Loading...
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