HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-127-10/03/2000-EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT 24 AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION BY THE ADDITION OF RESOLUTION 2000-127
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT 24
AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION BY THE ADDITION OF A
NEW ARTICLE TO BE ENTITLED "CITIZEN MANAGEMENT OF GROWT '
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, like the State of Colorado, is facin unprecedented
growth in population; and
WHEREAS,this population increase has placed extraordinary press eon the state's natural
resources and infrastructure, due to the rapid expansion of the state's urb areas; and
WHEREAS, the need for regional planning and growth anagement has resulted in
numerous legislative proposals, both at the state and local levels; d
WHEREAS, the Colorado State Legislature has be unable to agree upon statewide
legislation that would begin to address the myriad of growt -related problems facing the residents
of the state and has even been unwilling to bring the que on of such legislation out of committee
and before the full legislature for debate; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of statewide s ndards for growth management, a coalition of
environmental and planning groups has initiate proposed Amendment 24 to amend the Colorado
Constitution by the addition of a new Article be entitled "Citizen Management of Growth" (the
"Amendment"), which Amendment would pose certain procedural and functional requirements
or restrictions upon Colorado municipali 'es and counties with regard to the development of land;
and
WHEREAS, the City has pported various legislative attempts to mandate local land use
planning and,as exemplified by e City Comprehensive Plan("City Plan") and the Land Use Code
enacted by the City in 1997,t City strongly supports careful,measured and managed growth; and
WHEREAS, eve though the Council generally supports the concept of measured and
managed growth,the C uncil believes that the Amendment is not in the best interests of the citizens
of the City or the St e for the following reasons:
A. e Amendment would preempt "any inconsistent provision of this Constitution"
including the ome rule provisions of the Constitution, which provisions the City has long fought
/decisi
because of its preemption powers,the Amendment would remove an important class
rom the prerogative of local elected bodies.
The Amendment would not respect prior planning efforts of municipalities and
accordingly,portions of City Plan,and particularly the Intergovernmental Agreement
County regarding the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, would cease to have
Failed to Pass
much validity and new, presumably smaller growth areas would have to be established, if at all,by
voter approval.
C. The Amendment would require jurisdictions to plan ten years of capital spending in
support of growth, which is at variance with accepted municipal practice. (The City has developed
City Plan on a twenty-year planning period schedule.)
D. Under the Amendment, growth areas could only be established through November
general elections. Limiting the establishment of growth areas to annual elections would disrupt the
flow of development applications to meet anticipated market demands in certain housing markets
which would result in inflationary pressure on housing prices.
E. Since voter approval would have to be obtained prior to any amendment of a growth
area map, boundary adjustments could only be made annually, following voter approval, and the
Amendment is unclear as to whether zoning adjustments and proposed land uses could be shifted
without voter approval.
F. The Amendment is ambiguous and contradictory in its handling of special districts,
school districts and others and, if approved by the voters, would serve as a well-spring of litigation
because it defines development to include only"commercial,residential or industrial construction",
specifically excluding public utilities from the term"development" while at the same time requiring
that development undertaken in growth areas by political subdivisions of the state, special districts
and school districts, among others, must be in accordance with the growth area maps, unless
exempted by the local government having jurisdiction.
G. The Amendment, containing internally conflicting provisions as described in
paragraph F above,is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The conflicts and flaws
contained in the Amendment would be extremely difficult to correct because changes to the
Constitution require a vote of the people of the state.
H. Although cooperation would be required under the Amendment,no dispute resolution
process would be provided,and dispute resolution would likely occur in the courts,subjecting many
municipalities and counties to expensive litigation.
I. The Amendment would constitute an unfunded mandate in that it would provide no
funding source to support local planning efforts that would be required if the Amendment passes.
Staff estimates that the cost that would be incurred by the City in attempting to implement the
Amendment would be approximately one-half million dollars, which cost would disrupt the work
programs in City departments and would disrupt progress on the City Council's Policy Agenda.
J. The Amendment may, in practice, stimulate rather than retard sprawl by pushing
growth onto less populated areas on the Eastern Plains and requiring connecting infrastructure from
such new communities to the Front Range.
Failed to Pass
K. The retroactive nature of the Amendment's provisions regarding the establishment
of"committed areas," hinging upon the filing of a"valid development application," has and would
continue to generate undesirable responses in land markets by reason of property owners' filing of
simultaneous applications for annexation to more than one community.
L. Passage of the Amendment is likely to encourage growth in areas of the state that are
receptive to lower quality, expansive development that would meet only the minimal requirements
of the Amendment, while development would be less likely to occur in areas of the state that are
more concerned about the negative impacts and costs of development. Such growth patterns,if they
occur, would have a negative effect upon the state's natural resources.
M. There are other kinds of statewide growth management mechanisms that have been
implemented in other jurisdictions, such as adequate public facilities programs, that should be
considered as models for statewide legislation in Colorado in place of the more drastic,cumbersome
and potentially counterproductive measures proposed by the Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby expresses its opposition to Amendment 24.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 3rd day of October,
A.D. 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Failed to Pass