Development should pay its own way, not everyone else's way.
Wellington's code gives staff unlimited discretion to require developers to build public infrastructure blocks away from their property with no limits and no proportionality standard.
What This Looks Like in Practice
When staff has unlimited discretion and no guardrails, the costs placed on developers can far exceed their project's actual impact on the community.
A property owner had a buyer ready to close on a parcel in Wellington. During the approval process, the Town required the buyer to improve infrastructure more than three blocks away from the property.
The cost killed the deal. The property is still unsold today.
Current trustees call this "development paying its own way." But requiring one buyer to rebuild blocks of public infrastructure that serves the entire town isn't paying your own way. It's subsidizing everyone else.
The U.S. Supreme Court Has Spoken
The highest court in the land has repeatedly ruled that government cannot require a developer to pay for more than their project's actual impact. Development conditions must have a direct connection and rough proportionality to the development's impact.
Permit conditions must have an "essential nexus," a direct connection, to the development's impact and a legitimate public purpose.
Conditions must be "roughly proportional" to the development's actual impact. Government bears the burden of proving proportionality.
These protections extend to monetary exactions and fees, not just physical dedications of land.
The nexus and proportionality standards apply to all development conditions, including those imposed through legislation, not just case-by-case decisions.
Every Town Around Us Does This Differently
Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Johnstown all follow the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), which clearly defines developer obligations and limits offsite requirements. Wellington wrote its own standards with none of these protections.
Peer Communities
- Clear definitions of on-site, adjacent, and off-site improvements
- Proportional cost-sharing for traffic mitigation
- Street oversizing reimbursement programs
- Utility reimbursement agreements for shared infrastructure
- Alternative mitigation strategies when proportional fixes aren't feasible
- Formal variance procedures with clear criteria
Our Town
- No definition of on-site vs. off-site
- No proportionality standard
- No reimbursement program
- No cost-sharing mechanism
- No alternative mitigation options
- Staff discretion with no limits
My Plan to Fix This
As Mayor, I will work with the Board of Trustees to amend Section 15-6-20(5) and the Standard Design Criteria to include the same protections our peer communities already have.
-
✓
Define on-site, adjacent, and off-site improvements So developers know what's their responsibility and what's the Town's before they invest
-
✓
Require proportionality for all off-site requirements Off-site improvements can only be required when directly connected and roughly proportional to the project's actual impact
-
✓
Create a reimbursement mechanism for oversizing When the Town needs bigger infrastructure than a project demands, the Town pays the difference through the Capital Improvement Program
-
✓
Require written justification for any off-site requirement Including the specific connection to the project's impact and the basis for the proportionality determination
-
✓
Establish an appeal process So developers have recourse to the Board of Trustees when staff requirements are unreasonable
Fair Rules. Predictable Costs.
Vote Christine Gaiter for Mayor, April 7th
Sources and References
The following public documents establish how peer communities define on-site vs. off-site improvement obligations, proportional cost-sharing, and reimbursement programs.
- Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), Section 1.9.2 Defines on-site, adjacent, and off-site improvements for the Street Construction Policy. Used by Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County. Also referenced by Berthoud and Johnstown. Larimer County LCUASS Standards
- Fort Collins Transportation Capital Expansion Program (TCEF) Formerly the Street Oversizing Program. Collects proportional fees from development and reimburses developers who construct improvements above local access standards. Fort Collins TCEF Program
- Fort Collins Street Design and Construction Standards Applies LCUASS standards including on-site/off-site definitions and variance procedures within Fort Collins city limits and growth management area. Fort Collins Street Standards
- Loveland Transportation Development and Construction Standards Applies LCUASS standards including Section 1.9.3.B for street oversizing and third-party reimbursements within Loveland city limits and growth management area. Loveland Transportation Standards
- Loveland Third-Party Reimbursement Agreements Provides fair and equitable distribution of costs for installing water and sewer lines among all parties who benefit from the infrastructure. Loveland Reimbursement Agreements
- Berthoud Engineering and Infrastructure Design Standards References LCUASS and Larimer County standards for street design and construction. Allows 6-inch water mains for residential where Wellington requires 8-inch minimum. Berthoud Engineering Standards
- Wellington Standard Design Criteria and Standard Construction Requirements Wellington's current engineering standards document (March 2015, revised April 2017). Contains no definitions of on-site vs. off-site, no proportionality standard, and no reimbursement mechanism. Wellington Standard Design Criteria