽŝŶŐƚŽŚĂƉƉĞŶ͘^ƚŝůůĂďŝƚƵƉƐĞƚĂƚ
ƚŚĞĚŝƐŝŶŐĞŶƵŽƵƐŽĨ^hŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƚŽƚĂŬĞƚŚŝƐƌŽƵƚĞ͘ĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƐĂŶŽďůĞ
ĐĂƵƐĞ͕ďƵƚŵLJŝŶŝƚŝĂůŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶŝƐƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝƐǁŝŶĚŽǁĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐĨŽƌĂƉĂLJŽĨĨƚŽƚŚĞƉŽǁĞƌƐƚŚĂƚ
ďĞ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
dŽĚĚ<͘tŚŝƚĞ͕/W
12.r
Packet Pg. 672
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP %ULDQ:RRGUXII
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHVVLWHUHGHYHORSPHQWWUDIILFVXJJHVWLRQ
'DWH 7XHVGD\0D\ 30
Sylvia - -
I am a big fan of roundabouts, and have long wanted one at the intersection of
Drake Road and Overland Trail. This message is to make sure that idea gets
evaluated in the context of the Hughes redevelopment.
The current building project on the NE corner of Drake and Overland appears to
be putting in an acceleration lane for west-to-north turns. But the Hughes
project will need a traffic study done, and I request that it include consideration
of a roundabout for Drake and Overland.
Please let me know if I need to do more to keep the roundabout idea alive, or if
it's already moot.
- - Thanks, Brian Woodruff
--
======================
BRIAN WOODRUFF
3+21((0$,/5('$&7('
======================
12.r
Packet Pg. 673
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP $OLVRQ:HEHU
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6LWH5HGHYHORSPHQW
'DWH 0RQGD\$SULO $0
'HDU 0U *ORVV DQG 0V 7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
0\ KXVEDQG DQG , UHFHQWO\ UHFHLYHG D ³1HLJKERUKRRG 0HHWLQJ ,QYLWDWLRQ´ WR DWWHQG D GHYHORSPHQW
SURSRVDO RQ $SULO IRU WKH +XJKHV 6LWH 5HGHYHORSPHQW :H KDG SODQQHG WR JR YRLFH RXU RSLQLRQV
DERXW WKH SODQQHG KRPHV RQ WKH SURSHUW\ EXW UHFRQVLGHUHG ILJXULQJ LW ZRXOG EH DQRWKHU \HW
DQRWKHU IUXVWUDWLQJ H[SHULHQFH DQG XWWHU ZDVWH RI RXU WLPH
:H +$' DWWHQGHG D ³/LVWHQLQJ 6HVVLRQ´ KHOG E\ &68 DQG ,&21 9HQXH *URXS VRPH WLPH DJR LQ
ORQJ EHIRUH DQ\ GHFLVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH SURSHUW\ KDG RIILFLDOO\ EHHQ PDGH :H ZHUH KRSHIXO WKDW WKH
SURSHUW\ PLJKW LQGHHG EH GHYHORSHG LQ KDUPRQ\ ZLWK WKH FRQFHUQV YRLFHG E\ WKH ORFDO UHVLGHQWV PDQ\ RI
ZKRP ZHUH VWURQJO\ VWDWLQJ WKHLU FRQFHUQV WKDW WKH DUHD 127 EH KHDYLO\ EXLOW XS ZLWK QHZ KRPHV GXH WR
WKH URDGV WUDIILF FRQFHUQV DQG JHQHUDO EHOLHI WKDW SXWWLQJ D ORW RI KRPHV WKHUH ZRXOG EH GHWULPHQWDO WR WKH
DUHD
:H ZDLWHG IRU D UHVXOW ILQDOO\ KHDULQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ WKDW &68 KDG VROG WKH SURSHUW\ WR D GHYHORSHU IRU D WLG\
VXP ZKR ZDV LQGHHG JRLQJ WR GR (;$&7/< ZKDW WKH FRPPXQLW\ KDG YHU\ FOHDUO\ VDLG WKH\ GLG QRW ZDQW
YHU\ ODUJH KRXVLQJ GHYHORSPHQWV
6R QRZ ZH UHVLGHQWV QHDUE\ DZDLW WKH RXWFRPH RI WKH PDVVLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQ SURMHFW WR EXLOG WKHVH KRPHV
PRGLI\ WKH URDGV DQG GHDO ZLWK WKH UHVXOWLQJ WUDIILF LQFUHDVH WR KXPDQLW\ DQG HYHQ JUHDWHU RYHUFURZGLQJ
RI WKH QHLJKERUKRRG VFKRROV
:H GLG QRW ERWKHU WR ZDVWH VHYHUDO KRXUV RI RXU WLPH DJDLQ VLQFH FOHDUO\ QR RQH OLVWHQHG WR WKH YRLFHV RI
FRQFHUQ EHIRUH WKH ODQG ZDV HYHQ VROG 2XU FROOHFWLYH YRLFHV ZHUH ,*125(' E\&68
:K\ ZRXOG ZH SRVVLEO\ WKLQN WKH &LW\ RI )RUW &ROOLQV ZRXOG GR RWKHUZLVH" <RX OLNHO\ FDQQRW FKDQJH
WKLQJV DW WKLV SRLQW :K\ ZRXOG \RX ZDQW WR" <RX¶OO MXVW PDNH VXUH WKH\ IROORZ WKH FLW\¶V UXOHV LQ SODQQLQJ
VHFXULQJ SHUPLWV DQG EXLOGLQJ FRGHV DQG OHW WKH UHYHQXH UROO LQ
+RZ DERXW EHFDXVH DV WKLV FLW\ JURZV ZH DUH 127 JURZLQJ RXU ZDWHU VXSSO\ RU RXU HOHFWULFDO JULG"
+RZ DERXW EHFDXVH WKH VFKRRO V\VWHP LV DOUHDG\ EXUVWLQJ DW WKH VHDPV DQG LV 127 JRLQJ WR EH DEOH WR
UHDGLO\ DEVRUE WKH QHZ FKLOGUHQ ZKR ZLOO EH GXPSHG LQWR WKH FODVVURRPV DV D UHVXOW RI WKHVH QHZ
KRPHV" 1HZ VFKRROV LQ WKH GLVWULFW DUH QRW FXUUHQWO\ SODQQHG IRU WKH ZHVW VLGH RI WRZQ ZKLFK PHDQV WKDW
WKLV KRXVLQJ DQG UHVXOWLQJ SRSXODWLRQ JURZWK LV JRLQJ WR IXUWKHU RYHUFURZG WKH H[LVWLQJ FODVVURRPV
+RZ DERXW EHFDXVH WKH URDGV OHDGLQJ WR WKDW SODQQHG GHYHORSPHQW ZHUH QHYHU GHVLJQHG WR KDQGOH WKH
YROXPH RI WUDIILF WKDW ZLOO UHVXOW IURP ERWK WKLV QHZ GHYHORSPHQW DQG WKH RWKHUV SODQQHG IRU WKDW VDPH
JHQHUDO SDUW RI WRZQ"
+RZ DERXW EHFDXVH WKH LQIUDVWUXFWXUH RI WKLV FLW\ ZKLFK LV JURZLQJ E\ OHDSV DQG ERXQGV LV QRW VHW XS WR
KDQGOH LW"
$V WKH FLW\¶V /RQJ5DQJH 3ODQQLQJ 0DQDJHU KRZ DERXW SXVKLQJ IRU PRUH ZDWHU VWRUDJH WKDW GRHV QRW
UHTXLUH WDNLQJ RYHU SHRSOH¶V KRPHV DQG ODQG E\ HPLQHQW GRPDLQ" 7KH FLW\ FRXOG KDYH WDNHQ RYHU WKLV
SURSHUW\ DQG XVHG LW %XW WKH\ GLG QRW DFUHV RI ODQG ULJKW QH[W WR WKH IRRWKLOOV FRXOG KDYH PDGH D
JUHDW UHVHUYRLU OLNH +RUVHWRRWK 1RW DV ODUJH EXW VWLOO D JRRG WKLQJ IRU WKH FRPPXQLW\¶V IXWXUH
6XUH NHHS WKH WLQ\ ELW RI ODQG DOORFDWHG IRU D ³QHLJKERUKRRGVFDOH SDUN´ DQG D GLVF JROI FRXUVH DPRQJ WKH
DQWIDUPV /LNH WKDW LV $1< FRQVRODWLRQ WR WKH ORFDO QHLJKERUV ZKR KDYH OLYHG KHUH IRU \HDUV WUHDVXUHG
WKH UHODWLYHO\ TXLHW DQG XQVSRLOHG ZHVW VLGH RI WRZQ WKDW LV DERXW WR EH GHVWUR\HG ZLWK WKLV DQG WKH RWKHU
EXLOGLQJV DOVR SODQQHG IRU WKDW JHQHUDO DUHD
12.r
Packet Pg. 674
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
$QG \RX ZRQGHU ZK\ FLWL]HQV GRQ¶W ZDQW WR SDUWLFLSDWH" %HFDXVH \RX GRQ¶W OLVWHQ :H JHW GLVJXVWHG E\
HYHQ WU\LQJ WR SDUWLFLSDWH ZKHQ ZH NQRZ QRWKLQJ ZH VD\ LV JRLQJ WR FKDQJH WKH SDWK RI WKLV EXOOHW WUDLQ
IXHOHG E\ PRQH\ DQG JUHHG
:KDW D VDG UHIOHFWLRQ RQ WKLV UDSLGO\ FKDQJLQJ FLW\ ,W¶V VWDUWLQJ WR IHHO PRUH OLNH 7RN\R EXLOGLQJ RQ HYHU\
SRVVLEOH VTXDUH PHWHU RI EDUH HDUWK LQVWHDG RI WKH ORYHO\ FRPPXQLW\ LW ZDV ZLWK D VPDOOWRZQ IHHO
2QH RI PDQ\ IXULRXV FLW\ UHVLGHQWV QHDU WKH +XJKHV 6LWH 5HGHYHORSPHQW SURMHFW
$OLVRQ :HEHU
12.r
Packet Pg. 675
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP %ULDQ6KLSOH\
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6LWH5HGHYHYHORSPHQW
'DWH 0RQGD\0D\ 30
6\OYLD
LDPFRQFHUQHGDERXWWKHFLW\
VSURSRVDOWRDOORZGZHOOLQJVDORQJ2YHUODQG7U
:KDW,XQGHUVWDQG\RXDUHSURSRVLQJDGHYHORSPHQWRIDQRWKHUXQLWVDWWKH+XJKHV6LWH
3UHVHQWO\WKHFXUUHQWGHYHORSPHQWKDVQ
WILQLVKHGDORQJ2YHUODQG7UDQGWKHWUDIILFLVDOUHDG\
RXWRIKDQG<RXUHGXFH0XOEHUU\IURPWZRODQHVWRRQHWKHQWKLQN\RXFDQGRXEOHWKH
DPRXQWRISHRSOHOLYLQJRQWKHZHVWVLGHRIWRZQ,XUJH\RXWRUHFRQVLGHUWKLVGHYHORSPHQW
)RUW&ROOLQVURDGGHYHORSPHQWKDVEHHQ\HDUVRUPRUHEHKLQGLWVGHYHORSPHQW<RXQHHG
WRFRQVLGHUWKHSHRSOHWKDWOLYHKHUHDQGWKHLUTXDOLW\RIOLIH$OVRZKHUHGRHVDOOWKHZDWHU
FRPHIURP",VDQ\RIWKHSODQQLQJGRQHZLWKDQ\ORZZDWHUSODQWXVHRUVRODUPLQGHG
GHYHORSPHQW"
6LQFHUHO\
%ULDQ6KLSOH\
62YHUODQG7U
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
3+21(5('$&7('
12.r
Packet Pg. 676
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP (OHQD0/RSH]3K'
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
&F &LW\/HDGHUV 5RVV&XQQLII -XOLH3LJQDWDUR
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXP6XEMHFW)RFXV*URXS0HHWLQJ
'DWH 6XQGD\0D\ 30
+HOOR0V7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
,DPZULWLQJWR5693DVD<(6WRDWWHQGWKHIRFXVJURXSPHHWLQJRFFXUULQJRQ0D\
UHJDUGLQJWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPUHGHYHORSPHQWSODQ,ZDVUHFHQWO\LQIRUPHGE\P\QHLJKERU
WKDWWKLVPHHWLQJLVWDNLQJSODFHDQGWKDW\RXPHQWLRQHGWRKHUWKDWLWLVLQGDQJHURIEHLQJ
FDQFHOHGGXHWROLPLWHGLQWHUHVW,FDQDVVXUH\RXWKHUHLVVXEVWDQWLDOLQWHUHVWDURXQGWKLV
UHGHYHORSPHQWSODQQRWRQO\E\WKRVHZKROLYHLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPVLWH
EXWE\0$1<UHVLGHQWV DQGIUHTXHQWYLVLWRUVDQGUHFUHDWRUV
)URP -DPHV0HGORFN
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXP/DQG
'DWH 7XHVGD\-XQH 30
'HDU0V6WDWPDQ%XUUXVV
7KLVHYHQLQJ&KDQQHO 1HZVEULHIO\VKRZHGDGHWDLOHGSODQIRUWKHUHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPODQG
:K\LVWKLVSODQQRWGLVSOD\HGRQWKLVZHEVLWH"
6HHLQJWKHSURSRVDORQ79ZDVYHU\XSVHWWLQJ /RRNVOLNHD*L$17DSDUWPHQWFRPSOH[ZLWKDWLQ\SDUNWRVVHGLQ
DVDERQHWRWKRVHRIXVZKRWUHDVXUHWKLVODQG 'LGQ
WHYHQKDYHDFKDQFHWRVHHVL]HRIIULVEHHGLVFSDUN
7KHFLW\KDVKDGWKHYLVLRQWRSXUFKDVHODQGDVIDUDZD\DV6RDSVWRQHDQG5HG0RXQWDLQEXWWKLVODQGZLWKLQDELNH
ULGH
VGLVWDQFHRIPDQ\LVWREHWUDVKHGE\ZKDWKDVULJKWO\EHHQGHVFULEHGDVDSHRSOHERPE
3OHDVHXSGDWHWKLVZHEVLWHVR/HQQDU
VSURSRVDOPD\EHVWXGLHGE\DOOWKRVHZKRDUHLQWHUHVWHG
6LQFHUHO\
7ULFLD0HGORFN
)URPP\L3DG
12.r
Packet Pg. 678
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 1LFN0LFKHOO
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXPQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJ
'DWH 0RQGD\$SULO 30
'HDU0V7DWPDQ%XUUHVV
/HWPHVWDUWE\VD\LQJWKDW,GRQ
WHQY\WKHMRE\RXDUHWU\LQJWRGRWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXP
GHYHORSPHQWLVERXQGWRJHQHUDWHDORWRIRSLQLRQVPDQ\RIWKHPVRPHZKDWKHDWHG $QGLQ
VHWWLQJXSDQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJ,
PVXUHWKHUHLVDFRQIOLFWEHWZHHQWU\LQJWRJHWIHHGEDFN
HDUO\DQGKDYLQJWRFRQWLQXDOO\VD\:HGRQ
WNQRZWKHDQVZHUWRWKDW\HW 1HYHUWKHOHVV,
IRXQGWKHPHHWLQJWREHGLVDSSRLQWLQJ ,DPWKHFKDLUSHUVRQRIWKH(QHUJ\%RDUGVR,FDPH
ZLWKDVSHFLILFVHWRIWRSLFVLQPLQG /HWPHGHVFULEHDIHZRIWKHP
:KDWDUHWKHSODQVIRUHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\" 7KHJHQWOHPDQIRU3&6*URXSSHUKDSV
GRHVQ
WVSHDNIRU/HQQDURQWKDWEXWZKDW,KHDUGZDV/HQQDUKRPHVDUHDOUHDG\YHU\
HIILFLHQW &RPSDUHWKLVDQVZHUWR0RQWDYD
VJRDORI]HURQHWHQHUJ\UHDG\WKLVLVQRW
HYHQLQWKHVDPHEDOOSDUN %XLOGLQJHQHUJ\XVHLVJRLQJWREHDYHU\KDUGSUREOHPDV
ZHWU\WRPHHWRXU&OLPDWH$FWLRQ3ODQJRDOVDQGWKLVZRQ
WKHOS
:KDWDERXWUHQHZDEOHV" :HFDQ
WVD\\HW :HOO,
PQRWH[SHFWLQJDFRPPXQLW\
VRODUJDUGHQEXW/HQQDUVKRXOGKDYHDWOHDVWWKRXJKWDERXWWKLVTXHVWLRQ
:KDWDERXWORFDOUHWDLO" :HWKLQNLWLVQRWIHDVLEOH $VLGHIURPD(OHYHQ,GRQ
W
VHHDQ\UHWDLOZLWKLQPRUHWKDQDPLOH :KLFKPHDQVHYHU\HUUDQGZLOOEHDFDUWULS
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQLVWKHRWKHUUHDOO\KDUGSUREOHPIRURXU&$3JRDOV :HQHHGWRVWDUW
UHGXFLQJYHKLFOHPLOHVWUDYHOOHG :KLFKEULQJXS
:KDWDERXWEXVURXWHVDQGPDVVWUDQVLWRSWLRQV" 7RRHDUO\WRVD\ 5HDOO\LW
VQRWWRR
HDUO\WREHWKLQNLQJDERXWWKLV
7KHPRVWGLVDSSRLQWLQJWKLQJZDVWKHRYHUDOOSUHVHQWDWLRQIURPWKH3&6*URXSVSHDNHU +H
WDONHGDERXWSDUNVDQGDERXWYLHZVKHGVDQGWKDWZDVLW 'RHVKHHYHQUHFRJQL]HWKDWWKHVH
RWKHULVVXHVH[LVW" 7KLVLVQRWDVPDOOLQILOOSURMHFWZLWKDGR]HQRUVRKRPHVWKHQXPEHUVLQ
WKH&RORUDGRDQVXJJHVWKRPHV ,IWKHGHYHORSHULVQRWUHPRWHO\LQWHUHVWHGLQEHLQJ
IRUZDUGORRNLQJWKH&LW\QHHGVWRRSHQWKHLUH\HVDELW <HVWKHUHDUHFKDOOHQJHVKHUHEXW
DOVRDELJRSSRUWXQLW\
6LQFHUHO\
1LFN0LFKHOO
12.r
Packet Pg. 679
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 0DUN%LDQFKL
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXPUHGHYHORSPHQWIHHGEDFN
'DWH 7KXUVGD\0D\ 30
+HOOR&DPHURQDQG6\OYLD
,DPZULWLQJ\RXDVDFRQFHUQHGFLWL]HQDQGORQJWLPHUHVLGHQWRI)RUW&ROOLQVDQGDQHLJKERU
WRWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPUHGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFW,DWWHQGHGWKH1HLJKERUKRRG0HHWLQJRQ$SULO
WKZKLFKUDLVHGDQXPEHURIFRQFHUQVIRUPH,WKRXJKLWLPSRUWDQWWRSURYLGH\RXZLWKWKLV
IHHGEDFN
7REHJLQZLWKP\RYHUULGLQJFRQFHUQZKLFKZDVHORTXHQWO\H[SUHVVHGE\DJHQWOHPDQ
DWWKH$SULOWKPHHWLQJLVWKDWWKLVSLHFHRIODQGLVYHU\XQLTXHLVSHUKDSVWKHODVW
SDUFHOWKDWDEXWVWKHIRRWKLOOVDQGLWZRXOGEHDYHULWDEOHFULPHWRWUHDWLWDVVLPSO\DQ\
RWKHUGHYHORSPHQW
6LQFHWKLVLVDUHJLRQRIWUDQVLWLRQIURPIRRWKLOOVWRIODWODQGQRUPDOGHVLJQVHWEDFNV
VKRXOGQRWEHDSSOLHGWRWKLVSURSHUW\JLYHQWKHODQG¶VXQLTXHQHVVHVSHFLDOO\DORQJWKH
ZHVWHGJHDVWKDWLVDQLPSRUWDQWHQYLURQPHQWDOFRUULGRUXVHGE\SHRSOHDQGZLOGOLIH
5HJDUGLQJWKH]RQLQJDQGKRXVLQJGHQVLW\DJDLQGXHWRWKHXQLTXHQDWXUHRIWKLVSDUFHO
DQGLWVDGMDFHQF\WRRSHQVSDFHWKHUHVKRXOGEHVRPHKRXVLQJGHQVLW\JUDGLHQWWKDW
EHJLQVUHODWLYHORZWRZDUGWKHZHVWZDUGVLGHZLWKLQFUHDVLQJGHQVLW\HDVWZDUGWRZDUG
2YHUODQG7UDLO7KH3RQGVVHHPVWRKDYHLPSOHPHQWHGWKLVUHODWLYHO\ZHOOQRWWR
PHQWLRQKRZVRPXFKRSHQVSDFHDQGJUHHQEHOWKDVEHHQZHDYHGWKURXJKRXWWKH
GHYHORSPHQWVXFKWKDWPRVWKRPHVDUHZLWKLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKHVHVSDFHVZLWK
PDQ\RIWKHPGLUHFWO\DGMDFHQWWRLW
$QRWKHULPSRUWDQWLWHPWKDWELUGHUIULHQGVKDYHSRLQWHGRXWLVWKDWWKHELUGKDELWDWLQWKH
DUHDWRWKHQRUWKHQGRI'L[RQ5HVHUYRLULVDZRUOGFODVVDUHDDQGGHVHUYHVWREH
SURWHFWHG7KLVVKRXOGEHNHSWLQPLQGZKHQVHWEDFNVWUDIILFSODQVDQGKRXVLQJGHQVLW\
DUHFRQVLGHUHG
,UHDOL]HWKDW/HQQDU3&6*URXS¶VSURSRVDODWWKH1HLJKERUKRRG0HHWLQJLVSUREDEO\D
SXUSRVHIXOO\XQLQVSLULQJSODQVRWKDWRQFHLWLVUHYLHZHGWKH\FDQPDNH³HDV\
FRQFHVVLRQV´WKDWGHPRQVWUDWHKRZWKH\KDYHOLVWHQHGDQGUHVSRQGHGWRFRPPXQLW\
IHHGEDFN+RZHYHU,EHOLHYH\RXDUHLQWKHSRVLWLRQWRFRQVROLGDWHWKHFLWL]HQIHHGEDFN
DORQJZLWKWKH&LW\¶V0DVWHU3ODQWRGULYHWKLVSURMHFWWRDOLJQZLWKWKHYDOXHVRIRXU
FRPPXQLW\HVSHFLDOO\ZLWKWKLVXQLTXHSURSHUW\6RPHFRPPHQWVUHODWHGWRWKHDFWXDO
GHYHORSPHQW
0RUHLQVSLUHGKRXVLQJGHVLJQVDQGZDONDEOHQHLJKERUKRRGVZLWKDOOH\VLQWKH
UHDUSRUFKHVLQIURQWDQGFLYLFVSDFHV
7KHUHDSSHDUHGWREHQRFRPPHUFLDOVLWHVRQWKHSODQ\HWVRPHDPRXQWRI
VHOHFWLYHO\SODFHGQHLJKERUKRRGFRPPHUFLDOVLWHV QRW³GHVWLQDWLRQFRPPHUFLDO
RSHUDWLRQV´
2YHUODQG7UDLOLVSRVVLEO\WKHRQO\VPRRWKO\IORZLQJDUWHU\LQWKHFLW\+RSHIXOO\
URXQGDERXWVZRXOGEHLPSOHPHQWHGLQVWHDGRIVLJQDOOLJKWVVRWKDWUHDVRQDEOH
IORZLVPDLQWDLQHG
)LQDOO\,XQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHUHLVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRMRLQLQDVLWHZDONRIWKHSURSHUW\,GRQ¶W
NQRZZKHQWKDWLVVFKHGXOHGRULIWKHUHDUHPXOWLSOHGDWHVVFKHGXOHGEXWP\ZLIHDQG,ZRXOG
OLNHWRVLJQXSIRUWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRVHHWKHVLWHILUVWKDQG6\OYLD,OHIWDYRLFHPDLOIRU\RXD
IHZZHHNVDJRDVNLQJWREHDGGHGWRWKHVLWHZDONOLVWKRSHIXOO\\RXFDQFRQILUPWKDWZHDUH
DGGHGDQSURYLGHXVZLWKWKHSURSRVHGWLPH V
)URP 9LFN\+DQVHQ
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHVVWDGLXPUHGHYHORSPHQW
'DWH 6DWXUGD\0D\ 30
,OLYHRII+DPSVKLUH5RDG DFURVV'UDNHIURPWKH7DIWKLOO6DIHZD\VWRUH
)URP &DOYLQ(ULFNVRQ
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
&F FDOYLQBHULFNVRQ#KRWPDLOFRP QFBHULFNVRQ#FRPFDVWQHW
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXP6LWH'HYHORSPHQWFRPPHQWV
'DWH :HGQHVGD\$SULO 30
dŽ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕
DLJĨĂŵŝůLJŚĂƐŚĂĚƚŚĞƉƌŝǀŝůĞŐĞƚŽůŝǀĞŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĨŽƌŽǀĞƌϮϬLJĞĂƌƐ͘tĞ
ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƚŚĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͕ƚƌĂŝůƐĂŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌƉĂĐĞŽŶƚŚŝƐƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͘tĞ͛ǀĞĂůƐŽƐĞĞŶĂ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞŽŶŽƵƌŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘tŚŝůĞǁĞ͛ƌĞŶŽƚŚĂƉƉLJƚŚĂƚĂ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐůĂƌŐĞƉĂƌĐĞůǁŝůůďĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚďLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ǁĞƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝƚŝƐŝŶĞǀŝƚĂďůĞ͘^ŽǁĞǁĂŶƚƚŽƐĞĞ
ŝƚĚŽŶĞǁĞůů͘tŝƚŚƚŚĂƚŝŶŵŝŶĚ͕ǁĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
ϭͿ WƌŽƚĞĐƚDĂdžǁĞůůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞĂŶĚtŝůĚůŝĨĞ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ
dŚĞƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞďƵĨĨĞƌďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ
DĂdžǁĞůů͘WůĂĐŝŶŐƐƚƌĞĞƚƐŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJŶĞdžƚƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJǁŝůůƉƵƐŚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ
ďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƌĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƌĂŶŐĞ͘
ϮͿ DĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƋƵĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĚĞĂƵƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
dŚĞ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐͲWůĂŝŶƐŝŶƚĞƌĨĂĐĞŝƐŽŶĞŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͛ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͘tŝƚŚŽƵƚŝƚ͕ǁĞ
ĐŽƵůĚďĞŵŽƐƚĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌĐŝƚLJŽŶƚŚĞƉůĂŝŶƐ͘tĞŽŶůLJŚĂǀĞĂĨĞǁŵŝůĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌĨĂĐĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ
,ƵŐŚĞƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐƌŝŐŚƚŝŶƚŚĞŵŝĚĚůĞ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůŝƌƌĞǀĞƌƐŝďůLJĚĞŐƌĂĚĞƚŚŝƐƵŶŝƋƵĞ
ĨĞĂƚƵƌĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĚĞŐƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶŵĂLJďĞƌĞĚƵĐĞĚďLJŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂŶŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞďƵĨĨĞƌŽŶƚŚĞ
ǁĞƐƚĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŐƌĞĞŶďĞůƚŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͘
ϯͿ džƉĂŶĚZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐĐĞƐƐ
ŝĐLJĐůĞƐ͕ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚƚƌĂŝůƐŵĂŬĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐǁŚĂƚŝƚŝƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
• ŝŬĞůĂŶĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͘
• ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉĂƌŬ͕ŐƌĞĞŶďĞůƚƐĂŶĚƉĂƚŚƐŝŶƚŚĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
• >ŝŵŝƚĞĚĨŽŽƚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽDĂdžǁĞůůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƉĞƌŚĂƉƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ
ƉĂƌŬ͘
• /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌDĂdžǁĞůů͘/ƚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŽǀĞƌĐƌŽǁĚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵĂŶLJƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂůŽŶŐZϰϮ͘
ϰͿ ,ŽŶŽƌŽƵƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJ
dŚĞ͟͞ĂŶĚƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƐƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞĂƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͘
• ŽŶ͛ƚƉƵƐŚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞǀŝĞǁŽĨŽƵƌůĂŶĚŵĂƌŬ͘͟͞>ŝŵŝƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƚŽƚǁŽĨůŽŽƌƐĂŶĚ
ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂŶŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞďƵĨĨĞƌŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͘
• WůĂĐĞĂƉĂƌŬŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƐƚĂĚŝƵŵ͘/ŶĐůƵĚĞĂŶŽƉĞŶŐƌĂƐƐLJĂƌĞĂ͕ƉĞƌŚĂƉƐĂƌĞĐ
ƐŽĐĐĞƌĨŝĞůĚ͕ŽŶƚŚĞĞdžĂĐƚƐŝƚĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƉůĂLJŝŶŐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ͘
ϱͿ ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚKƵƌ džŝƐƚŝŶŐƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ
džŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƌĂŬĞΘdĂĨƚ;ĂŶĚĞůƐĞǁŚĞƌĞͿŚĂǀĞƉůĞŶƚLJŽĨĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJΘ
ǀĂĐĂŶĐŝĞƐƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚĞŵĂŶĚ͘EĞǁĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐƉĂĐĞŝƐŶŽƚŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘/ĨĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐ
ŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ͕ŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƐŵĂůůĂŶĚƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽŶůLJ͘ĚĚŝŶŐĚĞƐƚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ
ƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐŽƌĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶƐǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĂŶĚŝƐǀĞƌLJƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞ͘
ϲͿ WƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞEĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
dŚŝƐŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůĂĚĚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĐĂƌ͕ďŝŬĞĂŶĚĨŽŽƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͘dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶ͗
• dƵƌŶůĂŶĞƐ͕ďŝŬĞůĂŶĞƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐƚƌĞĞƚƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐƚŽĂůůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͕ďŽƚŚĨƌŽŵ
KǀĞƌůĂŶĚĂŶĚZϰϮ͘
• hƉŐƌĂĚĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚΘZϰϮ
• ƌŽƵŶĚĂďŽƵƚŽƌƐŝŵŝůĂƌƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐĂƚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚΘƌĂŬĞ͘;EŽƚƌĂĨĨŝĐůŝŐŚƚƐƉůĞĂƐĞ͘ͿEŽƚĞƚŚŝƐ
ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǀĞƌLJĚĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐĨŽƌŶŽƌƚŚďŽƵŶĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕
ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJĨŽƌďŝŬĞƐ͘/ƚǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞƵŶĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͘
• hƉŐƌĂĚĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚΘWƌŽƐƉĞĐƚ
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŽƵƌŝŶƉƵƚĂŶĚĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 683
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ĞƐƚZĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
ĂůǀŝŶΘEĂŶĐLJ ƌŝĐŬƐŽŶ
Ϯϵϯϭ^ŬŝŵŵĞƌŚŽƌŶ^ƚ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕ϴϬϱϮϲ
D/>EW,KE Z d
12.r
Packet Pg. 684
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP :KLFNHU:DUG
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXPVLWHGHYHORSPHQW
'DWH 7KXUVGD\0DUFK $0
DLJǁŝĨĞƉƌŝůĂŶĚ/ŚĂǀĞƐƚƌŽŶŐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘tĞ
ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞYƵĂŝůZŝĚŐĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌŶĞĂƌůLJϮϱLJĞĂƌƐ͕ĂŶĚŚĂǀĞŐƌĞĂƚůLJ
ǀĂůƵĞĚŽƵƌŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJůŽǁƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐĂŶĚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽŽƵƌƉƌĞĐŝŽƵƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƐĂŶĚ
ƚƌĂŝůƐ͘tĞĂůƐŽŐƌĞĂƚůLJǀĂůƵĞƚŚĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƚŚĂƚƵƐĞƚŚĞƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞůLJůŝŐŚƚůLJͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚƐĂůŽŶŐ
ƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ͘&ŝŶĂůůLJ͕ǁĞĨĞĞůǀĞƌLJƉƌŝǀŝůĞŐĞĚƚŽůŝǀĞŝŶ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨŝƚ͛ƐŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJĨŝŶĞ
ƌĞĐŽƌĚŽĨŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůůLJͲƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞǁĂLJƐĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐĂƐ
ŵƵĐŚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘
tĞƌĞĂůŝnjĞƚŚĂƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŽůĚ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞŵƵƐƚďLJŶŽǁďĞ
ŝŶĞǀŝƚĂďůĞ͘ŶĚ͕ǁĞƌĞĂůŝnjĞƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐǁŝůůĐƌĞĂƚĞŵƵĐŚŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŵƵĐŚŚĞĂǀŝĞƌƵƐĞ
ŽĨŽƵƌŶĞĂƌďLJŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͕ďŽƚŚŽĨǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůƌĞĚƵĐĞ͗;ĂͿŽƵƌĞŶũŽLJŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͕;ďͿ
ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚLJ͕;ĐͿǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚ;ĚͿƉƌŽďĂďůLJŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǀĂůƵĞƐ͘
tĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĚŽĂůůŝƚĐĂŶƚŽ͗
• ĂƐĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝůĂŶĚƌĂŬĞZŽĂĚ͕
• ŶƐƵƌĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞΘƐĂĨĞďŝĐLJĐůĞůĂŶĞƐŽŶĂůůƌŽĂĚƐŶĞĂƌƚŚĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕
• ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĨŝƚŝŶǀŝƐƵĂůůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ
ƉůĞĂƐŝŶŐĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĂŶĚƉůĞĂƐĞ͕
• dŚŝŶŬĐĂƌĞĨƵůůLJĂďŽƵƚĂŶLJŶĞǁƚƌĂŝůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚǁĂLJƐƚŽŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨ
ŚĞĂǀŝĞƌƵƐĞŽŶƚŚĞĞĐŽůŽŐLJΘǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŽĨƚŚĞWŝŶĞƌŝĚŐĞĂŶĚDĂdžǁĞůůEĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂƐ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ͕
tĂƌĚΘƉƌŝůtŚŝĐŬĞƌ
Ϯϵϱϰ^ŬŝŵŵĞƌŚŽƌŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϲ
12.r
Packet Pg. 685
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
+8*+(63523(57< =21,1*
(YHQW 'DWH 2XWFRPH
&RPPXQLW\
(QJDJHPHQW
6HSW
Ɣ UHVLGHQWVDWWHQGHG 5(6,'(176
3529,'(,1387
&RPPXQLW\
(QJDJHPHQW
2FW
Ɣ $OOFRPPHQWVVRUWHG
FDWDORJXHGDQGPDGH
DYDLODEOHRQOLQH
7237+5((5(68/76
x 23(163$&(
x $))25'$%/(
+286,1*
x 086,&9(18(
5)35HOHDVHG
$QQH[DWLRQ
-DQ
2FW
:+<12=21,1*
+($5,1*"
5)3$ZDUGHG )HE
Ɣ 0LQODQGYDOXH
DQQRXQFHG
+2:&28/'/$1'
9$/8( %($6685(' ,)
=21,1*:$6
81'(7(50,1('"
&LW\3ODQ6WUXFWXUH
3ODQ0DS5HYHDOHG
)HE
Ɣ 6KRZVSURSHUW\ WREH
fully GHYHORSHG1R
RSHQVSDFH
UHFRPPHQGHG
%$6('21:+$7
&20081,7<,1387"
:+<:$635(9,286
,1387,*125('"
&LW\3ODQ
&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ
)URP $QQD*ROGHWVN\
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW KXJKHV]RQLQJTXHVWLRQ
'DWH 0RQGD\$SULO 30
+HOOR
3HU WKH ]RQLQJ FODVVLILFDWLRQ IRU +XJKHV 5HGHYHORSPHQW ZKHQ GRHV WKLV VSHFLILF 3 = UHYLHZ
WDNH SODFH"
, DOVR ZDQW WR XQGHUVWDQG LI WKH DOO WKH DSSOLFDEOH LPSDFW VWXGLHV YHKLFOH WUDIILF ELF\FOH WUDIILF
VFKRRO GLVWULFW LPSDFW HFRORJ\ HWF WDNH SODFH EHIRUH RU DIWHU WKH ]RQLQJ LV GHWHUPLQHG
/DVWO\ KRZ GRHV WKH FLW\ HQVXUH WKH VWXGLHV DUH WUXO\ LQGHSHQGHQW DQG QRW VODQWHG LQ IDYRU RI
WKH GHYHORSHU"
3OHDVH DGYLVH RQ WKH DERYH
,Q JHQHUDO WHUPV P\ IXQGDPHQWDO FRQFHUQV LV WKDW LI ZH ORVH WKLV SUHFLRXV SLHFH RI RSHQ VSDFH
WR GHYHORSPHQW , ZDQW WR GR DOO , FDQ WR LQIOXHQFH D GHYHORSPHQW WKDW LV LQQRYDWLYH XQLTXH
DQG WR WKH KLJKHVW HFRORJLFDO VWDQGDUG QHW ]HUR KRPHV
3+21(5('$&7('
# $%
& ' (
)*+
,- ()'(
., ((,/' / 0& ',,'
((1'(0
.+
.( ,(, 1,
,''$
1 0B'' ' (, ,($$, ,0
./ ($/ ($ , / $C
, "$ ., ($/ ($($ ,
,11(1/ ,''$($, 40
./ , 0./, $(. $1,,./ $1'
, 1,110@$,,, 1111,
$/,,<,11$11( ,11(($/0
-2/ 1($(, (($/0,$ ( 1(
$1,$/ 0-,. /,,1''$/F / $
( $1($1( $,(,10, /, ,'(/
' 0
A,$ 4-25 $'D
),$/$G/$($'H-2 1($0, $%/ $
$ ('$( ($0,10/,(D,
'' ' (, , 1($, 1,''$ ,
(-240@'' $,$,, (1/ /, , 1
($/ '0.1, / , ,, /, (1
0,$ $$, ,$ /,/, (0
- 0&-' ',''$ 0,/
' 1($, -20
,,/ $,$ ( ($11, 1 $
, 1 ,0-2, 1 $ ,
0, (, ,$, /0-1-2 4,''$,$
('1 0&= $(1
./ ,,, 1(/ '( ,, /,(
, %$0
./ / /,,''$0G-,+A $)H
./ ,(, ! / 0
.'1 / $1(,( ,'( ,F, ' ,,(
0
./ $ 1,, / , 0
./ ( ,/,,1(, 0@ 1(,
, 0
./ '1,( 1/, 0.,1
@@ /,' @@,'0G-(/,(
A,0H
./ , / /,, , F/ ,F,
,0
,' /'$,,, 0G /, (
, DH
, 1 0
12.r
Packet Pg. 690
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ͳͻǡʹͲͳͻ
Ǧ
̷ Ǥ
ǣ
ǡ
ȏǫȐ
Ǥ
ĂŵĞƌŽŶͬ^LJůǀŝĂ͗
tĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŶŽƚŝĐĞŽĨĂEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚDĞĞƚŝŶŐĚĂƚĞĚϮϭDĂƌĐŚϮϬϭϵƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞĂƐǁĞůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞYƵĂŝůZŝĚŐĞƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ͘tĞĂƌĞŽƵƚŽĨƚŽǁŶĂŶĚǁŝůůŵŝƐƐ
ƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŽƵƌǀŝĞǁƐŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶ͕ƐŽ/ǁĂŶƚĞĚƚŽĐĂƉƚƵƌĞƐŽŵĞŽĨŵLJƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƐĨŽƌLJŽƵƌ
ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĂůĞƚƚĞƌ͘
/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐŝŶĞǀŝƚĂďůĞ͕ĂŶĚ/ĂŵŶŽƚŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ĂŶĚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͘ƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚŝƐƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌƉĂƌĐĞůŚĂƐƐŽŵĞǀĞƌLJƵŶŝƋƵĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŶ͛ƚ
ƚLJƉŝĐĂůŝŶŵĂŶLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞĨŝŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚƚĂŬĞŝŶƚŽ
ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƚŚŽƐĞƵŶŝƋƵĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶǁĂLJƐƚŚĂƚŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŽƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͕ƉůĂŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŶĂƚŝǀĞĂŶŝŵĂůƐ
ǁŚŝůĞĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĨŽƌƵƐĞĂŶĚĞŶũŽLJŵĞŶƚ͘
/ŶƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌ͕ŵLJƉŽŝŶƚƐĂƌĞĂƐĨŽůůŽǁ͗
x &ŽŽƚŚŝůůͲĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐĂƵŶŝƋƵĞĂŶĚůŝŵŝƚĞĚĂƐƐĞƚŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ;ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌ&ƌŽŶƚZĂŶŐĞ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐͿĂŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŝŶĂǁĂLJƚŚĂƚŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞƐƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͖ĂůůŽǁƐ
ĨŽƌŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƉƵďůŝĐĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ͖ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͘
,ŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĂŐŽŽĚĨŝƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƚŚĂƚĂďƵƚƐƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ͘
KƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͕ŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͕ƉĂƌŬƐ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĂŝůƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚĂŶĚĐŽŶƚŝŐƵŽƵƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŝŶƉůĂĐĞǁŽƵůĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞďŽƚŚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚ
ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞǁŝƚŚĂŶĂƌĞĂƚŽĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚƵƐĞ͘/ǁŽƵůĚƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJ
ĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐďĞůĞĨƚůĂƌŐĞůLJƵŶĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚŽƌ͕ŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ͕ƌĞƚƵƌŶĞĚƚŽŝƚƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůƐƚĂƚĞ͘
tŝƚŚŽƵƚŬŶŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚŵŝŐŚƚŵĂŬĞƐĞŶƐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ
ƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞEĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂƐͬKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŚĂǀĞ
ŵŽƌĞĂŶĚďĞƚƚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽǀĞƌŚŽǁƚŚĞůĂŶĚŐĞƚƐƵƐĞĚŶŽǁĂŶĚŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘
x hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐƐƚŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽǁŽƌŬĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ůŝǀŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͬĂĐƌĞͿ͕/
ǁŽƵůĚƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJŚŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝůďĞƉƵƐŚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ǁŝƚŚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝǀĞůLJůĂƌŐĞƌůŽƚƐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͕ƚƌĂŝůƐ͕ŽƌƉĂƌŬƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ
ƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘/ƚŵĂLJĞǀĞŶŵĂŬĞƐĞŶƐĞƚŽĂůůŽǁŐƌĞĂƚĞƌͲƚŚĂŶͲŶŽƌŵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚŝĞƐŝŶ
ƐĞůĞĐƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝŶŽƌĚĞƌĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƚŽĂƚƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ
ŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐǁŚŝůĞƐƚŝůůŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
x 'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽƵŶƚƐ/͛ǀĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚ;ĂĚŵŝƚƚĞĚůLJŶŽƚĂ
ƐĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJͿ͕ŝƚŵĂLJŵĂŬĞƐĞŶƐĞƚŽĂůůŽǁƐŽŵĞƌĞƚĂŝůͬĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ
ƐƵďĚŝǀŝĚĞĚƉĂƌĐĞůƐ͘EĂƚƵƌĂůůLJƚŚĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƚŽũƵƐƚŝĨLJƚŚĞŶĞĞĚ͕ďƵƚŝƚƐĞĞŵƐůŝŬĞŝƚ
ǁŽƵůĚďĞĂŐŽŽĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƐŽŵĞƐŵĂůůƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚͬŽƌƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ͘
x dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨůŽǁĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƌĂŬĞĂŶĚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚǁŝůůĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJŚĂǀĞ
ƚŽďĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚ͘/ƚŝƐŵĂŶĂŐĞĂďůĞŶŽǁ͕ŵŽƐƚƚŝŵĞƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂLJ͕ďƵƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŽŶƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƵŶĚĞƌǁĂLJĂƚƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƌĂŬĞ
ĂŶĚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚ͕ƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵĞĂƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͘DĂŶLJĚƌŝǀĞƌƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐĞĞŵƚŽďĞĂďŝƚ
ĐŽŶĨƵƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶʹ/ŚĂǀĞŚĂĚƉĞŽƉůĞŶĞĂƌůLJŚŝƚŵĞĨƌŽŵďŽƚŚĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ
ĂƐ/ƌŝĚĞŵLJďŝŬĞŽƌĚƌŝǀĞŵLJĐĂƌŶŽƌƚŚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚŽŶƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞ͕/ŚĂǀĞ
ƐĞĞŶĞǀĞƌLJŽŶĞƐƚŽƉŝŶĂůůĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƐŝĨƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƵŶƐƵƌĞǁŚŽŚĂƐƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚŽĨǁĂLJ͘ŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ
ŽĨǁŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚďĞϭϮϬϬƚŽϭϱϬϬŵŽƌĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŵĂŬŝŶŐŵƵůƚŝƉůĞƚƌŝƉƐŝŶĂŶĚŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞ
ĂƌĞĂǁŝůůĚĞĨŝŶŝƚĞůLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 693
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
x ĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶŚŽǁŵĂŶLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĞdžŝƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚŽŶƚŽ
^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ,ŝůůͬŝdžŽŶĂŶLJŽŶZŽĂĚ͕ĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨŝdžŽŶĂŶLJŽŶZŽĂĚĂŶĚ
KǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝůŵĂLJďĞŶĞĞĚĞĚĂƐǁĞůů͘
Ɛ/͛ŵƐƵƌĞLJŽƵĂƌĞĂǁĂƌĞ͕ƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞŝƐĂƵŶŝƋƵĞĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĂůƉŝĞĐĞŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚ͕/ĨĞĞůŝƚ
ĚĞƐĞƌǀĞƐƐƉĞĐŝĂůĐĂƌĞĂŶĚĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘/ŬŶŽǁLJŽƵĂŶĚLJŽƵƌƚĞĂŵŚĂǀĞ
ŚĞĂƌĚĂůŽƚŽĨŝŶƉƵƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ͕ĂŶĚŝƚǁŝůůďĞĂĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĂůůŽĨƚŚĞŝĚĞĂƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĨŝŶĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘Ƶƚ/ĨĞĞůƚŚĞƌĞĐƵƌƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĞƐ/͛ǀĞŚĞĂƌĚĂƌŽƵŶĚŬĞĞƉŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͞ŽƉĞŶ͟ĂŶĚŶŽƚ
ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐŚŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƌĞƉĂƌĂŵŽƵŶƚƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨ
ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
/ůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŵŽƌĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƐŝƚŵŽǀĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁ
ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕
DŝŬĞDĐƵƌĚŝĞ
ϮϵϯϬ^ŬŝŵŵĞƌŚŽƌŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐϴϬϱϮϲ
W,KE Z d
12.r
Packet Pg. 694
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 7HUHVD%UD\
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW 1HLJKERUKRRG,QSXW
'DWH 0RQGD\$SULO $0
0\QDPHLV7HUHVD%UD\0\KXVEDQG-DPHVDQG,RZQRXUVHFRQGKRPHDFRQGRRQ6XPDF:HZLOOEHXQDEOHWR
DWWHQGWKH$SULOQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJUHWKH+XJKHV6LWH5HGHYHORSPHQW)ROORZLQJDUHVRPHRIRXUGHVLUHVDQG
FRQFHUQVDERXWUHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKDWDUHD
7KHSRWHQWLDOIRULQFUHDVHGQRLVHOHYHODQGWUDIILF
:HKRSHWKDWUDWKHUWKDQWLJKWO\FURZGLQJLQDUHDZLWKUHVLGHQFHVWKDWLWZRXOGEHQLFHWRSUHVHUYHDVPXFKJUHHQ
VSDFHDVSRVVLEOH
3UHIHUWRVHHVLQJOHUHVLGHQFHVRUFRQGRWRZQKRPHVRYHUDQ\DSDUWPHQWEXLOGLQJZKLFKDGGVPRUHFRQJHVWLRQRI
FDUVDQGWRRPDQ\SHRSOH
*LYHQWKDWWKHZHVWVLGHRI)RUW&ROOLQVWUDQVLWLRQVXSWRWKHIRRWKLOOVDQGQDWXUDOVSDFHLWZRXOGEHQLFHWRKRQRU
WKLVE\DOVRSODQWLQJWUHHVDVZHKDYHRQ6XPDFWRDGGWRQDWXUDOJURZWKDORQJZLWKJUHHQVSDFHFUHDWLQJVRPHZKDW
RIDUHOD[HGSHDFHIXOIHHOLQJWRWKHDUHD
:HZRXOGORRRRRRYHWRVHHDORYHO\QHLJKERUKRRGVFDOHSDUNZKLFKZRXOGEHRSHQWRWKRVHRIXVZKRPDUHQRWSDUW
RIWKHQHZKRXVLQJRQVLWHEXWZKROLYHE\WKDWDUHDZLWKDQLFHWUDQVLWLRQIRUZDONHUVDQGELNHUVLQWRQDWXUDOVSDFH
.HHSLQJEXLOGLQJKHLJKWVORZVRDVQRWWRREVWUXFWYLHZRI+RUVHWRRWK
:HOLNHWKHZLGHVWUHHWVVRFKDUDFWHULVWLFRI)RUW&ROOLQV
:RXOGOLNHWRVHHVRPHWKLQJORYHO\WRXSJUDGHWKHYDOXHRIWKHDUHD
3OHDVHVHQGXVZHEVLWHWRVHHQRWHVRQGLVFXVVLRQ
7KDQN\RX
7HUHVDDQG-DPHV%UD\
IURPP\L3KRQH
12.r
Packet Pg. 695
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Ɖƌŝůϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ
dŽ͗^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐ͕ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚ
&ƌŽŵ͗DĂƌLJWĂƚDĐƵƌĚŝĞ
ZĞ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ĞĂƌ^LJůǀŝĂ͕ĂŵĞƌŽŶ͕ĂŶĚWΘŽĂƌĚ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌŚŽǁƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJLJŽƵĂƌĞƚĂŬŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐŝŶƉƵƚƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞ
ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĂƐĂůůŽĨLJŽƵĂƌĞĂǁĂƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĂůŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
tŚĞŶLJŽƵŽǁŶƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĂů͕ǀĂůƵĂďůĞ͕ƐĞŶƚŝŵĞŶƚĂů͕ĂŶĚƵŶŝƋƵĞ͕LJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ
ƚŽƚƌĞĂƚŝƚǁĞůů͕ĂŶĚƚŽƐŚŽǁŝƚƚŽƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚŝŶƚŚĞďĞƐƚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞůŝŐŚƚ͘/ƐĞĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƐŶŽƚ
ƵŶůŝŬĞĂǀĂůƵĂďůĞĂŶĚƵŶŝƋƵĞũĞǁĞů͕ŚĂŶĚĞĚĚŽǁŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘/ĨLJŽƵƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂũĞǁĞů
ĨƌŽŵĂƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞ͕LJŽƵŵŝŐŚƚŚĂǀĞŝƚƐĞƚƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĂůůƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůĂŶĚƵŶŝƋƵĞĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞũĞǁĞů͘
^ŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůƌĂƌĞͲũĞǁĞůͲůŝŬĞĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐƐŝƚĞĂƌĞƚŚĂƚŝƚŚĂƐ͗
x ƚŚĞůĂƐƚƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͕
x ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚĂŶĚĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ
x ĂǁĞůůͲƵƐĞĚƚƌĂŝůƐLJƐƚĞŵ
x ĂďĞĂƵƚŝĨƵůǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ͕ĂŶĚ
x ĂůŽŶŐĂŶĚƐĞŶƚŝŵĞŶƚĂůŚŝƐƚŽƌLJǁŝƚŚĐŝƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
tŝƚŚƚŚŽƐĞŝŶŵŝŶĚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚůĞƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞďĞĐŽŵĞũƵƐƚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŵŵŽĚŝƚLJƉŝĞĐĞŽĨůĂŶĚ
ƚŚĂƚůŽŽŬƐĂŶĚĨĞĞůƐůŝŬĞĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞ/ͲϮϱĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌĂŶĚ&ƌŽŶƚZĂŶŐĞ͘
/ŶƚŚĂƚƐƉŝƌŝƚ͕ŵLJŚŽƉĞǁŽƵůĚďĞƚŽĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŚĂƚ͗
x ůĞĂǀĞƐŐĞŶĞƌŽƵƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͕
x ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚƌĂŝůƐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚƌĂŝůƐ͕
x ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĞƉĂƌŬ͕
x ŚĂƐĂ;ůŽǁͿŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƉƌŽƚĞĐƚǀŝĞǁƐĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂ͚ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶůĂŶĚƐ͛ĨĞĞů͕
ĂŶĚ
x ŚĂƐĂƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶŽŶŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐŝnjĞƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĚŽŶŽƚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞ
ǀŝĞǁƐŚĞĚŽĨƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐĨƌŽŵKǀĞƌůĂŶĚƌŝǀĞĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůƐƉĂĐĞƐƚƌĂŝůƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ͘
,ŽƉĞĨƵůůLJ͕ĂďĂůĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĨŽƵŶĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚǀŝĞǁƐŽĨŶĂƚƵƌĂůƐƉĂĐĞƐ͕
ǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĨŝƚĂŶĚĐŝƚLJƌĞǀĞŶƵĞĨƌŽŵĨĞĞƐ͘
/ƚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐŵĞƚŽƌĞĂĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂĚĞƐŝƌĞĨŽƌĂƐŵĂůůĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƌĞƚĂŝůnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘WƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ
ĨƵƚƵƌĞĐŽĨĨĞĞƐŚŽƉƐ͕ďĂŬĞƌŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƐŵĂůůƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐĐĂŶĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĨĞĞů͘KǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝůŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŵŝƐƐŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƚLJƉĞŽĨnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘
&ŝŶĂůůLJ͕ƚŚĞƌŽĂĚƐŶĞĂƌďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůŝŬĞKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝů͕ ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚ͕ĂŶĚWƌŽƐƉĞĐƚ
ĚŽŶŽƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŚŝŐŚͲĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ͘ ƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽŶĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ
12.r
Packet Pg. 696
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨKǀĞƌůĂŶĚĂŶĚƌĂŬĞ͘dǁŽŶĞǁƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ͕ĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŝŶ^ƉƌŝŶŐĂŶLJŽŶWĂƌŬĂŶĚƐƚĞĂĚLJƐƵŵŵĞƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƚŽƚŚĞ,ŽůŝĚĂLJdǁŝŶ
ƌŝǀĞͲ/Ŷ͕ǁŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ĐĐĞƐƐŝŶŐKǀĞƌůĂŶĚĨƌŽŵ
>ĂWŽƌƚĞ͕DƵůďĞƌƌLJ͕ ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚ͕ĂŶĚWƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝƐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐůLJĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚ͘,ĂǀŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞYƵĂŝů
ZŝĚŐĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĨŽƌϮϱLJĞĂƌƐ͕/ĐĂŶĂƚƚĞƐƚƚŽƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽƵŶƚĂŶĚĚĂŶŐĞƌĂƚƚŚĞ
ƌĂŬĞĂŶĚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĞǀĞŶǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƚǁŽŶĞǁŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
DĂƌLJWĂƚDĐƵƌĚŝĞ
ϮϵϯϬ^ŬŝŵŵĞƌŚŽƌŶ^ƚ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϲ
W,KE Z d
12.r
Packet Pg. 697
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP &DPHURQ*ORVV
7R %HQVRQ'HOZLQ
&F 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV 0DUF\<RGHU
6XEMHFW 5( +XJKHVRSHQVSDFHRUGHYHORSPHQW
'DWH :HGQHVGD\$XJXVW 30
ĞůĂŶĚ:ĞĂŶŶŝĞ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚĨŽƌĂƚƚĞŶĚŝŶŐůĂƐƚdŚƵƌƐĚĂLJŶŝŐŚƚ͛Ɛ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘
zŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞĞŶƚĞƌĞĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĐŽƌĚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ŽŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶĞĂƚĂĨƵƚƵƌĞĚĂƚĞ;ƵŶƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĂƚ
ƚŚŝƐƉŽŝŶƚͿ͘
WůĞĂƐĞĨĞĞůĨƌĞĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞǁŝƚŚĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
Cameron Gloss, AICP
>ŽŶŐZĂŶŐĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵ
ϵϳϬ͘ϮϮϰ͘ϲϭϳϰĚŝƌĞĐƚ
ϵϳϬ͘ϮϮϰ͘ϲϭϯϰĨĂdž
&ƌŽŵ͗ĞŶƐŽŶ͕ĞůǁŝŶфĞůǁŝŶ͘ĞŶƐŽŶΛŽůŽ^ƚĂƚĞ͘ hх
^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵϯ͗ϯϮWD
dŽ͗ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐфĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
dŽtŚŽŵŝƚŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͗
hŶĨŽƌƚƵŶĂƚĞůLJ͕ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞǁĂƐŶŽƚĂnjŽŶŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƐƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ͘dŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŵLJ
ǀŽƚĞ͘zŽƵůŽŐŝĐĂůůLJĐŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĂƚŽƉƚŝŽŶŽǁŝŶŐƚŽŝŶƉƵƚŐŝǀĞŶĚƵƌŝŶŐ^hƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶƐ
ĞĂƌůŝĞƌďLJŵĂŶLJĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĞƐ͘DŽƐƚƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚ/ŚĞĂƌĚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞĐĞŶƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĂůƐŽĚĞĂůƚǁŝƚŚŽƉĞŶ
ƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞƐĞĞŵƚŽŚĂǀĞŝƚƌŝŐŚƚ͘
dŚĞďĞƐƚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŽĨĂŶĞĂƌďLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂŶĚ
ƐŽŵĞŽŶĞǁŚŽǁŽƌŬƐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůůLJƚŽǁĂƌĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǀŝƐƚĂƐ͘/ŵŽǀĞĚŶĞĂƌďLJďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚ
ǁĂƐ^hƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁŝƚŚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƵƐĞƐ͕ŵLJƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĐůƵŵƉĞĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͕
ĂŶĚƚŚĞDĂdžǁĞůůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞďŽƌĚĞƌƐŽƵƌŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƉĂƌĂĚŝŐŵďLJ^hĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ
ǁŽƵůĚďĞƵŶĨŽƌƚƵŶĂƚĞ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 698
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
zŽƵƌŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞĂƚƚŚĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞǁĂƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͘
dŚĂƚŝƐƚƌƵĞŽŶůLJďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚŝƐŶŽƚŵĂŶĂŐĞĚĨŽƌǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͕ŽƌĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĨŽƌƚŚĂƚŵĂƚƚĞƌ͕ŝŶƚŚŝƐ
ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘/ƚŝƐŝŶĂǀĂůƵĂďůĞǀŝƐƵĂůĂŶĚĂŶŝŵĂůĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌĨƌŽŵDĂdžǁĞůůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞƚŽWŝŶĞƌŝĚŐĞ
EĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂ͘KŶĐĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌǁŝůůďĞůŽƐƚĨŽƌĞǀĞƌ͘dŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůŝĐŽŶŝĐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ
ďĞŶĞĂƚŚƚŚĞ͟͞ŝƐĂŶĂƐƐĞƚƚŽ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͘dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂƚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚ
ĂŶĚƌĂŬĞZŽĂĚƐŚĂƐŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽŶŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨĂŵƵůĞĚĞĞƌŚĞƌĚ͘ĚĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƚ
,ƵŐŚĞƐǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞůLJďĞĂůĂƐƚƐƚƌĂǁŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŽƚŚĂƚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͛ƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ĚĚĞĚǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐƚŽƚŚĞ
ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŽƵůĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĐŽŶǀĞƌƚƚƌĂŝůƐŝŶƚŽƚƌĞŶĐŚĞƐĨƌŽŵĞdžĐĞƐƐŝǀĞƵƐĞƐ͘
/ĨLJŽƵŵƵƐƚƵƌďĂŶŝnjĞƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͗ĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŚĂƚďƵŝůĚƐƵƉǁĂƌĚŶŽƚŽƵƚǁĂƌĚǁŝƚŚ
ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐƐŝnjĞĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ͖ŚĂǀĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͖ƵƐĞĂŶĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐŽůĂƌƉŽǁĞƌŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŐƌŝĚ͖
ƌĞĐLJĐůĞǁĂƚĞƌ͖ŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞǁĞůůƉůĂŶŶĞĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͖ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽŶďŽƚƚŽŵĨůŽŽƌƐ
ŽĨƚĂůůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƚŚĂƚŵĞĞƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͖ĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĐŽŵŵƵƚĞƌďƵƐƌŽƵƚĞƐ͘zŽƵƌ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽηϭ
ŵŝŐŚƚĂůůŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĂƚŝĨLJŽƵŝŶƐŝƐƚŽŶĂƋƵĂůŝƚLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚŶŽƚũƵƐƚƋƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ͘^ƵŐŐĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƚŽŵŝƌƌŽƌƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĐŽƵůĚĂůƐŽĐƌĞĂƚĞ͞ďůĂĐŬŚŽůĞƐ͟ǁŝƚŚŝůůŝĐŝƚƵƐĞƐĂƐŝƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌŽďůĞŵ͘
/ĨLJŽƵǁĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƌŝĚĞĂƐĂďŽƵƚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŝŶŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞǁŝƚŚƵŶƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚƉůĂLJĂƌĞĂƐĨŽƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͕
ƚŚĞŶ/͛ĚďĞƉůĞĂƐĞĚƚŽŵĂŬĞŝŶƉƵƚ͘
Ğů
/ƚŝƐďĞƚƚĞƌƚŽůŝŐŚƚĂĐĂŶĚůĞƚŚĂŶĐƵƌƐĞƚŚĞĚĂƌŬŶĞƐƐ
ĞůĂŶĚ:ĞĂŶŶŝĞĞŶƐŽŶ
ϯϮϯϯtĞƐƚWƌŽƐƉĞĐƚZŽĂĚ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϲ
W,KE Z d
dĂŬĞϲĐŽƵƌƐĞƐĂŶĚ'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞKŶůŝŶĞ͗ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĐƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚ>ĂŶĚƐ͕ŶŝŵĂůƐ͕ĂŶĚ
WĞŽƉůĞ
>ĞĂƌŶĂďŽƵƚůĂŶĚ͕ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͗ǁǁǁ͘>ĂŶĚ,ĞůƉ͘ŝŶĨŽ
12.r
Packet Pg. 699
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP -RVK%LUNV
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW 5( +XJKHV6WDGLXPDQGLWVYDOXHWRWKHFRPPXQLW\
'DWH 7XHVGD\$SULO $0
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘
-26+%,5.6
(FRQRPLF+HDOWK 5HGHYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU
&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
RIILFH
&ƌŽŵ͗^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐфƐƚĂƚŵĂŶͲďƵƌƌƵƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕ƉƌŝůϮϮ͕ϮϬϭϵϰ͗ϭϱWD
dŽ͗:ŽƐŚŝƌŬƐф:ŝƌŬƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵĂŶĚŝƚƐǀĂůƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
,ŝ:ŽƐŚʹƚŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌƐĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŽǀĞƌ͊/ĂŵŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŽĚŽ
ƉůĞĂƐĞƐĞŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ͘/͛ůůŐĞƚďĂĐŬƚŽdŽŵƚŽŵŽƌƌŽǁŵŽƌŶŝŶŐ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͊
^LJůǀŝĂ
&ƌŽŵ͗:ŽƐŚŝƌŬƐф:ŝƌŬƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϭϵ͕ϮϬϭϵϭϭ͗ϯϵD
dŽ͗d,KD^ф D/>Z d х
Đ͗^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐфƐƚĂƚŵĂŶͲďƵƌƌƵƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵĂŶĚŝƚƐǀĂůƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
dŽŵ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
/ǁŽƵůĚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞLJŽƵƚŽĞŶŐĂŐĞŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘/ƚŝƐŵLJƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞĂŶŶĞdžĞĚĂŶĚnjŽŶĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐĂŶŽĐĐƵƌ͘/ĂŵŶŽƚĐĞƌƚĂŝŶǁŚĞƌĞ
ƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŝŶƚŚĂƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘/ǁŽƵůĚĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐ͕WƵďůŝĐ ŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ
;ĐŽƉŝĞĚŚĞƌĞͿĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƐƚĂƚƵƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
DLJŽĨĨŝĐĞǁŝůůďĞƚĂƐŬĞĚǁŝƚŚƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚĂĨĨƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨĂŶLJŵĞƚƌŽĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŝƚ
ŽĐĐƵƌĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĂƚŝƐĂƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů͘
ƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŵLJŽĨĨŝĐĞŚĂƐŚĂĚŶŽĚŝƌĞĐƚĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 700
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
dŚĂŶŬƐĂŐĂŝŶĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ͘
ŚĞĞƌƐ͕
-26+%,5.6
(FRQRPLF+HDOWK 5HGHYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU
&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
RIILFH
&ƌŽŵ͗d,KD^ф D/>Z d х
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϭϵ͕ϮϬϭϵϭϬ͗ϰϲD
dŽ͗:ŽƐŚŝƌŬƐф:ŝƌŬƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵĂŶĚŝƚƐǀĂůƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
ĞĂƌDƌŝƌŬƐͲ
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌĂůůLJŽƵĚŽĨŽƌŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘
/ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƉŽŝŶƚŽƵƚƚŽLJŽƵƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĚŝďůĞǀĂůƵĞƚŽ>>ƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ
,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞ͘KƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐŚŽƐĞŶƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĂŐĂŝŶďLJ&ǀŽƚĞƌƐĂƐ
ǁŽƌƚŚLJŽĨƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞƐƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐĂƌĞŵŽƌĞĂŶĚŵŽƌĞƉŽƉƵůĂƌ͕ĂƐ
ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽŐƌŽǁ͘
dŚĞǀĂůƵĞŽĨƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐŽŶĞƚŚĂƚĐĂŶŶĞǀĞƌďĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚͲĐůŽƐĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ĐŝƚLJ͕ŽǀĞƌϭϬϬĂĐƌĞƐͲƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŚĂƚĞǀĞŶĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝƚƐǀĂůƵĞͲŝƚŝƐ
ŝƌƌĞƉůĂĐĞĂďůĞ͊
^ĂĐƌŝĨŝĐŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƉƌŝĐĞůĞƐƐĂƌĞĂƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐŝƐƉƌĞĐŝƐĞůLJƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƐŝƚĞŽĨǁŚĂƚ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ŶĞĞĚƐ͕ŝŶŽƵƌŽŶŐŽŝŶŐƉƵƌƐƵŝƚŽĨĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝƚŚŐĞŵƐůŝŬĞƚŚĂƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚ
ƐŚĂƌĞŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĚĞĐĂĚĞƐ;ŶŽƚĞǀĞŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞďůŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨϲϬϬнĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĂƚůŝƚƚůĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨǁĞƐƚ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐͿ͘
/ƚŝƐĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƌƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ
ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĨƌŽŵĚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘/ƚŵƵƐƚďĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚƚŽƐŚĂƌĞĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƐƵƌĞ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ
ĂƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ͘
ŶLJƚŚŝŶŐLJŽƵĐĂŶĚŽƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞŝƚƐƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŶŐŝƚƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚǀĂůƵĞƚŽĂůůƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ
ŝŶ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕ĞǀĞŶĂƐLJŽƵƉƵƌƐƵĞLJŽƵƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚ
ĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐŽŶƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ͕ǁŽƵůĚďĞŐƌĂƚĞĨƵůůLJĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞĚďLJĂůůƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĞĨĨŽƌƚƐ͕
12.r
Packet Pg. 701
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ƚŽŵĨĂƌŶƐǁŽƌƚŚ
ϮϳϬϳĚŝdžŽŶĐƌĞĞŬůĂŶĞ
ĨŽƌƚĐŽůůŝŶƐĐŽϴϬϱϮϲ
W,KE E D/>
Z d
33OHDVHFRQVLGHUWKHHQYLURQPHQWEHIRUHSULQWLQJWKLVHPDLO
12.r
Packet Pg. 702
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP -XOLH3LJQDWDUR
7R /LVD%DXJKQ
&F 5RVV&XQQLII .ULVWLQ6WHSKHQV :DGH7UR[HOO 6XVDQ*XWRZVN\ .HQ6XPPHUV (PLO\*RUJRO &DPHURQ*ORVV
0DUF\<RGHU 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV +RXVLQJ&DWDO\VW
6XEMHFW 5H +XJKHV6WDGLXP5HGHYHORSPHQW
'DWH 0RQGD\-XO\ $0
+HOOR/LVDDQGWKDQN\RXVRPXFKIRU\RXUOHWWHU:HZLOOGHILQLWHO\WDNHDOORIWKLVLQWR
FRQVLGHUDWLRQHYHQLI\RXFDQ¶WPDNHLWWRRXU-XO\&RXQFLOPHHWLQJWRVSHDN,KRSH\RX
KDYHDJRRGZHHN
-XOLH3LJQDWDUR
&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
&RXQFLOPHPEHU'LVWULFW
:LWKOLPLWHGH[FHSWLRQVHPDLOVDQGDQ\ILOHVWUDQVPLWWHGZLWKWKHPDUHVXEMHFWWRSXEOLF
GLVFORVXUHXQGHUWKH&RORUDGR2SHQ5HFRUGV$FW &25$
/LVD%DXJKQ+XJKHV/HWWHUSGI!
12.r
Packet Pg. 704
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 0DUWLQD:LONLQVRQ
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW 5( +XJKHV6WDGLXPVLWH
'DWH 7XHVGD\-XO\ 30
dŚĂŶŬƐ^LJůǀŝĂ͘ŵ
&ƌŽŵ͗^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐфƐƚĂƚŵĂŶͲďƵƌƌƵƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕:ƵůLJϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϰϯD
dŽ͗DĂƌƚŝŶĂtŝůŬŝŶƐŽŶфŵǁŝůŬŝŶƐŽŶΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐфĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞ
'ŽŽĚŵŽƌŶŝŶŐ͕DĂƌƚŝŶĂʹƚŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌƐĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂůŽŶŐ͊/ǁŝůůƌĞƉůLJĂŶĚƐĂǀĞŝƚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͘ůƐŽ͕
ǁĞ͛ƌĞŐĞĂƌŝŶŐƵƉĨŽƌĂŶƵŐƵƐƚϴƚŚ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ƐŽƐƚĂLJƚƵŶĞĚĨŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽŽŶƚŚĂƚ͘
&ƌŽŵ͗DĂƌƚŝŶĂtŝůŬŝŶƐŽŶфŵǁŝůŬŝŶƐŽŶΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕:ƵůLJϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϰ͗ϱϵWD
dŽ͗^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐфƐƚĂƚŵĂŶͲďƵƌƌƵƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐфĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞ
,ĞLJ^LJůǀŝĂĂŶĚĂŵĞƌŽŶʹƚŚŝƐŽŶĞĐĂŵĞŝŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉƐƚŽĚĂLJʹǁĞǁĞƌĞĐĐĞĚ͘^ŚŽƵůĚ/ƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽ
ŚĞƌƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŽƌĚŽĞƐƚŚŝƐŐŽŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŵŝdžŽĨĂůůƚŚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐLJŽƵ͛ƌĞ
ŐĞƚƚŝŶŐ͍/͛ŵŶŽƚƐƵƌĞŝĨŝƚǁŝůůƚƵƌŶŝŶƚŽĂ^Z͘>ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁ͘dŚĂŶŬƐͲŵ
&ƌŽŵ͗ũŝůůǀĞƐƚLJф D/>Z d х
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕:ƵůLJϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϵϭϮ͗ϯϬWD
dŽ͗ŝƚLJ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐфŝƚLJ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
Đ͗&DŽǀĞƐфĨĐŵŽǀĞƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖>ĂƵƌŝdĂůďŽƚфůƚĂůďŽƚΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖
ŵĞůĂŶŝĞ͘ŐĞĂƌLJΛĐŽůŽƐƚĂƚĞ͘ĞĚƵ͖ƉƌĞƐŽĨĐΛĐŽůŽƐƚĂƚĞ͘ĞĚƵ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞ
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO0HPEHUV
/ĂŵǀĞƌLJĚŝƐĂƉƉŽŝŶƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞŝƐƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůLJďĞŝŶŐƐŽůĚƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ
ĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĂƚƐŝƚĞǁŽƵůĚďĞĂŶĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂƉĂƌŬŽƌ
ŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂ͘/ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůLJĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ďƵƚŝƚƐĞĞŵƐŵƵĐŚ
ŵŽƌĞůŽŐŝĐĂůƚŽďƵŝůĚŚŽŵĞƐŝŶĂďůŝŐŚƚĞĚĂƌĞĂŽĨŵŝĚƚŽǁŶĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞDĂdž>ŝŶĞ͘
/ĂŵĂůƐŽĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŵĂƐƐŝǀĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůŚĂǀĞŽŶďŝŬĞ
ƌŽƵƚĞƐŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƌĞƐĞƌǀŽŝƌĂŶĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƐƚƌĞƚĐŚŽĨWƌŽƐƉĞĐƚZŽĂĚĨƌŽŵKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝůƚŽ^h͛Ɛ
ĐĂŵƉƵƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJĚĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 705
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
/ĂŵǁŽŶĚĞƌŝŶŐŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚĐĂŶďĞĚŽŶĞƚŽƐƚŽƉƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ĂŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞŝƚĂƐƐŽŵĞŬŝŶĚŽĨŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͍
dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐƉƌŝĚĞƐŝƚƐĞůĨĨŽƌŝƚƐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƐƚĞǁĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĂŶĚďŝĐLJĐůĞͲĨƌŝĞŶĚůLJĐƵůƚƵƌĞ͘/ƚ
ĂůƐŽƐƚƌŝǀĞƐƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƉƵďůŝĐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘/ƚ
ƐĞĞŵƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞŐŽĂůƐĐĂŶďĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞůLJŵĞƚďLJĂǀŽŝĚŝŶŐƵŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƐƉƌĂǁů͕ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐŽƵƌŽƉĞŶ
ƐƉĂĐĞƐ͕ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjŝŶŐƐĂĨĞĐLJĐůŝŶŐƌŽƵƚĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶŐ
ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶůŝŶĞƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞĞdžƉůŽƌĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐƚŽƚŚŝƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚďĞŝŶŐ
ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂƚƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞ͘
:ŝůůsĞƐƚLJ
ϭϱϭϯtDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϭ
ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϲ
ĐĐ͗&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐdƌĂĨĨŝĐKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ
&DŽǀĞƐ
^hŽĂƌĚŽĨ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌƐ
:ŽLJĐĞDĐŽŶŶĞůů
12.r
Packet Pg. 706
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP MDPHVPLOOHU
7R .DL.OHHU
&F &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW 5H +XJKHV6WDGLXP
'DWH 7XHVGD\$SULO $0
7KDQNV.DL
2Q0RQ$SU DW 30.DL.OHHU NNOHHU#IFJRYFRP!ZURWH
-DPHV
7KDQNVIRUUHDFKLQJRXWWRPH,DPJRLQJWRIRUZDUG\RXWR6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXV
'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ/LDLVRQDQG&DPHURQ*ORVV&LW\3ODQQLQJ0DQDJHUZKRDUHEHWWHU
HTXLSSHGWRDQVZHU\RXUTXHVWLRQV3OHDVHH[SHFWDUHVSRQVHIURPWKHPLQWKHQH[WGD\RU
VR
%HVW
.DL
)URP MDPHVPLOOHU (0$,/5('$&7('!
6HQW )ULGD\$SULO 30
7R .DL.OHHU NNOHHU#IFJRYFRP!
6XEMHFW +XJKHV6WDGLXP
.DL
,ZDVQ
WDEOHWRDWWHQGWKHGLVFXVVLRQODVWQLJKW:LOOWKHUHEHPRUHFKDQFHVWRPHHWZLWKWKH
GHYHORSHU:LOOWKH\VFKHGXOHDPHHWLQJZLWKWKH+2$",KDYHDORWRIFRQFHUQVRQKRZWKLV
LVGHYHORSHG,ZDQWWRVD\KRPHV "
(OL]DEHWKDQG7DIWDVZHOODV6DIHZD\DW'UDNHDQG7DIW7KHVHDUHDOZD\VSDFNHGGXULQJ
WKHVFKRRO \HDU$GGLQJKRXVHKROGVZLOOPDNHLWQH[WWRLPSRVVLEOHWRVKRSIRU
JURFHULHV:HDOVRGRQ
WKDYHDJDVVWDWLRQQHDUE\WKDWKDVJDVSXPSV,
YHQRWLFHGVRPH
DUHDVDUHQRWNHHSLQJXSZLWKWKHGHPDQG
7UDIILFFRQJHVWLRQ ,
PVXUHZKDWHYHUDOJRULWKPVWKH7UDIILF'HSDUWPHQWXVHVWRFDOFXODWH
QHHGVORRNVJRRGRQSDSHU+RZHYHULWGRHVQ
WWUDQVODWHZKHQDFWXDOO\DSSOLHG3URVSHFW
IURP2YHUODQGWR,LVKRUULEOHDOOGD\H[FHSWIURP 30WR $0+DUPRQ\HDVWWR
ZHVW,DYRLGOLNHWKHSODJXH0XOEHUU\LVVXUSULVLQJO\QRWEDGHDVWERXQG+RZHYHU
ZHVWERXQGLVKRUUHQGRXVLQWKHDIWHUQRRQIURP/LQN/DQHWR2YHUODQG7UDLO$Q\WLPH\RX
WU\WRWXUQVRXWKERXQGRQWR2YHUODQG7UDLOH[FHSWDW/D3RUWHDQG3URVSHFWLW
VPLQXWH
ZDLWGHSHQGLQJRQWUDIILF0RVWKRXVHKROGVKDYHDWOHDVWYHKLFOHVDQGGULYHUV,ILW
VD
UHQWDOWKHQDWOHDVW,IWKH\DSSURYH0HSOXV7KUHHWKHQLWZLOOEHFDUVGULYHUV
,DPDOVRRQWKHERDUGIRUP\+2$:HZLOOGLVFXVVRXUPHPEHU
VFRQFHUQVLQWKHPRQWKO\
PHHWLQJWKLVPRQWK,FDQ
WDWWHVWWRWKHLUFRQFHUQVDWWKLVWLPH+RZHYHUIURPZKDW,
YHVHHQ
WKXVIDU,KDYHKXJH6:03FRQFHUQV:HKDYHDGUDLQDJHGLWFKWKDWUXQVWKURXJKRXU
FRPPXQLW\,WVQDNHVDURXQGDQGIHHGVDUHWHQWLRQSRQGMXVWHDVWRIXV,WJRHVXQGHU5RVV
'ULYHWZLFH:H
YHKDGVLJQLILFDQWDPRXQWVRIVWUDZWKDWWKHZLQGEOHZIURPWKH+XJKHV
VWDGLXPRQPXOWLSOHRFFDVLRQV:HKDYHLQFXUUHGFRVWVWRUHPRYHWKHVWUDZ:HZLOOQHHG
DVVXUDQFHVWKDWIHGHUDODQGVWDWHVWDQGDUGVZLOOEHPHWZLWKVLOWIHQFLQJOLQLQJWKHSURSHUW\
OLQHDQGKHDY\GXW\ZDWWOHOLQLQJWKHFXUEV:HDOUHDG\KDYHVHGLPHQWEXLOGXSLQWKHGUDLQV
XQGHUWKHURDGV,SUHIHUQRWWRKDYHWRSD\WRFOHDQWKLVRXW1RWVXUHLIWKHFLW\RZQVWKH
GUDLQDJHRUQRW
$Q\LQIRUPDWLRQRQWLPHIUDPHVRQRIILFLDOKHDULQJVVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJVZLWKDIIHFWHG
FRPPXQLWLHVRULQJHQHUDOLVJUHDWO\DSSUHFLDWHG7KDQNV
-DPHV&0LOOHU
&RORUDGR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\
-DPHV&0LOOHU
&RORUDGR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\
12.r
Packet Pg. 708
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 5HQHH:DONXS
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
&F 5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH &DPHURQ*ORVV 7RP/HHVRQ /DXULH.DGULFK 'DULQ$WWHEHUU\ -HII0LKHOLFK 0HDJKDQ2YHUWRQ
6XEMHFW 5H +XJKHV=RQLQJ,VVXHV
'DWH :HGQHVGD\0D\ $0
6\OYLD
7KDQN\RXVRPXFKIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQDQGIRU\RXUGHWDLOHGH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHSURFHVV
/RRNLQJIRUZDUGWRVHHLQJ\RXQH[WZHHN
5HJDUGV
5HQHH
5HQHH:DONXS
6DOHV3($.,QF
(0$,/5('$&7('
6HQWIURPP\L3KRQH
SOHDVHH[FXVHW\SRV
2Q0D\ DW $06\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV VWDWPDQEXUUXVV#IFJRYFRP!ZURWH
'ŽŽĚŵŽƌŶŝŶŐ͕DƐ͘tĂůŬƵƉʹ
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵƐŽŵƵĐŚĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůĞŵĂŝůƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵ
ƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞǁĞĂƌĞƐƚŝůůĞĂƌůLJŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕
ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐƚŝůůŵĂŶLJĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐƚŽďĞŵĂĚĞƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚǁĞǀĞƌLJ
ŵƵĐŚĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ǁĞǁŽƌŬƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚ
ĞǀĞƌLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĐĂƌĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐǁĞŬŶŽǁĞĂĐŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŚĞůƉƐƚŽƐŚĂƉĞƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶůĂƐƚŝŶŐǁĂLJƐ͘tĞǁŝůůƐŚĂƌĞLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚĞĂŵĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞŵƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚŽƵƌƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘
dŚĞLJǁŝůůĂůƐŽƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĐŽƌĚĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŵŽǀĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƉƵďůŝĐ
ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͘
dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĚŽĞƐĐĂƌĞĨƵůůLJĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽŽƵƌƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ƌŽĂĚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƌĞĂƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽ
ƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞ͘ŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐǁŚĂƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌǁŝůůďĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ
ƉƵďůŝĐŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘&Žƌ
ǁĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞǁĂƚĞƌĂůůŽƚŵĞŶƚƐĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞWŽƵĚƌĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝƐŶŽƚƉĂƌƚŽĨŽƵƌŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ƚŚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚW^ĨŽƌŝƚƐƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ
ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŝƐĚŽŶĞƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞŝŶĐŽŵŝŶŐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŽǀĞƌĐƌŽǁĚŝŶŐ͘
ĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕ƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞǁŝůůŶŽǁŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĂĚŽƉƚĞĚ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWůĂŶĂŶĚŝƚLJ
WůĂŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞƐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƐĂDŝdžĞĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚWůĂĐĞdLJƉĞ͘dŚŝƐǁŝůů
ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĐĂƌĞĨƵůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐĂƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘dŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂ
12.r
Packet Pg. 709
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞŵĂƚƚĞƌĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞĂĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŵĂĚĞďLJŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůůďĞ
ƚŚĞĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲŵĂŬĞƌƐ͕ƚŚĞLJĐĂŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƵƉƚŽĂŶĚ
ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƐƚŝůůŝŶƚŚĞĞĂƌůLJƉŚĂƐĞŽĨƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ƚŚĞ
ĞdžĂĐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉĂƚŚĂŶĚƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐŶŽƚLJĞƚŬŶŽǁŶ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂƐ
ƐŽŽŶĂƐƚŚŝƐŝƐŬŶŽǁŶ͕/ǁŝůůƉŽƐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĂƚŚĂŶĚƚĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞ
ŽĨĞĂĐŚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJĂĐĐĞƐƐŝƐĚĞĨŝŶŝƚĞůLJĂĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚŝƐƉĂƌƚŽĨ
ŽƵƌŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚWŽƵĚƌĞ&ŝƌĞƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ͘dŚĞLJĂƌĞŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ
ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚĂŶĚĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĂĚŚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨŝƌĞĐŽĚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝŶƚŚĞĐĂƐĞŽĨĂŶĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞĞǀĂĐƵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐŚŽƵůĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂĐĐĞƐƐƉŽŝŶƚƐ͕ƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐ͕
ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĂůůŵŽĚĞƐŽĨƚƌĂǀĞů͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͕ďŝŬĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ
ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ͘dŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJŚĂƐŶŽƚLJĞƚďĞĞŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďĞĐĂƵƐĞĂĨƵůůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐŶŽƚLJĞƚďĞĞŶƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͕ďƵƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƵƉŽŶƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŽĨĂĨƵůů
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƐƚƵĚLJǁŝůůďĞůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂƚĂůůƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂůŽŶŐ
KǀĞƌůĂŶĚ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂƚĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĂŬĞ;ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐŽŵĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚĚƵĞƚŽĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚͿ͕ZϰϮ͕^ƚƵĂƌƚ͕WƌŽƐƉĞĐƚĂŶĚ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚͿ͘tĞ͛ůůǁĂŶƚƚŽƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŚŽǁƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ
ƐLJƐƚĞŵ;ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƐĂĨĞƚLJͿĂŶĚǁŚĂƚ͕ŝĨĂŶLJ͕ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĂŐĂŝŶĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐƚĂLJĞŶŐĂŐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘/ǁŝůů
ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͕ƚŽƚŚĞĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŝƚĞ͗
ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŽƵƌĐŝƚLJ͘ĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵͬŚƵŐŚĞƐͺƐƚĂĚŝƵŵͺƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚdŚŝƐǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĞƚĂŝůƐ
ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞ͘
/ůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽƐĞĞŝŶŐLJŽƵĂƚƚŚĞĨŽĐƵƐŐƌŽƵƉŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽŶDĂLJϮϮŶĚ
͊
dĂŬĞĐĂƌĞ͕
^LJůǀŝĂ
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss | Development Review Liaison
Neighborhood Services, City of Fort Collins
(970) 224.6076 | statman-burruss@fcgov.com | www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/
&ƌŽŵ͗ZĞŶĞĞtĂůŬƵƉф D/>Z d х
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϭϯ͕ϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϭϴWD
dŽ͗ZĞďĞĐĐĂ ǀĞƌĞƚƚĞфƌĞǀĞƌĞƚƚĞΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
Đ͗ĂŵĞƌŽŶ'ůŽƐƐфĐŐůŽƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖dŽŵ>ĞĞƐŽŶфƚůĞĞƐŽŶΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖>ĂƵƌŝĞ
<ĂĚƌŝĐŚфůŬĂĚƌŝĐŚΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖ĂƌŝŶƚƚĞďĞƌƌLJфdd ZZzΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖:ĞĨĨ
DŝŚĞůŝĐŚфũŵŝŚĞůŝĐŚΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖DĞĂŐŚĂŶKǀĞƌƚŽŶфŵŽǀĞƌƚŽŶΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖^LJůǀŝĂ
dĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐфƐƚĂƚŵĂŶͲďƵƌƌƵƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
12.r
Packet Pg. 710
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ƵŐŚĞƐŽŶŝŶŐ/ƐƐƵĞƐ
,ĞůůŽ͕ZĞďĞĐĐĂ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌŵĞĞƚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŵĞĂĨĞǁǁĞĞŬƐĂŐŽƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĂŶĚŚŽǁnjŽŶŝŶŐƚĂŬĞƐƉůĂĐĞ͘zŽƵƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĐůĞĂƌĞĚƵƉƐŽŵĞĐŽŶĨƵƐŝŽŶĂƐ
ƚŽŚŽǁƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐǁŽƌŬƐ͘
&ŽƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ/ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚĂƐĂŝƚLJWůĂŶŵďĂƐƐĂĚŽƌ͕ĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞĚĂŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚĂůŬƐ͕ĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďLJdŚĞŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐdĞĂŵ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŚƌĞĞ
ĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕ŽƉĞŶƚŽŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĂƚĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŽĨKƵƌŝƚLJWůĂŶ͘ƵƌŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞƐĞĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕/ŚĞĂƌĚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĨƌŽŵŽƵƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂďŽƵƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ͕ƌĂƉŝĚ
ŐƌŽǁƚŚ͕ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ͘
tŚĞŶƚŚĞǀŽƚĞĐĂŵĞƚŽƚŚĞ ďŽĂƌĚƚŽĂƉƉƌŽǀĞKƵƌŝƚLJWůĂŶďĞĨŽƌĞŐŽŝŶŐƚŽ
ŽƵŶĐŝů͕/ǀŽƚĞĚ͞LJĞƐ͘͟ƚƌĞŵĞŶĚŽƵƐĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨŚĂƌĚǁŽƌŬ͕ƚŝŵĞ͕ĂŶĚŵŽŶĞLJǁĂƐƉƵƚ
ŝŶƚŽƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞƐƚƉůĂŶůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞŶĞdžƚϮϬLJĞĂƌƐ͘
dŚĞƌĞĂƐŽŶĨŽƌŵLJƚŝŵĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚŝƐƌŽůĞǁĂƐĚƵĞƚŽŵLJůŽǀĞĂŶĚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨŽƌ&Žƌƚ
ŽůůŝŶƐ͘tĞŚĂǀĞĂŶĂŵĂnjŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽĂƌĞĞŶŐĂŐĞĚ͕ĂŶĚďƌŝŐŚƚ͕ŚĂƌĚ
ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĞƚŚŝĐĂůŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨǁŚŽĂƌĞĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĚŽŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌďĞƐƚ͘
,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕/ĂŵĞdžƉƌĞƐƐŝŶŐŵLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŽůĚ
,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƐŝƚĞ͘/ĂŵůŝƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŵďĞůŽǁ͗
ϭ͘ >ĞŶŶĂƌ͛ƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŵĞĞƚƚŚĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĨŽƌ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͛dƌŝƉůĞŽƚƚŽŵ>ŝŶĞ
ĨŽĐƵƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶ͛ƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂĐĐĞƉƚĂŶĐĞ;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƉƌŝů
ϰƚŚ
ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ,ƵŐŚĞƐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĂŐĞƐͿ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĚŽĞƐ
ŶŽƚŵĞĞƚŽƵƌƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐ͘/ĂůƐŽƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶǁŚĞƚŚĞƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚĂdžĞƐŽŶ
ϲϬϬͲϳϬϬŚŽŵĞƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽĨŝƚĂďůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJĚƵĞƚŽůŽŶŐĞƌƚĞƌŵƐƚƌĞƐƐŽŶŽƵƌ
ǁĂƚĞƌ͕ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶͬŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ƌŽĂĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐͬŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕
^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĐůĞĂŶƵƉͬŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĞƚĐ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕
ǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϭϬϬϬƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĐŽŵŝŶŐŝŶƚŽŽƵƌƐĐŚŽŽůƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕/͛ŵĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚ
ĂďŽƵƚŽǀĞƌĐƌŽǁĚŝŶŐ͘
Ϯ͘ KƵƌŝƚLJWůĂŶ͕ĂƐĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚďLJŽƵŶĐŝů͕ĚŝĚŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂĚĞŶƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƚƚŚĞ
ĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƌĂŬĞĂŶĚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝů͘ϲϬϬͲϳϬϬƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐŝƐĂŵĂƐƐŝǀĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶƉůĂŶ͘
ϯ͘ ĨƚĞƌƐƉĞĂŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐĞǀĞƌĂůĨŝƌƐƚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞƌƐŝŶ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕ƚŚĞLJĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĞĚ
ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂďŽƵƚĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŶƚŽĂŶĚŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϭϱϬϬ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŝŶĐĂƐĞŽĨĂŶĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJĞǀĂĐƵĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ĂŵĂůƐŽĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚ
ĂďŽƵƚĐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐ͛ƐĂĨĞƚLJ͘/ŶƚŚĞĐĂƐĞŽĨĂĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐĨŝƌĞ͕ĞǀĂĐƵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞƐĐƵĞĞĨĨŽƌƚƐ
ĐŽƵůĚďĞŝŵƉĞĚĞĚďLJĂůĂĐŬŽĨĂĐĐĞƐƐƌŽĂĚƐŝŶƚŽĂĚĞŶƐĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
tŽƌƐƚĐĂƐĞƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĚŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƐǁŝůůƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͛ůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŝĨ
ĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǁŽƌŬĞƌƐĐĂŶ͛ƚĚŽƚŚĞŝƌũŽďƐĚƵĞƚŽďůŽĐŬĞĚĂĐĐĞƐƐ͘
ϰ͘ dƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŵĂŝŶĂŵĂũŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŽĨŵŝŶĞ͘>ĞŶŶĂƌƐĂLJƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚ͞ƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝůůďŝŬĞĂŶĚůĞĂǀĞƚŚĞŝƌĐĂƌƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘͟/͛ŵŶŽƚ
ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶŚŽǁƚŚĞLJĐĂŶŵĂŬĞƚŚĂƚƚLJƉĞŽĨĐůĂŝŵ͕ďƵƚŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌƐĚŝƐŝŶŐĞŶƵŽƵƐƚŽŵĞ͘
12.r
Packet Pg. 711
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
tŝƚŚƐŽŵĂŶLJŚŽƵƐĞƐ͕ƚŚĞƉƌĞĚŝĐƚŝŽŶŝƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůĂĚĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
ϭϮϬϬĂŶĚϭϱϬϬĐĂƌƐŽŶŽƵƌƌŽĂĚƐ͘ƵƌŝŶŐƐĐŚŽŽůďƵƐƉŝĐŬƵƉĂŶĚĚƌŽƉŽĨĨƚŝŵĞƐ͕/
ĐĂŶƐĞĞŚŽǁďŽƚŚƌĂŬĞĂŶĚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝůǁŝůůŚĂǀĞŵŽƐƚůLJƐƚŽƉƉĞĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĐŽŶŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ͘
ZĞďĞĐĐĂ͕ŝŶƐŚŽƌƚ͕/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞĨŽƌƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƚŽƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJ
ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƌĞũĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĂƐĂĚĞŶƐĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ZŝŐŚƚŶŽǁ͕ƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐ
ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĂƐ͞d͕͟ƐŽǁĞŚĂǀĞĂŶŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽŵŽǀĞŝŶĂŵŽƌĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJͲĨƌŝĞŶĚůLJ
njŽŶŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘>Ğƚ͛ƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƉůĂŶ͕ƚŽďĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂƚĂůĂƚĞƌĚĂƚĞ͕ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŵĞĞƚ
ŽƵƌdƌŝƉůĞŽƚƚŽŵ>ŝŶĞǁŝƚŚĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ͘&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ĂďƌĞǁĞƌLJ͕ĐŽĨĨĞĞƐŚŽƉ͕
ƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͕ƐŽŵĞƌĞƚĂŝůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĂƌƚƐĐĞŶƚĞƌ͕ĂƉůĂLJŐƌŽƵŶĚ͕ƐŽŵĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ
ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚĂƉůĂĐĞǁŚĞƌĞĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁĂŶƚƚŽƐƉĞŶĚƚŝŵĞĂŶĚŵŽŶĞLJ͘/ĂŵĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚ
ƚŚĂƚŽƵƌ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝůůĞŵďƌĂĐĞĂǁŽŶĚĞƌĨƵůƉůĂĐĞƚŽĞĂƚ͕ƐŚŽƉ͕ƌĞƐƚ͕ĂŶĚ
ƉůĂLJ͕ŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŽǁŶ͘
5HQHH3:DONXS
3+21($1'(0$,/5('$&7('ǁǁǁ͘ƐĂůĞƐƉĞĂŬ͘ĐŽŵ
12.r
Packet Pg. 712
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP
7R
&F
6XEMHFW
'DWH
$WWDFKPHQWV
6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
(0$,/5('$&7('
7RP/HHVRQ 0DUWLQD:LONLQVRQ &DPHURQ*ORVV
5( KXJKHV
7XHVGD\-XQH 30
),1$/B&RPPHQW/HWWHUB+XJKHV3'5SGI
'ŽŽĚĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ͕Dƌ͘,ĞŵƐƚƌĞĞƚʹ
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌ,ƵŐŚĞƐƐƚĂĚŝƵŵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘zŽƵƌ
ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞĐĂƉƚƵƌĞĚĂŶĚƐĂǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĐŽƌĚĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚďLJŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚďLJƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůĂƚƚŚĞ
ƚŝŵĞŽĨƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͘/ǁŽƵůĚĂůƐŽůŝŬĞƚŽũƵƐƚĂĐůĂƌŝĨLJĂĨĞǁƉŝĞĐĞƐŝŶLJŽƵƌĞŵĂŝůƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ŝƚLJ͛ƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŽǁŶĞĚďLJ^hĂŶĚǁĂƐĂŶŶĞdžĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐƚŚŝƐƉĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ͘ƐŝƐƚLJƉŝĐĂůĨŽƌĂƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ͕^hƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚ>ĞŶŶĂƌĂƐƚŚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌĂŶĚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘WĞƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ
ĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĨŽƌĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞĂŶĚ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘/ŚĂǀĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚůĞƚƚĞƌĨƌŽŵƚŚĞWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJZĞǀŝĞǁĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ
ŽŶDĂLJϮϮŶĚ
͘&ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞǀŝƐŝƚƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŝƚĞ͗
ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŽƵƌĐŝƚLJ͘ĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵͬŚƵŐŚĞƐͺƐƚĂĚŝƵŵͺƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŚĂƐŽŶůLJ
ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJŝƐŶŽƚLJĞƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƚŚĞĨƵůůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͘
/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĨŽƌKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞ͕ƚŚĞEĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂƐƚĞĂŵŚĂƐĂŶĂůLJnjĞĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĨŽƌ
ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĂŶĚŚĂƐŶŽƚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĨŽƌƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͘dŚĞEĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂƐƚĞĂŵŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ
ĐůŽƐĞůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁƐƚĂĨĨƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞďƵĨĨĞƌƐĂƌĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞ
ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐDĂdžǁĞůůEĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞĂĂŶĚĂŶLJŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘
WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞŽƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘tĞŚŽƉĞLJŽƵ
ƐƚĂLJĞŶŐĂŐĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘tĞŚĂǀĞŶŽƚLJĞƚĂŶŶŽƵŶĐĞĚƚŚĞŶĞdžƚ
ƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ďƵƚǁĞǁŝůůďĞŚŽůĚŝŶŐĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJͲĨŽĐƵƐĞĚKƉĞŶ,ŽƵƐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ
ŽŶ:ƵůLJϭϱƚŚ
ĂƚƚŚĞƌĂŬĞĞŶƚƌĞĨƌŽŵϱ͗ϬϬWDʹϴ͗ϬϬWD͘ŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨǁŝůůďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽĂŶƐǁĞƌ
ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚǁĞǁŝůůďĞƐĞĞŬŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚĂƚƚŚĂƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů
ǁŝůůďĞƚŚĞĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲŵĂŬĞƌŽŶƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘ƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞŚĂƐŶŽƚLJĞƚďĞĞŶƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚ͘dŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐǁŝůůĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚLJƉĞĂŶĚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ
ŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘KŶĐĞƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŝƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ͕ĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĐĂŶďĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚďLJŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĂŐĂŝŶ͕
^LJůǀŝĂ
,ĞůůŽŵLJŶĂŵĞŝƐĞŶŶŝƐ,ĞŵƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘/ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƚŚĞĐŝƚŝĞƐƌŝŐŚƚƚŽďƵŝůĚŽƵƚǁŚĂƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂŶŽƉĞŶ
ƐƉĂĐĞĂƌĞĂǁŝƚŚϲϬϬƵŶŝƚƐ͘dŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƉƌŽďůĞŵƐǁŝůůďĞŚŽƌƌĞŶĚŽƵƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĐĂŶŶŽƚŚĂŶĚůĞĂŶ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐůŽƐĞƚŽƚŚĞĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ͘dŚŝƐƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶĂŶŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂƌĞĂ
12.r
Packet Pg. 713
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ĨŽƌĂůůƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽĞŶũŽLJ͘WůƵƐLJŽƵĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚĂĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĨƌŽŵ>ĞŶŶĂƌĞǀĞŶƚŚŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŽŶůLJŐŝǀĞƐ
ƚŚĞŵϭƐƚĂƌ͊dŚĞLJĚŽŶŽƚĐĂƌĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐƚŽǁŶŽƌĚŽŝŶŐĂŐŽŽĚũŽď͘WůĞĂƐĞƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚŝƐ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ƚĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƉŽŝŶƚLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽ
ĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚŐĞƚĂƋƵĂůŝƚLJďƵŝůĚĞƌƚŽĚŽƚŚĞǁŽƌŬ͘ůƐŽůŽŽŬĂƚďƵLJŝŶŐŝƚĨŽƌŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘/ƚ
ǁŽƵůĚďĞĂǁĞƐŽŵĞƚŽŚĂǀĞĂůĂƌŐĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĨŽƌƵƐĞŽĨůůĐŝƚLJŽĨ&Žƌƚ
ŽůůŝŶƐ͘^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕ĞŶŶŝƐŚĞŵƐƚƌĞĞƚW,KE Z d
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss | Development Review Liaison
Neighborhood Services, City of Fort Collins
(970)224.6076 | statman-burruss@fcgov.com | www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/
12.r
Packet Pg. 714
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 0DUN'H*UHJRULR
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
6XEMHFW 5H 0D\6FRSLQJ0HHWLQJ
'DWH 0RQGD\-XQH $0
+HOOR6\OYLD
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUUHSO\DQGH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHSURFHVVIRUWKHSURSRVHG
GHYHORSPHQW,
PVWLOOXQFOHDUDVWRZK\WKH0D\PHHWLQJZDVQRW
SRVWHGRQWKH+XJKHV5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFWZHEVLWHEXW,KRSHJRLQJ
IRUZDUGWKDWWKHVLWHLVXSGDWHGPRUHIUHTXHQWO\,QRWLFHWKDWWKH
ZHEVLWHGRHVQRWORRNXSGDWHGVLQFHLWZDVSXWXSLQ$SULODQGWKDW
WKHUHZDVQRPHQWLRQRQLWZKHQDQH[WHQVLRQZDVJUDQWHGWR/HQQDUIRU
WKH GD\ZDONDZD\GHDGOLQHIURP0D\WR-XQH7KDWLVWKHW\SHVRI
LQIRUPDWLRQWKDWWKRVHRIXVWUDFNLQJWKHSURMHFWILQGLPSRUWDQW
7KDQNVDJDLQDQG,ORRNIRUZDUGWRUHFHLYLQJPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKH
&LW\DVWKHSURFHVVXQIROGV
0DUN
2Q $06\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVVZURWH
! *RRGPRUQLQJ0U'H*UHJRULR
!
!7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUHPDLOUHJDUGLQJWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXP5HGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVDO:HGLGKROGDIRFXVJURXS
PHHWLQJRQ0D\QGDQGZHGLGUHDFKRXWWRWKRVHZKRILOOHGRXWDFRPPHQWFDUGDQGUHTXHVWHGDIRFXVJURXS
PHHWLQJIRUWKHSURSRVDO,WZDVQRWPHDQWWREHDVFRSLQJPHHWLQJEXWLQVWHDGDPRUHIRFXVHGFRQYHUVDWLRQIRU
WKRVHZKRVLJQHGWKHFRPPHQWFDUGV,VHHWKDW,KDYH\RXUQDPHFRUUHFWLQP\VSUHDGVKHHWEXW,JRW\RXUHPDLO
DGGUHVVZURQJ,KDYHPDFNLH#ZHEDFFHVVQHWLQVWHDGRIPDUNLH#ZHEDFFHVVQHW,DSRORJL]HIRUWKLVHUURU,KDYH
FKDQJHG\RXUHPDLODGGUHVVWKRXJKIRUIXWXUHPHHWLQJVZHZLOOEHXVLQJDGLIIHUHQWRXWUHDFKPHWKRG%HFDXVHZH
KDGYHU\KLJKDWWHQGDQFHDWWKH0D\QGPHHWLQJZHUHDOL]HGZHQHHGWRPDNHDGMXVWPHQWVWRRXURXWUHDFK:H
KDYHUHFHLYHGPRUHFRPPXQLW\ZLGHLQWHUHVWLQWKLVSURMHFWPRUHWKDQPRVWDQ\RWKHUGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWDQGWKLV
LVFHUWDLQO\XQGHUVWDQGDEOH7KHUHIRUHZHDUHDGMXVWLQJRXUHIIRUWV
!
!*RLQJIRUZDUGZHDUHSODQQLQJDVHSDUDWHFRPPXQLW\PHHWLQJIRUWKHUH]RQLQJRIWKHVLWH7KLVZLOOEHD&LW\
GULYHQPHHWLQJZKHUHFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVFDQOHDUQDERXW]RQLQJGHVLJQDWLRQVDFURVVWKHFRPPXQLW\GLIIHUHQW
QDWXUDODUHDEXIIHU]RQHVDQGWDONZLWK&LW\VWDIIDERXWWKHUH]RQLQJSURFHVV:HZLOOWKHQVHHNFRPPHQWDWWKDWWLPH
DERXWWKH]RQLQJDQGWKRVHFRPPHQWVZLOOEHJLYHQWRWKH3ODQQLQJDQG=RQLQJ%RDUGDQGWKH&LW\&RXQFLO7KH
&LW\&RXQFLOZLOOXOWLPDWHO\GHFLGHWKH]RQLQJRQWKHVLWHDWDSXEOLF&RXQFLOPHHWLQJ7KHGDWHIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\
PHHWLQJKDVQRW\HWEHHQGHWHUPLQHG<RXZLOOUHFHLYHDOHWWHULQWKHPDLOUHJDUGLQJWKLVPHHWLQJDV\RXGLGIRUWKH
$SULOWKFRPPXQLW\PHHWLQJ
!
!7KHUHZLOODOVREHDVHSDUDWHPHHWLQJIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWSODQ7KHGHYHORSPHQWSODQFDQQRWEHDSSURYHGXQWLO
WKH]RQLQJRQWKHVLWHLVVHW7KLVPHHWLQJZLOOLQFOXGHWKHDSSOLFDQWGHYHORSHUEXWZLOOEHIDFLOLWDWHGE\WKH&LW\
<RXZLOODOVRUHFHLYHDOHWWHULQWKHPDLOUHJDUGLQJWKLVPHHWLQJ
!
!7KDQN\RXDJDLQIRU\RXUFRPPHQW:HZLOOSRVWWKHDQQRXQFHPHQWVIRUWKHVHPHHWLQJVRQWKHHQJDJHPHQWVLWH
DQG,ZLOOVHQGRXWDQHPDLOZKHQWKRVHGDWHVDUHVHWXVLQJWKHHQJDJHPHQWVLWHSODWIRUP7KLVZLOOFRLQFLGHZLWKWKH
OHWWHUEHLQJVHQW
!
!3OHDVHOHWPHNQRZLI\RXKDYHRWKHUTXHVWLRQVDERXWWKLV
!
!6\OYLD
!
!6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV_'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ/LDLVRQ
12.r
Packet Pg. 715
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
! 1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
!
)URP (ULF6XWKHUODQG
7R &DPHURQ*ORVV 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
&F 7RP/HHVRQ /DXULH.DGULFK 5RVV&XQQLII
6XEMHFW 5H 3OHDVHVHQGOLQNVRULQIR +XJKHVVLWHG
'DWH 7KXUVGD\$SULO $0
0V7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
+RZFDQWKHFLW\EHKROGLQJDQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJSULRUWRUHFHLSWRIFRQFHSWXDO
GHVLJQGRFXPHQWV" 7KH/8&LVVSHFLILFDERXWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGSXUSRVHRI
1HLJKERUKRRG0HHWLQJV
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJLVIRUVXFKGHYHORSPHQWDSSOLFDWLRQVWREH
SUHVHQWHGWRFLWL]HQVRIDUHDQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGIRUWKHFLWL]HQVWRLGHQWLI\OLVWDQGGLVFXVV
LVVXHVUHODWHGWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVDO 6WHS 1HLJKERUKRRG
0HHWLQJV
:KDWGR\RXVXVSHFWZLOOEHSUHVHQWHGWRWKHFLWL]HQVRIDUHDQHLJKERUKRRGVWKLV
HYHQLQJ"""" 5HJDUGOHVVRIZKDW0U*ORVVWKLQNV KHVHHPVWRWKLQNFRPSOLDQFH
ZLWKWKH/8&LVRSWLRQDO
E\FRPPLVVLRQHU-RKQ.HIDODV5HVLGHQWVOLYLQJLQXQLQFRUSRUDWHG/DULPHU&RXQW\
KDGHQRXJKLQWHUHVWLQWKHVXEMHFWWRDVN-RKQDERXWWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIDIIRUGDEOH
KRXVLQJDWWKHVLWH,DPQRWNLGGLQJ
7KHSURFHVVRIDQQH[DWLRQVKRXOGKDYHFUHDWHGDFOHDQVODWHLQWHUPVRIXVHE\ULJKW
WKDWDOORZHGWKLVSDUFHOWRFRPHLQWRGHYHORSPHQWUHYLHZLQDPDQQHUXQHQFXPEHUHG
E\SULRUJUDQWVRUH[SHFWDWLRQV,WZDVDRQHLQDWKRXVDQGRSSRUWXQLW\WRDSSO\WKH
FLW\
VKLJKPLQGHGDVSLUDWLRQDOWKLQNLQJWRZDUGSUDFWLFDOHIIHFW7KDWRSSRUWXQLW\LV
QRZKDOIVTXDQGHUHGE\WKHXQWKLQNLQJUXVKWRDQQH[DWLRQ0\JXHVVLVWKDWWKH
RWKHUKDOIRIWKHRSSRUWXQLW\ZLOOEHORVWWRFRQIODWLRQDQGPLVGLUHFWLRQLQWKH
GHYHORSPHQWUHYLHZSURFHVV
(ULF 6XWKHUODQG
3+21(5('$&7('
2Q7KXUVGD\$SULO $00'76\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV VWDWPDQEXUUXVV#IFJRYFRP!
ZURWH
*RRGPRUQLQJ0U6XWKHUODQG±
7KDQNVIRU\RXUHPDLOUHJDUGLQJWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPUHGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFW$WWKLVWLPHWKH
DSSOLFDQWGHYHORSHUKDVQRW\HWVXEPLWWHGDQ\GRFXPHQWVWRWKH&LW\&DPHURQ*ORVVKDVDVNHGWKDWWKH\
ZDLWWRVXEPLWWKHLU3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ5HYLHZDSSOLFDWLRQXQWLODIWHUWKLVILUVWQHLJKERUKRRGPHHWLQJ
:KLOHWKH\KDYHQRW\HWVXEPLWWHGDQ\WKLQJWRWKH&LW\WKHDSSOLFDQWKDVJRQHWKURXJKD5HTXHVWIRU
3URSRVDOSURFHVVZLWK&68DQGWKDWDSSOLFDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHRQWKH&68%RDUGRI*RYHUQRUVZHEVLWHDQG
ZDVDOVRIHDWXUHGLQWKH&RORUDGRDQ7KHVLWHSODQIURPWKDWSURFHVVLVOLNHO\WRFKDQJHWKURXJKWKH&LW\¶V
UHYLHZSURFHVV$\HOORZVLJQZLOOEHSRVWHGDWWKHSURMHFWVLWHRQFHWKHDSSOLFDQWVXEPLWVDSURMHFW
SURSRVDO
7KHUHZLOOEHDQLQWHUDFWLYHVLWHGHGLFDWHGWR+XJKHV6WDGLXPWKDW,ZLOOSRVWWRGD\ZKHUHDOORIWKH
GRFXPHQWVIRUWKHVXEPLWWDOVZLOOEHKRVWHG7KLVZLOOEHDQ³2XU&LW\´SDJHVLPLODUWRWKHRQHWKDWKDV
EHHQFUHDWHGIRUWKH0RQWDYDSURMHFW$OORIWKHVXEPLWWDOGRFXPHQWVZLOODOVREHDYDLODEOHLQWKH&LW\¶V
&LW\'RFVV\VWHP,KDGKRSHGWRKDYHWKDWDYDLODEOHIRUWKHPDLOLQJEXWWKHWLPLQJGLGQ¶WZRUNRXW,ZLOO
XQYHLOWKDWVLWHDWWKHPHHWLQJWRQLJKW,WVKRXOGEHDYDLODEOHRQWKLVKRPHSDJHODWHUWKLVDIWHUQRRQ
KWWSV RXUFLW\IFJRYFRP
$OVRZH¶UHZRUNLQJZLWKRXUFRPPXQLFDWLRQVGHSDUWPHQWWRXSGDWHRXUZHEVLWHZKLFKLVFXUUHQWO\YHU\
GLIILFXOWWRQDYLJDWH+RSHIXOO\WKLVZLOOKHOSSHRSOHWRDFFHVVLQIRUPDWLRQRQGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWV7KDWLV
FXUUHQWO\LQSURFHVVDQGZHVKRXOGXQYHLOWKDWLQWKHFRPLQJPRQWKV
7KDQN\RX
6\OYLD
12.r
Packet Pg. 718
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV_'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ/LDLVRQ
1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
_ VWDWPDQEXUUXVV#IFJRYFRP _ ZZZIFJRYFRPQHLJKERUKRRGVHUYLFHV
)URP (ULF6XWKHUODQG (0$,/5('$&7('!
6HQW 7KXUVGD\$SULO $0
7R 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV VWDWPDQEXUUXVV#IFJRYFRP! &DPHURQ*ORVV FJORVV#IFJRYFRP!
6XEMHFW 3OHDVHVHQGOLQNVRULQIR +XJKHVVLWHG
0V7DWPDQ%XUUXVV
3OHDVHVHQGOLQNVRUHOHFWURQLFILOHVIRULQIRUPDWLRQDERXWVXEPLWWDOVRUSUHOLPLQDU\
GHVLJQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH+XJKHVVLWHUHGHYHORSPHQW
3HUKDSV\RXFRXOGVWDUWSXWWLQJLGHQWLI\LQJLQIRUPDWLRQ VLJQQXPEHU"
)URP 0DUFL:KLWH
7R EOXHDUFWLF #RXWORRNFRP .HQ6XPPHUV 'DULQ$WWHEHUU\
&F &&6/ 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV *UHWFKHQ6FKLDJHU .DL.OHHU 3HWH:UD\ 5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH 7RP/HHVRQ 'HDQ
.OLQJQHU /DXULH.DGULFK -HII0LKHOLFK 6$5$GPLQ7HDP
6XEMHFW UH 3URFHVVIRU&LWL]HQ)HHGEDFNRQ&HOO7RZHUV +XJKHV5HGHYHORSPHQW &RXQFLO6$5
'DWH 0RQGD\0D\ 30
ĞĂƌDƐ͘&ƵůŬƐ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĞŵĂŝůƚŽŝŶƋƵŝƌĞŽĨƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚΘĐĞůůƚŽǁĞƌƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞ
ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJ^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐ͕ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁ>ŝĂŝƐŽŶ͕ŽŶďĞŚĂůĨ
ŽĨŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ<ĞŶ^ƵŵŵĞƌƐĂŶĚŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌĂƌŝŶƚƚĞďĞƌƌLJ͘
<ŝŶĚůLJ͕
0DUFL:KLWH
%XVLQHVV6XSSRUW,,
&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
RIILFH
PZKLWH#IFJRYFRP
ĞĂƌDƐ͘&ƵůŬƐ͕
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵƐŽŵƵĐŚĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĞŵĂŝůƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘tĞĂƌĞ
ƐƚŝůůǀĞƌLJĞĂƌůLJŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŵĂŶLJĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐLJĞƚƚŽďĞŵĂĚĞ
ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘tĞǁĞůĐŽŵĞLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚŽƐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘dŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƚĞĂŵŚĂƐŶŽƚLJĞƚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͕ĨŽƌŵĂůĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽ
ƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞLJŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶƚŽŐŝǀĞƚŚĞŝƚLJĂŶ
ŝĚĞĂŽĨǁŚĂƚƚŚĞLJǁŝůůƉƌŽƉŽƐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝƌĨƵůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚŝƐŝŶŝƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŶĐĞƉƚĐĂŶďĞ
ĨŽƵŶĚŚĞƌĞ͗ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŽƵƌĐŝƚLJ͘ĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵͬϴϭϮͬĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐͬϰϴϬϮ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ^ƚĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚĞĂŵĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘
dŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝƐŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘tŚŝůĞĂĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůƉůĂŶǁĂƐ
ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚƚŽ^hĨŽƌƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌǁŝůůƐƚŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽĨŽůůŽǁĂůůŝƚLJƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕
ǁŚŝůĞ^hŚĂƐƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͕ĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŚĂƐŶŽƚďĞĞŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJ͕ŶŽƌŚĂƐĂ
ĨŽƌŵĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶďĞĞŶĨŝůĞĚ͘
ĂĐŬŝŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌŽĨϮϬϭϴ͕ƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁĂƐĂŶŶĞdžĞĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘dŚĂƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐďƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJǁŝƚŚĂ͞d͟Žƌ
͞dƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶ͟njŽŶŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐǁĂƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂƐĂŬŝŶĚŽĨ͞ƉůĂĐĞŚŽůĚĞƌ͟ƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶƚŽŽĐĐƵƌ͘dŚŝƐdnjŽŶŝŶŐĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌŝŐŚƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŶĚ
ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞnjŽŶĞĚƚŽĂůůŽǁĂŶLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘dŚŝƐĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ
12.r
Packet Pg. 720
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ǁŝůůďĞŵĂĚĞďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůĂƚĂĚĂƚĞƚŚĂƚŝƐŶŽƚLJĞƚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͘zŽƵǁŝůůƌĞĐĞŝǀĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ƚŚŝƐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚǁŽǁĞĞŬƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽŝƚďĞŝŶŐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚ͘/ǁŝůůĂůƐŽƉŽƐƚƚŚŝƐĂŶŶŽƵŶĐĞŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞ
ĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŝƚĞĂƐƐŽŽŶĂƐƚŚĞĚĂƚĞŝƐƐĞƚ͗
ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŽƵƌĐŝƚLJ͘ĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵͬŚƵŐŚĞƐͺƐƚĂĚŝƵŵͺƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƐƚŝůůŝŶƚŚĞĞĂƌůLJƉŚĂƐĞŽĨƌĞǀŝĞǁ͖ƚŚĞĞdžĂĐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƉĂƚŚĂŶĚƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐŶŽƚLJĞƚŬŶŽǁŶ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂƐƐŽŽŶĂƐĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶŝƐĨŽƌŵĂůůLJƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͕/ǁŝůů
ƉŽƐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĂƚŚĂŶĚƚĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞŽĨĞĂĐŚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
dŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ǁĞǁŽƌŬƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞǀĞƌLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĐĂƌĞĨƵů
ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐǁĞŬŶŽǁĞĂĐŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŚĞůƉƐƚŽƐŚĂƉĞƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶůĂƐƚŝŶŐǁĂLJƐ͘/ĨLJŽƵ
ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽŵĂŬĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ǁĞǁŝůůƐŚĂƌĞLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚĞĂŵĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞŵƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚŽƵƌƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘dŚĞLJǁŝůůĂůƐŽ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĐŽƌĚĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŵŽǀĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚŽŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͘/ŚĂǀĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂƐƚĞƉͲďLJͲƐƚĞƉ͕ĚƌĂĨƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŵĂƉĨŽƌƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ
ƐŝƚĞ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĂŐĂŝŶĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐƚĂLJĞŶŐĂŐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘/ǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽ
ƉŽƐƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͕ƚŽƚŚĞĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŝƚĞ͗
ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŽƵƌĐŝƚLJ͘ĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵͬŚƵŐŚĞƐͺƐƚĂĚŝƵŵͺƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚŝƐǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĞƚĂŝůƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞ͘
ZĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĐĞůůƚŽǁĞƌƐ͕ŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJƌĞǀŝĞǁƐĂůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŶĞǁĐĞůůƵůĂƌĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŽƌ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĐĞůůƚŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĂůůŝƚLJƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĨŽƌůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶŚĂǀĞ
ďĞĞŶŵĞƚ͘dŚŝƐĐŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐŽƌƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͕ĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ
ĨŽƌĂƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘ĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJůŝŵŝƚƐ͕>ĂƌŝŵĞƌŽƵŶƚLJĂůƐŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƐĐĞůůƚŽǁĞƌĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕
ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞLJƌĞĨĞƌƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĨŽƌĂĐŽƵƌƚĞƐLJƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ
ŵƵůƚŝƉůĞĐĞůůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐƵŶĚĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶ>ĂƌŝŵĞƌŽƵŶƚLJŝŶƌĞĐĞŶƚŵŽŶƚŚƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŵĂLJďĞŽĨĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƚŽ
LJŽƵ͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚƵƐŬŶŽǁŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĐĞůůƚŽǁĞƌƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĂƌĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐŝŶŐƐŽǁĞĐĂŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŝĨƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
^LJůǀŝĂdĂƚŵĂŶͲƵƌƌƵƐƐ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁ>ŝĂŝƐŽŶ
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ
;ϵϳϬͿ ϮϮϰ͘ϲϬϳϲ
ƐƚĂƚŵĂŶͲďƵƌƌƵƐƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵ
2ULJLQDO5HTXHVW
&ƌŽŵ͗<ĞŶ^ƵŵŵĞƌƐфŬƐƵŵŵĞƌƐΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϰϵD
dŽ͗'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ&ƵůŬƐф D/>Z d х
12.r
Packet Pg. 721
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Đ͗ĂƌŝŶƚƚĞďĞƌƌLJфdd ZZzΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх͖^ZĚŵŝŶdĞĂŵф^ZͲĚŵŝŶͲdĞĂŵΛĨĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗ >>dKt Z^
'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĞŵĂŝů͘/ĨtĞĚŝĚŶ͛ƚĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŚĂƚŝƐĂŶŝƐƐƵĞ͘
ŝƚŝnjĞŶƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂůůŽǁĞĚŝŶƉƵƚĞǀĞŶŝĨĂĨŝŶĂůĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŝƐŵĂĚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂƌLJƚŽǁŚĂƚƐŽŵĞǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞ͘
<ĞŶ^ƵŵŵĞƌƐ
ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ
ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϯ
ĂƌŝŶͲĨŽůůŽǁƵƉǁŽƵůĚďĞŐŽŽĚƚŽĐůĂƌŝĨLJƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚŚŽǁĐŝƚŝnjĞŶĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬŝƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ
<ĞŶ
tŝƚŚůŝŵŝƚĞĚĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĞŵĂŝůƐĂŶĚĂŶLJĨŝůĞƐƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƉƵďůŝĐĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞ
ƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŽůŽƌĂĚŽKƉĞŶZĞĐŽƌĚƐĐƚ;KZͿ͘dŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉĂƌĞŶĐLJ͕ĞŵĂŝůƐǁŝůůďĞǀŝƐŝďůĞŝŶĂŶ
ŽŶůŝŶĞĂƌĐŚŝǀĞ͕ƵŶůĞƐƐƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌƉƵƚƐηWZ/sd ŝŶƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚůŝŶĞŽĨƚŚĞĞŵĂŝů͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐĐĂŶ͛ƚŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĞŵĂŝůƚŽŽƌĨƌŽŵŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůůƌĞŵĂŝŶƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƵŶĚĞƌKZ͘
KŶDĂLJϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ͕ĂƚϮ͗ϬϰWD͕'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ&ƵůŬƐф D/>Z d хǁƌŽƚĞ͗
ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůDĞŵďĞƌ<ĞŶ͕
dŚĞĐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐǁĞƌĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚŽĨƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕'ůŽďĂů^ĐŚŽŽůΘ
dŽǁŶ,ŽŵĞƐ&d ZƚŚĞŝƚLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƚŚĞŵ͘tKt͊͊͊
dŚĞĐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐĂƌĞ'/E^dƚŚĞĞůůdŽǁĞƌƐΘƚŚĞ,ƵŐŚĞƐ^ŝƚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚΘ>ĞŶŶĂƌŽƌƉ͘
<ĞŶ͕ĂƌĞzKhůŝƐƚĞŶŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐǁŚŽƉĂLJ,ŝŐŚdĂdžĞƐΘLJŽƵƌƐĂůĂƌLJ͍͍͍
d ELJĞĂƌĐŝƚŝnjĞŶŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͘
'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ&ƵůŬƐ
ϱͬϭϰͬϮϬϭϵ
12.r
Packet Pg. 722
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
)URP 1LFN)UDQFLV
7R 7RP/HHVRQ &DPHURQ*ORVV 5HEHFFD(YHUHWWH
&F 6\OYLD7DWPDQ%XUUXVV -HII0LKHOLFK 'DULQ$WWHEHUU\ 5RVV&XQQLII .ULVWLQ6WHSKHQV (PLO\*RUJRO 6XVDQ
*XWRZVN\ .HQ6XPPHUV -XOLH3LJQDWDUR :DGH7UR[HOO 0DU\*UDQW
6XEMHFW 5H]RQLQJWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPVLWH
'DWH 7KXUVGD\0D\ $0
3$7+63ODQQLQJ$FWLRQVWR7UDQVIRUP+XJKHV6XVWDLQDEO\LVDJURXSRI)RUW&ROOLQV
UHVLGHQWVZKRFDUHDERXWRXUFRPPXQLW\DQGVHHNWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH+XJKHV
UHGHYHORSPHQWPHHWVWKHQHHGVRIWKHFRPPXQLW\WKH&LW\DQG&68
:HDUHZULWLQJWRGD\WRUHTXHVWWKDWWKH&LW\EHJLQDQH[WHQVLYHFRPPXQLW\HQJDJHPHQW
SURFHVVWRGHWHUPLQHWKHDSSURSULDWH]RQLQJIRUWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPSURSHUW\
:HPDNHWKLVUHTXHVWIRUWKHIROORZLQJUHDVRQV
7KH+XJKHV6WDGLXPSURSHUW\ZDVDQQH[HGUHFHQWO\,WKDVQHYHUEHHQ]RQHGE\WKH
&LW\ZDVQRWLQFOXGHGLQWKH*URZWK0DQDJHPHQW$UHDDQGKDVQRWEHHQSDUWRIDQ\
FLWL]HQLQYROYHGORQJUDQJHSODQQLQJE\WKH&LW\HYHU
7KH+XJKHV6WDGLXPSURSHUW\ZDVDVVLJQHGWZR]RQLQJFDWHJRULHVDVSDUWRI&LW\
3ODQ¶V6WUXFWXUH3ODQZLWKRXWDQ\FRPPXQLW\LQSXW7KH6WUXFWXUH3ODQ]RQLQJ
FDWHJRULHVVKRXOGQRWSURYLGHJXLGDQFHIRUWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPGHYHORSPHQWUHYLHZ
SURFHVVXQWLODEURDGEDVHGFRPPXQLW\LQWDNHSURFHVVVSHFLILFWRWKDWSURSHUW\LV
FRPSOHWHGDQGDQHZ]RQLQJGHVLJQDWLRQLVDSSURYHG
7KH0D[ZHOO1DWXUDO$UHDDGMDFHQWWRWKH+XJKHV6WDGLXPSURSHUW\LVRQHRIWKH
PRVWKHDYLO\XVHGDQGSRSXODURSHQVSDFHVLQWKH&LW\
7KHFRPPXQLW\¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKHSUHOLPLQDU\GHYHORSPHQWSODQIRUWKH+XJKHV
6WDGLXPSURSHUW\KDVEHHQRQHRIWKHODUJHVWIRUDGHYHORSPHQWSODQLQWKH&LW\¶V
UHFHQWKLVWRU\
7KH&LW\3ODQZDVDGRSWHGE\&LW\&RXQFLODIWHUDQH[WHQVLYHPXOWL\HDUFRPPXQLW\
HQJDJHPHQWHIIRUW7KLVLVZKDWFLWLHVGRZKHQWKH\PDNHFKDQJHVWRODQGXVHDQG
]RQLQJFRGHV&RPSDUHWKDWSURFHVVWRKRZWKH&LW\LVSODQQLQJWRUH]RQH+XJKHV
6WDGLXPZKHUHLVWKHVDPHOHYHORIFRPPLWPHQWWRHQJDJLQJWKHFRPPXQLW\EHIRUH
WKDW]RQLQJGHFLVLRQLVPDGH"
7KH+XJKHV6WDGLXPSURSHUW\LVFXUUHQWO\]RQHGDVD7UDQVLWLRQ'LVWULFW 7
Hughes Stadium property should take place until an extensive community
engagement process is completed by the City.
:HUHVSHFWIXOO\UHTXHVWDUDSLGUHVSRQVHWRWKLVUHTXHVW$SUHOLPLQDU\SODQIRU+XJKHV
6WDGLXPZDVVXEPLWWHGWRWKH&LW\DOPRVWDPRQWKDJR7KHFRPPXQLW\HQJDJHPHQWQHHG
QRWFRPPHQFHLPPHGLDWHO\EXWZHDVNWKDWDUHVSRQVHWRWKLVUHTXHVWEHJLYHQDVTXLFNO\
DVSRVVLEOH
7KDQN\RXIRUFRQVLGHULQJWKLVPDWWHU
7KH3$7+6/HDGHUVKLS7HDP
0DU\*UDQW
3+21(5('$&7('
1LFN)UDQFLV
3+21(5('$&7('
12.r
Packet Pg. 724
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
5LFKDUGDQG+HDWKHU%HOOHU
1HVELW&RXUW
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
$XJXVW
'HDU0U$WWHEHUU\ 0D\RU7UR[HOODQGWKH)RUW&ROOLQV&LW\&RXQFLO
2XU IDPLO\ OLYHV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQHKDOI PLOH VRXWK RI WKH SURSRVHG QHZ KRPH
GHYHORSPHQW RQ WKH IRUPHU VLWH RI +XJKHV 6WDGLXP :H DUH ZULWLQJ WR H[SUHVV RXU VWURQJ
RSSRVLWLRQWRWKHSURSRVHGKLJKGHQVLW\GHYHORSPHQWDQGWRWKHWUDIILFDQGFRQJHVWLRQLWZLOOFDXVH
WR WKH SRSXODU FURZQMHZHOV RI)RUW&ROOLQV’ RSHQVSDFH 0D[ZHOO1DWXUDO$UHD DQG3LQHULGJH
1DWXUDO$UHDDVZHOODV5RWDU\3DUNDQGWKH6KRUHOLQHPRXQWDLQELNHWUDLO LPPHGLDWHO\ZHVWRI
WKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
:HUHJXODUO\ PRXQWDLQELNHUXQ URFNFOLPEDQGSDGGOHERDUGLQWKLVDUHD RIWKHIRRWKLOOV
DQGWKH HDVWVLGHRI +RUVHWRRWK5HVHUYRLU 7KDWLVZK\ZHKDYHOLYHGRQWKH ZHVWVLGHRI)RUW
&ROOLQVVLQFH ,Q WKHSDVWIHZ\HDUVWKHDOUHDG\SRSXODU WUDLOV\VWHPUXQQLQJIURP3LQHULGJH
WR0D[ZHOODQG XSWR5RWDU\3DUN+RUVHWRRWKKDV EHFRPHRYHUO\FRQJHVWHG 7UDLO IORZLVJUHDWO\
GLPLQLVKHGGXHWRWZRZD\WUDIILFLQWKLVDUHDDQG WKH VZLPEHDFKRQWKHHDVWVLGHRI+RUVHWRRWK
5HVHUYRLULVIUHTXHQWO\IXOO 7KHDUHDDOUHDG\QHHGVQHZWUDLOV 7KH SURSRVHG DGGLWLRQRI
KRPHV DQGURXJKO\QHZ UHVLGHQWV EDFNLQJXSWRWKLV IRRWKLOOV DUHD ZLOOVLJQLILFDQWO\ KDUP
WKLV DOUHDG\RYHUEXUGHQHG UHFUHDWLRQDO DUHD 7KHWUDLOVVLPSO\ZHUHQRWGHVLJQHGIRUWKHQXPEHUV
RISDUWLFLSDQWVWKH\KDYHQRZOHWDORQHWRKDQGOHDVLJQLILFDQWLQIOX[RIWKRXVDQGVRIQHZORFDO
UHVLGHQWVLQDKLJKGHQVLW\GHYHORSPHQW
%HVLGHVWKHWUDIILFRQWKH WUDLOVDQGURDGVWKH YLVXDOLPSDFWRIKLJKGHQVLW\KRXVLQJZLOO
UXLQWKHEHDXWLIXOVFHQHU\RIWKHIRRWKLOOVDQGQDWXUDODUHDVQHDUWKHIRUPHU+XJKHV6WDGLXP –
ZKLFKZHFRQVLGHU WKHSUHWWLHVW VFHQHU\LQ)RUW&ROOLQV
)XUWKHU WKLV GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQFUHDVH YHKLFOH WUDIILF RQ 2YHUODQG DQG
ZHVWHUQ'UDNHDQG 3URVSHFWURDGV 7KHVHURDGVZHUHQRWEXLOWIRUODUJHQXPEHUVRIQHZUHVLGHQWV
DQG2YHUODQGZLOOQHHGWREHZLGHQHGDQGWUDIILF OLJKWVDQGURXQGDERXWVZLOOEHQHHGHG )XUWKHU
WKHUHZLOOEHDKXJHLPSDFWRQWKHVFKRROVRQWKHZHVWVLGHRI)RUW&ROOLQVZKLFKDUHDOUHDG\QHDU
FDSDFLW\ .HHSLQPLQG WKDWWKHUHLVDOUHDG\DPHGLXPGHQVLW\QHZGHYHORSPHQWXQGHUZD\DWWKH
QRUWKHDVWFRUQHURI2YHUODQGDQG'UDNHURDGVZKLFKZLOOXQGRXEWHGO\LQFUHDVHWUDIILFDVZHOO
)XWXUH JHQHUDWLRQV ZLOO KDYH WR OLYH ZLWK WKH GHFLVLRQV \RX PDNH FRQFHUQLQJ WKLV
GHYHORSPHQW 2QFHWKLVRSHQVSDFHLVJRQHLWFDQQRWEHUHYHUVHG ,I\RXSHUPLW KLJKGHQVLW\
KRXVLQJ )RUW&ROOLQV’ EHVWORFDOUHFUHDWLRQDODUHDZLOOEHORVWIRUHYHU :H ZRXOG VWURQJO\VXJJHVW
WKDWWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV LQVWHDGHQKDQFHUHFUHDWLRQDORSSRUWXQLWLHVE\ SXUFKDVLQJWKH+XJKHV’
6WDGLXP VLWH IURP&RORUDGR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\DQGXVLQJLWDVDVHPLXUEDQUHFUHDWLRQDODUHDZLWK
ILHOGVIRUVRFFHU IRRWEDOOODFURVVHDQG EDVHEDOOLQFOXGLQJWXUIILHOGV DSOD\JURXQG DQG SRVVLEO\
DQLQGRRU VSRUWV IDFLOLW\)RUD&LW\WKDWSULGHVLWVHOIRQ\RXWKVSRUWVWKH&LW\ RI)RUW&ROOLQV’
12.r
Packet Pg. 725
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
IDFLOLWLHV DUHODJJLQJ EHKLQGWKRVHRI/RYHODQG /RYHODQG6SRUWV3DUN
Wij¢?{ij7-£¯ij
@ijC^ijÉ
12.r
Packet Pg. 72
:!!$%,!)$.#% +;(# #%'$)% $')#0). #. #0()() # % ,'" /)$'(# #$ )' $ $,"' (* #'%'"( ). )#)2# .
( (+(** +((((2 $ $##$$##'#'# # # ; /%$!#) # 2 #.%(; #.) )$*''".!' #()$'*#)) )*'!)$% "# ( (0 #! #)0 #
?2 -,
A2 )"()' )) $ #)'" (*(#() !% )')"))$ )) # $ ( 0.$$##*()(''.$)!) ).)$+$$**''&'%!$*%(!#")#2 !# #)'+ $!.# ,$$*,%#* )'$ ',)( #( )2(), )$#%) $)!# #$''.' $+'.$
$*
('&*(") ($+) # " $(',#',( ) +# ) ),4 ''&*() # '(%$#()$) ( #&* '.. *#>B0><=D2
# .$* #+#$'.$*') "#$#( ') $# #'(%$# # )$) ( #&* '.2
# '!.0
'.
"'# !) "./%&,
12.r
Packet Pg. 731
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
The Social and Environmental Innovation Center
of
Fort Collins
Imagine the old Hughes space transformed into a space that transforms the world.
The Social and Environmental Innovation Center of Ft. Collins, an idea I’ll be proposing this
evening, could be a place where passionate visionaries convene and make change. A place
like this will ensure Fort Collins continues leading the way as a city, attracting inspiring
people who want to do inspiring things.
Just think: a place where creative people who care about making the world a better place
could come to refine their ideas, research, build, grow organizations, access resources and
connect with mentors who’ve tread their paths before and can help them bring their ideas
for social transformation to life.
Fort Collins is known for being forward-thinking, smart, and unafraid to do things differently.
A Social and Environmental Innovation Center in Ft. Collins that helps people change the
world would honor that reputation and carry the city into the future.
The photos below are sample ideas, so that the Board can brainstorm and imagine the kind
of beautiful space we could build at Hughes for furthering the kind of social and
environmental innovation people today, especially the new generation, demand to make.
Just think: we could do this here. Fort Collins could lead the way and further the world of
tomorrow.
Looking forward to talking with you more about this!
12.r
Packet Pg. 732
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 733
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 734
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 735
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 736
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 737
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From:
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Subject: Comments on Hughes site rezoning
Date: Friday, September 20, 2019 6:15:01 AM
Hi,
I was unable to attend last night's meeting but I would still like to voice my
concerns regarding the rezoning of the Hughes site. I live in The Ponds
neighborhood which is just north of the Hughes site. I moved into this area with
my family a few months ago because of the amazing access to recreation - which
includes the current Hughes site area - and the wonderful schools. I have three
small children who will be going to school here. I am concerned about the
possibility of the Hughes site being made into a high density housing
development. This will increase traffic in the area and will increase the number of
children going to the neighborhood schools. This may also force my family out of
the schools we want and rezone us to other schools. None of those concerns,
however, compare the larger heartbreak of losing that amazing natural ground for
generations to come. It is one of the last natural areas at the foot of our beautiful
foothills here in Fort Collins. I truly worry about a future where every area like
this is turned into yet another development leading to no more natural spaces for
our children.
I urge you and the rest of the Planning and Zoning Board to think about the near
and far future impacts of the decision you make regarding this land.
With respect,
Lisa Case
12.r
Packet Pg. 738
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss; Development Review Comments
Subject: FW: Hughes Stadium plan
Date: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:12:55 AM
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
-----Original Message-----
From: Gretchen Ibarra
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:08 AM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>
Cc: rcunnifg@fcgov.com; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie
Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>;
Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; jmilelich@fcgov.com; Josh Birks <JBirks@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette
<reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Stadium plan
To: City Council
Greetings. My husband and I moved here from California in 2017 and have been impressed with the way our City
manages Fort Collins for the most part.
As an outdoor enthusiast, hiker, and environmentalist, I truly enjoy access to the natural areas around town. One
area that I am particularly fond of is the Horsetooth Reservoir area, including Maxwell Natural Areas.
Coming from the east side of town, hiking in this area on the west side requires my driving to that part of town.
I understand that there is a proposal from a large, out of town builder, to put over 600 homes in the Hughes site near
where I hike. Our first home was just walking distance to the old Hughes Stadium and it was that experience that led
us to buy a home in Fort Collins.
This email is to directly oppose this type of development on the west side of town where Hughes once stood. Not
only will there be density of over 1500 new residents at the foothills, I know the area and access in and out is
severely limited. With so many houses, cars, school buses, and limited parking, this is not what our community
wants.
I urge you to reduce the number of houses to fewer than 100 so that everyone can continue to enjoy access to the
foothills’ beauty, views, and dark skies.
Please accept this email as my request to support the Planning & Zoning Board’s recommendation for RF zoning.
Thank you.
Regards,
Gretchen Ibarra
3115 Muskrat Creek Drive FC
12.r
Packet Pg. 739
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss; Development Review Comments
Subject: FW: Hughes Stadium Property.
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 11:38:20 AM
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Delynn Coldiron <DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:37 PM
To: Sean Dougherty
Cc: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett
<CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>; Delynn Coldiron <DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: Hughes Stadium Property.
Hi Mr. Dougherty –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium property. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the hearing.
Thanks,
Delynn Coldiron
City Clerk
"Tell us about our service, we want to know!"
From: Sean Dougherty
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 12:45 PM
To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Stadium Property.
Ladies & Gentlemen of City Council,
I’m writing this letter today to ask that you do not recommend downzoning the property from its
current, Transition Zoning to anything with less density than R-L. In fact, I would prefer to have
some mixed use zoning (L-M-N) in the area, as this property is perfect for having a small community
center in the development. Also, the west side of Fort Collins is severely lacking in retail & dining
establishments, and this could enhance the area for residents.
I have a few reasons for asking you to consider a recommendation of at least an R-L, but preferably
L-M-N, zoning recommendation. First, I understand that traffic will increase, but Overland Trail and
Drake Road are arterial roads, and should be able to handle the traffic with a few modifications. (and
while you’re at it, please, please add a sign to the westbound side of the west end of Drake, stating
12.r
Packet Pg. 740
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
that the right turn lane is now a dedicated turn lane! Too many people are still yielding there)
In a community where the cost of housing is shooting through the roof, this is a prime location to try
some “out of the box” thinking in respect to zoning and approvals. Some ideas to consider:
There could be a density bonus in certain parts of the property, so long as a percentage of the
multi-family units are deeded as attainable housing, aiming for people in the 60-100% AMI
range, and deed-restricted to retain a lower price point in perpetuity.
With mixed-use, there could be a requirement for an apartment complex, again, with a
segment of lower-rent units, subsidized by the others in the complex
A portion of the property could be required to either be donated, or sold below market value,
to the Fort Collins Housing Catalyst, to be utilized in the Land Bank Program.
And, having a Transfort transit center (or turn-around) on-site would allow an increase in the
amount of public transportation for the west side of town, which is greatly needed.
I’d also like to bring up that I would consider any major downzoning to be a taking – it would lessen
the value of the land to the owner, Colorado State University. I do not believe that this is fair to CSU,
as they could lose their current contract to purchase the property, and would also likely have to
reduce the sales price of the land in order to sell it.
Lastly, I’d like to mention that, while CSU does have a tentative contract with a developer to
purchase the property, if that contract fails, CSU could decide to develop the property themselves.
Should they decide to do that, they could develop the property the way they would want, as neither
city nor county zoning regulations would apply to them.
I believe that there is a way for this property to be developed that helps the residents of Fort Collins,
benefits the developer, and doesn’t harm CSU. In my opinion, the highest and best use of this
property is to include some attainable housing while allowing smart, mixed-use, development. Let’s
see how we can help to make this a win-win-win in Fort Collins.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Sean M. Dougherty
REALTOR®
Larimer County Planning Commissioner
Sean M. Dougherty, REALTORâ
CRS, ABR, GREEN, CDPE, SFR, GRI, SHOP
2012 Realtor of the Year, Fort Collins Board of Realtors
RE/MAX Alliance of Northern Colorado
Proud Member of the RE/MAX Hall of Fame
www.HawaiianShirtGuy.com or 970-40-ALOHA (402-5642)
12.r
Packet Pg. 741
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Achieving YOUR Real Estate Goals, One Home at a Time!
12.r
Packet Pg. 742
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss; Development Review Comments
Subject: FW: Zoning and planning for the Hughes Site Development
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 5:23:28 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: John Caesar
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:00 AM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin
Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson
<tleeson@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; jmilelich@fcgov.com; Josh Birks
<JBirks@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: Zoning and planning for the Hughes Site Development
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the citizens of Fort Collins.
I am a business owner in the Insurance industry and have met many of you through Leadership Fort
Collins. Although I would personally benefit from an influx of houses at the old Hughes site, I am
expressing my concern and opposition to the proposed development at that particular site.
Not only am I concerned about high density housing in this space, which brings traffic, pollution, and
congestion, I am also worried about overcrowded schools. After conducting some research with a
PSD school board member, it is my understanding that despite what the City is claiming that there is
enough space in our elementary schools nearby, the reality is that the two nearest schools are
already at capacity.
I understand that building schools is not a small decision and is ultimately up to the tax payors, but If
a new school were built today, that would require $80milliion and land, which is not available on the
west side to accommodate so many new students. As a taxpayer and homeowner within the city
limits, I am in favor of having money go to another school, but this needs to be considered and built
well before a dense housing development is built in this particular area.
The Planning and Zoning board is recommending RF zoning for the space, and that is what many of
the Fort Collins citizens want to see developed. A grouping of 60-70 houses does not require the
same stress on schools, land, traffic, etc., that a development of 600, as proposed by Lennar
Builders.
12.r
Packet Pg. 743
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
I urge you to support the Planning and Zoning recommendation to keep our natural space and
prevent our schools from being even more crowded than they already are.
Thank you for your support and consideration.
Sincerely,
John Caesar LUTCF, FSS | Vice President Virtus Rocky Mountain
970-305-3573 (Office) 970-443-1936 (cell)
jcaesar@virtusins.com
www.virtusinsurance.com
12.r
Packet Pg. 744
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss; Development Review Comments
Subject: Fwd: FW: Hughes project
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:28:00 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Oct 10, 2019 7:24 AM
Subject: FW: Hughes project
To: Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>,Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>,Tom
Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>,Cameron Gloss
<cgloss@fcgov.com>,rcunnif@fcgov.com,jmilelich@fcgov.com,Josh Birks
<JBirks@fcgov.com>,Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>,Rebecca Everette
<reverette@fcgov.com>
Cc:
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 9:17 AM
To: wtroxell@fcgov.com
Cc:
Subject: Hughes project
Dear City Council,
Thank you for reading my e-mail and considering my thoughts. I am really concerned about the
Lennar development at the old Hughes Stadium site.
My understanding is that the issue before you is consideration of dense housing of 600+ houses.
I use this as a natural area as do thousands of people all during the year. Our son lives above the
reservoir and we live in the city. We meet hear and sometimes play disc golf. This specific natural
area is one of the reasons we relocated to Fort Collins. This is despite the fact that the foothills of
Fort Collins registers as the least healthy air quality in all of Colorado.
It is projected that with another 600 houses in the Hughes site, another 6,000 trips will be made just
from that neighborhood. Those numbers are not acceptable.
According to City Council Resolution 2014-028 Climate Action Plan (CAP), the City’s GHG emissions
goals are:
--20% below 2005 by 2020
--80% below 2005 by 2030
And carbon neutrality by 2050.
These goals are important. They should not be thrown away.
12.r
Packet Pg. 745
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Adding an additional 900-1500 vehicles at the base of Horsetooth Reservoir, next to the Foothills,
will not aid in reaching our City’s CAP goals as adopted in 2015. In fact, with climate change, we can
anticipate that the air quality will be significantly impacted. Despite what the builder claims, the
reality is that we cannot anticipate residents using their bikes instead of cars.
It is too far into the city to assume people will bike. The reality is that increased traffic affects our
way of life in Fort Collins and is detrimental to our health, happiness, and environment.
I urge you to reconsider the City’s zoning recommendation for this area, and adopt the Planning and
Zoning recommendation of using RF (Residential Foothills) so that we can potentially reduce the
outcome of excessive traffic around town. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Davis
1300 W. Oak Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
12.r
Packet Pg. 746
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Blizzy
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Gross Affront to Private Property!!!
Date: Friday, September 20, 2019 1:00:11 PM
After listening to the outcome last night with respect to the Hughes Stadium Annexation Property
Rezoning it is very clear you clowns are listening to the loudest screamers and not thinking at all. As
a resident of Fort Collins of 10-years I am still unable to purchase a home in the city because you
people listen to uninformed voters with the loudest voices. I am also making 80k which should be
plenty but its not. There have been several proposals for affordable housing out there and yet you
fools think multi-million dollar lots are the answer. We don’t need more open space!!! Tell the
opponents to get on there $4,000 mountain bikes and ride over to Lory State park. It is absolutely
asinine of the City to think these opponents have the best interest of the community in mind. They
have a mob mentality of “fuck you I got mine” and you are supporting this. Every single one of you
that is supporting this deserves to lose their job. WE NEED MORE HOUSING OPTIONS NOT FUCKING
OPEN SPACE FOR RICH MOUNTAIN BIKERS!!!!
Worst Regards,
Blaine Mathisen
12.r
Packet Pg. 747
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Julie Hoponick
To: Development Review Comments
Subject: Hughes Land Zoning
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2019 6:00:32 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I have attended many of the open house/forums on the old Hughes land and am unable to
attend the meeting at City Hall tonight however would like to share my opinion. I would
prefer the land to remain open space or park space, I also understand this is not an option. In
light of that, I think that putting 600-700 homes on that land is a shame and not sustainable for
that side of town. I live on Overland and Stuart and those roads are not going to be able to
support that level increase in residents as well as the impacts on the open space surrounding
that land.
Understanding that something will be developed here, I would support the new proposal of
LMN and RF zoning, feeling that 200-300 homes is more appropriate and will reflect what is
already in the area.
I think CSU has made it clear with recent development decisions that how they impact the non
university residents in this town is not of value to them. I don't think 600 homes jammed
against the foothills is going to change any housing issues in this town. Also, I don't think that
housing will remain affordable, calling it that is a ruse to get support for an empty promise.
Thank you for considering my input in this matter.
Respectfully,
Julie C Hoponick
12.r
Packet Pg. 748
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To:
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: The future of the old Huges Stadium site
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 1:05:02 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Mr. Clark –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes development. This information will be provided to
Council and the public along with other materials for the hearing.
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: matt clark
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff
<rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry
<DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; City Clerk Office
<cityclerk@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Subject: The future of the old Huges Stadium site
To City Council and City Employees:
Recently I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where the old
Hughes site was discussed.
I must admit disappointment in the way our City represented a proposed
development of over 600 houses.
12.r
Packet Pg. 749
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
As I listened to the Board discuss concerns regarding air quality and dark sky
interruption, I became increasingly disturbed by the lack of consideration that our
City has for the desires of our citizens in Fort Collins.
Why does the City want so many houses in this space where we enjoy our natural
areas? There are many houses being built on the north and east side of town, in
fact, over 7,000 have recently been approved by City Council.
However, none of these parcels where proposed houses are going, are anywhere
similar to our special location of Hughes.
After the Planning and Zoning Board listened to the community and heard of our
outcry to build so many houses in this location, I believe they DID get it.
Obviously they pivoted on their original thoughts of zoning as Mr. Gloss
recommended and voted 4-2, to zone the area as Residential Foothills, very low
density housing with lots of open space.
I am recommending that City Council pay attention to its constituents. We don’t
want an abundance of houses in this space. We don’t want our beautiful skies
disrupted with lights in that corner of Fort Collins. We don’t want to worsen our
air quality with an additional 1500 cars in this space next to the foothills. And we
don’t want to hear 1985 air quality data that insults our intelligence about how our
air quality is better than the rest of Colorado.
It’s a sham and we all know it. Let’s preserve this open land and vote NO to a big
development in this space.
Signed,
William Matt Clark, 2688 Headwater Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80521
12.r
Packet Pg. 750
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To:
Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Stadium Site Development
Date: Friday, October 11, 2019 8:46:17 AM
Hi Shirley –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be provided to
Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kendrick >
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 8:00 AM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Susan
Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich
<jmihelich@fcgov.com>; City Clerk Office <cityclerk@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>;
Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Stadium Site Development
To: City Council and City Staff:
Thank you for reading and taking action on this email regarding the Hughes site.
According to the City of Fort Collins Climate Action Framework of 2015, climate change matters in FOCO due to:
"Soaring summer temperatures with 90 degree temperatures commonplace. Increased heat will exacerbate ground
level ozone and smog, worsen visibility and affect citizens’ health.” (Source: Climate Change Primer for Fort
Collins, 2013 CAP Framework, March 2015)
I am sure we would all agree that the month of September was an example of climate change with record high
temperatures.
Why would we want to allow another 900-1500 cars next to the foothills contributing to the depletion of our ozone
and adding nitrogen to our precious mountains to the west?
The Lennar Hughes Redevelopment Plan is a step backwards in regards to our residents health and well being. Our
community does not want high density in this location and our CAP plan doesn’t support this type of growth,
particularly when our adopted City Plan of 2019 doesn’t support a development in development in this space.
I am asking that you take a look at our environment and vote NO to an excess of houses in this natural area that is so
precious to us. We do not want 600 houses and their cars in this space.
Thank you.
Regards,
Shirley Kendrick
12.r
Packet Pg. 751
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
830 Maple Street
FOCO 80521
12.r
Packet Pg. 752
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To:
Cc: Rita Knoll; Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Stadium Project
Date: Friday, October 11, 2019 9:03:06 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Natalie –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium project. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
Thanks,
Delynn
"Tell us about our service, we want to know!"
From: Nathalie Rachline
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 11:12 PM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff
<rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry
<DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; City Clerk Office
<cityclerk@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Stadium Project
To City Council:
I would like to express concern about the Hughes Stadium development project. Recently the
Planning & Zoning Board of Fort Collins met and determined (4 to 2) that the old Hughes site should
be zoned RF for Residential Foothills. This recommendation was established despite a presentation
12.r
Packet Pg. 753
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
from the City to allow an out of state builder to build over 600 homes on this parcel.
I recently learned that the City will be ignoring P&Z’s zoning recommendation and plans to present a
dense development of over 600 houses to City Council on November 5th
.
This is not acceptable as our City has boards and commissions for a reason, and that’s to represent
our community. If the City chooses to ignore the P&Z’s quasi judicial recommendation, why even
HAVE a board representing our community?
I ask Council to consider the real value of this land and ensure due recommendation for a project
that will not build hundreds of jammed houses in that area which further more would create
additional transportation requirements when we already do not have sufficient options, in addition
to being counter productive overall to the climate action plan of the City.
Sincerely,
Nathalie Rachline
816 W Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
--
Nathalie Rachline
Business Strategy, Operations, and Transformations
Member of the Board - SIM Colorado - Chair membership
Member of the City of Fort Collins Transportation Board - Vice Chair
Member of the Board - Off the Hook Arts - President
+
Skype: rachline.nathalie
12.r
Packet Pg. 754
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To:
Cc: Cameron Gloss; Rebecca Everette; Carrie Daggett; Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: climate emergency and the Hughes" development
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:32:44 PM
Hi Mr. Roze –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes development. This information will be provided to
Council and the public along with other materials for the hearing.
Thanks,
Delynn Coldiron
City Clerk
"Tell us about our service, we want to know!"
From: Robert Roze
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 2:51 PM
To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: climate emergency and the Hughes' development
Hello,
There have been some blurbs in the Coloradoan about plans for the Hughes' development, which
have seemed to focus around density and how much open space to reserve. While these are
important issues, the recent declaration on climate action shows that another important
consideration should be: how energy efficient should these homes be?
I apologize in advance if this was in fact discussed. I was not able to attend the public discussion
about this in August. I'd like to suggest that the expectation for the new homes be that they are
built to net zero energy standards, using the improved building techniques and materials, which
some builders are offering now.
Thank you, and Best Regards,
Rob Roze
12.r
Packet Pg. 755
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To:
Cc: Carrie Daggett; Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Zoning
Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 11:57:51 AM
Hi Susan -
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes development. This information will be provided to
Council and the public along with other materials for the hearing.
Thanks,
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Wannamaker
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 9:25 AM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross
Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry
<DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>;
City Clerk Office <cityclerk@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Zoning
Dear City Council,
I am a relative newcomer to this fantastic city. My daughter has lived here for 5 years and I visited approximately 25
times during that that time. Finally I decided “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and I left a similar sized mid-western
college town after 30 years. I am selling my precious home in the Midwest so that I can purchase a home in Fort
Collins. I understand “affordable housing” from the perspective of a retired person on a fixed income. In my short
tenure here, I have volunteered with several non-profits and I support the community in many other ways.
I keep up with local news by reading the newspaper, attending public events and I have attended a Planning and
Zoning Board Hearing. I look forward to more participation in the future. Right now I am concerned about the
proposed Lennar development at the old Hughes Stadium site. And I am not alone. The community comments made
at the September 19th P and Z Hearing were moving and impactful. Dense housing of 600+ houses should not be an
option for this space. This is a natural area which is used by thousands of people all during the year, and allowing a
builder to put hundreds of houses there will negatively affect our air quality. In fact, the foothills of Fort Collins
registers as the LEAST healthy air quality in all of Colorado.
At the last Planning and Zoning meeting, Martina Wilkinson, City Traffic Engineer, projected that with 600 houses
in the Hughes site, another 6,000 trips will be made JUST from that neighborhood. Those numbers are not
acceptable.
According to City Council Resolution 2014-028 Climate Action Plan (CAP), the City’s GHG emissions goals are:
--20% below 2005 by 2020
--80% below 2005 by 2030
And carbon neutrality by 2050.
Adding an additional 900-1500 vehicles at the base of Horsetooth Reservoir, next to the Foothills, will not aid in
12.r
Packet Pg. 756
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
reaching our City’s CAP goals as adopted in 2015. In fact, with climate change, we can anticipate that the air quality
will be significantly impacted. Despite what the builder claims, the reality is that we cannot anticipate residents
using their bikes instead of cars.
I urge you to reconsider the City’s zoning recommendation for this area, and adopt the Planning and Zoning
recommendation of using RF (Residential Foothills) low density housing. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Wannamaker, 320 East Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins 80524
12.r
Packet Pg. 757
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 758
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 759
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes
From: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Solar Panel Field Consider this part 3
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:31:00 PM
Thanks! I’ve received several from Megan so I’ll check to see if this one has been included.
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:41 AM
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com>; Development Review Comments
<devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Solar Panel Field Consider this part 3
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Delynn Coldiron <DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 9:41 AM
To: Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Solar Panel Field Consider this part 3
Another possible item for the Hughes Stadium item. This may have been included in P&Z info.
Thanks,
Delynn
"Tell us about our service, we want to know!"
From: Megan Dyer >
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 8:42 AM
To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: Solar Panel Field Consider this part 3
Good morning! I'm back! :)
After watching the City Council meeting last night it occurred to me that the Hughes
Stadium property could be used for a solar panel field; it's perfect! Go look!
Why not work in conjunction with CSU as solar partners? WIN! WIN!
Whatever portions are not used for solar can remain undeveloped or become an
12.r
Packet Pg. 760
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
official open space.
Btw, I'm researching the population of the Plover and the Spotted or Common
Sandpiper, (the government should be doing the same) as these are ground nesting
birds and are possibly protected species.
Thank you for your time.
Megan
12.r
Packet Pg. 761
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Rebecca Everette
To:
Cc: Troxell,Wade; Tom Leeson; Cameron Gloss; Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Subject: RE: use of Hughes Property
Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 11:33:59 AM
Dr. Benson,
Thank you for your comments – they will be added to the record for the rezoning and will be shared
with City Council.
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970-416-2625
From: Benson,Delwin
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 11:03 AM
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Cc: Troxell,Wade <Wade.Troxell@colostate.edu>
Subject: use of Hughes Property
Rebecca:
Please have my interests officially recorded to keep the Hughes property in open space. If
development is the only option, then please record that I want to use the site as an example to
demonstrate a modern approach of blending humans with the land and related ecosystem
functions. Build taller units with multiple families, but not so high to affect viewsheds. Group
buildings and place them next to the existing buildings on the north and east side of the property to
afford maximum open space and corridors with the foothills and adjacent natural areas. Improve
wildlife habitat in the open spaces with plantings and proper placement of trails. Xeriscape and
reuse water except for planting and maintaining trees and shrubs. Regulate water and energy use
on all residential and green spaces. Use solar and other modern power sources throughout with the
goal of generating electricity to the grid. Put parking underground or in structures. Mitigate
increased traffic onto Overland by bus routes, traffic lights, bike trail linkages, etc.
The developers and city should win awards for their creation.
Del
It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness
Del and Jeannie Benson
3233 West Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Take 6 courses and Graduate Certificate Online: Conservation Actions with Lands, Animals, and
12.r
Packet Pg. 762
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
People
Learn about land, wildlife and people management: www.LandHelp.info
12.r
Packet Pg. 763
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Description Login (Screen name)
When you think how Tony Frank lied to the
community about who would pay for the Canvass
stadium no student or public funds -- a lie!), its
outrageous. Then he gets a million dollar
promotion to chancellor of the CSU system. I am
a CSU alum and and ashamed of this man's
despicable behavior...and ashamed of how he
subordinates CSU's interests and reputation to his
blind ambition. The only way this area should be
developed is if Fort Collins/CUS extends a full
blown east-west Max bus line starting at the
property and meeting the N-S max at the
downtown transit center or at CSU. This, as we all
know, will never happen, thus the property should
remain natural, open space!
philip.h.friedman
Comment from the "OurCity" engagement platform 12.r
Packet Pg. 764
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Public Comment from 10/15/19 Council Meeting
Renee Walkup
At a Board City Climate Event last night comments were made that this is the best City Council that Fort
Collins has ever had. I haven’t lived here as long as some but can honestly say that this comment
appears to be a fact. As I attend and view City Council meetings, I am constantly impressed with the
knowledge and dedication that you bring to a vast array of topics affecting our community and thank
you for that.
My purpose for being here this is evening is to bring an important topic to your attention. Currently the
old Hughes Site zoning is zoned “T” and in a few weeks you will be reviewing and voting on a
designation. After hearing from the community recently, our Planning and Zoning Board reversed the
City’s recommendation to split the property between LMH (I believe Renee is referring to “LMN”) and RF
(Residential Foothills) to just RF. The reason for their decision was to take advantage of dark skies and to
meet the community’s desire for maximum open space in this important area. In a few weeks you will
be hearing a City recommendation to zone the land LMH (I believe Renee means “LMN”) and RF. The
same recommendation that the P&Z board rejected in a 4 to 2 decision. Clearly the City has reasons for
Council hearing a different proposal from what P&Z decided after their lengthy discussion, lasting over
an hour. I have a suggestion that I would like City Council to consider.
There are code audit findings and Land Use Code amendment recommendations and meetings coming
up in December and January. Since these sessions may determine new code recommendations, I’m
asking Council to wait on making a decision regarding the old Hughes site until after new zoning is
established. My hope, and over 5,000 others in our community, who are passionate about that parcel
are looking for your leadership in this manner. We are asking for a creative zoning solution that is
unique to this property.
Thank you.
12.r
Packet Pg. 765
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Subject: FW:
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:49:43 PM
Here is another one just received….
Thanks,
Delynn
"Tell us about our service, we want to know!"
From: Ann and Mike Baron
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:44 PM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin
Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson
<tleeson@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; jmilelich@fcgov.com; Josh Birks
<JBirks@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; City Clerk Office
<cityclerk@fcgov.com>
Cc: Ann Baron
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the citizens of Fort Collins.
I am contacting you to express my concern and opposition to the proposed development in the
Hughes stadium site by a large Florida developer, Lennar Builders.
The former Hughes site is a special area to the citizens of Fort Collins. Thousands of people use this
area to access Horsetooth Reservoir and the Maxwell Natural space. In addition, CSU alumni find
pleasure in visiting this area for nostalgic reasons. In short, the Fort Collins community does not
want 600 houses in this space.
Not only am I concerned about high density housing in this space, which brings traffic, pollution, and
congestion, I am also worried about overcrowded schools.
I recently learned that despite what the City is claiming as enough space in our elementary schools
nearby, the reality is, the two nearest elementary schools at already over capacity. Having room at
the middle and high school level is not sufficient, since according to a PSD board member, the
majority of students from this neighborhood are projected to be in elementary school. He estimated
a minimum of 400 students would need to attend school, and 80% of those students would be at the
K-5 grades.
I was also informed that if a new school were built today, that would require an 80m investment. In
addition, land is required for a new school and there isn’t land available on the west side to
accommodate a new school. As a taxpayer and homeowner within the city limits, I am not in favor of
12.r
Packet Pg. 766
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
having my hard-earned money go to another school, particularly when I am against a dense housing
development on the west side of town.
The Planning and Zoning board is recommending RF zoning for the space, and that is what I’d like to
see developed. A grouping of 60-70 houses does not require the same stress on schools and our
infrastructure that a development of 600 would bring, as proposed.
I urge you to support the Planning and Zoning recommendation and keep our natural space on the
west side as close to what it is today, preserved.
Thank you for voting for less density and schools which are appropriately at capacity so that our
children can get the best education PSD can provide.
Sincerely,
Patricia Ann Baron
336 East Saturn Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525
12.r
Packet Pg. 767
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: annbaron2013@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE:
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 3:31:30 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Dear Ann and Mike –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to
Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Ann and Mike Baron <annbaron2013@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:44 PM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin
Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson
<tleeson@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; jmilelich@fcgov.com; Josh Birks
<JBirks@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; City Clerk Office
<cityclerk@fcgov.com>
Cc: Ann Baron <annbaron2013@gmail.com>
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the citizens of Fort Collins.
I am contacting you to express my concern and opposition to the proposed development in the
Hughes stadium site by a large Florida developer, Lennar Builders.
The former Hughes site is a special area to the citizens of Fort Collins. Thousands of people use this
area to access Horsetooth Reservoir and the Maxwell Natural space. In addition, CSU alumni find
12.r
Packet Pg. 768
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
pleasure in visiting this area for nostalgic reasons. In short, the Fort Collins community does not
want 600 houses in this space.
Not only am I concerned about high density housing in this space, which brings traffic, pollution, and
congestion, I am also worried about overcrowded schools.
I recently learned that despite what the City is claiming as enough space in our elementary schools
nearby, the reality is, the two nearest elementary schools at already over capacity. Having room at
the middle and high school level is not sufficient, since according to a PSD board member, the
majority of students from this neighborhood are projected to be in elementary school. He estimated
a minimum of 400 students would need to attend school, and 80% of those students would be at the
K-5 grades.
I was also informed that if a new school were built today, that would require an 80m investment. In
addition, land is required for a new school and there isn’t land available on the west side to
accommodate a new school. As a taxpayer and homeowner within the city limits, I am not in favor of
having my hard-earned money go to another school, particularly when I am against a dense housing
development on the west side of town.
The Planning and Zoning board is recommending RF zoning for the space, and that is what I’d like to
see developed. A grouping of 60-70 houses does not require the same stress on schools and our
infrastructure that a development of 600 would bring, as proposed.
I urge you to support the Planning and Zoning recommendation and keep our natural space on the
west side as close to what it is today, preserved.
Thank you for voting for less density and schools which are appropriately at capacity so that our
children can get the best education PSD can provide.
Sincerely,
Patricia Ann Baron
336 East Saturn Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525
12.r
Packet Pg. 769
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: Tom&Kasha
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Proposed Lennar Development on former Hughes Stadium site
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:01:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Tom and Kasha –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Tom&Kasha <karolta@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 12:44 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens
<kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky
<sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Jeff Mihelich
<jmihelich@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; City Clerk Office
<cityclerk@fcgov.com>; Josh Birks <JBirks@fcgov.com>
Subject: Proposed Lennar Development on former Hughes Stadium site
Re: Proposed Lennar Development, Hughes Stadium site
Dear City Council,
There is presently a proposal before you to build over 600 homes on the former Hughes Stadium
site. For a variety of reasons, we urge you to reject this proposal and any rezoning permitting such
development.
One of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor, which has made Fort Collins so attractive is its
quality of life. One can already see major changes as the air quality and traffic worsens.
12.r
Packet Pg. 770
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
In the past five (5) years, traffic in Fort Collins has increased significantly. An additional 600 homes
will make the traffic on Overland Trail unbearable. Inevitably, there will be a push to make Overland
Trail a four-lane road. The additional traffic will also increase the traffic in all of southwest Fort
Collins, including on Drake, Horsetooth and Harmony, roads that are already congested. Becoming
like Denver in the worst way should not be one of our goals.
With increased traffic comes increased air pollution. Our air quality along the Front Range is already
less than optimal. The developer claims that the new residents in its development will use bicycles.
To suggest that there will not be a significant negative environmental impact from its development is
neither realistic nor honest. This development is a major step backwards in meeting the Climate
Action Plan resolution passed by City Council several years ago.
The open spaces and natural areas are a big part of what makes Fort Collins so special. The
proposed Lennar Development and rezoning should be rejected, and efforts should be directed to
maintaining the vast majority, if not all, of the former Hughes Stadium site as natural area.
Thomas & Kathleen Karol
1107 Wooded Creek Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
12.r
Packet Pg. 771
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
To: Rebecca Everette; Development Review Comments; Cameron Gloss
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:51:58 PM
Thanks, Rebecca – adding Delynn, as she is now taking comments for Council.
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:50 PM
To: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss <statman-burruss@fcgov.com>; Development Review Comments
<devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Hughes Redevelopment
For the record
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Mary Grant <msgrant026@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 1:45 PM
To: Susan Gutowsky <susan.gutowsky@gmail.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>; Jeff
Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell
<WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>;
Laurie Kadrich <kkadrich@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette
<reverette@fcgov.com>; CSU Board of Govenors <csus_board@mail.colostate.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Hughes Redevelopment
Good Afternoon,
On September 15, 2019, I submitted the attached letter asking for key issues to be addressed. I did
receive a note telling me that my letter would be added to the Planning and Zoning and City Council
Files; however, I have received no further communication responding to the issues I asked to be
addressed.
Since the time my letter was sent, I have learned that there is a plan to review the zoning codes in
either December 2019 or January 2020. I have been asking for a creative solution to the Hughes
Property zoning and am wondering why there is such a rush to zone this piece of land when it is
incredibly clear that zoning codes available are not meeting the needs of the Community, CSU and
The City. The zoning of this property must be tabled until the codes are reviewed. If time is of the
essence, then review the codes earlier and INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY.
While I am ever hopeful, I do not believe that creative zoning codes alone will resolve all of the
needs of the three interested parties. As a trained facilitator, I have requested a forum that would
12.r
Packet Pg. 772
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
include representatives from all interested parties, including the community, with a trained
facilitator, who has expertise in Community Development, to explore viable options for zoning,
similar to the exercise conducted for the City Park enhancements.
Fort Collins is a vibrant, growing community. We need to make sure our community does not get
“stuck in a rut” or grows so quickly, with dense population, that people choose to move to the
suburbs to achieve their livability goals. We need to look at all of our available space with and eye
toward not only our needs today but livability for the future.
I respectfully request that you seriously consider my requests and let me know the disposition of
each.
Thank you,
Mary Grant
Zip code 80521
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Grant <msgrant026@gmail.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: September 15, 2019 at 2:48:25 PM CDT
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>, Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>, Jeff
Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>, Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>, Susan
Gutowsky <susan.gutowsky@gmail.com>, Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>, Ken
Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>, Kristen Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>,
Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>, Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>, CSU
Board of Govenors <csus_board@mail.colostate.edu>, Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>, Laurie Kadrich <kkadrich@fcgov.com>
Cc: Matt Bloom <matt.bloom@kunc.org>
To the above identified recipients.
Please review the attached letter.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Mary Grant
12.r
Packet Pg. 773
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Citizen & PATHS Member
Zip Code 80521
12.r
Packet Pg. 774
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
September 15, 2019
To: The City Manager, Planning & Zoning Board, The City Council
With Copies To: Channel 4, The Coloradan, KUNC, The CSU Board of Governors, The PATHS
website and PATHS Facebook page
I am a City of Fort Collins Resident, a member of the Planning Actions to Transform Hughes
Sustainably (PATHS) group and a concerned citizen. I have been engaging with or attempting to
engage with Colorado State University Board of Governors (CSU BOG), the City of Fort Collins
and the City Council regarding the zoning and ultimate use of the former Hughes Stadium
Property (Hughes) since the Community meeting in April 2019.
I am writing in regard to the annexation of the 160+ acres of Colorado State University (CSU)
property, currently known as the Hughes property, and the impending zoning hearing
scheduled for September 19, 2019 regarding the same property. I am concerned because the
zoning of this property is complex. On one hand, CSU, a dominant entity and employer in this
community has decided and acted upon their decision to sell the property to a builder for a
housing development, which is puzzling since the property had not, and is currently not zoned.
The question that PATHS and our community doesn’t understand, and looks like a clear conflict
of interest, is how CSU could have determined that zoning would be established consistent with
their preferences—prior to community input. Concerned citizens want to know that since the
property was annexed to the City, 4 months prior to the agreement between CSU and the
buyer, that the City has understands its responsibility to the community as a whole.
After reading the annexation documentation, it is clear that as long as CSU maintains some
level of ownership, as part of the State System, they are not bound by the zoning decisions
made by the City of Fort Collins or City Council. However, CSU forfeited the responsibility of
maintaining the property when the City annexed it. Now, our City taxpayers are paying for the
upkeep of this land, and yet, CSU is awaiting profiting from the sale of the property.
It is in light of the above statements that I am voicing the following concerns regarding the
annexation and zoning of the Hughes property and making the subsequent requests.
1) CSU developed, issued and selected a development proposal prior to the property being
zoned (a feat, in and of itself, since it is impossible to place a value on property that is not
zoned or know what the zoning will eventually be). Even with feedback from the
community, which was in direct conflict with the RFP ultimately published, CSU went
ahead with their plans. Since that time, the City and City Council have been made aware
of petitions in excess of 5000 signatures, signed by the community, requesting zoning
different from traditional housing developments or LMN’s.
2) CSU worked with a City Planner, (Cameron Gloss), on the development and issuance of
the RFP. Now Cameron Gloss is playing a major role in the zoning recommendation.
12.r
Packet Pg. 775
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Considering the level of involvement with CSU during the RFP process (developed while
the property is Zoned T), this appears to be a clear conflict of interest. Cameron Gloss
stated in the R&Z workgroup meeting on 9/13/19, in response to an inquiry from a P & Z
member, that CSU had made it clear that they did not wish to sell the property to the
City. Is there a problem with the City’s money? Is Mr. Gloss making zoning
recommendations based upon his prior involvement with the RFP process, knowing what
CSU wants and intends to do? Unfortunately, those questions remain on our
community’s minds without clear explanation.
3) The Hughes property is unique and should be treated as such and zoned accordingly.
a. Due to the location with Overland Trail going north, being the only access road to
the community, studies must be completed addressing emergency response and
rescue, especially in light of the City’s Climate Change document predicting and
increase in fires and floods in the coming years.
b. Traffic is already a problem on Overland Trail from Drake to LaPorte. In light of the
new development already underway at Drake and Overland Trail with over 100
homes, and the addition at the Equine Center and the proposal of a major
development being requested by CSU and supported by the City, a comprehensive
traffic study must be initiated, and include peak work and school hours, when CSU
and PSD are not on break. In addition, we want the traffic study to span a minimum
of 14 days to gain a clear pattern of vehicle, bus, and bicycle traffic from LaPorte to
Drake on Overland Trail.
c. Building a huge development at the base of a reservoir with all of the impacts to the
ground is potentially devastating for the land under the reservoir and east of the
area over the long term. There is concern that unstable ground and a significant
reason the stadium was moved, would negatively impact our City’s environment and
residents. An impact study needs to be completed to address the potential
outcomes and risks of a large development on the foundation so close to the
reservoir.
d. The city keeps saying the school system can handle the student population near the
foothills; however, contact with the PSD Board of Education tells a different story.
We are aware that the State of Colorado requires a student count every October,
and we want to see the results of the student count. Currently, it is understood that
there will be anywhere between 400 and 690 students in a development of this size
and that the local elementary schools are at capacity. We would like to see the data
the city used to determine capacity in this area. If a new school is required, which
seems inevitable, where would a new school be built when 20 acres are required? Is
the community aware that we will be paying for a new school to accommodate
overcrowding?
e. Air quality is a major concern up against the foothills. The City has goals for air
quality in the Climate Plan. We need a current study addressing air quality in this
area before decisions are made regarding the use of the Hughes property. Experts
estimate that a development of this size will add 1500 cars next to the foothills.
f. An Ecological Characterization Study has been requested many times, we need to
see the study and the results.
12.r
Packet Pg. 776
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
4) The Community views the Hughes Property as the “Gateway” to Horsetooth Reservoir, a
place considered the “Crown Jewel” of this area. The community has made it clear that
this property should be protected from over development and available to the 500,000
annual visitors to Horsetooth each year to enjoy. Why can’t the City develop a creative
solution to the zoning of this property to meet the needs of the community, CSU and the
City?
5) It is also sad that an Open House was held on August 8, 2019, and after all of the
suggestions and requests provided by the community for a creative solution to the use of
this land, the only options presented were housing developments. (Specifically, RF
and/or LMN. Curiously, LMN allows for the exact high-density development that is
currently on the table for this property). PATHS attended that meeting and spoke to a
number of residents leaving the Open House who were frustrated that the only options
presented were housing options. As a World Class City, where are our creative ideas to
make this area near our foothills a destination point for visitors and locals? Our
community’s frustrations were communicated to Tom Leeson in an email dated
8/9/2019.
It is understood that CSU is a major employer in Fort Collins and as such tends to be able to
influence decisions made by the City for the Fort Collins Community; however, the City and City
Council are also here for the citizens of Fort Collins and the citizens of Fort Collins have been
very clear about their wishes for the use of this property. The City should not turn its back on
the community. Many people in our community include CSU and City employees who are in
favor of a different plan other than the one that’s been proposed. When will the City and the
City Council set the needs of the community, the people paying taxes, paying city employee
salaries, and raising their families here be set as a priority?
It is time for the City and the City Council to address the following:
1) The City needs to request a formal modification to the annexation agreement between
the City and CSU regarding the Hughes property that stipulates that CSU will honor
whatever zoning decision is made for the property by the City of Fort Collins (or City
Council), even if CSU retains ownership (of some level) of the property.
2) The City needs to explore creative zoning options in keeping with the needs and
expressed wishes of the community. This needs to be done prior to a formal zoning
recommendation made to Planning and Zoning. (Public/Private/Philanthropic
Partnerships, Combination zoning to accommodate open space, amenities supporting
recreational activities, attainable housing.)
3) Any City employee or member of the City Council who was involved with the planning
and development of the Hughes Property RFP with CSU or has a direct affiliation with
CSU should recuse themselves from the development of the zoning recommendation or
voting for the final zoning of the Hughes property.
4) Once zoning has occurred, there should be a complete conceptual review process
followed before any development plans are accepted. The review process should have
extensive input from the community.
12.r
Packet Pg. 777
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
5) The requested studies should be performed with both the study criteria and study
results published to the community with complete and open transparency. Additionally,
these impact studies should be done during “normal” or “peak” times to determine full
impact of any additions to the area over a period of 14 days when it is not PSD and CSU
breaks.
(i.e. traffic studies need to be conducted on major intersections of Drake, Prospect,
Mulberry and LaPorte during a time when CSU is in full session rather than less driven
roads during CSU breaks as has been done previously).
a. Ecological Characterization Study
b. Emergency Response and Rescue
c. Traffic
d. Education
e. Air Quality
f. Structural Engineering impact study to the reservoir
g. Environmental Assessment Study
Many people have spent considerable time in research and gatherings to voice their opinions,
propose alternative solutions, and investigating creating alternative solutions in reference to
this very sacred parcel of Fort Collins history. Fort Collins has been called the “Choice City” in a
large part because of its’ sense of community and level of recreational activity. We have a
reputation as a World Class City and have received the Malcolm Baldridge Award for
innovation, livability, and sustainability. It is insulting to think that despite everyone’s efforts to
communicate very clearly with both City Council, the City of Fort Collins planning, and CSU, no
action towards community recommendations are even being considered at this time.
Rather, the CSU Board of Governors, directed by and extremely loyal to Mr. Tony Frank, are
privileged to make the final determination of the fate of Hughes Development without binding
consideration for the community that fosters the success of CSU in many ways. CSU is not
leaving our community, and it’s time that CSU gives something back to Fort Collins and its
residents.
Thank you for your Consideration
Mary Grant
City of Fort Collins Resident
Member of PATHS
Zip Code 80521
12.r
Packet Pg. 778
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Proposal(s) For Development of Former Hughes Stadium Property
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:18:31 AM
From: Russ Ayer <russ.ayer46@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 11:52 AM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>;
ksephens@fcgov.com; jmilelich@fcgov.com; Josh Birks <JBirks@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff
<rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky
<sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>;
Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Cc: Renee Walkup <Walkup@salespeak.com>
Subject: Proposal(s) For Development of Former Hughes Stadium Property
My name is Russ Ayer. My wife and I have lived in Fort Collins for the past five years having moved
here from the Burlington, VT area. We appreciate the wonderful environment, out of doors
activities and many new friends.
I am a retired electric utility executive and "former" combat decorated Marine Force Recon officer
from the Viet Nam and Cambodian War era. As you might well imagine, I have served and continue
to serve on several boards and decision making bodies in both the private and governmental arenas.
I'm not sure what the "number du jour" is for units to be sited at the Hughes Property but I am very
concerned the excessive building at this very special location will destroy forever the natural beauty
this state carries as a banner of pride. I have taken the Larimer County 101 ten week program and
was pleased to hear the pride taken by both private and governmental entities working together to
buy and preserve special lands for future generations to enjoy and protect. It would seem logical
that land adjacent Horsetooth Resevior be given much more careful consideration and protection
than appears to be the case thus far in your ongoing deliberations.
I urge you all to give more thought and careful consideration to protecting Fort Collins from the high
probability of urban sprawl ..... more stores, crowding schools, dramatically increased traffic and
general safety considerations for everyone living in this area.
I will plan to address you in person on the evening of November 5.
Thank You,
Russ Ayer
Sender notified by
Mailtrack 10/29/19, 10:59:17 AM
12.r
Packet Pg. 779
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.r
Packet Pg. 780
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:39:59 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:46 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Susan
Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
Hughes Letters to City Council:
Dear City Council,
Thank you for all the hard work you do on behalf of our wonderful City of Fort Collins. I am writing to
you about my concerns regarding the proposed Lennar development at the old Hughes Stadium site.
Dense housing of 600+ houses should not be an option for this space.
This is a natural area which is used by thousands of people all during the year, and allowing a builder
to put hundreds of houses there will negatively affect our air quality. In fact, the foothills of Fort
Collins registers as the least healthy air quality in all of Colorado.
It is projected that with another 600 houses in the Hughes site, another 6,000 trips will be made just
from that neighborhood. Those numbers are not acceptable.
According to City Council Resolution 2014-028 Climate Action Plan (CAP), the City’s GHG emissions
goals are:
12.r
Packet Pg. 781
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
--20% below 2005 by 2020
--80% below 2005 by 2030
And carbon neutrality by 2050.
Adding an additional 900-1500 vehicles at the base of Horsetooth Reservoir, next to the Foothills,
will not aid in reaching our City’s CAP goals as adopted in 2015. In fact, with climate change, we can
anticipate that the air quality will be significantly impacted. Despite what the builder claims, the
reality is that we cannot anticipate residents using their bikes instead of cars.
I urge you to reconsider the City’s zoning recommendation for this area, and create unique zoning
for this particular parcel. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 782
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:38:46 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:49 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky
<sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
To City Council and City Staff:
Thank you for reading and taking action on this email regarding the Hughes site.
According to the City of Fort Collins Climate Action Plan Framework of 2015, climate change matters
in FOCO due to:
“Soaring summer temperatures with 90 degree temperatures commonplace. Increased heat will
exacerbate ground level ozone and smog, worsen visibility, and affect citizens’ health.” (Source:
Climate Change Primer for Fort Collins, 2013 CAP Framework, March 2015.)
Why would we want to allow another 900-1500 cars next to the foothills contributing to the
depletion of our ozone?
The Lennar Hughes Redevelopment Plan is a slap in the face of our residents and our health. Our
community doesn’t want high density in this location and our CAP plan doesn’t support this type of
growth, particularly when our adopted City Plan of 2019 doesn’t support a development in this
space.
I am asking that you take a look at our environment and vote NO to an excess of houses in this
12.r
Packet Pg. 783
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
natural area that is so precious to us. We do not want 600 houses with their cars in this space.
Thank you.
Regards,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 784
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:37:26 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:50 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky
<sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
To City Council:
We are at risk. The City of Fort Collins’ March 2015 Climate Action Plan indicates that our City is at
risk of: Increased temperatures over 90 degrees with reduced air quality, longer droughts—putting
stress on our water tables, heavier downpours—increasing the risk of flooding, increased threats
from fires, and severe heat waves affecting our health. Considering that the proposed Lennar
Hughes Plan has density of over 600 houses, next to the foothills, the number of residents, cement,
and increased water usage is not a plan that is sustainable and in alignment with our City’s CAP
initiatives.
In addition, according to Fort Collins’ own data, an increased likelihood of flooding and fires is a real
possibility, and dense housing next to the foothills provides an additional risk to the safety of our
residents on the west side.
Dr. Neil Grigg, Civil Engineer and Planner at CSU suggests that with the proposed housing site at the
Hughes land, even the east side of town, all the way downstream of Spring Creek, is at risk of
flooding with a preponderance of massive amounts of cement next to the foothills.
12.r
Packet Pg. 785
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
“In 2013, Fort Collins emits about 14.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per capita annually.” Source,
City of Fort Collins Climate Action Plan Framework, March 2015. If we add another 800-1500 people
next to the foothills, where airflow becomes more stagnant, that will negatively affect our air quality.
They’ll be more cement, more cars, more outdoor equipment that produces gases and pollution
(lawn mowers, blowers, etc.), and CO2 reduction objectives will be compromised.
In addition, first responders have expressed concerns in the likelihood of an emergency evacuation
and safety. According to one City firefighter: “That’s a lot of people we’d have to move from one
location, and it’s a bad idea right in the southern Overland corridor, next to the foothills where
access is limited.”
Please consider the health, safety, and potential for natural disasters as you are going through the
zoning process for the Hughes site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 786
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:35:59 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:52 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky
<sgutowsky@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
To City Council:
Thank you for reading this email as I express my concerns regarding the proposed plan by a Florida-
based builder coming to our City and disrupting one of my favorite areas, the Horsetooth Reservoir
area near the foothills.
Recently the Planning & Zoning Board of Fort Collins met and determined (4 to 2) that the old
Hughes site should be zoned RF for Residential Foothills.
This recommendation was established despite a presentation from the City to allow an out of state
builder to build over 600 homes on this parcel.
I recently learned that the City will be ignoring P&Z’s zoning recommendation and plans to present a
dense development of over 600 houses to City Council on November 5th
.
This is NOT ok.
Our City has boards and commissions for a reason, and that’s to represent our community. If the City
12.r
Packet Pg. 787
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
chooses to ignore the P&Z’s quasi judicial recommendation, why even HAVE a board representing
our community? Why not just railroad the City’s preferences as dictated by the builders?
I ask that when you meet with your colleagues, you consider what our community wants done with
this land. It’s used by many people and we don’t want houses jammed up in the space near our
foothills.
Please vote for a creative alternative in this space. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 788
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: (Hughes rezoning)
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:15:39 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:57 PM
To: Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell
<WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the citizens of Fort Collins.
I moved here a few years ago, and have been pleased with most of how the City is run. The beautiful
landscaping on our roads and attention to detail using plants and flowers in Old Town are a pleasure
to view.
The reason for this letter is to express my concern and opposition to the proposed development in
the Hughes stadium site.
This is an area of great beauty and I am a hiker who enjoys going through this area to get to
Horsetooth Reservoir.
Not only am I concerned about high density housing in this space, which brings traffic, pollution, and
congestion, I am also worried about overcrowded schools.
After conducting some research with a PSD school board member, it is my understanding that
12.r
Packet Pg. 789
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
despite what the City is claiming as space in our elementary schools nearby, the reality is, the two
nearest schools at already AT capacity.
I was told that if a new school were built today, that would require 80m. In addition, land is required
for a new school and there isn’t land available on the west side to accommodate a new school. As a
taxpayer and homeowner within the city limits, I am not in favor of having my hard-earned money
go to another school, particularly when I am against a dense housing development on the west side
of town.
The Planning and Zoning board is recommending RF zoning for the space, and that is what I’d like to
see developed. A grouping of 60-70 houses does not require the same stress on schools, land, traffic,
etc., that a development of 600, as proposed by Lennar Builders.
I urge you to support the Planning and Zoning recommendation and keep our natural space on the
west side as close to what it is today, preserved.
Thank you for voting on my side in this important initiative.
Sincerely,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 790
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:09:44 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:56 PM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Kristin
Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff
<rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
To City Council:
Thank you for representing our community in Fort Collins and taking into consideration what the
people of Fort Collins want to make our City an amazing place to live.
Recently I reviewed the Planning and Zoning Board meeting where the Hughes area was up for
zoning. At this meeting, the City was recommending LMH and RF housing units exceeding 600
dwellings.
During the presentation, the LMH zoning was described as: “including a variety of housing choices
that invite walking to gathering places, services, and conveniences, and that ae fully integrated into
the community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides
a focal point and attractive walking and biking paths…”
I find this description quite puzzling, since I live near the Hughes site. There are no gathering places,
services, grocery stores, etc. There’s a convenience store and a liquor store about 1.5 miles north of
the site. That’s hardly the LMH Disney-World that the zoning description outlines.
In addition, if the City allows Lennar to build over 600 homes in the proposed site, there won’t be
any room for a supermarket and other amenities. There will barely be room for bike paths,
particularly since the City will require narrow roads.
My questions are many. Why would anyone, besides the developer, want to have so many houses in
12.r
Packet Pg. 791
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
this space with limited access to amenities?
The traffic and air quality will create an unhealthy environment for people, particularly the old and
children. We already know that the foothills area on the west side of town has the worst air quality
in the City and in many parts of the State.
I ask that City Council take a close look at the recommendations made by the City and also the
recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Planning and Zoning stressed that less housing and more open space is what’s needed to preserve
the beauty of the area, minimize the disruption of viewing dark skies, and please the community. I
ask that you agree with the Planning and Zoning recommendation to move this land from “T” to “RF”
zoning.
To quote board member, Michael Hobbs: “An RF designation gives us the leverage to be creative
with this development of THIS piece of property to satisfy the community. RF is the only compromise
I see between the owners and the outcry among the community.”
Thank you.
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 792
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:07:30 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:54 PM
To: Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers
<ksummers@fcgov.com>; Susan Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol
<egorgol@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
To City Council and City Employees:
Recently I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where the old Hughes site was
discussed.
I must admit disappointment in the way our City represented a proposed development of over 600
houses.
As I listened to the Board discuss concerns regarding air quality and dark sky interruption, I became
increasingly disturbed by the lack of consideration that our City has for the desires of our citizens in
Fort Collins.
Why does the City want so many houses in this space where we enjoy our natural areas? There are
many houses being built on the north and east side of town, in fact, over 7,000 have recently been
approved by City Council.
However, none of these parcels where proposed houses are going, are anywhere similar to our
special location of Hughes.
12.r
Packet Pg. 793
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
After the Planning and Zoning Board listened to the community and heard of our outcry to build so
many houses in this location, I believe they DID get it.
Obviously they pivoted on their original thoughts of zoning as Mr. Gloss recommended and voted 4-
2, to zone the area as Residential Foothills, very low density housing with lots of open space.
I am recommending that City Council pay attention to its constituents. We don’t want an abundance
of houses in this space. We don’t want our beautiful skies disrupted with lights in that corner of Fort
Collins. We don’t want to worsen our air quality with an additional 1500 cars in this space next to the
foothills. And we don’t want to hear 1985 air quality data that insults our intelligence about how our
air quality is better than the rest of Colorado.
It’s a sham and we all know it. Let’s preserve this open land and vote NO to a big development in this
space.
Signed,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 794
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Delynn Coldiron
To: nurseloop@gmail.com
Cc: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: RE: Hughes Redevelopment
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 1:03:38 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Hi Ms. Sandoval –
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Hughes Stadium site development. This information will be
provided to Council and the public along with other materials for the upcoming hearing.
Thanks!
Delynn Coldiron, CMC
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2995
decoldiron@fcgov.com
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Lupe Sandoval <nurseloop@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 2:02 PM
To: Kristin Stephens <kstephens@fcgov.com>; Ken Summers <ksummers@fcgov.com>; Susan
Gutowsky <sgutowsky@fcgov.com>; Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff
<rcunniff@fcgov.com>; Wade Troxell <WTroxell@fcgov.com>; Julie Pignataro
<jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Hughes Redevelopment
To: City Council
My husband and I live have lived in The Ponds since 1999. We have watched our subdivision and
other subdivisions grow so much since then. The added traffic and congestion are at the limit
without including an additional 600-700 homes.
As an outdoor enthusiast, hiker, West-side homeowner, and environmentalist, I truly enjoy access to
the natural areas around town. One area that I am particularly fond of is the Horsetooth Reservoir
area, including Maxwell Natural Areas.
Coming from the east side of town, hiking in this area on the west side requires my driving to that
part of town.
I understand that there is a proposal from a large, out of town builder, to put over 600 homes in the
Hughes site near where I hike.
This email is to directly oppose this type of development on the west side of town where Hughes
once stood. Not only will there be density of over 1500 new residents at the foothills, I know the
12.r
Packet Pg. 795
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
area and access in and out is severely limited. With so many houses, cars, school buses, and limited
parking, this is not what our community wants.
I urge you to reduce the number of houses to fewer than 100 so that everyone can continue to
enjoy access to the foothills’ beauty, views, and dark skies.
Please accept his email as my request to support the Planning & Zoning Board’s recommendation for
RF zoning. Thank you.
Regards,
Lupe Sandoval 3220 W. Prospect, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Take care,
Lupe
Lupe Sandoval MS, RN
12.r
Packet Pg. 796
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
From: Barb Clem
To: Delynn Coldiron; Evangeline Ramirez
Subject: FW: Zoning Request for Hughes
Date: Thursday, October 24, 2019 11:42:02 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Per your request, here are the images you needed.
Barb Clem
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
970-221-6509
From: Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 9:16 AM
To: Renee Walkup <walkup@salespeak.com>; Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>
Cc: 'Mary Grant' <mgrant@rudderassociates.com>
Subject: Re: Zoning Request for Hughes
Renee,
Thanks for the information, and for pointing out these discrepancies.
Darin, can you please make sure this is included in the record regarding Hughes.
Darin, can you also please comment on the mapping discrepancies?
Thanks,
Ross
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails
will be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council
will remain private under CORA.
From: Renee Walkup <walkup@salespeak.com>
12.r
Packet Pg. 797
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:38 PM
To: Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>
Cc: 'Mary Grant' <mgrant@rudderassociates.com>
Subject: FW: Zoning Request for Hughes
Hello, Ross.
Hope you enjoyed your weekend.
I’m sharing these maps regarding Hughes as we get closer to Nov. 5th
. Will you kindly take a look at
the discrepancies and share this with your City Council colleagues?
Below is a map from the City's natural areas inventory. Notice the substantial natural areas to the
north and south of Hughes.
(This map is taken from the City's GIS webpage:
https://data-fcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/natural-habitat?
geometry=-105.194%2C40.549%2C-105.089%2C40.572 )
Here is a zoning map provided by CSU at their 2017 open house. Notice the gap between the two
nearby public open land districts.
12.r
Packet Pg. 798
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Here is what the zoning for Hughes should be:
The blue area is the developable land. The orange area establishes an 800' buffer to the natural area.
This is important to keep the developed part away from the natural areas and to protect wildlife
movement between the open land districts. As you know, Ross, keeping these lands open is critical
to our natural habitats. The proposed plan, with LMN and RF, is not consistent with protecting our
wildlife in this area, which is another reason that PATHS is recommending unique zoning for this site.
The blue area is about 68 acres, which will support a development of 300-500 units
12.r
Packet Pg. 799
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
The orange section is 50 acres. Finding a buyer for that is possible - maybe even the City would
consider that after it receives the proper zoning.
The green area is 27 acres. It must be used for stormwater detention. It can be dug out and
reshaped some, but essentially those 27 acres are off the table for development.
68 acres with the right developer can be a really nice project and can include a fair amount of
affordable housing.
Once again, we are asking that City Council delay a decision in the first reading on November 5th
,
and determine that when you all meet to evaluate zoning codes, you will establish that the Hughes
site is truly unique and that you designate this land using a different coding than what is currently in
place within the City. Thank you, Ross.
Best,
Renee Walkup
12.r
Packet Pg. 800
Attachment: Citizen Comments Received (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
ATTACHMENT 19
12.s
Packet Pg. 801
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 802
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 803
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 804
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 805
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 806
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 807
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 808
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 809
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 810
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 811
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 812
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 813
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 814
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
12.s
Packet Pg. 815
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date Comment
Lindsay Morgan Fort Collins, CO 2019-07-24 "No creative thought has gone into the plan offered by this
company. It will turn Fort Collins into the Silicon Valley. The idea
of multiuse for everyone has been totally ignored. The houses are
so close together it will be like living in a slum. Why are the rich
and middle class homes separated from the low income homes?
How can we ever defend the obvious class division. Where is the
open space and room for recreators of all kinds that come from all
over CO. to enjoy what we have? Where is the room for commercial
services? 600-700 homes equals horrendous traffic. There is no
quality of life in this presentation we have been offered. It's just
garbage. They should be ashamed."
Lin Chambers Fort Collins, CO 2019-07-29 "If this was in Downtown 'formerly known as Old Town', would you
want this in your back yard??"
Cody Landry fort collins, CO 2019-07-29 "I think Ft Collins should purchase the land at Hughes and sell the
park at Horsetooth rd so they could build affordable housing there.
Extend Overland Trail rd to Horsetooth Rd. This would pay for the
park at Hughes. The Hughes park would get a lot more usage than
the park off horsetooth rd. Just a thought."
Nicholas Barton Ft Collins, US 2019-07-29 "We do not need more housing where there should be open space
habitat. Nor can overland rd support the traffic. Move east with
housing not west!"
Ariella Wells Fort Collins, CO 2019-07-29 "I am signing because I live along west drake road area. There
is already very crowded and backed up roads all around us. The
hughes area is a beautiful area for recreating. whether its sledding,
hiking, frisbee golf, or taking dogs out for a walk. it is also home
to much wildlife. Why do we have to pack housing in every open
space that there is. This space should be maintained as a natural
area for the city or a park. it should not be for more housing. This is
a beautiful area in Fort Collins and also a landmark it should NOT be
used for more housing."
Ryan Nelson Fort Collins, CO 2019-07-29 "Putting homes here, puts our recreation at risk. I don't care if we
have access to the land to hike, mountain bike, rock climb, etc.. I
DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND PEOPLE. You
don't know what you have until it's gone Fort Collins!!!"
Rachael Zell Fort Collins, US 2019-07-29 "I’m sick of seeing our open spaces demolished in the name of
profits. Wildlife is getting pushed out which has massive effects on
the ecosystem."
McKenzie Anstine Fort Collins, CO 2019-07-29 "This will greatly affect schools, traffic and the natural areas
surrounding the stadium space. We don’t need houses backing into
Maxwell, Pineridge and Horsetooth."
Kristi Zambrano Denver, CO 2019-07-29 "I love the Maxwell open space and would love to see the natural
area preserved and expanded!"
Jocelyn Dove Fort Collins, CO 2019-07-30 "I live in Quail Hallow and use this open space/natural area daily.
This development would negatively impact the community’s access
to this natural area as well as the plants and animals living there."
12.s
Packet Pg. 816
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date Comment
Kris Aliabadi US 2019-07-30 "There is a better use for this space than 600 addition housing units.
It is going to flood the west side of town with traffic and take away
from our natural spaces."
Katherine Abbott Rye, NH 2019-07-30 "As a frequent visitor to Fort Collins, I am concerned with the
overpopulation of the city and the negative consequences"
nathan fritzen Fort Collins, CO 2019-08-05 "When people think of Colorado, they picture forests, mountains,
deer, and prairie dogs. No one thinks of suburban sprawl,
apartments, and WalMart (unless they live here, in which case it’s
impossible to miss). Boulder has managed to increase its financial
worth by wrapping the city with natural areas. This artificially raised
property values by placing a limit on how much land is available
for development, decreasing supply. At the same time, by keeping
the “natural” Colorado habitat, Boulder remains one of the few
“destination” cities in the Midwest, desirable for businesses, tourists,
and families.I think Colorado needs to dedicate as much land as
possible to natural areas. Eco-tourism is a viable form of income.
Rocky Mountain National Park saw over 4.5 million visitors in
2018, and Estes Park remains Colorado’s sweetheart tourist town,
offering little actual industry. That’s equivalent to 80% of Colorado’s
population visiting RMNP annually, bringing out of state money to
Estes Park.The mon"
Rebecca Cohencious Ashburn, VA 2019-08-06 "My experience as a Lennar homeowner is that they are a
haphazard builder with little regard for the quality of the end
product."
Kirsten Carlson Denver, CO 2019-08-06 "No more apartments or housing! We want more natural open
areas!"
Tony Roybal Fort Collins, US 2019-08-06 "Anything but apartments or housing, west side of town is going to
be so cluttered!"
12.s
Packet Pg. 817
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
P.A.T.H.S. FoCo
Recipient: Cameron Gloss, Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Darrin Atteberry, Noah Beals, Wade
Troxel , Kristin Stephens, Susan Gutowsky, Julie Pignataro, Ken Summers,
Ross Cunniff, Emily Gorgol, Rebecca Everette, John ...
Letter: Greetings,
Find a more sustainable alternative to the Hughes Redevelopment Plan
12.s
Packet Pg. 818
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Signatures
Name Location Date
Melissa Rosas US 2019-05-24
Nick Frey Fort Collins, US 2019-05-26
Renee Walkup Fort Collins, US 2019-05-26
Elena Lopez Denver, US 2019-05-26
Melissa Baughn Fort Collins, US 2019-05-26
Pedro martinez Carson, US 2019-05-30
Michael Kobori Westfield, US 2019-05-30
Amy Maheras-Lopez Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Ton Thai San Jose, US 2019-05-31
First Last Saint Augustine, US 2019-05-31
Mackenzie Swett Bethlehem, US 2019-05-31
Pg Rigney Salt Lake City, UT 2019-05-31
Mathis Monroe Houston, US 2019-05-31
Dyshon Whidbee Charlotte, US 2019-05-31
jerry gramz stockton, US 2019-05-31
Martina Platero Chicago, US 2019-05-31
Marianne Rieb Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Rebecca LaPole Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Mary Klass Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Terry Usrey Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
12.s
Packet Pg. 819
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Rhea Gluckman Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Patricia Baron Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Lisa Gumerman Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Ian Cerveny Denver, US 2019-05-31
Bonnie McMaster Fort Collins, US 2019-05-31
Kunle Ayonrinde Hyattsville, MD 2019-06-01
Gary Faris Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Jen Strating Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Jennifer Amaral-Kunze Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Eric Edwards Beaverton, OR 2019-06-01
Susan Taylor Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Marcella Ras Dallas, US 2019-06-01
Erika Olsen Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Wendy DiMartino Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Bree Hough Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Leslie VanDerven Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Mikayla Eccher Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Rebecca Fox Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Nathalie Rachline Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Daniel Krieger Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Joel Strating Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Mark Zabel Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 820
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Will Ranney Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Nigel Mackin Phoenix, US 2019-06-01
Cedilla Alvarez Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
zoe stanley Atlanta, US 2019-06-01
Rachel Steeves Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Sahar Moughnyeh Bessemer, US 2019-06-01
Lindsey Gillette Denver, CO 2019-06-01
Rebecca Mindeman Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Lola Sorensen Ft. Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Meg Smith Denver, US 2019-06-01
Stephanie Crookston Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Sandra Cantrell Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Jasmin Richardson Hughson, US 2019-06-01
Jean Lehman Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Brian Kittrell Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
roselyn hernandez charlotte, US 2019-06-01
Shauna Deluca Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Kevin Krause Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Patti Sterns Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Eileen Pinedo Ft. Collins, US 2019-06-01
Tonya Puttlitz Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Kimberly Hart Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 821
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Shane Wood Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Jacqui Walz Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Andrew Vlietstra Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Mary DeLong Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Lori Haynes Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
James Bunker Riverton, US 2019-06-01
Lauren Aguis Rae Loveland, US 2019-06-01
Emily Cathcart Fort Collin, CO 2019-06-01
Sarah Morales Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Michael Lamont Hilliard, US 2019-06-01
Tom Schachet Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Annie Stebbins Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Bailee Taylor Fort collins, CO 2019-06-01
Tracy Cookman Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Michael Li New York, US 2019-06-01
Stephanie Morris Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Amy Reynolds Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Kimberly Strope Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Diana Hermann Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Thomas Hunsader Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Andrea Atherton Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Nancy McElwain Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 822
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Charlie Radman Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Jason Sterns Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Tom Bender Nehalem, OR 2019-06-01
Jill Vesty Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Ed Conroy Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Kylie Mosell Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Lori Motzko McLean Englewood, CO 2019-06-01
Jenn Holm Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Stephanie Perkins Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Beth Tenan Loveland, US 2019-06-01
Laura Wiltshire Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Tracy Kelley Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Chad Seloover Arvada, US 2019-06-01
Kathleen Lough Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Jennifer Stewart Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
CLAUDIA MCGEE Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Adrienne Smela Loveland, US 2019-06-01
Lisa Trankar Hansen Downers Grove, IL 2019-06-01
Ruth Seloover Erie, US 2019-06-01
Kristie Dehn Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Amanda Arnett Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Bart Overturf Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 823
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Abi Getzinger Denver, US 2019-06-01
Christian Rehner Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Aaron Miller Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Paul Christenson Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Katy Bentzinger Loveland, CO 2019-06-01
Norma Gingerich Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Kalli Gladu Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
krista lavigne Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Maria Izzo Boulder, CO 2019-06-01
Kendra Lamperes Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Diane Gaiot Tampa, FL 2019-06-01
D Ryan Oakland, US 2019-06-01
Barbara Curwood Wellington, CO 2019-06-01
Amanda Hahn Windsor, CO 2019-06-01
Joanne Oleary Ft Collins, US 2019-06-01
Ronald Jacobson Dallas, US 2019-06-01
Laura Anderson Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Sarah Siple Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Cameron Lewis Orlando, US 2019-06-01
Lindsay Herrera Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Robin Conley Ft. Collins, US 2019-06-01
Lauren Juhl Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 824
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Ann Cross Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Shannon Hake Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Eric Newcomer Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Dennis & Marsha Conley Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Debra Newcomer Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Charissa McCoskey Salem, US 2019-06-01
Diana Christenson Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Shawn Quinn Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Geena Morrish Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Selena Heenan Denver, US 2019-06-01
Kathleen Holdeman Loveland, US 2019-06-01
Dezarai Brubaker Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Lara Segovia Lakeland, US 2019-06-01
Brian Gabel Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Glenn Gibson Denver, US 2019-06-01
Amy Morgan Aurora, US 2019-06-01
Sarah beck Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Matthew Weaver Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Tanya Vattano Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
jase engel Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Anna Goldetsky Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Lori Moffat Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 825
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Gabriella Emond Byhalia, US 2019-06-01
Nichole Vigil Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Amy Lowe Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Nori Schakel Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Anna White Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Bibo Junsy Johnson City, US 2019-06-01
Abbie Herman Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Daisy Jantes Hickory, US 2019-06-01
Sara Novogoratz Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Samara Cohen Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Bonnie Michael Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Christian Puttlitz Aurora, US 2019-06-01
Russell Danner Denver, US 2019-06-01
Kimber Korsgaard Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Michelle Caggiano Denver, CO 2019-06-01
Micheyla Buechler San Diego, US 2019-06-01
Jacqueline Stuben Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Joseph Azzara Wellington, US 2019-06-01
Sally Patella Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Sara Graydon Colorado 2019-06-01
Greg Tempalski Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Joseph Mosley Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 826
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Robert Cushatt Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Tuesday Hiland Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Andi Janicki Denver, US 2019-06-01
ant tommy Southington, US 2019-06-01
Jamie Keller Las Vegas, NV 2019-06-01
Cathie May Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Dawn Eger Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Michael Emanuele Denver, US 2019-06-01
Isabelle Below Montevideo, US 2019-06-01
Rob Aukerman Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Jamie Little Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Doug Krebs Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
patty kendall Ocala, US 2019-06-01
Amy Shaw Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Aris Moy Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Brenna Poehler Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Kendall Day Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Carin Hermann Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
JOHN HOUGH orlando, US 2019-06-01
Lisbeth Haas Fort Collins, CO 2019-06-01
Roula Spanos Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Trevor Gaston Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
12.s
Packet Pg. 827
Attachment: Planning Action to Transform Hughes Sustainably (PATHS) comments (8405 : Hughes Stadium Site Rezoning)
Name Location Date
Mark Desmond Westminster, US 2019-06-01
Ashley Dunnagan Rancho Cucamonga, US 2019-06-01
rosemary sheridan fort collins, CO 2019-06-01
Emily Stein Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Montgomery causey Tampa, US 2019-06-01
Sarah Bucholt Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Ruth Billington Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Abbey Lowe Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Nyla Gray US 2019-06-01
Sarah Maharry Fort Collins, US 2019-06-01
Kurt Moore Denver, US 2019-06-01
Bruce Colella Wildwo