Economic Development Discussion Turns Ugly

A recent budget discussion highlighted the gulf that divides the current City Council. The topic of discussion was the distribution of one-time allocations that are considered on an annual basis. In discussing economic development and 2011 requests from the Longmont Area Economic Council, City Council member Sean McCoy took another opportunity to criticize the organization. He said, “I’m not satisfied with the results. We’re not getting the information we need. Why are we continuing to do business with an outside entity?” Economic Development Director Brad Power emphasized that there is a “stated and demonstrated benefit to working with LAEC.” However, that didn’t convince McCoy or Council member Sarah Levison, who also questioned LAEC’s “bang for the buck.”

After an hour of discussion on that topic, the Council considered requests from non-profit organizations. A group called Grow Your Own Meal, an incubator for small farm operations, requested $20,000 but Council decided to provide $10,000 with the promise of additional money if the organization can raise more money on its own. Council members McCoy, Levison and Brian Hansen objected to this decision, saying over time Grow Your Own Meal could have a long lasting benefit to the City. McCoy suggested reducing the amount allocated to LAEC to fund the aquaponic greenhouse project proposed by Grow Your Own Meal. At that point Mayor Pro tem Gabe Santos said, “Trying to compare Grow Your Own Meal with LAEC just doesn’t work.” Tempers flared as the discussion continued but ultimately there was no consensus regarding economic development, an objective that should be of paramount importance to all members of the City Council.

City Considering Character Area Designations for “Mid-Century” Neighborhoods

Using a grant from the Colorado Historical Society, Boulder hired consultants to survey various post-World War Two subdivisions in the City such as Table Mesa, Martin Acres, Edgewood and Sunset Hills. The consultants said some of the homes look much like they did when they were built and others have be remodeled to the point that they no longer represent the character of the original style.

The consultants are recommending that Boulder create “character areas” for some subdivisions, in particular Martin Acres, Highland Park and possibly Table Mesa in order to preserve the character of these neighborhoods. This could lead to design standards such as paint colors and “appropriate landscapes” rather than architectural restrictions such as those included in the Neighborhood Compatibility requirements the City implemented almost a year ago. However, City officials state that nothing will happen unless residents support it. City staff will begin soliciting feedback from homeowners in October. REALTORS® can learn more at a presentation at BARA scheduled for October 11th at 1:30 PM.

Tree Ordinance Continued

  • The Boulder City Council delayed a vote for the second time on regulations to create licensing requirements for certified arborists, obligate property owners to maintain trees on their property and City right-of-ways and set tree-protection requirements as part of the site review and subdivision standards. Under the proposal, anyone who charges fees to plant trees, prune them, cut them down or apply pesticides would have to be licensed by the City. “Landscaping or a mulched sod-free base around the tree and sufficient irrigation” are specified as homeowner responsibilities in the ordinance. Concerns about the licensing requirement led the Council to continue the discussion.

More Bad News about Impact of Ballot Measures

Coloradoans for Responsible Reform ( is now estimating 117,000 jobs will be lost if Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 pass. There are no recent polls to gauge public opinion on these measures, which are opposed by CAR and local REALTOR® associations. However, it is time to kick start the campaign to educate voters. A wealth of information is available online, but it will take more than that to persuade people that lower taxes and fees are bad. The proponents have crafted simple arguments that on face value sound reasonable. That is scary. For example, they say Amendment 60, which reduces property taxes for schools by 50 percent will not reduce revenues for schools because it is worded such that the State will have to make up the difference. That begs the question, where will the State get the money? The State is already looking at huge deficits for 2011 and has little flexibility in how to spend revenues because of existing amendments to the constitution and federal mandates. See more of the proponents’ misleading arguments at Other sites to learn more about why REALTOR® organizations are opposing these measures are: and

Council Approves Language for Street Tax Measures

The Greeley City Council held a special meeting to approve the ballot language for two measures that will now appear on the November ballot. One question will ask voters to approve a .75 percent sales tax dedicated to road maintenance. The second question relates to the extension of the existing food sales tax, a majority of which has been dedicated to street repair. The Council decided to add language to the ballot question to specify that 70 percent of the revenues will be allocated to road maintenance, as that has historically been the case. The remaining money will be used to maintain other public infrastructure.

Development Proposal Generates Growth Debate

A third public hearing for Dry Creek, a 2,000-acre subdivision between Brighton, Fort Lupton and Dacono was tabled by the Weld County Commissioners after eight hours of discussion and testimony. Staff from multiple departments opposed the project, saying it would not be financially sustainable with a $6 million gap between Dry Creek’s property tax revenues and the County’s cost for providing services. Residents from adjacent towns also raised concerns about the density of the project, which would add at least 20,000 people to the area. In fact, the project is so ambitious so significant that it would require an amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan to approve it, prompting an interesting discussion about the cost of growth and how to pay for it. Ultimately, the Commissioners decided to postpone their decision and the applicant is expected to return before the Board in February.

What is Good Planning? The Weld County Commissioners held another study session to discuss Recorded Exemptions (RE) and how to control the number of lots split off large parcels in agricultural zones. Most of the Commissioners (Bill Garcia, Sean Conway and Barbara Kirkmeyer) want to see options for landowners with incentives to encourage them to plan the future development of their land in a thoughtful way so that access points make sense and service delivery is efficient. David Long disagreed, saying he didn’t support any limits but wants good planning with “vision.” Commissioner Kirkmeyer voiced concern about costs REs create for the County, saying “the RE process is not a property right.” In the end the staff was directed to research and draft changes that would create incentives for property owners to split off parcels with some kind of planned process however, the devil is in the details. What is good planning? It was something for which all the present commissioners expressed support but without consensus on the definition it is impossible to predict how the RE process might change in the future.

Revised Floodplain Regulations Could Limit Construction

City staff and the Water Board are recommending that the City prohibit building in the Poudre River’s 100 year floodplain, which is more restrictive than the existing code and would impact 2,000 acres and 256 parcels. As usual, there was a difference of opinion on Council. Wade Troxell opposed the stricter regulations while David Roy and Kelly Ohlson were supportive. Mayor Doug Hutchinson directed staff to conduct outreach with property owners before finalizing a proposal for Council’s consideration.

Neighborhood Compatibility Regulations Considered by City Council

The City Council is continuing its push to consider the means by which to regulate neighborhood compatibility in the older neighborhoods on both sides of College Avenue. The problem, according to some, is that scrape-offs or pop-ups are negatively impacting neighborhood character because they are out of scale with the surrounding houses.

At a recent study session the staff proposed to restrict home size in these neighborhoods, arguing size is the primary element that defines character. However, the Council didn’t appear to have consensus on the issue at all.

David Roy argued that historic preservation should be the guiding principle, but his colleagues did not share his opinion. Kelly Ohlson castigated his fellow Council members, saying they obviously hadn’t read their packets or they would agree with his position, which was to keep the regulations simple to regulate the five percent of homeowners, whose new or renovated homes don’t fit the neighborhood. Ben Manvel was more concerned with regulating how much a property could shade another home, reducing its ability to generate solar power. Wade Troxell and Aislinn Kottwitz were clearly uncomfortable with legislating “taste” while Mayor Doug Hutchinson wondered how big the problem really is and worried about creating simple regulations without unintended consequences. The Council’s goal is to have an ordinance ready for public review beginning December 7.

Note: This discussion should seem familiar because the City of Boulder has adopted legislation with the same intent. Boulder’s ordinance was referred to several times during the study session, illustrating that public policy is regional in the sense that legislation in one of our area’s jurisdictions can lead to similar ideas in others. Creating “HOA” type legislation to regulate what “looks good” is bad enough, but neighborhood compatibility regulations can also impact affected properties’ resale value.

Comissioners Say No to Energy Improvement District

The Fort Collins based group, Community for Sustainable Energy (CSE), was disappointed when the Larimer County Commissioners turned down their request to put a question on the November ballot to create an energy improvement district. Their goal was ask voters to allow the County to issue bonds, creating a funding source for residential energy efficiency loans.

The loan would be added to an owner’s property tax bill and herein lies the problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently prohibit financing of properties with assessments for any energy efficiency/renewable energy improvements. Since loans can, and are routinely sold, this means any residential loan secured by a mortgage could be subject to the GSE rules at some point, which has been the kiss of death for these programs. Boulder County’s ClimateSmart Loan Program is a case in point.

The Larimer County Commissioners declined to support the proposed ballot measure because of the related administrative costs the program would create. In addition, although media coverage did not mention it, the Commissioners are aware of the GSE prohibition against energy loans said Commissioner Steve Johnson. CSE is undeterred, and may gather signatures to force the issue next year.

Council Votes Against Landlord Agent Proposal

An Agent of Record (AOR) ordinance was the topic of discussion at a City Council meeting on August 24. LAR opposed the proposal because it would mandate that landlords living outside a 40 mile radius of Longmont to hire an agent to represent their properties.

City staff argued the program was needed to ensure landlords of “problem properties” could be contacted quickly and efficiently. LAR’s position is that an AOR Program would create an additional, unnecessary cost for property owners, most of whom derive little profit from their rental properties. The REALTORS® also argued that the proposal would create another layer of bureaucracy but would not solve the issues it is intended to fix. LAR President Deanna Dyer and President-Elect (2012) Bob Danos testified persuasively about the problems with the ordinance. After much discussion, the City Council voted 4-3 to kill the ordinance on first reading. Council members who against the bill were: Mayor Baum and Council members Alex Sammoury, Gabe Santos and Katie Witt. The vote means that as long as the current Council is in office, the threat of an AOR is gone. However, if enough seats change in the upcoming November 2011 election, the issue could easily be resurrected.