HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 03/22/2022 - WORK SESSION
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Shirley Peel, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Remote Meeting
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney Interim City Manager City Clerk
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours
advance notice when possible.
A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el
idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, par a que puedan acceder a los
servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para
Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
City Council Work Session
March 22, 2022
6:00 PM
A) CALL TO ORDER.
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. November Coordinated Elections and Ranked Choice Voting. (staff: Anissa Hollingshead; 10
minute presentation; 50 minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to consider the conten t and timing of potential ballot questions
the Council may wish to bring forward relating to revisions to election provisions in the City Charter.
The Council's Election Code Committee has been meeting in the current term since September of
2021 to consider potential shifts to be made to the municipal election process. Two broad areas of
adjustment under consideration require voter approval via ballot questions to proceed: implementing
ranked-choice voting for municipal candidates and shifting the date of regular municipal elections
from April to November to be held as coordinated elections with Larimer County.
2. Aquatics Update (staff: LeAnn Williams, Seve Ghose; 10 minute presentation; 20 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide the Fall 2021 requested aquatics update, initiated from
discussion on potential spending at Mulberry Pool.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Oil and Gas Regulations. (staff: Caryn Champine, Kelly Smith; 12 minute presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to discuss draft regulations for oil and gas development within City limits.
Per State statute, local regulations must match or exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC) requirements to ensure the protection of public health, safety, welfare, the
environment, and wildlife resources. The discussion will focus on proposed draft regulations; key
policy questions related to the City’s existing reverse setback standards for land development
adjacent to existing wells; potential resources needed for implementation; and potential options for
operators to plug and abandon wells; and next steps in the process.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS.
D) ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
March 22, 2022
Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk
Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
November Coordinated Elections and Ranked Choice Voting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to consider the content and timing of potential ballot questions the Council
may wish to bring forward relating to revisions to election provisions in the City Charter. The Council's Election
Code Committee has been meeting in the current term since September of 2021 to consider potential shifts to be
made to the municipal election process. Two broad areas of adj ustment under consideration require voter
approval via ballot questions to proceed: implementing ranked -choice voting for municipal candidates and shifting
the date of regular municipal elections from April to November to be held as coordinated elections w ith Larimer
County.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should staff proceed with preparing a potential ballot question relating to implementing ranked -choice voting
(RCV) in Fort Collins municipal elections and if so, are there parameters Council would like to include as part
of its direction?
2. Should staff proceed with preparing a potential ballot question to shift to coordinated elections for regular
municipal elections to be held in November and administered by the Coun ty and if so, are there parameters
Council would like to include as part of its direction?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Current Municipal Election Process
All municipal elections in Fort Collins are currently administered by the City Clerk’s Office. As a hom e rule
municipality, provisions governing City elections are found in the home rule charter and municipal code. Regular
municipal elections occur in April of odd years. The City is responsible for any special elections that may be
necessary. A special election can be coordinated with the County only in instances when the timing can occur in
conjunction with a regularly scheduled November election in Larimer County. Presently, that allows an opportunity
to place questions on the ballot in either the regular April elections or a coordinated election in November without
placing the burden of conducting a separate special election on City staff.
The City Clerk’s Office provides primary support and coordination of all election activities. No staff in the Clerk’s
Office are dedicated to election administration responsibilities. Due to the cyclical and mission critical nature of
elections, the entire Clerk’s Office actively supports election activities. Although it is not the primary focus of the
role year-round, the Chief Deputy Clerk has been the primary source of election expertise and coordination within
the office. The recently appointed City Clerk also has significant elections expertise (including ranked choice
voting), having administered elections in multiple other jurisdictions and holding national certification as an
election administrator through the Election Center and Auburn University.
Priority: Increasing Voter Turnout
The Council has historically prioritized efforts to increase voter turnout. Voter participation is a significant
consideration for effective governance. Consistently across jurisdictions and types of elections, the single greatest
B.1
Packet Pg. 3
March 22, 2022 Page 2
determinant of voter turnout is ballot content. Turnout should be considered relative to both the type of e lection
and its timing. While turnout in each election is measured based on the total number of voted ballots, there can be
a high degree of variability in how many voters choose to make selections in different contests appearing on the
ballot. Typically, when multiple contests appear on a ballot, voters are less likely to vote in down ballot races.
Calculating voter turnout, particularly at the municipal level, is an imprecise science. Turnout may be calculated
differently by different jurisdictions, making comparisons in turnout across different elections at times akin to
comparing apples and oranges. Despite the challenges involved, measuring turnout, and making comparisons of
like measurements over time provides important clues into trends in voter enga gement and participation.
In Fort Collins, voter turnout is measured by taking the total number of ballots cast in an election and dividing it by
the number of active registered voters at the time in the jurisdiction. There is not reliable data available at the
municipal level regarding the number of eligible voters, which is why reliance on the measure of active registered
voters is required instead as a more consistent source of data. Of note with this method in the current timing of
municipal elections after November coordinated elections is the number of active registered voters is at its highest
level over the course of an election cycle, especially following presidential election years. Voter rolls tend to be
the most up to date and complete in the immediate aftermath of these elections, versus as time goes on between
election events and voters move or otherwise have changes in eligibility that lower the number of active registered
voters. A higher number of active registered voters in one type of election compared to another one can result in
what appears to be a lower overall turnout percentage. For this reason, looking at overall ballots cast or cast in a
particular race can also add to the overall picture of participation over time, although consid eration of population
growth is also necessary in measures over time.
In seeking to make an impact on voter turnout, it is most important to prioritize provisions that support voter
participation, including maximizing accessibility and ease of participation in municipal contests. Fort Collins has a
long history of utilizing the flexibility provided to it as a home rule municipality to implement provisions that strive
to meet the needs of its voters. This includes actions such as paying postage on ballots r eturned by voters via
mail, an effort not permitted under state statute in coordinated elections. Another example of a potential shift
discussed in the past that the City can make on its own, but that is not part of coordinated elections in Larimer
County, is including translations on ballots. With the support of Council, the City Clerk’s Office has continually
strived to administer elections with a high priority and focus on serving Fort Collins voters.
Priority: Well-run elections
At all times, well-run elections are critical for ensuring confidence in the efficacy and legitimacy of their outcomes.
This has taken on increasing significance in recent elections, with building focus on election integrity. Both Fort
Collins and Larimer County have well estab lished practices for conducting effective elections in accordance with
their respective governing provisions.
Enhancing processes is also always possible. The City Clerk’s Office continually works to identify and evaluate
potential shifts in election administration to increase the accessibility, transparency and effectiveness of municipal
elections. This includes working in collaboration with Council and the Election Code Committee on potential shifts
Council would like to see.
Option: Ranked-choice voting
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a voting system allowing voters to rank candidates for a specific office in order of
their preference. The number of rankings available to voters can vary from three up to as many candidates as
may be running for an office, depending upon how RCV is implemented by a jurisdiction. Voters may use as many
available rankings as they choose to indicate their first choice, second choice, etc. Since all Fort Collins municipal
races elect a single candidate, the form of RCV that would be used is also referred to as instant runoff voting.
Votes in a contest are first tallied based on the first choice indicated on every ballot. If no candidate has a majority
of all votes cast in the first round, then the candidate with the lowest numb er of votes is eliminated and another
round of vote tallying occurs. The next ranked choice on ballots with the eliminated candidate as a first choice is
counted in that round. The process of elimination and additional rounds of tallying occurs until one c andidate
receives a majority (50% + 1) of all ballots cast or until two candidates remain and the candidate with the most
B.1
Packet Pg. 4
March 22, 2022 Page 3
total votes wins. The result of this process is like traditional runoff elections, but with a single election event for
voters to participate in.
Municipalities in Colorado have had the option to conduct RCV elections if they so choose for some time. Home
rule municipalities have also had the ability to develop their own parameters for the use of RCV.
There are a range of potential advantages and concerns that can be associated with the use of RCV. Advocacy
organizations, such as FairVote and Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado, are one good source of information for
how RCV can work and resources regarding how other jurisdictions have i mplemented RCV. It is also critical,
especially for election administrators, to look at other sources of information about the implementation of RCV.
The City Clerk has previously been a part of implementing RCV in another jurisdiction and has developed
relationships with a range of organizations committed to well-run elections that include the use of RCV.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has summarized some potential advantages and disadvantages of
implementing RCV, including:
Advantages:
Majority Rule - In plurality election with multiple candidates, winners may receive less than a majority of the votes.
Supporters of ranked-choice voters assert candidates should demonstrate support from a majority of their
constituents.
Eliminating “Spoilers” - Limiting the “spoiler” effect of some candidates is also touted as a potential benefit. While
minor party candidates are not a factor in non-partisan municipal elections, there may be circumstances where
voters feel like voting for their first-choice candidate could be considered wasting that vote if they don’t consider
the candidate to have a viable chance to win. In an RCV election, voters can vote for the candidate of their choice
with confidence that if their first choice is eliminated, their vote will count for their second choice.
Increased Access - This advantage applies primarily when either a primary or a runoff is part of the electoral
process. In those instances, ranked-choice voting may bolster access for military and overseas voters or any
other voters who may be less likely to be able to vote in multiple election events. By conducting elections using
RCV instead of a separate primary or runoff, all voters could select from a potentially broader slate of candidates
and to continue to have the opportunity to select preferred candidates as the field narrows through the tabulation
process.
Concerns:
Fairness can be subjective - Whether winning with a plurality but not a majority is problematic is a subjective
consideration. Additionally, exhausted ballots occur if a voter decides to vote for only one candidate and not rank
the others or if there is not the ability to rank all candidates and the voter’s choices are all eliminated before a
winner is decided. In that instance, voters who have had their ballots exhausted will not have their votes included
in the final tallies between the remaining candidates.
A Polarized Populace - Supporters assert RCV forces candidates to appeal for second- and third- place votes
<http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/20/maine-voices-ranked-choice-voting-worked-in-portland-and-will-work-in-
maine/>, while skeptics argue today’s polarized environment likely means voters will not make contrasting
selections in significant numbers anyway <http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/30/maine-voices-ranked-choice-
voting-costly-complicated-undemocratic/>.
Complexity - Because RCV is different from the traditional and historical voting method in the United States there
are concerns around whether voters will be properly educated about the new system, potentially leading to
frustration and the possibility that voters will not properly complete their ballots.
In its meetings, the ECC has discussed the potential for implementing ranked -choice voting in Fort Collins and
recommends presenting information to the full Council to consider placing a potential question on a ballot for Fort
Collins voters to determine whether it should be implemented. (Attachments 3 and 4)
B.1
Packet Pg. 5
March 22, 2022 Page 4
Option: Coordinated Elections in November
Considering a shift to November elections was identified as a Council priority for the current term. City Clerk’s
Office staff has been working with the Election Code Committee since September of 2021 to explore the potential
implications of making such a shift. The potential to change to holding coordinated elections in either even or odd
years has been discussed during several ECC meetings, as documented in the attached available minutes. The
committee has focused on a potential recommendation to consider a ballot question to sh ift to coordinated
elections in November of odd years.
The following table shows which municipal seats would appear on the ballot in upcoming elections under different
timing scenarios. This table focuses on elections in odd years, in either April or Nove mber. A shift to November
will require some adjustments to existing Council terms. In the scenarios outlined here, terms would be extended
to accommodate the change in timing for elections.
Also attached to this report are charts provided to the ECC outl ining comparisons of elections held in April and
November of odd or even years, and some of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Voter Participation
Any changes to how elections are administered in Fort Collins should be undertaken with an eye towards how
they can help support voter participation. Looking at RCV, proponents assert it has the potential to increase voter
turnout. While empirically demonstrating that likelihood is difficult, it is plausible that such a shift may contribute to
increasing voter participation and engagement in municipal elections. Critical to this outcome is a well -supported
shift with adequate voter education and opportunity for candidates to participate in elections.
Voter turnout is a primary consideration in looking at shifting to coordinated elections. While it is accurate that
most coordinated elections have a higher level of overall voter turnout than April municipal elections, it is less
certain how participation and engagement in municipal races would differ in November when other levels of
government also have contests on the ballot. Municipal elections in jurisdictions across the country in many
instances were originally moved to occur off cycle with state and federal elections as a pr ogressive era reform to
B.1
Packet Pg. 6
March 22, 2022 Page 5
help increase focus on municipal contests. An examination of publicly accessible precinct level data from Douglas
County in the 2018 November elections shows in most precincts the difference for Castle Rock voters making
selections in races at the top of the ballot, including congress and state -level races, was several points higher
than those who voted in the municipal contests also on the ballot. In most precincts, the difference ranged from
10-20 percent.
In addition to the potential for ballot drop off, coordinated elections also eliminate the ability of the City to make
choices in administering elections that it deems beneficial to its voters. This would include prior measures
undertaken like opting to pay for return postage on mail ballots.
Professional Administration
After significant research into the current operations of elections in Fort Collins and potential resources that could
be part of implementing RCV, the City Clerk is confident in the ability of the City to admin ister ranked-choice
voting in municipal elections. With appropriate allocation of resources and identified prioritization over other areas
of work, this could be accomplished as soon as April of 2023 if the Council and voters so choose.
Coordinated elections also offer the potential opportunity to successfully implement RCV. The interplay between
RCV and coordinated elections should be considered as part of the decision to move forward with placing both
questions considered by the ECC on the ballot. Legisl ation adopted by the state in 2021 calls for county clerks to
prepare for implementing RCV in coordinated elections potentially as soon as November of 2023. It also calls for
support from the Secretary of State’s Office to counties in obtaining RCV -compatible tabulation equipment and in
developing rules for administering coordinated elections including RCV contests. Individual counties are
responsible for determining if they can be ready for administering RCV elections in 2023. It is important to note
the resources and support included in the legislation apply to counties and coordinated elections, but not
municipal elections administered by home rule municipalities. There are some key differences in implementing
RCV in coordinated elections versus by the Ci ty directly as a result of this distinction. If the City were to implement
RCV in its own municipal elections, it would have both the ability and responsibility of developing procedures for
its administration. This includes what equipment to use for tabula tion, the number of rankings offered to voters,
the design of ballot layout, and rules for adjudicating ballots.
Cost Effectiveness
Fuller information on the resources required to administer different options identified as potential alternatives by
the ECC is under development. The most complete information available will be provided as part of the March 21
ECC meeting and shared with the full Council as part of the read before packet the day of the work session.
Timing of Potential Changes
The City Clerk’s Office has been working extensively to develop a solid understanding of both the potential paths
and resources required to prepare for implementing one or both potential ballot questions as quickly as possible.
Because of the necessity to remain ready to execute an April 2023 municipal election, the potential timing for
implementing one or both questions should they be adopted is more complex. Adding both questions to the ballot
in November of 2022 with the goal to implement any adopted changes in 202 3 could lead to confusion for voters
and candidates, as well as additional work for the City Clerk’s Office in planning and preparations. It is possible
for the Clerk’s Office to move forward with planning for all possible outcomes of two ballot questions if that is the
direction of Council. Three separate sets of election plans would be developed:
1. Planning for an April 2023 municipal election with current parameters
2. Planning for an April 2023 municipal election implementing RCV
3. Planning for a November 2023 coordinated municipal election with or without RCV
Because the results of the vote on any ballot question will not be known until sometime in November of 2022,
plans for both April alternatives will need to be well developed and partially e xecuted before that time.
In terms of impact for voters and candidates, these plans will need to be communicated at least in part with
respect to the different potential outcomes and paths. For candidates in particular, candidate guidelines are
B.1
Packet Pg. 7
March 22, 2022 Page 6
typically provided in September before an April municipal election. This means potential candidates will need to
get detailed information about what to expect in the event of any of the potential outcomes of the ballot question.
Clear communication regarding the differences for candidates in planning their campaigns is essential. It is
possible this may be a deterrent to some potential candidates. For voters, the most significant impact will be the
need to avoid entering voter education about RCV until after voting on a potential shift is complete. For an April
election, this will condense the timeframe for voter outreach and education.
From an administration perspective, planning for all possible outcomes with immediate implementation will require
fully developing plans for all scenarios. This will require staff time and work away from other office priorities and
will result in the development of at least some plans that will not ultimately be needed. For this reason, Council’s
identification of priorities will assist in determining how staff should be using resources in preparations. If it is
critical to Council to both give voters the ability to decide both questions at the same time and to implement the
decisions of the voters as quickly as possible, it is reason able for staff to dedicate time and resources to making
that possible.
*The presentation slide deck will be provided ahead of the work session as part of the read before packet on
meeting day to allow the most up to date information to be incorporated reg arding cost estimates and other
research being conducted into potential shifts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comparison - April City Election v. November Coordinated Election (PDF)
2. Comparison - Even Year v. Odd Year Elections (PDF)
3. Election Code CommitteeMInutes, February 28, 2022 (PDF)
4. Election Code Committee Minutes, March 7, 2022 (PDF)
B.1
Packet Pg. 8
Comparison of Current City Election vs. November Coordinated Election
Current City Election Coordinated Election
First Tuesday after first Monday in April in odd‐
numbered years
First Tuesday in November in odd‐numbered
years
Governed by City Charter and City Code, and
Municipal Election Code (CRS Title 31, Article 10)
and the Colorado Constitution.
Governed by Uniform Election Code (CRS Title 1,
Articles 1‐13) and the Colorado Constitution. City
Charter must also be followed or amended as
part of the change to election provisions.
Conducted by Fort Collins City Clerk’s Office Conducted by Larimer County Elections
Cost of election: $344k (April 2021) Cost of election: Unknown
CRS 1‐7‐116 provides for the reasonable sharing
of the actual cost of the coordinated election
among those participating. If the State
participates, it pays a flat $.80 per voter [CRS 1‐5‐
505.5].
Candidates
Nomination petition circulation period: 70‐49
days prior to election day
Nomination petition circulation period: 91‐71
days prior to election day (based on Municipal
Election Code provisions)
Nomination petitions filed with City Clerk Nomination petitions filed with City Clerk (no
change)
Deadline to withdraw from nomination: 42 days
prior to election
Deadline to withdraw from nomination: 63 days
prior to election (based on Municipal Election
Code provisions)
Order of candidates on ballot: alphabetical
(based on Charter Article VIII, Section 6)
Order of ballot set by Secretary of State Rules.
Order of City candidates on ballot: in the order
certified by the City. [CRS 1‐5‐406 states that the
order of candidates is determined by lot, but
Larimer County has confirmed they will put them
in the order we certify to them.]
Campaign Finance
Campaign Finance Report due dates governed by
City Code
Campaign Finance Report due dates governed by
City Code (no change)
Campaign Finance Reports filed with City Clerk Campaign Finance Reports filed with City Clerk
(no change)
Campaign finance complaints handled by City Campaign finance complaints handled by City (no
change)
Preparation and Mailing of Ballots
Ballot content finalized: 42 days prior to election
day (end of business on deadline to withdraw
from candidacy or to register as a write‐in
candidate)
Deadline to certify ballot content to County Clerk:
60 days prior to election day
(numbers and/or letters assigned to municipal
questions are determined by order of submission
to the County)
Deadline to send ballots to military and overseas
voters (UOCAVA): no separate mailing deadline
Deadline to send ballots to military and overseas
voters (UOCAVA): 45 days before election day
ATTACHMENT 1 B.1.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Comparison - April City Election v. November Coordinated Election (11374 : Election Provisions)
Current City Election Coordinated Election
Window to mail ballots to all other voters:
between 22 and 15 days prior to election
(22 days is impractical; goal is to mail 18 days
prior to election)
Window to mail ballots to all other voters:
between 22 and 18 days prior to election day
Deadline to cure signature discrepancies: 5 pm
on 8th day after election day
Deadline to cure signature discrepancies: 5 pm
on 8th day after election day (no change)
Deadline to receive UOCAVA ballots: 5 pm on 8th
day after election day
Deadline to receive UOCAVA ballots: 5 pm on 8th
day after election day (no change)
Provisional ballots: not available Provisional ballots: available only in elections
conducted under the Uniform Election Code for
voters who do not show identification or voters
claiming to be properly registered but whose
qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be
immediately established
Results and Recounts
Certification of election results: 10 days after
election day
Certification of election results: 22 days after
election day [CRS 1‐10‐203(1)]
Automatic recount: determined after
certification of election results
(City pays for recount)
Automatic recount: ordered after certification of
election results and no later than 25 days after
election day [CRS 1‐10.5‐104]
(City pays for recount)
Completion of recount: no later than 15 days
after election day
Completion of recount: no later than 40 days
after election day [CRS 1‐10‐5‐104]
Requested recount: request filed within 5 days
after certification of election results
(Requestor pays for recount)
Requested recount: request filed within 28 days
after election day [CRS 1‐10.5‐106(2)]
(Requestor pays for recount)
Completion of requested recount: no later than
15 days after certification of election results
Completion of requested recount: no later than
the 37th day after election day [CRS 1‐10.5‐
106(2)]
Who can be present to observe the recount:
Mandatory recount: any affected candidate (or
designee) or petition representative
Requested recount: although not specifically
stated, staff would allow any affected candidate
(or designee) or petition representative, any
committee’s registered agent, or, if applicable,
the eligible elector who requested the recount
(based on City Code Section 7‐46)
Who can be present to observe the recount:
interested parties defined in the statute [CRS 1‐
10.5‐106(1)]
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Comparison - April City Election v. November Coordinated Election (11374 : Election Provisions)
Current City Election Coordinated Election
Conduct of recount: the City Clerk is responsible
for conducting the recount, and may appoint
election workers to assist. All eligible ballots will
be rescanned, and readjudicated as applicable.
Conduct of recount: If the County has passed the
risk‐limiting audit [CRS 1‐7‐515] without error,
then only the ballots sent to adjudication will be
reexamined. The judges may arrive at different
decisions than the original judges performing
adjudication.
The City can request a rescan of all ballots; this is
likely to be very expensive.
Pros and Cons Pros and Cons
Pros:
Provides 3 opportunities in a 2‐year period to
present TABOR questions to the voters
(November even, April odd, and November
odd)
City has some control over costs and number
and type of items on the ballot
City can provide postage paid for return
ballots
City staff continues to maintain election
proficiency needed to conduct special
elections
Cons:
City has no dedicated election staff
During election cycle, other City Clerk duties
are delayed or covered during overtime
hours
City‐only election may garner less attention,
interest and participation by voters
Pros:
County handles most election logistics
County has dedicated year‐round election
staff
Turnout is generally higher in a November
election
City still able to conduct special elections at
any other time as long as there are no TABOR
questions or candidates
Cons:
Provides only 2 opportunities in a 2‐year
period to present TABOR question to the
voters (November even and November odd)
Election costs highly variable, unpredictable
and out of City’s control or, to a great extent,
influence
Length and order of ballot may disadvantage
City candidates and questions and reduce
voting on those items by those who return
ballots (known as ballot fatigue)
The City will not be able to pay postage for
return of voted ballots
City staff’s familiarity with conducting an
election will wane as time goes on making
special elections more difficult to run
Different election procedures for City‐run
special elections than for coordinated
November elections.
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Comparison - April City Election v. November Coordinated Election (11374 : Election Provisions)
Other Considerations in Moving to November Coordinated Elections
A series of Charter amendments will be required, including:
o Transition plan for Council terms
o Possible change to date Council takes office and Mayor Pro Tem is selected
o Time period for filling a vacancy at an election (rather than by appointment first) will need
to be amended to accommodate County deadlines
o Amend Article VIII, Section 1 regarding the applicability of State law to City elections
o Amend Article VIII, Section 2 regarding the date of City elections
o Amend Article VIII, Section 6 regarding appearance of names on the ballot (alphabetical)?
o Amend Article VIII, Section 7 regarding certification of election results
o Amend Article VIII, Section 8 to address validity of elections conducted under the UEC?
o Amend any other sections of Article VIII if needed
o Will need to amend certain deadlines relating to initiative and referendum petitions
A series of Code amendments will be required
o Amendment of mail ballot provisions
o Amendment of deadlines for nomination petitions, withdrawal of candidacy, and write‐in
candidates
Need to reconcile provisions relating to recall elections
CRS 1-7-116. Coordinated elections - definition
(2) The political subdivisions for which the county clerk and recorder will conduct the
coordinated election shall enter into an agreement with the county clerk and recorder for the county
or counties in which the political subdivision is located concerning the conduct of the coordinated
election. The agreement shall be signed no later than seventy days prior to the scheduled election.
The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following:
(a) Allocation of the responsibilities between the county clerk and recorder and the political
subdivisions for the preparation and conduct of the coordinated election; and
(b) Provision for a reasonable sharing of the actual cost of the coordinated election among
the county and the political subdivisions. For such purpose, political subdivisions are not
responsible for sharing any portion of the usual costs of maintaining the office of the county clerk
and recorder, including but not limited to overhead costs and personal services costs of permanent
employees, except for such costs that are shown to be directly attributable to conducting
coordinated elections on behalf of political subdivisions. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the state’s share of the actual costs of the coordinated election shall be governed by
the provisions of section 1-5-505.5. Where the states reimbursement to a particular county for the
costs of conducting a coordinated election pursuant to section 1-5-505.5 is less than the costs of
conducting a coordinated election for which the county is entitled to reimbursement by means of
a cost-sharing agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (2), such
differential shall be assumed by the county. Where the states reimbursement to a particular county
for the costs of conducting a coordinated election pursuant to section 1-5-505.5 is greater than the
costs of conducting a coordinated election for which the county is entitled to reimbursement by
means of a cost-sharing agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (2),
the county shall be entitled to retain such differential, with no obligation to return any portion of
such amount to the state.
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Comparison - April City Election v. November Coordinated Election (11374 : Election Provisions)
Comparison of November Even Year and November Odd Year Elections
November Even Year November Odd Year
First Tuesday after the first Monday in November First Tuesday in November
Governed by CRS Title 1, Articles 1‐13 (Uniform
Election Code) and rules promulgated by the
Secretary of State. City Charter must also be
followed.
Governed by CRS Title 1, Articles 1‐13 (Uniform
Election Code) and rules promulgated by the
Secretary of State. City Charter must also be
followed.
Conducted by Larimer County Elections Conducted by Larimer County Elections
Cost of election: Unknown
CRS 1‐7‐116 provides for the reasonable sharing of
the actual cost of the coordinated election among
those participating. If the State participates, it pays
a flat $.80 per voter [CRS 1‐5‐505.5].
Presidential elections are the most expensive
elections.
Cost of election: Unknown
CRS 1‐7‐116 provides for the reasonable sharing of
the actual cost of the coordinated election among
those participating. If the State participates, it pays
a flat $.80 per voter [CRS 1‐5‐505.5].
What’s potentially on the ballot in a Presidential
election year (in order of appearance on ballot):
President
U.S. Senator
U.S. Representative
University of Colorado Regent
State Senators
State Representatives
District Attorney
County Commissioners
Municipal candidates
Judges (retention)
Ballot Questions
o State of Colorado
o Larimer County
o Municipal
o School District(s)
o Special Districts
Fire Protection Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Public Improvement Districts
General Improvement Districts
Library Districts
Other Districts
o Downtown Development Authority
What’s potentially on the ballot in any year (in order
of appearance on ballot):
Municipal candidates
School District candidates (see statutory
definition of “regular biennial school election”
below)
Ballot Questions
o State of Colorado
o Larimer County
o Municipal
o School District(s)
o Special Districts
Fire Protection Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Public Improvement Districts
General Improvement Districts
Library Districts
Other Districts
o Downtown Development Authority
ATTACHMENT 2 B.1.2
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Comparison - Even Year v. Odd Year Elections (11374 : Election Provisions)
November Even Year November Odd Year
What’s potentially on the ballot in a nonpresidential
election year (in order of appearance on ballot):
U.S. Senator
U.S. Representative
Governor/Lieutenant Governor
Secretary of State
State Treasurer
Attorney General
State Board of Education
University of Colorado Regent
State Senator
State Representatives
County Commissioner
County Clerk and Recorder
County Treasurer
County Assessor
County Sheriff
County Surveyor
County Coroner
Municipal candidates
Judges (retention)
Ballot Questions
o State of Colorado
o Larimer County
o Municipal
o School District(s)
o Special Districts
Fire Protection Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Public Improvement Districts
General Improvement Districts
Library Districts
Other Districts
o Downtown Development Authority
CRS 1‐4‐104. Definitions.
(39) “Regular biennial school election” means the election held on the first Tuesday in November of each odd‐
numbered year.
CRS 22‐31‐104. Regular biennial school election.
(1) Except as provided in section 22‐31‐131, pertaining to districts whose boundaries are coterminous with a
city and county, the regular biennial school election in each school district shall be held the first Tuesday in
November of each odd‐numbered year.
(2) (a) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2006, p. 1021, 1, effective May 25, 2006.)
(3) School district directors elected shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. A director shall
take office no later than fifteen days following the date on which the school district receives the official abstract
of votes pursuant to section 1‐10‐102, C.R.S.
B.1.2
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Comparison - Even Year v. Odd Year Elections (11374 : Election Provisions)
Other Considerations in Choosing Between November Even Year and Odd Year
Elections
Candidates in a Presidential election year may realize a very different election experience than
those on the ballot in the “off” election. Under the current method, half of the districts plus the
Mayor will always be running in a Presidential election year; the Mayor and the other half of the
districts will be running in the “off” year. Holding all candidate elections in the odd year may
provide a more level experience from election to election.
B.1.2
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Comparison - Even Year v. Odd Year Elections (11374 : Election Provisions)
City of Fort Collins Page 1
February 28, 2022
ELECTION CODE COMMITTEE MEETING
12:00 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Arndt, Canonico, Ohlson
STAFF PRESENT: Kyle Stannert, Rita Knoll, Ryan Malarky, Tammi Pusheck, Carrie
Daggett, Anissa Hollingshead
CITIZENS PRESENT: Joe Rowan, Robbie Moreland, Jody DesChenes, Steve Lucas
1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Joe Rowan suggested items being discussed for ballot consideration should be brought forward by
citizens, not Council. He also stated there needs to be more robust conversation about the implications
and costs of making various changes to the election process.
Robbie Moreland stated she is looking forward to the discussion on ranked choice voting and she
presented postcards from residents in support of the placement of the topic on the November ballot. She
commented on the difference between the City and state regarding disclosure requirements for
contributions collected by independent expenditure groups.
Jody DesChenes expressed support for the placement of ranked choice voting on the November ballot.
She stated ranked choice voting is not more difficult nor more expensive than a regular election.
Steve Lucas, Citizens for a Sustainable Economy, commented on myths regarding successes of ranked
choice voting. He cited various election situations and stated ranked choice voting disenfranchises
voters. He also stated moving elections to November will increase election costs. He commented on the
number of towns that have repealed ranked choice voting.
4.PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Mayor Arndt stated the costs associated with ranked choice voting should be researched and she
concurred the disclosure requirements for independent expenditure committees should be changed.
Councilmember Ohlson concurred. Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll noted that would require a Code
change.
Chair Canonico requested additional information on communities that have repealed ranked choice
voting. Councilmember Ohlson concurred that would be valuable information to have for the upcoming
work session.
5.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10, 2022 COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Mayor Arndt, to adopt and approve the meeting
minutes of January 10, 2022. The motion was adopted unanimously.
6. REDISTRICTING UPDATE
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll stated the County’s redistricting data has recently been received and GIS
is now moving forward with the City’s efforts. She stated the plan is for an April or May presentation of
the information.
ATTACHMENT 3 B.1.3
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Election Code CommitteeMInutes, February 28, 2022 (11374 : Election Provisions)
City of Fort Collins Page 2
7. ELECTION TIMING AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS DISCUSSION
City Clerk Hollingshead stated staff would like to walk through potential alternatives for a work session
discussion. She discussed pros and cons of election timing in terms of maintaining April elections or
moving to November elections of either odd or even years.
Councilmember Ohlson commented on the direction being provided to staff to be prepared for an April
2023 election.
Chair Canonico asked when the state will be requiring counties to be prepared to handle ranked choice
voting. City Clerk Hollingshead replied it is a soft requirement for November of 2023.
Members discussed the various effects of changing from April to November elections, particularly on
Council terms.
City Attorney Daggett noted any changes to Council terms that would result from a switch to November
elections would also need to be part of the voter approval but would not necessarily need to be written
into the Charter.
Mayor Arndt asked if there are other municipalities that conduct local elections in November of odd years.
City Clerk Hollingshead replied there are many, including Loveland and Greeley.
City Clerk Hollingshead presented information regarding the effects of April versus November elections
on ranked choice voting in terms of responsibilities. She also discussed what items would be included
on the ballots for April versus November elections and listed advantages and disadvantages of having
elections remain in April versus switching to November.
Members also discussed the effects of the timing of taking office for April versus November elections.
City Attorney Daggett noted the timeframe between the election and swearing in has increased due to
Charter changes that allow for more time for receiving overseas ballots and conducting recounts if
needed.
City Clerk Hollingshead discussed a meeting with County Clerk Myers regarding what the City could
anticipate in working with the County in coordinated elections. She discussed the cost allocation for
coordinated elections and noted all ranked choice voting costs of those elections would be passed on to
the City.
City Clerk Hollingshead outlined the various deadlines that would change with a shift to November
elections. She also discussed public outreach and voter education regarding ranked choice voting. She
showed examples of ballots that include ranked choice voting and ballots for even versus odd years.
City Attorney Daggett noted the County will be following state standards when conducting elections.
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll noted ranked choice voting is only an option for municipal candidates, not
school board.
Councilmember Ohlson noted changes, even if met with resistance initially, are always doable.
Mayor Arndt asked City Clerk Hollingshead if more candidates ran for office when ranked choice voting
was implemented. City Clerk Hollingshead replied in the affirmative.
Malarkey suggested an additional ECC meeting may need to be scheduled prior to the March 21 meeting
in advance of the March 22 work session. Members concurred and determined the remaining items on
this agenda will be discussed at that additional meeting.
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Election Code CommitteeMInutes, February 28, 2022 (11374 : Election Provisions)
City of Fort Collins Page 3
8. SCOPE OF WORK DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL BALLOT QUESTIONS AND DIRECTION FOR
STAFF
9. CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPARISON TO STATE LAW
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll stated, in most cases, the City Code is somewhat stricter and more
transparent than the state law, and the only major difference is related to the independent expenditure
committees’ contribution reporting.
10. PROPOSED TIMELINE
11. FUTURE ELECTION CODE COMMITTEE DATES WITH SCHEDULING CONFLICTS
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:33 PM
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Election Code CommitteeMInutes, February 28, 2022 (11374 : Election Provisions)
City of Fort Collins Page 1
March 7, 2022
ELECTION CODE COMMITTEE MEETING
12:00 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Arndt, Canonico, Ohlson
STAFF PRESENT: Rita Knoll, Ryan Malarky, Tammi Pusheck, Carrie Daggett, Anissa
Hollingshead
CITIZENS PRESENT: Robbie Moreland, Jan Kok, Eric Fried, Kathleen Schmidt, Sonya
Ketting, Nick Armstrong, Michelle Haefele
1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Robbie Moreland encouraged the Committee to refer ranked choice voting to the ballot.
Jan Kok supported replacing the current plurality voting system with an improved system, approval voting.
He discussed the system which involves utilizing the current type of ballot while allowing voters to vote
for as many candidates as they would like. He stated Fargo, North Dakota and Saint Louis, Missouri
have adopted the system.
Eric Fried supported ranked choice voting and opposed plurality voting. He noted Maine, Alaska, and
New York City use ranked choice voting.
Kathleen Schmidt discussed the disadvantages of plurality voting and the advantages of ranked choice
voting.
Sonya Ketting expressed support for ranked choice voting.
Nick Armstrong expressed support for ranked choice voting.
Michelle Haefele expressed support for ranked choice voting.
4.PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Mayor Arndt thanked Mr. Fried for discussing a new voting system.
Members thanked the speakers.
5.ELECTION TIMING AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS DISCUSSION
Mayor Arndt commented on the possibility of prioritizing changes, such as referring ranked choice voting
to the ballot first then considering changing elections to November.
Chair Canonico noted considering changing the election to November was a priority for the Committee;
however, ranked choice voting was not.
Councilmember Ohlson stated his first priority is campaign finance reform and he believes all changes
could be made at the same time. He stated he could support odd year November elections over even
year. He also stated if ranked choice voting is approved by voters in November, it would not necessarily
need to be implemented in an April 2023 election. He expressed personal support for ranked choice
voting and supported placing both items on the November ballot.
Mayor Arndt stated her first preference is also to put both items on the November ballot.
ATTACHMENT 4 B.1.4
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Election Code Committee Minutes, March 7, 2022 (11374 : Election Provisions)
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Members discussed wording for dealing with the possibility that ranked choice voting passes and moving
to November elections does not.
Chair Canonico asked when counties will be required to be prepared to hold ranked choice elections.
City Clerk Hollingshead replied the Secretary of State is recommending counties be prepared by
November of 2023; however, there is some discretionary language involved.
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll noted the issue is whether Larimer County will have the equipment that is
ultimately certified by the Secretary of State. If it does not have that equipment, it is not required to
replace equipment per the legislation related to ranked choice voting.
Chair Canonico asked if the City could be ready to do a ranked choice election in April of 2023 should
the ballot initiative to move the elections to November fail. City Clerk Hollingshead replied the most
challenging aspect would be dealing with contingencies through election day.
City Attorney Daggett stated there would still be an option to have a local April 2023 election even if voters
approve the change to November elections. Mayor Arndt stated that would be difficult for the electorate.
City Attorney Daggett noted the work session agenda materials will go to print prior to the next Committee
meeting. Members discussed the topics to be included in the work session materials.
Councilmember Ohlson commented on his desire for all donors to any type of committee to be made
public. Members discussed concerns with donors being required to provide addresses which become
public information.
City Attorney Daggett discussed independent expenditures and requirements for small scale issue
committees, which are consistent with state law. She suggested changing the requirements for small
scale issue committees to be such that they would automatically switch to a full committee with regular
reporting requirements after reaching a certain threshold for independent expenditures.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wants to see as much transparency and disclosure as possible.
City Attorney Daggett noted anyone who is receiving contributions for a political activity must register as
a committee. Any type of existing group, such as the Sierra Club for example, that happens to be
spending money in a City election is currently not required to disclose where the money came from;
therefore, addressing independent expenditures is likely the best way to ensure additional transparency
in those types of situations.
6. PROPOSED TIMELINE
City Clerk Hollingshead noted the next Committee meeting will be the day prior to the work session and
stated future meetings will focus more on campaign finance as well as redistricting.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the scale of change in the Council districts that will result from the
redistricting. Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll suggested an entire reconfiguration of the districts could be a
possibility. She asked members to discuss whether that would be acceptable, or whether they would
prefer to keep the current district layout with additional balance. She noted the districts need to be as
balanced as possible population-wise, among other requirements in the Charter.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:18 PM
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Election Code Committee Minutes, March 7, 2022 (11374 : Election Provisions)
DATE:
STAFF:
March 22, 2022
LeAnn Williams, Recreation Director
Seve Ghose, Community Services Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Aquatics Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide the Fall 2021 requested aquatics update, initiated from discussion on
potential spending at Mulberry Pool.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
In preparation for the FY 2023-2024 BFO process, staff is seeking feedback from Councilmembers on the
following options related to Mulberry Pool and overall aquatics:
1. OPTION #1: Do not allocate any additional funds toward Mulberry Pool as it is past its lifetime of safe and
great use by the community. We can continue to operate as currently and will close the facility when
equipment fails.
2. OPTION #2: In addition to Option 1, also redirect the funds currently allocated toward the development of the
SE Recreation and Innovation Center project set to begin in 2023. This will allow for an enhanced aquatic
experience, in a public-pool deficit area of the City, possibly leveraging the funding to adding lap lanes and an
expanded footprint.
3. OPTION #3: Replace Mulberry Pool with an equivalent pool on site to continue to resume offering a high level
of service. This basic lap pool will cost between $15 - $20 million.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
This strategic decision-making step came to the forefront during the BFO process in 2021 for the one-year budget
for FY2022, specifically related to Mulberry Pool.
Mulberry Pool was originally opened in 1974 and now requires major work to bring it to standards associated with
safe and appropriate use of the facility. Some work is underway related to the ADA access and annual
maintenance, resourced by current allocations in the Facility Operations budget. The major work, which originally
priced at over $3.5 million in 2020, includes HVAC, roof, building separations, and pool upgrades. The final cost
will likely be higher than the initial estimate.
When evaluated at Council in Fall 2021 as part of BFO discussions, it was decided that a thorough study should
be conducted to determine the viability and efficiency of renovating an old facility like Mulberry Pool, alongside the
overall aquatics needs in the community to make the most informed decision on future allocations. Staff engaged
a consultant, Counsilman-Hunsaker, in late 2021 to perform the study. The consultant visited e ach existing site in
our system, and evaluated them based on national and regional expectations for aquatics facilities, programs, and
amenities. Councilman-Hunsaker issued the following guidelines:
1. The City’s aquatic system should provide the community with options for public lane swim, aquatic exercise,
aquatic instruction, and other programs including specialized training and competitions.
2. When looking at recommended sizes, quantities, and locations of aquatic facilities, Counsilman -Hunsaker
B.2
Packet Pg. 21
March 22, 2022 Page 2
recommends a balanced system to support all user groups. The one metric used is 110 square feet of water
per 1,000 residents. This water expectation is for traditional lane usage and recreational needs.
3. The balanced system also includes both indoor and outdoor water, even in colder climes.
Our existing system includes:
Mulberry Pool Senior Center
Pool
City Park Pool Edora Pool
Lap Lanes ✓ ✓ ✓
Family Aquatics ✓ ✓
Therapy pool or programs ✓ ✓
Competitive Aquatics Center ✓ 50M Lanes
Instructional Programs ✓ ✓ ✓
Indoor Pool ✓ ✓ ✓
Outdoor Pool ✓
Geographically, the system is concentrated in the Northern region of Fort Collins, with no facilities south of
Horsetooth Road, as illustrated in the map below:
In addition to observations and metrics for each facility, Counsilman-Hunsaker reached the following key findings:
1. Need for aquatic amenities in the southeast quadrant of the city
2. Need for additional training (lap) lanes, 6 at current population and 8 based on 2025 projected pop ulation
3. Need for additional recreation water
4. Leverage the existing user group relationships to support the additional facilities and amenities
5. Additional investment in Mulberry pool not suggested
The table below shows the current system capacity vs. standards provided by the consultant:
Unit Current Standard Meeting
Standard?
Outdoor Water Sq Ft/1,000 pop 62.5 110
Indoor Water Sq Ft/1,000 pop 141.0 110 ✓
Training Water Lanes 26 45
Recreational Water Sq Ft/1,000 pop 110.7 110 ✓
B.2
Packet Pg. 22
March 22, 2022 Page 3
Although the current system is exceeding standards for indoor water, both outdoor water and training water
capacity are below standard. Mulberry pool provides 6 of the training lanes currently in our system.
Staff is in the early stages of drafting concept plans for the community-initiated Southeast Recreation and
Innovation Center approved by voters in 2015. The ballot measure included an outdoor family aquatic center with
a lazy river in the southeast section of the city, with anticipated completion by 2025. Al though not specifically
listed in the ballot language, it may be opportune to add certain aquatics amenities to the project to better meet
the service needs of the community. Adding the lap lanes will increase the cost of building the facility but reduce
our gap vs. the recommended standard.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue developing plans for the Southeast Recreation and Innovation Center. If directed, staff will also
develop BFO offers for the 2023/2024 Budget cycle to implement the preferred direction of Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Master Plan Update (PDF)
2. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.2
Packet Pg. 23
Aquatic Facility Master PlanATTACHMENT 1B.2.1
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
•What do we like about our current community aquatics?•What programming amenities do we need to support the future of aquatics?•What don’t we need to include in the future of aquatic?•What other information do you want to share?QUESTIONSB.2.1
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
NEED FOR AN AQUATIC MASTER PLAN• Physical Obsolescence• Aging Facility• Codes and Standards• Functional Obsolescence• Definition of Aquatics• User Expectations
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
AQUATIC USER GROUPSInstructionCompetitionWellness & TherapyRecreationpB.2.1
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
RECREATIONRRecreationalSwimmersTotsFamiliesTeensWarm WaterShallow – Medium Depth
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
5COMPETITION SWIMMERSAquatic fields of playTraining spaceCompetition SpaceCool WaterMedium – Deep Depth
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
66 25-yard lanesAQUATIC FIELDS OF PLAYB.2.1
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
725-yard by 25-meter•11 25-yard lanes•10 25-meter lanesAQUATIC FIELDS OF PLAYB.2.1
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
850-meter by 25-yard•8 or 10 (50-meter lanes)•17-22 (cross-course 25-yard lanes)AQUATIC FIELDS OF PLAYB.2.1
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
POOL SIZE BY DEMOGRAPHICSPool SizeCommunity SizeClub SizeSwimmers in 5 hrs. prime time6 Lane 25 Yards25,00050 – 751088 Lane 25 Yards50,00075 – 15015210 Lane 25 Yards50K – 100Kup to 200200 22 Lane 25 YardsјϭϬϬ<јϮϱϬ418 B.2.1
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Learn to swim, life safety skillsLifeguard instructionSurvival swimmingScubaINSTRUCTIONWarm WaterShallow – Medium Depth
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
AQUATIC PROGRAMSLessons – standardized swim lesson program for all agesSwim team – year-round or summer league with opportunity for off-season workoutsLifeguard – lifeguard certification courseJunior lifeguard – lifeguard course for ages 12-15 to prepare them for lifeguard certification at age 16Water polo – intro to water polo class to teach basicsScuba – rent deep end to local scuba organizationKayak – provide intro to kayak lessonsWater exercise classes – aerobics, aqua core and cardio, aquatic fusion, flow and flex, gut buster and othersAquatic core express – abs workout in 20 minutesMasters swimming – US masters swimming clubTriathlons – swim training and competitionCommunity programs - dog swim, egg hunt, VIP night, dive in movies, theme nights, back to school bashes and moreCamps – weeklong camps emphasizing water safety, water skills, outside games and arts and craftsUnderwater hockey - the game is played on the bottom of the pool where players use a short stick to push a puck around their opponents to score goals at either end of the poolB.2.1
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Fastest growing aquatic user groupTherapy programsWater aerobics classesWELLNESS AND THERAPYWarmest Water Shallow – Medium Depth
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
MASTER PLANNING PROCESS• Existing Facility Review• Physical vs Functional Obsolescence• Market Analysis• Population Density• Age Distribution• Income Characteristics• Area Aquatic Providers• Concept Development and Cost Estimates• Conceptual Plan• Capital Cost• Operational Cost• Implementation Plan• Pool types and locations• Phasing
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
AQUATIC SYSTEM•A city aquatic system should provide the citizens of Fort Collins with options for public lane swim, aquatic exercise, aquatic instruction, and other programs as well as support the desires to host various aquatic sport competitions and training. •When looking at recommended sizes, quantities, and locations of aquatic facilities, Counsilman-Hunsaker recommends a balanced system to support all user groups. CH uses a metric of 110 sq. ft. of water per 1000 residents; this amount of water should be available for traditional lane usage as well as recreational water activities. •A balanced system should also include both indoor and outdoor water. Even in colder climates, recreational swimmers prefer to be outdoors when the weather permits. Consideration needs to be given to the size due to the seasonal availability, but outdoor water still plays a critical role in a successful aquatic system.3/17/202214B.2.1
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
EXISTING FACILITIES•Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC)•Mulberry Pool•Senior Center Pool•City Park Pool3/17/202215B.2.1
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
EDORA POOL ICE CENTER (EPIC)•Indoor 50-meter x 25-yard pool•Two 3-meter and two 1-meter diving boards•Separate warm water therapy and instructional pools3/17/2022162019Revenue $437,188Expense $276,314Net $160,874Enrollments 2,272 Enrolled Participation17,886 Drop-in 32,231 Rentals 118,644 Total Participation168,761 EPICAnnualB.2.1
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
EDORA POOL ICE CENTER (EPIC)ObservationsxStarting blocks and bulkheads are in good conditionxTile finish for all pools was reported to be replaced in sections as needed. Finish is in good condition but since most of it is originally from the 1980s it is recommended it be fully replacedxStaining was found in specific spots of the competition pool floor. The stains were circular and seemed to be present under the truss joins from the ceiling structure. Metal residue may be dripping into the water, sinking to the pool floor, and staining the tile. This should be addressed prior to pool tile replacement.xDeck slopes appeared to not drain the deck properly of pool water from swimmers exiting the poolxStanchion post for backstroke flags was slanted in its anchor, potentially due to overtightening of flags. This should be addressed to avoid permanent damage to the anchor and create need for a replacementxMechanical equipment is in good conditionxBecsys chemical controller reported to not meet expectations and may be replaced with a ChemtrolunitxThe acid tank is currently contained in a chemical containment cabinet in the same room as the liquid chlorine tanks. A solution to this issue was reported to be currently under study. The severity is this discrepancy puts it in first priority for resolution over the reported pool issues. 3/17/202217B.2.1
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
MULBERRY POOL•Indoor 25-yard pool•1-meter diving board•Large shallow interactive play area•Separate 7-person spa•Birthday party room•Spectator seating•Zero entry pool3/17/2022182019Revenue $241,106Expense $194,798Net $46,308Enrollments 2,085 Enrolled Participation14,814 Drop-in 35,539 Rentals 27,746 Total Participation78,099 MULBERRY POOLAnnualB.2.1
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
MULBERRY POOL3/17/202219Observations• Keifer starting blocks are in good condition• Rust was found at the two lap swim corners of the pool walls, directly under the gutter• The only ADA access lift was portable, no anchored lifts present• The slope transition between the zero-entry to the diving area may not meet pool code• The spectator seating view of the lap lanes is obstructed by the existing play structure• Mechanical equipment is in good condition• Air recirculation may need to be addressed
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SENIOR CENTER POOL•Indoor Therapy Pool•Indoor Hot-tub3/17/2022202019Revenue $59,717Expense $147,891Net -$88,174Enrollments 3,085 Enrolled Participation28,652 Drop-in 2,360 Rentals - Total Participation31,012 SENIOR CENTER POOLAnnualB.2.1
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SENIOR CENTER POOLObservationsxBoth bodies of water appear in great condition. xTherapy pool recently replasteredxAir quality was appropriate with assistance of large ceiling fansxMechanical equipment is in good condition3/17/202221B.2.1
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
CITY PARK POOL•Outdoor pool•30-foot drop slide•Open curly slide•Lazy river, shallow water, geysers•Large play structure3/17/2022222019Revenue $251,503Expense $94,232Net $157,271Enrollments 88 Enrolled Participation981 Drop-in 41,958 Rentals 15,569 Total Participation58,508 CITY PARK POOLAnnualB.2.1
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
CITY PARK POOLObservationsxPlay structure recently recoated and repainted, still in good conditionxTile and plaster were replaced in 2021. Not visible during inspection due to snow but believed to be in good conditionxWaterslide tower PVC grating needs to be replaced. xWaterslide exposed piping may need to be replaced with SCH 80 PVC piping to prevent failure from corrosionxSurge tank and gutters were reported in need of new waterproofingxPotential groundwater issues since the pool is located next to a pond. No settlement reported but a structural audit may be necessaryxMechanical equipment is in good condition3/17/202223B.2.1
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
AQUATIC MASTER PLAN – CURRENT SYSTEM•110 sq. ft. of water per 1,000 residents. •This amount of water should be available for traditional lane usage as well as recreational water activities. •A balanced system should also include both indoor and outdoor water. •Even in colder climates, recreational swimmers prefer to be outdoors during the summer months. •Consideration needs to be given to the size due to the seasonal availability, but outdoor water still plays a critical role in a successful aquatic system.3/17/202224Outdoor WaterSF 10,500.00 10,500.00 62.48 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Need Exists- Square Feet 7,986 Indoor WaterSF 23,700.00 23,700.00 141.03 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Meets Standard - Square Feet(5,215) Training WaterSF 15,600.00 15,600.00 92.83 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Need Exists- Square Feet 2,886 Recreational WaterSF 18,600.00 18,600.00 110.68 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Meets Standard - Square Feet (115) 168,050 AQUATIC FACILITIES CURRENT Standards GAP (EXCESS)2021 Estimated Population Outdoor WaterSF 10,500.00 10,500.00 46.67 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 14,250 Indoor WaterSF 23,700.00 23,700.00 105.33 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 1,050 Training WaterSF 15,600.00 15,600.00 69.33 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 9,150 Recreational WaterSF 18,600.00 18,600.00 82.67 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 6,150 225,000 AQUATIC FACILITIES CURRENT Standards GAP (EXCESS)Build-Out Population B.2.1
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
AQUATIC MASTER PLAN – W/OUT MULBERRY•110 sq. ft. of water per 1,000 residents. •This amount of water should be available for traditional lane usage as well as recreational water activities. •A balanced system should also include both indoor and outdoor water. •Even in colder climates, recreational swimmers prefer to be outdoors during the summer months. •Consideration needs to be given to the size due to the seasonal availability, but outdoor water still plays a critical role in a successful aquatic system.3/17/202225Outdoor WaterSF 10,500.00 10,500.00 62.48 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Need Exists- Square Feet 7,986 Indoor WaterSF 17,700.00 17,700.00 105.33 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Need Exists- Square Feet 786 Training WaterSF 12,300.00 12,300.00 73.19 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Need Exists- Square Feet 6,186 Recreational WaterSF 15,900.00 15,900.00 94.61 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Need Exists- Square Feet 2,586 168,050 AQUATIC FACILITIES CURRENT Standards GAP (EXCESS)2021 Estimated Population Outdoor WaterSF 10,500.00 10,500.00 46.67 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 14,250 Indoor WaterSF 17,700.00 17,700.00 78.67 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 7,050 Training WaterSF 12,300.00 12,300.00 54.67 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 12,450 Recreational WaterSF 15,900.00 15,900.00 70.67 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 8,850 225,000 AQUATIC FACILITIES CURRENT Standards GAP (EXCESS)Build-Out Population B.2.1
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
3/17/202226https://cho.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=5d6b485da26c40a89040f3b7cb845ed4B.2.1
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
3/17/202227AQUATIC MASTER PLAN•Service Area Gap ExistsB.2.1
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS•Need for aquatic amenities in Southeast quadrant of City. •Outside existing service area•Need for additional training lanes•6 lanes based on current population•8 lanes based on 2025 projected population•Need for additional recreation water to support growth•Consider local partnerships to support additional facilities•Recommendations•Add new indoor/outdoor multi-purpose aquatic facility to SE area of town.•Renovate / Replace existing facilities as needed over the next 20 years3/17/202228B.2.1
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SE MULTI-PURPOSE POOL3/17/202229B.2.1
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SE MULTI-PURPOSE POOL3/17/202230Description Unit Amount Opinion of CostPublic Spaces/Offices 4,800 $1,461,000.00Lobby Sq. Ft. 1,000Offices Sq. Ft. 1,200Guard Room / First Aid Sq. Ft. 400Storage Sq. Ft. 600Locker Rooms Sq. Ft. 1,200Family Changing Room Sq. Ft. 400Natatorium 26,000 $13,966,960.00Recreation Pool Sq. Ft. 6,232$2,056,560.00 Participatory Play Feature Allowance 1$125,000.00 Current Channel Addl. Cost 1$35,000.00 Vortex Addl. Cost 1$35,000.00 Waterslide Quantity 1$210,000.0025Y x 25 M Sq. Ft. 6,171 Diving Boards Allowance 2Therapy pool Sq. Ft. 730Spa Sq. Ft. 354Natatorium Sq. Ft. 26,000$9,100,000.00Meeting Room/Classroom 1,720 $464,400.00Training Rooms Sq. Ft. 320Dryland Training Sq. Ft. 1,000Therapy Room Sq. Ft. 400 OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTB.2.1
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SE MULTI-PURPOSE POOL3/17/202231Outdoor Leisure 8,964 $3,553,120Leisure Sq. Ft. 6,832Zero-depth entry pool Sq. Ft. 2,132 Play Structure Allowance 1 Tot Slide Allowance 1 Slide w/Structure Allowance 1 Spray features Allowance 1 Mushroom Allowance 1Support 26,892 $525,535Outdoor Deck Sq. Ft. 17,928Fence Ln. Ft. 656Overhead Lighting Sq. Ft. 26,892Shade Structures Quantity 4Building Support 1,250 $262,500Pool Mechanical Sq. Ft. 1,100Building Mechanical Sq. Ft. 150Efficiency 6,754 $1,688,500Circulation and Walls (20%) Sq. Ft. 6,754
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
SE MULTI-PURPOSE POOL3/17/202232Total Building Construction Costs Sq. Ft. 76,380 $21,922,015Site Construction Costs (landscaping, drainage, walks) $1,909,500.Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment $458,280Subtotal$24,289,795 Contingency 10.0% $2,428,979Inflation (1 Year) 10.0% $2,428,979Indirect Costs 10.0% $2,671,877Total Estimated Project Costs: $31,819,631Rounded $31,900,000Source: Counsilman-HunsakerB.2.1
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
AQUATIC MASTER PLAN – NEW FACILITY•110 sq. ft. of water per 1,000 residents. •This amount of water should be available for traditional lane usage as well as recreational water activities. •A balanced system should also include both indoor and outdoor water. •Even in colder climates, recreational swimmers prefer to be outdoors during the summer months. •Consideration needs to be given to the size due to the seasonal availability, but outdoor water still plays a critical role in a successful aquatic system.3/17/202233Outdoor WaterSF 19,464.00 19,464.00 115.82 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Meets Standard - Square Feet(979) Indoor WaterSF 37,187.00 37,187.00 221.29 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Meets Standard - Square Feet(18,702) Training WaterSF 21,771.00 21,771.00 129.55 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Meets Standard - Square Feet(3,286) Recreational WaterSF 34,880.00 34,880.00 207.56 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 18,486 Meets Standard - Square Feet (16,395) 168,050 AQUATIC FACILITIES CURRENT Standards GAP (EXCESS)2021 Estimated Population Outdoor WaterSF 19,464.00 19,464.00 86.51 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 5,286 Indoor WaterSF 37,187.00 37,187.00 165.28 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Meets Standard - Square Feet(12,437) Training WaterSF 21,771.00 21,771.00 96.76 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Need Exists- Square Feet 2,979 Recreational WaterSF 34,880.00 34,880.00 155.02 SF / 1,000 1,000 110.0 SF / 1,000 24,750 Meets Standard - Square Feet (10,130) 225,000 AQUATIC FACILITIES CURRENT Standards GAP (EXCESS)Build-Out Population B.2.1
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Aquatic Facility Master PlanB.2.1
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Master Plan Update (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Aquatics Update03/22/2022Seve Ghose, Community Services DirectorLeAnn Williams, Recreation DirectorCounsilman/Hunsaker ConsultantsATTACHMENT 2B.2.2Packet Pg. 59Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Strategic AlignmentCulture and Recreation:• 2.4. Maintain and enhance the current culture, recreation and parks systems• 2.5. Plan, design and implement citywide park, recreation and trail improvements. Actions Identified in Plan:• Provide recreational amenities according to level of service standards• Ensure facilities and programs continue to respond to changing user needsOngoing Offer:• 34.2 Mulberry PoolStrategic PlanParks & Recreation Master PlanBudgetB.2.2Packet Pg. 60Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Question for Council3• Do not allocate additional funds to Mulberry pool but continue to operate the facility until current equipment failsOption 1AND• Redirect currently allocated funds to the development of the SE Recreation Center• Replace Mulberry pool with an equivalent pool onsiteOption 1Option 2Option 3What feedback do Councilmembers have on the 3 options for providing aquatics access?B.2.2Packet Pg. 61Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Overview of Existing Facilities4Mulberry Senior CenterCity ParkEdoraLap Lanes Family AquaticsTherapyCompetitiveInstructional Programs Indoor OutdoorOur existing facilities offer a mix of amenities and programming, but are concentrated in the northern half of the CityB.2.2Packet Pg. 62Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Mulberry Pool Background• Opened 1974-former Lincoln Middle School gymnasium• 6 lap lanes and an aging playground• Limited current hours of operation• Serves PSD, Vortex swim club, lap swim and swim lessons• Requires major work to bring it to standards for safe and appropriate use• Some work is ongoing for ADA access and annual maintenance• Major work was original estimated at $3.5M but final cost will likely be higher• BFO direction to conduct a viability study to inform future allocations of resources5B.2.2Packet Pg. 63Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
6Key Findings by Counsilman-Hunsaker ConsultantsNeed for aquatic amenities in the southeast quadrant of the cityNeed for 6-8 additional training (lap) lanesNeed for additional recreation waterLeverage the existing user group relationships to support additional facilities and amenitiesAdditional investment in Mulberry pool not suggestedB.2.2Packet Pg. 64Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
7Aquatic Master Plan – Current System CapacityWater available for traditional lane usage and recreational water activities • Standard training water need is one lane per 3,000 population• Other water needs are 110 sq ft per 1,000 population• Gap found in availability of outdoor water and training water/lap lanes• Recreational water availability is currently balanced, but projected population growth will require additional sq ft to continue to meet standardUnitCurrent StandardMeeting Standard?Outdoor WaterSq Ft/1,000 pop62.5 110Indoor WaterSq Ft/1,000 pop141.0 110Training WaterLanes26 45Recreational WaterSq Ft/1,000 pop110.7 110B.2.2Packet Pg. 65Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
8Southeast Multi-Purpose Pool• We are in the early stages of drawing concept plans• Adds aquatic amenities in the Southeast quadrant• Ballot measure calls for an outdoor family aquatic center with a lazy river• Due to gaps in current system capacity, the design should consider need for additional training lanes• 6 lanes based on current population• 8 lanes based on 2025 projected population• Would add significant cost to the project• Opportunity identified to redirect funding from Mulberry pool to support additional amenities at SE facilityEarly Concept- Final design will vary based on resourcesB.2.2Packet Pg. 66Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
Question for Council9• Do not allocate additional funds to Mulberry pool but continue to operate the facility until current equipment fails• Do not allocate additional funds to Mulberry poolAND• Redirect those funds to the development of the SE Recreation Center• Replace Mulberry pool with an equivalent pool onsite• Basic lap pool costs are $15 – 20MOption 1Option 2Option 3What feedback do Councilmembers have on the 3 options for providing aquatics access?Staff RecommendationB.2.2Packet Pg. 67Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
QUESTIONS?B.2.2Packet Pg. 68Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
THANK YOU!B.2.2Packet Pg. 69Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11363 : Aquatics Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
March 22, 2022
Kelly Smith, Senior City Planner
Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Sustainability Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of PDT
Brad Yatabe, Legal
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Oil and Gas Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss draft regulations for oil and gas development within City limits. Per State
statute, local regulations must match or exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC)
requirements to ensure the protection of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources.
The discussion will focus on proposed draft regulations; key policy questions related to the City’s existing reverse
setback standards for land development adjacent to existing wells; potential resources needed for
implementation; and potential options for operators to plug and abandon wells; and next steps in the process.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do Councilmembers have feedback about the current approach to draft regulations?
2. Are existing reverse setbacks adequate to protect public health?
3. Would Councilmembers like staff to return for another Work Session to discuss public engagement feedback,
draft regulations, and opportunities for code refinement?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
During a Council work session held on September 16, 2019, Councilmembers directed staff to begin deve loping
local regulations for oil and gas development. The next Council work session on this topic occurred on January
26, 2021 where Councilmembers provided feedback on preferred location requirements for new oil and gas
development. Several Councilmembers expressed support for restricting new oil and gas development to the
Industrial Zone District and imposing a 2,000 foot setback from existing residential and high occupancy buildings
(schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facility, childcare center, multi-family). Councilmembers’ feedback
aligns with general input received by the public and several boards and commissions.
Since the January 26, 2021 work session, staff has been drafting a comprehensive set of regulations for oil and
gas development for new and existing facilities. This work session will provide an overview of draft regulations;
discuss existing reverse setback regulations and whether they should be amended; provide a preview of resource
considerations for implementation; and oppor tunities to plug and abandon existing wells. Depending on
discussion outcomes, staff will continue refining code and engage the broader community after draft regulations
are completed. Staff is prepared to return in Q3 2022 during a work session to discuss public input, answer
questions and solicit feedback for further code refinement.
Senate Bill 19-181
On April 16, 2019, the State adopted Senate Bill 19-181 (“SB181” or “Bill”), which amended several sections of
Colorado statutes related to oil and gas development. The Bill prioritizes the protection of public health, safety and
environmental concerns in the regulation of oil and gas development, which was a shift in mission for the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC).
B.3
Packet Pg. 70
March 22, 2022 Page 2
SB181 also granted new land use authority to local governments to regulate the siting of new oil and gas well
locations, and to regulate land use and surface impacts, including the ability to inspect oil and gas facilities;
impose fines for leaks, spills, and emissions; and impose fees to cover costs of permitting, regulation, monitoring
and inspection. Importantly, SB181 established that local government land use regulations would not be
preempted by overlapping state regulations, and that state regulations would serve as baseline requirements,
thus allowing local governments to adopt more protective regulations than the state. However, this authority is
limited to surface impacts; the COGCC maintains authority over subsurface and other technical aspects of oil and
gas development.
FORT COLLINS DRAFT REGULATIONS
The City’s draft regulations are comprehensive in scope and regulate all phases of development, from operator
registration, financial assurances and site design to ongoing monitoring, operational standards, and fi nal
reclamation. To address the entire lifecycle of oil and gas development into the City’s existing regulatory structure,
standards are spread across the following four locations:
1. Land Use Code
2. Application Submittal Checklist
3. Municipal Code
4. Operational Standards Manual
More explanation about requirements in each location is provided below.
Land Use Code
The Land Use Code (LUC) contains standards that regulate the design, density, and approval procedures of
development projects. It also includes provisions related to enforcement and penalties for failure to comply with
the terms and conditions of approved development plans. Regulations in the LUC are interconnected to create a
comprehensive regulatory framework for all permitted land uses. This means a change to one provision often
cascades into changes in other provisions.
Prior to SB181, the City was preempted from regulating oil and gas development; therefore oil and gas has never
been included as an approved land use within the LUC. As suc h, the City’s draft oil and gas regulations include a
new section dedicated to oil and gas development, along with amendments to several existing code sections to
fully integrate oil and gas uses into the code. While several existing code sections will be amended, many will
remain untouched but still apply, such as lighting, transportation, electric, stormwater and tree protection
requirements.
The new section dedicated to oil and gas is proposed to include the following components:
• Procedural requirements that differ from other development projects (alternative location analysis and
approval of site location prior to a formal application submittal)
• Siting regulations (zoning, setbacks)
• Design standards (landscaping, visual mitigation, fencing, pipeline)
• Prohibitions on certain equipment
• Baseline monitoring requirements (air quality, noise, water)
• Reclamation requirements (restoration, testing, monitoring)
Application Submittal Checklist
The LUC authorizes the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services to develop an
application submittal checklist for all development projects based on the proposed project. As such, the
application submittal checklist is not a codified document, rather it is administered by staff and revised when
necessary. An application submittal checklist template specific to oil and gas will be prepared as a baseline but
B.3
Packet Pg. 71
March 22, 2022 Page 3
can be amended by the Director to include additional reports or documents as needed. The template will be
available for review and comment when draft regulations are released for public review/comment.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code regulates a broad range of operational standards that are not specific to the site design, land
use or approval of development projects. It includes but is not limited to nuisance standards, contractor licensing
requirements, ongoing stormwater management standards, building standards, and administrative and capital
expansion fees. Penalties and enforcement provisions are also included in the Municipal Code for failure to
comply with certain requirements (i.e., noise violations or contractor license revocation).
A new section for oil and gas is being proposed in the Municipal Code that includes provisions related to annual
operator registration requirements and the City’s ongoing authority to inspect oil and gas facilities and pipelines.
The section also formally codifies a separate document (Oil and Gas Operational Standards Manual) that
contains all ongoing operational requirements for new and existing facilit ies, which is described in greater detail
below.
Oil and Gas Operational Standards Manual
Operational standards are layered with Federal and State requirements, and the landscape of regulations at the
State level has been rapidly changing. For the City’s one existing operator, operational standards are covered by
an Operator’s Agreement (OA) that was adopted in 2013 and set to expire in 2023. While the OA has several
provisions that remain applicable, it is outdated and was adopted under a drastically dif ferent regulatory
landscape. The proposed Operational Standards Manual will include revised standards that differentiate
provisions that apply to new and existing development.
A list of operational standards that are under consideration per new local reg ulatory authority, along with a
comparison to applicable State regulations is included as an attachment. This list includes considerations of
nuisance-type impacts such as air quality; vibration, noise, odor, light, and dust, and other surface impacts such
as water quality; reclamation; and emergency preparedness. (Attachment 1)
SITING REGULATIONS
During the January 2021 Council work session, staff requested direction from Councilmembers on local siting
regulations for new oil and gas development from existing buildings. Below is an overview of state and proposed
local siting regulations for new oil and gas development as a follow -up to the last discussion. Also included is a
description of the City’s current reverse setback regulations for new land devel opment from existing oil and gas
wells. Staff is seeking direction on whether current reverse setback regulations should be amended and if so, to
what degree.
COGCC Setbacks
The COGCC regulates the siting of new oil and gas facilities through setbacks, or buffers, from existing land
development. Prior to SB181, COGCC setbacks were 500 feet from Residential Building Units and 1000 feet from
High Occupancy Buildings (i.e., schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities). At the time these setbacks were
adopted, the COGCC acknowledged the setbacks “do not address potential human health impacts associated
with air emissions...and there are numerous data gaps...that warrant further study.”
A requirement of SB181 was for COGCC to update setbacks to address potential human health impacts
associated with oil and gas development. New COGCC setbacks (adopted November 2021) start with a 2,000 -
foot setback for schools (no variance), and a “presumptive” 2,000-foot setback for Residential Building Units and
High Occupancy Buildings with specific exceptions that would allow working pads to be located up to 500 feet
away if protective measures could be employed that mitigate impacts. Additionally, a 2,000 -foot setback may
prohibit operators from accessing mineral rights in certain scenarios.
B.3
Packet Pg. 72
March 22, 2022 Page 4
A core justification for a 2,000-foot setback is based on a study published by the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) that modeled potential exposures and health risks of hypothetical worst -case
scenarios, using 2013-2016 emissions data from Colorado State University. The study found:
1. The risk of short-term health effects was highest during pre-production activities at distances of up to 2,000
feet.
2. The risk of negative long-term health effects was slightly elevated at 500 feet but not at 2,000 feet; however,
the study did not assess the cumulative long-term health effects in areas with multiple well pads.
3. Acute exposure and chronic exposure of certain chemicals were experienced at 500 feet from th e well pad.
Draft City Siting Regulations: Setbacks and Zoning
During Council’s last work session on this topic, Councilmembers generally favored strong siting regulations by
restricting oil and gas development to the Industrial Zone District and imposi ng a 2,000-foot setback from existing
residential and High Occupancy Buildings with no opportunities for variance. Draft regulations align with this
feedback however the 2,000-foot setback expands beyond residential and High Occupancy Buildings to include
all buildings designed as “Occupiable Space,” as defined in the City’s Building Code. This will ensure that people
are protected from potential health impacts while at home, work, school, or play.
Definition of Occupiable Space:
“A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for
amusement, education or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is
equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities.”
While the 2,000 foot setback and zoning regulations result in limited land available for new oil and gas
development within City limits, staff expanded setbacks to include other areas where people may congregate
outdoors, such as parks, trails, and natural areas. Below are the p roposed setbacks in the draft regulations, all of
which cannot be reduced through variances. More information on how other communities regulate the siting of
new oil and gas development can be found in the January 26, 2021 AIS (Attachment 4):
• 2,000 foot setback from all buildings designed as Occupiable Space
• 2,000 foot setback from current and planned City parks and natural areas, recreation trails, trailheads, and
outdoor gathering areas
City Reverse Setbacks
While the City’s draft oil and gas regulations contain setback requirements for new oil and gas wells near existing
buildings, the City’s LUC regulates setbacks for new buildings near existing wells through reverse setbacks.
In 2013, the City adopted reverse setbacks to help protect public health and safety for land development
encroaching near existing oil and gas wells. Existing reverse setback regulations require a minimum of 500’ for
residential and 1000’ for High Occupancy Buildings, or they must match state setbacks, whichever greater. Now
that the COGCC adopted stricter setbacks than the minimum, the City’s reverse setbacks are 2,000 feet from
residential and High Occupancy Buildings.
It is important to note the current reverse setback requirements do not apply to properties separated b y a major
collector street, arterial street, or highway. They also do not apply to land uses other than residential and High
Occupancy Buildings. No parks, playgrounds, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces can be located
within the buffer.
Staff conducted research on how other communities are regulating reverse setbacks considering the updated
COGCC regulations and CDPHE Health Assessment. In summary, several communities across the Front Range
have recently adopted new or updated reverse setb ack requirements. Some have created a tiered setback
approach that imposes a 2,000-foot setback for all new buildings from wells that have been approved but not yet
drilled, and a smaller 500-foot setback on new development from existing producing wells. The tiered approach
B.3
Packet Pg. 73
March 22, 2022 Page 5
accounts for CDPHE’s findings where pre-production activities pose the greatest risk to human health up to 2,000
feet away, and lower levels of chemical exposure at 500 feet when wells are in production. Other communities
either impose smaller or larger setbacks without a tiered approach.
Most communities expand reverse setbacks to include other land uses such as commercial or industrial, and all
provide shorter distances for plugged and abandoned wells. No communities explicitly match COGCC setbacks or
provide exemptions to properties separated by a major collector, arterial or highway like Fort Collins.
(Attachment 2)
Considerations for Reverse Setbacks
The City could expand reverse setback requirements in several ways. For example, reverse setbacks could
match City (not COGCC) setbacks for oil and gas development which would expand to include other land uses.
Likewise, existing reverse setbacks could be restructured into a tiered system or exemptions for properties
separated by a road could be lifted.
Depending on the scale of increased reverse setbacks and whether existing exemptions are lifted, there could be
impacts to future land use patterns in areas with producing wells. More specifically, one undeveloped 46 -acre
parcel just south of Douglas Road and east of Turnberry Road could be impacted. (Attachment 3) For existing
and platted development within expanded reverse setback boundaries, landowners would be restricted from
subdividing or adding more dwelling units to their properties.
RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
For new development proposals, new resources may be required to support a careful review of potential impacts
of proposed oil and gas development, including air emissions, water use, potential contami nation, noise, odor,
light, dust, and traffic. Provisions will be added that require the operator to pay development fees and that the
operator pay for the use of third-party experts to review technical information.
For ongoing operations of existing and new facilities, implementation resources will depend on the details of the
code updates and operational standards that are ultimately approved. As recommendations are developed, staff
is also exploring staffing, professional services, or other resources to support compliance, considering aspects
such as:
• Alignment with existing processes and programs to the extent possible, such as existing permitting and
environmental compliance programs.
• Exploration of shared resources with Larimer County for require ments that may align with new County
regulations, such as ongoing notification and reporting processes, inspections, leak detection monitoring and
application of odor threshold requirements.
Staff will not have a clear understanding of resources needed un til after the upcoming 2023-2024 BFO cycle
deadline, which may require an off-cycle appropriation request at the time of implementation.
OPTIONS FOR PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT OF WELLS
As of March 1, 2022, the COGCC finalized new regulations that will allo w a local government to file an application
to Plug and Abandon a well if:
• The local government has conferred in good faith with the Operator;
• The well has been low producing for three (3) consecutive years; and
• The well is no longer used or useful.
These are important considerations for wells within the Fort Collins field, as some of the wells have not been
operational or have been low producing for a long period of time, and in some cases up to 20 years. As soon as
practicable, staff will confer with the operator to explore application of this new rule.
B.3
Packet Pg. 74
March 22, 2022 Page 6
Plugging and abandonment of existing wells could reduce reverse setbacks to 150 feet, which would lessen
potential impact on future land development. For the operator, plugging and abandonment along with reclamation
can cost the operator approximately $100K per well (COGCC estimate), in addition to potential lost revenue from
production activities. While these options have not yet been explored for existing wells, the recent COGCC
rulemaking in part aims to ensure that operators have the financial capability to meet COGCC plugging,
abandoning and reclamation requirements for wells that are no longer used or useful, through individual operator -
specific financial assurance plans.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will engage boards, commissions and the broader community once draft regulations have been completed.
Staff is prepared to return to Council for a work session to discuss public engagement input, opportunities for
code refinement, draft reverse setback regulations, and resources needed for code implementation. Below is the
anticipated project schedule through project adoption:
• June: Draft Released for Review
• July/Aug: Public Engagement
• Sept: City Council Work Session (if desired)
• Oct/Nov: Refine Draft
• Nov/Dec: Code Adoption/Implementation
ATTACHMENTS
1. Operational Standards Overview (PDF)
2. Reverse Setbacks in Other Communities (PDF)
3. Maps of Reverse Setbacks (PDF)
4. January 26, 2021 Work Session (PDF)
5. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.3
Packet Pg. 75
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS OVERVIEW TABLE
Item State Requirements Proposed City Requirements
AIR QUALITY
Air Quality
Monitoring
(New
Development)
AQCC has requirements for ambient air
quality monitoring but does not state what is
being monitored and the frequency of
monitoring. Only requires monitoring during
drilling and completions and first 6 months
of production.
City standards can define the type of
monitoring (continuous or high frequency),
the pollutants monitored, requiring use of
triggered canister sampling, and extend
the monitoring requirement (e.g., first
three years of production). Would not
apply to existing operations; City air
quality monitoring resources could be
used to monitor for leaks at existing
facilities.
Electric Equipment
(New
Development)
CDPHE and COGCC encourage use of
electric equipment at well sites, but there is
no mandate.
Use of electric equipment can be required
to extent possible, as it could be easily
achieved for most development within City
limits and reduce noise and air pollution.
Leak Detection and
Repair
(New and Existing
Development)
Requires a leak detection and repair (LDAR)
program, reporting requirements, and
prompt repair of any discovered leaks.
In some cases, the AQCC allows
operators up to two years to repair a leak.
The City can require repairs completed
ASAP but no later than 72 hours after
discovery.
Odor Complaint
Response
(New and Existing
Development)
The CDPHE has odor thresholds, and odor
complaints are navigated by both the
CDPHE and COGCC.
City regulations can include stricter odor
testing standards as well as complaint
protocols for the Operator, including a
requirement for monitoring and testing
with FLIR camera if necessary.
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality
Protection
(New and Existing)
The COGCC has strong water quality
protection requirements that address down-
hole well bore integrity. Spill and public
water supply protection must be coordinated
with local governments and public water
suppliers.
For new and existing development, the
City can require the operator to outline
coordination needed to respond to a spill
and when public water supplies may be
threatened. For new development, the
City can also adopt water quality testing
and prohibitions on certain chemicals
(such as PFCs) that go beyond COGCC
requirements.
Groundwater
Testing
(New Development)
The COGCC requires baseline and follow-
up testing of four water wells within ½ mile
of new oil and gas wells
The City can require testing of all water
wells within ½ mile of new oil and gas
wells
Open Pits and
Storage
(New Development)
State prohibits storage of equipment,
chemicals, etc., not necessary for
production prohibited.
The City can prohibit open drilling and
completion pits and storage of fracking
chemicals within City limits.
Oil and Gas
Pipelines
(New Development)
Off-location pipelines must be mapped and
location given to local governments if
requested.
City can add location requirements (e.g.,
50 ft from residential or non-residential
buildings and within existing easements)
to extent possible.
Wastewater
injection wells
(New Development)
COGCC treats these like other oil and gas
wells
City can prohibit wastewater injection
wells for production and new injection
wells.
NUISANCE
Noise Mitigation
(New and Existing
Development)
COGCC gets more complaints about noise
than any other issue. Current regulations
permit increased noise during drilling and
completion; Continuous monitoring during
drilling and completion within 2,000 feet of
building unit
City can propose lower noise limits than
COGCC during drilling and completion.
SAFETY
Emergency
Preparedness and
COGCC requires an emergency response
plan but defers entirely to local government
This is the area where coordination from
the city and emergency responders is
ATTACHMENT 1 B.3.1
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Operational Standards Overview (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Item State Requirements Proposed City Requirements
Response
(New and Existing
Development)
agencies and emergency responders essential, and the City is currently working
with PFA and OEM to draft requirements.
RECLAMATION
Financial
Assurances
(New and Existing
Development)
COGCC adopted new financial assurance
requirements, including bond requirements
to ensure appropriate plugging and
abandonment, increased bonds for low
producing wells, and the ability for local
governments to request wells to be plugged
that are no longer used or useful.
Currently evaluating whether City should
require additional bonding for new wells
above state requirements.
B.3.1
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Operational Standards Overview (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Reverse Setbacks in Other Communities Table
*PA means Plugged and Abandoned Wells
COMMUNITY ORIGINAL SETBACK UPDATED SETBACK NOTES
Fort Collins •2000’ for all well types
•150’ PA*
TBD •Min. 500’ for residential and 1000’
High Occupancy Buildings, or
matches COGCC, whichever
greater
•Buffers cannot contain
playgrounds, parks, rec fields,
community gathering spaces
•Properties separated by a major
road are not subject to setbacks.
•Only applies to residential and
High Occupancy Buildings
Larimer County NA •1000’ Pre-production
•200’-500’ Producing
•50’-200’ PA
•Setbacks range from producing
wells based on number of wells
on well pad
•Setbacks can be reduced from
200’ to 50’ for PA
•Applies to residential, commercial
and mixed-use
•Does not apply to agricultural,
industrial or open space uses
Arapahoe County NA •250’ All OG phases and well
types
•150’ PA
•Applies to all occupied structures
Broomfield •200’ Residential
•500’ Schools
•50’-100’ PA
•2000’ Horizontal wells (any
phase)
•2000’ Pre-production (Vertical
wells)
•500’ Producing (Vertical
wells)
•150’-250’ PA
•Applies to residential and schools
•Differentiates horizontal and
vertical wells because of scale of
operations and duration to
drill/complete
Commerce City NA •1000’
•150’ PA
•Applies to residential only
Erie •350’ residential, parks •2000’ Pre-production
•500’ Producing
•50’-150’ PA
•Applies to all buildings approved
for human occupation
Longmont •750’ for occupied
buildings, sports fields,
playgrounds
•150’ PA
No change
Westminster •350’ from all buildings •2000’ for all well types and
buildings
•200’ PA
•Applies to all buildings approved
for human occupation
•95% built out so no impact to
future land use/development
ATTACHMENT 2 B.3.2
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Reverse Setbacks in Other Communities (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
He
a
rth
f
ir
e
WayHearthfire
No.8Outlet
S erramont e
D
rHearthf
ireDrE Douglas Rd
Turnberry RdE Doug las Rd
Brightwater
Crossing
N
o.8
O
ut
l
e
t
Longboat
WayW
a
x
wi
n
g
Ln
W
ater
si
de
W
ay T
h
o
rea
u
D
r
Water's Edge
2000
Well
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fort Collins, Esri,
HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc., METI/NASA,
USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
ATTACHMENT 3 B.3.3
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Maps of Reverse Setbacks (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Hearthfir
e
WayHe a r t h f i r e
No.8Outlet
S e r r a m o n t e D rHeart
hfireDrE D o u g la s R d
TurnberryRdE D o u g l a s R d
B r i g h t w a t e r
C r o s s i n g
N
o.8
O
utlet
Longboat
WayW
ax
wing
Ln
W
aterside Way T
h
orea
u
D
r
W a t e r 's E d g e
500
1 000
2000
Well
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fort Collins, Esri,
HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc., METI/NASA,
USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Maps of Reverse Setbacks (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
DATE:
STAFF:
January 26, 2021
Kelly Smith, Senior City Planner
Caryn Champine, Director of PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Oil and Gas Regulatory Siting Options.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss regulatory options for siting new oil and gas development within City limits.
Per State statute, local regulations must match or exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC) requirements to ensure the protection of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife
resources. The discussion will focus on various ways the City could adopt more protective standards through
different setback distances, zoning regulations, and a combination thereof, and demonstrate how each scenario
would influence where new development could occur within the community. To help frame the discussion, a
summary will be provided of recently adopted COGCC setback rules, and feedback received through broad
community engagement.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What feedback does Council have regarding setback and zoning regulations for new oil and gas development?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
During a Council work session held on September 16, 2019, staff was directed to begin developing local
regulations for oil and gas development. A work session was scheduled on April 28, 2020, to discuss regulatory
options for siting new oil and gas development within City limits. The work session was moved multiple times to
accommodate more time sensitive topics related to COVID-19 and other priorities.
The work session delay has impacted the project schedule; however, new oil and gas development within City
limits is unlikely and not imminent. To keep Council apprised of project progress, staff provided a workplan and
public engagement summary (Attachment 1). Staff also maximized the use of time provided by the delay to
actively participate in the COGCC rulemakings, an ambitious process that sought to align state requirements with
the goals of Senate Bill 19-181. Rulemakings concluded on November 23, 2020 and resulted in broad changes to
state permitting, reporting, operational and setback requirements. The regulations also defined roles and
authorities of local and state governments, as well as improved interagency coordination during the permit review
process.
The purpose of developing local regulations is to create requirements that are contextually appropriate to Fort
Collins. For this discussion, staff is seeking feedback on location requirements that are equal to or more restrictive
than the State for new oil and gas development. Accessing mineral resources within the City is already limited
and will become increasingly so as the City continues to grow.
SENATE BILL 19-181
On April 16, 2019, the State adopted Senate Bill 19-181 (“SB181” or “Bill”), which amended several sections of
the Colorado statutes. The Bill prioritizes the protection of public health, safety and environmental concerns in the
regulation of oil and gas development, over fostering development through balancing impacts with mineral
extraction.
ATTACHMENT 4
COPYB.3.4
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: January 26, 2021 Work Session (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
January 26, 2021 Page 2
SB181 also granted new land use authority to local governments to regulate the siting of new oil and gas well
locations, and to regulate land use and surface impacts, including the ability to inspect oil and gas facilities;
impose fines for leaks, spills and emissions; and impose fees to cover costs of permitting, regulation, monitoring
and inspection. Importantly, SB181 established that local government land use regulations would not be
preempted by overlapping state regulations, and that state regulations would serve as baseline requirements,
thus allowing local governments to adopt more protective regulations than the state. However, this authority is
limited to surface impacts; the COGCC retains the authority over subsurface and other technical aspects.
COGCC SETBACK REGULATIONS
Historically, the COGCC has regulated the siting of new oil and gas facilities through the use of setbacks, or
buffers, from existing developments. Setbacks have incrementally grown over the years, with the last increase
occurring in August of 2013. Prior to SB181, COGCC setbacks were 500 feet from Residential Building Units, and
1000 feet from High Occupancy Building (i.e., schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities). The justification used
for the setbacks was to “provide strong protective measures without imposing undue costs or restrictions on oil
and gas exploration and production.” At the time, the COGCC acknowledged the setbacks “do not address
potential human health impacts associated with air emissions...and believes there are numerous data gaps...that
warrant further study.” (Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose New Rules and
Amendments to Current Rules, COGCC 2 CCR 404-1. Cause No. 1R Docket No. 1211-RM-04 Setbacks).
In November 2020, COGCC adopted more stringent setbacks in an attempt to better address potential human
health impacts associated with oil and gas development, a requirement of SB181. A core justification (and not the
only justification) was a study published by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
that implicates potential acute health impacts (e.g., headaches; dizziness; respiratory, skin, and eye irritation)
could result from pre-production activities as far away as 2,000 feet under worst-case weather conditions and
peak emissions. The anticipated health impacts listed in the CDPHE study also mirror recent complaints received
by the COGCC from people living in proximity to oil and gas locations.
New COGCC setbacks were developed with these findings in mind and start with a presumptive 2,000-foot
setback for Residential Building Units and High Occupancy Buildings, with specific exceptions that would allow
working pads to be located less than 500 feet from Residential Building Units, and between 500 feet and 2,000
feet from Residential Building Units and High Occupancy Buildings. The COGCC justified a variance because
other protective measures could be employed that could potentially mitigate impacts equal to or greater than
distance alone. Additionally, a 2,000 foot setback may prohibit operators from accessing minerals in certain
scenarios. Please note the COGCC does not allow exceptions for the 2,000 foot setback from schools and
childcare centers.
Other relevant setbacks in COGCC rules include:
• 200 feet from buildings, public roads, above ground utility lines and railroads;
• 150 feet from a surface property line;
• 1000 feet from Public Water System (surface water supply areas, groundwater wells, aquifer wells); and
• Environmental setbacks for specific resources.
ANALYSIS OF SITING REGULATIONS WITHIN CITY LIMITS
Setbacks
The COGCC’s regulations set the floor for oil and gas development. Therefore, local regulations must be equal to
or greater than the state. To better understand the implications of siting requirements, staff evaluated alternative
regulatory scenarios through a mapping exercise to identify areas within the Growth Management Area that would
be open to new oil and gas development. These maps are intended to offer high-level visual overviews of
projected outcomes and do not depict the full complexity of regulations. For example, many existing buildings are
not differentiated by land use, therefore setbacks are applied somewhat uniformly. Setbacks from existing
buildings were completed in 500-foot increments and ranged between 500 feet to 2000 feet. Staff used 2000 feet COPYB.3.4
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: January 26, 2021 Work Session (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
January 26, 2021 Page 3
as the maximum setback distance because it results in no land available for development. All scenarios
accounted for buffer requirements for roads, railroads, FEMA and City regulated 100-year floodplains.
Opportunities for increasing state standards through local setback regulations include:
• Increasing setbacks from 2,000 feet;
• Adopting setbacks without variances;
• Applying setbacks to workplaces, commercial buildings and other land uses; and
• Applying setbacks to visitor use amenities at parks and natural areas, such as athletic fields, playgrounds,
recreation trails and parking lots.
Zoning
Zoning is a land use tool that the City employs to ensure compatibility between development sites. In the context
of oil and gas, zoning could be used as a starting point to determine appropriate locations for new development. A
range of setback distances with zoning requirements were applied to demonstrate the incremental effects of
zoning with more protective setbacks. By nature, Oil and gas development is an industrial use and has the
potential to impact public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife resources. Therefore, staff restricted
oil and gas to the Industrial Zone District in the mapping exercise as it is the only zone district to allow heavy
industrial uses and prohibit residential uses. Because zoning adds another layer to COGCC setbacks, it is more
restrictive than State standards.
KEY FINDINGS OF SCENARIOS
Mapping scenarios revealed that development opportunity is limited and predominantly concentrated in outlying
locations of the City. The exercise also suggested that if the City adopts more protective siting regulations than
the State, it may preclude new oil and gas development from occurring in the future. Areas where oil and gas
could occur in City limits include:
• Foothills Natural Areas (no immediate access)
• Fossil Creek Reservoir area (no immediate access)
• Montava development area and surrounding area (accessible in northwest corner and pockets surrounding
FTC Oil Field)
• Planned future PSD high school near Montava (no immediate access)
• I-25 corridor (no immediate access)
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF REGULATORY SCENARIOS FOR SITING IN CITY LIMITS
SETBACK ZONING LAND
AVAILABLE
NOTES
1000’ All Buildings No 7.2% One pocket of land around FTC Oil Field with
access to mineral resources. Remainder of land
with no access to mineral resources*
1500’ All Buildings No 3.3% No land with access to mineral resources*
2000’ All Buildings No 1.3% No land with access to mineral resources*
1000’ All Buildings Yes .2% No land with access to mineral resources*
1500’ All Buildings Yes 0% No land with access to mineral resources*
2000’ All Buildings Yes 0% No land with access to mineral resources*
*Assessments are based on current horizontal drilling technology and the location of known mineral resources.
Horizontal drilling can access mineral resources up to nearly 3,000 feet away.
COPYB.3.4
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: January 26, 2021 Work Session (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
January 26, 2021 Page 4
TABLE 2: CROSS-COMPARISON OF REGULATIONS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES
While one of the primary objectives of local regulations is to develop requirements that are contextually
appropriate to Fort Collins, it is helpful to highlight how other local jurisdictions have approached regulating the
siting of new oil and gas development within their communities. Below is a cross-comparison of siting regulations
communities across the Front Range are considering or have adopted.
COMMUNITY SETBACK ZONING NOTES
Larimer County
Adopted Feb 2020
1000’ No Setbacks from Residential Building Units (RBU)
and High Occupancy Buildings (HOBs)
Broomfield Draft 2000’ Yes • Zoned to Industrial Zone District
• Setbacks from lot line of athletic fields,
recreational facilities, HOBs, RBUs,
undeveloped residential lots
• DRAFT regs to be released soon
Boulder County
Adopted Dec 2020
2500’ No • Setbacks from RBUs and HOBs
• Included setbacks from recreation trails and
parking lots at Open Spaces
• Included setbacks from workplace buildings in
specific zone districts
• Setbacks are 2500’ but not less than 2,000’
Adams County
Adopted Oct 2020
1000’ Yes • Restricted to non-residential zone districts
Setback measured from property line of
existing or platted development and boundary
of environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands,
wildlife corridors, etc.)
• Updating standards to potentially exceed State
Lafayette Draft in
progress
No Extended Moratorium on new OG development or
exploration to May 31, 2021 until conclusion of
COGCC rulemakings and adoption of Boulder
County regulations
Longmont 750’; 1000’
HOB
Yes • Setbacks from RBU, platted residential lots,
parks, sports fields, playgrounds or
designated outside activity areas
• Development must occur outside residential
zone districts, including mixed-use districts
with a residential component
• Considering new regulations
Windsor COGCC No No new regulations
Greeley COGCC No No new regulations
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
To help understand siting preferences and big-picture concerns about oil and gas development in Fort Collins,
staff engaged in numerous meetings and conversations with various City Departments, City Boards, industry
representatives, and environmental and neighborhood groups. Input was gathered through the following outreach
activities:
• Direct mailing to property owners within 2000 feet of existing active oil and gas wells, with information on the
project, public open houses, city website, and CDPHE’s health study (500 letters mailed)
• Interactive presentation at a Super Board Meeting held in February 2020 (over 50 attended with 14 boards
represented)
• Online questionnaire to collect feedback on concerns and thoughts, as advertised through direct mailing,
social media, news release, and Nextdoor website (163 completed responses)
• Two interactive public open houses with Larimer County, CDPHE and operator available to answer questions COPYB.3.4
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: January 26, 2021 Work Session (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
January 26, 2021 Page 5
• Presentations to the Planning & Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board, and Air Quality Advisory Board work sessions
• Presentations to City departments
• Individual phone calls and emails to discuss questions and concerns, as needed
In addition to broad community outreach, staff also consulted with the following targeted groups:
• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
• Colorado Oil and Gas Association
• Prospect Energy (local oil and gas operator)
• Country Club Reserve land owner
• Local Government Roundtable: a group of 14 local jurisdictions. Attended biweekly meetings to discuss
COGCC rulemakings and local regulations under consideration
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment staff
• Larimer County staff
A general summary of public input and potential regulations are presented in Table 3. (Attachments 3-6)
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
Public Input Siting Regulations that Align w/ Public Input
Majority support not allowing oil and
gas development within City limits
• Zoning that restricts development to Industrial Zone District
• 2,000 foot setbacks with no exceptions
• Setbacks from other building types (office, commercial,
industrial, etc)
Majority support restricting oil and gas
within City conserved Natural Areas
and Parks
• Zoning that restricts development to Industrial Zone District
Other Considerations • Setbacks from amenities in Natural Areas and Parks (trails,
parking lots, recreation fields and recreational trails)
• Setbacks from buildings of other land uses, including
commercial, institutional, industrial.
Oil and Gas Industry Input
Adopt regulations that do not result in
prohibiting new development
• COGCC setback standards with opportunities for reduced
setback through variance
NEXT STEPS
Staff will begin drafting local regulations based on feedback received by Council and through community
engagement with the goal of protecting public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife. An additional
work session is recommended in Fall or Winter of 2021 to focus on developing regulations. This will require multi-
agency coordination between Larimer County, CDPHE and the COGCC, as well as analysis of State rulemakings
and additional community outreach. Potential elements to be explored include, but are not limited to:
• Registration and permitting requirements;
• Impact and maintenance fines and fees;
• Requirements for existing facilities;
• Reclamation requirements;
• Financial securities and insurance;
• Development review and approval process;
• Environmental protection standards above state requirements;
• Emergency Preparedness Plan requirements; and
• Additional monitoring, testing and reporting requirements for air, water, odor.
COPYB.3.4
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: January 26, 2021 Work Session (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
January 26, 2021 Page 6
Given the current uncertainty around public health guidelines and regulations related to COVID-19, staff will
evaluate how to adapt to ensure meaningful community engagement. This may potentially affect the project
schedule. Delays will be communicated to Council via memorandum.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Workplan and Public Engagement Summary (PDF)
2. Maps of Regulatory Scenarios (PDF)
3. Public Input (PDF)
4. Our City Questionnaire Results (PDF)
5. Public Comments (PDF)
6. Superboard Meeting Questionnaire Results (PDF)
7. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) COPYB.3.4
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: January 26, 2021 Work Session (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Oil and Gas Regulations
03-22-2022
Kelly Smith
Senior Environmental Planner
ATTACHMENT 5 B.3.5
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
2019 2020 2021 2022
2Background Information
CC Memos
2/2022
WS –AQ Program
1/2021
WS –Zoning and
Setbacks
10/2019
WS –Initial
direction
4/2019
Senate Bill 19-
181 Adopted
11 /2020
COGCC Mission
Change Rules Adopted
3/2022
COGCC -Financial
assurances rulemaking
3/2022
WS –Reverse Setbacks
and Draft Regs
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
3Strategic Alignment
COUNCIL
PRIORITY
Oil and Gas
•Mitigate Surface
Impacts and
Encroachment in GMA
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Neighborhood Livability
•1.7 Guide
Development
BUDGET
•Planning and
Environmental
Services Ongoing
Offers
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
4Questions for Council
1.Do Councilmembers have feedback about the current approach to draft
regulations?
2.Are existing reverse setback adequate to protect public health?
3.Wo uld Councilmembers like staff to return for another Wo rk Session to
discuss public engagement feedback,draft regulations and opportunities for
code refinement?
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
•Decision Maker
•Review Process
•Submittal Requirements
Approval
Procedures
•Lighting
•Landscaping
•Fencing
Design
Standards
•Setbacks
•Zoning
Siting
Requirements
•Reclamation
•Restoration
Plugging and
Abandoning
•Non-Compliance with PlansPenalties &
Fines
Scope of Draft City Code Changes
Development Standards 5
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
•Air quality monitoring
•Leak Detection and RepairAir Quality
•Water sources
•Groundwater testing
•Spill Detection and Response
Wa ter Quality
•E.g., noise, odor, dust
•Complaint responseNuisance
•Emergency Preparedness and
ResponseSafety
•Financial AssurancesReclamation
Scope of Draft City Code Changes
Operational Standards 6
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
New COGCC Setbacks 7
BUILDING SETBACK JUSTIFICATION
SCHOOLS/
CHILDCARE CENTERS
2000’•CDPHE’s Health Impact Assessment
•Preproduction = highest risk up to 2,000’
•Production = lower risk at 500’
•Children are more vulnerable
•Noise and other nuisances (truck traffic) would
impact learning and safety
HOBs& RBUs Presumptive 2000'
Va riance down to 500’
•CDPHE study, other studies, complaints
“A L ocal Government's regulations may be more protective or stricter than
state requirements.”
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Public Engagement & City Council Support 8
ZONING SETBACK
Public/Boards and Council Support
•No new Oil and Gas in City
•No new Oil and Gas in NAs
•Industrial Zone
District
•2,000’+
no exceptions
Industry Support
•No ban of new development •Zoning not applied •Align with COGCC
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
•Industrial Zone District
•2000’Buildings Approved
for Human Occupation
•2000’City Parks, Trails,
Outdoor Gathering Areas,
Natural Areas
•0% Land Av ailable
Draft City Code Changes
Setbacks and Zoning 9
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Current City Reverse Setbacks
•Minimum
•500’Residential
•1000’HOB
•OR Matches State
Setbacks, whichever
greater
•150’buffer for PA
•Does not apply to properties
separated by roads
10
2013
2018
2013
2018
20182000'
1000'
500'
150'
350'
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Current City Reverse Setbacks 11
2013
2018
2013
2018
2018 Setback 2000’
•Residential
•HOB
Does not apply to
properties separated by
roads
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Impacts from Expanded City Reverse Setbacks 12
2013
2018
2013
2018
2018 Setbacks
•500’
•1000’
•2000’
Could apply to properties
separated by roads
Could apply to different
land uses (commercial,
light industrial)
Could be tiered based on
production phase
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
Resource Considerations 13
•Te chnical Expertise
State Resources
•Enforcement and Inspections
•Te chnical Equipment (odor)
County Resources
•Development Review Team
•Building Permitting
•Environmental Compliance
•Air Quality Monitoring Support
Existing City Resources
•Te chnical Reviews
•Inspector Positions
•Annual Registration
New City Resources
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
14Next Steps
•Continue development of draft code
•Engage public and City Council
•Explore resource needs for implementation
•Discuss PA o pportunities with operator and state
•Continue local and regional air quality monitoring discussions
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
15Estimated Project Timeline
DECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDECCODE DEVELOPMENT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT CODE
COMPLETED
COUNCIL WORK
SESSION
CODE ADOPTION
IMPLEMENTAT ION
?
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
16Questions for Council
1.Do Councilmembers have feedback about the current approach to draft
regulations?
2.Are existing reverse setback adequate to protect public health?
3.Wo uld Councilmembers like staff to return for another Work Session to
discuss public engagement feedback, draft regulations and opportunities for
code refinement?
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)
For More Information, Visit
THANK YOU!
fcgov.com/oilandgas
B.3.5
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11362 : Oil and Gas Regulations)