HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Legislative Review Committee - 01/20/2000 -Legislative Review Committee
Minutes
January 20,2000
7:30 a.m.—8:30 a.m
CIC Room
The mission of the legislative Review Committee is to analyze proposed legislation
and express City policies and positions on issues which affect the quality of life and
governance of our community.
In attendance:
Council:Mayor Ray Martinez (Chair)and Karen Weitkunat
Staff:Ginny Brown (recorder),Rita Davis,Marty Heffernan,Diane Jones,Alan
Krcmarik,Vincent Pascale,Ron Phillips,Liz Stroh,Dennis Sumner,Tom Vosburg
Colorado Municipal League (CML)Workshop
Ginny Brown reminded everyone that CML is having its annual all-day legislative
workshop on Thursday,January 27,2000 at the Adams Mark Hotel in downtown
Denver.
II.Scope of Current Session
Ginny Brown provided a brief overview of the session.It is rumored that during
this current legislative session 800 bills will be introduced and this will include
120 late bills.To date,a little over 400 have been introduced.The bulk of those
bills are in the following areas:
Police Services 40
Growth —27
Finance 25
There are a handful of high priority bills relating to growth management.Other
than those few the other bills analyzed by various service departments were of a
low to medium priority.
Councilmember Karen Weitkunat asked for a general overview of how legislation
works through the City staff process before it gets to Council.The following
process was explained.
1.Bills are delegated to the affected department.
2.Bills are analyzed and sent back to the Legislative Coordinator using a
Legislative Comment Form.
3.The City Managers Office reviews all recommended positions by staff before
Council members are asked to take a position.it makes it to LRC council
members.
4.Bills that have an impact on the City are monitored by staff for action
5.Bills are reanalyzed based upon actions taken by legislators and submitted to
the City Managers office.
6.Updated analysis as each bill goes through the different phases of the State
legislative process.
7.Recommendations for LRC Council action are provided as a bill moves
through the process.These recommendations a funneled through the City
Managers Office first and they include:
a.Take a position on legislation
b.Write a letter to legislators regarding the issue needing to be addressed.
c.Call legislators regarding the issue needing to be addressed.
d.Testify in a committee regarding the issue needing to be addressed.
IIJ.Legislative Updates
A.Growth Management
1.SB 96 —Vested Property Rights:
Provides that under certain circumstances development rights will
automatically vest without notice or hearing,regardless of any
vested rights ordinance in existence.
2.SB 118—Bryan Sullivant’s Growth Bill;
Establsihes a comprehensive state plan for local governments to
manage growth.
B.Public Safety
1.HB 1130—Prohibition of Open Alcoholic Containers in Motor
Vehicles:
Prohibits any person from knowingly drinicing any alcoholic
beverage or posess and open alcoholic beverage container in the
passenger area of a motor vehicle while that vehicle is on a
highway or right away of a public highway.
2.SB 18—Ignition Interlock Program
Includes driving while ability is impaired as an alcohol-related
offense which,if committed within 5years after another alcohol-
related offense requires the defendant to hold a restricted license
requiring an ignition interlock device for 1 year.
C.Finance
SB 6 —Maximum Period for Government to Retain Revenues
Prohibits any ballot issue from being submitted at the 2000 general
election or at any subsequent election that seeks approval for a
local government to retain all or any portion of its revenues in
excess of any limitation imposed by the state constitution
(TABOR)for a period of more than 4 budget years.
IV.Legislative Database
Tom Vosburg provided a mini tutorial of the new legislative ACCESS database.
The purpose of the database is to provide a central point for legislative
information.Other departments may access the database and add information the
is pertinent to the analysis of bills that the City is tracking.
City of Fort Collins List of Followed Bills (2000 Session)
_____________________________________________________High Priority Bills ____________________________
Public HIGH HB 1289 Firearms Regulations Rep.Helley et.al.None 1124—Introduced &Recognizes that firearms regulation is a matter of slatew~e Oppose Negative Impacts:Oppose
Health &Assigned to HSVMA.concern.Prohibits any municipality,county,or city and county 1.Challenges home
Safety 1125—Amended:strike from adopting any ordinance or resolution that would impose a nile authority.‘use”on p.17.24 &26.greater restriction on a person’s ability to own,possess,cariy,2.Lacks statewide
1/28—Amended:Chief use,repair,manufacture,display,or transfer a firearm than is implementation
or Sheriff cant require imposed by stale law.responsibility.
mb.About weapons by
permit applicant
1131 —H3rd passed
Now goes to SJudiciary
date TBA
HIGH H8 1390 Regulation of Smoldng Rep.Zinmierman Rep.Johnson 1127—Intro.in House Prohibits municipalities and counties from regulating smoking Oppose Neoatlve Impacts:Oppose
assigned to HEWI Preempts municipal
217—HEWI P[s authority
(See attached testimony)
Trans HIGH HG 1003 Moneys from General fund to HUTF Rep.May &Sen.None 115—Introduced in Transportation Legislation Review Committee.Requires the Ml Increase funding Support
Powers House and Ass.To general assembly to appropriate specified amounts from the received by:
HTransp.generalfundtothehighwayuserslaxfund.1.$86,000W year,
1121 —HTransp.Rebers 2.$86,000 x 2
to H Approp.3.$86,000 x 3
4.Etc.tol4yrs.
5.$1,204,000 total
HIGH HB 1379 Colorado Department of Transportation Rep.Gagliardi None 1127—Intro.in House Requires the Colorado department of transportation to MI Positive Impacts:Support
and &assigned to appropriate $10,000,000 of the federal surface transportation 1.Regional Impact
Transp.&Energy funds to small and rural transportation planning regions that have 2.Appropriates $10
populations of 200.000 people or less.Million/yr.
3.Don’t know how
much would come
to Fort Collins?
Utilities HIGH SB 184 US West locates bill Sen.Evans Matsunaka 1127—Introduced to Establishes liability based upon damages to underground MI Negative Imoacts:Oppose
(SB 83)Business Affairs and facilities.Provides for the awarding of attomey fees and costs in 1.Municipal liability
Labor certain circumstances.2.Locate change
from 18”-30’
3
3
02/10/00
City of Fort Collins List of Followed Bills (2000 Session)
High Priority Bills
Service Priority Bill It Title Sponsors Local Status Bill Summary CML Summary Recommended
Area Legislators Position Staff Analysis Position
Land Use HIGH SB 8 Electronic Master Plans Sen.Reeves &Rep.Reeves 1126—SLocal Requires DOLA to provide public access through the internet or a Not Est.Positive Impacts:Support wlarnendments
Zimmerman Government amends bill successor on-line computer system to master plans for the 1.central repository
and sends to physical development of any county,region,or municipality.2.tunding is provided 211-Staff recommends
SAppropriations.Negative Impacts:that this change to a
1126—amended to uniform terminology Med.Priority.
include a glossary of
terms
HIGH SB 96 Vested Property Rights Sen.Anderson &None 1126—S2nd reading For municipalities that have not yet adopted ordinances or Oppose Positive Impact:Oppose
Rep.Mcpherson resolutions specifying what constitutes a “site specific Fort Collins is already in
development plan”as required under 1999 legislation,causes compliance with this Staff recommends this be
statutory property rights to vest automatically under default legislation,moved to medium status
provisions and prohibits such municipalities from adopting such Negative Impact:since legal analysis
ordinances or resolutions,effective January 1.2001.It negatively affects other revealed that this
communities and should legislation won’t affect us
be opposed for that
reason.
HIGH SB 118 Sen.Sullivant and Reeves 1110—Intro.in SenateS Creates a comprehensive planning program requiring counties Not Est.See 211/00 Testimony Support wI amendments
Rep.Stengel ass.To S Local Govt.&and municipalities to develop a comprehensive plan.
Agriculture,Natural
Resources &Energy
211 -Postponed
Indefinently
(5—2 vote)
HIGH HB 1014 Open Space Income Tax Credit Rep.Witwer.None 115—Introduced and sent Creates a state income tax credit for any taxpayer who preserves Not Est Positive Impacts:Oppose
Stengel &Congrove to HFinance one or more parcels,as defined by the act,of real property as 1.Tax Credit to
open space.owners of vacant
land.
2.Allowsacreditfor
each yearof
maintenance.
Nenative Impacts:
1.No requirements for)how long land must be
protected to qualify for
credit.
HIGH HB 1101 lntergovemrnental Revenue Sharing Rep.George None 115—Introduced and sent Creates a local government growth assistance process that Support Positive Impacts:Support
to HFinance.authorizes governmental entities,to enter into intergovernmental Revenue source for
agreements for up to 5 years to allocate state grants and loans regional growth related
and share local revenues for certain growth-related purposes.infrastructure and
projects.
3
02/10/00
City of Fort Collins List of Followed Bills (2000 Session)
High Priority Bills
1/12—Intro.inHouse
assigned to
H Local Government
1131—H Local
Government amends bill
218—House 2~Reading
Laid Over
Original purpose —to promote communication,coordination and
cooperation among govememtnal entities.This is enabling
legislation that authorizes the following:
1.County to require land owner to first seek annexation by
municipality.
2.Counties via inteigovemmental agreement to impose
municipal development standards in unincorporated areas.
3.Local govts.to enter into long-term GAs.
4.Local govt.to give master plans legal authority
5.County must submit land use approval to a muny that req.a
hearing when an application is in a 3 mile radius opposed
to 2.
6.Muny can’t exclude service to a proposed annexed area.
7.Muny must be able to serve and area before it is annexed.
8.Consider an annexation petition
9.Extend munys boundaries by more than 3 mi.
10.Muny’s challenge neaiby annexations
11.Dual oversight regarding special districts
Current Changes Include:
1.Munys must acknowledge utility service areas in master
plans
2.120 day time limit begins when app.Is filed with Cty.
3.Removal of muny jurisdiction beyond 3 miles.
4.5 year limit for unavailable service after annexation.
5.Water rights —nothing negates state law.
6.County can’t deny special district service plan.
7.Special Districts (in bounds)—munys have veto powers.
8.Special Districts (in 3 mi )review and comment powers.
Neqative Impacts:
Nine amendments by the
Rural Electric Association
were added to this bill in
H Local Govemment,
(See analysis from Tom
Vosburg)
HIGH HG 1223 Land Use Planning Relationships
Service Priority Bill #Title Sponsors Local Status Bill Summary CML Summary Recommended
Area Legislators Position Staff Analysis Position
HIGH HG 1172 Legislative Process for Review of State Rep.Gordon &None 1110—Intro,in House Makes changes in the current legislative council review process Not Est.Pending Analysis of Not Est.
Implementation Plans Sen.Glickensderter 1/24—Amended br air quality state implementation plans.Specifies that by Amendments
1/31 —H2nd laid over January 15 of each year the air quality control commission shall
2/1 —H2nd passed with submit to the chairperson of the legislative council a report
amendments describing in detail state implementation plans (SIP)and
212—H3rd laid over revisions thereto adopted during the prior year.
2/3-H3rd passed
214—Intro.in Senate
.ass,To HEWI +SVMA
Rep.Smith &
Sen.Anderson
Rep Kautman&
Sen.Matsunaka0
0
Support Amend
2
3
02/10/00
Con(~nity Planning and Environme~.Services
Office of the Director
DRAFT
February 9,2000
To:Legislative Review Committee
Through:John Fischbach,City Manager
Greg Byrne,CPES Director
From:Tom Vosburg,CPES Policy and Budget Manager
Re:Staff Analysis of HB 1223
This memo provides an overview and analysis of RB 1223.The elements of the original
bill are outlined first,and then effects of recent amendments are described.
HB 1223 is sometimes referred to as the “CML/CCI 10 Point Plan”since it is organized
around 10 topic areas.CML and CCI have developed information materials regarding
the bill that utilize this 10 point framework.This analysis will briefly summarize the bill
as it addresses each of these 10 points.
A.Summary of Key Elements of HR 1223 as it was introduced.
1.Preservation Of Agricultural Industry As A Part Of Colorado’s Heritage.
RB 1223 make no specific provisions regarding this point.
Staff Comments
CML and CCI indicated that they hoped to be able to include incentives or
mechanisms to encourage protections of farm lands in the bill,but RB 1223 as
introduced contains no such provisions.
2.Reward Local Governments That Cooperate On A Regional Basis To Plan
For And Accommodate Growth
As introduced the bill,RB 1223 would have set up the Colorado Heritage
Conimwiities program in the Dept.of Local Affairs and authorized the program to
make grants.However,the bill provides no new funding for such grants.
Staff Comments
Providing grants as incentives and rewards for good planning is good.However,
this is not new.The existing Smart Growth program provides grants to
281 N.College Avenue •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
(970)221-6601 •FAX (970)416-2020
City of Fort Collins
communities for cooperative regional planning.(Note:the REA amendments
removed the proposed new program from the bill.)
3.Annex First Before Approving Urban Development
HB 1223 expressly authorizes counties to require that any property that is eligible
to be annexed first seek annexation by the City prior to the County approving
urban development.The bill does not require counties to do this,it only
expressly enables them to if they choose to.
Staff Comments
This is an important growth management technique,and is one of the key pieces
in the existing Fort Collins!Larimer County IGA.However,this is not a new
authority established by the bill.Counties already are able to do this without the
express authorization provided by the bill.
4.Strengthen Intergovernmental Agreement Authority For Cities and
Counties
HB 1223 enables counties to adopt city development standards by reference
through a voluntary Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA).
Staff Comments
This is a new authority that would be helpful.Larimer County now agrees to
apply our development standards to land governed by our IGA,but to do so they
had to take our regulations and separately adopted them as their own,rather than
simply adopt them by reference.This provision will make it somewhat easier for
counties that desire to enter into these kinds of agreements to apply City
development standards.
5.Enforcing Locally Adopted Master Plans
HB 1223 authorizes cities and counties to give their comprehensive plans the
effect of law,if they choose to.
Staff Comments
This is a new authority that would be provided by the bill.Some communities
may desire this authority.However,giving plans regulatory authority is probably
not a good practice,even if we had the authority to do so.
Plan documents generally are not drafted with the precision that regulatory codes
are,so it is difficult to interpret and apply plans directly in development review.
The LDGS required developments be consistent with the City’s adopted
comprehensive plan,but this was difficult and controversial to administer.A
better practice is to adopt clear regulations that directly implement the plan,as we
have attempted to do with the Land Use Code.
6.Strengthen Intergovernmental Referral of Land Use Proposals
Existing law requires counties to give cities the opportunity to comment on
County development proposals that are within 2 miles of the city limits.HB 1223
extends this distance to 3 miles,and requires re-zoning actions within the same
are also be offered to cites for comment.
Staff Comments
This is a minor positive change.However,the review is still only an advisory
review;the County is not bound to act on or respond to City comments in any
way.
7.Improving Municipal Annexations through Additional Planning
HB 1223 would require that Cities demonstrate that they can provide urban
services to annexed properties with in three years,unless the land owner consents
to a longer period of time.The bill would also require that all annexations be
consistent with the 3-mile plan (see #8 below).
Staff Comments
This is a real growth management requirement that may limit some irresponsible
City annexations.However,there is no corresponding requirement that would
ensure that services are available to projects on the same property if approved by
the county.
8.Improving Municipalities 3-mile Annexation Plans
Cities are now required by the State to have a “3-mile plan”showing how areas
within three miles of their boundary may ultimately develop.HB 1223 would
require that these “3-mile plans”show what specific areas within the 3 mile area
the city would be willing to annex.Also,the original bill would allow Cities to
extend area of the plan beyond 3 miles if the county and other jurisdictions agreed
to it.
All annexations would be required to be consistent with the plan.Counties and
other cities would be provided an advisory review of proposed City “three-mile”
annexation plans.
Staff Comments
The existing 3 mile plan law is antiquated and plans developed to satisfy its
requirement are not now regarded very seriously.This element of the bill could
start to change that.The requirement to designate future annexation areas is an
important growth management concept.This is a very simplistic form of
designating an urban service area or an urban growth area.
However,HB 1223 contains no standards or basis for defining the annexation
area.A more effective approach would be to require that such annexation areas
be based on some basic planning,i.e.land needed to accommodate a realistic
population forecast,and an evaluation of the ability to provide services.This
approach also does not provide any restrictions on the county from approving
urban development outside of adopted annexation areas.
If the bill contained these additional requirements in this section then the bill
would be much closer to being a significant growth management tool.Without
grounding the annexation area designation in the three-mile plans in some actual
planning analysis,there is nothing that prohibit Cities from designating any area
with in the three mile plan as being eligible for annexation.
If the bill were amended to include these basic planning requirements for the
annexation area,then staff would recommend that basic enforcement and dispute
resolution mechanisms be added as well.The addition of these requirements
would make this bill a significant and meaningful growth management bill.
9.Provide Greater Authority For Municipalities To Police One Another’s
Annexations.
Existing law gives standing to any city to challenge another city’s annexation of
land if the proposed annexation within 1 mile of the concerned city’s limits.HB
1223 expands this distance to 3 miles.
Staff Comments
This is a minor positive change.However,there is no improvement in the basis
on which a city may challenge another’s annexation;challenges could still only
address issues of process and procedure only,not the planing effect of the
annexation.
10.Increased Land Use Planning Interaction Between Counties,Cities And
Special Districts
HB 1223 would revise county authority over the creation and expansion of special
districts by adding new criteria on which counties may deny the creation or
expansion of special districts.This new criteria would be that the creation or
expansion of the district would not contribute to urban development outside of
existing urban areas.Cities would be given approval authority over creation of
new special creation of new special districts with in their boundaries.Cities
would be provides advisory review to the county on creation or expansion of
special districts with in three miles of their boundaries.
Staff Comments
The new criteria for counties to use is a positive one.The bill would give cities
little new authority over special districts,except as it relates to the creation of new
districts.It is unlikely that new districts will be proposed very often with in city
limits.Fort Collin is more concerned with the expansion of existing special
districts.The bill provides not new authority to the City in that area.
B.Summary Of The Effect Of The Recent flEA Amendments To
The Bill
On February 3,a number of amendments supported by the Rural Electrical Association
(REA)were added to HB 1223 in the House Local Government Committee.
The substance and effect of these amendments are outlined below.
1.Eliminate The “Colorado Heritage Community”Program From The
Bill.
The amendments removed the proposed State program to reward communities for
cooperating.We expect that the program will be included in a different bill
associated with the Governor’s proposals.
2.Make Minor “Housekeeping”Refinements To Elements Of The Bill.
The amendments make a number of minor revisions to bill text that add clarity or
otherwise improve the bill language without changing the substance of the bill.
3.Further Limit City Annexation By Increasing Requirements For City
Provision Of Services With A Fix Time Period.
HB1223 as introduced required City’s provide service to annexed land within
three years,unless the land owner agrees to a longer period.The REA
amendments limit those owner approved extension to 5 years.
4.Eliminate The Ability To Extend The “3-Mile Plan”Beyond 3-Miles
Through Voluntary IGAs.
RB 1223 originally contained a provision to allow Cities to extend their 3 mile
plans beyond three miles through voluntary IGAs with the County,but these
amendments remove those provisions.
5.Preserves REA Service Areas Upon Annexation.
Under current law,City utilities can take over providing service to annexed areas.
This amendment would allow REA to retain annexed areas as part of their service
areas after annexation.
This amendment is the one that is being vigorously opposed by the Colorado
Municipalities Utilities Association,as well as a number of municipalities.
SB 00-118 -The Responsible Growth Act
City Of Fort Collins -Key Points of Testimony
SenateLocal Government Committee
February 1,2000
a The city of Fort Collins recently adopted a resolution on State Growth Management
Legislation.That resolution supports the CML/CCI bill,as a step in the right
direction.Our resolution goes on to support other legislation that requires basic
comprehensive planning for Colorado’s growth areas.
a SB 118 in its current form is not perfect,but it is important to allow work to continue
on it.
o We can have a growth management Bill that mandates basic planning elements for
Colorado’s fast growing cities,and still preserves local control over the land use
planning and decisions that are ultimately within those cities.The Bill should say,
“You must plan”,but not say how to deal with local issues.This would require local
government to confront growth problems,but not prescribe a solution to those
problems.
o A bill that mandates basic planning would simply require that local governments have
well thought out and internally consistent land use,transportation and public facilities
policies before they annex and expand their boundaries.The fact that local
governments are now able to operate without such basic management tools in place is
irresponsible.
o With local control comes the burden of local responsibility.Local governments have
the obligation to effectively accommodate all aspects of growth that results from
those local policies.Special districts have the obligation to comply with local comp
plans.
o The numerous polls that indicate growth as a top concern for Coloradoans is evidence
that the citizens of this state perceive that the side effects of local growth policies are
not being responsibly addressed through existing inconsistent local planning
practices.
o All too often roads,parks and schools are not being provided in a way that keeps pace
with new growth,and the quality of life in Colorado suffers as a result.This is what
people are concerned about.
0
~We believe that a bill should be passed that will actually effect some real,positive
change in the way local governments plan for and manage growth,without
preempting local control of specific land use regulations within municipalities.We
believe that such a bill must contain the following elements to be fair and effective:
1.It should require growing communities to adopt land use,
transportation and public facilities plans that are based on realistic
population projections and that are internally consistent with one
another;
2.The bill should not apply to low growth communities if they aren’t
expanding;
3.The bill should preserve local control by not prescribing specific
zoning or other land use policies within the required local plans;
4.The bill should require that growth plans are coordinated and
consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions.
5.The bill should include some method of quickly resolving planning
disputes between jurisdictions;
6.The bill should include meaningful incentives for compliance and
penalties for noncompliance;
7.The bill should provide funds to local governments to offset the
costs of mandated planning;either through state grants or other
means of state revenue sharing.
comtnity Planning and Environmen Services
Office of the Director
DRAFT
February 9,2000
To:Legislative Review Committee
Through:John Fischbach,City Manager
Greg Byrne,CPES Director
From:Tom Vosburg,CPES Policy and Budget Manager
Re:Pros and Cons of Supporting RB 1223
This memo presents a brief summary of Staffs perspective on the pros and cons of
supporting HB 1223.
Reasons to Support HB 1223
•FIB 1223 will give counties the ability to adopt by reference city development for
application in developing areas.
•Cities would be required to give some thought to defining annexation areas and to
designate those areas on the 3-mile plan prior to annexing new land,but no
significant planning or analysis burden would be mandated on cities to comply with
the requirement.
•Passing this bill will allow the legislature to say that they have made progress in
addressing growth management,and thus help campaign against the expected
initiatives.
•Supporting this bill will maintain solidarity between Fort Collins,CML and other
municipalities.
•Although few real new powers or incentives are included in the bill,the increased
attention placed on the bill may make jurisdictions more aware or motivated to
voluntarily plan and cooperate with one another.
Reasons to Oppose HB 1223
•Passing F1B123 in its current amended form will allow REAs to continue to provide
service to annexed areas.This will limit growth in municipal utility revenue,and
281 N.College Avenue •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
(970)221-6601 •FAX (970)416-2020
City of Fort Collins
indirectly general find revenues,and introduce inconsistent levels of service within
cities.
•Passing a weak growth management bill may preempt any further attempts to work
on more meaningful growth management legislation next year,since the legislature
may say “we dealt with growth management last year”.
•Passing a weak growth management law may not only fail to preempt an initiative,
but also support the initiative backer’s claims that the Legislature is incapable of
showing leadership on the issue,and therefore validate the initiative approach to the
issue.
Both Pro and Con
•HB1223 will prevent some “irresponsible”City annexations by requiring City’s be
able to provide services with in a short period of time.However,this same provision
could frustrate attempts by cities to get land under city control to protect it from
“irresponsible”development approval by the county.
•HB 1223 will allow cities and counties to give their comprehensive plans the force of
law.While this would increase local options,this would be a poor planning and
regulatory practice that will likely cause problems for jurisdictions that choose to use
the new authority.
Mayor
L
City of Fort Collins
Legislative Position Paper
Date:February 9,2000
From:Ray Martinez,Mayor
To:Health,Environment Welfare and Institutions (HEWI)Committee Members
Re:HB 1390—Concerning Prohibited Methods of Regulating Smoking
(Testimony provided by Sarah Fox,Natural Resources)
The City of Fort Collins urges committee members to Postpone Indefinitely (P1)HB 1390.
We are concerned about this bill for two reasons:
1)Preemption legislation is an intrusion of home rule and would restrict our community from
enacting our own smoking policies;
2)It is important for us to be able to work with our citizens to determine how we can adequately
protect their health from Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)which is a class-A carcinogen.
The City of Fort Collins prides itself on our commitment to our goal of “Continually improving air
quality as the city grows.”Our City Council-approved Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP),outlines
strategies that will “increase the percentage of residences and workplaces taking action to reduce
exposure to indoor air pollution.”We have committed to revisit our current Smoking in Public
Places ordinance based on interest that was generated through community groups.
Our current Smoking in Public Places ordinance was enacted in 1984.The City Council initially
adopted the ordinance,which was then challenged by petition and brought to the voters in a
referendum.
In 1984,the final vote was strongly in favor of our current Smoking in Public Places
ordinance:
21,075 -IN FAVOR
12,012 -AGAINST
Our ordinance was the first of its kind in Colorado,and many communities have since adopted
smoking ordinances that go beyond Fort Collins’.We are currently in the process of beginning a
review of our ordinance and seeking public input on whether the ordinance should be changed.
Our community is concerned about public health and we value the ability to work closely with our
citizens to determine the appropriate level of protection to ETS.Please allow us to continue to work
closely with our residents while at the same time increasing protection from indoor air pollution.
300 LaPorte Avenue •P.O.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 •(970)221-6505 •FAX (970)224-6107