HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/23/2025City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3
City Council
Work Session Agenda
September 23, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Melanie Potyondy, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Council Information Center (CIC)
300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
6:00 PM
A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. 2026 Budget Revision Recommendations
The purpose of this item is to familiarize, and seek feedback from, Council on the City Manager’s
recommended revisions to the 2026 Budget. Based on direction from Council, the 2026 Budget
Revisions will be combined with the previously adopted 2025-2026 Biennial Budget. The 2026
Annual Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for First Reading on November 3, 2025.
2. Mobile Home Park Oversight and Enforcement
The purpose of this item is to provide additional information, requested at the February 11, 2025,
Council Work Session, on options to improve mobile home park livability. Mobile home parks are
a vital source of naturally occurring affordable housing in Fort Collins. Yet, because they are
privately owned and managed, infrastructure and habitability standards vary widely,
disproportionately affecting historically underserved residents. Oversight is fragmented among
state, local, and federal entities, and enforcement under Municipal Code differs from other
neighborhoods, often resulting in inconsistent services, complaint-driven inspections, and gaps in
accountability.
Mobile home parks (“MHP”) occupy a unique space between single-family HOA neighborhoods
and multi-unit housing, leaving residents with ownership of their homes but little control over land,
infrastructure, or management. Unlike other housing types, MHP residents face risks tied to
private water systems, lack of oversight of property managers, and the possibility of losing their
primary asset through a simplified eviction process, underscoring their vulnerability compared to
other Fort Collins housing options. Because mobile home parks are private property with privately-
owned infrastructure, enforcement under Municipal Code varies in both authority and level of
service from other neighborhood types.
Oversight for MHPs is largely complaint-driven, leaving significant gaps in data, enforcement, and
coordination, and many provisions authorize but do not require action. The City and the State’s
Mobile Home Park Oversight Program (“MHPOP”) currently are limited in the ability to address
Page 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3
systemic issues and ensure long-term livability in mobile home parks. Mobile home parks’ unique
ownership model, privately maintained infrastructure, fragmented oversight, and limited avenues
for residents to assert their rights create distinct challenges in Fort Collins, with the greatest
differences from other neighborhoods seen in three critical areas: habitability, accountability, and
empowerment.
To respond, 88 strategies were developed with guidance from residents and subject matter
experts, organized into 10 flowcharts that establish phased pathways to compliance. These
strategies emphasize voluntary compliance, flexible timelines, and escalation only when
necessary, ensuring that each park can progress at its own pace while strengthening habitability,
accountability, and empowerment for residents. Based on life, health, and safety concerns;
urgency of need for intervention; and frequency of MHP resident complaint s, staff is
recommending:
1. Centralizing MHP program management and creating a MHP licensing program
2. Addressing urgent concerns
3. Addressing longer-term issues through escalating enforcement strategies
4. Municipal Code updates to support the recommendation
3. Which Wheels Go Where? – Project Update and Exploration of Rule Changes
The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the Which Wheels Go Where? (WWGW) project
which explores updating the rules governing the operation of human powered and lightweight
electric vehicles, such as e-scooters, skateboards, and e-skateboards on city facilities, i.e. streets,
bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails to support mode shift.
This project aligns with:
Council Priorities: “Advance a 15-minute City by accelerating a shift to Active Modes” and
“Modernize and update the City Charter”.
Strategic Plan: Transportation and Mobility 1: Make significant progress toward the City’s
Vision Zero goal to have no serious injury or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling or
driving in Fort Collins.
Active Modes Plan, Our Climate Future, the Strategic Trails Plan, and the Vision Zero Action
Plan.
Beginning May 2024, staff have collected data, administered a community questionnaire, and
explored the issue internally within the city organization, and externally with community
organizations and other municipalities.
Community engagement efforts occurred July 2024 through June 2025 and included outreach and
listening sessions at several boards and commissions. Community members who use human and
lightweight electric powered vehicles generally prefer facilities separated from vehicular traff ic,
while other people, specifically those with disabilities, older adults, and children, desire an
environment safe and conducive for walking and slower biking, particularly on sidewalks and paved
trails.
To improve safety, staff suggest a continued investment in separated infrastructure for people
walking, rolling, and bicycling, as well as a safety education approach to address undesired
behavior on streets, sidewalks, and trails. Updating rules to accommodate human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles will promote mode shift, a goal that supports Our Climate Future.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS
Page 2
City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3
D) ADJOURNMENT
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 advance notice. Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day
before.
A solicitud, 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, para 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 aviso previo. Las
solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior.
Page 3
File Attachments for Item:
1. 2026 Budget Revision Recommendations
The purpose of this item is to familiarize, and seek feedback from, Council on the City
Manager’s recommended revisions to the 2026 Budget. Based on direction from Council, the
2026 Budget Revisions will be combined with the previously adopted 2025-2026 Biennial
Budget. The 2026 Annual Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for First Reading on November
3, 2025.
Page 4
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3
September 23, 2025
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Caleb Weitz, Chief Financial Officer
Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sales Tax and Revenue Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
2026 Budget Revision Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to familiarize, and seek feedback from, Council on the City Manager’s
recommended revisions to the 2026 Budget. Based on direction from Council, the 2026 Budget Revisions
will be combined with the previously adopted 2025-2026 Biennial Budget. The 2026 Annual Appropriation
Ordinance is scheduled for First Reading on November 3, 2025.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What questions or feedback does Council have on the City Manager’s recommended revisions to the
2026 Budget?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW:
The mid-cycle Revision Process is different from the biennial budgeting process in that there is no broad
request for new budget offers. This is because the City is operating within the approved 2025-2026 Biennial
Budget, and these revisions should be exceptions based on information not known at the time the budget
was adopted in November 2024. The City Manager and the executive team conducted a comprehensive
review to determine which changes should be forwarded for Council's consideration. Revised revenue
projections and available fund reserves were carefully considered when making these recommendations.
The 2026 Budget Revisions include both 1) reductions to 2026 ongoing expenses to align them with a
decreased 2026 Sales Tax forecast and unexpectedly low turnover; and 2) additional offers for
consideration. The following are key objectives which the 2026 Budget Revision recommendations are
intended to address:
- Matching appropriations for ongoing expenditures to current ongoing revenue estimates, if declining
- Council priorities, high-priority projects, and other needs not known at the time of the adoption of the
2025-2026 Budget
- Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance requirements
Page 5
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS:
Through most of 2025 there has been significant economic uncertainty, which continues today. At the
national level, impacts from the tariffs will not be known for many months, while unemployment continues
to climb. Inflationary rate increases were 2.9% as of the end of August, but the increased costs experienced
in many commodities over the past few years has not subsided. There is also anticipation of potential
additional federal reserve rate cuts.
At the state level, unemployment also continues to rise as the State has attempted to address a $750M
budget shortfall, but with unknown local implications. Coloradoans also continue to hold some of the
highest amounts of debt of any state in the nation.
These economic conditions and uncertainty have resulted in lower than forecasted growth in ongoing Sales
Tax collections. Although there are some more recent positive indicators, at this point in time the City will
need to use the 2026 Revision process to right-size the budget from both revenue and expense
adjustments.
REVENUE:
Overall, most significant City revenue sources are coming in at, or above, the 2025 budget. Based on year-
to-date actual collections and other information, however, there are 4 areas of revenue concern: Ongoing
Sales Tax (not 1-Time sources like audits), Camera Radar Red Light revenue, Interest on Investments in
the General Fund and the State’s marijuana share back. All of these revenue sources are recommended
to be decreased for 2026.
1) Sales Tax: Overall, staff anticipates sales tax collections to be under budget and use tax collections to
be over budget, with combined sales and use tax collections to end the year at or near the 2025 budget.
Cumulatively, sales and use tax collections through August are 1.9% over budget driven by strong use tax
collections in the first half of the year. Sales tax is $1.7M under budget and use tax is $4.3M over budget.
Sales and use tax combined is $2.6M over budget. The favorability is largely driven by volatile one-time
revenue for audits, voluntary disclosure agreements and building permit use tax.
For 2026, staff is currently forecasting 2% sales tax growth on 2025 sales tax collections (adjusted for one-
time revenue) or a 4% reduction ($7.1M) from the current 2026 budget. For use tax, staff is forecasting flat
growth from the 2025 budget and recommends keeping the current 2026 budget for use tax.
2) Camera Radar Red Light: Delays were experienced with the deployment of the newly, State allowed
transportable speed cameras intended to support Net Vision Zero. This delay along with potentially higher
than expected modifications to driving behavior is anticipated to have up to a $1.5M shortfall compared to
2026 Budget.
3) Interest on Investments in the General Fund: Due to increased use of reserves over the past few years
and the lack of reserve generation to backfill those reserves, forecasted interest is estimated to be about
$800k less than the $2.8M included in the 2026 Budget.
4) State of Colorado Marijuana Share Back: The State of Colorado is reducing the forecasted share-back
by 50%, which is a revenue reduction of $450k for 2026.
EXPENSES:
Increased budget accuracy since COVID, along with inflationary pressures, has significantly reduced the
amount of unspent budget each year. Although this is good at not letting City funds sit idle, it does directly
impact the availability of reserves. As such, an increased focus on financial monitoring has been
implemented.
Page 6
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3
Since personnel costs are a large portion of the City’s budget, total compensation costs are budgeted at
less than 100% due to anticipated position vacancies, so as to not lock up budget that would otherwise go
unused. So far this year the City has experienced a sharp decrease in turnover, driven by the City’s
employee engagement strategies, as well as economic concerns and uncertainty. These realities are the
main drivers of the personnel overspend being experienced so far this year, and thus, it is financially
prudent to adjust the 2026 Budget to assume a lower level of turnover.
There are also additional budgetary pressures being experienced within Police Services. The most recent
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) increased personnel expenses by nearly $1.0M for sworn positions.
Those increased costs were addressed in 2025 via the use of General Fund reserves, but no such reserves
are anticipated to be available for 2026. Additional adjustments to personnel budgets are included to refine
those line items to the most updated expected costs for 2026.
Financial analysis has also identified other areas of expense pressures, where budgets are expected to
experience overages. For example, there will likely be a need for a supplemental appropriation for Snow
Removal. In a warmer year, with lower snowfalls, such a contingency may not be necessary. Historically,
when increased snow removal costs are necessary, those were covered with General Fund reserves.
However, given the lack of General Fund reserves available for nearly any purpose, it would also be
financially prudent to make an adjustment in the 2026 Budget with anticipated contingency needs.
In addition to the recommended budget revisions, there are a few other administrative changes for the
2026 Budget, as follows:
1) Modification to 2025-26 Offer 40.7 - Timberline Recycling Center (TRC): With the move of TRC
operations from the Environmental Services Department to the Streets Department now complete, this
revision authorizes transfer of the $1.0M budget in the General Fund to be expended in the
Transportation Fund. There is no change in expenses for the Timberline Recycling Center or the City
2) As with all other dedicated ¼ cent Sales and Use Taxes, the Open Space Yes! tax will now be received
directly into the Natural Areas Fund, where that revenue is spent. This change eliminates the need for
the transfer from the Sales Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund. Although the total appropriation goes
down, there is no actual change in City expenses.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Adjustments to the 2026 Budget are needed due to both revenue and expense pressures being
experienced in 2025 and expected to continue into the following year. Revenue shortfalls are anticipated
at about $8.7M, the bulk of which are being driven by lower than anticipated ongoing growth in Sales Tax.
On the expense side, 2026 is currently expected to be about $6.7M over budget. Most of this is being
driven by personnel expenses, with the remainder coming from contingent expenses, for which General
Fund reserves are not available to be authorized to cover those expenses.
NEXT STEPS
A second work session is currently scheduled for October 14, 2025, if desired by Council. First Reading
of the 2026 Annual Appropriations is scheduled for Monday, November 3, 2025 (due to elections on
November 4). Second Reading is then scheduled for November 18, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026 Budget Revisions
2. Presentation
Page 7
Item 1.
2026 Budget Revisions
Citywide – $5,000,000 Personnel Savings
The Citywide adjustments can all be characterized as personnel savings through actions
that impact talent. Slowing the thaw of the Citywide hiring freeze to recoup additional
savings and reducing pay increases constitute the largest amount of budget reductions.
Reductions
$2,600,000 – Extend Hiring Freeze through Q1 2026; partial thereafter
$1,200,000 – Reduce merit increase to 2.0%
$500,000 – Benefits Holiday (one pay period of no premium for Employer/Employee)
$500,000 – Lower insurance premium increase for 2026 (no impact to benefit offerings)
$200,000 – Organizational restructuring of yet to be determined positions
Community Services – $1,548,655
Many of the changes for various Community Services programs are either through reducing
General Fund contributions or increasing earned revenue. The intent of these decisions is to
focus on areas that have opportunities for further cost recovery and to minimize impact to
access or programming. Service level reductions for medians, tree replacement and park
maintenance are expected. Reducing river-related services is expected to allow additional
time for negotiations with the ditch company related to the Poudre Flows project and will
shift staff support across the organization for some river-related efforts.
Reductions
$353,900 – 2.0 FTE - Parks Staffing and Services
$325,000 – Shift Parks funding to earned revenues and dedicated funding sources
$185,000 – Reduce Forestry Management & Infrastructure Replacement
$180,000 – Arts & Culture and Recreation – Reduce transfer to General Fund (replace
with earned revenue)
$140,415 – Delay Poudre Flows Initiative and reduce General Fund supported river staff
work
$79,000 – Reduce Center for Creativity and Gardens advertising, programming, and
supplies
$75,000 – Reduce medians streetscape maintenance
$63,540 – Redeploy Arts & Culture Sr. Manager and related funding source
$58,800 – Reduced Parks discretionary spending
$55,500 – Reduce Lincoln Center Box Office Hours
$32,500 – Reduced Cemetery and Forestry discretionary spending
Page 8
Item 1.
Executive Services – $239,000
Executive Services reductions result in less programmatic spend, workforce appreciation
and consistent fall engagement with DC-based agencies and Congressional staffs.
Additionally, some service level reductions will occur as a result of reducing headcount by 1
FTE.
Reductions
$108,000 – 1.0 FTE - City Manager’s Office Administrative Support
$35,000 – Reduce Customer Experience consultant services
$35,000 – Reduce Equity Office program spending, including less support for
community led initiatives, internal training efforts and language access
$36,000 – Eliminate Holiday Party for City employees (includes $10k from budget in
Information and Employee Services)
$20,000 – Eliminate redundant software expenses
$15,000 – Eliminate City Council's fall lobbying trip
Financial Services – $393,363
Reductions for Finance can be summarized as management decisions related to leadership
structure in the Service Area and best-placed funding sources for the near-term work of the
Transformation Management Office. Additionally, staff believes an additional auditor
position can more than cover salary and be a net revenue generator.
Key Reductions / Additional Revenue
$192,300 – 1.0 FTE – Financial Planning & Analysis Director
$121,063 – Shift General Fund support for Transformation Management Office to
Utilities funding
$80,000 – Adding 1.0 FTE - Sales Tax Auditor is estimated to cover expenses and
contribute additional revenue of $80k
Information & Employee Services – $3,071,000
Adjustments within the internal service departments involve numerous decisions to shift
funding sources (fleet reserves covering General Fund for 2026) or capture efficiency
savings because of how prices or contracts have moved (e.g., fuel, custodial). There are
numerous vacant positions being reduced across the service area and some deferment of
planned capital projects on City facilities.
Reductions
$500,000 – Shift Fleet replacements from General Fund to Fleet Fund Reserves
$435,000 – City Building Custodial and Utilities efficiency savings/reductions
$388,500 – 3.0 FTE - Information Technology Administrator I, Analyst II, Engineer I
$300,000 – 2026 City Fleet Fuel savings (price-based)
Page 9
Item 1.
$175,000 – Network Professional Services and IT Reserve Support
$650,000 – Defer 2026 Facility Modifications and Improvements
$125,000 – Virtual Chief Information Security Officer and Endpoint Management
$115,000 – 1.0 FTE – Human Resources Recruitment Specialist
$105,000 – Reduce Expanded Communication Methods & Digital Implementation
Support
$100,000 – Retire AirWatch and CyberArk mobile device systems
$70,000 – Decrease Talent Acquisition and Development Programming
$60,000 – Continue 0.5 FTE funding shift to Benefits Fund
$25,000 – Reduce Emergency Preparedness outreach, preventative maintenance and
hourly support
$12,500 – Move State of the City event to every other year
$10,000 – Included above in Exec Services for the Holiday Party
Judicial Services – $30,000
Reductions for Municipal Court relate to discretionary spending.
Reductions
$30,000 – Reduced discretionary spending
Legal Services – $123,000
The City Attorney’s Office plans to defer hiring their office manager role until 2027.
Reductions
$123,000 – 1.0 FTE – City Attorney’s Office defer hiring Office Management Supervisor
Planning, Development & Transportation – $3,209,380
PDT’s adjustments will impact accustomed levels of service for many programs, including
road maintenance, snow removal and Transfort. In addition to this coming from reduced
asset management spend, the service area will reduce vacant headcount by 8. That number
included holding back the planned deployment of 2 FTEs funded by camera radar funding in
the ‘26 budget and a code compliance officer, which will likely delay response and
resolution times.
Reductions
$1,087,333 – Reduced street maintenance & snow removal (fewer lane miles
resurfaced; slower response for sidewalk snow removal and ice cutting); reduce graffiti
abatement and alley maintenance (shift to complaint-based programs); reduce hours at
Timberline Recycling Center on hard to recycle side of facility
$410,326 – Reduced Level of Service - Transfort Routes 11 & 12, FLEX program
Page 10
Item 1.
$323,277 – 2.0 FTE – Streets Asphalt Patching & 2.0 FTE – Streets Traffic Control
Technicians
$287,000 – Unfund 1041’s and Water Adequacy (These were pre-appropriated in
advance of any applications, which recover the cost of the work. Should applications be
received, staff will ensure appropriations come forward and work is completed.)
$198,103 – 2.0 FTE - Transfort Analyst & Transit Service Planner
$178,263 – 2.0 FTE – Traffic Vision Zero staffing
$175,000 – Reduce level of service to Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
$149,748 – 2.0 FTE - Business Support & Code Compliance
$147,070 – Maintain 60-minute frequency on Transfort Route 16
$95,000 – Eliminate Neighborhood Mini-Grants, Landmark Preservation programs, and
Contractual Building Inspection
$60,000 – Shift contracted mowing services for road shoulders City staff
$53,760 – Reduce hourly Transfort Project Specialist staffing
$35,000 – Reduce Engineering programing spend
$9,500 – Eliminate asphalt art program
Police Services – $1,124,897
Police reductions in this personnel-heavy budget include a reduction of 5 budgeted FTE in
2026 that could impact time to resolve some cases or requests handled by the civilian
positions. Additionally, Police plan to cut their discretionary spending across a number of
areas.
Reductions
$461,500 – Reduce service across Medical, Security, Language, Animal Care, IT, & Police
Vehicle service/support
$343,397 – 3.0 FTE - Records Supervisor, Criminalist, Property & Evidence Technician
$320,000 – 2.0 FTE - HOPE officers
Sustainability Services – $667,053
Within Sustainability Services, reductions include 3 vacant positions related to data analysis
and project management. Reduced hourly budget and shifting funding sources are intended
to minimize service reductions externally while resulting in some increased time spent by
remaining staff on other items. Additionally, reductions in grants and other marketing will
mean fewer dollars than have recently been provided to community groups and
organizations.
Reductions
$354,983 – 2.0 FTE – Environmental Services Data Analyst and Specialist, and 1.0 FTE
Economic Health Specialist and Reduced Hourly Support
Page 11
Item 1.
$81,570 – Reduce Affordable Housing, Human Services & Neighborhood grants and
programming
$75,000 – Reduce Hourly support and Utilize State Air Quality Monitoring Funding
$60,000 – Shift Downtown flowers funding from General Fund to GID #1
$43,500 – Reduce Economic Health marketing, sponsorships and MBEC program
funding
$30,000 – Reduced Discretionary Spend
$22,000 – 5% decrease in immigration and eviction legal funds
Page 12
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Caleb Weitz
Jen Poznanovic
Lawrence Pollack
Council Work
Session
2026 Budget
Revisions
09-23-2025
Page 13
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Agenda
•Overview
•Revenue and Expense Update
•2025 Actions Implemented & Next Steps
•2026 Budget Revisions
Page 14
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereSignificant Budgetary Challenges
3
•One-time reserves have been key budgetary
funding sources
•No General Fund reserves generated in 2024
•Inflationary Pressures
•Inflationary rate increases have slowed to
2.7%, but the increased costs over the past
few years has not subsided.
•Talent Costs
•Higher than budgeted due to strong rates of
employee retention
•Higher Program Costs
•Continued Economic Uncertainty
Page 15
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereGeneral Fund Reserves by Year
General Fund Reserve
Investment Examples
2023-2024
•1.6M -Fleet Vehicle And New
Equipment Replacement
•500k -Immigration Legal Fund
•580k -ELC Flow Restoration
•1M -Aging Facility Maintenance
2025-2026
•880k -Immigration and Eviction
Funds
•1M -Parks Infrastructure
Replacement Program
•1.3M -IT infrastructure
Replacement Program
•2.5M -Police HVAC
•0.75M –Police CBA
4
Page 16
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereTalent Trends
*Data through Q2 2025 5
Page 17
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereYTD August 2025 Results
6
Budget to Actual
Sales Tax $1.7M under budget
($3.2M under without one-time revenue)
Use Tax $4.3M over budget
($1.3M over without one-time revenue)
Combined $2.6M over budget
($1.9M under without one-time revenue)
•Strong year for audits, voluntary disclosure agreements
(VDAs) and building permit use tax
•Volatile revenue streams
•Taxable sales are up 1.2%. Growth of 4.2% needed to hit
2025 budget
•Softening across majority of sales tax categories except
for online retailers
Page 18
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
Budget Actual Actual w/o One-Time
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
August YTD Budget to Actual
Sales Tax Use Tax
YTD August 2025 Results
2%-1%
26%8%
-1%-3%
Sales Tax
•YTD July sales tax
budget is down 1%
•Excluding one-time
revenue, the sales tax
budget would be down
3%
Use Tax
•YTD July use tax budget
is up 26%
•Excluding one-time
revenue, the use tax
budget would be up 8%
7
Page 19
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereTrends & Projections: Front Range Cities Sales Tax Growth
•Most Front Range cities are realizing budget
shortfalls
•Some cities like Windsor, Westminster and
Aurora are seeing growth
•Some cities have one-time revenue affecting
YTD growth
•Denver’s 2025 revised forecast is 0.3%
revenue growth and 0.0% in 2026
* Fort Collins budgeted growth was 3.0%. Due to 2024 sales tax shortfall, 4.2%
growth is needed to hit budget
** 2025 budget figure is for both sales and use tax
*** 2025 July YTD or most recent data available 8
City 2025
Budget
2025
YTD***
Windsor 5.0%6.2%
Aurora 4.5%4.9%
Westminster 5.4%4.5%
Commerce City 6.2%**3.2%
Fort Collins* 4.2%*1.2%
Lakewood 3.4%1.0%
Englewood 0.0%1.0%
Longmont 4.5%0.7%
Thornton 2.5%0.6%
Colorado Springs 0.1%
Boulder 0.0%**-0.4%
Greeley 5.5%-1.0%
Centennial 3.0%-1.2%
Loveland 3.5%-2.4%Page 20
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2025 and 2026 Forecasts
2025
•To hit the 2025 budget 4.2% sales tax
growth needed.
•Combined flat growth anticipated for
sales & use tax in 2025.
•2025 Forecast driven by significant
YTD one-time revenue in 2025.
2026
•2% growth forecast for sales tax
(adjusted for one-time revenue) and flat
growth for use tax.
•Anticipated $7.1M shortfall for 2026
revised budget.
2025 Budget & Forecast
2025
Budget
2025
Forecast % Δ $
Difference
Sales Tax 183,392,523 179,724,673 -2%(3,667,850)
Use Tax 25,000,000 28,000,000 12%3,000,000
Total 208,392,523 207,724,673 0%(667,850)
2026 Budget & Forecast
2026
Budget
2026
Revision % Δ $
Difference
Sales Tax 188,894,296 181,789,166 -4%(7,105,130)
Use Tax 25,000,000 25,000,000 0%0
Total 213,894,296 206,789,166 -3%(7,105,130)
9
Page 21
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
2025 Budget 2025 Forecast 2026 Budget 2026 Revision
(2% Growth)
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Sales Tax Use Tax
2025 and 2026 Forecasts
•Combined flat growth
anticipated for sales & use tax
in 2025.
•2025 Forecast driven by
significant YTD one-time
revenue in 2025.
•2026 Revision is a $7.1M
shortfall (-3%) compared with
the 2026 Budget.
0%3%-3%
-2%3%-4%
0%0%12%
2025 & 2026 Forecasts
10
Page 22
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Revenue –Other Areas of Concern
Photo Traffic Enforcement
•Transportable units to support Vision Zero
goals were delayed in deployment –Total
budget of $2 million.
•$1.5 million revenue shortfall expected in
2025; potentially a similar amount in 2026.
•Only $200k of offsetting expenditure
savings
Other Revenues
•Less investment revenue due to lower fund
balance
•Reduction in the state’s Marijuana tax share
back
Page 23
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2025 Budget Update
Page 24
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2025 Actions Implemented & Next Steps
•Projected current year General Fund deficit without corrective action
•Reacted quickly to evolving economic conditions and expenditure patterns
with corrective action:
•Governmental fund one-time expenditure reductions
•Hiring ‘pause’ shifted to ‘freeze’ as of Aug. 4 to help address budgeted personnel
costs
•Tighter management of expenditures
•Known additional needs to address:
•Transfort –recommend 2050 tax appropriation
•Grocery Tax Rebate –recommend digital inclusion reserve funding
•Continuing budget monitoring
•Potential for additional actions based on forecast year-end position
13
Page 25
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2026 Budget Revisions
Page 26
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereObjectives of the 2026 Budget Revision Process -Right-sizing
The recommended Budget Revisions are intended to address:
Reduction of expenditures to match current revenue forecast
Fiduciary responsibilities & fund balance
High-priority projects and needs not known during last budget cycle
15
Page 27
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2026 Budget Picture
•Approximately $15.4 million (6.1%) General Fund budget deficit*
–$8.7 million lower revenue projections
o Lower sales/use tax forecast
o Photo traffic enforcement trend uncertainty
o Other areas
–$6.7 million in higher expense projections
o Adjusting personnel budgets and assumed vacancy factor
o Contingency due to lack of available reserves
•Other Adjustments
–Grocery Tax Rebate Program (see next slide)
–Additional funding for Transfort funded by 2050 Tax portion for transit
16
Page 28
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereGrocery Rebate Program Growth
•As discussed with the Council Finance Committee on Sept 4, the roll -out of
GetFoCo has helped increase the number of community members able to get
financial help via the Grocery Rebate Program
•At this time and volume, there is no interest in capping the total annual amount
paid out to qualifying families
•The anticipated additional funding for 2026 is estimated at $415k
•Staff is recommending a one-time funding solution of digital inclusion program
underspend (reserves) to cover this projected budget gap in 2026
•This recommended action to fund the 2026 Grocery Tax Program is a 1 -time
solution and will be an issue that needs long -term resolution in the 2027-28
Budget
17
Page 29
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2026 Budget Revision Recommendations
2026 Budget Recommended Budget Revision Highlights:
Avoids involuntary separations for classified and unclassified
management positions
Preserves a 2% pay increase pool
Key strategies to address the 2026 budget gap:
•Leveraging strong benefits fund performance
•Strategic use of fund balances
•One-time savings opportunities
•Shifting funding sources where possible
•Department reduction recommendations, including:
•Eliminating vacant positions
•Efficiency savings
•Service level adjustments
18
Page 30
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2026 City Manager Proposed Reductions by Category
19
Page 31
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereBalancing 2026 General Fund
Of the total $15.4M of reductions, 71% is ongoing 29% is 1-time savings
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
See next slide for detail by Service Area
20
Page 32
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereService Area Reductions (organizational detail of the $10.4M)
21
* These amounts are the total 2026 Budgets by Service Area after subtracting restricted funding. For
example, the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) 1/4 cent tax is backed out because
delaying those projects does not help address budgetary challenges in the Governmental FundsPage 33
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereVacant Positions to be Eliminated
•Of these 27 positions, the one in CAO would be frozen for 2026 instead of eliminated 22
Page 34
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereVacant Positions to be Eliminated (continued)
•Management can propose to swap eliminated positions as new vacancies occur in 2026
23
Page 35
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2026 Budget Revisions –Enhancements / Administrative Changes
24
Enhancements
•2024 voter-approved renewal of the
¼-cent tax for the Street Maintenance Program
(SMP) beginning in 2026
–$11.3M in the Transportation Fund
•Utility Customer Info System (CIS) Operational
Costs
–$700k across the L&P Fund / 3 OneWater
Funds
•Additional staffing for a Sales Tax Auditor
–$120k in the General Fund
•Transfort Operations and Capital funded by
2050 Tax & new grants
–$5.2M in the Transit Fund
Administrative Change Example
•Shifting Timberline Recycling Center
(TRC) expenses from General Fund to
Transportation Fund
–No increase in appropriations
–Aligning expenses with org change to
move TRC from Enviro Services to
Streets
Page 36
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes Here2026 Budget Revision Process -Timeline
Date Process
Sept. 4 Council Finance Committee meeting
Sept. 23 Council Work Session #1
Oct. 14 Council Work Session #2 (if needed)
Nov. 3 1st Reading of the 2026 Annual Appropriation
Nov. 18 2nd Reading
25
Page 37
Item 1.
Headline Copy Goes HereWrap-Up
•What questions or feedback does Council have on the City Manager’s
recommended revisions to the 2026 Budget?
26
Page 38
Item 1.
File Attachments for Item:
2. Mobile Home Park Oversight and Enforcement
The purpose of this item is to provide additional information, requested at the February 11,
2025, Council Work Session, on options to improve mobile home park livability. Mobile home
parks are a vital source of naturally occurring affordable housing in Fort Collins. Yet, because
they are privately owned and managed, infrastructure and habitability standards vary widely,
disproportionately affecting historically underserved residents. Oversight is fragmented among
state, local, and federal entities, and enforcement under Municipal Code differs from other
neighborhoods, often resulting in inconsistent services, complaint-driven inspections, and gaps
in accountability.
Mobile home parks (“MHP”) occupy a unique space between single-family HOA neighborhoods
and multi-unit housing, leaving residents with ownership of their homes but little control over
land, infrastructure, or management. Unlike other housing types, MHP residents face risks tied
to private water systems, lack of oversight of property managers, and the possibility of losing
their primary asset through a simplified eviction process, underscoring their vulnerability
compared to other Fort Collins housing options. Because mobile home parks are private
property with privately-owned infrastructure, enforcement under Municipal Code varies in both
authority and level of service from other neighborhood types.
Oversight for MHPs is largely complaint-driven, leaving significant gaps in data, enforcement,
and coordination, and many provisions authorize but do not require action. The City and the
State’s Mobile Home Park Oversight Program (“MHPOP”) currently are limited in the ability to
address systemic issues and ensure long-term livability in mobile home parks. Mobile home
parks’ unique ownership model, privately maintained infrastructure, fragmented oversight, and
limited avenues for residents to assert their rights create distinct challenges in Fort Collins, with
the greatest differences from other neighborhoods seen in three critical areas: habitability,
accountability, and empowerment.
To respond, 88 strategies were developed with guidance from residents and subject matter
experts, organized into 10 flowcharts that establish phased pathways to compliance. These
strategies emphasize voluntary compliance, flexible timelines, and escalation only when
necessary, ensuring that each park can progress at its own pace while strengthening
habitability, accountability, and empowerment for residents. Based on life, health, and safety
concerns; urgency of need for intervention; and frequency of MHP resident complaints, staff is
recommending:
Centralizing MHP program management and creating a MHP licensing program
Addressing urgent concerns
Addressing longer-term issues through escalating enforcement strategies
Municipal Code updates to support the recommendation
Page 39
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 19
September 23, 2025
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
JC Ward, Community Engagement Manager, Housing & Community Vitality
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Mobile Home Park Oversight and Enforcement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide additional information, requested at the February 11, 2025, Council
Work Session, on options to improve mobile home park livability. Mobile home parks are a vital source
of naturally occurring affordable housing in Fort Collins. Yet, because they are privately owned and
managed, infrastructure and habitability standards vary widely, disproportionately affecting historically
underserved residents. Oversight is fragmented among state, local, and federal entities, and
enforcement under Municipal Code differs from other neighborhoods, often resulting in inconsistent
services, complaint-driven inspections, and gaps in accountability.
Mobile home parks (“MHP”) occupy a unique space between single-family HOA neighborhoods and
multi-unit housing, leaving residents with ownership of their homes but little control over land,
infrastructure, or management. Unlike other housing types, MHP residents face risks tied to private water
systems, lack of oversight of property managers, and the possibility of losing their primary asset through
a simplified eviction process, underscoring their vulnerability compared to other Fort Collins housing
options. Because mobile home parks are private property with privately-owned infrastructure,
enforcement under Municipal Code varies in both authority and level of service from other neighborhood
types.
Oversight for MHPs is largely complaint-driven, leaving significant gaps in data, enforcement, and
coordination, and many provisions authorize but do not require action. The City and the State’s Mobile
Home Park Oversight Program (“MHPOP”) currently are limited in the ability to address systemic issues
and ensure long-term livability in mobile home parks. Mobile home parks’ unique ownership model,
privately maintained infrastructure, fragmented oversight, and limited avenues for residents to assert
their rights create distinct challenges in Fort Collins, with the greatest differences fro m other
neighborhoods seen in three critical areas: habitability, accountability, and empowerment.
To respond, 88 strategies were developed with guidance from residents and subject matter experts,
organized into 10 flowcharts that establish phased pathways to compliance. These strategies emphasize
voluntary compliance, flexible timelines, and escalation only when necessary, ensuring that each park
can progress at its own pace while strengthening habitability, accountability, and empowerment for
residents. Based on life, health, and safety concerns; urgency of need for intervention; and frequency of
MHP resident complaints, staff is recommending:
Page 40
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 19
1. Centralizing MHP program management and creating a MHP licensing program
2. Addressing urgent concerns
3. Addressing longer-term issues through escalating enforcement strategies
4. Municipal Code updates to support the recommendation
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Would Council like to move forward with a MHP licensing program that supports expanded enforcement
strategies?
2. Are there additional outcomes or strategies Council would prioritize besides those in the staff
recommendation?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Council Priorities Alignment:
Council Priority 1 – Operationalize City resources to build and preserve affordable housing
Council Priority 2 – Improve human and social health for vulnerable populations
Council Priority 7 – Protect community water systems in an integrated way to ensure resilient
water resources and healthy watersheds
Strategic Plan Alignment:
Mobile Home Park Enforcement work aligns with housing, equity, and water efficiency strategies for:
Affordable, healthy, stable housing
- Fort Collins 2024 Strategic Plan NCV 1
- Housing Strategic Plan, Strategy 2
Equitable access to programs and services; inclusive engagement
- Fort Collins 2024 Strategic Plan NCV 3
- Equity 2023 Plan, Goal 2
Supporting MHP community organizing efforts
- Housing Strategic Plan, Strategy 24
Supporting Code enforcement efforts for blighted properties
- City Plan, Strategy SC-1b
Enhancing water efficiency programs
- Our Climate Future Plan, Strategy CRC3
Improving infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods
- Our Climate Future Plan, Strategy HAH8
Background
Mobile home parks represent an important housing choice in Fort Collins. They are a significant form of
private, unsubsidized, “naturally-occurring” affordable housing. There are nine mobile home parks within
the city limits with 1,400 homes and 14 mobile home parks with 2,100 total units in the Fort Collins Growth
Management Area (“GMA”). Five of these neighborhoods in the GMA are immediately adjacent to City
Page 41
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 19
limits and in areas where long-range planning discussions about annexation are currently underway, like
the Mulberry Corridor.
Mobile home parks are private property, as are their streets, water infrastructure, and most fencing and
safety lighting. MHP owners are responsible for maintenance, repair, and assessment of their property’s
infrastructure, which leads to inconsistency across MHP neighborhoods, raising concerns over
habitability and safety when compared to other neighborhood types with City oversight of infrastructure.
Additionally, MHP neighborhoods in Fort Collins are home to some of the largest concentrations of
historically underserved populations who are less likely to contact the City for assistance or resources,
including non-English speakers, lower-income households, and senior citizens.
Oversight of portions of mobile home park habitability, livability, and safety is vested in the State of
Colorado’s Mobile Home Park Oversight Program (“MHPOP”), six City of Fort Collins’ Service Areas,
Larimer County, Colorado Department of Health and Environment (“CDPHE”), U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and MHP owners. MHP residents and owners can file complaints with MHPOP
or the City for assistance with concerns under their jurisdiction.
Fort Collins mobile home park resident complaints to MHPOP from 2020 through 2024 are summarized in
Figures 1 and 2 below.
Figure 1: Number of Fort Collins MHPOP Complaints and Enforcement Outcomes by Category
2020-2024
3. Figure 2: Distribution of Fort Collins MHPOP Complaints by Category 2020-2024
Page 42
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 19
Figure 2: Distribution of Fort Collins MHPOP Complaints by Category 2020-2024
Discussion:
Property Types have Different Oversight Responsibilities, Regulation, and Enforcement Levels;
Creating Disparate Outcomes
Differences in Property Types
Mobile Home Parks compared to HOA-Governed Single, Detached Unit Neighborhoods
Mobile home parks do not receive a level of City services that aligns with their needs, due in large part to
MHPs being situated at an intersection of multiple property types. Because of the divided asset nature of
the property, mobile home residents may own their home but do not own the land. Similar to residential
neighborhoods with single, detached homes and homeowners’ associations (“HOA”), MHP r esidents can
control most aspects of the interior of their home, its maintenance, and improvements; but are subject to
community rules that govern their home’s exterior. MHP residents do not control common areas in their
neighborhoods or their property’s infrastructure, which are the responsibility of the MHP owner. Unlike
HOA-governed neighborhoods, MHP residents can be evicted from a home they own through a simple
eviction proceeding, not a more involved lien/foreclosure procedure. HOA members participate in their
community rulemaking and enforcement processes and can hire a property manager of their choosing.
MHP owners make those decisions for the property without resident input.
Mobile Home Parks’ Private Water Infrastructure vs. Public Water Systems
Unlike residents of HOA neighborhoods, mobile home park residents do not receive direct services from a
public water provider. Water infrastructure in MHPs is owned and maintained by the property owner. The
MHP owner is the water utility customer with the public system supplying water and assuring its quality up
to the “master meter” that connects the mobile home park’s private water system with the public one. This
means the water quality, adequate water supply, and safe removal of wastewater is the responsibility of
the MHP owner. CDPHE regulates and enforces water quality and safety standards in mobile home parks
but has little on-the-ground inspection or oversight capacity to assure infrastructure maintenance or
performance. MHPOP regulates notices for water shutoff and leaks, requirements to provide potable water
and toilet access for long water outages, functionality of water and wastewater systems, and the
Page 43
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 19
responsibility of management to keep water infrastructure in good repair. MHPOP also has few on -the-
ground inspectors to investigate the functionality of water infrastructure. There is no publicly available
information on the maintenance schedules or current state of MHP water infrastructure, although this type
of information is available for public water systems. Issuing and collecting payment for MHP residents’
water bills is also the responsibility of the MHP owner. Owners receive a bill from the public water provider
for the entire park’s water usage and residents are rebilled for water by the MHP owner, not the public
utility. MHPOP and the City have some oversight authority of water rebilling methodology but struggle with
accessing data needed to perform audits and resolve complaints. The public water utility cannot release
information about the MHPs overall water charges or customer information and cannot review or comment
on residents’ private water bills, while they can provide those services to their direct water customers.
Mobile Home Parks compared to Multi-Unit Residential Properties
Mobile home parks are most similar to multi-unit residential properties with private roads. MHPs and
apartment complexes have private roads, lighting, and sidewalks, making them the responsibility of the
property owner, not the residents or the City to maintain or repair. City Staff can inspect these on a
complaint-basis, work toward voluntary compliance with owners, or issue violation notices for applicable
property maintenance or nuisance codes. Property managers have similar oversight responsibilities in both
neighborhood types for community rules, speed limits, maintenance standards, trash and recycling, and
amenities like common areas or pools. Residents in multi-unit complexes and mobile home parks do not
select their property managers or have input into their performance evaluations. Mobile home park and
onsite, live-in managers are the only property managers in Colorado who do not have minimum training or
continuing education requirements. All other property managers are required to hold a real estate broker’s
license and participate in 24 hours of additional training every three years, half of which are related to State
legislative changes and practice issues.
Some divergence between problems experienced by MHP residents and those in multi-unit housing
include concerns related to private water infrastructure, property management entry authority, and ability
of the property owner to deprive residents of assets. Issues seen in mobile home parks like water quality,
adequacy, and water/wastewater line maintenance are not found in multi-unit properties because they
receive service directly from the municipal water utility. However, shared water rebilling concerns may exist
for apartments, townhomes, condominiums, other multiplex properties, as well as mobile home parks due
to lack of transparency or complicated rebilling calculations. Property managers for multi-unit complexes
are allowed to enter, inspect, and perform maintenance in units in alignment with entry notice requirements.
MHP managers are not allowed to enter a mobile home without the written consent of the homeowner
except in emergencies. Entry onto a mobile home lot is allowed with sufficient legal notice and if entry is
for a lawful purpose. These differences in legal right of entry are due to the divided ownership of mobile
homes and lots.
A large percentage of MHP residents own their homes and have a significant financial investment in the
unit. For many, their home is their highest value asset. In Fort Collins, mobile homes can appreciate in
value over time. For example, one home in Harmony Village purchased for $23,000 in 2012 recently sold
for $100,000. However, in mobile home parks, homeowners are at risk of losing their major asset through
a simple eviction process, the same process for evicting renters in other property types. Eviction in a mobile
home park requires the homeowner to move or sell their home and vacate the property within 30 days. In
Fort Collins, there are currently no vacant MHP lots and only one in the GMA. Moving a mobile home
locally costs approximately $4,000-$15,000 if the home is structurally sound enough to move, which much
of our mobile home stock is not. Advertising and selling a home in this area is also challenging within the
30-day timeline. These conditions force some homeowners to abandon their home, which then becomes
property of the MHP owner to sell or rent, allowing deprivation of a large asset through a simple eviction
process, unlike any other housing type.
Page 44
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 19
Differences in Land Use Code Requirements
Compared to other housing or neighborhood types, an MHP’s built environment shares some requirements
under the Land Use Code with single, detached dwelling neighborhoods; some with multi-unit, attached
neighborhoods; and some specific only to mobile home parks.
Table 1: Comparison of Land Use Code Requirements by Neighborhood Type
Differences in Municipal Code Enforcement
Because mobile home parks are private property with privately-owned infrastructure, enforcement under
Municipal Code varies in both authority and level of service from other neighborhood types. Some
Municipal Code exclusively addresses enforcement in mobile home parks, but not other neighborhoods,
primarily to address inequities.
Table 2: Comparison of Municipal Code Enforcement Authority
for MHP Complaint-Related Issues by Neighborhood Type
Topic
Enforcement
Authority in
Mobile Home
Parks?
Enforcement
Authority in
Single, Detached
Homes?
Enforcement
Authority in
Multi-Unit,
Attached Homes
(with private
streets)?
Complaint-based
Rental Inspections
Yes Yes Yes
Trees that cause
damage to structures
or impede egress
(Complaint-based)
Yes Yes Yes
Leak Notification
System Participation
No
But Code Requires
No
Voluntary
Participation
No
Voluntary
Participation
Page 45
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 19
Street Lighting
Complaint-based
only
Yes Complaint-based
only
Speed Limits
No Yes No
Parking No Some
Restricted to
designated
neighborhoods
No
Road Hazards
Complaint-based
only
Yes Complaint-based
only
Water/Wastewater
Infrastructure
Assessment &
Maintenance
No Yes Yes
Water Quality Testing
No Yes Yes
Hazardous Tree
Abatement
No Yes
Threats to public or
right of way only
Yes
Threats to public or
right of way only
Water Billing Audits No
But Code allows
Yes Yes
Snow Removal No
Many do not have
sidewalks and
private streets do
not have City snow
removal
Some
Based on capacity
and street type
priorities
Some
Sidewalks in multi-
unit complexes not
enforced by City
Nuisance Code
Inspections
Yes
But currently
complaint-based
only
Yes Yes
Emergency contact
info posting
Complaint-based
only
N/A N/A
Inconsistent Jurisdiction & Gaps
While overlap exists between City of Fort Collins and MHPOP oversight related to some common issues,
each entity also has its own unique authority over others. In addition, mobile home park owners have a
number of enforcement responsibilities specified in state and local legislation as well as those necessary
to operate the MHP that lie outside of current adopted laws. Table 3 below lists the categories of complaints
and oversight authority for mobile home parks in Fort Collins. These categories derive from both MHPOP
data, Fort Collins Access cases, and public engagement input.
Page 46
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 19
Table 3: Oversight Authority for Common MHP Issues
Municipal Code Enforcement Gaps
Where Municipal Code specific to mobile home parks currently exists, the level of enforcement and scope
of the Code can still fail to adequately meet their needs. Twenty-nine teams across six City Service Areas
have projects in local mobile home parks while 13 also have some level of enforcement responsibility. This
can lead to issues coordinating responses internally, as the City organization does not have shared
standard operating procedures or centralized information-sharing platforms to help address MHP issues.
For example, street lighting standards are described in the Land Use Code and are enforced inside mobile
home parks on a complaint basis by Building Services but at entrances along public streets proactively by
Utilities Light & Power. There is no standard for sharing concerns about street lighting between the two
groups, no shared database to log complaints or inspections, no reporting expectations to other
departments regarding the issue, or consistent feedback to residents who made complaints.
Dispersed oversight within the City also leads to inconsistent policy decisions about adequate levels of
service and priority areas of focus for enforcement personnel. Some Municipal Code grants authority for
enforcement without requiring it, so the ‘how’ and ‘when’ are left to multiple teams to determine
independently. Most City Code officers are authorized to enter MHPs to conduct proactive inspections, but
currently those are primarily conducted on a complaint basis. Although this complies with Municipal Code,
complaint-based MHP inspections do not provide enough data to objectively assess baseline conditions
or efficacy of intervention strategies.
While most Municipal Code outlines responsibilities and mechanisms for enforcement, some does not.
Municipal Code Chapter 18 addresses many issues in mobile home parks and allows oversight and
enforcement by a designated specially commissioned officer but does not require any City department to
commission or house that officer. There is currently no City employee whose workload includes review of
continuous consumption notices for MHP water customers to assess voluntary compliance for the State’s
resident notifications although it is authorized in the Code. Likewise, the posting of emergency contact
information for MHPs is a Code requirement but has no enforcement procedures or responsible personnel.
Page 47
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 19
Current Municipal Code requiring proactive mobile home rental inspections are impractical to enforce and
are counter to Council direction for the Rental Housing Program. Municipal Code Section 18-4(b) requires
that all mobile home rental units be inspected within 60 days of the effective date (1987) and every five
years thereafter. The Rental Registration Program excludes mobile home park neighborhoods largely due
to displacement potential. The City does not have information on how many mobile homes are rental units
or where they are located, making it impossible to adequately staff proactive inspections for potentially
hundreds of units every five years.
Legislative Authority Gaps
Over the last six years, the City’s Mobile Home Park Residents’ Right Team imp lemented projects to
improve transparency and accessibility of resources, encourage collaboration among City departments,
provide a support network for residents, and develop or enhance enforcement mechanisms. To help
address financial barriers and improve voluntary compliance, the team has offered mini-grants, emergency
assistance, and mobile home improvement grants. The focus of the MHP Residents’ Rights Team to this
point has been addressing urgent issues and frequent complaints. However, staffing and resource
constraints have limited a more proactive, strategic approach to setting priorities and making gains in
sustainably meeting the needs of Fort Collins’ mobile home parks.
In evaluating strategies that could maximize impact under existing Municipal Code or State law, improve
MHP conditions through more consistent operating procedures, and address gaps and coordination among
regulatory entities, the limitations of authority under current legislation emerged. Because private
infrastructure, streets, and trees in mobile home parks are the responsibility of the property owner to assess
and maintain, the standard applied is different between mobile home parks, owners, and managers. The
absence of a governing body to review standards set by MHP owners in these areas and determine if they
meet minimum expectations for living conditions, or if their enforcement is adequate to assure habitability
creates conditions that are currently beyond oversight.
Based on MHP resident feedback, MHPOP complaints, Access Fort Collins cases, and a review of current
legislation, the following limitations on authority have been identified as impacts to the City’s ability to
resolve underlying issues for long-term MHP vitality.
The City and MHPOP currently lack the ability to:
Require submission and public availability of data related to MHP infrastructure, maintenance,
condition, rules, water outages and water quality, average lot rent, rent increases, or operations
Require assessments of their infrastructure and park conditions on a set schedule
Perform assessments or abate issues like water infrastructure repairs and maintenance, hazardous
trees, and non-compliance with State law to provide potable water and toilet access during outages in
the absence of MHP owner assessments or abatement
Charge costs for assessments or abatement to MHP owners for private property/infrastructure
Set and enforce standards for speed limit enforcement by MHP managers/owners
Require MHP Manager training or education
Discussion:
Aligning Mobile Home Park Needs with Levels of Service to achieve Comparable Outcomes with
Other Neighborhoods
Because mobile home parks have unique challenges related to their ownership and governance model;
privately-owned infrastructure; fragmented oversight; and complex, often divergent methods for residents
to assert their rights; outcomes for basic needs, accountability, and resident empowerment are distinct
from those in other Fort Collins neighborhoods. Outcomes where MHPs and other neighborhood types
Page 48
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 19
vary the most fit into three categories needed to support MHPs: habitability, accountability, and
empowerment.
Root causes of disparate outcomes in mobile home park neighborhoods discussed above have direct
impacts on the decreased ability to achieve parity with other property types. Specifically, private
infrastructure maintenance, lack of investment in infrastructure over time, and lack of transparency for
residents regarding the state or function of infrastructure decreases the safe, healthy, quality living
conditions in MHPs impacting habitability. Limitations on oversight authority, enforcement levels, and
regulation directly impact the amount of accountability and transparency available currently to enforcement
personnel to gain compliance from MHP owners. The split responsibilities, rights, and ownership of mobile
home parks create power dynamics that are difficult to overcome for residents to be able to engage in
conflict resolution. That, combined with the complexity of navigating complaint and legal systems, creates
situations where residents may not be able to effectively resolve conflict or advocate for their rights, a
barrier to empowerment.
A cross-departmental City team identified and evaluated strategies to enhance enforcement and address
root causes of the disparities. A total of 88 unique strategies were crafted, guided by community voices
and subject matter experts, to focus on the challenges resulting from inconsistent jurisdiction, oversight,
and regulation. Consideration was also given to the anticipated effectiveness of the strategy in addressing
MHP issues and alignment with City oversight authority in other neighborhood types. While some
strategies are direct enforcement or escalation of current enforcement focused on compliance by MHP
owners, others relate to City-focused outreach and activities such as improvements to internal coordination
or exploration of additional protections in Municipal Code.
To implement these strategies, 10 specific MHP issues where the current level of City enforcement is
insufficient to impact habitability and accountability outcomes were distilled from engagement feedback
and complaint data. The 10 issues and the outcomes they effect are outlined in Table 4.
Page 49
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 11 of 19
Table 4: Focus for Strategy Implementation by MHP Issue
Outcome MHP Issue
Habitability:
Safe, Functional Infrastructure 1. Water Infrastructure Maintenance
2. Water & Toilet Access during Water Outages
3. Water Infrastructure Leak Repair
4. Road Hazard Maintenance
Habitability:
Safe Green Infrastructure 5. Hazardous Tree & Canopy Maintenance
Habitability:
Safe Living Conditions 6. Speed Limit Enforcement Oversight (enforcement by
MHP owner)
Accountability & Transparency 7. Water Rebilling Oversight
8. Lot Rent
9. Water Outage & Boil Water Notices
10. Park Rules
Strategies developed exclude City enforcement, outside of requiring disclosure of information, related to:
retaliation, lease terms, or park rules although they have a high frequency of complaints to MHPOP and
the City. Underlying legal determinations and the level of review needed to take on enforcement would
significantly impact staff capacity and likely require an Administrative Hearing Officer to review evidenc e
and resolve the dispute. MHPOP is better suited and resourced to investigate and issue determinations
on these complaints. Likewise, regulation of water quality standards requires a level of technical expertise
that already exists in the current oversight agency, CDPHE, so strategies around additional enforcement
by the City were not considered. However, educational support and some resources from the Water Quality
Lab will continue to be accessible by MHP residents, managers, and owners. The City has already begun
improvements to coordination and communication with these enforcement entities.
Progress for MHP Strategies by the City
City-focused strategies to build on ongoing departmental work were also identified through the design
process and include:
Shifting to annual MHP-wide inspections from complaint-based
Creating standard operating procedures and process maps for responses to residents
Mapping all MHP streetlights and safety lighting, indicating ownership and responsibility
Exploring Municipal Code update to eliminate bans on fences in mobile home parks
Progress on other City-focused strategies to support enforcement and improve outcomes in MHPs was
made as a result of the cross-departmental focus this year and active participation by decision-makers at
multiple levels of the City organization including:
Shared data collection and analysis of MHP complaints and Code violations
Expanded education on Building Permit requirements; creation of design templates for decks, sheds,
carports; translation of Permit applications into Spanish
New Community Consultants opportunities for Nuisance Code educational assessments
Water quality testing for households by One Water (availability dependent on Water Quality Lab
capacity)
Page 50
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 12 of 19
In 2025, a Neighborhood Liaison position was temporarily redeployed through December as the MHP point
person, while there were tradeoffs that reduced the amount of programming and types of engagement for
other programs like Next Level Neighborhoods and Eviction Legal Fund, the rede ployment improved
internal and external coordination and provided consistency.
Implementation of Enforcement Strategies through MHP Licensing Program
Implementation of MHP owner-focused enforcement strategies requires a centralized program, point
person, and overarching compliance program. Staff proposes accomplishing this through a Mobile Home
Park Licensing program as an umbrella to move forward enforcement components, streamline
communication, and prioritize work.
A licensing program would include:
1. Mandatory registration & submission of data
- Water infrastructure assessment & maintenance schedule
- Water outage & boil notice frequency/duration
- Water billing methodology & submeter maintenance schedule
- Tree hazard & canopy assessment & maintenance schedule
- Average lot rent, amount/frequency of rent increase, line-item description of rent increases
- Road hazard assessment & maintenance schedule
- Speed limit & enforcement standards
- Park rules
2. Publicly available dashboard to support habitability and accountability
3. Certification of all MHP Managers
4. Completing or making substantial progress toward completing all required tasks to address issues
Due to resource and staffing constraints, a proposed MHP licensing program would begin by addressing
prioritized issues (discussed below) and incorporate enforcement strategies for additional MHP issues as
outcomes improve in priority areas, eventually addressing all 10 identified issues and expanding to others
as needed.
Proposed Enforcement Process
Strategies for the 10 identified MHP issues were sorted into flowcharts of escalating enforcement
interventions and pathways to compliance for habitability and accountability standards seen in similar
neighborhood types. Each flowchart is designed with:
Voluntary compliance “off ramps”,
Time allowed before enforcement escalation,
Required tasks to be completed in order, and
Ability for each park to move through the phases of enforcement at an individual pace based on their
voluntary compliance/penalties for non-compliance/abatement and cost recovery rather than under a
prescribed timeline.
Flowcharts for enforcement escalations for each issue are in Attachment 1.
Organizing strategies within phases allows MHPs to complete required tasks in each phase to move
forward through voluntary compliance or escalation of enforcement based on their choices but guarantees
consistency in results with each MHP completing the same set of tasks. It also keeps each MHP and the
Page 51
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 13 of 19
program moving toward habitability and accountability outcomes without waiting for every MHP to catch
up, as they are starting from very different places that may require different support to assist with voluntary
compliance along the way. Some resources to assist with voluntary compliance throughout the phases
would be available but are not indicated specifically in the enforcement escalation flowcharts. These are
still under development and resource-dependent, but could include infrastructure repair grants, rebates for
equipment, or connection with other available City resources (like Art in Public Places or FC Moves for
traffic calming installations at MHP entrances on public streets).
Once MHPs have completed required tasks in Phases 1 and 2, they become eligible for park -wide
incentives like use of leak detection loaner kits or tree swap programs to replace unhealthy trees with
native, water-conserving ones.
Implementation of increased enforcement strategies, penalty structures, or abatement would need to
prohibit MHP owners from passing costs of the program to residents. The transparency created by
requiring disclosure of rent-related information and requiring itemized notices of rent increase would assist
in assuring that residents do not bear additional enforcement or non-compliance costs.
Phase 1
Each escalation flowchart begins with every mobile home park entering Phase 1 at the outset of the
program for assessment of conditions, baseline data collection, community survey, or education to support
voluntary compliance. Each required data set has a voluntary compliance deadline ranging from 3 to 12
months after which penalties are imposed, and some compliance escalates to the City performing the
assessment and charging costs to the MHP owner. It also includes abatement by the City and cost recovery
from MHP owners for hazardous trees, providing potable water and toilet access for water outages of more
than 12 hours, and water infrastructure leak detection. Phase 1 for some strategies will also necessitate
establishing standard operating and communication procedures.
Phase 2
The timing for each MHP entering Phase 2 depends on their individual completion of required tasks in
Phase 1. All mobile home parks will enter Phase 2 for voluntary mitigation of water infrastructure leaks,
tree canopy issues, and road hazards; enforcement of maintenance schedules and notices; and penalties
assessed for failure to enforce standards set in Phase 1. For MHP owners who do not voluntarily mitigate
infrastructure hazards, Phase 2 includes escalation to abatement of these by the City with the costs
charged to the MHP owner.
Phase 3
Once a mobile home park has completed the required tasks in Phases 1 and 2, they become eligible for
incentives in Phase 3 to encourage continued voluntary compliance, such as use of leak detection loan-
out kits to monitor changes in water infrastructure, or assistance with upgrades for enforcement -related
projects like tree swaps to replace unhealthy trees with healthy, low water-use native species. Incentives
in Phase 3 are dependent on resource availability.
General activities in each phase are described in Table 5. Required tasks are in bold.
Page 52
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 14 of 19
Table 5: Activities and Required Tasks in each Phase of Implementation
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Assessments of
infrastructure & MHP
condition (voluntary or
assessed by the
City/contractor & billed
to the MHP owner)
Voluntary mitigation for
water infrastructure
leak, tree canopy issues,
& road hazards
Incentives to encourage
continued voluntary
compliance or assist
MHPs with upgrades
Data collection
(submission required)
with results available to
the public
Abatement & cost
recovery for water
infrastructure leak, road
hazard, & tree canopy
issues
Emergency abatement
by City & cost recovery
from MHP owner for
hazardous tree
abatement, provision of
water/toilet access after
12+ hour water outage, &
water infrastructure leak
detection
Enforcement of
maintenance schedules
Establish MHP owner
enforcement standards
(speed limit, parking,
security lighting)
Enforcement of water
outage notices
Education to support
voluntary compliance &
provide best practices
Penalties for non-
compliant enforcement of
standards (speed limits,
tree health,...)
Continue participation in
current Residents’ Rights
Team work, Nuisance &
Building Code
Enforcement
Require use of existing
water submeters for billing
(for non-compliance on
water rebilling issues)
NEXT STEPS
Staff Recommendation
In assessing which outcomes to prioritize of the enforcement escalations developed by the team, focus
remained on outcomes and included the following criteria:
Addresses Life, Health, or Safety Risk
Need for Urgent Intervention
Frequently Experienced Issue
Anticipated Potential for Impact of Strategy
Meets other Priority Goals of the City, MHPOP, or community
Page 53
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 15 of 19
The number of those priorities to recommend for implementation and the extent of enforcement that staff
would recommend at this time was also influenced by current capacity and resourcing constraints.
The staff recommendation is comprised of four sections and a staffing assessment to assist with
consideration:
1. Centralizing management
2. Addressing urgent concerns
3. Addressing longer-term issues
4. Municipal Code updates to support the recommendation
The benefits of a centralized management structure and communication have been evident even in the
months spent preparing for the Work Session. A designated point of contact for internal staff and
community members along with regular, consistent, strategic communication among decision-makers from
impacted City departments and frontline staff created opportunities for collaboration, efficiency, and shared
progress. Housing an overarching MHP licensing program led by a designated point person allows this
reliability and engagement to continue so the work can be done more intentionally. The licensing program
would encompass required tasks from Phases 1 and 2 as well as educational resources, a public -facing
dashboard to report data, and enforcement mechanisms to assure compliance with Municipal Code.
Because MHP managers are exempt from any training or education requirements in a situation where they
have high levels of control over an entire neighborhood, a formal MHP Manager Certification would help
support legal and ethical management principles, build a base of knowledge in the community, provide
networking opportunities, offer otherwise limited professional development opportunities, and potentially
reduce frequency of manager turnover.
The existing MHP Residents’ Rights Team would continue its work and expand to include representatives
from additional teams like Code Enforcement and Water Conservation. A program plan would be
developed by the MHP Program point person to direct the work, outline deliverables, and assist with
complex coordination among impacted staff to reduce fragmentation of the work and priorities.
Page 54
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 16 of 19
MHP owners are responsible under State law for providing potable water and toilet access for any water
outage lasting more than 12 hours, maintaining trees so they are not a safety threat, and repairing water
lines. However, there are practical limitations to some MHPOP enforcement that could be better addressed
for urgent safety issues locally. MHPOP has limited on-the-ground inspection and no inspectors based in
Fort Collins. Enforcement may result in penalizing the MHP owner for failing to comply with th e law, but
only after hazardous conditions exist or damage has been done. Most of the 12+ hour water outages in
Fort Collins since the law has been in effect have been over weekends, holidays, or after normal business
hours when CDPHE and MHPOP are not immediately available. MHPOP also lacks abatement authority
so penalties can be assessed and directives issued to correct the violation in support of future compliance,
but does not get residents drinking water or access to restrooms during the outage. The Ci ty could fill this
gap in service with locally-available resources and potential coordination with existing water outage
reporting systems and recover costs from the MHP owner.
There is no enforceable, consistent standard to define a “hazardous” tree or timeline for their mitigation for
MHP owners. Because of this, a case-by-case determination of whether an individual tree is hazardous
and appropriate response times must be made when a resident files a complaint with MHPOP. Additionally,
MHPOP does not employ arborists or foresters who could inspect for a set of standards and recommend
deadlines to address safety concerns for enforcement of the State law. MHPOP lacks authority to remove
or prune trees in mobile home parks and can only enforce the property owner’s legal responsibility to do
so. This a space where the City could also fill this gap. Multiple departments employ or contract additional
work to licensed arborists and professional foresters based locally. Abatement of the urgent hazardous
condition could be completed with costs recovered from the MHP owner by accessing the City’s available
resources with the grant of additional authority.
Maintaining MHP water and wastewater lines in good working, functional order and repairing them in a
manner consistent with safety and health standards is the legal responsibility of the MHP owner, enforced
by MHPOP. As with hazardous tree abatement, the legal authority for both MHPOP and the City does not
currently extend to correcting the violation, only allowing enforcement of the property owner’s requirement
to do so. Because water line assessments require special training, no set standard exists for repair quality
Page 55
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 17 of 19
or timelines, and most of the infrastructure is underground, MHPOP is at a disadvantage in investigating
claims that the owner is not addressing urgent issues like water leaks in the system. MHPOP does not
employ water operators, plumbers, or other technical experts in this f ield. Of special concern in mobile
home park water infrastructure, are water leaks, because of both the safety conditions they may cause in
the MHP and the environmental and financial costs directly impacting the community. Based on data for
continuous water use in mobile home parks in Fort Collins, an estimated 5 million gallons per month or 60
million gallons of water per year is lost to potential leaks in infrastructure or in homes within the parks. The
estimated cost is $174,000 per year paid by MHP residents. MHP owners charge residents for water used
in common areas, which would include costs for water lost to ongoing leaks. Because there is no State or
local regulation specifically requiring leak detection in infrastructure, it often becomes maintenance that is
deferred and has no direct financial incentive to repair. Water lost to infrastructure leaks is potable water
that has already been treated by the City or Fort Collins-Loveland Water District before distribution to
mobile home parks in city limits. When water from these leaks returns to the water cycle through ground
water or stormwater, it must again be treated before it can be redistributed as potable water, costing the
public water utility each time, impacting conservation goals and capacity. Because continuous use of water
may include infrastructure leaks and/or household leaks, eliminating continuous use requires determining
the source. By requiring that MHPs assess their water infrastructure for leaks and repair them, attention
could then be redirected to more dispersed water leaks occurring inside homes. Due to the estimates of
the amount of water that likely indicates some level of infrastructure leaks in MHPs and its cost to residents,
leak detection and repair is an urgent issue. Fort Collins One Water has experts in the field of leak detection
and quality equipment to be able to detect leaks, recommend a repair schedule, and charge costs for the
service back to the MHP owner.
Because the Staff Recommendation was formulated to prioritize resolution of life, health, and safety issues,
and urgent needs, implementation would address the root causes of the majority of MHPOP complaints
from Fort Collins mobile home park residents over the last four years.
Page 56
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 18 of 19
Staff capacity issues would need to be considered prior to implementation to ensure that existing pressures
are not exacerbated by program components. Because City staff across numerous departments currently
carry out enforcement, outreach, and other projects in mobile home parks and with MHP residents, an
inventory of the hours, positions, and job duties is needed to restructure that work in a more efficient
operational model under a centralized MHP program.
Resources for Code enforcement are currently spread across multiple departments and service areas,
each with their own priorities, budgets, procedures, and levels of service. Because these responsibilities
Page 57
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 19 of 19
are housed in multiple departments, most teams only contribute a few hours each week or month to support
MHP work. This poses a huge challenge to effective Code enforcement in mobile home communities.
Whether MHP work is prioritized and to what extent is left to each supervisor, largely outside the
consideration or coordination with other teams working in the space. Additionally, because each area only
handles a small portion of the overall enforcement load, these activities are extremely vulnerable to
service-level reductions and budget cuts as departmental priorities shift with decreases in funding.
This also poses a customer service challenge. The depth and breadth of City services are often
overwhelming, making it difficult for community members to know which department handles which issue.
The current system sends community members through a maze of different email addresses and phone
numbers to determine who can help them with their specific complaint.
Because of the complexity of this work, significant coordination is required to work across MHPOP,
CDPHE, Larimer County, and City departments. In this way, MHP enforcement becomes more about case
management and resource consultation than about simple inspection or citation processes.
Potential Funding Streams
Acknowledging the challenging current financial climate, funding and staffing even the recommended
scope of the program requires identifying sustainable, reliable funding streams outside the City’s General
Fund.
o MHP Licensing Fees would provide annual revenue for the program, but would be set at levels
calibrated to balance program funding needs with financial burden on property owners and potential
for displacement.
o MHP Manager Certification Fees in alignment with cost recovery for staff time and real estate broker’s
training/testing fees (currently required for all property managers except mobile home park and onsite)
would provide professional development opportunities, offset City costs, and encourage employee
retention by MHP owners.
o Non-compliance penalties are anticipated to be higher at the outset of the program, which would aid
in funding investigatory/compliance staff, however, are challenging to project until implementation
begins.
o Fee for service that charge costs back to the mobile home park for abatement or assessments could
also include some level of administrative processing, scheduling, or convenience fees. Some services
City staff or contractors could provide cost less than work performed by other contractors in the area,
making this a potentially attractive option for MHP owners even with additional fees.
o Grants, nonprofit funding, and community partnerships are potentially available, although
unreliable sources of funding offset. A program point person could assist in exploring more long -term,
consistent opportunities for this type of funding.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Enforcement Escalation Flowcharts
2. Presentation
Page 58
Item 2.
1
Attachment 1
Enforcement Escalation Flowcharts by Outcome and MHP Issue
Outcome: Safe, Functional Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Water Infrastructure Maintenance & Oversight
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
Required Tasks:
• Assess and submit water infrastructure data
• Submit a maintenance schedule
• Comply with submitted
maintenance schedule
• Data submission and public dashboard
• City/contractor assesses infrastructure if MHP
owner does not – costs to MHP owner
•
• Penalties for non-compliance
Page 59
Item 2.
2
Outcome: Safe, Functional Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Potable Water and Toilet Access during 12+ hour Water Outage (State law violation)
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
Required Tasks:
• Provide potable water and toilet access for all
water outages of 12 hours or longer
• City/contractor provides water and portable
toilet access if MHP owner does not – costs to
MHP owner
• Penalties for non-compliance
Page 60
Item 2.
3
Outcome: Safe, Functional Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Water Infrastructure Leaks
Page 61
Item 2.
4
Outcome: Safe, Functional Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Water Infrastructure Leaks (continued)
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
Required Tasks:
• Participation in continuous consumption
notification program
• Detecting infrastructure leaks (upon
notification)
• Notify residents of infrastructure
water leaks within 24 hours
(State law)
• Repair infrastructure leaks in a
• Penalties for non-compliance
• City/contractor performs leak detection – costs
to MHP owner
• Penalties for non-compliance
• City/contractor performs
repair – costs to MHP owner
Page 62
Item 2.
5
Outcome: Safe, Functional Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Road Hazard and Maintenance Oversight
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
Required Tasks:
• Assess and submit road hazard/pavement data
• Submit a maintenance schedule
• Repair road hazards
• Data submission and public dashboard
• City/contractor assesses infrastructure if MHP
owner does not – costs to MHP owner
•
• City/contractor repairs road
hazards – costs to MHP owner
Page 63
Item 2.
6
Outcome: Safe Green Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Hazardous Tree and Canopy Maintenance & Oversight
Page 64
Item 2.
7
Outcome: Safe Green Infrastructure
MHP Issue: Hazardous Tree and Canopy Maintenance & Oversight (continued)
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
Required Tasks:
• Assess and submit hazardous trees and tree
canopy data
• Submit a maintenance schedule
• Comply with submitted
maintenance schedule
• Mitigate hazardous trees
• Data submission and public dashboard
• City/contractor assesses infrastructure if MHP
owner does not – costs to MHP owner
• Best practice education
New Enforcement Mechanisms:
• Penalties for non-compliance
• City/contractor addresses
hazardous trees – costs to
Page 65
Item 2.
8
Outcome: Safe Living Conditions
MHP Issue: Speed Limit Enforcement Oversight
Page 66
Item 2.
9
Outcome: Safe Living Conditions
MHP Issue: Speed Limit Enforcement Oversight (continued)
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
• Submit speed limit and MHP enforcement
processes
• Submit a maintenance schedule
• Participate in Traffic Tamers outreach program
• Meet speed limit enforcement
standards set by City
• Data submission and public dashboard
• Best practice education
•
• Penalties for non-compliance
Page 67
Item 2.
10
Outcome: Accountability & Transparency
MHP Issue: Water Rebilling Oversight
Enforcement Phase 1
Required Tasks:
• Submit water rebilling methodology and submeter
maintenance data
• Participate in “spot check” proactive audits
• Data submission and public dashboard
• Best practice education
• Penalties for non-compliance
•
Page 68
Item 2.
11
Outcome: Accountability & Transparency
MHP Issue: Lot Rent
Enforcement Phase 1
Required Tasks:
• Submit average lot rent, date/amount of last rent
increase, line-item description of rent increases
• Provide line-item description of all lot rent increases to
• Data submission and public dashboard
• Penalties for non-compliance
• Submit MHPOP complaint on behalf of residents for
Page 69
Item 2.
12
Outcome: Accountability & Transparency
MHP Issue: Water Outage & Boil Notices
Enforcement Phase 1
Required Tasks:
• Submit number and frequency of water outages,
number and reason for boil notices, and length of
each annually
• Participate in best practice training from One Water
• Data submission and public dashboard
• Best practice education
• Penalties for non-compliance
• Submit MHPOP and/or CDPHE complaint on behalf
Page 70
Item 2.
13
Outcome: Accountability & Transparency
MHP Issue: Park Rules
Enforcement Phase 1 Enforcement Phase 2
Required Tasks:
• Submit park rules annually and upon any changes • Participate in best practice education on parking
policies
• Participate in resident-led parking permit program (if
requested by resident association)
• Data submission and public dashboard
• Penalties for non-compliance
• Submit MHPOP complaint on behalf of residents
• Best practice education
• Mentoring on residential parking permit program
(resident association-led)
Page 71
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Community Engagement Manager –
Housing & Community Vitality
JC Ward
Mobile Home Park
Oversight and
Enforcement
09-23-2025
Page 72
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Feedback Sought
1.Would Council like to move forward with a MHP licensing program that supports
expanded enforcement strategies?
2.Are there additional outcomes or strategies Council would prioritize besides those in
the staff recommendation?
Page 73
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Agenda
Background
Comparison of Municipal Code & Enforcement Authority by Property Type
Strategies & Approach to Overcome Disparities in Outcomes
Next Steps –Staff Recommendation
Feedback Sought
Page 74
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Council Priorities
Page 75
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
Strategic Alignment
Page 76
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Background –MHPs as Affordable Housing
•Residents may own their home, but the
land it sits on is owned by the mobile home
park.
•Mobile home parks are private property,
as are their streets, water infrastructure,
and most fencing and safety lighting.
•MHP neighborhoods in Fort Collins are
home to some of the largest
concentrations of historically
underserved populations including non-
English speakers, lower-income
households, and senior citizens.
Mobile home parks are private,
unsubsidized,“naturally-
occurring” affordable housing.
Page 77
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
MHP Location Map
City GMA Total
Communities 10 14 24
Home Sites 1,400 2,137 3,537
City Limits
Manufactured Home Community
GMA Boundary
Page 78
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
MHPOP Complaints & Enforcement Outcomes
Number of Fort Collins MHPOP Complaints and Enforcement Outcomes 2020-2024
Page 79
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
What problems are we trying to solve?
9
Page 80
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Comparison of Property Types -Land Use Code
Page 81
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes HereComparison of Land Use Code Requirements
11
Page 82
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
Comparison of Municipal Code Enforcement Authority
Page 83
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
Comparison of MHP Oversight Authority
Page 84
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
What are We Trying to Achieve?
Align Mobile Home Park needs with level of service
to achieve comparable outcomes with other neighborhoods.
Page 85
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Root Causes of Disparate Outcomes for MHPs
Page 86
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Addressing MHP Issues to Improve Outcomes
: City-focused activities and MHP owner-focused standards and compliance
Page 87
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
17
Addressing MHP Issues to Improve Outcomes
Outcome MHP Issue
Safe, Functional Infrastructure 1.Water Infrastructure Maintenance
2.Water & Toilet Access during Outages
3.Water Infrastructure Leak Repair
4.Road Hazard Maintenance
Safe Green Infrastructure 5. Hazardous Tree & Canopy Maintenance
Safe Living Conditions 6. Speed Limit Enforcement Oversight
Accountability & Transparency 7.Water Rebilling Oversight
8.Lot Rent
9.Water Outage & Boil Water Notices
10.Park Rules
MHP owner-focused strategies address 10 critical issues to improve outcomes
Page 88
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
18
Implementation through MHP Licensing
MHP
Licensing
Program
Registration
Data
Submission
Public MHP
Dashboard
Completing
all
Required
Tasks
MHP
Manager
Certification
Proposed Implementation
through MHP Licensing
Program
Page 89
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
19
MHP Licensing Required Tasks
Page 90
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Proposed Enforcement Process
Strategies for the 10 MHP issues integrated into flowcharts of
escalating enforcement designed with:
•Voluntary compliance “off ramps”
•Time allowed before escalation
•Ability for each park to move through the phases of enforcement
at an individual pace
General Process Overview
Page 91
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Prioritizing Enforcement Escalations
Page 92
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
22
Next Steps –Staff Recommendation
Page 93
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
Next Steps –Staff Recommendation
Page 94
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
24
Next Steps –Staff Recommendation: Address Long-Term Issues
…
Page 95
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
25
Next Steps –Staff Recommendation
Page 96
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
26
Page 97
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
27
Next Steps –Staff Exploration of Funding Sources
Page 98
Item 2.
Headline Copy Goes Here
28
Feedback Sought
1.Would Council like to move forward with a MHP licensing program that supports
expanded enforcement strategies?
2.Are there additional outcomes or strategies Council would prioritize besides those in
the staff recommendation?
Page 99
Item 2.
File Attachments for Item:
3. Which Wheels Go Where? – Project Update and Exploration of Rule Changes
The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the Which Wheels Go Where? (WWGW)
project which explores updating the rules governing the operation of human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles, such as e-scooters, skateboards, and e-skateboards on city
facilities, i.e. streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails to support mode shift.
This project aligns with:
Council Priorities: “Advance a 15-minute City by accelerating a shift to Active Modes” and
“Modernize and update the City Charter”.
Strategic Plan: Transportation and Mobility 1: Make significant progress toward the City’s Vision
Zero goal to have no serious injury or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling or driving
in Fort Collins.
Active Modes Plan, Our Climate Future, the Strategic Trails Plan, and the Vision Zero Action
Plan.
Beginning May 2024, staff have collected data, administered a community questionnaire, and
explored the issue internally within the city organization, and externally with community
organizations and other municipalities.
Community engagement efforts occurred July 2024 through June 2025 and included outreach
and listening sessions at several boards and commissions. Community members who use
human and lightweight electric powered vehicles generally prefer facilities separated from
vehicular traffic, while other people, specifically those with disabilities, older adults, and children,
desire an environment safe and conducive for walking and slower biking, particularly on
sidewalks and paved trails.
To improve safety, staff suggest a continued investment in separated infrastructure for people
walking, rolling, and bicycling, as well as a safety education approach to address undesired
behavior on streets, sidewalks, and trails. Updating rules to accommodate human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles will promote mode shift, a goal that supports Our Climate Future.
Page 100
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 6
September 23, 2025
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Cortney Geary, Active Modes Manager
Dave “DK” Kemp, Senior Trails Planner
Rachel Ruhlen, Transportation Planner
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Which Wheels Go Where? – Project Update and Exploration of Rule Changes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the Which Wheels Go Where? (WWGW) project
which explores updating the rules governing the operation of human powered and lightweight electric
vehicles, such as e-scooters, skateboards, and e-skateboards on city facilities, i.e. streets, bike lanes,
sidewalks, and paved trails to support mode shift.
This project aligns with:
Council Priorities: “Advance a 15-minute City by accelerating a shift to Active Modes” and “Modernize
and update the City Charter”.
Strategic Plan: Transportation and Mobility 1: Make significant progress toward the City’s Vision Zero
goal to have no serious injury or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling or driving in Fort
Collins.
Active Modes Plan, Our Climate Future, the Strategic Trails Plan, and the Vision Zero Action Plan.
Beginning May 2024, staff have collected data, administered a community questionnaire, and explored
the issue internally within the city organization, and externally with community organizations and other
municipalities.
Community engagement efforts occurred July 2024 through June 2025 and included outreach and
listening sessions at several boards and commissions. Community members who use human and
lightweight electric powered vehicles generally prefer facilities separated from vehicular traffic, while other
people, specifically those with disabilities, older adults, and children, desire an environment safe and
conducive for walking and slower biking, particularly on sidewalks and paved trails.
To improve safety, staff suggest a continued investment in separated infrastructure for people walking,
rolling, and bicycling, as well as a safety education approach to address undesired behavior on streets,
sidewalks, and trails. Updating rules to accommodate human powered and lightweight electric vehicles
will promote mode shift, a goal that supports Our Climate Future.
Page 101
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 6
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have feedback on new definitions: human powered vehicles and lightweight electric
vehicles?
2. Does Council have any concerns with expanding behavior rules to riders of additional human powered
and lightweight electric vehicles?
3. Does Council have feedback on options staff are exploring regarding the operation of human powered
and lightweight electric vehicles on city facilities, including streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved
trails?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Current rules governing the operation of micromobility are complex and sometimes confusing. Creating
two new definitions will allow us to make consistent and predictable rules:
Human powered vehicles are those propelled primarily by human power, including bicycles,
skateboards, and Class 1 and 2 e-bikes (which are intended to be primarily human powered).
Lightweight electric vehicles are those with a top speed equal to or less than 20 mph, including e-
scooters, one wheels, and electric skateboards. Electric vehicles that can go faster than 20 mph are
not considered lightweight electric vehicles.
Community engagement and research
Public engagement during Fall 2024 was conducted to identify existing problems, opportunities, and
concerns. Internal staff, external agencies, and advisory boards provided feedback. Staff researched other
communities’ experiences.
1. Public engagement
A questionnaire was provided in English and Spanish to better understand concerns about human powered
and lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, and streets. A little more than half
(55%) of the 1,478 respondents did have concerns about riding unsafely, speeding on sidewalks and paved
trails, conflicts with motor vehicles and not following the rules of the road. Themes of the 718 comments
included:
Accommodating more kinds of vehicles encourages mode shift
The system is comparatively safe already
The rules are complicated and confusing
Real and perceived safety issues, specifically on trails
Protect pedestrians, people with disabilities, seniors, and children
Behavior, not type of vehicle, is the problem
Paved trails concerns include speed differentials between people walking and biking (unsafe speeds)
and no audible warning when passing slower moving people.
Desire for paved trail speed limit with enforcement
2. Feedback from internal staff, external agencies, and advisory boards
Groups engaged include:
Page 102
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 6
Internal: Parks and Recreation, Natural Areas, FC Moves, Traffic Operations, Streets, Police Services,
City Attorney’s Office, Communications and Public Involvement Office.
External: Colorado State University (CSU) Police, CSU Transportation, and Downtown Development
Authority.
Boards: Active Modes Advisory Board, Disability Advisory Board, Senior Advisory Board,
Transportation Board, Youth Advisory Board, and a Super Issues meeting.
Key themes heard were:
Simplify regulations
Continue educational outreach regarding the prohibited use of electric-assist bikes or other e-powered
devices on soft surface trails in Natural Areas
Increased safety education efforts
More signs
Create a culture of safety and mutual respect, courtesy and etiquette
Safer separated infrastructure and maintenance of infrastructure
Audible signals on paved trails
Not all devices have speedometers
3. Lessons from other communities
The City of Boulder has allowed human powered and lightweight electric vehicles on streets and paved
trails, but not lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, since 2021. Boulder police reported expecting
more crashes on streets with this rule change and have not observed increased crashes. The City of
Boulder chose a safety education approach rather than relying on enforcement measures.
Communities that allow e-scooters on paved trails include Boulder, Denver, and Loveland, Colorado;
Fayetteville, Arkansas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Columbus, Ohio. Boulder and Loveland also allow other
lightweight electric vehicles on paved trails.
Addressing safety & enforcement
Safety education strategies can be effective in modulating behavior and creating expectations of behavior,
while resources for enforcing correct behavior are limited and can have a short-term effect.
The Strategic Trails Plan recommends a Trail Safety Education Campaign to address a range of safety
concerns on paved trails. Input from the community and internal and external partners as well as research
has identified the following considerations to inform decision making:
People walking, people with disabilities, seniors and families with younger children perceive a lack of
safety on paved trails today.
Some lightweight electric vehicle users feel safer using paved trails than they do on streets shared with
motor vehicles, with or without bike lanes.
Some vehicles and riders may lack safety equipment, such as helmets, lights, or brakes.
Lightweight electric vehicle users currently account for a small percentage of overall self-reported
paved trail users.
Concerns center more around e-bike and illegal electric motorcycle use on paved trails and specifically,
the speed differentials between people walking and people biking.
Page 103
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 6
Enforcement perspective (Police Services and Parks/Natural Areas Rangers)
Considerations expressed by police officers and rangers included:
Resources for enforcing behavior and equipment rules,
Resources and responsibility for conducting outreach and challenges in reaching new students and
residents each year,
Potential for increased crashes and injuries due to speed differential with motor vehicles, ability to
maneuver or stop, and lack of safety equipment.
Suggest a comprehensive safety education approach over traditional enforcement efforts to improve
safety on trails over the long-term.
Outstanding questions
At this time, some questions remain about safety, definitions, rules, and data.
Safety
Potential for increased crashes on streets due to the speed differential between motor vehicles and
other riders
Some communities experienced an increase in certain types of injuries when e-scooters were
introduced
Speed bumps could be barriers to some vehicles like e-scooters (currently allowed on streets) and
skateboards (not currently allowed on streets)
Some vehicles and riders may lack safety equipment, such as helmets, lights, or brakes
Some vehicles have different maneuverability than others
Definitions
Differences in definitions between communities may create confusion for travelers and enforcement
Expanding where devices are allowed to operate
Challenges to enforcement
Differences between municipal code and state code could create issues in civil court
Data
Crash data is limited if it doesn’t involve a motor vehicle.
Exploring options
This project explores rules governing behavior of people operating human powered and lightweight electric
vehicles as well as how these vehicles can be accommodated.
Behavior
Existing rules govern the operation of bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters on streets, sidewalks, and paved
trails. Their intent is to protect other users of these facilities and include obeying traffic laws, yielding right
of way, yielding to pedestrians on sidewalks, and prohibition of reckless or careless riding. The rules also
require safety features such as lights and brakes.
Accommodating vehicles
This project explores the option to simplify the rules to allow the operation of human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles on the same facilities where bicycles are allowed to operate. Bicycles are
Page 104
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 6
allowed to operate on paved trails, streets with bike lanes, streets without bike lanes, and sidewalks.
Bicycles are not allowed to operate on sidewalks within the dismount zone.
Staff are exploring the following scenarios to accommodate human powered and lightweight electric
vehicles:
Page 105
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 6
NEXT STEPS
Based on Council feedback, staff will prepare recommended modifications to traffic and municipal
code.
Advisory boards will review recommendations.
Draft ordinance will be presented for Council consideration in 2026.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Active Modes Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, February 10, 2025 (excerpt)
2. Disability Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, March 17, 2025 (excerpt)
3. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, June 18, 2025 (excerpt)
4. Parks and Recreation Board Meeting Minutes, December 4, 2024 (excerpt)
5. Senior Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, April 9, 2025 (excerpt)
6. Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, March 12, 2025 (excerpt)
7. Youth Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, February 6, 2025
8. Police Services Statement, September 6, 2025
9. Which Wheels Go Where Community Engagement Summary
10. Which Wheels Go Where Report
11. Presentation
Page 106
Item 3.
ACTIVE MODES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING –REGULAR
February 10, 2025 6:00 p.m.
Online via Zoom or In Person at 281 North College
2 /1 0 /2025 – MINUTES Page 1
FOR REFERENCE:
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
Bruce Henderson, Chair
Kevin Krause, Vice Chair
Tim Han
Wallace Jacobson
Cameron Phillips
Kat Steele
Kristina Vrouwen velder
Jared Hanson
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Lauren Nagle
Rachel Ruhlen
DK Kemp
ABSENT:
None
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mario Biendarra
Jimmy Gilman
3. AGENDA REVIEW
Chair Henderson outlined the published agenda.
4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Mario (no last name provided) stated he recently moved to Fort Collins and is interested
in getting involved with local government. He commended the City’s bike trail
infrastructure.
Page 107
Item 3.
ACTIVE MODES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
2 /1 0 /2025 – MINUTES Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 2024
Krause made a motion, seconded by Han, to approve the minutes of the December 2024
meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Joint Meeting with Transportation Board
Steele stated it was interesting to see the differing priorities between the two
Boards.
Han commented on the overlap and similarities between the two Boards’ long-
range, overarching goals.
Members discussed the benefits of looking at ways for the Boards to collaborate.
Vrouwenvelder concurred the meeting was useful and stated there are parallel
priorities between the Boards.
Hanson stated it was interesting to hear about some parts and processes of local
government with which he was not particularly familiar. He concurred there are
many areas of possible collaboration.
Chair Henderson noted the Boards agreed to periodically meet, though there was
no specific schedule outlined. He asked what might be an impetus for a future
meeting.
Steele suggested discussing annual work plans.
Vrouwenvelder stated it would also make sense to have a conversation when the
Boards are providing feedback on the budget.
Han suggested certain topics could benefit from letters being sent from both
Boards to Council.
Ruhlen noted staff will also keep up with topics and can bring forth anything that
may be valuable for joint Board communication.
Chair Henderson noted he will be meeting regularly with Chair Peyronnin and
commented on comparing the raw joint meeting minutes with the work plan and
summarizing that information in a document.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Which Wheels Go Where – Rachel Ruhlen, DK Kemp
Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves, noted she sent the community engagement summary
to the Board and stated she would be requesting a formal recommendation in the
summer prior to Council consideration of the item.
Page 108
Item 3.
ACTIVE MODES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
2 /1 0 /2025 – MINUTES Page 3
Ruhlen stated the Which Wheels Go Where project has been done concurrently
with the Strategic Trails Plan update and includes new micromobility definitions:
human powered vehicle, lightweight electric vehicle under 20 mph, and low
power scooter or ‘out of class’ electric vehicle.
Ruhlen discussed the questionnaire outreach and design and summarized the
answers to questions about concerns and demographics. Additionally, Ruhlen
noted discussions were held with Fort Collins Police, CSU Police, and Park
Rangers, and Fort Collins Police has concerns that allowing skateboards on
streets will result in many severe crashes. She also noted that if speed limits are
established on paved trails, that will lead to an expectation that there will be
patrols and enforcement, and there are limited resources for doing that; therefore,
Police are recommending a safety education approach.
DK Kemp, Parks Department Trails Planner, stated there is currently only one
Park R anger that responds to calls on 46 miles of trail, though there are four Park
Ranger positions. He noted Rangers cannot chase or detain individuals who may
be riding an inappropriate device. He discussed the ‘authority of the resource,’
which is a method of educating community members that transfers the authority
from a Ranger to a community member to think or behave in a certain way in
areas such as trails, parks, and natural resources, that have their own
requirements.
Ruhlen stated CSU Police expressed the need for an appropriate citation that
could be used for careless riding on streets and sidewalks for all types of
vehicles. She noted the careless and reckless riding citation only applies to
bicycles, E-bikes, and E-scooters, and is not applicable for all facilities.
Ruhlen stated Boulder has allowed skateboards on streets since 2021 and
Boulder Police have not seen an increase in crashes of any kind involving
skateboards. She outlined the current regulations for human -powered and
lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, in crosswalks, on streets, and in bike
lanes. Members discussed the advantages and dangers of allowing various
types of vehicles on streets. Kemp commented on other municipalities changing
bike lanes to mobility lanes for use by many types of vehicles.
Ruhlen discussed the staff exploration of allowing all human -powered and
lightweight electric vehicles on paved trails and multi -use paths. Kemp stated he
is aware of two crashes on paved trails over the past couple of years that have
resulted in severe injury, though he noted there are likely many that go
unreported, and there are many reports of close calls. He commented on the
lack of courtesy and etiquette among trail users and noted there has been some
discussion of the courtesy speed limit on trails being 15 miles per hour, though
that is currently not codified. Kemp stated there is a recommendation in the
Page 109
Item 3.
ACTIVE MODES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
2 /1 0 /2025 – MINUTES Page 4
Strategic Trails Plan to launch a four-point approach looking at trail safety and
signage.
Han commented on Boulder and Golden having different speed limits for different
parts of town posted on the trails. He stated that type of signage may lead to the
perception of safety.
Kemp commented on Fort Collins moving from a more rural interpretation of the
trail system to a more urban use.
Han suggested trail signage could be a source of education and could serve as
reminders of proper trail etiquette.
Vice Chair Krause commented on the importance of creating a trail culture of
mutual respect.
b. Shared E-bikes and E-scooters – Rachel Ruhlen
Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves, discussed the annual review of the S pin program and
outlined significant events that occurred during year three, including Spin ’s
merger with Bird and subsequent bankruptcy of Bird. Ruhlen noted there was a
decrease in ridership in year three; however, the number of trips, miles, and
riders is dramatically larger than any previous micro-mobility program in Fort
Collins.
Ruhlen commented on the community benefits of Spin , specifically noting that the
mobile tours for the Safe Routes to School conference were heavily supported by
Spin . She also outlined the positive climate impacts of the program and
discussed the equity focus and Spin Access program, which is now part of
GetFoCo, the City’s portal to access income-qualified benefits.
Ruhlen discussed the Spin Adaptive program, which is a free service that delivers
adaptive cycles to users per request. She also outlined the safety components,
including the use of geofencing and speed governors as well as UL-certified
batteries.
In terms of next steps, Ruhlen discussed ways in which staff is attempting to
increase ridership, including campus discount zones, requesting passes for
frequent users, the use of Spin’s AI tool to assist with deployment, looking into
creating parking options for the Old Town area, having free zones, and
distributing promo codes for free rides. She also discussed another AI tool
launched by Spin related to the end-of-ride photos.
Ruhlen noted Spin operates on a one-year contract that is renewable for up to
five years, and next year will be the fifth year. She outlined the request for
proposal components and stated staff is seeking a longer-term contract to allow
for additional community investment.
Page 110
Item 3.
3/17/25– MINUTES
Disability Advisory Board
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, March 17, 2025 – 5:30 PM
300 Laporte Avenue and Microsoft Teams
1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 PM
2. ROLL CALL
a. Board Members Present – Linda Drees (Chair), Terry Schlicting (Vice Chair),
Joseph Tiner, Amber Kelley, Scott Winnegrad, Amanda Morgan
b. Board Members Absent – Rachel Knox Stutsman, Jaclyn Menendez, Kristin
White
c. Staff Members Present – Jan Reece
d. Guest(s) – Liri, Matthew Cicanese
3. AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 10, 2025
Kelley made a motion to approve February 10, 2025 minutes as presented.
Tiner seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
6. BUDGET
Reece noted the current remaining budget is $5,298.12.
7. GUEST PRESENTER
a. Rachel Ruhlen – Which Wheels Go Where
Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves Transportation Planner, stated Which Wheels Go
Where is exploring how to accommodate more types of micromobility, as that
supports climate, active modes, and Vision Zero goals. Additionally, the
project is concurrent with the Strategic Trails Plan update as paved trails are
the way some kinds of micromobility are accommodated.
Page 111
Item 3.
3/17/25– MINUTES
Ruhlen outlined the variety of devices that encompass micromobility and
noted the devices can be either human- or electric-powered. She stated the
current regulations around where various micromobility devices can be used
are very confusing. Additionally, the current category of ‘toy vehicles’ is
complicated; therefore, the proposal is to separate them into two categories:
human-powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles, which would have a
top speed of 20 miles per hour. Anything that goes faster than that would be
classified as a low-powered scooter.
Ruhlen discussed the proposal for changing the regulations regarding what
micromobility devices can be utilized where, including allowing human-
powered and lightweight electric vehicles to use streets, bike lanes, sidewalks,
and paved trails. She acknowledged that proposal may not be the ultimate
regulation, but it would be the simplest.
Ruhlen discussed the public outreach efforts, which included a survey and had
a focus on lower-income communities. She outlined the survey results in
terms of concerns and stated the open-ended comments summary showed a
need to accommodate micromobility while protecting pedestrians, people with
disabilities, seniors, and children. Additionally, it was noted that how people
ride is more important than what they ride; therefore, strategies for moving
forward should be more about behavior than controlling which types of
vehicles travel where.
Ruhlen noted Fort Collins Police Services is very concerned that allowing
skateboards on streets will lead to severe crashes; however, CSU Police do
not allow skateboards on sidewalks, only on streets. She noted Boulder has
allowed skateboards on streets since 2021 and Boulder Police also expected
to see an increase in sever crashes, though that has not been the case.
Ruhlen stated there is some interest in having an actual enforceable speed
limit for trails rather than the courtesy limit; however, there are concerns that
having a posted speed limit could lead to expectations of patrols and
enforcement, and there are limited resources and challenges with
enforcement. Therefore, the recommendation is for a safety and education
approach to control behavior, which is what has been used in Boulder.
Additionally, Ruhlen noted Park Rangers do not have the authority to detain or
pursue and instead use a technique called “Authority of the Resource” wherein
the Ranger deemphasizes the regulation and invites the individual to discuss
the needs of the trail or area to place the onus back onto the community
member.
Ruhlen outlined possible changes to the regulations around which types of
devices could be used where and noted dismount zones will not change. She
requested input from the Board regarding concerns and opportunities.
Kelley stated she rides on the sidewalk due to the fact that if she has a seizure
and falls, she would not want to be on a street. She asked how trail users are
made aware of the courtesy speed limit of 15 miles per hour. Ruhlen replied
there are a few signs on the paved trails; however, the Strategic Trails Plan
update includes a four-pronged education approach which involves center line
Page 112
Item 3.
3/17/25– MINUTES
striping, some trail widening, slow down warning signage, and potentially more
courtesy speed limit signage.
Kelley suggested utilizing mirrors on the trails to allow users to be seen by
others.
Liri asked if the courtesy speed limit is for electric vehicles or those with
speedometers. Ruhlen replied a posted speed limit and the courtesy speed
limit apply to everyone, and there is a challenge with users not having
speedometers.
Winnegrad commended education efforts, particularly the engagement and
mutual respect approach used by Rangers.
Kelley asked about the possibility of having signs that would show the speed
users are going. Ruhlen replied those signs, which can be self-powered, cost
about $4,000 each, though no budget has been identified at this point.
Winnegrad asked if there are statistics available on injuries or complaints.
Ruhlen replied crashes involving micromobility devices are underreported, and
if a police report is not filed, it is very difficult to gather any data. She noted
there is a database of complaints and crashes that have been reported, and
those are few in number.
Chair Drees asked if Ruhlen is requesting support from the Board. Ruhlen
replied she is just seeking feedback this evening.
b. Katlyn Kelly – Transfort requesting suggestions from DAB on labeling
Katlyn Kelly, Transfort, discussed the new draft labels that may be added to
the Transfort website which would include information as to whether the bus
stop has an accessible concrete pad or accessible pad and connecting path.
She requested input from the Board regarding the clarity of the labels, the
actual symbols being used, and which phrases would be most informative for
trip planning decisions.
Winnegrad commended the use of blue for the symbols.
Cicanese stated the only icon consideration may be that not all mobility
challenges involve a wheelchair; however, he commended the design overall.
Vice Chair Schlicting stated people tend to look for the wheelchair symbol
when considering transportation accessibility.
Tiner concurred with Vice Chair Schlicting and supported the use of the word
‘path’ rather than ‘sidewalk’ to help keep the language used within Transfort
consistent.
Vice Chair Schlicting asked if one symbol is better than another for color
contrast. Tiner replied anything that is high-contrast should be fine.
Page 113
Item 3.
1
6/18/2025 - Minutes
N atural Resources Advisory Board
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, June 18, 2025 – 6:00 PM
222 Laporte Avenue and via Microsoft Teams
1.CALL TO ORDER: 6:03 PM
2.R OLL CALL
a. Board Members Present –
•Kelly Stewart (Chair)
•Dawson Metcalf (newly elected Vice Chair)
•Barry Noon
•Kelen Dowdy
•Leslie Coleman
•Sharel Erickson
•Xavier Perei ra
•Sara LoTemplio
•Teagan Loew (arrived late)
b. Board Members Absent –
•None
c.Staff Members Present –
•Grant Stump, Lead Specialist, Acting Staff Liaison
d.Gu est(s) –
•Amy Gage, Active Modes Data Specialist
•Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves Transportation Planner
3.AGENDA REVIEW
Chair Metcalf reviewed the agenda items.
4.C OMMUNITY MEMBER PARTICIPATION
5.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MAY 2025
Metcalf made a motion, seconded by Pereira, to approve the May 2025 regular meeting
minutes as written. The motion was adopted unanimously.
Page 114
Item 3.
3
6/18/2025 - Minutes
communicate. Gage suggested some of this data is more valuable for the decision -
makers.
LoTemplio asked what constitutes high - versus low -stress roadways. Gage replied that
is changing in terms of how things are evaluated now as different types of protected
areas for vulnerable users are installed. She noted there is an individual who developed
the level of traffic stress classification system, which is a complex matrix involving the
number of lanes, width of bike lane, type of infrastructure, traffic volume, and traffic
speed. She noted that system is used to identify stress levels in the road network.
Additionally, the high -injury network can be overlayed to identify areas of stress.
LoTemplio asked about the community’s comfort level with an intersection having a
stress rating of 3 for example. Gage replied stress levels 1 and 2 were scored; however,
levels 3 and 4 were found to be too uncomfortable for most riders. She noted comfort
levels are extremely variable.
Pereira suggested it could be useful to have a benchmark number that could be used to
categorize the data in terms of census blocks meeting, exceeding, or being below the
criteria for a 15-Minute City.
Loew asked if this information will ultimately be used to inform future development.
Gage replied in the affirmative and noted it is only one tool, though the hope is that
improvements will be made to make it more useful.
b. Which Wheels Go Where? – August Work Session
Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves Transportation Planner, stated Which Wheels Go Where is
exploring how to accommodate more kinds of micro-mobility devices, as micro-mobility
supports Our Climate Future, Active Modes, Vision Zero, and 15-Minute City goals. She
noted the project has occurred concurrently with the Strategic Trails Update.
Ruhlen outlined the current Code regulations for various forms of micro-mobility and
noted the current system of categories is somewhat onerous. She stated the proposal is
to form two categories: human -powered or lightweight electric, which is defined by going
20 miles per hour or less. She stated anything that can go faster than that would be
considered a low -powered scooter. Ruhlen outlined the proposal for addressing where
each type of vehicle can be ridden.
Ruhlen discussed the public survey conducted last year related to concern s about each
facility and each type of vehicle. She noted the community engagement summary
summarized the open comments provided as part of the survey and stated overall
themes were related to accommodating more kinds of micro-mobility, protecting
pedestrians, people with disabilities, seniors, and children, and the fact that it is not what
vehicle is being ridden, it is how it is being ridden that matters.
Ruhlen noted Fort Collins Police had been very concerned that allowing skateboards on
streets w ould lead to severe crashes; therefore, staff had a conversation with Boulder
Police as Boulder has allowed skateboards on streets since 2021. Boulder Police
reported they were also initially concerned about an increase in crashes; however, that
has turned out not to be the case. She stated the safety education approach for
Page 115
Item 3.
4
6/18/2025 - Minutes
handling issues on trails has been supported. Additionally, Park Rangers utilize an
‘authority of the resource’ approach when talking with trail users who may have violated
speed limits or other regulations.
Ruhlen discussed the CSU regulations for which vehicles are allowed where and noted
the proposed changes would help with consistency with the campus. She outlined the
staff proposal for allowing all micro-mobility devices to be ridden in crosswalks, on
sidewalks, and on paved trails or multi -use paths, with the exception of dismount zones.
Ruhlen noted the Strategic Trails Plan includes a trail safety education campaign which
would incorporate messaging on social media and refreshed signage with a focus on
behavior. There are also some infrastructure changes proposed as well as a Bicycle
Ambassador Program which would include routine trail pop-up events.
Ruhlen requested feedback from Board Members.
Coleman commented on scooters in Denver causing issues on sidewalks due to unsafe
and careless riders. She stated the regulations were changed to only allow for riding
scooters on the sidewalk if the street speed is above 35 miles per hour. She asked if a
citation could be given to an E-scooter rider who was riding on the sidewalk in an unsafe
manner. Ruhlen replied staff is looking at ensuring there are ordinances in the Code
that would allow for behavior-focused citations. She also noted the trails have a
cou rtesy speed limit of 15 miles per hour; however, there are discussions about
codifying that, though Police Services is concerned about having associated
enforcement expectations.
c. Water Efficiency Plan – Memo Refinement
Metcalf provided a draft memo regarding the Board’s recommendation to City Council
concerning the Water Effi ciency Plan. Members discussed the Plan’s 4% water use
reduction goal and it was noted no other alternatives were offered to help determine if
that number is reasonable or if the goal should be higher. Metcalf commented on the
desire to see more metrics and information related to how benchmarks are created.
Noon commended City staff and commented on how water issues are global in nature.
He suggested that what is communicated is the trend in use versus the trends in
availability. Dowdy suggested including that information in the upcoming Integrated
Water Resources Plan which would address demand and water availability in a better
fashion than the Water Efficiency Plan.
Noon stated the extent to which efficiency is important is a function of the difference
between demand and availability.
Metcalf stated he wanted to see more education materials about climate-based
scenarios in reference to the cost of inaction piece. He also stated he sees every tool as
a behavior change tool.
Dowdy commented on taking away barriers to the preferred behavior.
Coleman commented on efficiency being less expensive than purchasing new water and
Page 116
Item 3.
Park and Recreation Board Meeting
December 4th, 2024
413 S Bryan
12/04/2024 – MINUTES Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
Nick Armstrong called the meeting to order at 5:37pm
2. ROLL CALL
• List of Board Members Present
Nick Armstrong
Meghan Willis
Josh Durand
Ken Christensen
Lorena Falcon
John Mola
• List of Board Members Absent
Marcia Richards
Paul Baker
Mike Novell
• List of Staff Members Present
Jill Wuertz – Sr Manager, Park Planning & Development
Kevin Williams – Sr Supervisor, Parks
Rachel Eich – Business Support III
Kendra Benson – Executive Admin Assistant
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
• Ice skating scheduling concerns at EPIC – Fort Collins Figure Skating Club member
o Concerns over the Tuesday and Thursday public skate schedules
becoming less predictable with reduced evening skate opportunities
o Community member is asking that Thursday public skate returns, as well
as a long-term stable schedule
o Board discussed previous concerns regarding ice and got the community
member’s contact information for the Recreation Department
o Nick Armstrong requested to hold this item for unfinished business for the
January or February meeting
• Lilac Park Concerns
o Concerns from a resident regarding the development of a social trail
o Parks staff did scarifying work and installed barricades with reflective
Page 117
Item 3.
Parks and Recreation Board
TYPE OF MEETING – Hybrid Meeting
12/04/2024 – MINUTES Page 2
materials
o Short term: Parks will be installing split rail fence to help guide people to
the existing trail
o Long term: Parks will coordinate with Park Planning & Development and
STP to identify if straightening the social trails is a possible solution
o Nick Armstrong requested a follow-up memo to the board and community
member for the January meeting
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ken Christensen moved to approve the minutes as written at 6:03pm, John Mola
seconded, all in favor
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
• Crescent Park Signage
o Department staff is waiting on final sign production for installation
Expected December 6th and December 16th
7. NEW BUSINESS
• Strategic Trails Plan Update – Dave Kemp
o Staff presentation on the progress and status of the Strategic Trails Plan
update
o Background
Project purpose: Update framework for planning, design,
construction, maintenance, and preservation of the paved trail
system
o Nick Armstrong suggested referencing the economic impact of trail
connections with small businesses, etc.
o Group discussed the results on concerns and use of the trail system from
the “Which Wheels Go Where?” questionnaire
o Nick Armstrong suggested the project team consider implementing a
questionnaire on a regular basis
o Josh Durand suggested adding a graphic representing the trail
development over time
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
• Kendra Boot guest lectured John Mola’s CSU class
• Nick Armstrong and Marcia Richards attended the November Super Issues Board
meeting (CCIP update)
• Marcia Richards volunteered at Treatsylvania at the farm
Page 118
Item 3.
1 | P a g e
SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, April 9th, 2025 – 11:30 AM
Fort Collins Senior Center, 1200 Raintree Drive, Fort Collins, CO, 80526
1. CALL TO ORDER: 11:32pm
2. ROLL CALL
a. Board Members Present –Alicia Durand, Myles Crane, Karen Miller, Suzanne
King, Deanna O’Connell, Sarah Schilz, Debbie Bradberry,Tom Hilbert, Joe
Glomboski
b. Board Members Absent - None
c. Staff Members Present –Susan Gutowski, Sarah Olear, Lisa Hays
d. Guest(s) - Kirsten Chuben, Danielle Hastings
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION – Guests attended to observe the meeting.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sarah Schilz motioned for approval, Debbie seconded, all
approved.
6. REOCCURRING BUSINESS
a. Recent City Council Activity - None
b. Correspondence
c. Six Month Calendar Update – Sarah Olear shared a couple of upcoming
meetings.
d. Joint Project Discussion Volunteer Opportunities for Older Adults. Review
meeting with Loveland SAB.
7. GUEST SPEAKERS AND BOARD DISCUSSIONS
a. Rachel Ruhlen Transportation Planner City of Fort Collins; Dave (DK) Kemp
Sr. Planner trails. - Presentation and discussion of the Which Wheels go
Where Project. See agenda packet for presentation slides.
• Advisory Board members shared some pros and cons of each type of
wheeled vehicles and their use in various environments.
• Continuing education on trails for proper use and prohibited
vehicles as necessary.
• E-bikes have been a game changer for people who have not
been able to ride bikes.
b. Ginny Sawyer, City Managers Office – Presentation on the Community
Capitol Improvement Program. See agenda packet for presentation slides.
8. NEW BUSINESS
c. Discussion of different meeting locations for the Senior Advisory Board.
Page 119
Item 3.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
March 12, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Online Via Zoom or In-Person at 281 North College
3 /1 9 /202 5 – MINUTES Page 1
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Ed Peyronnin
Vice Chair:
Council Liaison:
Alexa Nickoloff
Susan Gutowsky
Staff Liaison: Melina Dempsey
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Peyronnin called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ed Peyronnin, Chair
James Burtis
Lourdes Alvarez
Emily Felton
Amanda Finch
Indy Hart
David Baker
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Alexa Nickoloff, Vice Chair
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Rachel Ruhlen
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Miguel
Elizabeth Mehome
3. AGENDA REVIEW
Chair Peyronnin stated there are no changes to the published agenda.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Miguel (no last name provided) introduced himself as a CSU student doing research on
public meetings.
Page 120
Item 3.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3/19/202 5 – MINUTES Page 2
Elizabeth Mehome expressed concern about some of the proposed changes in the ‘Which
Wheels Go Where’ initiative, particularly as related to treating low-powered scooters in the
same manner as cars. She stated bike lanes should be able to be used for scooters on
larger arterials such as Harmony Road. Additionally, she stated there needs to be more
thought put into what types of vehicles are allowed on Transfort buses.
Burtis asked if there is any rule related to E-bikes or scooters being on buses. Hart replied
he has been told the bike cannot cause a risk to other riders if it is taken on the bus. He
stated he is of the opinion behaviors should change. ???? [public participation – works for
Transfort] stated there is no weight limit for bikes on buses, though the regulation states the
rider needs to be able to lift and secure their own bike and there are no restrictions on E-
bikes.
5. APPROVAL OF MINTUES – FEBRUARY 2025
Hart made a motion, seconded by Alvarez to approve the February 2025 minutes as written.
The motion was adopted unanimously with Baker abstaining.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Which Wheels Go Where: Discuss options and seek input on proposed Code
changes – Rachel Ruhlen
Rachel Ruhlen, FC Moves, noted this project is happening concurrently with the
Strategic Trails Plan update. She defined micro-mobility as various human- and
electric-powered vehicles and outlined the current Code requirements for where various
vehicles can operate. She stated the proposal is to recategorize micro-mobility vehicles
into two categories: human-powered and light-weight electric vehicles, and to simplify
the regulations around where the vehicles can operate to allow both types of vehicles
on streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails. Low-powered scooters would not be
allowed on bike lanes, sidewalks, or paved trails.
Ruhlen outlined the community engagement questionnaire results. In terms of open-
ended comments, Ruhlen stated highlights were around accommodating more types of
micro-mobility while also protecting pedestrians, people with disabilities, seniors, and
children, and a focus more on behaviors than regulations. She noted Fort Collins
Police are very concerned that allowing skateboards on streets will lead to severe
crashes; however, CSU Police do not allow skateboarding on sidewalks. She noted
Boulder has allowed skateboarding on streets since 2021 and Boulder Police were also
initially concerned about severe crashes; however, there have been no increase in
crashes at all involving skateboards.
Page 121
Item 3.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /1 9 /202 5 – MINUTES Page 3
Ruhlen stated incorporating an official speed limit on paved trails would lead to
expectations of patrols and enforcement, and the City does not have the resources to
do that. She noted Fort Collins Police and Park Rangers have recommended a safety
education approach and commented on the ‘Authority of the Resource’ tactic taken by
Park Rangers.
Ruhlen further detailed the regulation changes being explored by staff in terms of which
types of devices can be ridden where. She requested feedback from the Board
Members regarding the proposed changes.
Chair Peyronnin stated education and communication are key and concurred
enforcement is difficult. He commented on a situation in which an E-bike rider on a
paved trail was told by a Park Ranger that class 3 E-bikes were allowed as long as they
did not go above a certain speed, which does not seem to be the regulation.
Hart asked which one thing every trail user should be educated upon: audible signals or
speed. Members concurred audible signals would be the most important. Hart stated
speed becomes a factor when people are startled, and audible signals assist with that.
He commented on areas that have pedestrian trails forming next to paved trails that
indicate misuse of the paved trails. Ruhlen noted some of the pedestrian trails are
intentionally put in by Parks.
Chair Peyronnin commented on the fact that bike lanes would need to be more
efficiently swept if skateboards are going to be allowed, and that will impact street
maintenance requirements.
Baker stated the desired behavior changes need to be clear in order to accurately
provide education. Ruhlen noted staff would like to expand the bike friendly driver
education to E-scooters, skateboards, and other devices; however, there are
challenges with that. Hart suggested there are opportunities with the Safe Routes to
School program to build desired behaviors.
Burtis commended the efforts to simplify the regulations. He stated he is torn on the
sidewalk regulations, particularly given the different types of sidewalks in the city.
Finch commented on how lucky riders are in Fort Collins to be able to get off roadways
in most instances.
Alvarez asked if there have been any serious accidents related to a high-speed device
rider injuring a pedestrian. Ruhlen replied there have been two serious crashes, one
involving speed.
Alvarez suggested posting signs related to giving pedestrians the right-of-way and
potentially posting courtesy speed limit signs.
Hart suggested posting signs related to rules of the trail or rules of the road.
Page 122
Item 3.
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
3 /1 9 /202 5 – MINUTES Page 4
Chair Peyronnin stated he would like to see an enforceable speed limit on the trails. In
terms of roadways, he noted the education efforts should really be more about cars and
asked how staff is educating drivers about which wheels go where. Ruhlen replied staff
would like to grow the bicycle friendly driver program and suggested companies could
train new drivers with the program, though that is not likely to reach a large part of the
population. She stated rider education on paved trails will be around keeping
pedestrians safe, the rider education on streets will be around how to keep yourself
safe, and driver education will be around keeping vulnerable riders safe.
Hart commented on the importance of having the infrastructure in place to keep riders
off roadways.
Burtis commented on ‘community policing’ and noted educated riders are safer.
Hart commented on placing painted speed indicators, directions to slow down, or other
directions on paved trails.
Alvarez asked if there are nighttime light requirements for skateboarders riding in bike
lanes. Ruhlen replied there is language about lights in the Code for bikes, and that
would be included with the human-powered and lightweight electric vehicle definitions.
Felton asked about sidewalk crashes. Ruhlen replied it is difficult to get that data,
though she is aware of one as it was reported to her. She noted there is no data to
support that adding some of these devices to sidewalks is dangerous.
Felton expressed support for the proposed changes and stated they place responsibility
on the users to ride where they feel safe, which will ultimately increase ridership. She
commented on the community taking on educational efforts. Ruhlen replied there are
bicycle and trail ambassadors.
Chair Peyronnin commented on how different and difficult it is to ride in the south part of
town.
Baker stated the Board is generally in support of simplifying the regulations and
allowing most devices to be ridden everywhere.
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
Chair Peyronnin thanked Dempsey for her work supporting the Board.
a. Reflections from outgoing Board members
Chair Peyronnin commended Hart on his service on the Board and to the
community.
Hart commented on starting his volunteer work as a ranger assistant for the City and
County and as a trail condition monitor for State parks. He encouraged members to
think of people in the community who may not think or move the way they do.
Page 123
Item 3.
[Youth Advisory Board]
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, February 06, 2025 – 7:00 PM
[215 N Mason St. Fort Collins, CO 80524]
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL
a. Board Members Present (Checked)/Absent (Unchecked)
☒ Ava Stone
☒ Brooke Zorich
☒ Charlotte Wond
☒ Hope Harris
☐ Jake Radis
☒ Kacy Larson
☒ Maia Turnbull
☒ Neena Wittemyer
☒ Sam Milchak
☒ Scarlett Marske
☒ Sophie Williams
☐ Vince Hochhalter
b. Staff Members Present – 2
c. Guest(s) – 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW
a. Rachel Ruhlen- Planner, Transportation, FC Moves- Which Wheels Go Where
b. Hughes Information Committee
c. National League of Cities- Washington D.C.
d. Status Updates on Group Projects
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Logo Design – feedback on color combos and designs
b. National League of Cities – went over schedule, and travel details
c. Stop the Bleed – PE classes teaching it, meeting with PSD board
d. Middle School Project – trouble connecting with schools
e. Intergenerational Project – setting up classes where youth can volunteer to help
senior citizens with technology and get volunteer hours and experience, timing it
with the Recreator schedule to get it on the schedule for the fall
f. Intergenerational Pickleball Project – connecting with the senior advisory board,
pitch the idea to senior advisory board
Page 124
Item 3.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Which Wheels Go Where? – Presentation and discussion about simplifying
guides on which vehicles can go where, benefits and drawbacks of different
modes of transportation being on roads, strategic trail plan
b. E-bikes/Scooters at High Schools – idea proposed to point of contact and
discussion about Spin’s restrictions on riding if under 18, talking about discount
zones near high schools or deployment zones near high schools , email or
letter to the Spin people
c. Hughes Information Committee – Discussed Hughes stadium competing
interests, community volunteers who do civic assemblies for the community to
hear about feedback to give city council an idea of what the community wants,
volunteers, southeast community center project
8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
9. STAFF REPORTS
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. ADJOURNMENT
a. Meeting ended at 9:00pm
Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 04/03/2025
02/06/25 – MINUTES
Page 125
Item 3.
Statement from Police Services
September 6, 2025
Members of Police Services took the opportunity to engage with FC Moves, community
advocates, and residents to discuss micromobility use in our city. In addition to these
valuable conversations, we’ve reviewed national data, examined local trends, met with
benchmark cities, and considered how current conditions align with our city’s Vision Zero
commitments and continue to keep Fort Collins safe and thriving. Since January, members
of Police Services have spent time both biking and driving throughout the city and have
directly observed multiple situations and broke our observations and discussions into five
categories.
1. Safety
• Officers are observing frequent unsafe and unlawful micromobility behaviors.
• Speed differentials, limited maneuverability, and lack of stopping power increase
crash risk.
• Many riders lack essential safety equipment (e.g., lights, helmets).
• National and local trends through emergency room data show an increase in injuries
and fatalities associated with micromobility use.
2. Infrastructure
• Current infrastructure is not adequately designed to support safe micromobility use.
• Physical changes (e.g., protected lanes, signage) could reduce risk and align with
Vision Zero.
• Shared use of paved trails and streets presents challenges without clear design
standards.
• Designate roads where micromobility is not allowed (Old Town, certain speed
corridors, etc.).
3. Education & Outreach
Page 126
Item 3.
• Outreach for this innovative program is essential but has some challenges,
especially with new users (e.g., students/growing city). Collaboration with CSU, PR-
1, and other groups could increase the safety and benefits to micromobility.
• Messaging must be consistent across departments and community partners.
• Responsibility for education and ongoing resource needs must be clearly defined.
4. Enforcement & Legal Considerations
• Additional resources may be needed to enforce laws and manage compliance.
• Legal clarity is needed on recourse for motorists involved in crashes where
uninsured micromobility users strike their vehicles or injure other
pedestrians/micromobility users.
• Equipment violations and rider behavior often go unaddressed due to resource
constraints.
5. Program Management & Implementation
• Successful programs require clear oversight, stakeholder collaboration, and data-
driven adjustments.
• Cities introducing micromobility often face a rise in crashes during early rollout.
Creating/enhancing physical infrastructure (protected lanes) will help further the
goal of Vision Zero.
• Stronger planning and phased implementation can help mitigate risks and align with
safety goals.
Page 127
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 1
Which Wheels Go Where
Community Engagement Summary
Page 128
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 2
Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of questionnaire responses ........................................................................................ 6
Top concerns .......................................................................................................................... 6
How respondents use facilities ..............................................................................................10
Demographics .......................................................................................................................12
Summary of comments ..........................................................................................................16
Common themes ................................................................................................................16
Bike lanes and streets ........................................................................................................17
Unsafe riding ......................................................................................................................18
Freedom and fairness ........................................................................................................19
Quality of the questionnaire ...............................................................................................19
Outreach ...................................................................................................................................21
Outreach Materials ....................................................................................................................24
Questionnaire (English) .............................................................................................................28
Questionnaire (Spanish) ...........................................................................................................49
Page 129
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 3
Table 1. Where current ordinance allows and prohibits various types of vehicles
Bicycles
E-bikes,
Class 1 & 2
E-bikes,
Class 3 E-scooters
powered
vehicle
electric
vehicle
Low-power
scooter
Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Prohibited Prohibited Allowed
Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Sidewalk Allowed Allowed ??? ??? Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Sidewalk –
Dismount
zone
Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Paved Trails
(except Mason
Trail)
Allowed Allowed Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Prohibited Prohibited
Mason Trail
Crosswalk
Crosswalk –
Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount
Page 130
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 4
Table 2. Possible future ordinances regulating various types of vehicles
powered
vehicles
electric
vehicles
power
scooter
Allowed Allowed Allowed
Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Sidewalk Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Paved Trails
Crosswalk
Dismount zone
Page 131
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 5
Overview
The term “micromobility,” is a new term that refers to small-wheeled devices, such as bicycles,
scooters, skateboards, rollerblades, and other vehicles with a small profile compared to most
motor vehicles, and which may be human powered or have electric motors. With recent battery
and technology advances, the options have expanded rapidly and are continuing to change.
Today, people use human and electric-powered micromobility devices to move about the city;
however, many of the laws pertaining to these devices are outdated. Current laws create a
fragmented, inconsistent, and often unsafe network (Table 1). Peoples’ mobility choices are
changing, and our laws need to stay current to regulate, educate, and enforce the safe use of
these devices on city facilities and create a fair physical and legal environment for their use.
Fort Collins’ robust bicycle and pedestrian networks are well suited to accommodate most
micromobility options, and the City is constantly working to improve these networks. Supporting
the use of new devices provides community members more mobility choices that move away
from use of motor vehicles that emit greenhouse gases and cause traffic congestion, which
aligns with several City plans, such as Our Climate Future, the Active Modes Plan, and the
Vision Zero Action Plan.
The goal of Which Wheels Go Where is to update and simplify the laws governing micromobility
operations on streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails (for example, Table 2). To inform
this project, community members who experience bicycle and pedestrian facilities in different
contexts were engaged to determine how best to accommodate human powered vehicles and
lightweight electric vehicles on city facilities and to develop strategies to address concerns.
This project collected public input in the form of a questionnaire developed using the Alchemer
platform. This document summarizes the responses received.
Page 132
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 6
Summary of questionnaire responses
Respondents answered questions about their top concerns regarding human powered or
lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, and streets. Information was
collected to assess whether riders of all types of micromobility and walkers responded. Finally,
demographic information was collected to understand what groups may be underrepresented.
IP addresses were assessed to determine if there were duplicate responses that might indicate
attempts to bias the results. Evidence of “ballot-stuffing” was not detected.
Figure 1. Multilingual activity at Hickory Village Resource Fair
Top concerns
Of the 1,478 respondents, a majority (55%) had concerns about human powered or lightweight
electric vehicles on sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, or streets, while few (17%) of the 103
Spanish speaking respondents had concerns (Figure 2). Spin operates shared e-bikes and e-
scooters in Fort Collins, and supported the questionnaire with $5 ride credit for anyone who
completed the questionnaire and notifying people with Spin accounts about the questionnaire
opportunity. Over half of the respondents (51%) requested the Spin ride credit, but only 9%
(138) had Spin accounts and received the ride credit. People who requested the Spin ride credit
were less likely (39%) than those who did not (71%) to have concerns (Figure 3).
Page 133
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 7
Figure 2. Number and % of respondents who did or did not have concerns about human powered or
lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, or streets. Left, all respondents; Right,
Spanish respondents
Figure 3. Number and % of respondents who did or did not have concerns about human powered or
lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, or streets. Left, respondents who did
not request the Spin ride credit; Right, respondents who did request the Spin ride credit
Of the 806 respondents who had concerns, 30% identified “Unsafe riding” or “May travel too
fast” as the top concern about human powered vehicles on sidewalks (Figure 4). These
categories were also the top concern about lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, with 49%
identified “May travel too fast” and 32% “Unsafe riding” as the top concern. “May travel too fast”
(41%) and “Unsafe riding” (33%) were also the top concerns about lightweight electric vehicles
on paved trails (Figure 5). The most common concern about human powered or lightweight
electric vehicles in bike lanes was “No concern” (39% and 36% respectively), followed by
“Conflicts with motor vehicles” (25% and 22% respectively, Figure 6). The most common
concerns about human powered or lightweight electric vehicles on streets were “Conflicts with
motor vehicles” (35% and 32% respectively) and “May not follow the rules of the road” (34% and
39% respectively, Figure 7).
Page 134
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 8
Figure 4 Top concern about human powered (left) or lightweight electric vehicles (LEV; right) on
sidewalks
Figure 5 Top concern about lightweight electric vehicles on paved trails
Page 135
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 9
Figure 6 Top concern about
human powered (top) or
lightweight electric vehicles
(bottom) in bike lanes
Figure 7 Top concern about human powered (left) or lightweight electric vehicles (right) on streets
Page 136
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 10
How respondents use facilities
The next series of questions was to determine whether riders of all kinds of micromobility, as
well as people who do not use micromobility, completed the questionnaire. Respondents
reported using every kind of micromobility, walking, and riding horses on all types of facilities
(Figures 8-11).
Sidewalks are designed for people traveling at walking speed, and most respondents (92%)
walk on sidewalks. While riding micromobility on sidewalks is generally discouraged, there are
times when people choose to use the sidewalk (Figure 8). On paved trails, most respondents
walk (89%) and/or bicycle (79%, Figure 9). As expected, most respondents bike (82%) or e-bike
(37%) in bike lanes (Figure 10). On streets without bike lanes, more respondents bike (63%)
than drive (56%), and 27% ride e-bikes on streets (Figure 11).
Figure 8. How respondents use sidewalks
Page 137
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 11
Figure 9 How respondents use paved trails
Figure 10 How respondents use bike lanes
Page 138
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 12
Figure 11 How respondents use streets without bike lanes
Demographics
The majority of respondents (69%) are unaffiliated with Colorado State University, with
substantial representation from CSU students, faculty, and staff (Figure 12). Of the 10% of
respondents who identified as having a disability, most reported a mobility disability (Figure 13).
The highest age range responding to the survey was 30-30 years (19%), with responses evenly
distributed across ages 30-69 years (Figure 14). Young people under 20 years of age are
underrepresented. A hard-to-reach group is people with low income; 43% of respondents report
annual household income below $100,000 and 21% below $50,000 (Figure 15). Respondents
were slightly more likely to identify as men (47%) than women (42%) (Figure 16). Respondents
were 72% White, 9% Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish Origin, and 8% other race/ethnicities (Figure 17).
Page 139
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 13
Figure 13 Type of disability reported by respondents who identified as having a disability
12 Colorado State University (CSU) affiliation
Page 140
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 14
Figure 14 Age ranges of respondents
Figure 15 Income ranges of respondents
Page 141
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 15
Figure 16 Gender of respondents
Figure 17 Race/ethnicity of respondents
Page 142
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 16
Summary of comments
To facilitate analysis of the questionnaire, only one open-ended comment box was included,
and 718 respondents providing comments. All 718 comments were read by staff.
Common themes
Key themes regarding micromobility devices on various transportation infrastructure, with
quotes that encapsulate the diverse opinions and concerns surrounding micromobility devices,
highlighting safety issues, infrastructure needs, accessibility benefits, and suggestions for
improvement, are:
• Safety Concerns
o Speed differentials: Many respondents expressed concern about the
speed differences between various modes of transportation, particularly on
paved trails. Many respondents noted that electric vehicles often travel too
fast around pedestrians, raising fears about safety on paved trails. Fast-
moving e-bikes and electric scooters were seen as potentially dangerous
when mixed with slower pedestrians and traditional bicycles on sidewalks
and on paved trails.
o Yielding the right-of-Way: Many respondents reported faster travelers
failing to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks and paved
trails. Respondents also reported micromobility riders in bike lanes and on
streets failing to yield the right-of-way to other travelers on streets.
o Pedestrian safety: There was significant worry about pedestrian safety,
especially on sidewalks and paved trails, with one respondent stating, "As
a pedestrian on sidewalks, I worry about being hit by an electric vehicle."
Many felt that motorized vehicles of any kind should not be allowed on
sidewalks due to the risk of collisions with pedestrians.
o Lack of knowledge: Some respondents noted that users of newer electric
vehicles often seem unaware of traffic rules and proper etiquette, leading
to unsafe behavior.
• Infrastructure and Regulation
o Protected bike lanes: Several comments advocated for better-protected
bike lanes to enhance safety, with one stating, "Bike lanes should be
protected from traffic to increase use and confidence in being safe."
o Separate paths: A common suggestion was to create separate paths for
different types of vehicles. One respondent remarked, "Different speeds of
travel should have different paths," echoing sentiments that mixed-speed
environments can be dangerous.
Page 143
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 17
o Clear rules and signage: Many suggested clearer rules and better signage
to inform users about where different vehicles can operate safely. One
respondent said, "At current state it is confusing, and thus people will not
be following the rules anyways," while another noted that "better posted
rules of which vehicle can be used where" would help alleviate confusion.
o Enforcement: Many respondents felt that current rules are not adequately
enforced, rendering them ineffective. One respondent stated, "Any
potential rules and regulations around these modes of transport are largely
moot without any enforcement."
• Accessibility and Mobility
o Benefits for seniors and those with mobility issues: Some commenters,
particularly older adults, appreciated how e-bikes and other electric
vehicles allow them to stay active and mobile. One respondent stated, "As
a senior citizen with a class-1 e-bike, I appreciate being able to use the
trail system for my health."
o Encouraging alternative transportation: Several respondents saw the value
in allowing various micromobility devices as a way to reduce car traffic and
pollution.
• Suggestions for Improvement
o Speed limits: Many suggested implementing and enforcing speed limits on
paved trails, regardless of the type of vehicle.
o Education and etiquette: There were calls for more education on etiquette
on paved trails, such as using audible signals when passing.
o Flexibility: Some respondents argued for more flexible rules based on
behavior rather than specific vehicle types, as technology is evolving
rapidly.
Overall, the comments reflect a desire for balance between accommodating new forms of
transportation and ensuring safety for all users of shared spaces.
Bike lanes and streets
Because the comments were predominantly about paved trails, comments about micromobility
in bike lanes and on streets are summarized separately here. Common themes regarding
micromobility devices in bike lanes and on streets:
• Safety Concerns
o Speed differentials: Many respondents expressed concern about the
speed differences between various modes of transportation, particularly in
bike lanes. Fast-moving e-bikes and electric scooters were seen as
potentially dangerous when mixed with slower traditional bicycles.
Page 144
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 18
o Vulnerability to cars: There was significant worry about the safety of
micromobility users on streets, especially when sharing space with cars.
One commenter noted, "I bike to work and back in part to try and alleviate
congestion but I don't know how much longer I can continue due to safety
concerns."
• Infrastructure Needs
o Protected bike lanes: Several comments called for better-protected bike
lanes to increase safety and encourage use.
o Separate lanes for different speeds: Some suggested the need for
separate lanes for different speeds of travel.
• Regulation and Enforcement
o Lack of rule adherence: Many respondents felt that users of micromobility
devices often don't follow traffic rules. One comment noted, "Not following
rules of the road: running through red lights or ignoring walk signs in
crosswalks.”
o Need for education: There were calls for more education on traffic rules
and etiquette for micromobility users. One respondent suggested,
"Educating drivers in how to interact with these devices seems imperative.”
• Accessibility and Mobility Benefits
o Alternative to cars: Several respondents saw the value in allowing various
micromobility devices in bike lanes and on streets as a way to reduce car
traffic and pollution. One comment stated, "Assuming speeds stay
low/responsible... there should be no reason to limit these vehicles. Less
cars on the road, less traffic, less pollution.”
These themes reflect the complex challenges and opportunities presented by the increasing use
of micromobility devices in bike lanes and on streets, highlighting the need for balanced policies
that prioritize safety while accommodating and encouraging diverse transportation options.
Unsafe riding
In the multiple-choice questionnaire questions, one option respondents could choose was
“unsafe riding”. “Traveling too fast” was also an option. Respondents used the comment box to
provide other examples of unsafe riding on various types of infrastructure:
• On paved trails - Lack of audible warning
• In bike lanes - Wrong-way riding
• On streets
o Ignoring traffic rules - "Not following rules of the road: running through red
lights or ignoring walk signs in crosswalks."
Page 145
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 19
o Not wearing helmets
Freedom and fairness
Based on the survey comments, several themes emerged regarding fairness and freedom of
travel for micromobility users:
• Support for diverse transportation options: Some respondents advocated for
allowing a wide range of micromobility devices, seeing them as beneficial
alternatives to cars. One comment stated, "Assuming speeds stay
low/responsible... there should be no reason to limit these vehicles. Less cars on
the road, less traffic, less pollution."
• Concerns about restrictions: Several comments expressed frustration with overly
complex or restrictive rules. One respondent noted, "Let people be encouraged to
take other means than cars and allow them to travel in almost any location." This
sentiment reflects a desire for more freedom in choosing transportation methods.
• Accessibility for seniors and those with mobility issues: Some comments
highlighted the importance of e-bikes and other electric vehicles for maintaining
mobility and independence, especially for older adults. One senior citizen
remarked, "As a senior citizen with a class-1 e-bike, I appreciate being able to use
the trail system for my health."
• Calls for balanced approach: While many supported more freedom, there were
also calls for responsible use. An email received noted, “Those that don't [obey
laws] should be punished accordingly, but don't punish good people that are
enjoying the ride nicely, simply because of others. My e-bike can go fast but I
don't have to use it that way.”
• Equity in infrastructure: Some respondents pointed out the need for better
infrastructure to accommodate various users safely.
• Simplification of rules: There were calls for simpler, more understandable
regulations to promote fair use. A respondent stated, "Don't make it complicated...
with complicated rules that are too hard to understand, people spurn their
government."
Overall, the comments reflect a desire for fair access to transportation infrastructure for various
micromobility devices, balanced with safety considerations and clear, simple regulations.
Quality of the questionnaire
Respondents commented on the quality and the bias of the questionnaire.
• Relevance of issues: Many respondents appreciated the survey's focus on
pressing issues related to micromobility. One comment noted, "Thank you for this
all-important survey and follow-up to an issue gaining momentum." Some
Page 146
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 20
participants felt that the survey could lead to positive changes in policy and
infrastructure.
• Bias against electric micromobility: Some respondents felt that the survey
questions were framed in a way that emphasized negative aspects of
micromobility devices. One comment stated, "The survey seems to be biased
against electric mobility devices. There are no options to say that they are good
and should be encouraged."
• Bias toward electric micromobility: One respondent felt that offering a Spin credit
as a reward indicates a bias toward a “dubious transit mode”.
• Insufficient options: Some respondents felt the options weren’t precise, were too
limited, or didn’t ask the right questions.
Page 147
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 21
Outreach
The questionnaire was provided in English and in Spanish.
The questionnaire was promoted in a variety of ways (Table 3). Three incentives were offered:
• $5 Spin ride credit
• A chance to win one of three drawings – E-scooter, $500 gift card to Recycled
Cycles, or $200 gift card either to Market Skateshop or as a $200 Visa gift card
(Figure 18).
• $5 King Sooper gift card (at select events only to increase participation of people with
low income)
Over half (51%) of respondents requested the $5 Spin ride credit. Almost three-quarters (72%)
of respondents entered one of the three drawings; 32% (473) entered the $500 Recycled Cycles
gift card drawing, 26% (379) entered the e-scooter drawing, and 15% (218) entered the $200
Market Skateshop or Visa gift card drawing (Figure 18).
Outreach materials were:
• Flyers
• Yard signs
• Postcards (multilingual)
• Social media
• Press release
• Email (multilingual)
• Email to Spin riders
Table 3 Outreach
Outreach Type Dates Outcome/Notes
CARE Housing Summer
Festival – Blue Spruce
Event 7/20 6 survey responses (English) & $5
King Sooper gift cards
Hickory Village
Resources Fair
Event 7/27 14 King Sooper gift cards, English
& Spanish, ~25 interactions
Fort Shorts
Figure 18. Winners of e-scooter (left), Recycled Cycles gift card (middle), and Visa gift card (right)
Page 148
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 22
Outreach Type Dates Outcome/Notes
ARC of Larimer County
email
City-wide
City-wide
release
City-wide
Active Modes Advisory
Board
Presentation 8/19
Event 8/22
Flyers 8/26 See list below (Table 5)
Email Mid-
August
Postcards
bilingual postcard
Super Issues
Campus Safety
Resource Fair
NoCo Bike & Ped
Collaborative
Event 9/11
Events September 1 pop up, 3 Bike to Breakfast
Wednesdays, 2 Rams Ride Right
events
Open Streets
Trails pop-up
Northern Colorado Trail
Summit
United Way Health Fair
Table 4 Yard Signs
Location Notes
Linden at Walnut flower box Downtown, high pedestrian activity
Discovery Museum Trail
Cherry & Sherwood
Lee Martinez, trail parking lot Trail
Hickory Trail Trail, Equity
North College 55+ Equity
Romero Park Equity
Collins Aire & Mosaic transit stop Equity, transit
Power & Drake ped light Trail
Page 149
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Community Engagement Summary October 2024 | 23
Location Notes
Swallow/Centennial & Lemay
Caribou & Harmony Village (Stoneridge/Sunstone)
Power & Vermont underpass
South transit center
Wabash & Century
Stanford bus stop near Monroe
Horsetooth & Taft Hill bus stop
Spring Canyon Park
Mason at Swallow
Walk & Wheel Skills Hub
Centre at Botanical bus stop
Remington & Pitkin
Avery Park at Taft Hill
Ponderosa at Plum Bikeway/Orchard Pl
City Park Oak & Sheldon
Laporte at Fishback bus stop
College at Target bus stop
Welch at Spring Creek Trail
Spring Creek Trail at Shields underpass
Table 5 Retail locations flyers were distributed
Location
Brave New Wheel
Drake Cycles
Gearage
proVelo
Recycled Cycles
REI
Incycle (South)
Incycle (North)
The Spoke
Runners World
Pedego
Trek
Precision E Bikes
Market Skate Shop
Page 150
Item 3.
fcgov.com/whichwheelsgowhere
Which Wheels Go Where?
Help the City of Fort Collins update rules about which kinds
of micromobility (e-scooters, skateboards, etc) can go where
(sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, streets, etc).
24Page 151
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
As our mobility choices evolve, our laws need to evolve to stay
current and effectively regulate and enforce the saf e use of these
vehicles on City facilities.
A medida que evolucionan nuestras opciones de movili dad,
nuestras leyes deben evolucionar para mantenerse actualizadas y
regular y hacer cumplir de manera efectiva el uso se guro de estos
vehículos en las instalaciones de la Ciudad.
Ayude a la ciudad de Fort Collins a actualizar las r eglas sobre
dónde pueden ir (aceras, senderos pavimentados, carriles para
bicicletas, calles) qué tipos de micromovilidad (monopatines
eléctricos, patinetas).
Help the City of Fort Collins update rules about which kinds of
micromobility (e-scooters, skateboards, etc.) can go where
(sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, streets).
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
For more info visit:
Para más información, ingrese en:
fcgov.com/whichwheelsgowhere 25Page 152
Item 3.
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Scan to take the survey
24-25755
Which Wheels Go Where?
Survey takers will receive a $5 Spin
ride credit and a chance to win a bike,
e-scooter, or skateboard!
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¡Los encuestados recibirán un crédito de viaje
de $5 en Spin y la oportunidad de ganar una
bicicleta, un monopatín eléctrico o una patineta!
Realice la encuesta
26Page 153
Item 3.
Help the City of Fort Collins update rules about whic h kinds
of micromobility (e-scooters, skateboards, etc) can go
where (sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, streets, etc).
Survey takers will receive a $5 Spin ride credit and a
chance to win a bike, e-scooter, or skateboard!
As our mobility choices evolve, our laws need to evolve
to stay current and effectively regulate and enforce the
safe use of these vehicles on City facilities.
For more info visit: fcgov.com/whichwheelsgowhere
24-25755
Which WheelsGo Where?
27Page 154
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Share your feedback: Which wheels go
where in Fort Collins?
Para español, haga clic aquí.
Technology innovations have led to new kinds of small-wheeled, human- and
electric-powered devices in Fort Collins. Please let us know your concerns about
how we accommodate these new things – and old things. The survey will close
September 30, 2024. For more information, click here. Thank you for your input!
Next
0%
28Page 155
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Which wheels are we talking about?
“Scooter” and other words can mean a lot of different things. Let’s make sure
we’re all talking about the same things with a short quiz before continuing the
survey.
1.Which of these are human powered vehicles?
⬜
⬜
⬜
⬜
29Page 156
Item 3.
2. An e-scooter is a vehicle that:
Weighs less than 100 pounds.⬜
Has a handlebar and an electric motor.⬜
Has a maximum speed of twenty (20) miles per hour or
less on a paved level surface when powered solely by the
electric motor.
⬜
3. Which of these things are lightweight electric vehicles?
⬜
⬜
⬜
4. Which of these are lightweight electric vehicles?
⬜
⬜
30Page 157
Item 3.
Back Next
⬜
None of these.⬜
11%
31Page 158
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Answers: Which wheels are we talking
about?
“Scooter” and other words can mean a lot of different things. Let’s make sure
we’re all talking about the same things with a short quiz before continuing the
survey.
Which of these are human powered vehicles?
Answer: All of these. Skates, skateboards, kick scooters, and bikes are
human powered. E-bikes are primarily human powered, with electric assist.
Answer: According to the definition in Colorado Revised Statue 42-1-102
(28.8), an e-scooter is a vehicle that weighs less than 100 pounds, has a
handlebar and an electric motor, and has a maximum speed of 20 mph or
less on a paved level surface when powered solely by the electric motor.
32Page 159
Item 3.
Which of these are lightweight electric vehicles?
Answer: All of these. E-scooters, electric skateboards, hoverboards,
Onewheels, and electric unicycles are some of the lightweight electric
vehicles that have appeared in recent years.
Which of these are lightweight electric vehicles?
Answer: None of these. Low power scooters, golf carts, and electric dirt bikes are
not lightweight electric vehicles. Some of these may look like lightweight electric
vehicles but they are more powerful, faster, and/or heavier.
Back Next
22%
33Page 160
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Do you have concerns?
Back Next
5. Do you have any concerns about human powered or lightweight electric
vehicles on sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, or streets? *
No, I do not have any concerns⚪
Yes, I do have concerns⚪
33%
34Page 161
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Which Wheels Go Where?
Now that we understand the definitions, please let us know your concerns about
the operations of these on different types of facilities.
6.
What is your top concern regarding the use of human powered vehicles
on sidewalks?
May travel too fast⚪
Unsafe riding⚪
Congestion on sidewalks⚪
Things blocking sidewalks⚪
No concern⚪
7.
What is your top concern regarding the use of lightweight electric
vehicles on sidewalks?
May travel too fast⚪
Unsafe riding⚪
Congestion on sidewalks⚪
Things blocking sidewalks⚪
35Page 162
Item 3.
No concern⚪
8.
What is your top concern regarding the use of lightweight electric
vehicles on paved trails?
May travel too fast⚪
Unsafe riding⚪
Congestion on paved trail⚪
Things blocking paved trail⚪
No concern⚪
9.
What is your top concern regarding the use of human powered vehicles
in bike lanes?
Congestion in bike lane⚪
Conflicts with motor vehicles⚪
May travel too slow⚪
May travel too fast⚪
Things blocking bike lane⚪
No concern⚪
36Page 163
Item 3.
10.
What is your top concern regarding the use of lightweight electric
vehicles in bike lanes?
Congestion in bike lane⚪
Conflicts with motor vehicles⚪
May travel too slow⚪
May travel too fast⚪
Things blocking bike lane⚪
No concern⚪
11.
What is your top concern regarding the use of human powered vehicles
on streets?
May not follow the rules of the road⚪
Conflicts with motor vehicles⚪
May travel too slow⚪
May travel too fast⚪
Things blocking street⚪
No concern⚪
37Page 164
Item 3.
Back Next
12.
What is your top concern regarding the use of lightweight electric
vehicles on streets?
May not follow the rules of the road⚪
Conflicts with motor vehicles⚪
May travel too slow⚪
May travel too fast⚪
Things blocking street⚪
No concern⚪
44%
38Page 165
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Comments
Back Next
13. Do you have other comments you'd like to share about Which Wheels
Go Where?
56%
39Page 166
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Which wheels do YOU use?
We'd like to make sure we're hearing from people who use various kinds of
wheels, or none at all. Which wheels do you use?
14.
On sidewalks, do you:
Walk⬜
Bicycle⬜
Ride an e-bike⬜
Ride an e-scooter⬜
Ride a human powered vehicle other than a bicycle or e-
bike
⬜
Ride a lightweight electric vehicle other than an e-scooter⬜
Ride a horse⬜
None of these⬜
15.
On paved trails, do you:
Walk⬜
Bicycle⬜
40Page 167
Item 3.
Ride an e-bike⬜
Ride an e-scooter⬜
Ride a human powered vehicle other than a bicycle or e-
bike
⬜
Ride a lightweight electric vehicle other than an e-scooter⬜
Ride a horse⬜
None of these⬜
16.
In bike lanes, do you:
Bicycle⬜
Ride an e-bike⬜
Ride an e-scooter⬜
Ride a human powered vehicle other than a bicycle or e-
bike
⬜
Ride a lightweight electric vehicle other than an e-scooter⬜
None of these⬜
17.
On streets without bike lanes, do you:
Bicycle⬜
Ride an e-bike⬜
Ride an e-scooter⬜
Ride a human powered vehicle other than a bicycle or e-
bike
⬜
41Page 168
Item 3.
Back Next
Ride a lightweight electric vehicle other than an e-scooter⬜
Drive⬜
Ride a horse⬜
None of these⬜
67%
42Page 169
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Demographics
The City gathers demographic information to help improve programs, to
determine potential barriers to participation and to ensure everyone in our
community has access to their local government. Demographic information
helps us assess what communities we are effectively reaching and who we
may need to work harder to reach on important issues. All questions are
optional, and any information gathered will be kept completely anonymous.
18. What is your affiliation with Colorado State University?
Check all that apply
Undergraduate student⬜
Graduate student⬜
Visiting student⬜
Faculty⬜
Staff⬜
No current affiliation⬜
Decline to specify⬜
19. Do you have a disability or health condition that affects the travel
choices you make in Fort Collins?
Check all that apply
Mobility or dexterity (e.g. walking, climbing stairs)⬜
Visual (e.g. blind, low vision)⬜
Deaf or hard-of-hearing⬜
Speech or communication⬜
Cognitive⬜
43Page 170
Item 3.
No disability⬜
Decline to specify⬜
20. Age range:
14 yrs or younger⚪
15-19 yrs⚪
20-29 yrs⚪
30-39 yrs⚪
40-49 yrs⚪
50-59 yrs⚪
60-69 yrs⚪
70 yrs or older⚪
Decline to specify⚪
21. Household Income Range:
Less than $10,000⚪
$10,000-$14,999⚪
$15,000-$24,999⚪
$25,000-$34,999⚪
$35,000-$49,999⚪
$50,000-$74,999⚪
$75,000-$99,999⚪
$100,000-$149,999⚪
$150,000-$199,999⚪
$200,000 or more⚪
Decline to specify⚪
44Page 171
Item 3.
Back Next
22. Gender:
Check all that apply
Nonbinary⬜
Woman⬜
Man⬜
Transgender⬜
Two-Spirit⬜
Prefer to self-identify⬜
Decline to specify⬜
23. Race/Ethnicity:
Check all that apply
American Indian/Alaska Native⬜
African⬜
African American/Black⬜
Asian/Asian American⬜
Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish Origin⬜
Middle Eastern/North African⬜
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander⬜
White⬜
Prefer to self-identify:⬜
Decline to specify⬜
78%
45Page 172
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Thank you!
In appreciation for your time, you can receive $5 ride credit for Spin and a
chance to win a bike, an e-scooter, or a skateboard.
Back Submit
24. If you would like a $5 ride credit for Spin, enter your email.
25. If you would like a chance to win a bike, e-scooter, or skateboard, enter
your email.
To be eligible for the drawing, you must enter a valid e-mail and you must
select which drawing you wish to enter in the question below. Winners will
be drawn at random from all entries after September 30, 2024. Winners will
be notified by email and must accept prize within 7 days, or a new winner
will be drawn.
26. Which drawing do you want to enter?
$500 gift card to Recycled Cycles⚪
Segway Ninebot G30 e-scooter ($700 value)⚪
$200 gift card to Market Skateshop OR Visa gift card⚪
89%
46Page 173
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where?
Thank You!
The questionnaire is complete. Thank you for your time.
~City of Fort Collins
100%
47Page 174
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
Comparta sus comentarios: ¿En dónde va
cada vehículo en Fort Collins?
Las innovaciones tecnológicas han dado lugar a nuevos tipos de
dispositivos con ruedas pequeñas tanto eléctricos como accionados por
humanos en Fort Collins. Háganos saber sus inquietudes sobre cómo
adaptamos estas cosas nuevas y las antiguas. La encuesta se cerrará el
30 de septiembre. ¡Gracias por sus aportes!
Next
0%
48Page 175
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¿De qué vehículos estamos hablando?
"Monopatín" y otras palabras pueden significar muchas cosas diferentes.
Asegurémonos de que todos hablamos de las mismas cosas con un breve
cuestionario antes de continuar con la encuesta.
1.¿Cuáles de los siguientes son vehículos accionados por humanos?
⬜
⬜
⬜
⬜
49Page 176
Item 3.
2. Un monopatín eléctrico es un vehículo que:
Pesa menos de 100 libras.⬜
Tiene un manillar y un motor eléctrico.⬜
Tiene una velocidad máxima de veinte (20) millas por
hora o menos en una superficie nivelada y pavimentada
cuando funciona únicamente con el motor eléctrico.
⬜
3. ¿Cuáles de estos son vehículos eléctricos ligeros?
⬜
⬜
⬜
4. ¿Cuáles de estos son vehículos eléctricos ligeros?
⬜
⬜
50Page 177
Item 3.
Back Next
⬜
Ninguna de estas⬜
11%
51Page 178
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
Respuestas: ¿De qué vehículos estamos
hablando?
"Monopatín" y otras palabras pueden significar muchas cosas diferentes.
Asegurémonos de que todos hablamos de las mismas cosas con un breve
cuestionario antes de continuar con la encuesta
¿Cuáles de los siguientes son vehículos accionados por humanos?
Respuesta: Todas estas. Los patines, monopatines, patinetas y bicicletas
son impulsados por humanos. Las bicicletas eléctricas son impulsadas
principalmente por humanos, con asistencia eléctrica.
Respuesta: Según la definición de la sección 42-1-102 (28.8) de los
Estatutos Revisados de Colorado, un monopatín eléctrico es un vehículo
que pesa menos de 100 libras, tiene un manillar y un motor eléctrico, y
tiene una velocidad máxima de 20 mph o menos en una superficie
nivelada y pavimentada cuando funciona únicamente con el motor
52Page 179
Item 3.
eléctrico.
¿Cuáles de los siguientes son vehículos eléctricos ligeros?
Respuesta: Todas estas. Los monopatines eléctricos, las patinetas
eléctricas, las aeropatinetas, las patinetas de una rueda y los monociclos
eléctricos son algunos de los vehículos eléctricos ligeros que han
aparecido en los últimos años.
¿Cuáles de los siguientes son vehículos eléctricos ligeros?
Respuesta: Ninguna de estas. Los escúter de bajo consumo, los carritos de golf y
las motos enduro eléctricas no son vehículos eléctricos livianos. Algunos de estos
vehículos pueden parecer vehículos eléctricos livianos, pero son más potentes,
más rápidos o más pesados.
Back Next
53Page 180
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¿Tiene alguna duda?
Back Next
5. ¿Le preocupan los vehículos eléctricos livianos o accionados por
humanos en las aceras, los senderos pavimentados, los carriles para
bicicletas o las calles? *
No, no tengo ninguna duda⚪
Sí, tengo dudas⚪
33%
54Page 181
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
Ahora que entendemos las definiciones, háganos saber sus inquietudes sobre las
operaciones de los mismos en diferentes tipos de instalaciones
6.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
accionados por humanos en las aceras?
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Circulación insegura⚪
Congestión en las aceras⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean las aceras⚪
No hay preocupaciones⚪
7.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
eléctricos ligeros en las aceras?
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Circulación insegura⚪
Congestión en las aceras⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean las aceras⚪
55Page 182
Item 3.
No hay preocupaciones⚪
8.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
eléctricos ligeros en senderos pavimentados?
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Circulación insegura⚪
Congestión en senderos pavimentados⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean el sendero
pavimentado
⚪
No hay preocupaciones⚪
9.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
accionados por humanos en los carriles para bicicletas?
Congestión en el carril para bicicletas⚪
Conflictos con vehículos motorizados⚪
Puede ir demasiado despacio⚪
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean el carril⚪
No hay preocupaciones⚪
56Page 183
Item 3.
10.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
eléctricos ligeros en los carriles para bicicletas?
Congestión en el carril para bicicletas⚪
Conflictos con vehículos motorizados⚪
Puede ir demasiado despacio⚪
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean el carril⚪
No hay preocupaciones⚪
11.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
accionados por humanos en las calles?
Puede que no sigan las reglas de la carretera⚪
Conflictos con vehículos motorizados⚪
Puede ir demasiado despacio⚪
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean las calles⚪
No hay preocupaciones⚪
57Page 184
Item 3.
Back Next
12.
¿Cuál es su principal preocupación con respecto al uso de vehículos
eléctricos ligeros en las calles?
Puede que no sigan las reglas de la carretera⚪
Conflictos con vehículos motorizados⚪
Puede ir demasiado despacio⚪
Pueden ir demasiado rápido⚪
Vehículos estacionados que bloquean las calles⚪
No hay preocupaciones⚪
44%
58Page 185
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
Comments
Back Next
13. ¿Tiene otros comentarios que le gustaría compartir sobre "En dónde
va cada vehículo"?
56%
59Page 186
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¿Qué vehículo usa USTED?
Nos gustaría asegurarnos de escuchar a las personas que usan varios
tipos de vehículos o que no usan ninguno. ¿De qué manera se moviliza?
14.
En las aceras, ¿cómo se moviliza?:
Camino⬜
Voy en bicicleta⬜
Conduzco una bicicleta eléctrica⬜
Conduzco un monopatín eléctrico⬜
Conduzco un vehículo accionado por humanos que no
sea una bicicleta ni una bicicleta eléctrica
⬜
Conduzco un vehículo eléctrico ligero que no sea un
monopatín eléctrico
⬜
Ando a caballo⬜
Ninguna de estas⬜
15.
En los senderos pavimentados, ¿cómo se moviliza?:
Camino⬜
60Page 187
Item 3.
Voy en bicicleta⬜
Conduzco una bicicleta eléctrica⬜
Conduzco un monopatín eléctrico⬜
Conduzco un vehículo accionado por humanos que no
sea una bicicleta ni una bicicleta eléctrica
⬜
Conduzco un vehículo eléctrico ligero que no sea un
monopatín eléctrico
⬜
Ando a caballo⬜
Ninguna de estas⬜
16.
En los carriles para bicicletas, ¿cómo se moviliza?:
Voy en bicicleta⬜
Conduzco una bicicleta eléctrica⬜
Conduzco un monopatín eléctrico⬜
Conduzco un vehículo accionado por humanos que no
sea una bicicleta ni una bicicleta eléctrica
⬜
Conduzco un vehículo eléctrico ligero que no sea un
monopatín eléctrico
⬜
Ninguna de estas⬜
17.
En calles sin carriles para bicicletas, ¿cómo se moviliza?:
Voy en bicicleta⬜
Conduzco una bicicleta eléctrica⬜
61Page 188
Item 3.
Back Next
Conduzco un monopatín eléctrico⬜
Conduzco un vehículo accionado por humanos que no
sea una bicicleta ni una bicicleta eléctrica
⬜
Conduzco un vehículo eléctrico ligero que no sea un
monopatín eléctrico
⬜
Conduzco⬜
Ando a caballo⬜
Ninguna de estas⬜
67%
62Page 189
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
Demografía
La Ciudad recopila información demográfica para ayudar a mejorar los
programas, determinar los posibles obstáculos en la participación y
garantizar que todas las personas de nuestra comunidad tengan acceso a
su gobierno local. La información demográfica nos ayuda a evaluar a qué
comunidades estamos llegando de manera efectiva y a quiénes podemos
necesitar para trabajar más arduamente y abarcar temas importantes.
Todas las preguntas son opcionales y cualquier información recopilada se
mantendrá completamente anónima.
18.¿Cuál es su afiliación con la Colorado State University?
Marque todo lo que corresponda
Estudiante de grado⬜
Estudiante de posgrado⬜
Estudiante visitante⬜
Cuerpo docente⬜
Personal⬜
No hay afiliación actual⬜
Me niego a especificar⬜
19.¿Tiene una discapacidad o un problema de salud que afecte las
decisiones de viaje que toma en Fort Collins?
Marque todo lo que corresponda
Movilidad o destreza (p. ej., caminar, subir escaleras)⬜
Visual (p. ej., ciegos o con baja visión)⬜
Sordos o con problemas de audición⬜
De habla o comunicación⬜
63Page 190
Item 3.
Cognitivo⬜
Sin discapacidad⬜
Me niego a especificar⬜
20. Rango de edad:
14 años o menor⚪
15-19 años⚪
20-29 años⚪
30-39 años⚪
40-49 años⚪
50-59 años⚪
60-69 años⚪
70 años o más⚪
Me niego a especificar⚪
21. Rango de ingresos del grupo familiar:
Menos de $10,000⚪
$10,000-$14,999⚪
$15,000-$24,999⚪
$25,000-$34,999⚪
$35,000-$49,999⚪
$50,000-$74,999⚪
$75,000-$99,999⚪
$100,000-$149,999⚪
$150,000-$199,999⚪
$200,000 o más⚪
Me niego a especificar⚪
64Page 191
Item 3.
Back Next
22. Género
Marque todo lo que corresponda
No binario⬜
Mujer⬜
Hombre⬜
Transgénero⬜
Dos espíritus⬜
Prefiero identificarme por mi cuenta:⬜
Me niego a especificar⬜
23. Raza/etnia
Marque todo lo que corresponda
Indígena estadounidense/nativo(a) de Alaska⬜
o(a)⬜
Afroamericano(a)/negro(a)⬜
Asiático(a)/asiático(a) americano(a)⬜
Origen hispano/latino/español⬜
De Medio Oriente/norafricano(a)⬜
Nativo(a) de Hawái u otra isla del Pacífico⬜
Blanco(a)⬜
Prefiero identificarme por mi cuenta:
*
⬜
Me niego a especificar⬜
78%65Page 192
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¡Gracias!
Como agradecimiento por su tiempo, puede recibir un crédito de viaje de
$5 para Spin y la oportunidad de ganar una bicicleta, un monopatín
eléctrico o una patineta.
Back Submit
24. Si quiere recibir un crédito de viaje de $5 para Spin, ingrese su correo
electrónico.
25. Si quiere tener la oportunidad de ganar una patineta, una bicicleta o un
monopatín eléctrico, ingrese su correo electrónico.
Para ser elegible para participar en el sorteo, debe ingresar un correo
electrónico válido y seleccionar el sorteo en el que desea participar en la
pregunta siguiente. Los ganadores se elegirán al azar entre todas las
participaciones después del 30 de septiembre de 2024. Los ganadores
recibirán una notificación por correo electrónico y deberán aceptar el
premio en un plazo de 7 días o se sorteará un nuevo ganador
26. ¿En qué sorteo desea participar?
Tarjeta de regalo de $500 para Recycled Cycles⚪
Monopatín eléctrico Segway Ninebot G30 (valorado en
$700)
⚪
Tarjeta de regalo de $200 para Market Skateshop O
tarjeta de regalo Visa
⚪
66Page 193
Item 3.
¿En dónde va cada vehículo?
¡Gracias!
El cuestionario está completo. Gracias por su tiempo.
~City of Fort Collins
100%
67Page 194
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where
Report
Page 195
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 2
Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 4
Background ............................................................................................................................ 4
Goal .................................................................................................................................... 4
Plan Congruence ................................................................................................................ 7
Micromobility networks ........................................................................................................ 8
Scooter and skateboard crash analysis ............................................................................... 9
Partner feedback .......................................................................................................................11
Internal partners ....................................................................................................................11
Internal partners engaged ..................................................................................................11
Enforcement perspective ...................................................................................................11
Other outstanding questions ..............................................................................................12
External partners ...................................................................................................................12
Advisory Boards .................................................................................................................13
Colorado State University ..................................................................................................13
Downtown Development Authority .....................................................................................13
High school students ..........................................................................................................14
Skateboarder case study ...................................................................................................14
Peer cities .................................................................................................................................15
Boulder ..................................................................................................................................15
Denver...................................................................................................................................15
Loveland ................................................................................................................................16
Other cities ............................................................................................................................16
Facilities ....................................................................................................................................17
Sidewalks ..............................................................................................................................17
Streets ...................................................................................................................................18
Opportunities .....................................................................................................................18
Concerns ...........................................................................................................................18
Boulder ..............................................................................................................................19
Strategies ..................................................................................................................................20
Speed limit enforcement challenges ......................................................................................20
Education ..............................................................................................................................21
Page 196
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 3
Boulder experience ............................................................................................................21
Four Point Trail Safety Strategy .........................................................................................21
FC Moves Education and Outreach ...................................................................................21
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................23
Crash Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................23
Page 197
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 4
Overview
“Micromobility” means devices with a small profile and lower speed compared to most motor
vehicles, such as bicycles, scooters, skateboards, rollerblades, and other vehicles. They may be
human powered vehicles or lightweight electric vehicles with a top speed of 20 mph or less.
With recent battery and technology advances, the options are expanded and changing rapidly.
Today, people use human and lightweight electric vehicles to move about the city; however,
many of the laws pertaining to these devices are outdated. Current laws create a fragmented,
inconsistent, and often unsafe network (Table 1). Our mobility choices are changing, and our
laws need to stay current to regulate, educate, and enforce the safe use of these devices on city
facilities and create a fair physical and legal environment for their use.
Background
Fort Collins’ robust bicycle network is well suited to accommodate micromobility, and the City is
constantly working to improve the bicycle network. Supporting the use of new devices provides
community members more mobility choices that move away from use of motor vehicles which
emit greenhouse gases and cause traffic congestion. Therefore, this aligns with several City
plans and priorities, such as Our Climate Future, Active Modes Plan, Strategic Trails Plan,
Vision Zero Action Plan, Shift Your Ride, and 15-Minute City.
Goal
The goal of Which Wheels Go Where is to
accommodate more kinds of micromobility and protect
pedestrians, people with disabilities, seniors, and
children, through updating and simplifying the laws
governing micromobility operations on streets, bike
lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails (for example, Table
2), and clarifying right of way and behavior.
To inform this project, community members who experience bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
different contexts were engaged to determine how best to accommodate human powered
vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles on city facilities and to develop strategies to address
concerns. We collected internal and external stakeholder input and reviewed crash data and
experiences in other communities. The Community Engagement Summary summarized the
community outreach and input received in the questionnaire, which received almost 1,500
responses from July to November, 2024. This report (a companion to the Community
Engagement Summary) summarizes research and input received outside of the questionnaire.
Accommodate more kinds of
micromobility
AND
Protect pedestrians, people with
disabilities, seniors, and children.
Page 198
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 5
Table 1. Where current ordinance allows and prohibits various types of vehicles
Bicycles
E-bikes,
Class 1 & 2
E-bikes,
Class 3 E-scooters
Human
powered
vehicle
Lightweight
electric
vehicle
Low-power
scooter
Street Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Prohibited Prohibited Allowed
Bike lane Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Sidewalk Allowed Allowed ??? ??? Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Sidewalk –
Dismount
zone
Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Paved Trails
(except Mason
Trail)
Allowed Allowed Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Prohibited Prohibited
Mason Trail Allowed Allowed Prohibited Allowed Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Crosswalk Ride Ride Ride Dismount Ride Ride Dismount
Crosswalk –
Dismount
zone
Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount Dismount
Page 199
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 6
Table 2. Possible future ordinances regulating various types of vehicles
Human powered vehicles Lightweight electric vehicles Low power scooter
Street Allowed Allowed Allowed
Bike lane Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Sidewalk Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Paved Trails Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Crosswalk Ride Ride Dismount
Dismount zone Dismount Dismount Prohibited
Page 200
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 7
Plan Congruence
Which Wheels Go Where is an outcome of the Active Modes Plan and supports several City
plans and priorities, including Our Climate Future, Strategic Trails Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan,
Shift Your Ride, and 15-Minute City.
Active Modes Plan
The Active Modes Plan has the goals of 50% active mode share by 2032 and zero active mode
fatalities and serious injuries by 2032. The plan is oriented around five Big Moves.
One progress tracker of the Big Move “A Complete and Connected Network” is “Ability of
residents to reach community destinations from their homes by walking, biking, rolling, and
using micromobility on continuous facilities without gaps in available infrastructure”. Existing
policies governing some kinds of micromobility result in network gaps.
One progress tracker of the Big Move “Safe and Comfortable Travel” is “Low-stress network of
protected bicycle facilities, detached sidewalks, and off-road multiuse trails that is also
accessible to micromobility users, including motorized micromobility”.
The Active Modes Plan has five categories of policy and program recommendations.
Recommendation 3e (from Category 3, “Aligning Standards with Active Modes Goals”) is
“Revise standards and regulations to support micromobility as a mode of transportation”. In
action, this means: “Identify ordinances and regulations that restrict the network for
micromobility users. Engage stakeholders to determine what changes to ordinances and
regulations could provide a safe and connected network for micromobility users.”
The Which Wheels Go Where project fulfills recommendation 3e.
Our Climate Future
One of the three goals of Our Climate Future is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80%
below 2005 levels by 2030. Big Move 4 is “Convenient Transportation Choices: It is safe, easy,
fast and affordable to get around without a car”. Micromobility offers many varied transportation
alternatives to motor vehicles.
Strategic Trails Plan
The paved trails are the heart of the bicycle network. Most of the paved trails are owned and
maintained by the Parks Department or Natural Resources. The Strategic Trails Plan provides a
framework for planning, design, maintenance, and preservation of the recreational paved trail
system of the Parks Department.
Vision Zero Action Plan
The Vision Zero Action Plan has eleven transformative actions and 33 supporting actions in five
goal areas, with a Focus on Vulnerable Road Users as an overarching goal. Vulnerable road
users are people walking, bicycling, or riding micromobility.
Page 201
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 8
The first goal area, Support Mode Shift, identifies three City plans and programs to increase
mode shift: Transit Master Plan, Active Modes Plan, and Shift Your Ride program. The
transformative actions in this goal area are to implement these plans and programs. The
rationale behind this is that motor vehicles are involved in nearly all severe crashes, and
removing or reducing the “threat” – motor vehicles – is the most impactful strategy to eliminate
severe crashes.
Updating rules to accommodate more kinds of micromobility gives people a wider variety of
alternatives to driving motor vehicles. As one of just five Platinum Bicycle Friendly Communities
in the nation, Fort Collins has a robust bicycle network and rules governing bicycle use. Recent
efforts have expanded accommodations for e-bikes and e-scooters. In addition to bicycles, e-
bikes, and e-scooters, some people may find other human powered or lightweight electric
vehicles more appealing or feasible as alternatives to driving motor vehicles.
Shift Your Ride
The objectives of the Shift Your Ride program are 1) reduce travel demand by employing
transportation demand management strategies and 2) support the transition to cleaner fuels like
electric vehicles. Accommodating more kinds of micromobility supports the three aims of the
program.
1) Expand convenient transportation options – Accommodating more kinds of
micromobility expands convenient transportation options.
2) Promote low-carbon travel options – Micromobility options are lower carbon than
driving motor vehicles and can replace vehicle trips.
3) Improve community health – When micromobility trips replace motor vehicle trips,
there is a beneficial effect on both air quality and severe traffic crashes. Human
powered vehicles directly improve physical health. Many lightweight electric
vehicles also have a positive impact on physical health, even if they do not require
pedaling, as standing and balancing are physically beneficial.
15-minute city
One of the 2024-2026 Council priorities is “Advance a 15-minute city by accelerating our shift to
active modes”. Accommodating different kinds of micromobility provides more active modes
options.
Micromobility networks
Under current rules, micromobility devices other than bicycles and Class 1 and 2 e-bikes do not
have access to the entire bicycle network.
• E-scooters and other lightweight electric vehicles are restricted from most paved
trails.
• Skateboards, e-skateboards, and other human powered and lightweight electric
vehicles other than bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters are restricted from bike lanes
and streets.
Page 202
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 9
However, many riders reported being unaware of these restrictions and choosing to ride where
they feel is safe and convenient.
Scooter and skateboard crash analysis
To understand the potential safety implications of formally allowing human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles to ride on streets, crashes involving scooters and skateboards were
analyzed. E-scooters are allowed to ride on streets while kick scooters and skateboards are
currently classified as “toy vehicles” and are not allowed to ride on streets.
A 2019-2023 crash data report was generated from the Fort Collins crash database using the
keywords “scooter” and “skateboard”. The crash narrative and other fields were manually
analyzed to determine if a stand-up scooter or skateboard was involved and 32 crashes
identified (Table 3).
Table 3 Number of scooter and skateboard crashes 2019-2023
Scooter/Skateboard Number of
crashes
E-scooter (any) 18
Spin e-scooters 5
Kick scooter 2
E-skateboard 3
Longboard 2
Skateboard 7
All scooter 20
All skateboard 12
All scooter/skateboard 32 (6.4/year)
Crash severity
One of the 32 crashes resulted in death and two in
serious injuries (Figure 3).
Probable fault
Probable fault was assigned to a motorist in the majority of crashes, including 12 of the 20
scooter crashes and 8 of the 12 skateboard crashes (Table 4).
Of the eight crashes determined to be caused by a person riding a scooter, the riders’ errors
were:
• Fail to yield – 4
• Distracted (involved a parked motor vehicle) – 1
• Improperly parked e-scooter (involved a bicyclist and a Spin scooter) – 1
• Ran stop sign – 1
• Wrong direction – 1
Figure 1 Crash severity
Page 203
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 10
Of the four crashes determined to be caused by a person riding a skateboard, the riders’ errors
were:
• Fail to yield – 2
• Fell off – 1
• Crossed against the light – 1
Table 4 Party at fault in scooter and skateboard crashes
Fault Scooter Skateboard
Motorist 12 8
Rider 8 4
Toy in roadway citations
Skateboards are classified as “toy vehicles” and as such are prohibited from streets. A person
riding a skateboard in a street can be cited for “Toy in roadway”. E-scooters are not toy vehicles.
In the skateboard and scooter crashes analyzed, the “Toy in roadway” citation was used twice:
1. In one skateboard-involved crash, the person driving stopped at a stop sign and
then proceeded through the intersection, colliding with the person riding a
skateboard in the bike lane who did not have a stop sign. It was dark and the
person riding the skateboard did not have lights. The person riding the skateboard
was cited for “Toy in roadway” and the crash report identified the probable cause
as “pedestrian failed to yield”.
2. There was one citation for “Toy in roadway” in an e-scooter crash. No other
information was available.
Page 204
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 11
Partner feedback
This project was led by FC Moves and Parks staff who gathered feedback and discussed
strategies with internal and external partners.
Internal partners
Internal partners provided guidance on community engagement, identified gaps in feedback,
and shared concerns and challenges with existing conditions and possible changes.
Internal partners engaged
The May 24, 2024 kick-off meeting included with staff from City Attorney Office,
Communications and Public Involvement Office, FC Moves, Natural Areas, Office of Equity &
Inclusion, Parks, Police Services, Recreation, Traffic Operations. Rangers from both Parks and
Natural Areas were present. After an overview of the project, staff were enthusiastic about the
need for updates and for extensive public engagement on updates and behavior expectations,
particularly with older residents, people with low income, and youth.
Several meetings were held to gather feedback and develop strategies:
• May 2, 2024 – City Attorney’s Office
• June 26, 2024 – City Attorney’s Office, Police Services (Traffic Unit), Traffic
Operations
• July 10, 2024 –City Attorney’s Office (prosecutors)
• July 11, 2024 – Police Services (Traffic Unit), Traffic Operations
• July 15, 2024 – Police Services (HOPE Team)
• August 6, 2024 – Police Services (Traffic Unit), Boulder Police
• October 29, 2024 – FC Moves Education and Outreach
• October 30, 2024 – Police Services (Traffic Unit), Traffic Operations
• March 17, 2025 – Police Services (Traffic Unit)
• May 8, 2025 – Natural Areas
Natural Areas’ motorized mobility policy was reviewed to ensure compatibility with rule changes
affecting paved trails.
Enforcement perspective
Police officers and rangers expressed the following perspectives about allowing human
powered and lightweight electric vehicles on streets and paved trails:
• More resources might be needed
o For responding to crashes if crashes increase
o For enforcement of behavior or equipment rules
• Education and outreach considerations
o Resources and identifying responsibility for conducting outreach
Page 205
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 12
o Challenges of reaching people and constant effort to reach new students
and residents
o Consistency of messaging across departments
• Considerations of legal recourse
o Protection for motorists’ damage if involved in a collision with an at-fault
uninsured rider.
• Potential for increased crashes on streets
o Speed differential between motor vehicles and other riders on streets
o Ability to maneuver on different vehicles
o Ability to stop on different vehicles
o Lack of safety equipment, such as helmets, lights, and brakes
o Some studies suggest scooter crashes result in severe injuries
Other outstanding questions
Some questions raised by internal partners can be addressed as new rules are drafted. Others
may require more resources and actions. Some questions raised by internal partners reflect
those also heard from police officers and community feedback; they are included here for
completeness.
• Safety
o Potential for increased crashes on streets due to the speed differential
between motor vehicles and other riders
o Some communities experienced an increase in certain types of injuries
when e-scooters were introduced
o Speed bumps could be barriers to some vehicles like e-scooters (currently
allowed on streets) and skateboards (not currently allowed on streets)
o Some vehicles and riders may lack safety equipment, such as helmets,
lights, or brakes
o Some vehicles have different maneuverability than others
• Definitions
o Differences in definitions between communities may create confusion for
travelers and enforcement
• Expanding where devices are allowed to operate
o Challenges to enforcement
o Differences between municipal code and state code could create issues in
civil court
• Data
o Crash data is limited if it doesn’t involve a motor vehicle
External partners
The Community Engagement Summary (a companion to this report) summarizes the community
outreach and input received in the Which Wheels Go Where questionnaire, which received
Page 206
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 13
almost 1,500 responses. This section summarizes research and input received outside of the
questionnaire:
• Advisory Boards that provided input were Active Modes Advisory Board, Disability
Advisory Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Senior Advisory Board,
Transportation Advisory Board, and Youth Advisory Board. Several board
members of these and other advisory boards provided feedback during a Super
Issues meeting.
• Colorado State University Police
• Downtown Development Authority
• High school students
• Skateboarder
Advisory Boards
Board members and students felt that it is important to provide safe, comfortable routes with
predictable and consistent rules for micromobility riders. Rules should protect both riders and
pedestrians. Board members emphasized:
• Simplifying regulations
• Support for education efforts
• Support for signage
• Creating a culture of mutual respect
• The need for safe infrastructure and maintenance of infrastructure
• The importance of audible signals
• Not all devices have speedometers
Colorado State University
Because Colorado State University has a high number of people using different kinds of
micromobility, CSU police were interviewed on 11/18/2024. Campus has a very high volume of
all kinds of human powered and lightweight electric vehicles. Protecting pedestrians is a high
priority. The important thing is how people are riding, not what kind of micromobility vehicle. The
“careless riding” citation can be applied to bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters. It would be helpful
if there were a similar citation for other human powered and lightweight electric vehicles.
There is a disconnect between City ordinances regarding “toy vehicles” (which includes human
powered and lightweight electric vehicles other than bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters) and the
needs of the campus community. On CSU-owned streets, these devices are allowed on streets
and they are prohibited from sidewalks if a bike lane is adjacent, while the current City
ordinance restricts them from all streets. Since some streets on campus are CSU-owned and
some are City-owned, this discrepancy creates confusion.
Downtown Development Authority
Downtown is a different environment than the rest of the City and could be uniquely affected by
changes to code. Staff from the Downtown Development Authority (interviewed 1/22/2025) don’t
foresee negative impacts from allowing human powered and lightweight electric vehicles on
streets within the DDA boundary. They see a need to educate people about the dismount zone
Page 207
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 14
when there are code changes to ensure that dismount zones are not negatively impacted by
rule changes.
High school students
Questionnaire responses were low from the age groups under 15 years old and 15-19 years old,
so additional feedback was sought in conversations with high school students in the Bike Tech
class and the Environment classes.
• Skateboarders don’t feel as if they belong anywhere and feel that drivers are
hostile.
• Drivers should treat bicyclists and skateboarders the way they would like to be
treated
• Micromobility riders need safe infrastructure, with wide bike lanes, separated bike
lanes, and raised sidepaths
• New drivers feel nervous around bicyclists and skateboarders, and feel more
comfortable when there are wide bike lanes, separated bike lanes, and raised
sidepaths
• Fort Colllins has a great bike culture
Skateboarder case study
To get a more complete understanding of the experience of skateboarders, Sam, a
skateboarder, was interviewed (11/17/2024). Sam has been “shredding” in Fort Collins for three
decades and is well connected with the local skateboarding community. Some years, the
skateboard was Sam’s primary transportation.
Skateboarders have the same goals as other travelers – a place that is safe and easy to get
around. Skateboarders will look for the smoothest path, and that means they switch between
facilities. Sidewalks don’t always work for skateboarders. For example, while skateboarding,
Sam once passed a bicyclist in a bike lane. At that speed, the sidewalk wasn’t a safe option for
Sam or for pedestrians.
Because there is a strong skateboarding community in Fort Collins, there are opportunities for
education. The skateboard advocacy group “Lauch Community through Skateboarding” can
disseminate information through social media, website, and posters in the Market Skate Shop.
Signage at skateparks where skateboarders congregate can be effective. The FC Moves bicycle
education program could be adapted for skateboarders if City rules for skateboarding aligned
with the practical operation of a skateboard as a mode of transportation.
Page 208
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 15
Peer cities
Relevant rules and experience from peer cities are described in this section.
Boulder
The Which Wheels Go Where project was informed by Boulder’s similar effort, also named
Which Wheels Go Where, which resulted in code changes in 2021. Key elements of Boulder’s
code changes were:
• Clearly distinguish between lightweight electric vehicles and electric vehicles that
are more powerful, such as low power scooters
• Defined where human powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles can be
operated
• 15 mph speed limit on paved trails and 8 mph speed limit in crosswalks
After these code changes, education has been the primary strategy to address issues on multi-
use paths and on streets and sidewalks. Clearly defining different categories of vehicles made it
possible to accommodate more types of vehicles and educate what is and isn’t allowed. The
code changes support education and enforcement. Police are involved in education, and clear,
understandable rules help in the rare situations when enforcement is necessary.
Police in Boulder were concerned that there would be severe crashes after allowing
skateboards on streets. This concern did not materialize as there has not been an increase in
any crashes (severe or otherwise) involving skateboards since allowing skateboards on streets
in 2021.
Denver
Denver updated rules in 2020 to allow electric devices on trails:
• 15 mph speed limit
• Stay to the right except when passing
• When passing, yield to opposing traffic
• Sound warning when passing
• Yield to pedestrians
Denver code contains some inconsistencies, such as both a prohibition of bicycles and e-
scooters on sidewalks as well as a 6 mph speed limit for bicycles and e-scooters on sidewalks.
Neither the speed limit nor the prohibition apply to sidewalks that are part of a designated
bicycle route. Denver does not allow roller skates, skateboards, and toy vehicles in the roadway.
Page 209
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 16
Figure 2 Outreach graphic used in Denver
Loveland
In 2023, the City of Loveland created an Open Lands and Trails Division Policy that allows
Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, e-skateboards, e-scooters, and other electronic micromobility devices on
City trails.
The policy stipulates:
• Electronic micromobility devices have motors that generate less than 750 watts of
power, weigh less than 100 pounds, and have an axle width less than half the
width of the trail
• All trails users ride or walk on the right, warn others of approach and when
passing, and pass on the left.
• Riders yield the right of way to pedestrians.
Other cities
Cities that allow e-scooters on paved trails include Boulder, Denver, Loveland, Fayetteville, AR;
Salt Lake City, UT; and Columbus, OH. Boulder and Loveland also allow other lightweight
electric vehicles on paved trails.
Page 210
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 17
Facilities
The facility options for human powered and lightweight electric vehicles are sidewalks, paved
trails, bike lanes, and streets. This section discusses sidewalks and streets, including bike
lanes. Paved trails will be explored further after the 18-month safety education campaign.
Current regulations allow bicycles, Class 1 & 2 e-bikes, and e-scooters to use sidewalks and
streets, including bike lanes and crosswalks. The network for human powered and lightweight
electric vehicles other than these, considered “toy vehicles”, is constrained because current
regulations restrict electric toy vehicles from every facility except sidewalks and restrict human
powered toy vehicles from streets.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks in Fort Collins range from narrow, 18-inch sidewalks with mountable curbs to
standard width sidewalks of 4.5 to 7 feet. Narrow sidewalks are not complaint with current
standards, including ADA accessibility.
Sidewalks and sidepaths are both paths alongside roads, unlike paved trails which are mostly
NOT alongside roads. Sidewalks are intended for the use of pedestrians while sidepaths are
multiuse: designated for use by pedestrians, bicycles, human powered vehicles, and lightweight
electric vehicles. To simplify regulations, the proposed code addresses the regulation of multi-
use paths, which includes both paved trails and sidepaths.
While sidewalks are intended for pedestrians, people often use human powered and lightweight
electric vehicles on sidewalks, typically because the bicycle facility does not feel safe or is not
present. Adult riders are discouraged from riding on the sidewalk because while it may feel
safer, there are hidden risks at driveways and parking lot entrances and exits. However, there
are gaps in the bicycle network and places where inadequate sidewalks are the best available
option for riders. Therefore, regulations should protect and prioritize pedestrian safety and
comfort.
Current regulations: All human powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles are
permitted on sidewalks, except in dismount zones. A person riding a bicycle, electrical assisted
bicycle, or electric scooter on a sidewalk required to yield to pedestrians and sound warning.
Proposed regulations: All human powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles are
permitted on sidewalks, except in dismount zones. Human powered and lightweight electric
vehicles required to yield to pedestrians and sound warning and are prohibited from careless
riding.
Changes:
Page 211
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 18
• Other human powered and lightweight electric vehicles would be added as
classes of vehicles that are required to yield to pedestrians and sound warning.
• Prohibition of careless riding would be applied to riding any human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks.
Streets
Streets and bike lanes are considered together because existing regulations governing bicycles,
e-bikes, and e-scooters of do not distinguish between bike lanes and streets.
Bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters are currently permitted in bike lanes and on streets; other
human powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles are prohibited from bike lanes and
streets.
Opportunities
Allowing human powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles to use bike lanes and
streets, instead of restricting them to sidewalks, opens up these vehicles as transportation
options. Some people may not be able to own or operate a bicycle, e-bike, or e-scooter. They
may want the human powered skateboard or kick scooter that gives them more physical
exercise, simpler components, no need for charging, and is easy to transfer to other modes and
keep with them to avoid theft. They may want the lightweight electric vehicle that is smaller and
easier to carry and store than an e-scooter or e-bike.
In the questionnaire, about 10% report riding human powered vehicles or lightweight electric
vehicles that aren’t bicycles, e-bikes, or e-scooters in bike lanes and on streets without bike
lanes. Comments on this topic within the questionnaire and in in-person interactions expressed
surprise that this is not permitted. Therefore, changing the rule is unlikely to affect behavior,
while education may promote safer riding practices in bike lanes and on streets.
People on these vehicles may feel very comfortable on low traffic, low speed streets, which are
the majority of streets in Fort Collins. Current regulations prohibit this regardless of traffic
volume or speed or whether a bike lane is present. Officers stated they do not and would not
enforce this activity on low traffic, low speed streets or in bike lanes, but as long as the
restriction is present, riders cannot be encouraged to practice safer riding behaviors in bike
lanes and on streets in education opportunities.
Whether or not riders are allowed to use paved trails, some riders will still need to use streets
and/or sidewalks at some point in their journey to access destinations.
Concerns
Members of the Active Modes Board and Transportation Board commented that the rules
should be simple. For example, restricting the type of street or where on the street a rider may
operate certain kinds of devices makes the rules more complicated and difficult to explain and
understand.
Page 212
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 19
Boulder
Since 2021, Boulder has permitted these types of
vehicles on streets and now has three years of
experience with these rules. While Boulder’s
ordinance permits all types of micromobility –
bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters, human powered
vehicles, and lightweight electric vehicles – on
streets and in bike lanes, the educational chart
created to explain the new rules shows restrictions
that are not reflected in the ordinance (Figure 2):
• Human powered vehicles that are not
bicycles or e-bikes may be used on any
residential streets
• Lightweight electric vehicles may be used
on residential streets with posted speed limit
≤20 mph
• Human powered and lightweight electric vehicles that are not bicycles or e-bikes
must use the bike lane on nonresidential streets.
Since the rule changed, a Boulder police officer shared:
• They expected to see more impact when the rule changed than what was observed.
• Before the rule change, people couldn’t ride skateboards in the street but did anyway.
• They have not observed an increase in crashes (severe or otherwise) related to the rule
change.
• Some Boulder officers are still disappointed that the rule was changed.
Figure 3 Boulder guide to where different
micromobility devices can be used (different
from Boulder ordinance)
Page 213
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 20
Strategies
Speed limit enforcement challenges
A desire for speed limits and enforcement of speed limits was heard from internal and external
stakeholders. Denver established 6 mph speed limit on sidewalks, Boulder established 8 mph
speed limit in crosswalks, and both Denver and Boulder established 15 mph speed limit on
paved trails.
Technology, legal requirements and staffing have significant limitations to ticketing infractions of
very low speed limits.
• Technology
o The lowest limit of radar speed detection is 10 mph. More expensive
models ($2,500 per radar gun) can detect 5 mph.
o The lowest limit of lidar speed detection is 3 mph. Lidar guns are $4,800
each and require 3-day certification training.
o Both have limitations detecting low speed limits; however, egregious speed
violations could be detected.
• Legal requirements
o To issue a speeding ticket, speed limit signs must be posted at every entry
point. This is a hurdle for paved trails and is impossible for sidewalks and
bike lanes which can be entered at virtually any point.
o State law minimum age to receive a speeding ticket is 10 years.
o Points are not assessed for bike infractions.
• Staff
o Park rangers and Natural Area rangers are not certified in lidar or radar
speed enforcement and cannot pursue or detain people.
o Community Service Officers (CSO) are not authorized to issue citations.
o The Traffic Unit is fully occupied with enforcement on roads and doesn’t
have the capacity to patrol and enforce traffic infractions on paved trails,
sidewalks, or bike lanes.
Police have not observed issues on paved trails to justify patrols. Fort Collins Police Services
created Homeless Outreach and Proactive Engagement (HOPE) in April 2023 with four bike-
certified officers who visit paved trails Monday-Thursday during daytime hours to offer resources
and opportunities to unhoused people. A HOPE Team officer reported that she has not
observed blatant speeding and rarely saw dirt bikes on paved trails, however, the HOPE Team
looks for people experiencing homelessness and not traffic issues.
Automated speed enforcement used on roads depends on being able to identify a road user by
license plate. License plates aren’t required on vehicles that are legal on paved trails.
Page 214
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 21
Prosecutors from City Attorney’s Office and Police expressed hesitation over regulations such
as a speed limit that can’t be or isn’t intended to be proactively enforced. On the other hand,
educational efforts could benefit an adopted speed limit. For example, a sign that reads “15 mph
speed limit” is more compelling than “15 mph courtesy speed limit”.
Education
The primary strategy for addressing existing issues with micromobility on sidewalks, paved
trails, bike lanes, and streets is education. Areas that are the most popular for micromobility are
the areas that experience the most issues, such as paved trails where they see the highest use,
downtown surrounding Old Town Square (a pedestrian mall), and CSU campus.
Education and outreach promotes:
• Yielding to pedestrians on sidewalks and paved trails
• Yield to oncoming traffic on sidewalks and paved trails
• Stay to the right on paved trails unless passing
• Sound warning when passing on paved trails
• 15 mph speed limit on paved trails
• Slow down for sharp curves
Boulder experience
Boulder, CO created education materials to encourage sound warning when passing and
yielding to pedestrians that are used on paved trails and downtown.
Four Point Trail Safety Strategy
To address issues on paved trails, the Strategic Trails Plan proposes a four-point safety
strategy:
• Trail safety education multimedia campaign
• Refreshed courtesy and etiquette signs
• Trail widening, centerline striping and warning signs at bridges, underpasses, and
junctions
• Bicycle Ambassador Program to include routine trail pop-up events
FC Moves Education and Outreach
To address issues on sidewalks, bike lanes, and streets, the FC Moves department education
and outreach programs, Safe Routes to School and Adult Education and Outreach, can
disseminate information. These avenues are also available for Parks’ paved trail safety
education campaign.
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) teaches bicycle and pedestrian safety to nearly 6,000 K-12
students each year at 20-plus elementary, middle, and high schools. On average, K-12 students
participating in SRTS programming receive more than two hours of personal interaction with
SRTS instructors. SRTS teaches youth how to navigate local streets and trails more safely. At
Page 215
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 22
the high-school level, students also take a Bicycle Friendly Driver course, helping them become
safer drivers.
The Adult Education and Outreach program reaches people through classes, social media, and
a monthly newsletter. Classes include Smart Cycling that teaches best practices for bicycling
and Fort Collins Friendly Driver that teaches drivers how to drive around people on
micromobility. This program manages the FC Moves Facebook and X social media posts with
about 4,000 followers. The Momentum newsletter reaches 5,330 subscribers.
Page 216
Item 3.
Which Wheels Go Where│Report September 2025 | 23
Appendix
Crash Analysis Methodology
Information used to determine if an e-scooter, kick scooter, or skateboard was or was not
involved in a crash included:
• Brand names such as “Tao Tao” (a gas-powered small motorcycle) or “Segway” (a
stand-up electric scooter).
• Vehicle description, such as “stand up scooter”, “longboard”, or “e-skateboard”.
• “Nonmotorized” indicated in any field suggests that it was a stand-up scooter, either e-
scooter or kick scooter.
• “Motorized bicycle” indicated in any field suggests it was not a stand-up scooter.
In many cases it was impossible to determine if a vehicle was a stand-up electric scooter vs. a
sit-down scooter. These cases were not included in the analysis.
In crash reports, the rider was sometimes identified as ‘pedestrian’, ‘bicyclist’, or ‘pedestrian on
skates/skateboard’. However, ‘pedestrian on skates/skateboard’ was used once when the crash
narrative described a stand-up scooter and once when the crash narrative described a sit-down
scooter. Therefore, this category alone was not considered a reliable identification of a
skateboard.
From an initial set of 69 scooter-involved crashes, it was determined that 43 definitely did not
involve an e-scooter or kick scooter and it could not be definitively determined whether an e-
scooter or kick scooter was involved for 6 crashes, leaving 20 crashes that definitely or likely
involved riders of e-scooters or kick scooters. From an initial set of 16 skateboard-involved
crashes, one was a scooter (and was already included in the scooter analysis), and it could not
be definitively determined whether a skateboard was involved 3 crashes, leaving 12 crashes
that definitely or likely involved riders of skateboards.
Page 217
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Cortney Geary, Active Modes Manager
Dave “DK” Kemp, Senior Trails Planner
Rachel Ruhlen, Transportation Planner
Council Work Session
Which Wheels Go
Where?
Project update and
exploration of rule
changes
2025 09 23
Page 218
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
2
Council Priority & Plan Alignment
Council Priorities
•Advance a 15-minute City by accelerating a shift
to Active Modes
•Modernize and update the City Charter
Strategic Plan Alignment
•T&M 1:Make significant progress toward the
City’s Vision Zero goal to have no serious injury
or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling
or driving in Fort Collins.
Plan Alignment
•Active Modes Plan
•Our Climate Future
•Strategic Trails Plan
•Vision Zero Action Plan
Page 219
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
3
Council Feedback
1.Does Council have feedback on new definitions: human
powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles?
2.Does Council have any concerns with expanding
behavior rules to riders of additional human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles?
3.Does Council have feedback on options staff are
exploring regarding the operation of human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles on city facilities, including
streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails?
Page 220
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
Timeline
1 2
3
5 6
START
SPRING 2024
Kickoff
SUMMER -FALL 2024
FALL 2025
FALL 2025 –
WINTER 2026 2026
Community
engagement
and research
Draft ordinance
Advisory Board
feedback
Present
ordinance to
Council for
consideration
Feedback from
Advisory Boards
WINTER -SUMMER 2025
4
Council
feedback
Page 221
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes HerePotential New Definitions
Human Powered Vehicles
Lightweight Electric Vehicles
≤20 mph
Low Power Scooter
>20 mph top speed,
>750W motor
Not a lightweight
electric vehicle
Kick scooterSkateboard
E-bikeBicycle
E-unicycleE-skateboard
One-wheel
E-scooter
Page 222
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
Engagement & research overview
Do you have any concerns about human
powered or lightweight electric vehicles on
sidewalks, paved trails, bike lanes, or streets?
1,478 responses
Focused engagement
•Staff
•External partners
•Advisory boards
Community engagement
Research
•Crash analysis
•FC & CSU Police, Rangers
•Other communities
Page 223
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
Governing behaviors
Existing rules for people riding bicycles, e -bikes or e-scooters on
streets, sidewalks and paved trails include:
•Obey traffic laws
•Yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and paved trails
•No reckless and careless riding
•Shall not leave a curb into the path of a moving vehicle
•Wide lanes: Ride far enough to the right/left as is reasonably prudent
•Shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic when riding
two abreast
•Vehicles must be equipped with lights, brakes
Page 224
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Exploring options
8
Page 225
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
9
Sidewalks
Sidewalks
Human powered vehicle Lightweight electric vehicle
Bikes and e-
bikes
Skateboards,
roller skates,
etc.
E-scooters
E-skateboard,
one-wheel, etc.
Current
regulations
Allowed (except dismount
zones)
Require code
refinement Allowed
Staff is
exploring Allowed (except dismount zones)
(except dismount zones)
Page 226
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
10
Crosswalks
Crosswalks
Human powered vehicle Lightweight electric vehicle
Bikes, e-bikes
Skateboards,
roller skates,
etc.
E-scooters
E-skateboard,
one-wheel, etc.
Current
regulations
Ride (except
dismount zones)Dismount
Staff is
exploring Ride (except dismount zones)
Page 227
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
11
Streets
Streets with or without bike lanes
Human powered vehicle Lightweight electric vehicle
Bikes and e-
bikes
Skateboards,
roller skates,
etc.
E-scooters
E-skateboard,
one-wheel, etc.
Current
regulations Allowed Not allowed Allowed Not allowed
Staff is
exploring Allowed
Page 228
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
12
Paved trails
Paved trails
Human powered vehicle Lightweight electric vehicle
Bikes, e-bikes
Skateboards,
roller skates,
etc.
E-scooters
E-skateboard,
one-wheel, etc.
Current
regulations Allowed (except Class 3 e-bikes)Not allowed
(except on Mason Trail)
Staff is
exploring Allowed (except Class 3 e-bikes)
Page 229
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
13
Paved trail considerations
•People walking, people with disabilities, older
adults, and families perceive a lack of safety on
paved trails.
•Some lightweight electric vehicle users feel
safer using paved trails than streets, with or
without bike lanes.
•Lightweight electric vehicle users currently
account for a small percentage of overall self-
reported paved trail users.
•Concerns center more around the use of e-
bike and illegal e-motorcycles and speed
differentials.
Page 230
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
14
A Potential Revised & Simplified Micromobility Chart
Human powered
vehicles
Lightweight
electric vehicles
Low power
scooter
Street Allowed Allowed Allowed
Bike lane Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Sidewalk Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Paved Trail Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Crosswalk Ride Ride Dismount
Dismount zone Dismount Dismount Dismount
Page 231
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
15
Outstanding safety and enforcement questions
Resources
•Enforcement
•Outreach
Safety
•Speed differentials
•Safety equipment
Definitions
•Consistency with neighboring communities
•Reconcile municipal and state code
Managing issues
•Continued safety education
Page 232
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
16
Council Feedback
1.Does Council have feedback on new definitions: human
powered vehicles and lightweight electric vehicles?
2.Does Council have any concerns with expanding
behavior rules to riders of additional human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles?
3.Does Council have feedback on options staff are
exploring regarding the operation of human powered and
lightweight electric vehicles on city facilities, including
streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paved trails?
Page 233
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Thank you!
Cortney Geary, cgeary@fcgov.com
Dave “DK” Kemp, dkemp@fcgov.com
Rachel Ruhlen, rruhlen@fcgov.com 17
Page 234
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Supplemental slides
18
Page 235
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
Toy vehicles
19
Currently a Complex and Confusing Chart
Page 236
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
20
Community engagement
Outreach Efforts:
•English and Spanish questionnaire
•Incentives for questionnaire
•Flyers, yard signs, social media,
postcards, press release, email
•Events
•Partners engaged members
Questionnaire Design:
•Quiz to educate
•Concerns
•Open-ended comment section
•Transportation use
•Demographics
Page 237
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
21
Community engagement
Do you have any concerns about human powered or lightweight electric vehicles on sidewalks, paved
trails, bike lanes, or streets?
All answers Spanish survey
•This was the only required question on the questionnaire.
•1,478 people answered this question.
•This was the only question analyzed by subgroup, such as Spanish survey participants.
Page 238
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
22
Community engagement: Top concerns
Page 239
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
23
Community engagement: Top concerns
Page 240
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
24
Community engagement: Top concerns
What is your top concern regarding the use of _____ on streets?
Page 241
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
25
Community engagement: Top concerns
Page 242
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
26
Community engagement: 718 comments
“As a pedestrian on
sidewalks, I worry
about being hit by an
electric vehicle”
“Bike lanes should
be protected from
traffic to increase
use and confidence
in being safe”
“At current state it is
confusing, and thus
people will not be
following the rules
anyways”
“Educating drivers in
how to interact with
these devices seems
imperative”
“Assuming speeds stay
low/responsible... there
should be no reason to limit
these vehicles. Less cars on
the road, less traffic, less
pollution”
“Don't punish
good people that
are enjoying the
ride nicely, simply
because of others”
“I've witnessed many
scooters, bikes, skateboards
going too fast and not
adhering to the rules of the
road/trail.”
“Concerned about faster
vehicles on trails for
human-powered modes of
transportation where
limited-mobility users/kids
may get hurt.”
Page 243
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
27
Community engagement
Top concerns
•Sidewalks and paved trails
•Unsafe riding
•May travel too fast
•Bike lanes
•No concern
•Streets
•Conflicts with motor vehicles
•May not follow the rules of
the road
Themes of comments
•Accommodate more kinds of vehicles to
encourage mode shift
•The system is comparatively safe already
•The rules are complicated and confusing
•Real and perceived safety issues
•Protect pedestrians, people with
disabilities, seniors, children
•Behavior, not type of vehicle, is the
problem
•Main paved trail concerns are unsafe
speeds, no warning when passing
•Desire for paved trail speed limit with
enforcementPage 244
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
28
Community engagement: Facility use
Page 245
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
29
Community engagement: Facility use
Page 246
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
30
Community engagement: Demographics
Page 247
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
31
Staff and Advisory Boards
Staff
•Parks
•Natural Resources
•Recreation
•FC Moves
•Traffic Operations
•Streets
•Police Services
•City Attorney Office
•Communications and Public
Involvement Office
Advisory Boards
•Active Modes Advisory Board
•Disability Advisory Board
•Natural Resources Advisory
Board
•Senior Advisory Board
•Transportation Board
•Youth Advisory Board
•Members of several advisory
boards at a Super Issues
meeting
Page 248
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
32
Staff and Advisory Boards
Themes heard from staff and advisory boards
•Simplify regulations
•Education efforts
•Signage
•Create a culture of mutual respect
•Safe infrastructure and maintenance of infrastructure
•Audible signals
•Not all devices have speedometers
Page 249
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
33
Other engagement and research
Cities that allow e-scooters on paved trails
City E-scooters Lightweight electric vehicles
Boulder Allowed Allowed
Denver Allowed Prohibited or unknown
Loveland Allowed Allowed
Fayetteville, AR Allowed Prohibited or unknown
Salt Lake City, UT Allowed Prohibited or unknown
Columbus, OH Allowed Prohibited or unknown
Page 250
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes Here
34
Trail Safety Education Multimedia Campaign
Page 251
Item 3.
Headline Copy Goes HereSafety Strategy: a four-point approach
35
1.Trail Safety Education
Multimedia Campaign
2.Refreshed courtesy and
etiquette signs
3.Trail widening, centerline
striping and warning signs
at bridges, underpasses,
and junctions
4.Bicycle Ambassador
Program to include routine
trail pop-up events
Page 252
Item 3.