The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - Full - Ethics Review Board - 09/30/2025 - Agenda Ethics Review Board September 30, 6:00 pm to 7:15 pm CIC Conference Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave and via Microsoft Teams Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 247 328 593 829 8 Passcode: Nj27tY9g Remote Participation Available 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 cuando sea posible. Las solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior. A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of July 7, 2025, Minutes D. Initial screening of an ethics complaint filed by Nick Armstrong on August 28, 2025, alleging that Kley Holger, as a member of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, violated ethics rules when they recommended that the City Council not adopt and not refer to the ballot a resolution offered by the Hughes site Civil Assembly. E. Initial screening of an ethics complaint filed by Nick Armstrong on August 28, 2025, alleging that Ross Cunniff, as a member of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, violated ethics rules when they recommended that the City Council not adopt and not refer to the ballot a resolution offered by the Hughes site Civil Assembly. F. Initial screening of an ethics complaint filed by Nick Armstrong on August 28, 2025, alleging that Scott Mason, as a member of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, violated ethics rules when they recommended that 001 the City Council not adopt and not refer to the ballot a resolution offered by the Hughes site Civil Assembly. G. Initial screening of an ethics complaint filed by Nick Armstrong on August 28, 2025, alleging that Mark Sears, as a member of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, violated ethics rules when they recommended that the City Council not adopt and not refer to the ballot a resolution offered by the Hughes site Civil Assembly. H. Initial screening of an ethics complaint filed by Nick Armstrong on August 28, 2025, alleging that Elena Lopez, as a member of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, violated ethics rules when they recommended that the City Council not adopt and not refer to the ballot a resolution offered by the Hughes site Civil Assembly. I. Other Business J. Adjournment 002 July 7, 2025, 3:30 pm ETHICS REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jeni Arndt, Councilmember Julie Pignataro, Councilmember Tricia Canonico STAFF PRESENT: Carrie Daggett, Jenny Lopez Filkins, Rupa Venkatesh, Briana McCarten, Sarah Kane (remote) OTHER PRESENT: Halee Wahl (remote) Call Meeting to Order Roll Call Approval of June 2, 2025, Minutes Councilmember Pignataro moved and Mayor Arndt seconded the motion to approve the June 2, 2025, minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Possible Board Recommendation regarding Gift Restrictions Code Amendments Senior Deputy Attorney Jenny Lopez Filkins reminded the Ethics Review Board (ERB) that at its June 2 meeting, the Attorney’s Office presented proposed amendments to section 2-576 of City Code, which addresses councilmember gift restrictions. Lopez Filkins explained that the Attorney’s Office is presenting further amendments to section 2-576 based on the ERB’s from the June 2 meeting. Lopez Filkins explained that amendments to subsection (b) makes clear that a councilmember may not solicit donations on behalf of a board on which they are a member. Lopez Filkins explained that the amendment to subsection (e) clarifies its language. Amendments to subsection (e)(4) reflect the ERB’s desire to exempt any taxable employee’s benefits from gift restrictions. Subsection (e)(10) changes the reference to a non-profit organization to organizations with which the City is affiliated or to which the City has appointed a councilmember to. Other amendments make wording more consistent. The ERB agreed with the proposed amendments. Lopez Filkins and City Attorney Daggett stated that the Attorney’s Office has provided the proposed amendments to certain City staff and asked for feedback. The Attorney’s Office will make any suggested changes and will explain anything substantive in the AIS that goes to City Council. Pignataro moved and Arndt seconded the motion to adopt the draft gift restriction amendments and recommend the draft amendments to City Council. The motion passed 003 unanimously. Possible Board Recommendation regarding Gift Reporting Code Amendments Lopez Filkins explained that the Attorney’s Office drafted proposed amendments to section 2-656 of City Code based on the ERB’s discussions at the June 2 meeting. Lopez Filkins explained that amendments to subsection (c)(1) provides that items valued over $10 must be reported. Subsection (b) excludes the requirement to report any items, even if it meets the requirements in subsection (c), that were given or paid by the City, an entity affiliated with the City, and organizations to which the City has appointed a councilmember. The ERB discussed the contradiction between the proposed amendments to the gift restrictions at section 2-576 that prohibit the acceptance of items valued over $75 and sections 2-656(c)(2) and (4) that requires reporting tickets to events and educational events valued over $75. Councilmembers may not accept any items valued over $75 pursuant to the gift restriction Code, and therefore, there would be no need to report items valued over $75. Pignataro suggested revising the proposed language in subsection (c)(2) to reflect the language in the gift restrictions with respect to the value being determined by the amount the charity reports to the IRS. Councilmember Canonico requested that the Attorney’s Office prepare an updated flow chart that reflects the amendments. Canonico recalled that, at the June 2 meeting, the ERB requested that the reporting requirement threshold be raised to $25. The ERB requested that the proposed amendment at section 2-656(c)(2) be removed because it would require reporting a gift that may not be accepted. However, the proposed amendment at section 2-656(c)(3) may remain because it refers to a gift restriction exception regarding costs of conferences, seminars, events, or meetings at section 2- 576(e)(10). Similarly, section 2-656(c)(4) may remain because it refers to the gift restriction exception regarding City-sponsored educational events at section 2- 576(e)(11). Lopez Filkins asked the ERB if they were interested in adding a section to subsection (c) that requires reporting business meals described in section 2-576(e)(13). The ERB requested to remove the business meals restriction and reporting requirements from the gift restriction and gift reporting Code sections. Lopez Filkins asked the ERB if they were interested in adding a section to subsection (e) that requires reporting of meals and event tickets for the reporter and family members with a value over $75 or the self-adjusted amount in effect at the time. The ERB decided that the reporting requirements for such meals and event tickets should apply to each recipient. 004 The ERB requested that subsection (d) add a requirement that, if a Councilmember does not have any gifts to report, they will notify the City Clerk in writing. Pignataro moved and Arndt seconded the motion to adopt the draft gift reporting amendments and recommend the draft amendments to City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Possible Board Recommendation regarding Financial Disclosure Code Amendments Lopez Filkins explained that the Attorney’s Office drafted proposed amendments to section 2-636, 2-637, and 2-638 of City Code based on the ERB’s discussions at the June 2 meeting. The ERB requested that the disclosure requirements of certain interests be limited geographically to the growth management area (GMA). The ERB requested that section 2-636(d) add a provision that a City Manager or a City Attorney that is serving on an interim basis are also required to file financial disclosures. Lopez Filkins informed the ERB that the City set the debts, interests, and investments $10,000 disclosure threshold in 1971 and that the inflation-adjusted amount would now be roughly $76,000. The ERB requested that the disclosure threshold for debts, interests, and investments at sections 2-637(a)(2) and (5) be amended to $25,000. The ERB requested that this amount will self-adjust according to the consumer price index rounded to the nearest $1,000. The ERB agreed with the amendment to section 2-638 that clarifies the language around the City Clerk providing notice before the disclosure deadlines. The ERB clarified that it a part of the Clerk’s duties to notify reporters of the deadlines, but that it is not a requirement. The ERB requested to add sentence permitting a reporter to reply to the Clerk’s notification email stating that they have nothing to report. Lopez Filkins stated that currently section 2-640 permits a report to submit their income tax returns along with a list of investments in lieu of submitting a financial disclosure form. The ERB requested to remove that Code section. Pignataro moved and Arndt seconded the motion to adopt the draft financial disclosure amendments and recommend the draft amendments to City Council. The motion passed unanimously. The ERB requested an updated FAQ flow chart that depicts the code amendments. Cancel or Continue August 4, 2025, Meeting The ERB decided to hold the August 4, 2025, meeting on everyone’s calendar as a placeholder. If, after gathering input from other City staff, there are significant requested changes, the ERB will need to meet on August 4, 2025, if there are no significant 005 requested changes, the meeting will be canceled and the proposed amendments will be recommended to City Council in September. Other Business The ERB did not discuss any other business. Adjournment The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 4:37 p.m. Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board on , 2025. 006 Headline Copy Goes Here Jenny Lopez Filkins Carrie Daggett City Attorney’s Office Ethics Complaints Filed by Nick Armstrong on August 28, 2025 09-30-25 007 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Topics for Discussion A.Meeting purpose B.Process C.Deliberation D.Board decision about whether to formally investigate 008 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Meeting purpose: •Consider ethics complaints filed by Nick Armstrong regarding—⎻Holger Kley⎻Mark Sears⎻Scott Mason⎻Ross Cuniff⎻Elena Lopez 009 Headline Copy Goes Here 4 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Process: •Complaint received •ERB meeting scheduled •ERB decides by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint •ERB must consider screening criteria 010 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Relevant screening criteria: •Does City Council have jurisdiction over the individual alleged to have violated ethics rules? •Yes, each person is an appointed Land Conservation and Stewardship Board member 011 Headline Copy Goes Here 6 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Relevant screening criteria: •If true, would the alleged violation constitute a violation of City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2)? •No, this provision only applies if board member declared a conflict of interest •None of the complaint subjects declared a conflict of interest 012 Headline Copy Goes Here 7 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong •Complaint raises issue of conflict of interest. •Did the Member have a personal interest in the LCSB discussion and recommendation to not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site or refer it to the ballot? 013 Headline Copy Goes Here 8 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong •Personal interest: any interest (other than financial interest) by reason of which the person or their relative would, in the judgement of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. •Required to disclose such interest and recuse from discussion and decision. 014 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong •Transcript of discussion about disclosures for Kley, Cuniff, and Mason—support for Natural Areas tax. •On its face, involvement in petition process supporting Natural Areas taxes does not create a personal interest in the proposed use of the Hughes site. 015 Headline Copy Goes Here 10 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong •Transcript of discussion about disclosures for Sears—no disclosure noted. •Not enough information to determine whether personal interest. 016 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong •Transcript of discussion about disclosures for Lopez—several statements made. •Not enough information to determine whether personal interest. 017 Headline Copy Goes Here 12 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Board deliberation for each complaint: decide whether to investigate at subsequent meeting or no further investigation warranted 018 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Next steps: •If no investigation warranted, written notice sent to complainant of its decision, explaining reason •If investigation warranted, ERB investigates by holding subsequent meeting ⎻Complainant given opportunity to present facts and argument⎻ERB can request additional information, records 019 Headline Copy Goes Here 14 ERB Consideration of Ethics Complaints filed by Nick Armstrong Next steps: •Board has subpoena power to compel witness testimony and production of records •Board may request additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public •Any specific requests or information needed? 020 Headline Copy Goes Here 021 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 1 September 30, 2025 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council – Ethics Review Board Carrie Daggett, City Attorney , Senior Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT -579(d)(2) of whether an ethics complaint filed on 28, 2025, by Nick Armstrong alleging that Holger Kley (Member), member of the Land Conservation (LCSB), violated City Code Section 2-577, part A, subsections 1 and 2 when, as a recommending that the City Council not adopt and Site Civic Assembly Process (Civic Assembly). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the Ethics Review Board (the Board) to complete the initial screening of an complaint filed by Nick Armstrong (Complainant) about the conduct of the Member filed with the City under City Code Section 2-579(d) (the Complaint, Attachment A), as described below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Board consider the allegations made in the Complaint and decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. The Board must use the screening criteria in City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)f to determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the Complaint. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)(a), “[a]ny person who believes that a Councilmember or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk . . . .” (emphasis added). After notice to the complaining party and the subject of the complaint(s), the Board then considers the complaint and whether to investigate. Background: The City convened the Civic Assembly to consider potential uses for the Hughes site that will contribute most effectively to Fort Collins’ long-term vitality and meet the requirements outlined in the 2021 ballot measure that rezoned the Hughes site to use the property for parks, recreation, open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration. On July 23, 2025, the LCSB, including the Member, met and discussed the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report. The minutes of the meeting are attached. According to the minutes, the following occurred: 022 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 5 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. On the same date, the LCSB submitted a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council “to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations.” A copy of the memorandum and Mayor Arndt’s response are included in Attachment B. The LCSB memo repeats the minutes excerpt above. Attachment B also includes the minutes of the July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting. The Member participated in a Healthy Democracy information committee (“Committee”). The Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing information gathered by the community survey and community guides during the Civic Assembly Process. According to the minutes, the Member did not declare a conflict of interest or recuse himself from the discussion or consideration of the motion described above. The Civic Assembly process culminated in City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 141, 2025, approved on September 2, 2025, which adopted the Civic Assembly’s recommendations about development and use of the Hughes site. On September 2, 2025, the Council also adopted Resolution 2025-082, which referred Ordinance No. 141, 2025 to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular general election. These actions were different from the LCSB recommendation. The Complaint: The Board will consider the Complaint filed with the City Clerk through the City’s online ethics complaint submittal form on August 28, 2025, by Complainant, a Fort Collins resident, against the Member. The Complaint alleges that the Member is also a member of a special interest group and that the Member’s action taken concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report constitutes an ethical violation of City Code Section “2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2.” The system that accepts ethics complaints does not allow complaining parties to submit attachments with their complaint. On September 23, 2025, Complainant confirmed in writing that he would like the Board to consider the following additional documents: • a document describing the Information Committee, the tasks assigned to the committee, and the information committee members. It is printed on Healthy Democracy letterhead and is marked as Attachment C; • a printout of a website called “Yes for Hughes Natural Area.” It is marked as Attachment D; • a printout of a site that is an article about civic assemblies. It is marked as Attachment E. On September 25, 2025, Complainant asked that other documents be considered as part of his complaint. One is a transcript of a discussion the LCSB had about disclosures during a special LCSB meeting that took place on July 23, 2025. The document is marked as Attachment F. Another document is a copy of an email to LCSB members that summarizes guidance Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director, received from the City Attorney’s Office. The document is marked as Attachment G. Attachment G was emailed to LCSB members midday on July 23, 2025. The following excerpts are from Mr. Armstrong’s August 28, 2025, Complaint: 023 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 5 The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. *** The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of “Friends of Hughes Natural Area”. *** The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. The Board Determination: The Board is required under the Code to evaluate the Complaint and determine by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint allegations. If the Board determines that the Complaint does not warrant investigation, the Board then directs staff to provide written notice to the Complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that notice is also sent to the subject of the Complaint and the City Council. In evaluating a complaint, the Board must consider screening criteria identified in City Code Section 2- 579(d)(2)f. A discussion of screening criteria relevant to the Complaint follows. Analysis of Relevant Screening Criteria 1) Jurisdiction The City Council has jurisdiction over the Member as he is an appointed member of the LCSB. 2) Whether Allegations Would, If True, Constitute a Violation: This screening criterion is intended to determine whether the Complaint alleges a violation that would, if true, constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions. In this case, the Complainant asserts that the Member violated City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2), which prohibits a board member from participating in any action where they have declared a conflict of interest. According to the LCSB meeting minutes, no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. LCSB members, including the Member, disclosed their personal involvement with “ballot issues that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions.” City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2) is not useful because no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. On their face, the allegations made in the Complaint and supporting documents do not, if true, constitute a violation of City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2). 024 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 5 According to the transcription of the LCSB discussion during the July 23, 2025, meeting, each member discussed their involvement with the “Hughes issue” and “Yes to Natural Areas.” See Attachment F. The question then becomes whether the Member had a personal interest in the action the LCSB took later the same evening about whether to recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site nor refer it to the ballot. Outline of Relevant Ethics Provisions Generally, the ethics provisions established by the City include City Charter Article IV, Section 9, and City Code Section 2-568. As a City officer under the ethics provisions, Member Kley is required to disclose upon discovery using the appropriate form any personal interest in a Board decision and to refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a City officer. The City Charter, Section 9(a)) defines the key term personal interest as “any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Related definitions in Code Section 2-568(a) include: Different in kind from that experienced by the general public means of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. Direct means resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. Benefit means an advantage or gain, while detriment means disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. Substantial means more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. Analysis According to the transcript marked as Attachment F, Member gathered signatures for “Yes to Natural Areas,” which is a matter different from the Hughes Issue. On its face, being involved in a petition process supporting Natural Areas tax dollars does not create a personal interest in the proposed use of the Hughes Stadium. The Board may determine that the Complaint concerning the Member does not warrant further investigation and notify the appropriate parties as described above. Or the Board may elect to investigate the Complaint at an upcoming meeting. If the Board decides to investigate, the Member must be given the opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its option and recommendation. The Complainant must be given the opportunity to present facts and argument in support of his complaint. And the ERB may request such additional information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. Any guidance Board members can provide about information they are interested in reviewing would be helpful. The Board has the power to compel by subpoena both witness testimony and production of documents they consider necessary to the investigation. 025 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 5 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Not applicable. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A. August 28, 2025, Armstrong Complaint B. One pdf document that includes August 14, 2025, letter from Mayor Arndt to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board; the July 23, 2025, Memorandum from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to City Council; and, July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting minutes C. Information Committee description on Healthy Democracy letterhead D. Yes for Hughes Natural Area website E. Online article about civic assemblies F. July 23, 2025, transcript of LCSB disclosures discussion G. July 23, 2025, email from Katie Donahue to LCSB members that summarizes guidance received from the City Attorney’s Office H. City Code Sections 2-577 and 579 026 From:Alchemer To:City Clerk Office Subject:[EXTERNAL] New Ethic Rules Violation Complaint Response Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:29:59 AM Page 1 Questions 1. Complainant Information Name: Nick Armstrong Address: 2238 Ballard Lane Phone: 9705813036 Email nick@wtfmarketing.com 2. Grounds for Complaint Name of alleged violator: Holger Kley Date(s) of alleged violation(s): 07/23/2025 Please describe in detail: 1) the rule, code, or state law you believe has been violated, and 2) the facts available to you or that you believe support your complaint that a violation(s) occurred. I'm writing in reference to the attached memo submitted by the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board to City Council concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report, retrieved from the City Council's email archive today, August 19. The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of "Friends of Hughes Natural Area". See: https://yes4hughesnaturalarea.com/civic-assembly The Civic Assembly Process was described as follows: "1) A democratic lottery selects Delegates for an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community and fully Attachment A ERB AIS 1 027 supported to participate. 2) A deliberative process allows the Delegates to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Rehashing for clarity: "an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Members of many Boards and organizations, including the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board, participated in the process as well. https://healthydemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025FoCo-Information-Committee-Google- Docs.pdf The claim that the Civic Assembly Process lacks merit because "[p]rescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas," is, kindly, nonsense and disingenous when a member of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board participated in the vetting and planning process where those concerns should have been voiced. To be clear: the "prescriptive uses" the Board objects to in the memo are well vetted because they were indicated by the ballot language approved by nearly 28,000 voters representing over 68% of the voting public in 2021. That ballot language reads, in part: "to use said property for parks, recreation, and open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration." The specific allotment of each use case is yet to be scoped. It does not appear in the final Civic Assembly report as "prescriptive" but rather as starting points for future scoping once the use cases of interest to the community have been identified and clarified. That was the explicit intent for the Civic Assembly Process and is clear from the thoughtfulness of the outcome. https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/blog/civic-assemblies-in-action-lessons-on- civic-engagement-from-fort-collins/ To ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust in the Boards and Commissions principles and processes, the City Council and the Boards and Commissions leadership should reaffirm the legitimacy of the Civic Assembly process and begin an investigation into this matter as a potential ethics violation by Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board. The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. Attachment A ERB AIS 1 028 Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com August 14, 2025 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board c/o Katie Donahue, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Cunniff and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with July 23, 2025 memorandum regarding Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution wherein you recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot. We also appreciate receiving the minutes of the July 23 special meeting wherein you discussed the topic at length before arriving at this recommendation. As you know, City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the resolution on Tuesday, August 19. We invite you to view the Council meeting that night in person at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., online on fcgov.com/fctv or via cable TV. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Attachment B ERB AIS 1 029 City Clerk’s Office 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295 - fax Boardsandcommissions@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Subject: Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution This memo is to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations. Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Attachment B ERB AIS 1 030 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Special Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road July 23, 2025 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Denise Culver, Member River Mizell, Member Mark Sears, Member Tom Shoemaker, Member Jennifer Gooden, Member 7 /23 /20 2 5 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LCSB: Denise Culver, Jennifer Gooden, River Mizell, Elena Lopez, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Ross Cunniff, Scott Mason, Holger Kley NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Matt Parker, Julia Feder, Elaine Calaba, Emily Shingler, Mary Boyts 3. AGENDA REVIEW: The Board agreed to change the order of the two Action Items. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Patricia Babbitt, Doug Henderson, Melissa Rosas, Diana Murphy 5. ACTION ITEMS Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report Discussion Prior to opening the discussion, LCSB members disclosed their personal involvement with ballot initiatives that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions. LCSB Question: The use of “development” in the draft resolution is causing questions regarding intent; is it meant to describe land use planning or the construction of buildings? Staff Answer: In this case, the term refers to the creation and implementation of the proposed land use. LCSB Question: Was the 60 acres of natural areas listed in the draft resolution derived from the Civic Assembly process or was staff involved? Staff Answer: It was a bit of both. Staff provided an FAQ document to the Civic Assembly delegates that broke that property into quadrants based on conditions and features, noting the ecological condition on the west side is more aligned with the existing natural area. The FAQs also provided a very rough estimate of ecological restoration costs. Council members requested some acreage limits for some of the proposed features, so those were added to the Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 031 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 2 draft resolution. LCSB Question: The draft resolution states not more than 60 acres for a natural area. How does that align with previous staff analysis? Staff Answer: NAD does not have a position on the resolution. Natural Areas can implement whatever City Council decides. LCSB Comment: Previous memos submitted by LCSB were not specific on acreage, just themes like connectivity and compatibility. LCSB Question: Please clarify the current repayment of COPS financing using half Natural Area Fund and half General Fund. Staff Answer: It was arranged that way for financial expediency using two fund codes; purely budgetary. The final uses by acreage will determine how much of each fund will be used to cover the cost. There won’t be any financial adjustment until the final acreages are determined, i.e. if NAD overpaid, the Natural Areas fund will be refunded. LCSB Comment: It should be based on valuation. There are some portions of the land that would probably be assessed at a higher value than others. Staff Response: The typical practice is that the entire parcel is appraised. Any given parcel might have widely varying conditions. In this case the site was valued at a single price and Council agreed to a simple acreage split. The initial purchase price was about $12.5M, and the full debt repayment will be about $14M. LCSB Comment: Primary concerns include final acreage and location of a natural area. The member would support staff’s decision on acreage and location, but the process for determining these seems sort of loose. Staff Response: Due to the lack of time for a full site drawing and vetting process, the resolution language is designed to give a general idea but it is not perfectly specific. NAD staff would weigh in during design discussions that the west side of the property adjacent to Maxwell would make the best habitat connectivity and trail connections. LCSB Comments: The bike park folks are interested in part of the land (west side) that has more drop in elevation; it sounds like there's conflict there. One of the stated reasons for the bike park community wanting Hughes is the elevation change. Staff Response: They have also stated they are willing to work with what makes sense for the other occupants (uses) of the parcel. LCSB Comment: Concern there may be no limit on expansion in the future if there aren't some hard numbers on percentages and acres. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 032 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 3 LCSB Comment: LCSB visited the site in 2023 and noted all of the wildlife, not just on the west side, but in general including vocalizing birds and vocalizing chorus frogs. There is potential conflict with wildlife on the west side. LCSB Question: Both the Civic Assembly report and Council Agenda Item Summary seem very vague on the retention pond area which includes the disc golf course. Will the retention pond remain and will Stormwater acquire it? Staff Answer: There's no plan for the city to change that stormwater feature at the moment, but language could be left open for potential future changes to community stormwater needs. Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the resolution would probably be under Parks management. LCSB Question: If that area was carved off and included the retention pond, sledding, the disc golf course and potentially part of the bike park, would that all be managed as a part of the Park area and paid for by Park fees? Staff Answer: City staff have stated throughout this process that there is no funding for design or implementation. Right now, they're just trying to identify a plan and the funding for implementation will follow. LCSB Question: How does that coincide with the proposed CCIP tax, that lists the $5 million for the bike park. Staff Answer: The Hughes site is just one area under consideration as part of the bike park feasibility study. The purpose of the proposed CCIP tax would be funding for a bike park somewhere in Fort Collins. If CCIP gets approved by the voters, then there would be dedicated funding for that. LCSB Question: Do you know anything about the bike park feasibility study; the status on when specific parcel information will be released? Staff Answer: During the work session discussion with Council it was stated the specific parcel locations are not likely to be released because they're not owned by the city; this is a similar practice to future NAD acquisitions. LCSB Question: Given that the impermeable surface of the parcel has changed significantly with the demolition of the stadium, has stormwater done a new study to determine the appropriate size for that pond? Staff Answer: NAD staff is not aware of any design study following demolition. The resolution is the initial vision of what uses might be realized on the property with comprehensive site planning with steps like public engagement and Tribal consultation to follow. LCSB Comment: It is concerning to have to make a decision on this with so many unknowns. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 033 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 4 LCSB Question: The High Plains Environmental Center did an ecological characterization study. Is it possible for us to get a hold of that? Was the study done in conjunction with Natural Areas? Staff Answer: The study was initiated by an Assembly delegate. NAD staff does not have a copy but can attempt to locate it in the Civic Assembly documents. LCSB Questions: There are several examples of trail connectivity between Parks and Natural Areas, any examples of where that connectivity between uses that was deliberately limited? Would the planning process include looking at the characterization of the site and identifying areas where a trail would not be appropriate? Staff Answer: The Civic Assembly did call out trail connections to Maxwell and Pineridge. Staff imagine that there would probably be a trail connection to Maxwell but that would be part of the comprehensive site planning process. NAD has an interdisciplinary review process to identify the most sustainable trail alignment and there might be a portion of the property where we would not invite public access. Adjoining natural areas are on-trail only. LCSB Comment: The resolution’s 35-acre limit on the bike park does not include parking, restrooms or other infrastructure; that would make it the biggest bike park in Colorado. Staff Response: That figure represents a limitation on bike features. Parking and other infrastructure planning would take into account all future uses on the property, not just the bike park features. LCSB Question: Dueling ballot measures is a big concern. Is it written down somewhere that the one with the most votes wins? Staff Answer: NAD staff received that information from the City Attorney’s Office. LCSB Question: The focus of the joint project between the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and the Northern Colorado Wildlife Center has changed from animal rehabilitation to education. Was that discussed and why did it change? Staff Answer: 20 people were trying to work in a tight time frame to come to language that they all understood and that is not overly prescriptive. Staff did not get the impression that it changes the nature of the proposal from the Conservation Campus partners. LCSB Comment: The resolution does not constrain Council to the original vision of the joint project. Staff Response: This is why LCSB is discussing, to provide feedback to Council on how language might be interpreted. LCSB Question: Has NAD looked at the impact of purchasing 60 acres on the department budget? Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 034 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 5 Staff Answer: The purchase price is in the ballpark of what the department has been spending per year on property acquisition. Staff discussion is framed around opportunity cost. We can project that there would be enough funds to pay for the entire 164 acres out of the Natural Areas fund, but the tradeoffs would come in properties that NAD would not be able purchase. LCSB Question: The City’s 2023 Financial Report stated a NAD balance of $23 million. Please clarify how much is spent per year for land conservation. Staff Answer: The $23 million was a specific snapshot from 2023 and is not an accurate accounting of current funds. Staff believe if our sales tax projections come through there will be sufficient funds to complete the purchase for any acreage directed by Council. NAD typically budgets $5 to $7 million in spending depending on what sales are finalized. LCSB Question: There's opportunity cost also in not purchasing land locally. Does staff think costs are going to go up in town? Staff Answer: The NA ballot language is structured to account for the increasing cost of land and the NAD is focused on purchasing land earlier at lower cost. If Natural Areas covers the City’s $14 million commitment it would eliminate other purchasing opportunities. LCSB Question: Would NA be required to pay $14 million all at once? Staff Answer: None of the reconciliation process has been identified. If NAD was required to purchase the entire property it is likely the full debt service would be transferred to NAD rather quickly so it would have an immediate impact in that way. When General Fund or NA Fund that has already been spent would be reconciled, would be determined after the fact. LCSB Comment: Because of the uncertainty of dueling ballot measures, perceptions of meddling in the public dialogue, the inappropriateness of specifying acreages, and the mislabeling of the animal rehabilitation use as education, Council should not adopt this measure. LCSB Comment: There is opportunity for the LCSB to recommend implementation of wildlife coexistence features and the avoidance/mitigation of land uses that are disadvantageous to wildlife on portions of the property that would not be designated a natural area, such as lighting standards that would be compatible with Natural Areas management. There is room for negotiation between the most disadvantageous situation possible and an ideal situation. LCSB Comment: There will be time for weighing in on those things, perhaps in August or after the election. Noted parallels between spaces like Spring Canyon Park and natural areas – potential for creating policy around these transitions. LCSB Comment: Other possible topics to include would be reduction of habitat fragmentation and minimizing hardened surfaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 035 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 6 LCSB Question: Has anyone through this process discussed Indigenous protected areas? Staff Answer: There was a great deal of discussion about it and the Civic Assembly deliberately identified Indigenous engagement in how the site gets used and emphasized a gathering place. But they really tried to leave it up to the City to negotiate with Tribes in the local Indigenous community. Site planning would navigate different requests from the range of the indigenous community. LCSB Comment: The three PATHS founders are Indigenous Chicana and connection to the land is why they became involved in this effort ten years ago. The NAD engagement with indigenous groups is appreciated. Staff Response: The NAD hired an archaeologist. Staffing under the Equity and Inclusion Office has changed, but the City-wide Native American and Indigenous engagement and consultation effort will continue with a team be led by the Equity Office. There are regular open community meetings with the Indigenous community posted on the Equity Office calendar. There was a discussion about previous uses at the Hughes site and the development of city permitting for folks who request events onsite. LCSB Comment: The City has a good history of integrated planning, and there are good opportunities for integrated use on that site, so the member hates shutting the door on that. LCSB Comment: If the Yes for Hughes Natural Area does pass, it will determine one path, if it does not pass, the integrated site planning would occur. LCSB Comment: Member is not excited about this being decided by voters in the first place; does not support the civic process of design. They are not sure they could support a 35-acre bike park, but these park features could be designed with native vegetation to look and feel like a natural area. If this had been allowed to go through the regular civic planning process and be vetted fully, the community would be probably happy with the outcome. Perhaps that’s why Council is trying to put forward a juxtaposition of options. Not excited about the specifics that are available right now. LCSB Comment: As a person who has worked on this issue for years, don’t underestimate what the voters understand. At multiple listening sessions, participants knew what a natural area is, though there is some confusion about the difference between a natural area and open space. People know what they want and have asked for it over and over again. Connection to the adjacent natural areas is unique and the opportunity should be taken. The Civic Assembly process was fraught with problems; it was a black box. Comparing a 10-year community process to a brief Civic Assembly process, this has resulted in something extremely vague. There is too much vagueness and ambiguity. LCSB Comment: The Hughes site is a treasure. The Board’s direction should be making sure where there's ambiguity that the City errs on the side of maintaining current and future Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 036 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 7 ecological value. LCSB Comment: Concerned about being stuck between a rock and a hard place; there are opportunity costs, and significant differences in the conditions across the parcel. In the past, LCSB has written about encouraging certain uses and discouraging others. If the process had been able to follow the normal path, a good result might have been possible. High impact uses like a bike park are concerning, especially if it is regional scale. Additional traffic into the existing NAs could be impactful. Member feels that a bike park is not compatible. If Council is going to refer something to the ballot, this is the one chance for LCSB to make for the wording. Declining to endorse a second ballot initiative might give up the opportunity to weigh in on improving the language. LCSB Comment: Agree about weighing in on language. Agree that the City has done great work in the past. Assuming the planners will do the right thing. The Board could weigh in on ecological elements such as lighting, location of the bike park, etc. The Board could get more prescriptive about what to protect. LCSB Comment: If properly worded, a “no” recommendation could be useful to Council. Following the election, Council could come up with a more detailed plan or potential future ballot initiatives. Not sure how to rewrite the resolution, so suggesting falling back on principles. LCSB Comment: It would hard to be get to agreement on more detailed uses. The concept of the wildlife center has morphed over time. LCSB Comment: The Civic Assembly has some good ideas, but they are highly conceptual. The regular next step is for professionals to do more detailed design work; that does not seem feasible with the current timeframe. LCSB Comment: The opportunity afforded by the Hughes site is so unique, it should be done with a great deal of thought. The Board discussed potential wording of a motion and whether or not to include language around the competing ballot measures. They also discussed whether or not to separate the issues of the civic assembly recommendation and the referral to the ballot. They discussed how competing ballot issues have been presented to voters in the past and revisited concerns that the Board was unfamiliar with the applicable statute or legal process for determining a winner for competing ballots. LCSB Comment: A concern is that competing ballot measures could impact the outcome of other ballot initiatives related to Natural Areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 037 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 8 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Meadow Springs Ranch Conservation Discussion Chair Cunniff invited board discussion and feedback on the draft Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Conservation and Environmental Protection memo. The LCSB discussed edits and additions, including an executive summary. Staff reported that Utilities has drafted a memo on biosolids testing at MSR but because the One Water Director has been out of town she has not been able to sign and forward it to NAD staff. The board would like to include relevant information from the Utilities memo in their recommendation to Council. The board is concerned about PFAS and other possible contaminants on property that may be considered for future NAD acquisition or conservation easement. LCSB asked if it was possible for a voter approved deed restriction/conservation easement. Staff reported that the One Water Director is reluctant to propose any future use of MSR until Utilities has completed a comprehensive assessment. LCSB is considering a conservation easement on roughly 20-25% of the highest value habitat portions of MSR. LCSB would like Utilities to complete quick inventory/ecological assessment because of the concern of potential contaminants. LCSB noted Utilities Platinum accreditation from the National Biosolids Certified Management Program might be a process-based accreditation and not an outcome based one. Their recommendation to do soil sampling is to make sure that the processes that we're following are actually leading to the results that we're hoping to get. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 1 038 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 9 Black footed ferrets should be included in the memo; there are BFF operations on the east portion of MSR. The LCSB agreed to amend the draft memo and to consider it for adoption after further discussion during the regular August meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C 8/13/2025 Attachment B ERB AIS 1 039 040 Information Committee The Information Committee is a group of 12 Fort Collins residents who represent a diverse array of experience and opinion on this topic. The Information Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing the information gathered by the community survey and the Community Guides. They have nominated several background presenters, who will speak to you about the topic during your ﬁrst weekend together. The Information Committee is made up of: ● 4 members of City of Fort Collins Boards & Commissions ● 4 Community Guides ● 4 Community Members The Boards represented in the Information Committee were determined by City Staﬀ, after which members of each Board nominated a representative to join the Information Committee. Community Guides and community members were chosen at random, similar to how Delegates in the Assembly were chosen. Members of the Information Committee Name Role Anaya Echo-Hawk Community Guide Christina Swope Community Member Dawson Metcalf Natural Resources Advisory Board Holger Kley Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Logan Cummings Community Member Lorena Falcon Parks & Recreation Natalie (AJ) Omundson Community Guide Sam Milchak Youth Advisory Board Shirley Peel Community Guide Susan Baker Community Guide Vara Vissa Community Member Wyatt Reis Community Member healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • info@healthydemocracy.org Attachment C ERB AIS 1 041 042 )$*($#+$( ,- ./ 0 11 1.3 11/1 0 111 567'$ 1 1 ,48,2 0 12 ,- .01 9 0 1 1 1 .:;:< @ABCDEDFAGHIGHGJKLMNMOMPQRPRSTUVNSMTWXRTWYMSPZ[QNX\]ZSXSXY^]OZR_`Q_MNXORT_MWOZ`Q_MW_QbcQTMURdefSNMURTWgNQ_Md_hRdQTXMN`MWLfPZMX^gMTigRdMSTjkjl\ngMd_MWUSTRgNQoQfTWpaRT_RPQTSX_SdRd_RPRSTX_PNRXXNQQ_XdS_ScMTqWNS`MTrMsQdNRdaU_ZMtS_aZRWMW_QsQ`MoQNORNWOS_ZNMoMNNSTPR[RppQ_sMRXfNM_ZR_gNQsQ_MXuQovtQfTdSpsMs[MNXwQOTqSsgRd_UgM_gNQzMd_XoQNLfPZMX^gMTigRdM_ZR_fTWMNsSTM_ZMQNSPSTRpdQTXMN`R_SQTST_MT_Qo_dS_ScMTSTS_SR_S`M\mXsRTaST_ZMgf[pSdXfXgMd_MWU_ZMtS`SdmXXMs[paORXRTMngMTXS`MNfXMTWMW_QgNQsQ_M_ZMtS_awX{|}~{~€ {~‚|ƒ„€ƒ…†WMdMg_S`Mgf[pSdgNQdMXX\[paU‡ˆ‰Š‹‡Œˆ Ž‰ ‘ ’“Œ”•ˆ–Œ—‡˜”™ŠZRXNMsRSTMW_NRTXgRNMT_RTW_NfM_Q_ZM`SXSQT_ZR__ZsfTS_aZRXpQTPZMpWoQNLfPZMXqpRTWRTWOSpWpSoMdQTXMN`R_SQTOS_ZpQOqSsgRd_NMdNMR_SQTUTQTqfsg_S`MfXMXURTW_ZMR[XMTdMQo`SMOq[pQdšSTP[fSpWSTPXUoQN_ZM[MTMoS_Qom››sMs[MNXQoQfNsfTS_aRTWpQdRpOSpWpSoMœdQTXSX_MT_OS_ZQ_ZMNVQN_tQppSTXYR_fNRpmNMRXš\tQfTdSpwXNMoMNNMW[RppQ_sMRXfNMSX_ZMgNQWfd_QoRWf[SQfXgNQdMXX_ZR_gf_XgQpS_SdRpST_MNMX_XWQodQssfTS_a`QSdMX\mTWU_ZMtQfTdSpWSW_ZSXOS_ZRopSdšQoRgMTUNR_ZMN_ZRTOS_Z_ZMXRsMZš_ZR_QNPRTScMNXRTW`QpfT_MMNXST`MX_MW[adQppMd_STPžŸ| ¡€}¢¡QogM_S_SQTXSPTR_fNMXRTWMTPRP Attachment D ERB AIS 1 043 !"#$%&'() *+,-# -#./0-1), %234+5%)% .6%# (1)3!7-#. 35(&3!78 -39("4 :;)-&>B>CDEF>GHECIGJJ=DKGL>CDK?>E?>J>GHJDF>DMH=>JCNO>@IGA@ANO>ODFEDG>GHJDMH=>PQRP@QFEJ>WPUX=>JE?DEDJICJYIJODGJNA>?>ALZH=>[NHZ\JS[NBNO]JJ>FLCZW^I_`@E>?JDGMDOUJX?DUEJUEEHNGX_abc?>JNA>GHJDMdD?H[DCCNGJef^g>>JO?>>GJ=DHJL>CDKef<=NJNJK=IHH=>[NHZ[DUGONCIGAH=>HNDGJKIGHMD?H=>EULCNOCZ@DKG>APUX=>JDE>GJEIO>f Attachment D ERB AIS 1 044 !!"#$%&'()*+,)-.,/0.1,23 42 5%'6778+9:;<0+='6+>?@A0:96+2BCDCEFGHBIJKBLMNOPQKBRISTSGKONSBPUVWSXOGKQPHPQKBCYZ[\]F^_`aEbcUdFCE\UVbeUdbCV^UVW^aFfbUgbVdFEF^d^hbd]WFFaiaCfjFdFWY[VWFE^kwv mƒvpŽosysym ‘mƒo’mvsrqoto ‚ppm’“q…”ƒw mp‘mvŒ‘r m•mm„p–‡—˜ Attachment D ERB AIS 1 045 ! "#$% $ &'&( )! # *$+ Attachment D ERB AIS 1 046 ( )*+ ( '$ Attachment D ERB AIS 1 047 048 #&-56 Attachment E ERB AIS 1 049 !"#!"$$"%&'(')''* ' '+, - .'''*++ /0 )%+' '++' '0 1% + % *02'' )3-& ''* +& % /0 4 % ''*'* **+%% 3-0 ) *-&- ,250 %1,89 :8);<" $9= >=?)% & '0'+-*' %'* + % 1 *%& 1+,D %F*G1HD(% IJ ') K(1+C''E',N- )D'E++L)O('F %,HK-J%Q' Q1+*H''K4 R' J ')EL2C* %(% ' %1,J2P++ F(S 2 1+, ' %'* 4('( 4'* P(-* ' )4* %TU67'*'1 4+0'4(',%& $ !"Y??"XZ A[\][^_!"YY!)('*' 40(1+( 2a'*( (' '-(00 '` %'*',% & +0 '(' b ''* ++4'* '/0, %++(+%4(%'2C*' ''0(1+'* & 1+,2'*0 ''4G1'* 1-(%4'* 2G1 /0+ %*'* % +1-(''* defghijklmn'',0++,&+& %0+'+0 )%*'* +0&% 2 '++0 0+ 'q%-(%'*'* ’“” •–—˜™š •’ ˆ›”š—–Ž‹œ‹ Žˆ›”—‰› ˜– ™šž–š•Ÿ›—–£¤¥¦§¨©sª¥¦ Attachment E ERB AIS 1 050 !"#$!%&' (& "&)*)+,-!.&-!,&)/"! 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 5 6'&%*789)"(--! ')&'!%& "'0 5 = > 2 ? 0 ( !-@)AB&''! C 0 0E 0 5F5 G H G5II J 5 ;00K 3L M 0 : =0N 0 5 P Q N= qrsltuvwxyltqngzsyvumj{jlmgzsvhzlwulx|}uyt~zvu Attachment E ERB AIS 1 051 !"#$%$&'()*+))',-.$')+(/,$($01-.$#)234563789:;<=>=?@A<B ! C"@A=D=E"@FGC"@;<=A@HB"IJK"L "@A=""@MC!N" nopiqrstuviqnkdwpvsrjgxgijdwpsewitriuyzrvq{wsr Attachment E ERB AIS 1 052 July 23, Special LCSB Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF DISCLOSURE DISCUSSION – Ross Cunniff: Before we dive into the action items, I wanted to do a little [garbled) I I think all the board members got a copy of the e-mail, hopefully had a chance to see it from Katie with the city attorney's recommendations. Ross Cunniff: I want to disclose that I am a donor to some of the organizations that are planning to, or hoping to have wildlife, rehab and education on that site. But I don't think it affects my impartiality. So I just want to be aware of that. If you have any concerns, let me know. Elena Lopez: Well I do obviously. So yeah. So as you know, I've been working on the, the Hughes issue since 2000...probably 16 [2016], when it was ﬁrst announced that, CSU was going to, knock the stadium down and do something with that land. But with regard to my activity now, it's been very much scaled back. I don't have a ton of time to do much. I worked until 3 a.m. last night, just as an example. I'll probably do the same tonight. So I'm not an elector on the petition this time and not, I didn't collect ant signatures. I was a petitioner. I'm not a spokesperson per se. Even though I’ve been quoted in the Coloradoan, I get it. A lot of people have been quoted. They just selected my quotes. What can I say? We don't have any spokespeople associated with the Hughes. It's very, very, grassroots driven and very, sort of um decentralized. So, I would not call myself a representative per se. But I do I have worked on that issue for a long time. Ross Cunniff: disclosure is the key thing. The city code talks about, ﬁnancial conﬂict, which doesn't sound like either of our conﬂicts are really ﬁnancial. There's a personal conﬂict which has to be unusually unusual. And unlike that of general public. So it's up to each member then to decide for that second one, usually whether it ﬁts Elena Lopez: right in as a, as a, member of a nonproﬁt or a leader of a nonproﬁt. Ross Cunniff: Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't apply. But I thought it was important to get the disclosure [garbled]. Elena Lopez: Yeah, yeah. For sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Ross Cunniff: Yeah. Any other disclosures? Jennifer Gooden: I think we're also to disclose if we collected signatures for petitions. I did not for the Hughes area, but I collected petitions for other natural areas. Attachment F ERB AIS 1 053 Ross Cunniff: If we if it comes up to a disclosure on Yes for natural areas, if we're going to make a recommendation on that, I would also disclose that I am a petition gatherer and a donor to the cause. But yeah, we'll get there again And, yeah, a few, quite a few of us were on that one. Scott Mason: I circulated petitions for, yes to natural areas, and I'm, I donated money to yes to natural areas, so I guess I'm disclosing that. Elena Lopez: Oh, and I do have in-kind donations to, to this current issue. Ross Cunniff: I think I may have donated to the original PATHS. Holger Kley: I gathered signatures for Yes to Natural Areas *Staff also believes that Mark Sears disclosed that he was collecting signatures for Yes to Natural Areas during this meeting, but it may have been later during discussion of the Civic Assembly proposal. Attachment F ERB AIS 1 054 From:Katie Donahue To:Mary Boyts; Denise Culver; Elena Lopez; Emily Shingler; Holger Kley; Jennifer Gooden ; Julia Feder; Kelly Ohlson; Mark Sears; River Mizell; Ross Cunniff; Sarah Kane; Scott Mason; Tawnya Ernst; Tom Shoemaker Subject:RE: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:59:00 AM Attachments:image002.png Hi all, In preparation for upcoming LCSB action items related to the Hughes site and local ballot initiatives, Ross asked me to share the following summary of guidance we received from the City Attorney’s Office. This is intended to support transparency and help us all navigate questions of potential conflicts of interest or appearances of bias. Conflict of Interest Considerations While conflicts of interest are often thought of as financial, a Board member’s advocacy role in a current campaign can present a perceived or actual conflict—particularly if the Board is asked to make recommendations on the same topic. Under the Boards and Commissions Code of Conduct, members are expected to: Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and Recuse themselves from voting when they have a personal interest that could impair impartiality or undermine public trust. (See City Code §§ 2-568 and 2-569; City Charter Article IV, Section 9) Recommendations: If a Board member is currently involved in a campaign committee, they should publicly disclose that role during Board discussions. If that involvement is significant—e.g., campaign organizer, Attachment G ERB AIS 1 055 spokesperson, or ballot author—they should strongly consider recusing themselves from related votes to avoid any appearance of undue influence. This guidance is not aimed at any individual, and it’s not a legal mandate— it simply reflects our consistent approach to promoting integrity and public confidence, especially on high-profile or controversial issues. Petition Circulation and Advocacy Circulating petitions as a private citizen is not inherently a conflict. However, transparency remains key when advocacy overlaps with Board topics. Suggested Best Practices: Disclose recent or current advocacy during Board meetings when related issues arise. Consider recusal from voting if the level of advocacy could compromise impartiality (e.g., highly visible campaign role). Even where recusal is not required, disclosure helps the public understand where each member is coming from and reinforces trust in our work. See you all tonight, Katie Katie Donahue Pronouns: she/her/hers Director Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 970-416-8067 office Attachment ERB AIS 1 056 From: Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:10 PM To: Denise Culver <drculver23@gmail.com>; Elena Lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Emily Shingler <eshingler@fcgov.com>; Holger Kley <Holger31@comcast.net>; Jennifer Gooden <fortcollins.jennifer.gooden@gmail.com>; Julia Feder <jfeder@fcgov.com>; Katie Donahue <kdonahue@fcgov.com>; Kelly Ohlson <kohlson@fcgov.com>; Mark Sears <MARKESEARS1@msn.com>; Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com>; River Mizell <rivermizell@gmail.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@gmail.com>; Sarah Kane <SKane@fcgov.com>; Scott Mason <scmason511@gmail.com>; Tawnya Ernst <ternst@fcgov.com>; Tom Shoemaker <shoemakertom1@gmail.com> Subject: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 All, The Agenda for next week’s Special Meeting of the LCSB is attached. For reference, the Board’s prior memorandums to City Council regarding Meadow Springs Ranch and the former Hughes Stadium site are included. As usual, the meeting will be hosted in person as well as Teams (see Teams details below) and an evening meal will be provided. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary Boyts Business Support III Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 1745 Hoffman Mill Rd. 970.221.6640 office mboyts@fcgov.com Attachment ERB AIS 1 057 Microsoft Teams Need help?Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 288 149 839 970Passcode: qWnmft Dial in by phone +1 970-628-0892,,857769512# United States, Grand JunctionFind a local numberPhone conference ID: 857 769 512# For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN Attachment ERB AIS 1 058 Sec. 2-577. -Additional ethical rules of conduct-Board or commission members. (a) In any action in which a member of a City board or commission ("member") declares a conflict of interest or is prohibited from participation pursuant to subsection (5) below, or for any other reason, such member shall not communicate to or attempt to influence such board or commission regarding such item, in any capacity, except that: (1) the member may communicate with said board or commission to protect a strictly personal interest, in the same or similar ways in which the public is permitted to communicate with the board or commission. (2) the member may prepare materials on behalf of another for a project in the normal course of business or operation, so long as the purpose of those materials is not directly and substantially related to advocacy before said member's board or commission. Those materials may be included in materials submitted by another to said member's board or commission so long as they fall within this exception. For illustrative purposes, such materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to architectural plans, technical studies, and engineering designs. (3) if a member is precluded from participating in or influencing the decision of their board or commission, they may request a variance from the limitations of this subsection from the City Council in the following circumstances, and in the following manner: a. The member must submit a request for a variance to the City Clerk on a form provided by the City Clerk for such purpose. b. The member must demonstrate that without the variance, they would suffer an exceptional hardship, and that no reasonable alternative exists that would allow for that hardship to be avoided or substantially mitigated; c. The City Council must act by resolution to approve or disapprove the requested variance. (4) This limitation does not apply to persons other than the member who are affiliated with that member's firm or entity, and such other persons, but not the member, may continue to work on the project and may advocate to such member's board or commission, provided that the member complies with the applicable requirements and limitations. (5) Additional limitations on participation. a. Attachment H ERB AIS 1 059 No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, who has participated or intends to participate as a member of the public, or on behalf of another person or entity, to provide input or public comment as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required (such as, for example, speaking at a neighborhood meeting for a development project or appearing at an administrative hearing for a project), is allowed to participate in that process in their role as a board or commission member. 1. In the event such input or public comment has been provided, or is expected to be provided, the commission member must promptly provide written notice to the City Clerk that they are required to refrain from participation in their role as a commission member in the City process or decision. 2. The commission member must also provide the required notice to the chair of the commission of which they are a member. b. The prohibitions and requirements of this subsection (5) apply whether or not a conflict of interest is presented or has been declared and are in addition to, and not in place of, the requirements applicable to any officer or employee in the event of a conflict of interest. c. No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, may provide input or public comment on behalf of that commission as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required, except as expressly authorized and directed by such commission. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 162, 2000, § 2, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 109, 2002, §§ 1-4, 8-20-02; Ord. No.145, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No.159, 2014, §§ 1-3, 11-18-14; Ord. No. 037, 2017, §§ 2, 3, 3-7-17; Ord. No. 167, 2017, § 2, 12-19-17; Ord. No. 057, 2020, § 2, 4-21-20; Ord. No. 072, 2021, §§ 2, 3, 7-20-21; Ord. No. 120,. 2023, § 3, 9-19-23) Sec. 2-579. -Board of ethics. (a) In order to assist the Council members and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board." (b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of the Review Board. (c) Attachment ERB AIS 1 060 Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review Board shall be as follows: (1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Council members or board and commission members by any person; (2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members; (3) After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected board or commission concerning the same; and (4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City. (d) Inquiries and complaints shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) City Council inquiries. Any Council member may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Council member or board and commission member. a. In performing its review and investigation of any inquiry submitted in accordance with this Subsection (d)(1 ), the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its advisory opinion and recommendation. b. It is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public comment on an inquiry, although the Review Board may do so if it determines public input will assist the Board in its consideration of the inquiry. c. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. d. After consideration of an inquiry, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said advisory opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. e. Attachment ERB AIS 1 061 Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (2) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Council member or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board or commission member named in the complaint, the City Council and the City Attorney. Each complaint shall name only one officer as its subject. b. The City Attorney shall periodically seek proposals and select and retain, after consultation with the Review Board, one or more qualified attorneys to review complaints filed against Councilmembers under this subsection (2) and determine whether the complaint warrants investigation in light of the applicable screening criteria and commonly known and documented facts and circumstances. Such review attorneys shall also function as investigators to develop the facts relevant to a complaint under investigation and interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. c. For a complaint against a board or commission member: i. The City Clerk shall schedule the complaint for consideration by the Review Board as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board will meet and consider the complaint within thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint. In the event extenuating circumstances arise in the scheduling and preparation for such meeting the Review Board shall meet to consider the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable. ii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for initial review of the complaint to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. iii. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the screening criteria set out in this subsection (d)(2)f below. If the Review Board Attachment ERB AIS 1 062 determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council. iv. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d)(2)c hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. v. Prior to reaching a decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, however, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. vi. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. vii. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. d. For a complaint against a Councilmember: i. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the complaint, including a copy of the complaint and brief explanation of the review process, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint. ii. The City Attorney shall forward the complaint to a review attorney retained as described above in subsection (d)(2)b for review of the complaint. No more than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, subject to extenuating circumstances making delay reasonably necessary, the review attorney shall evaluate the complaint to determine whether it is sufficient and warrants investigation Attachment ERB AIS 1 063 pursuant to the screening criteria set out in subsection (d)(2)f below. The review attorney shall promptly provide to the City Clerk and City Attorney for distribution to the Review Board a written determination of whether the complaint warrants further investigation, including a brief explanation of the decision. iii. The City Clerk shall send written notice to the complainant of the review attorney's determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the Council member named in the complaint, as well as the City Council and City Attorney. iv. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint does not warrant investigation, no further action will be taken on the complaint. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint warrants investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for investigation by the review attorney who completed the initial review or another retained review attorney, depending on availability and other related circumstances and considerations. v. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in their review and investigation of any complaint, the investigating attorney shall interview the complainant and all affected or interested Councilmembers to learn their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law, may interview such other persons as the investigating attorney reasonably believes may have relevant or useful information pertinent to the investigation, and may request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public that the investigating attorney considers reasonably necessary or helpful to the investigation or determination. In addition, the investigating attorney shall have the power as vested in the Review Board to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the investigating attorney may consider necessary to the investigation. vi. Upon completion of the investigation the reviewing attorney shall interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and, based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. vii. The City Clerk shall schedule the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint for consideration by the Review Board within thirty (30) working days after receipt, or, as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board shall meet to consider the determination and recommendations and render a formal Review Board opinion based upon the determination and in light of the recommendations, but shall not be bound to follow the recommendation made. Attachment ERB AIS 1 064 viii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for consideration of the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint to the complainant, the Councilmember named in the complaint, and the City Council and City Attorney, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. The complaint and investigation attorney's determination and recommendations shall be provided with such notice and shall be available with the agenda for the meeting. ix. Prior to reaching a final decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, and the subject of the complaint an opportunity to present facts and argument related to the complaint. However, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. x. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. xi. Any Councilmember whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. e. Alternate Review Procedures. i. In the event multiple complaints are filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection that allege a related violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate) and are subject to investigation and a decision by the Review Board, such complaints shall not be considered by the regular Review Board but instead upon a determination that the complaints warrant investigation, shall be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaints. ii. In the event related complaints are filed naming five (5) or more Councilmembers and upon review it is determined that an investigation of complaints naming five (5) or more Councilmembers is warranted, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards or commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven member board. Said Board or commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the determination that further investigation is warranted is received by the City Clerk. Any board or commission member selected by the City Clerk who elects not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter Attachment ERB AIS 1 065 select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in the applicable subsections of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. f. Screening criteria. The determination as to whether a complaint merits investigation and further action shall be made on the basis of one or more of the following considerations: i. The City Council has no jurisdiction over the individual(s) alleged to have violated the relevant ethics provision; ii. The alleged violation, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions; iii. The allegations of the complaint were previously asserted in another complaint that is already being considered or was resolved by the Review Board and/or City Council; iv. The alleged violation, even if true, is minor in nature and fails to justify the use of public resources to investigate or prosecute; v. The allegations of the complaint involve actions or events that occurred more than one (1) year prior to the date of the filing of the complaint and, due to the passage of time and the likely unavailability of evidence, witnesses, and witnesses' recollections, investigation and prosecution of the complaint will not justify the use of public resources, except that complaints based on conduct resulting in a criminal conviction (regardless of the type of plea entered) or entry into a plea agreement subject to a deferred prosecution, deferred judgment, or deferred sentencing agreement may be referred to an appropriate enforcement agency; vi. The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; vii. Attachment ERB AIS 1 066 The alleged violation is unlikely to be proven by the required standard of preponderance of the evidence due to the evidence consisting of conflicting oral testimony and unverifiable statements; viii. The person who is the subject of the complaint has admitted wrongdoing and made or committed to make sufficient redress or remedy satisfactory to Review Board or City Council; ix. The matter has become or will become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a city official or will no longer be a city official prior to the conclusion of any consideration or investigation of the allegations in the complaint; x. The person who is the subject of the complaint previously obtained an advisory opinion under this code of ethics that identified the conduct as not being in violation of the code of ethics; or xi. The City Council has elected to refer the complaint to another agency with jurisdiction of the allegations of the complaint and such referral will better serve the public interest (e.g., law enforcement, district attorney, state or federal attorney general; or department of justice). (e) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Review Board. (g) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-576(a) (7). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Council member or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 17, 1993, 2-16-93; Ord. No. 64, 1993, 7-20-93; Ord. 132, 2001, § 2, 9- 18-01; Ord. No. 110, 2002, §§ 1-3, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 144, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No. 102, 2019, § 2, 9-3-19; Ord. No. 153, 2022, § 2, 1-17-23; Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, 9-19-23) Editor's note-Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, adopted Sept. 19, 2023, renumbered the former § 2-569 as § 2-579. Historical notations have been retained for reference purposes. Attachment ERB AIS 1 067 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 2 September 30, 2025 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council – Ethics Review Board Carrie Daggett, City Attorney , Senior Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT -579(d)(2) of whether an ethics complaint filed on 28, 2025, by Nick Armstrong alleging that Ross Cunniff (Member), member of (LCSB), violated City Code Section 2-577, part A, subsections 1 and when, as a member of the LCSB, Cunniff voted in favor of a resolution recommending Site Civic Assembly . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the Ethics Review Board (the Board) to complete the initial screening of an complaint filed by Nick Armstrong (Complainant) about the conduct of the Member filed with the City under City Code Section 2-579(d) (the Complaint, Attachment A), as described below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Board consider the allegations made in the Complaint and decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. The Board must use the screening criteria in City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)f to determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the Complaint. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)(a), “[a]ny person who believes that a Councilmember or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk . . . .” (emphasis added). After notice to the complaining party and the subject of the complaint(s), the Board then considers the complaint and whether to investigate. Background: The City convened the Civic Assembly to consider potential uses for the Hughes site that will contribute most effectively to Fort Collins’ long-term vitality and meet the requirements outlined in the 2021 ballot measure that rezoned the Hughes site to use the property for parks, recreation, open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration. On July 23, 2025, the LCSB, including the Member, met and discussed the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report. The minutes of the meeting are attached. According to the minutes, the following occurred: 068 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 5 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. On the same date, the LCSB submitted a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council “to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations.” A copy of the memorandum and Mayor Arndt’s response are included in Attachment B. The LCSB memo repeats the minutes excerpt above. Attachment B also includes the minutes of the July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting. The Member participated in a Healthy Democracy information committee (“Committee”). The Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing information gathered by the community survey and community guides during the Civic Assembly Process. According to the minutes, the Member did not declare a conflict of interest or recuse himself from the discussion or consideration of the motion described above. The Civic Assembly process culminated in City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 141, 2025, approved on September 2, 2025, which adopted the Civic Assembly’s recommendations about development and use of the Hughes site. On September 2, 2025, the Council also adopted Resolution 2025-082, which referred Ordinance No. 141, 2025 to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular general election. These actions were different from the LCSB recommendation. The Complaint: The Board will consider the Complaint filed with the City Clerk through the City’s online ethics complaint submittal form on August 28, 2025, by Complainant, a Fort Collins resident, against the Member. The Complaint alleges that the Member is also a member of a special interest group and that the Member’s action taken concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report constitutes an ethical violation of City Code Section “2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2.” The system that accepts ethics complaints does not allow complaining parties to submit attachments with their complaint. On September 23, 2025, Complainant confirmed in writing that he would like the Board to consider the following additional documents: • a document describing the Information Committee, the tasks assigned to the committee, and the information committee members. It is printed on Healthy Democracy letterhead and is marked as Attachment C; • a printout of a website called “Yes for Hughes Natural Area.” It is marked as Attachment D; • a printout of a site that is an article about civic assemblies. It is marked as Attachment E. On September 25, 2025, Complainant asked that other documents be considered as part of his complaint. One is a transcript of a discussion the LCSB had about disclosures during a special LCSB meeting that took place on July 23, 2025. The document is marked as Attachment F. Another document is a copy of an email to LCSB members that summarizes guidance Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director, received from the City Attorney’s Office. The document is marked as Attachment G. Attachment G was emailed to LCSB members midday on July 23, 2025. The following excerpts are from Mr. Armstrong’s August 28, 2025, Complaint: 069 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 5 The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. *** The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of “Friends of Hughes Natural Area”. *** The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. The Board Determination: The Board is required under the Code to evaluate the Complaint and determine by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint allegations. If the Board determines that the Complaint does not warrant investigation, the Board then directs staff to provide written notice to the Complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that notice is also sent to the subject of the Complaint and the City Council. In evaluating a complaint, the Board must consider screening criteria identified in City Code Section 2- 579(d)(2)f. A discussion of screening criteria relevant to the Complaint follows. Analysis of Relevant Screening Criteria 1) Jurisdiction The City Council has jurisdiction over the Member as he is an appointed member of the LCSB. 2) Whether Allegations Would, If True, Constitute a Violation: This screening criterion is intended to determine whether the Complaint alleges a violation that would, if true, constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions. In this case, the Complainant asserts that the Member violated City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2), which prohibits a board member from participating in any action where they have declared a conflict of interest. According to the LCSB meeting minutes, no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. LCSB members, including the Member, disclosed their personal involvement with “ballot issues that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions.” City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2) is not useful because no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. On their face, the allegations made in the Complaint and supporting documents do not, if true, constitute a violation of City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2). 070 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 5 According to the transcription of the LCSB discussion during the July 23, 2025, meeting, each member discussed their involvement with the “Hughes issue” and “Yes to Natural Areas.” See Attachment F. The question then becomes whether the Member had a personal interest in the action the LCSB took later the same evening about whether to recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site nor refer it to the ballot. Outline of Relevant Ethics Provisions Generally, the ethics provisions established by the City include City Charter Article IV, Section 9, and City Code Section 2-568. As a City officer under the ethics provisions, Member Cunniff is required to disclose upon discovery using the appropriate form any personal interest in a Board decision and to refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a City officer. The City Charter, Section 9(a)) defines the key term personal interest as “any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Related definitions in Code Section 2-568(a) include: Different in kind from that experienced by the general public means of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. Direct means resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. Benefit means an advantage or gain, while detriment means disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. Substantial means more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. Analysis According to the transcript marked as Attachment F, Member gathered signatures for “Yes to Natural Areas,” which is a matter different from the Hughes Issue. On its face, being involved in a petition process supporting Natural Areas tax dollars does not create a personal interest in the proposed use of the Hughes Stadium. The Board may determine that the Complaint concerning the Member does not warrant further investigation and notify the appropriate parties as described above. Or the Board may elect to investigate the Complaint at an upcoming meeting. If the Board decides to investigate, the Member must be given the opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its option and recommendation. The Complainant must be given the opportunity to present facts and argument in support of his complaint. And the ERB may request such additional information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. Any guidance Board members can provide about information they are interested in reviewing would be helpful. The Board has the power to compel by subpoena both witness testimony and production of documents they consider necessary to the investigation. 071 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 5 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Not applicable. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A. August 28, 2025, Armstrong Complaint B. One pdf document that includes August 14, 2025, letter from Mayor Arndt to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board; the July 23, 2025, Memorandum from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to City Council; and, July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting minutes C. Information Committee description on Healthy Democracy letterhead D. Yes for Hughes Natural Area website E. Online article about civic assemblies F. July 23, 2025, transcript of LCSB disclosures discussion G. July 23, 2025, email from Katie Donahue to LCSB members that summarizes guidance received from the City Attorney’s Office H. City Code Sections 2-577 and 579 072 From:Alchemer To:City Clerk Office Subject:[EXTERNAL] New Ethic Rules Violation Complaint Response Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:28:34 AM Page 1 Questions 1. Complainant Information Name: Nick Armstrong Address: 2238 Ballard Lane Phone: 9705813036 Email nick@wtfmarketing.com 2. Grounds for Complaint Name of alleged violator: Ross Cunniff Date(s) of alleged violation(s): 07/23/2025 Please describe in detail: 1) the rule, code, or state law you believe has been violated, and 2) the facts available to you or that you believe support your complaint that a violation(s) occurred. I'm writing in reference to the attached memo submitted by the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board to City Council concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report, retrieved from the City Council's email archive today, August 19. The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of "Friends of Hughes Natural Area". See: https://yes4hughesnaturalarea.com/civic-assembly The Civic Assembly Process was described as follows: "1) A democratic lottery selects Delegates for an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community and fully Attachment 1 ERB AIS 2 073 supported to participate. 2) A deliberative process allows the Delegates to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Rehashing for clarity: "an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Members of many Boards and organizations, including the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board, participated in the process as well. https://healthydemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025FoCo-Information-Committee-Google- Docs.pdf The claim that the Civic Assembly Process lacks merit because "[p]rescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas," is, kindly, nonsense and disingenous when a member of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board participated in the vetting and planning process where those concerns should have been voiced. To be clear: the "prescriptive uses" the Board objects to in the memo are well vetted because they were indicated by the ballot language approved by nearly 28,000 voters representing over 68% of the voting public in 2021. That ballot language reads, in part: "to use said property for parks, recreation, and open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration." The specific allotment of each use case is yet to be scoped. It does not appear in the final Civic Assembly report as "prescriptive" but rather as starting points for future scoping once the use cases of interest to the community have been identified and clarified. That was the explicit intent for the Civic Assembly Process and is clear from the thoughtfulness of the outcome. https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/blog/civic-assemblies-in-action-lessons-on- civic-engagement-from-fort-collins/ To ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust in the Boards and Commissions principles and processes, the City Council and the Boards and Commissions leadership should reaffirm the legitimacy of the Civic Assembly process and begin an investigation into this matter as a potential ethics violation by Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board. The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. Attachment 1 ERB AIS 2 074 Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com August 14, 2025 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board c/o Katie Donahue, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Cunniff and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with July 23, 2025 memorandum regarding Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution wherein you recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot. We also appreciate receiving the minutes of the July 23 special meeting wherein you discussed the topic at length before arriving at this recommendation. As you know, City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the resolution on Tuesday, August 19. We invite you to view the Council meeting that night in person at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., online on fcgov.com/fctv or via cable TV. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Attachment B ERB AIS 2 075 City Clerk’s Office 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295 - fax Boardsandcommissions@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Subject: Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution This memo is to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations. Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Attachment B ERB AIS 2 076 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Special Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road July 23, 2025 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Denise Culver, Member River Mizell, Member Mark Sears, Member Tom Shoemaker, Member Jennifer Gooden, Member 7 /23 /20 2 5 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LCSB: Denise Culver, Jennifer Gooden, River Mizell, Elena Lopez, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Ross Cunniff, Scott Mason, Holger Kley NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Matt Parker, Julia Feder, Elaine Calaba, Emily Shingler, Mary Boyts 3. AGENDA REVIEW: The Board agreed to change the order of the two Action Items. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Patricia Babbitt, Doug Henderson, Melissa Rosas, Diana Murphy 5. ACTION ITEMS Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report Discussion Prior to opening the discussion, LCSB members disclosed their personal involvement with ballot initiatives that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions. LCSB Question: The use of “development” in the draft resolution is causing questions regarding intent; is it meant to describe land use planning or the construction of buildings? Staff Answer: In this case, the term refers to the creation and implementation of the proposed land use. LCSB Question: Was the 60 acres of natural areas listed in the draft resolution derived from the Civic Assembly process or was staff involved? Staff Answer: It was a bit of both. Staff provided an FAQ document to the Civic Assembly delegates that broke that property into quadrants based on conditions and features, noting the ecological condition on the west side is more aligned with the existing natural area. The FAQs also provided a very rough estimate of ecological restoration costs. Council members requested some acreage limits for some of the proposed features, so those were added to the Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 077 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 2 draft resolution. LCSB Question: The draft resolution states not more than 60 acres for a natural area. How does that align with previous staff analysis? Staff Answer: NAD does not have a position on the resolution. Natural Areas can implement whatever City Council decides. LCSB Comment: Previous memos submitted by LCSB were not specific on acreage, just themes like connectivity and compatibility. LCSB Question: Please clarify the current repayment of COPS financing using half Natural Area Fund and half General Fund. Staff Answer: It was arranged that way for financial expediency using two fund codes; purely budgetary. The final uses by acreage will determine how much of each fund will be used to cover the cost. There won’t be any financial adjustment until the final acreages are determined, i.e. if NAD overpaid, the Natural Areas fund will be refunded. LCSB Comment: It should be based on valuation. There are some portions of the land that would probably be assessed at a higher value than others. Staff Response: The typical practice is that the entire parcel is appraised. Any given parcel might have widely varying conditions. In this case the site was valued at a single price and Council agreed to a simple acreage split. The initial purchase price was about $12.5M, and the full debt repayment will be about $14M. LCSB Comment: Primary concerns include final acreage and location of a natural area. The member would support staff’s decision on acreage and location, but the process for determining these seems sort of loose. Staff Response: Due to the lack of time for a full site drawing and vetting process, the resolution language is designed to give a general idea but it is not perfectly specific. NAD staff would weigh in during design discussions that the west side of the property adjacent to Maxwell would make the best habitat connectivity and trail connections. LCSB Comments: The bike park folks are interested in part of the land (west side) that has more drop in elevation; it sounds like there's conflict there. One of the stated reasons for the bike park community wanting Hughes is the elevation change. Staff Response: They have also stated they are willing to work with what makes sense for the other occupants (uses) of the parcel. LCSB Comment: Concern there may be no limit on expansion in the future if there aren't some hard numbers on percentages and acres. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 078 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 3 LCSB Comment: LCSB visited the site in 2023 and noted all of the wildlife, not just on the west side, but in general including vocalizing birds and vocalizing chorus frogs. There is potential conflict with wildlife on the west side. LCSB Question: Both the Civic Assembly report and Council Agenda Item Summary seem very vague on the retention pond area which includes the disc golf course. Will the retention pond remain and will Stormwater acquire it? Staff Answer: There's no plan for the city to change that stormwater feature at the moment, but language could be left open for potential future changes to community stormwater needs. Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the resolution would probably be under Parks management. LCSB Question: If that area was carved off and included the retention pond, sledding, the disc golf course and potentially part of the bike park, would that all be managed as a part of the Park area and paid for by Park fees? Staff Answer: City staff have stated throughout this process that there is no funding for design or implementation. Right now, they're just trying to identify a plan and the funding for implementation will follow. LCSB Question: How does that coincide with the proposed CCIP tax, that lists the $5 million for the bike park. Staff Answer: The Hughes site is just one area under consideration as part of the bike park feasibility study. The purpose of the proposed CCIP tax would be funding for a bike park somewhere in Fort Collins. If CCIP gets approved by the voters, then there would be dedicated funding for that. LCSB Question: Do you know anything about the bike park feasibility study; the status on when specific parcel information will be released? Staff Answer: During the work session discussion with Council it was stated the specific parcel locations are not likely to be released because they're not owned by the city; this is a similar practice to future NAD acquisitions. LCSB Question: Given that the impermeable surface of the parcel has changed significantly with the demolition of the stadium, has stormwater done a new study to determine the appropriate size for that pond? Staff Answer: NAD staff is not aware of any design study following demolition. The resolution is the initial vision of what uses might be realized on the property with comprehensive site planning with steps like public engagement and Tribal consultation to follow. LCSB Comment: It is concerning to have to make a decision on this with so many unknowns. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 079 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 4 LCSB Question: The High Plains Environmental Center did an ecological characterization study. Is it possible for us to get a hold of that? Was the study done in conjunction with Natural Areas? Staff Answer: The study was initiated by an Assembly delegate. NAD staff does not have a copy but can attempt to locate it in the Civic Assembly documents. LCSB Questions: There are several examples of trail connectivity between Parks and Natural Areas, any examples of where that connectivity between uses that was deliberately limited? Would the planning process include looking at the characterization of the site and identifying areas where a trail would not be appropriate? Staff Answer: The Civic Assembly did call out trail connections to Maxwell and Pineridge. Staff imagine that there would probably be a trail connection to Maxwell but that would be part of the comprehensive site planning process. NAD has an interdisciplinary review process to identify the most sustainable trail alignment and there might be a portion of the property where we would not invite public access. Adjoining natural areas are on-trail only. LCSB Comment: The resolution’s 35-acre limit on the bike park does not include parking, restrooms or other infrastructure; that would make it the biggest bike park in Colorado. Staff Response: That figure represents a limitation on bike features. Parking and other infrastructure planning would take into account all future uses on the property, not just the bike park features. LCSB Question: Dueling ballot measures is a big concern. Is it written down somewhere that the one with the most votes wins? Staff Answer: NAD staff received that information from the City Attorney’s Office. LCSB Question: The focus of the joint project between the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and the Northern Colorado Wildlife Center has changed from animal rehabilitation to education. Was that discussed and why did it change? Staff Answer: 20 people were trying to work in a tight time frame to come to language that they all understood and that is not overly prescriptive. Staff did not get the impression that it changes the nature of the proposal from the Conservation Campus partners. LCSB Comment: The resolution does not constrain Council to the original vision of the joint project. Staff Response: This is why LCSB is discussing, to provide feedback to Council on how language might be interpreted. LCSB Question: Has NAD looked at the impact of purchasing 60 acres on the department budget? Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 080 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 5 Staff Answer: The purchase price is in the ballpark of what the department has been spending per year on property acquisition. Staff discussion is framed around opportunity cost. We can project that there would be enough funds to pay for the entire 164 acres out of the Natural Areas fund, but the tradeoffs would come in properties that NAD would not be able purchase. LCSB Question: The City’s 2023 Financial Report stated a NAD balance of $23 million. Please clarify how much is spent per year for land conservation. Staff Answer: The $23 million was a specific snapshot from 2023 and is not an accurate accounting of current funds. Staff believe if our sales tax projections come through there will be sufficient funds to complete the purchase for any acreage directed by Council. NAD typically budgets $5 to $7 million in spending depending on what sales are finalized. LCSB Question: There's opportunity cost also in not purchasing land locally. Does staff think costs are going to go up in town? Staff Answer: The NA ballot language is structured to account for the increasing cost of land and the NAD is focused on purchasing land earlier at lower cost. If Natural Areas covers the City’s $14 million commitment it would eliminate other purchasing opportunities. LCSB Question: Would NA be required to pay $14 million all at once? Staff Answer: None of the reconciliation process has been identified. If NAD was required to purchase the entire property it is likely the full debt service would be transferred to NAD rather quickly so it would have an immediate impact in that way. When General Fund or NA Fund that has already been spent would be reconciled, would be determined after the fact. LCSB Comment: Because of the uncertainty of dueling ballot measures, perceptions of meddling in the public dialogue, the inappropriateness of specifying acreages, and the mislabeling of the animal rehabilitation use as education, Council should not adopt this measure. LCSB Comment: There is opportunity for the LCSB to recommend implementation of wildlife coexistence features and the avoidance/mitigation of land uses that are disadvantageous to wildlife on portions of the property that would not be designated a natural area, such as lighting standards that would be compatible with Natural Areas management. There is room for negotiation between the most disadvantageous situation possible and an ideal situation. LCSB Comment: There will be time for weighing in on those things, perhaps in August or after the election. Noted parallels between spaces like Spring Canyon Park and natural areas – potential for creating policy around these transitions. LCSB Comment: Other possible topics to include would be reduction of habitat fragmentation and minimizing hardened surfaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 081 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 6 LCSB Question: Has anyone through this process discussed Indigenous protected areas? Staff Answer: There was a great deal of discussion about it and the Civic Assembly deliberately identified Indigenous engagement in how the site gets used and emphasized a gathering place. But they really tried to leave it up to the City to negotiate with Tribes in the local Indigenous community. Site planning would navigate different requests from the range of the indigenous community. LCSB Comment: The three PATHS founders are Indigenous Chicana and connection to the land is why they became involved in this effort ten years ago. The NAD engagement with indigenous groups is appreciated. Staff Response: The NAD hired an archaeologist. Staffing under the Equity and Inclusion Office has changed, but the City-wide Native American and Indigenous engagement and consultation effort will continue with a team be led by the Equity Office. There are regular open community meetings with the Indigenous community posted on the Equity Office calendar. There was a discussion about previous uses at the Hughes site and the development of city permitting for folks who request events onsite. LCSB Comment: The City has a good history of integrated planning, and there are good opportunities for integrated use on that site, so the member hates shutting the door on that. LCSB Comment: If the Yes for Hughes Natural Area does pass, it will determine one path, if it does not pass, the integrated site planning would occur. LCSB Comment: Member is not excited about this being decided by voters in the first place; does not support the civic process of design. They are not sure they could support a 35-acre bike park, but these park features could be designed with native vegetation to look and feel like a natural area. If this had been allowed to go through the regular civic planning process and be vetted fully, the community would be probably happy with the outcome. Perhaps that’s why Council is trying to put forward a juxtaposition of options. Not excited about the specifics that are available right now. LCSB Comment: As a person who has worked on this issue for years, don’t underestimate what the voters understand. At multiple listening sessions, participants knew what a natural area is, though there is some confusion about the difference between a natural area and open space. People know what they want and have asked for it over and over again. Connection to the adjacent natural areas is unique and the opportunity should be taken. The Civic Assembly process was fraught with problems; it was a black box. Comparing a 10-year community process to a brief Civic Assembly process, this has resulted in something extremely vague. There is too much vagueness and ambiguity. LCSB Comment: The Hughes site is a treasure. The Board’s direction should be making sure where there's ambiguity that the City errs on the side of maintaining current and future Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 082 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 7 ecological value. LCSB Comment: Concerned about being stuck between a rock and a hard place; there are opportunity costs, and significant differences in the conditions across the parcel. In the past, LCSB has written about encouraging certain uses and discouraging others. If the process had been able to follow the normal path, a good result might have been possible. High impact uses like a bike park are concerning, especially if it is regional scale. Additional traffic into the existing NAs could be impactful. Member feels that a bike park is not compatible. If Council is going to refer something to the ballot, this is the one chance for LCSB to make for the wording. Declining to endorse a second ballot initiative might give up the opportunity to weigh in on improving the language. LCSB Comment: Agree about weighing in on language. Agree that the City has done great work in the past. Assuming the planners will do the right thing. The Board could weigh in on ecological elements such as lighting, location of the bike park, etc. The Board could get more prescriptive about what to protect. LCSB Comment: If properly worded, a “no” recommendation could be useful to Council. Following the election, Council could come up with a more detailed plan or potential future ballot initiatives. Not sure how to rewrite the resolution, so suggesting falling back on principles. LCSB Comment: It would hard to be get to agreement on more detailed uses. The concept of the wildlife center has morphed over time. LCSB Comment: The Civic Assembly has some good ideas, but they are highly conceptual. The regular next step is for professionals to do more detailed design work; that does not seem feasible with the current timeframe. LCSB Comment: The opportunity afforded by the Hughes site is so unique, it should be done with a great deal of thought. The Board discussed potential wording of a motion and whether or not to include language around the competing ballot measures. They also discussed whether or not to separate the issues of the civic assembly recommendation and the referral to the ballot. They discussed how competing ballot issues have been presented to voters in the past and revisited concerns that the Board was unfamiliar with the applicable statute or legal process for determining a winner for competing ballots. LCSB Comment: A concern is that competing ballot measures could impact the outcome of other ballot initiatives related to Natural Areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 083 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 8 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Meadow Springs Ranch Conservation Discussion Chair Cunniff invited board discussion and feedback on the draft Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Conservation and Environmental Protection memo. The LCSB discussed edits and additions, including an executive summary. Staff reported that Utilities has drafted a memo on biosolids testing at MSR but because the One Water Director has been out of town she has not been able to sign and forward it to NAD staff. The board would like to include relevant information from the Utilities memo in their recommendation to Council. The board is concerned about PFAS and other possible contaminants on property that may be considered for future NAD acquisition or conservation easement. LCSB asked if it was possible for a voter approved deed restriction/conservation easement. Staff reported that the One Water Director is reluctant to propose any future use of MSR until Utilities has completed a comprehensive assessment. LCSB is considering a conservation easement on roughly 20-25% of the highest value habitat portions of MSR. LCSB would like Utilities to complete quick inventory/ecological assessment because of the concern of potential contaminants. LCSB noted Utilities Platinum accreditation from the National Biosolids Certified Management Program might be a process-based accreditation and not an outcome based one. Their recommendation to do soil sampling is to make sure that the processes that we're following are actually leading to the results that we're hoping to get. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 2 084 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 9 Black footed ferrets should be included in the memo; there are BFF operations on the east portion of MSR. The LCSB agreed to amend the draft memo and to consider it for adoption after further discussion during the regular August meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C 8/13/2025 Attachment B ERB AIS 2 085 Attachment B ERB AIS 2 086 Information Committee The Information Committee is a group of 12 Fort Collins residents who represent a diverse array of experience and opinion on this topic. The Information Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing the information gathered by the community survey and the Community Guides. They have nominated several background presenters, who will speak to you about the topic during your ﬁrst weekend together. The Information Committee is made up of: ● 4 members of City of Fort Collins Boards & Commissions ● 4 Community Guides ● 4 Community Members The Boards represented in the Information Committee were determined by City Staﬀ, after which members of each Board nominated a representative to join the Information Committee. Community Guides and community members were chosen at random, similar to how Delegates in the Assembly were chosen. Members of the Information Committee Name Role Anaya Echo-Hawk Community Guide Christina Swope Community Member Dawson Metcalf Natural Resources Advisory Board Holger Kley Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Logan Cummings Community Member Lorena Falcon Parks & Recreation Natalie (AJ) Omundson Community Guide Sam Milchak Youth Advisory Board Shirley Peel Community Guide Susan Baker Community Guide Vara Vissa Community Member Wyatt Reis Community Member healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • info@healthydemocracy.org Attachment C ERB AIS 2 087 Attachment C ERB AIS 2 088 )$*($#+$( ,- ./ 0 11 1.3 11/1 0 111 567'$ 1 1 ,48,2 0 12 ,- .01 9 0 1 1 1 .:;:< @ABCDEDFAGHIGHGJKLMNMOMPQRPRSTUVNSMTWXRTWYMSPZ[QNX\]ZSXSXY^]OZR_`Q_MNXORT_MWOZ`Q_MW_QbcQTMURdefSNMURTWgNQ_Md_hRdQTXMN`MWLfPZMX^gMTigRdMSTjkjl\ngMd_MWUSTRgNQoQfTWpaRT_RPQTSX_SdRd_RPRSTX_PNRXXNQQ_XdS_ScMTqWNS`MTrMsQdNRdaU_ZMtS_aZRWMW_QsQ`MoQNORNWOS_ZNMoMNNSTPR[RppQ_sMRXfNM_ZR_gNQsQ_MXuQovtQfTdSpsMs[MNXwQOTqSsgRd_UgM_gNQzMd_XoQNLfPZMX^gMTigRdM_ZR_fTWMNsSTM_ZMQNSPSTRpdQTXMN`R_SQTST_MT_Qo_dS_ScMTSTS_SR_S`M\mXsRTaST_ZMgf[pSdXfXgMd_MWU_ZMtS`SdmXXMs[paORXRTMngMTXS`MNfXMTWMW_QgNQsQ_M_ZMtS_awX{|}~{~€ {~‚|ƒ„€ƒ…†WMdMg_S`Mgf[pSdgNQdMXX\[paU‡ˆ‰Š‹‡Œˆ Ž‰ ‘ ’“Œ”•ˆ–Œ—‡˜”™ŠZRXNMsRSTMW_NRTXgRNMT_RTW_NfM_Q_ZM`SXSQT_ZR__ZsfTS_aZRXpQTPZMpWoQNLfPZMXqpRTWRTWOSpWpSoMdQTXMN`R_SQTOS_ZpQOqSsgRd_NMdNMR_SQTUTQTqfsg_S`MfXMXURTW_ZMR[XMTdMQo`SMOq[pQdšSTP[fSpWSTPXUoQN_ZM[MTMoS_Qom››sMs[MNXQoQfNsfTS_aRTWpQdRpOSpWpSoMœdQTXSX_MT_OS_ZQ_ZMNVQN_tQppSTXYR_fNRpmNMRXš\tQfTdSpwXNMoMNNMW[RppQ_sMRXfNMSX_ZMgNQWfd_QoRWf[SQfXgNQdMXX_ZR_gf_XgQpS_SdRpST_MNMX_XWQodQssfTS_a`QSdMX\mTWU_ZMtQfTdSpWSW_ZSXOS_ZRopSdšQoRgMTUNR_ZMN_ZRTOS_Z_ZMXRsMZš_ZR_QNPRTScMNXRTW`QpfT_MMNXST`MX_MW[adQppMd_STPžŸ| ¡€}¢¡QogM_S_SQTXSPTR_fNMXRTWMTPRP Attachment D ERB AIS 2 089 !"#$%&'() *+,-# -#./0-1), %234+5%)% .6%# (1)3!7-#. 35(&3!78 -39("4 :;)-&>B>CDEF>GHECIGJJ=DKGL>CDK?>E?>J>GHJDF>DMH=>JCNO>@IGA@ANO>ODFEDG>GHJDMH=>PQRP@QFEJ>WPUX=>JE?DEDJICJYIJODGJNA>?>ALZH=>[NHZ\JS[NBNO]JJ>FLCZW^I_`@E>?JDGMDOUJX?DUEJUEEHNGX_abc?>JNA>GHJDMdD?H[DCCNGJef^g>>JO?>>GJ=DHJL>CDKef<=NJNJK=IHH=>[NHZ[DUGONCIGAH=>HNDGJKIGHMD?H=>EULCNOCZ@DKG>APUX=>JDE>GJEIO>f Attachment D ERB AIS 2 090 !!"#$%&'()*+,)-.,/0.1,23 42 5%'6778+9:;<0+='6+>?@A0:96+2BCDCEFGHBIJKBLMNOPQKBRISTSGKONSBPUVWSXOGKQPHPQKBCYZ[\]F^_`aEbcUdFCE\UVbeUdbCV^UVW^aFfbUgbVdFEF^d^hbd]WFFaiaCfjFdFWY[VWFE^kwv mƒvpŽosysym ‘mƒo’mvsrqoto ‚ppm’“q…”ƒw mp‘mvŒ‘r m•mm„p–‡—˜ Attachment D ERB AIS 2 091 ! "#$% $ &'&( )! # *$+ Attachment D ERB AIS 2 092 ( )*+ ( '$ Attachment D ERB AIS 2 093 Attachment D ERB AIS 2 094 #&-56 Attachment E ERB AIS 2 095 !"#!"$$"%&'(')''* ' '+, - .'''*++ /0 )%+' '++' '0 1% + % *02'' )3-& ''* +& % /0 4 % ''*'* **+%% 3-0 ) *-&- ,250 %1,89 :8);<" $9= >=?)% & '0'+-*' %'* + % 1 *%& 1+,D %F*G1HD(% IJ ') K(1+C''E',N- )D'E++L)O('F %,HK-J%Q' Q1+*H''K4 R' J ')EL2C* %(% ' %1,J2P++ F(S 2 1+, ' %'* 4('( 4'* P(-* ' )4* %TU67'*'1 4+0'4(',%& $ !"Y??"XZ A[\][^_!"YY!)('*' 40(1+( 2a'*( (' '-(00 '` %'*',% & +0 '(' b ''* ++4'* '/0, %++(+%4(%'2C*' ''0(1+'* & 1+,2'*0 ''4G1'* 1-(%4'* 2G1 /0+ %*'* % +1-(''* defghijklmn'',0++,&+& %0+'+0 )%*'* +0&% 2 '++0 0+ 'q%-(%'*'* ’“” •–—˜™š •’ ˆ›”š—–Ž‹œ‹ Žˆ›”—‰› ˜– ™šž–š•Ÿ›—–£¤¥¦§¨©sª¥¦ Attachment E ERB AIS 2 096 !"#$!%&' (& "&)*)+,-!.&-!,&)/"! 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 5 6'&%*789)"(--! ')&'!%& "'0 5 = > 2 ? 0 ( !-@)AB&''! C 0 0E 0 5F5 G H G5II J 5 ;00K 3L M 0 : =0N 0 5 P Q N= qrsltuvwxyltqngzsyvumj{jlmgzsvhzlwulx|}uyt~zvu Attachment E ERB AIS 2 097 !"#$%$&'()*+))',-.$')+(/,$($01-.$#)234563789:;<=>=?@A<B ! C"@A=D=E"@FGC"@;<=A@HB"IJK"L "@A=""@MC!N" nopiqrstuviqnkdwpvsrjgxgijdwpsewitriuyzrvq{wsr Attachment E ERB AIS 2 098 July 23, Special LCSB Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF DISCLOSURE DISCUSSION – Ross Cunniff: Before we dive into the action items, I wanted to do a little [garbled) I I think all the board members got a copy of the e-mail, hopefully had a chance to see it from Katie with the city attorney's recommendations. Ross Cunniff: I want to disclose that I am a donor to some of the organizations that are planning to, or hoping to have wildlife, rehab and education on that site. But I don't think it affects my impartiality. So I just want to be aware of that. If you have any concerns, let me know. Elena Lopez: Well I do obviously. So yeah. So as you know, I've been working on the, the Hughes issue since 2000...probably 16 [2016], when it was ﬁrst announced that, CSU was going to, knock the stadium down and do something with that land. But with regard to my activity now, it's been very much scaled back. I don't have a ton of time to do much. I worked until 3 a.m. last night, just as an example. I'll probably do the same tonight. So I'm not an elector on the petition this time and not, I didn't collect ant signatures. I was a petitioner. I'm not a spokesperson per se. Even though I’ve been quoted in the Coloradoan, I get it. A lot of people have been quoted. They just selected my quotes. What can I say? We don't have any spokespeople associated with the Hughes. It's very, very, grassroots driven and very, sort of um decentralized. So, I would not call myself a representative per se. But I do I have worked on that issue for a long time. Ross Cunniff: disclosure is the key thing. The city code talks about, ﬁnancial conﬂict, which doesn't sound like either of our conﬂicts are really ﬁnancial. There's a personal conﬂict which has to be unusually unusual. And unlike that of general public. So it's up to each member then to decide for that second one, usually whether it ﬁts Elena Lopez: right in as a, as a, member of a nonproﬁt or a leader of a nonproﬁt. Ross Cunniff: Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't apply. But I thought it was important to get the disclosure [garbled]. Elena Lopez: Yeah, yeah. For sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Ross Cunniff: Yeah. Any other disclosures? Jennifer Gooden: I think we're also to disclose if we collected signatures for petitions. I did not for the Hughes area, but I collected petitions for other natural areas. Attachment ERB AIS 099 Ross Cunniff: If we if it comes up to a disclosure on Yes for natural areas, if we're going to make a recommendation on that, I would also disclose that I am a petition gatherer and a donor to the cause. But yeah, we'll get there again And, yeah, a few, quite a few of us were on that one. Scott Mason: I circulated petitions for, yes to natural areas, and I'm, I donated money to yes to natural areas, so I guess I'm disclosing that. Elena Lopez: Oh, and I do have in-kind donations to, to this current issue. Ross Cunniff: I think I may have donated to the original PATHS. Holger Kley: I gathered signatures for Yes to Natural Areas *Staff also believes that Mark Sears disclosed that he was collecting signatures for Yes to Natural Areas during this meeting, but it may have been later during discussion of the Civic Assembly proposal. Attachment ERB AIS 100 From:Katie Donahue To:Mary Boyts; Denise Culver; Elena Lopez; Emily Shingler; Holger Kley; Jennifer Gooden ; Julia Feder; Kelly Ohlson; Mark Sears; River Mizell; Ross Cunniff; Sarah Kane; Scott Mason; Tawnya Ernst; Tom Shoemaker Subject:RE: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:59:00 AM Attachments:image002.png Hi all, In preparation for upcoming LCSB action items related to the Hughes site and local ballot initiatives, Ross asked me to share the following summary of guidance we received from the City Attorney’s Office. This is intended to support transparency and help us all navigate questions of potential conflicts of interest or appearances of bias. Conflict of Interest Considerations While conflicts of interest are often thought of as financial, a Board member’s advocacy role in a current campaign can present a perceived or actual conflict—particularly if the Board is asked to make recommendations on the same topic. Under the Boards and Commissions Code of Conduct, members are expected to: Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and Recuse themselves from voting when they have a personal interest that could impair impartiality or undermine public trust. (See City Code §§ 2-568 and 2-569; City Charter Article IV, Section 9) Recommendations: If a Board member is currently involved in a campaign committee, they should publicly disclose that role during Board discussions. If that involvement is significant—e.g., campaign organizer, Attachment G ERB AIS 2 101 spokesperson, or ballot author—they should strongly consider recusing themselves from related votes to avoid any appearance of undue influence. This guidance is not aimed at any individual, and it’s not a legal mandate— it simply reflects our consistent approach to promoting integrity and public confidence, especially on high-profile or controversial issues. Petition Circulation and Advocacy Circulating petitions as a private citizen is not inherently a conflict. However, transparency remains key when advocacy overlaps with Board topics. Suggested Best Practices: Disclose recent or current advocacy during Board meetings when related issues arise. Consider recusal from voting if the level of advocacy could compromise impartiality (e.g., highly visible campaign role). Even where recusal is not required, disclosure helps the public understand where each member is coming from and reinforces trust in our work. See you all tonight, Katie Katie Donahue Pronouns: she/her/hers Director Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 970-416-8067 office Attachment G ERB AIS 2 102 From: Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:10 PM To: Denise Culver <drculver23@gmail.com>; Elena Lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Emily Shingler <eshingler@fcgov.com>; Holger Kley <Holger31@comcast.net>; Jennifer Gooden <fortcollins.jennifer.gooden@gmail.com>; Julia Feder <jfeder@fcgov.com>; Katie Donahue <kdonahue@fcgov.com>; Kelly Ohlson <kohlson@fcgov.com>; Mark Sears <MARKESEARS1@msn.com>; Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com>; River Mizell <rivermizell@gmail.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@gmail.com>; Sarah Kane <SKane@fcgov.com>; Scott Mason <scmason511@gmail.com>; Tawnya Ernst <ternst@fcgov.com>; Tom Shoemaker <shoemakertom1@gmail.com> Subject: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 All, The Agenda for next week’s Special Meeting of the LCSB is attached. For reference, the Board’s prior memorandums to City Council regarding Meadow Springs Ranch and the former Hughes Stadium site are included. As usual, the meeting will be hosted in person as well as Teams (see Teams details below) and an evening meal will be provided. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary Boyts Business Support III Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 1745 Hoffman Mill Rd. 970.221.6640 office mboyts@fcgov.com Attachment G ERB AIS 2 103 Microsoft Teams Need help?Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 288 149 839 970Passcode: qWnmft Dial in by phone +1 970-628-0892,,857769512# United States, Grand JunctionFind a local numberPhone conference ID: 857 769 512# For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN Attachment G ERB AIS 2 104 Sec. 2-577. -Additional ethical rules of conduct-Board or commission members. (a) In any action in which a member of a City board or commission ("member") declares a conflict of interest or is prohibited from participation pursuant to subsection (5) below, or for any other reason, such member shall not communicate to or attempt to influence such board or commission regarding such item, in any capacity, except that: (1) the member may communicate with said board or commission to protect a strictly personal interest, in the same or similar ways in which the public is permitted to communicate with the board or commission. (2) the member may prepare materials on behalf of another for a project in the normal course of business or operation, so long as the purpose of those materials is not directly and substantially related to advocacy before said member's board or commission. Those materials may be included in materials submitted by another to said member's board or commission so long as they fall within this exception. For illustrative purposes, such materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to architectural plans, technical studies, and engineering designs. (3) if a member is precluded from participating in or influencing the decision of their board or commission, they may request a variance from the limitations of this subsection from the City Council in the following circumstances, and in the following manner: a. The member must submit a request for a variance to the City Clerk on a form provided by the City Clerk for such purpose. b. The member must demonstrate that without the variance, they would suffer an exceptional hardship, and that no reasonable alternative exists that would allow for that hardship to be avoided or substantially mitigated; c. The City Council must act by resolution to approve or disapprove the requested variance. (4) This limitation does not apply to persons other than the member who are affiliated with that member's firm or entity, and such other persons, but not the member, may continue to work on the project and may advocate to such member's board or commission, provided that the member complies with the applicable requirements and limitations. (5) Additional limitations on participation. a. Attachment H ERB AIS 2 105 No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, who has participated or intends to participate as a member of the public, or on behalf of another person or entity, to provide input or public comment as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required (such as, for example, speaking at a neighborhood meeting for a development project or appearing at an administrative hearing for a project), is allowed to participate in that process in their role as a board or commission member. 1. In the event such input or public comment has been provided, or is expected to be provided, the commission member must promptly provide written notice to the City Clerk that they are required to refrain from participation in their role as a commission member in the City process or decision. 2. The commission member must also provide the required notice to the chair of the commission of which they are a member. b. The prohibitions and requirements of this subsection (5) apply whether or not a conflict of interest is presented or has been declared and are in addition to, and not in place of, the requirements applicable to any officer or employee in the event of a conflict of interest. c. No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, may provide input or public comment on behalf of that commission as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required, except as expressly authorized and directed by such commission. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 162, 2000, § 2, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 109, 2002, §§ 1-4, 8-20-02; Ord. No.145, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No.159, 2014, §§ 1-3, 11-18-14; Ord. No. 037, 2017, §§ 2, 3, 3-7-17; Ord. No. 167, 2017, § 2, 12-19-17; Ord. No. 057, 2020, § 2, 4-21-20; Ord. No. 072, 2021, §§ 2, 3, 7-20-21; Ord. No. 120,. 2023, § 3, 9-19-23) Sec. 2-579. -Board of ethics. (a) In order to assist the Council members and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board." (b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of the Review Board. (c) Attachment H ERB AIS 2 106 Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review Board shall be as follows: (1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Council members or board and commission members by any person; (2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members; (3) After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected board or commission concerning the same; and (4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City. (d) Inquiries and complaints shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) City Council inquiries. Any Council member may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Council member or board and commission member. a. In performing its review and investigation of any inquiry submitted in accordance with this Subsection (d)(1 ), the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its advisory opinion and recommendation. b. It is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public comment on an inquiry, although the Review Board may do so if it determines public input will assist the Board in its consideration of the inquiry. c. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. d. After consideration of an inquiry, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said advisory opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. e. Attachment H ERB AIS 2 107 Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (2) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Council member or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board or commission member named in the complaint, the City Council and the City Attorney. Each complaint shall name only one officer as its subject. b. The City Attorney shall periodically seek proposals and select and retain, after consultation with the Review Board, one or more qualified attorneys to review complaints filed against Councilmembers under this subsection (2) and determine whether the complaint warrants investigation in light of the applicable screening criteria and commonly known and documented facts and circumstances. Such review attorneys shall also function as investigators to develop the facts relevant to a complaint under investigation and interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. c. For a complaint against a board or commission member: i. The City Clerk shall schedule the complaint for consideration by the Review Board as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board will meet and consider the complaint within thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint. In the event extenuating circumstances arise in the scheduling and preparation for such meeting the Review Board shall meet to consider the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable. ii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for initial review of the complaint to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. iii. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the screening criteria set out in this subsection (d)(2)f below. If the Review Board Attachment H ERB AIS 2 108 determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council. iv. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d)(2)c hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. v. Prior to reaching a decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, however, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. vi. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. vii. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. d. For a complaint against a Councilmember: i. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the complaint, including a copy of the complaint and brief explanation of the review process, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint. ii. The City Attorney shall forward the complaint to a review attorney retained as described above in subsection (d)(2)b for review of the complaint. No more than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, subject to extenuating circumstances making delay reasonably necessary, the review attorney shall evaluate the complaint to determine whether it is sufficient and warrants investigation Attachment H ERB AIS 2 109 pursuant to the screening criteria set out in subsection (d)(2)f below. The review attorney shall promptly provide to the City Clerk and City Attorney for distribution to the Review Board a written determination of whether the complaint warrants further investigation, including a brief explanation of the decision. iii. The City Clerk shall send written notice to the complainant of the review attorney's determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the Council member named in the complaint, as well as the City Council and City Attorney. iv. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint does not warrant investigation, no further action will be taken on the complaint. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint warrants investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for investigation by the review attorney who completed the initial review or another retained review attorney, depending on availability and other related circumstances and considerations. v. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in their review and investigation of any complaint, the investigating attorney shall interview the complainant and all affected or interested Councilmembers to learn their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law, may interview such other persons as the investigating attorney reasonably believes may have relevant or useful information pertinent to the investigation, and may request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public that the investigating attorney considers reasonably necessary or helpful to the investigation or determination. In addition, the investigating attorney shall have the power as vested in the Review Board to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the investigating attorney may consider necessary to the investigation. vi. Upon completion of the investigation the reviewing attorney shall interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and, based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. vii. The City Clerk shall schedule the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint for consideration by the Review Board within thirty (30) working days after receipt, or, as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board shall meet to consider the determination and recommendations and render a formal Review Board opinion based upon the determination and in light of the recommendations, but shall not be bound to follow the recommendation made. Attachment H ERB AIS 2 110 viii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for consideration of the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint to the complainant, the Councilmember named in the complaint, and the City Council and City Attorney, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. The complaint and investigation attorney's determination and recommendations shall be provided with such notice and shall be available with the agenda for the meeting. ix. Prior to reaching a final decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, and the subject of the complaint an opportunity to present facts and argument related to the complaint. However, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. x. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. xi. Any Councilmember whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. e. Alternate Review Procedures. i. In the event multiple complaints are filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection that allege a related violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate) and are subject to investigation and a decision by the Review Board, such complaints shall not be considered by the regular Review Board but instead upon a determination that the complaints warrant investigation, shall be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaints. ii. In the event related complaints are filed naming five (5) or more Councilmembers and upon review it is determined that an investigation of complaints naming five (5) or more Councilmembers is warranted, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards or commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven member board. Said Board or commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the determination that further investigation is warranted is received by the City Clerk. Any board or commission member selected by the City Clerk who elects not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter Attachment H ERB AIS 2 111 select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in the applicable subsections of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. f. Screening criteria. The determination as to whether a complaint merits investigation and further action shall be made on the basis of one or more of the following considerations: i. The City Council has no jurisdiction over the individual(s) alleged to have violated the relevant ethics provision; ii. The alleged violation, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions; iii. The allegations of the complaint were previously asserted in another complaint that is already being considered or was resolved by the Review Board and/or City Council; iv. The alleged violation, even if true, is minor in nature and fails to justify the use of public resources to investigate or prosecute; v. The allegations of the complaint involve actions or events that occurred more than one (1) year prior to the date of the filing of the complaint and, due to the passage of time and the likely unavailability of evidence, witnesses, and witnesses' recollections, investigation and prosecution of the complaint will not justify the use of public resources, except that complaints based on conduct resulting in a criminal conviction (regardless of the type of plea entered) or entry into a plea agreement subject to a deferred prosecution, deferred judgment, or deferred sentencing agreement may be referred to an appropriate enforcement agency; vi. The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; vii. Attachment H ERB AIS 2 112 The alleged violation is unlikely to be proven by the required standard of preponderance of the evidence due to the evidence consisting of conflicting oral testimony and unverifiable statements; viii. The person who is the subject of the complaint has admitted wrongdoing and made or committed to make sufficient redress or remedy satisfactory to Review Board or City Council; ix. The matter has become or will become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a city official or will no longer be a city official prior to the conclusion of any consideration or investigation of the allegations in the complaint; x. The person who is the subject of the complaint previously obtained an advisory opinion under this code of ethics that identified the conduct as not being in violation of the code of ethics; or xi. The City Council has elected to refer the complaint to another agency with jurisdiction of the allegations of the complaint and such referral will better serve the public interest (e.g., law enforcement, district attorney, state or federal attorney general; or department of justice). (e) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Review Board. (g) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-576(a) (7). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Council member or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 17, 1993, 2-16-93; Ord. No. 64, 1993, 7-20-93; Ord. 132, 2001, § 2, 9- 18-01; Ord. No. 110, 2002, §§ 1-3, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 144, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No. 102, 2019, § 2, 9-3-19; Ord. No. 153, 2022, § 2, 1-17-23; Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, 9-19-23) Editor's note-Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, adopted Sept. 19, 2023, renumbered the former § 2-569 as § 2-579. Historical notations have been retained for reference purposes. Attachment H ERB AIS 2 113 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 3 September 30, 2025 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council – Ethics Review Board Carrie Daggett, City Attorney , Senior Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT -579(d)(2) of whether an ethics complaint filed on 28, 2025, by Nick Armstrong alleging that Scott Mason (Member), member of (LCSB), violated City Code Section 2-577, part A, subsections 1 and when, as a member of the LCSB, Mason voted in favor of a resolution recommending that the City Council Site Civic Assembly Process . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the Ethics Review Board (the Board) to complete the initial screening of an complaint filed by Nick Armstrong (Complainant) about the conduct of the Member filed with the City under City Code Section 2-579(d) (the Complaint, Attachment A), as described below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Board consider the allegations made in the Complaint and decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. The Board must use the screening criteria in City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)f to determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the Complaint. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)(a), “[a]ny person who believes that a Councilmember or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk . . . .” (emphasis added). After notice to the complaining party and the subject of the complaint(s), the Board then considers the complaint and whether to investigate. Background: The City convened the Civic Assembly to consider potential uses for the Hughes site that will contribute most effectively to Fort Collins’ long-term vitality and meet the requirements outlined in the 2021 ballot measure that rezoned the Hughes site to use the property for parks, recreation, open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration. On July 23, 2025, the LCSB, including the Member, met and discussed the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report. The minutes of the meeting are attached. According to the minutes, the following occurred: 114 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 5 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. On the same date, the LCSB submitted a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council “to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations.” A copy of the memorandum and Mayor Arndt’s response are included in Attachment B. The LCSB memo repeats the minutes excerpt above. Attachment B also includes the minutes of the July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting. The Member participated in a Healthy Democracy information committee (“Committee”). The Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing information gathered by the community survey and community guides during the Civic Assembly Process. According to the minutes, the Member did not declare a conflict of interest or recuse himself from the discussion or consideration of the motion described above. The Civic Assembly process culminated in City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 141, 2025, approved on September 2, 2025, which adopted the Civic Assembly’s recommendations about development and use of the Hughes site. On September 2, 2025, the Council also adopted Resolution 2025-082, which referred Ordinance No. 141, 2025 to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular general election. These actions were different from the LCSB recommendation. The Complaint: The Board will consider the Complaint filed with the City Clerk through the City’s online ethics complaint submittal form on August 28, 2025, by Complainant, a Fort Collins resident, against the Member. The Complaint alleges that the Member is also a member of a special interest group and that the Member’s action taken concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report constitutes an ethical violation of City Code Section “2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2.” The system that accepts ethics complaints does not allow complaining parties to submit attachments with their complaint. On September 23, 2025, Complainant confirmed in writing that he would like the Board to consider the following additional documents: • a document describing the Information Committee, the tasks assigned to the committee, and the information committee members. It is printed on Healthy Democracy letterhead and is marked as Attachment C; • a printout of a website called “Yes for Hughes Natural Area.” It is marked as Attachment D; • a printout of a site that is an article about civic assemblies. It is marked as Attachment E. On September 25, 2025, Complainant asked that other documents be considered as part of his complaint. One is a transcript of a discussion the LCSB had about disclosures during a special LCSB meeting that took place on July 23, 2025. The document is marked as Attachment F. Another document is a copy of an email to LCSB members that summarizes guidance Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director, received from the City Attorney’s Office. The document is marked as Attachment G. Attachment G was emailed to LCSB members midday on July 23, 2025. The following excerpts are from Mr. Armstrong’s August 28, 2025, Complaint: 115 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 5 The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. *** The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of “Friends of Hughes Natural Area”. *** The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. The Board Determination: The Board is required under the Code to evaluate the Complaint and determine by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint allegations. If the Board determines that the Complaint does not warrant investigation, the Board then directs staff to provide written notice to the Complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that notice is also sent to the subject of the Complaint and the City Council. In evaluating a complaint, the Board must consider screening criteria identified in City Code Section 2- 579(d)(2)f. A discussion of screening criteria relevant to the Complaint follows. Analysis of Relevant Screening Criteria 1) Jurisdiction The City Council has jurisdiction over the Member as he is an appointed member of the LCSB. 2) Whether Allegations Would, If True, Constitute a Violation: This screening criterion is intended to determine whether the Complaint alleges a violation that would, if true, constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions. In this case, the Complainant asserts that the Member violated City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2), which prohibits a board member from participating in any action where they have declared a conflict of interest. According to the LCSB meeting minutes, no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. LCSB members, including the Member, disclosed their personal involvement with “ballot issues that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions.” City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2) is not useful because no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. On their face, the allegations made in the Complaint and supporting documents do not, if true, constitute a violation of City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2). 116 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 5 According to the transcription of the LCSB discussion during the July 23, 2025, meeting, each member discussed their involvement with the “Hughes issue” and “Yes to Natural Areas.” See Attachment F. The question then becomes whether the Member had a personal interest in the action the LCSB took later the same evening about whether to recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site nor refer it to the ballot. Outline of Relevant Ethics Provisions Generally, the ethics provisions established by the City include City Charter Article IV, Section 9, and City Code Section 2-568. As a City officer under the ethics provisions, Member Mason is required to disclose upon discovery using the appropriate form any personal interest in a Board decision and to refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a City officer. The City Charter, Section 9(a)) defines the key term personal interest as “any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Related definitions in Code Section 2-568(a) include: Different in kind from that experienced by the general public means of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. Direct means resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. Benefit means an advantage or gain, while detriment means disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. Substantial means more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. Analysis According to the transcript marked as Attachment F, Member gathered signatures for “Yes to Natural Areas,” which is a matter different from the Hughes Issue. On its face, being involved in a petition process supporting Natural Areas tax dollars does not create a personal interest in the proposed use of the Hughes Stadium. The Board may determine that the Complaint concerning the Member does not warrant further investigation and notify the appropriate parties as described above. Or the Board may elect to investigate the Complaint at an upcoming meeting. If the Board decides to investigate, the Member must be given the opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its option and recommendation. The Complainant must be given the opportunity to present facts and argument in support of his complaint. And the ERB may request such additional information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. Any guidance Board members can provide about information they are interested in reviewing would be helpful. The Board has the power to compel by subpoena both witness testimony and production of documents they consider necessary to the investigation. 117 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 5 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Not applicable. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A. August 28, 2025, Armstrong Complaint B. One pdf document that includes August 14, 2025, letter from Mayor Arndt to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board; the July 23, 2025, Memorandum from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to City Council; and, July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting minutes C. Information Committee description on Healthy Democracy letterhead D. Yes for Hughes Natural Area website E. Online article about civic assemblies F. July 23, 2025, transcript of LCSB disclosures discussion G. July 23, 2025, email from Katie Donahue to LCSB members that summarizes guidance received from the City Attorney’s Office H. City Code Sections 2-577 and 579 118 From:Alchemer To:City Clerk Office Subject:[EXTERNAL] New Ethic Rules Violation Complaint Response Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:29:25 AM Page 1 Questions 1. Complainant Information Name: Nick Armstrong Address: 2238 Ballard Lane Phone: 9705813036 Email nick@wtfmarketing.com 2. Grounds for Complaint Name of alleged violator: Scott Mason Date(s) of alleged violation(s): 07/23/2025 Please describe in detail: 1) the rule, code, or state law you believe has been violated, and 2) the facts available to you or that you believe support your complaint that a violation(s) occurred. I'm writing in reference to the attached memo submitted by the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board to City Council concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report, retrieved from the City Council's email archive today, August 19. The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of "Friends of Hughes Natural Area". See: https://yes4hughesnaturalarea.com/civic-assembly The Civic Assembly Process was described as follows: "1) A democratic lottery selects Delegates for an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community and fully Attachment A ERB AIS 3 119 supported to participate. 2) A deliberative process allows the Delegates to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Rehashing for clarity: "an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Members of many Boards and organizations, including the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board, participated in the process as well. https://healthydemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025FoCo-Information-Committee-Google- Docs.pdf The claim that the Civic Assembly Process lacks merit because "[p]rescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas," is, kindly, nonsense and disingenous when a member of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board participated in the vetting and planning process where those concerns should have been voiced. To be clear: the "prescriptive uses" the Board objects to in the memo are well vetted because they were indicated by the ballot language approved by nearly 28,000 voters representing over 68% of the voting public in 2021. That ballot language reads, in part: "to use said property for parks, recreation, and open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration." The specific allotment of each use case is yet to be scoped. It does not appear in the final Civic Assembly report as "prescriptive" but rather as starting points for future scoping once the use cases of interest to the community have been identified and clarified. That was the explicit intent for the Civic Assembly Process and is clear from the thoughtfulness of the outcome. https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/blog/civic-assemblies-in-action-lessons-on- civic-engagement-from-fort-collins/ To ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust in the Boards and Commissions principles and processes, the City Council and the Boards and Commissions leadership should reaffirm the legitimacy of the Civic Assembly process and begin an investigation into this matter as a potential ethics violation by Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board. The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. Attachment A ERB AIS 3 120 Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com August 14, 2025 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board c/o Katie Donahue, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Cunniff and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with July 23, 2025 memorandum regarding Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution wherein you recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot. We also appreciate receiving the minutes of the July 23 special meeting wherein you discussed the topic at length before arriving at this recommendation. As you know, City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the resolution on Tuesday, August 19. We invite you to view the Council meeting that night in person at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., online on fcgov.com/fctv or via cable TV. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Attachment B ERB AIS 3 121 City Clerk’s Office 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295 - fax Boardsandcommissions@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Subject: Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution This memo is to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations. Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Attachment B ERB AIS 3 122 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Special Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road July 23, 2025 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Denise Culver, Member River Mizell, Member Mark Sears, Member Tom Shoemaker, Member Jennifer Gooden, Member 7 /23 /20 2 5 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LCSB: Denise Culver, Jennifer Gooden, River Mizell, Elena Lopez, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Ross Cunniff, Scott Mason, Holger Kley NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Matt Parker, Julia Feder, Elaine Calaba, Emily Shingler, Mary Boyts 3. AGENDA REVIEW: The Board agreed to change the order of the two Action Items. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Patricia Babbitt, Doug Henderson, Melissa Rosas, Diana Murphy 5. ACTION ITEMS Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report Discussion Prior to opening the discussion, LCSB members disclosed their personal involvement with ballot initiatives that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions. LCSB Question: The use of “development” in the draft resolution is causing questions regarding intent; is it meant to describe land use planning or the construction of buildings? Staff Answer: In this case, the term refers to the creation and implementation of the proposed land use. LCSB Question: Was the 60 acres of natural areas listed in the draft resolution derived from the Civic Assembly process or was staff involved? Staff Answer: It was a bit of both. Staff provided an FAQ document to the Civic Assembly delegates that broke that property into quadrants based on conditions and features, noting the ecological condition on the west side is more aligned with the existing natural area. The FAQs also provided a very rough estimate of ecological restoration costs. Council members requested some acreage limits for some of the proposed features, so those were added to the Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 123 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 2 draft resolution. LCSB Question: The draft resolution states not more than 60 acres for a natural area. How does that align with previous staff analysis? Staff Answer: NAD does not have a position on the resolution. Natural Areas can implement whatever City Council decides. LCSB Comment: Previous memos submitted by LCSB were not specific on acreage, just themes like connectivity and compatibility. LCSB Question: Please clarify the current repayment of COPS financing using half Natural Area Fund and half General Fund. Staff Answer: It was arranged that way for financial expediency using two fund codes; purely budgetary. The final uses by acreage will determine how much of each fund will be used to cover the cost. There won’t be any financial adjustment until the final acreages are determined, i.e. if NAD overpaid, the Natural Areas fund will be refunded. LCSB Comment: It should be based on valuation. There are some portions of the land that would probably be assessed at a higher value than others. Staff Response: The typical practice is that the entire parcel is appraised. Any given parcel might have widely varying conditions. In this case the site was valued at a single price and Council agreed to a simple acreage split. The initial purchase price was about $12.5M, and the full debt repayment will be about $14M. LCSB Comment: Primary concerns include final acreage and location of a natural area. The member would support staff’s decision on acreage and location, but the process for determining these seems sort of loose. Staff Response: Due to the lack of time for a full site drawing and vetting process, the resolution language is designed to give a general idea but it is not perfectly specific. NAD staff would weigh in during design discussions that the west side of the property adjacent to Maxwell would make the best habitat connectivity and trail connections. LCSB Comments: The bike park folks are interested in part of the land (west side) that has more drop in elevation; it sounds like there's conflict there. One of the stated reasons for the bike park community wanting Hughes is the elevation change. Staff Response: They have also stated they are willing to work with what makes sense for the other occupants (uses) of the parcel. LCSB Comment: Concern there may be no limit on expansion in the future if there aren't some hard numbers on percentages and acres. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 124 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 3 LCSB Comment: LCSB visited the site in 2023 and noted all of the wildlife, not just on the west side, but in general including vocalizing birds and vocalizing chorus frogs. There is potential conflict with wildlife on the west side. LCSB Question: Both the Civic Assembly report and Council Agenda Item Summary seem very vague on the retention pond area which includes the disc golf course. Will the retention pond remain and will Stormwater acquire it? Staff Answer: There's no plan for the city to change that stormwater feature at the moment, but language could be left open for potential future changes to community stormwater needs. Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the resolution would probably be under Parks management. LCSB Question: If that area was carved off and included the retention pond, sledding, the disc golf course and potentially part of the bike park, would that all be managed as a part of the Park area and paid for by Park fees? Staff Answer: City staff have stated throughout this process that there is no funding for design or implementation. Right now, they're just trying to identify a plan and the funding for implementation will follow. LCSB Question: How does that coincide with the proposed CCIP tax, that lists the $5 million for the bike park. Staff Answer: The Hughes site is just one area under consideration as part of the bike park feasibility study. The purpose of the proposed CCIP tax would be funding for a bike park somewhere in Fort Collins. If CCIP gets approved by the voters, then there would be dedicated funding for that. LCSB Question: Do you know anything about the bike park feasibility study; the status on when specific parcel information will be released? Staff Answer: During the work session discussion with Council it was stated the specific parcel locations are not likely to be released because they're not owned by the city; this is a similar practice to future NAD acquisitions. LCSB Question: Given that the impermeable surface of the parcel has changed significantly with the demolition of the stadium, has stormwater done a new study to determine the appropriate size for that pond? Staff Answer: NAD staff is not aware of any design study following demolition. The resolution is the initial vision of what uses might be realized on the property with comprehensive site planning with steps like public engagement and Tribal consultation to follow. LCSB Comment: It is concerning to have to make a decision on this with so many unknowns. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 125 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 4 LCSB Question: The High Plains Environmental Center did an ecological characterization study. Is it possible for us to get a hold of that? Was the study done in conjunction with Natural Areas? Staff Answer: The study was initiated by an Assembly delegate. NAD staff does not have a copy but can attempt to locate it in the Civic Assembly documents. LCSB Questions: There are several examples of trail connectivity between Parks and Natural Areas, any examples of where that connectivity between uses that was deliberately limited? Would the planning process include looking at the characterization of the site and identifying areas where a trail would not be appropriate? Staff Answer: The Civic Assembly did call out trail connections to Maxwell and Pineridge. Staff imagine that there would probably be a trail connection to Maxwell but that would be part of the comprehensive site planning process. NAD has an interdisciplinary review process to identify the most sustainable trail alignment and there might be a portion of the property where we would not invite public access. Adjoining natural areas are on-trail only. LCSB Comment: The resolution’s 35-acre limit on the bike park does not include parking, restrooms or other infrastructure; that would make it the biggest bike park in Colorado. Staff Response: That figure represents a limitation on bike features. Parking and other infrastructure planning would take into account all future uses on the property, not just the bike park features. LCSB Question: Dueling ballot measures is a big concern. Is it written down somewhere that the one with the most votes wins? Staff Answer: NAD staff received that information from the City Attorney’s Office. LCSB Question: The focus of the joint project between the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and the Northern Colorado Wildlife Center has changed from animal rehabilitation to education. Was that discussed and why did it change? Staff Answer: 20 people were trying to work in a tight time frame to come to language that they all understood and that is not overly prescriptive. Staff did not get the impression that it changes the nature of the proposal from the Conservation Campus partners. LCSB Comment: The resolution does not constrain Council to the original vision of the joint project. Staff Response: This is why LCSB is discussing, to provide feedback to Council on how language might be interpreted. LCSB Question: Has NAD looked at the impact of purchasing 60 acres on the department budget? Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 126 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 5 Staff Answer: The purchase price is in the ballpark of what the department has been spending per year on property acquisition. Staff discussion is framed around opportunity cost. We can project that there would be enough funds to pay for the entire 164 acres out of the Natural Areas fund, but the tradeoffs would come in properties that NAD would not be able purchase. LCSB Question: The City’s 2023 Financial Report stated a NAD balance of $23 million. Please clarify how much is spent per year for land conservation. Staff Answer: The $23 million was a specific snapshot from 2023 and is not an accurate accounting of current funds. Staff believe if our sales tax projections come through there will be sufficient funds to complete the purchase for any acreage directed by Council. NAD typically budgets $5 to $7 million in spending depending on what sales are finalized. LCSB Question: There's opportunity cost also in not purchasing land locally. Does staff think costs are going to go up in town? Staff Answer: The NA ballot language is structured to account for the increasing cost of land and the NAD is focused on purchasing land earlier at lower cost. If Natural Areas covers the City’s $14 million commitment it would eliminate other purchasing opportunities. LCSB Question: Would NA be required to pay $14 million all at once? Staff Answer: None of the reconciliation process has been identified. If NAD was required to purchase the entire property it is likely the full debt service would be transferred to NAD rather quickly so it would have an immediate impact in that way. When General Fund or NA Fund that has already been spent would be reconciled, would be determined after the fact. LCSB Comment: Because of the uncertainty of dueling ballot measures, perceptions of meddling in the public dialogue, the inappropriateness of specifying acreages, and the mislabeling of the animal rehabilitation use as education, Council should not adopt this measure. LCSB Comment: There is opportunity for the LCSB to recommend implementation of wildlife coexistence features and the avoidance/mitigation of land uses that are disadvantageous to wildlife on portions of the property that would not be designated a natural area, such as lighting standards that would be compatible with Natural Areas management. There is room for negotiation between the most disadvantageous situation possible and an ideal situation. LCSB Comment: There will be time for weighing in on those things, perhaps in August or after the election. Noted parallels between spaces like Spring Canyon Park and natural areas – potential for creating policy around these transitions. LCSB Comment: Other possible topics to include would be reduction of habitat fragmentation and minimizing hardened surfaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 127 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 6 LCSB Question: Has anyone through this process discussed Indigenous protected areas? Staff Answer: There was a great deal of discussion about it and the Civic Assembly deliberately identified Indigenous engagement in how the site gets used and emphasized a gathering place. But they really tried to leave it up to the City to negotiate with Tribes in the local Indigenous community. Site planning would navigate different requests from the range of the indigenous community. LCSB Comment: The three PATHS founders are Indigenous Chicana and connection to the land is why they became involved in this effort ten years ago. The NAD engagement with indigenous groups is appreciated. Staff Response: The NAD hired an archaeologist. Staffing under the Equity and Inclusion Office has changed, but the City-wide Native American and Indigenous engagement and consultation effort will continue with a team be led by the Equity Office. There are regular open community meetings with the Indigenous community posted on the Equity Office calendar. There was a discussion about previous uses at the Hughes site and the development of city permitting for folks who request events onsite. LCSB Comment: The City has a good history of integrated planning, and there are good opportunities for integrated use on that site, so the member hates shutting the door on that. LCSB Comment: If the Yes for Hughes Natural Area does pass, it will determine one path, if it does not pass, the integrated site planning would occur. LCSB Comment: Member is not excited about this being decided by voters in the first place; does not support the civic process of design. They are not sure they could support a 35-acre bike park, but these park features could be designed with native vegetation to look and feel like a natural area. If this had been allowed to go through the regular civic planning process and be vetted fully, the community would be probably happy with the outcome. Perhaps that’s why Council is trying to put forward a juxtaposition of options. Not excited about the specifics that are available right now. LCSB Comment: As a person who has worked on this issue for years, don’t underestimate what the voters understand. At multiple listening sessions, participants knew what a natural area is, though there is some confusion about the difference between a natural area and open space. People know what they want and have asked for it over and over again. Connection to the adjacent natural areas is unique and the opportunity should be taken. The Civic Assembly process was fraught with problems; it was a black box. Comparing a 10-year community process to a brief Civic Assembly process, this has resulted in something extremely vague. There is too much vagueness and ambiguity. LCSB Comment: The Hughes site is a treasure. The Board’s direction should be making sure where there's ambiguity that the City errs on the side of maintaining current and future Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 128 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 7 ecological value. LCSB Comment: Concerned about being stuck between a rock and a hard place; there are opportunity costs, and significant differences in the conditions across the parcel. In the past, LCSB has written about encouraging certain uses and discouraging others. If the process had been able to follow the normal path, a good result might have been possible. High impact uses like a bike park are concerning, especially if it is regional scale. Additional traffic into the existing NAs could be impactful. Member feels that a bike park is not compatible. If Council is going to refer something to the ballot, this is the one chance for LCSB to make for the wording. Declining to endorse a second ballot initiative might give up the opportunity to weigh in on improving the language. LCSB Comment: Agree about weighing in on language. Agree that the City has done great work in the past. Assuming the planners will do the right thing. The Board could weigh in on ecological elements such as lighting, location of the bike park, etc. The Board could get more prescriptive about what to protect. LCSB Comment: If properly worded, a “no” recommendation could be useful to Council. Following the election, Council could come up with a more detailed plan or potential future ballot initiatives. Not sure how to rewrite the resolution, so suggesting falling back on principles. LCSB Comment: It would hard to be get to agreement on more detailed uses. The concept of the wildlife center has morphed over time. LCSB Comment: The Civic Assembly has some good ideas, but they are highly conceptual. The regular next step is for professionals to do more detailed design work; that does not seem feasible with the current timeframe. LCSB Comment: The opportunity afforded by the Hughes site is so unique, it should be done with a great deal of thought. The Board discussed potential wording of a motion and whether or not to include language around the competing ballot measures. They also discussed whether or not to separate the issues of the civic assembly recommendation and the referral to the ballot. They discussed how competing ballot issues have been presented to voters in the past and revisited concerns that the Board was unfamiliar with the applicable statute or legal process for determining a winner for competing ballots. LCSB Comment: A concern is that competing ballot measures could impact the outcome of other ballot initiatives related to Natural Areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 129 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 8 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Meadow Springs Ranch Conservation Discussion Chair Cunniff invited board discussion and feedback on the draft Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Conservation and Environmental Protection memo. The LCSB discussed edits and additions, including an executive summary. Staff reported that Utilities has drafted a memo on biosolids testing at MSR but because the One Water Director has been out of town she has not been able to sign and forward it to NAD staff. The board would like to include relevant information from the Utilities memo in their recommendation to Council. The board is concerned about PFAS and other possible contaminants on property that may be considered for future NAD acquisition or conservation easement. LCSB asked if it was possible for a voter approved deed restriction/conservation easement. Staff reported that the One Water Director is reluctant to propose any future use of MSR until Utilities has completed a comprehensive assessment. LCSB is considering a conservation easement on roughly 20-25% of the highest value habitat portions of MSR. LCSB would like Utilities to complete quick inventory/ecological assessment because of the concern of potential contaminants. LCSB noted Utilities Platinum accreditation from the National Biosolids Certified Management Program might be a process-based accreditation and not an outcome based one. Their recommendation to do soil sampling is to make sure that the processes that we're following are actually leading to the results that we're hoping to get. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 3 130 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 9 Black footed ferrets should be included in the memo; there are BFF operations on the east portion of MSR. The LCSB agreed to amend the draft memo and to consider it for adoption after further discussion during the regular August meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C 8/13/2025 Attachment B ERB AIS 3 131 Attachment B ERB AIS 3 132 Information Committee The Information Committee is a group of 12 Fort Collins residents who represent a diverse array of experience and opinion on this topic. The Information Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing the information gathered by the community survey and the Community Guides. They have nominated several background presenters, who will speak to you about the topic during your ﬁrst weekend together. The Information Committee is made up of: ● 4 members of City of Fort Collins Boards & Commissions ● 4 Community Guides ● 4 Community Members The Boards represented in the Information Committee were determined by City Staﬀ, after which members of each Board nominated a representative to join the Information Committee. Community Guides and community members were chosen at random, similar to how Delegates in the Assembly were chosen. Members of the Information Committee Name Role Anaya Echo-Hawk Community Guide Christina Swope Community Member Dawson Metcalf Natural Resources Advisory Board Holger Kley Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Logan Cummings Community Member Lorena Falcon Parks & Recreation Natalie (AJ) Omundson Community Guide Sam Milchak Youth Advisory Board Shirley Peel Community Guide Susan Baker Community Guide Vara Vissa Community Member Wyatt Reis Community Member healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • info@healthydemocracy.org Attachment C ERB AIS 3 133 Attachment C ERB AIS 3 134 )$*($#+$( ,- ./ 0 11 1.3 11/1 0 111 567'$ 1 1 ,48,2 0 12 ,- .01 9 0 1 1 1 .:;:< @ABCDEDFAGHIGHGJKLMNMOMPQRPRSTUVNSMTWXRTWYMSPZ[QNX\]ZSXSXY^]OZR_`Q_MNXORT_MWOZ`Q_MW_QbcQTMURdefSNMURTWgNQ_Md_hRdQTXMN`MWLfPZMX^gMTigRdMSTjkjl\ngMd_MWUSTRgNQoQfTWpaRT_RPQTSX_SdRd_RPRSTX_PNRXXNQQ_XdS_ScMTqWNS`MTrMsQdNRdaU_ZMtS_aZRWMW_QsQ`MoQNORNWOS_ZNMoMNNSTPR[RppQ_sMRXfNM_ZR_gNQsQ_MXuQovtQfTdSpsMs[MNXwQOTqSsgRd_UgM_gNQzMd_XoQNLfPZMX^gMTigRdM_ZR_fTWMNsSTM_ZMQNSPSTRpdQTXMN`R_SQTST_MT_Qo_dS_ScMTSTS_SR_S`M\mXsRTaST_ZMgf[pSdXfXgMd_MWU_ZMtS`SdmXXMs[paORXRTMngMTXS`MNfXMTWMW_QgNQsQ_M_ZMtS_awX{|}~{~€ {~‚|ƒ„€ƒ…†WMdMg_S`Mgf[pSdgNQdMXX\[paU‡ˆ‰Š‹‡Œˆ Ž‰ ‘ ’“Œ”•ˆ–Œ—‡˜”™ŠZRXNMsRSTMW_NRTXgRNMT_RTW_NfM_Q_ZM`SXSQT_ZR__ZsfTS_aZRXpQTPZMpWoQNLfPZMXqpRTWRTWOSpWpSoMdQTXMN`R_SQTOS_ZpQOqSsgRd_NMdNMR_SQTUTQTqfsg_S`MfXMXURTW_ZMR[XMTdMQo`SMOq[pQdšSTP[fSpWSTPXUoQN_ZM[MTMoS_Qom››sMs[MNXQoQfNsfTS_aRTWpQdRpOSpWpSoMœdQTXSX_MT_OS_ZQ_ZMNVQN_tQppSTXYR_fNRpmNMRXš\tQfTdSpwXNMoMNNMW[RppQ_sMRXfNMSX_ZMgNQWfd_QoRWf[SQfXgNQdMXX_ZR_gf_XgQpS_SdRpST_MNMX_XWQodQssfTS_a`QSdMX\mTWU_ZMtQfTdSpWSW_ZSXOS_ZRopSdšQoRgMTUNR_ZMN_ZRTOS_Z_ZMXRsMZš_ZR_QNPRTScMNXRTW`QpfT_MMNXST`MX_MW[adQppMd_STPžŸ| ¡€}¢¡QogM_S_SQTXSPTR_fNMXRTWMTPRP Attachment D ERB AIS 3 135 !"#$%&'() *+,-# -#./0-1), %234+5%)% .6%# (1)3!7-#. 35(&3!78 -39("4 :;)-&>B>CDEF>GHECIGJJ=DKGL>CDK?>E?>J>GHJDF>DMH=>JCNO>@IGA@ANO>ODFEDG>GHJDMH=>PQRP@QFEJ>WPUX=>JE?DEDJICJYIJODGJNA>?>ALZH=>[NHZ\JS[NBNO]JJ>FLCZW^I_`@E>?JDGMDOUJX?DUEJUEEHNGX_abc?>JNA>GHJDMdD?H[DCCNGJef^g>>JO?>>GJ=DHJL>CDKef<=NJNJK=IHH=>[NHZ[DUGONCIGAH=>HNDGJKIGHMD?H=>EULCNOCZ@DKG>APUX=>JDE>GJEIO>f Attachment D ERB AIS 3 136 !!"#$%&'()*+,)-.,/0.1,23 42 5%'6778+9:;<0+='6+>?@A0:96+2BCDCEFGHBIJKBLMNOPQKBRISTSGKONSBPUVWSXOGKQPHPQKBCYZ[\]F^_`aEbcUdFCE\UVbeUdbCV^UVW^aFfbUgbVdFEF^d^hbd]WFFaiaCfjFdFWY[VWFE^kwv mƒvpŽosysym ‘mƒo’mvsrqoto ‚ppm’“q…”ƒw mp‘mvŒ‘r m•mm„p–‡—˜ Attachment D ERB AIS 3 137 ! "#$% $ &'&( )! # *$+ Attachment D ERB AIS 3 138 ( )*+ ( '$ Attachment D ERB AIS 3 139 Attachment D ERB AIS 3 140 #&-56 Attachment E ERB AIS 3 141 !"#!"$$"%&'(')''* ' '+, - .'''*++ /0 )%+' '++' '0 1% + % *02'' )3-& ''* +& % /0 4 % ''*'* **+%% 3-0 ) *-&- ,250 %1,89 :8);<" $9= >=?)% & '0'+-*' %'* + % 1 *%& 1+,D %F*G1HD(% IJ ') K(1+C''E',N- )D'E++L)O('F %,HK-J%Q' Q1+*H''K4 R' J ')EL2C* %(% ' %1,J2P++ F(S 2 1+, ' %'* 4('( 4'* P(-* ' )4* %TU67'*'1 4+0'4(',%& $ !"Y??"XZ A[\][^_!"YY!)('*' 40(1+( 2a'*( (' '-(00 '` %'*',% & +0 '(' b ''* ++4'* '/0, %++(+%4(%'2C*' ''0(1+'* & 1+,2'*0 ''4G1'* 1-(%4'* 2G1 /0+ %*'* % +1-(''* defghijklmn'',0++,&+& %0+'+0 )%*'* +0&% 2 '++0 0+ 'q%-(%'*'* ’“” •–—˜™š •’ ˆ›”š—–Ž‹œ‹ Žˆ›”—‰› ˜– ™šž–š•Ÿ›—–£¤¥¦§¨©sª¥¦ Attachment E ERB AIS 3 142 !"#$!%&' (& "&)*)+,-!.&-!,&)/"! 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 5 6'&%*789)"(--! ')&'!%& "'0 5 = > 2 ? 0 ( !-@)AB&''! C 0 0E 0 5F5 G H G5II J 5 ;00K 3L M 0 : =0N 0 5 P Q N= qrsltuvwxyltqngzsyvumj{jlmgzsvhzlwulx|}uyt~zvu Attachment E ERB AIS 3 143 !"#$%$&'()*+))',-.$')+(/,$($01-.$#)234563789:;<=>=?@A<B ! C"@A=D=E"@FGC"@;<=A@HB"IJK"L "@A=""@MC!N" nopiqrstuviqnkdwpvsrjgxgijdwpsewitriuyzrvq{wsr Attachment E ERB AIS 3 144 July 23, Special LCSB Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF DISCLOSURE DISCUSSION – Ross Cunniff: Before we dive into the action items, I wanted to do a little [garbled) I I think all the board members got a copy of the e-mail, hopefully had a chance to see it from Katie with the city attorney's recommendations. Ross Cunniff: I want to disclose that I am a donor to some of the organizations that are planning to, or hoping to have wildlife, rehab and education on that site. But I don't think it affects my impartiality. So I just want to be aware of that. If you have any concerns, let me know. Elena Lopez: Well I do obviously. So yeah. So as you know, I've been working on the, the Hughes issue since 2000...probably 16 [2016], when it was ﬁrst announced that, CSU was going to, knock the stadium down and do something with that land. But with regard to my activity now, it's been very much scaled back. I don't have a ton of time to do much. I worked until 3 a.m. last night, just as an example. I'll probably do the same tonight. So I'm not an elector on the petition this time and not, I didn't collect ant signatures. I was a petitioner. I'm not a spokesperson per se. Even though I’ve been quoted in the Coloradoan, I get it. A lot of people have been quoted. They just selected my quotes. What can I say? We don't have any spokespeople associated with the Hughes. It's very, very, grassroots driven and very, sort of um decentralized. So, I would not call myself a representative per se. But I do I have worked on that issue for a long time. Ross Cunniff: disclosure is the key thing. The city code talks about, ﬁnancial conﬂict, which doesn't sound like either of our conﬂicts are really ﬁnancial. There's a personal conﬂict which has to be unusually unusual. And unlike that of general public. So it's up to each member then to decide for that second one, usually whether it ﬁts Elena Lopez: right in as a, as a, member of a nonproﬁt or a leader of a nonproﬁt. Ross Cunniff: Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't apply. But I thought it was important to get the disclosure [garbled]. Elena Lopez: Yeah, yeah. For sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Ross Cunniff: Yeah. Any other disclosures? Jennifer Gooden: I think we're also to disclose if we collected signatures for petitions. I did not for the Hughes area, but I collected petitions for other natural areas. Attachment F ERB AIS 3 145 Ross Cunniff: If we if it comes up to a disclosure on Yes for natural areas, if we're going to make a recommendation on that, I would also disclose that I am a petition gatherer and a donor to the cause. But yeah, we'll get there again And, yeah, a few, quite a few of us were on that one. Scott Mason: I circulated petitions for, yes to natural areas, and I'm, I donated money to yes to natural areas, so I guess I'm disclosing that. Elena Lopez: Oh, and I do have in-kind donations to, to this current issue. Ross Cunniff: I think I may have donated to the original PATHS. Holger Kley: I gathered signatures for Yes to Natural Areas *Staff also believes that Mark Sears disclosed that he was collecting signatures for Yes to Natural Areas during this meeting, but it may have been later during discussion of the Civic Assembly proposal. Attachment F ERB AIS 3 146 From:Katie Donahue To:Mary Boyts; Denise Culver; Elena Lopez; Emily Shingler; Holger Kley; Jennifer Gooden ; Julia Feder; Kelly Ohlson; Mark Sears; River Mizell; Ross Cunniff; Sarah Kane; Scott Mason; Tawnya Ernst; Tom Shoemaker Subject:RE: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:59:00 AM Attachments:image002.png Hi all, In preparation for upcoming LCSB action items related to the Hughes site and local ballot initiatives, Ross asked me to share the following summary of guidance we received from the City Attorney’s Office. This is intended to support transparency and help us all navigate questions of potential conflicts of interest or appearances of bias. Conflict of Interest Considerations While conflicts of interest are often thought of as financial, a Board member’s advocacy role in a current campaign can present a perceived or actual conflict—particularly if the Board is asked to make recommendations on the same topic. Under the Boards and Commissions Code of Conduct, members are expected to: Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and Recuse themselves from voting when they have a personal interest that could impair impartiality or undermine public trust. (See City Code §§ 2-568 and 2-569; City Charter Article IV, Section 9) Recommendations: If a Board member is currently involved in a campaign committee, they should publicly disclose that role during Board discussions. If that involvement is significant—e.g., campaign organizer, Attachment G ERB AIS 3 147 spokesperson, or ballot author—they should strongly consider recusing themselves from related votes to avoid any appearance of undue influence. This guidance is not aimed at any individual, and it’s not a legal mandate— it simply reflects our consistent approach to promoting integrity and public confidence, especially on high-profile or controversial issues. Petition Circulation and Advocacy Circulating petitions as a private citizen is not inherently a conflict. However, transparency remains key when advocacy overlaps with Board topics. Suggested Best Practices: Disclose recent or current advocacy during Board meetings when related issues arise. Consider recusal from voting if the level of advocacy could compromise impartiality (e.g., highly visible campaign role). Even where recusal is not required, disclosure helps the public understand where each member is coming from and reinforces trust in our work. See you all tonight, Katie Katie Donahue Pronouns: she/her/hers Director Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 970-416-8067 office Attachment G ERB AIS 3 148 From: Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:10 PM To: Denise Culver <drculver23@gmail.com>; Elena Lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Emily Shingler <eshingler@fcgov.com>; Holger Kley <Holger31@comcast.net>; Jennifer Gooden <fortcollins.jennifer.gooden@gmail.com>; Julia Feder <jfeder@fcgov.com>; Katie Donahue <kdonahue@fcgov.com>; Kelly Ohlson <kohlson@fcgov.com>; Mark Sears <MARKESEARS1@msn.com>; Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com>; River Mizell <rivermizell@gmail.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@gmail.com>; Sarah Kane <SKane@fcgov.com>; Scott Mason <scmason511@gmail.com>; Tawnya Ernst <ternst@fcgov.com>; Tom Shoemaker <shoemakertom1@gmail.com> Subject: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 All, The Agenda for next week’s Special Meeting of the LCSB is attached. For reference, the Board’s prior memorandums to City Council regarding Meadow Springs Ranch and the former Hughes Stadium site are included. As usual, the meeting will be hosted in person as well as Teams (see Teams details below) and an evening meal will be provided. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary Boyts Business Support III Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 1745 Hoffman Mill Rd. 970.221.6640 office mboyts@fcgov.com Attachment G ERB AIS 3 149 Microsoft Teams Need help?Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 288 149 839 970Passcode: qWnmft Dial in by phone +1 970-628-0892,,857769512# United States, Grand JunctionFind a local numberPhone conference ID: 857 769 512# For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN Attachment G ERB AIS 3 150 Sec. 2-577. -Additional ethical rules of conduct-Board or commission members. (a) In any action in which a member of a City board or commission ("member") declares a conflict of interest or is prohibited from participation pursuant to subsection (5) below, or for any other reason, such member shall not communicate to or attempt to influence such board or commission regarding such item, in any capacity, except that: (1) the member may communicate with said board or commission to protect a strictly personal interest, in the same or similar ways in which the public is permitted to communicate with the board or commission. (2) the member may prepare materials on behalf of another for a project in the normal course of business or operation, so long as the purpose of those materials is not directly and substantially related to advocacy before said member's board or commission. Those materials may be included in materials submitted by another to said member's board or commission so long as they fall within this exception. For illustrative purposes, such materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to architectural plans, technical studies, and engineering designs. (3) if a member is precluded from participating in or influencing the decision of their board or commission, they may request a variance from the limitations of this subsection from the City Council in the following circumstances, and in the following manner: a. The member must submit a request for a variance to the City Clerk on a form provided by the City Clerk for such purpose. b. The member must demonstrate that without the variance, they would suffer an exceptional hardship, and that no reasonable alternative exists that would allow for that hardship to be avoided or substantially mitigated; c. The City Council must act by resolution to approve or disapprove the requested variance. (4) This limitation does not apply to persons other than the member who are affiliated with that member's firm or entity, and such other persons, but not the member, may continue to work on the project and may advocate to such member's board or commission, provided that the member complies with the applicable requirements and limitations. (5) Additional limitations on participation. a. Attachment H ERB AIS 3 151 No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, who has participated or intends to participate as a member of the public, or on behalf of another person or entity, to provide input or public comment as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required (such as, for example, speaking at a neighborhood meeting for a development project or appearing at an administrative hearing for a project), is allowed to participate in that process in their role as a board or commission member. 1. In the event such input or public comment has been provided, or is expected to be provided, the commission member must promptly provide written notice to the City Clerk that they are required to refrain from participation in their role as a commission member in the City process or decision. 2. The commission member must also provide the required notice to the chair of the commission of which they are a member. b. The prohibitions and requirements of this subsection (5) apply whether or not a conflict of interest is presented or has been declared and are in addition to, and not in place of, the requirements applicable to any officer or employee in the event of a conflict of interest. c. No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, may provide input or public comment on behalf of that commission as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required, except as expressly authorized and directed by such commission. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 162, 2000, § 2, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 109, 2002, §§ 1-4, 8-20-02; Ord. No.145, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No.159, 2014, §§ 1-3, 11-18-14; Ord. No. 037, 2017, §§ 2, 3, 3-7-17; Ord. No. 167, 2017, § 2, 12-19-17; Ord. No. 057, 2020, § 2, 4-21-20; Ord. No. 072, 2021, §§ 2, 3, 7-20-21; Ord. No. 120,. 2023, § 3, 9-19-23) Sec. 2-579. -Board of ethics. (a) In order to assist the Council members and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board." (b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of the Review Board. (c) Attachment H ERB AIS 3 152 Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review Board shall be as follows: (1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Council members or board and commission members by any person; (2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members; (3) After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected board or commission concerning the same; and (4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City. (d) Inquiries and complaints shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) City Council inquiries. Any Council member may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Council member or board and commission member. a. In performing its review and investigation of any inquiry submitted in accordance with this Subsection (d)(1 ), the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its advisory opinion and recommendation. b. It is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public comment on an inquiry, although the Review Board may do so if it determines public input will assist the Board in its consideration of the inquiry. c. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. d. After consideration of an inquiry, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said advisory opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. e. Attachment H ERB AIS 3 153 Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (2) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Council member or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board or commission member named in the complaint, the City Council and the City Attorney. Each complaint shall name only one officer as its subject. b. The City Attorney shall periodically seek proposals and select and retain, after consultation with the Review Board, one or more qualified attorneys to review complaints filed against Councilmembers under this subsection (2) and determine whether the complaint warrants investigation in light of the applicable screening criteria and commonly known and documented facts and circumstances. Such review attorneys shall also function as investigators to develop the facts relevant to a complaint under investigation and interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. c. For a complaint against a board or commission member: i. The City Clerk shall schedule the complaint for consideration by the Review Board as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board will meet and consider the complaint within thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint. In the event extenuating circumstances arise in the scheduling and preparation for such meeting the Review Board shall meet to consider the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable. ii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for initial review of the complaint to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. iii. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the screening criteria set out in this subsection (d)(2)f below. If the Review Board Attachment H ERB AIS 3 154 determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council. iv. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d)(2)c hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. v. Prior to reaching a decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, however, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. vi. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. vii. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. d. For a complaint against a Councilmember: i. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the complaint, including a copy of the complaint and brief explanation of the review process, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint. ii. The City Attorney shall forward the complaint to a review attorney retained as described above in subsection (d)(2)b for review of the complaint. No more than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, subject to extenuating circumstances making delay reasonably necessary, the review attorney shall evaluate the complaint to determine whether it is sufficient and warrants investigation Attachment H ERB AIS 3 155 pursuant to the screening criteria set out in subsection (d)(2)f below. The review attorney shall promptly provide to the City Clerk and City Attorney for distribution to the Review Board a written determination of whether the complaint warrants further investigation, including a brief explanation of the decision. iii. The City Clerk shall send written notice to the complainant of the review attorney's determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the Council member named in the complaint, as well as the City Council and City Attorney. iv. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint does not warrant investigation, no further action will be taken on the complaint. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint warrants investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for investigation by the review attorney who completed the initial review or another retained review attorney, depending on availability and other related circumstances and considerations. v. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in their review and investigation of any complaint, the investigating attorney shall interview the complainant and all affected or interested Councilmembers to learn their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law, may interview such other persons as the investigating attorney reasonably believes may have relevant or useful information pertinent to the investigation, and may request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public that the investigating attorney considers reasonably necessary or helpful to the investigation or determination. In addition, the investigating attorney shall have the power as vested in the Review Board to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the investigating attorney may consider necessary to the investigation. vi. Upon completion of the investigation the reviewing attorney shall interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and, based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. vii. The City Clerk shall schedule the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint for consideration by the Review Board within thirty (30) working days after receipt, or, as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board shall meet to consider the determination and recommendations and render a formal Review Board opinion based upon the determination and in light of the recommendations, but shall not be bound to follow the recommendation made. Attachment H ERB AIS 3 156 viii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for consideration of the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint to the complainant, the Councilmember named in the complaint, and the City Council and City Attorney, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. The complaint and investigation attorney's determination and recommendations shall be provided with such notice and shall be available with the agenda for the meeting. ix. Prior to reaching a final decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, and the subject of the complaint an opportunity to present facts and argument related to the complaint. However, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. x. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. xi. Any Councilmember whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. e. Alternate Review Procedures. i. In the event multiple complaints are filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection that allege a related violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate) and are subject to investigation and a decision by the Review Board, such complaints shall not be considered by the regular Review Board but instead upon a determination that the complaints warrant investigation, shall be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaints. ii. In the event related complaints are filed naming five (5) or more Councilmembers and upon review it is determined that an investigation of complaints naming five (5) or more Councilmembers is warranted, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards or commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven member board. Said Board or commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the determination that further investigation is warranted is received by the City Clerk. Any board or commission member selected by the City Clerk who elects not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter Attachment H ERB AIS 3 157 select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in the applicable subsections of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. f. Screening criteria. The determination as to whether a complaint merits investigation and further action shall be made on the basis of one or more of the following considerations: i. The City Council has no jurisdiction over the individual(s) alleged to have violated the relevant ethics provision; ii. The alleged violation, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions; iii. The allegations of the complaint were previously asserted in another complaint that is already being considered or was resolved by the Review Board and/or City Council; iv. The alleged violation, even if true, is minor in nature and fails to justify the use of public resources to investigate or prosecute; v. The allegations of the complaint involve actions or events that occurred more than one (1) year prior to the date of the filing of the complaint and, due to the passage of time and the likely unavailability of evidence, witnesses, and witnesses' recollections, investigation and prosecution of the complaint will not justify the use of public resources, except that complaints based on conduct resulting in a criminal conviction (regardless of the type of plea entered) or entry into a plea agreement subject to a deferred prosecution, deferred judgment, or deferred sentencing agreement may be referred to an appropriate enforcement agency; vi. The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; vii. Attachment H ERB AIS 3 158 The alleged violation is unlikely to be proven by the required standard of preponderance of the evidence due to the evidence consisting of conflicting oral testimony and unverifiable statements; viii. The person who is the subject of the complaint has admitted wrongdoing and made or committed to make sufficient redress or remedy satisfactory to Review Board or City Council; ix. The matter has become or will become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a city official or will no longer be a city official prior to the conclusion of any consideration or investigation of the allegations in the complaint; x. The person who is the subject of the complaint previously obtained an advisory opinion under this code of ethics that identified the conduct as not being in violation of the code of ethics; or xi. The City Council has elected to refer the complaint to another agency with jurisdiction of the allegations of the complaint and such referral will better serve the public interest (e.g., law enforcement, district attorney, state or federal attorney general; or department of justice). (e) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Review Board. (g) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-576(a) (7). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Council member or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 17, 1993, 2-16-93; Ord. No. 64, 1993, 7-20-93; Ord. 132, 2001, § 2, 9- 18-01; Ord. No. 110, 2002, §§ 1-3, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 144, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No. 102, 2019, § 2, 9-3-19; Ord. No. 153, 2022, § 2, 1-17-23; Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, 9-19-23) Editor's note-Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, adopted Sept. 19, 2023, renumbered the former § 2-569 as § 2-579. Historical notations have been retained for reference purposes. Attachment H ERB AIS 3 159 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 4 September 30, 2025 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council – Ethics Review Board Carrie Daggett, City Attorney , Senior Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT -579(d)(2) of whether an ethics complaint filed on 28, 2025, by Nick Armstrong alleging that Mark Sears (Member), member of the Land Conservation (LCSB), violated City Code Section 2-577, part A, subsections 1 and 2 when, as a Sears voted in favor of a resolution recommending that the City Council not adopt Site Civic Assembly . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the Ethics Review Board (the Board) to complete the initial screening of an complaint filed by Nick Armstrong (Complainant) about the conduct of the Member filed with the City under City Code Section 2-579(d) (the Complaint, Attachment A), as described below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Board consider the allegations made in the Complaint and decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. The Board must use the screening criteria in City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)f to determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the Complaint. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)(a), “[a]ny person who believes that a Councilmember or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk . . . .” (emphasis added). After notice to the complaining party and the subject of the complaint(s), the Board then considers the complaint and whether to investigate. Background: The City convened the Civic Assembly to consider potential uses for the Hughes site that will contribute most effectively to Fort Collins’ long-term vitality and meet the requirements outlined in the 2021 ballot measure that rezoned the Hughes site to use the property for parks, recreation, open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration. On July 23, 2025, the LCSB, including the Member, met and discussed the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report. The minutes of the meeting are attached. According to the minutes, the following occurred: 160 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 5 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. On the same date, the LCSB submitted a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council “to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations.” A copy of the memorandum and Mayor Arndt’s response are included in Attachment B. The LCSB memo repeats the minutes excerpt above. Attachment B also includes the minutes of the July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting. According to the minutes, the Member did not declare a conflict of interest or recuse himself from the discussion or consideration of the motion described above. The Civic Assembly process culminated in City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 141, 2025, approved on September 2, 2025, which adopted the Civic Assembly’s recommendations about development and use of the Hughes site. On September 2, 2025, the Council also adopted Resolution 2025-082, which referred Ordinance No. 141, 2025 to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular general election. These actions diverged from the LCSB recommendation. The Complaint: The Board will consider the Complaint filed with the City Clerk through the City’s online ethics complaint submittal form on August 28, 2025, by Complainant, a Fort Collins resident, against the Member. The Complaint alleges that the Member is also a member of a special interest group and that the Member’s action taken concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report constitutes an ethical violation of City Code Section “2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2.” The system that accepts ethics complaints does not allow complaining parties to submit attachments with their complaint. On September 23, 2025, Complainant confirmed in writing that he would like the Board to consider the following additional documents: • a document describing the Information Committee, the tasks assigned to the committee, and the information committee members. It is printed on Healthy Democracy letterhead and is marked as Attachment C; • a printout of a website called “Yes for Hughes Natural Area.” It is marked as Attachment D; • a printout of a site that is an article about civic assemblies. It is marked as Attachment E. On September 25, 2025, Complainant asked that other documents be considered as part of his complaint. One is a transcript of a discussion the LCSB had about disclosures during a special LCSB meeting that took place on July 23, 2025. The document is marked as Attachment F. Another document is a copy of an email to LCSB members that summarizes guidance Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director, received from the City Attorney’s Office. The document is marked as Attachment G. Attachment G was emailed to LCSB members midday on July 23, 2025. The following excerpts are from Mr. Armstrong’s August 28, 2025, Complaint: The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. 161 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 5 *** The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of “Friends of Hughes Natural Area”. *** The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. The Board Determination: The Board is required under the Code to evaluate the Complaint and determine by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint allegations. If the Board determines that the Complaint does not warrant investigation, the Board then directs staff to provide written notice to the Complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that notice is also sent to the subject of the Complaint and the City Council. In evaluating a complaint, the Board must consider screening criteria identified in City Code Section 2- 579(d)(2)f. A discussion of screening criteria relevant to the Complaint follows. Analysis of Relevant Screening Criteria 1) Jurisdiction The City Council has jurisdiction over the Member as he is an appointed member of the LCSB. 2) Whether Allegations Would, If True, Constitute a Violation: This screening criterion is intended to determine whether the Complaint alleges a violation that would, if true, constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions. In this case, the Complainant asserts that the Member violated City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2), which prohibits a board member from participating in any action where they have declared a conflict of interest. According to the LCSB meeting minutes, no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. LCSB members, including the Member, disclosed their personal involvement with “ballot issues that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions.” City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2) is not useful because no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. On their face, the allegations made in the Complaint and supporting documents do not, if true, constitute a violation of City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2). According to the transcription of the LCSB discussion during the July 23, 2025, meeting, each member discussed their involvement with the “Hughes issue” and “Yes to Natural Areas.” See Attachment F. 162 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 5 The question then becomes whether the Member had a personal interest in the action the LCSB took later the same evening about whether to recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site nor refer it to the ballot. Outline of Relevant Ethics Provisions Generally, the ethics provisions established by the City include City Charter Article IV, Section 9, and City Code Section 2-568. As a City officer under the ethics provisions, Member Sears is required to disclose upon discovery using the appropriate form any personal interest in a Board decision and to refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a City officer. The City Charter, Section 9(a)) defines the key term personal interest as “any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Related definitions in Code Section 2-568(a) include: Different in kind from that experienced by the general public means of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. Direct means resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. Benefit means an advantage or gain, while detriment means disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. Substantial means more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. Analysis According to the transcript marked as Attachment F, Member did not disclose any interest he may have in any effort related to the Hughes issue or related to Natural Areas tax dollars. The Board may determine that the Complaint concerning the Member does not warrant further investigation and notify the appropriate parties as described above. Or the Board may elect to investigate the Complaint at an upcoming meeting. If the Board decides to investigate, the Member must be given the opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its option and recommendation. The Complainant must be given the opportunity to present facts and argument in support of his complaint. And the ERB may request such additional information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. Any guidance Board members can provide about information they are interested in reviewing would be helpful. The Board has the power to compel by subpoena both witness testimony and production of documents they consider necessary to the investigation. 163 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 5 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Not applicable. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A. August 28, 2025, Armstrong Complaint B. One pdf document that includes August 14, 2025, letter from Mayor Arndt to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board; the July 23, 2025, Memorandum from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to City Council; and, July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting minutes C. Information Committee description on Healthy Democracy letterhead D. Yes for Hughes Natural Area website E. Online article about civic assemblies F. July 23, 2025, transcript of LCSB disclosures discussion G. July 23, 2025, email from Katie Donahue to LCSB members that summarizes guidance received from the City Attorney’s Office H. City Code Sections 2-577 and 579 164 From:Alchemer To:City Clerk Office Subject:[EXTERNAL] New Ethic Rules Violation Complaint Response Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:29:49 AM Page 1 Questions 1. Complainant Information Name: Nick Armstrong Address: 2238 Ballard Lane Phone: 9705813036 Email nick@wtfmarketing.com 2. Grounds for Complaint Name of alleged violator: Mark Sears Date(s) of alleged violation(s): 07/23/2025 Please describe in detail: 1) the rule, code, or state law you believe has been violated, and 2) the facts available to you or that you believe support your complaint that a violation(s) occurred. I'm writing in reference to the attached memo submitted by the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board to City Council concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report, retrieved from the City Council's email archive today, August 19. The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of "Friends of Hughes Natural Area". See: https://yes4hughesnaturalarea.com/civic-assembly The Civic Assembly Process was described as follows: "1) A democratic lottery selects Delegates for an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community and fully Attachment A ERB AIS 4 165 supported to participate. 2) A deliberative process allows the Delegates to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Rehashing for clarity: "an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Members of many Boards and organizations, including the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board, participated in the process as well. https://healthydemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025FoCo-Information-Committee-Google- Docs.pdf The claim that the Civic Assembly Process lacks merit because "[p]rescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas," is, kindly, nonsense and disingenous when a member of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board participated in the vetting and planning process where those concerns should have been voiced. To be clear: the "prescriptive uses" the Board objects to in the memo are well vetted because they were indicated by the ballot language approved by nearly 28,000 voters representing over 68% of the voting public in 2021. That ballot language reads, in part: "to use said property for parks, recreation, and open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration." The specific allotment of each use case is yet to be scoped. It does not appear in the final Civic Assembly report as "prescriptive" but rather as starting points for future scoping once the use cases of interest to the community have been identified and clarified. That was the explicit intent for the Civic Assembly Process and is clear from the thoughtfulness of the outcome. https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/blog/civic-assemblies-in-action-lessons-on- civic-engagement-from-fort-collins/ To ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust in the Boards and Commissions principles and processes, the City Council and the Boards and Commissions leadership should reaffirm the legitimacy of the Civic Assembly process and begin an investigation into this matter as a potential ethics violation by Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board. The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. Attachment A ERB AIS 4 166 Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com August 14, 2025 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board c/o Katie Donahue, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Cunniff and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with July 23, 2025 memorandum regarding Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution wherein you recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot. We also appreciate receiving the minutes of the July 23 special meeting wherein you discussed the topic at length before arriving at this recommendation. As you know, City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the resolution on Tuesday, August 19. We invite you to view the Council meeting that night in person at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., online on fcgov.com/fctv or via cable TV. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Attachment B ERB AIS 4 167 City Clerk’s Office 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295 - fax Boardsandcommissions@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Subject: Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution This memo is to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations. Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Attachment B ERB AIS 4 168 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Special Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road July 23, 2025 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Denise Culver, Member River Mizell, Member Mark Sears, Member Tom Shoemaker, Member Jennifer Gooden, Member 7 /23 /20 2 5 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LCSB: Denise Culver, Jennifer Gooden, River Mizell, Elena Lopez, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Ross Cunniff, Scott Mason, Holger Kley NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Matt Parker, Julia Feder, Elaine Calaba, Emily Shingler, Mary Boyts 3. AGENDA REVIEW: The Board agreed to change the order of the two Action Items. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Patricia Babbitt, Doug Henderson, Melissa Rosas, Diana Murphy 5. ACTION ITEMS Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report Discussion Prior to opening the discussion, LCSB members disclosed their personal involvement with ballot initiatives that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions. LCSB Question: The use of “development” in the draft resolution is causing questions regarding intent; is it meant to describe land use planning or the construction of buildings? Staff Answer: In this case, the term refers to the creation and implementation of the proposed land use. LCSB Question: Was the 60 acres of natural areas listed in the draft resolution derived from the Civic Assembly process or was staff involved? Staff Answer: It was a bit of both. Staff provided an FAQ document to the Civic Assembly delegates that broke that property into quadrants based on conditions and features, noting the ecological condition on the west side is more aligned with the existing natural area. The FAQs also provided a very rough estimate of ecological restoration costs. Council members requested some acreage limits for some of the proposed features, so those were added to the Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 169 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 2 draft resolution. LCSB Question: The draft resolution states not more than 60 acres for a natural area. How does that align with previous staff analysis? Staff Answer: NAD does not have a position on the resolution. Natural Areas can implement whatever City Council decides. LCSB Comment: Previous memos submitted by LCSB were not specific on acreage, just themes like connectivity and compatibility. LCSB Question: Please clarify the current repayment of COPS financing using half Natural Area Fund and half General Fund. Staff Answer: It was arranged that way for financial expediency using two fund codes; purely budgetary. The final uses by acreage will determine how much of each fund will be used to cover the cost. There won’t be any financial adjustment until the final acreages are determined, i.e. if NAD overpaid, the Natural Areas fund will be refunded. LCSB Comment: It should be based on valuation. There are some portions of the land that would probably be assessed at a higher value than others. Staff Response: The typical practice is that the entire parcel is appraised. Any given parcel might have widely varying conditions. In this case the site was valued at a single price and Council agreed to a simple acreage split. The initial purchase price was about $12.5M, and the full debt repayment will be about $14M. LCSB Comment: Primary concerns include final acreage and location of a natural area. The member would support staff’s decision on acreage and location, but the process for determining these seems sort of loose. Staff Response: Due to the lack of time for a full site drawing and vetting process, the resolution language is designed to give a general idea but it is not perfectly specific. NAD staff would weigh in during design discussions that the west side of the property adjacent to Maxwell would make the best habitat connectivity and trail connections. LCSB Comments: The bike park folks are interested in part of the land (west side) that has more drop in elevation; it sounds like there's conflict there. One of the stated reasons for the bike park community wanting Hughes is the elevation change. Staff Response: They have also stated they are willing to work with what makes sense for the other occupants (uses) of the parcel. LCSB Comment: Concern there may be no limit on expansion in the future if there aren't some hard numbers on percentages and acres. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 170 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 3 LCSB Comment: LCSB visited the site in 2023 and noted all of the wildlife, not just on the west side, but in general including vocalizing birds and vocalizing chorus frogs. There is potential conflict with wildlife on the west side. LCSB Question: Both the Civic Assembly report and Council Agenda Item Summary seem very vague on the retention pond area which includes the disc golf course. Will the retention pond remain and will Stormwater acquire it? Staff Answer: There's no plan for the city to change that stormwater feature at the moment, but language could be left open for potential future changes to community stormwater needs. Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the resolution would probably be under Parks management. LCSB Question: If that area was carved off and included the retention pond, sledding, the disc golf course and potentially part of the bike park, would that all be managed as a part of the Park area and paid for by Park fees? Staff Answer: City staff have stated throughout this process that there is no funding for design or implementation. Right now, they're just trying to identify a plan and the funding for implementation will follow. LCSB Question: How does that coincide with the proposed CCIP tax, that lists the $5 million for the bike park. Staff Answer: The Hughes site is just one area under consideration as part of the bike park feasibility study. The purpose of the proposed CCIP tax would be funding for a bike park somewhere in Fort Collins. If CCIP gets approved by the voters, then there would be dedicated funding for that. LCSB Question: Do you know anything about the bike park feasibility study; the status on when specific parcel information will be released? Staff Answer: During the work session discussion with Council it was stated the specific parcel locations are not likely to be released because they're not owned by the city; this is a similar practice to future NAD acquisitions. LCSB Question: Given that the impermeable surface of the parcel has changed significantly with the demolition of the stadium, has stormwater done a new study to determine the appropriate size for that pond? Staff Answer: NAD staff is not aware of any design study following demolition. The resolution is the initial vision of what uses might be realized on the property with comprehensive site planning with steps like public engagement and Tribal consultation to follow. LCSB Comment: It is concerning to have to make a decision on this with so many unknowns. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 171 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 4 LCSB Question: The High Plains Environmental Center did an ecological characterization study. Is it possible for us to get a hold of that? Was the study done in conjunction with Natural Areas? Staff Answer: The study was initiated by an Assembly delegate. NAD staff does not have a copy but can attempt to locate it in the Civic Assembly documents. LCSB Questions: There are several examples of trail connectivity between Parks and Natural Areas, any examples of where that connectivity between uses that was deliberately limited? Would the planning process include looking at the characterization of the site and identifying areas where a trail would not be appropriate? Staff Answer: The Civic Assembly did call out trail connections to Maxwell and Pineridge. Staff imagine that there would probably be a trail connection to Maxwell but that would be part of the comprehensive site planning process. NAD has an interdisciplinary review process to identify the most sustainable trail alignment and there might be a portion of the property where we would not invite public access. Adjoining natural areas are on-trail only. LCSB Comment: The resolution’s 35-acre limit on the bike park does not include parking, restrooms or other infrastructure; that would make it the biggest bike park in Colorado. Staff Response: That figure represents a limitation on bike features. Parking and other infrastructure planning would take into account all future uses on the property, not just the bike park features. LCSB Question: Dueling ballot measures is a big concern. Is it written down somewhere that the one with the most votes wins? Staff Answer: NAD staff received that information from the City Attorney’s Office. LCSB Question: The focus of the joint project between the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and the Northern Colorado Wildlife Center has changed from animal rehabilitation to education. Was that discussed and why did it change? Staff Answer: 20 people were trying to work in a tight time frame to come to language that they all understood and that is not overly prescriptive. Staff did not get the impression that it changes the nature of the proposal from the Conservation Campus partners. LCSB Comment: The resolution does not constrain Council to the original vision of the joint project. Staff Response: This is why LCSB is discussing, to provide feedback to Council on how language might be interpreted. LCSB Question: Has NAD looked at the impact of purchasing 60 acres on the department budget? Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 172 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 5 Staff Answer: The purchase price is in the ballpark of what the department has been spending per year on property acquisition. Staff discussion is framed around opportunity cost. We can project that there would be enough funds to pay for the entire 164 acres out of the Natural Areas fund, but the tradeoffs would come in properties that NAD would not be able purchase. LCSB Question: The City’s 2023 Financial Report stated a NAD balance of $23 million. Please clarify how much is spent per year for land conservation. Staff Answer: The $23 million was a specific snapshot from 2023 and is not an accurate accounting of current funds. Staff believe if our sales tax projections come through there will be sufficient funds to complete the purchase for any acreage directed by Council. NAD typically budgets $5 to $7 million in spending depending on what sales are finalized. LCSB Question: There's opportunity cost also in not purchasing land locally. Does staff think costs are going to go up in town? Staff Answer: The NA ballot language is structured to account for the increasing cost of land and the NAD is focused on purchasing land earlier at lower cost. If Natural Areas covers the City’s $14 million commitment it would eliminate other purchasing opportunities. LCSB Question: Would NA be required to pay $14 million all at once? Staff Answer: None of the reconciliation process has been identified. If NAD was required to purchase the entire property it is likely the full debt service would be transferred to NAD rather quickly so it would have an immediate impact in that way. When General Fund or NA Fund that has already been spent would be reconciled, would be determined after the fact. LCSB Comment: Because of the uncertainty of dueling ballot measures, perceptions of meddling in the public dialogue, the inappropriateness of specifying acreages, and the mislabeling of the animal rehabilitation use as education, Council should not adopt this measure. LCSB Comment: There is opportunity for the LCSB to recommend implementation of wildlife coexistence features and the avoidance/mitigation of land uses that are disadvantageous to wildlife on portions of the property that would not be designated a natural area, such as lighting standards that would be compatible with Natural Areas management. There is room for negotiation between the most disadvantageous situation possible and an ideal situation. LCSB Comment: There will be time for weighing in on those things, perhaps in August or after the election. Noted parallels between spaces like Spring Canyon Park and natural areas – potential for creating policy around these transitions. LCSB Comment: Other possible topics to include would be reduction of habitat fragmentation and minimizing hardened surfaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 173 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 6 LCSB Question: Has anyone through this process discussed Indigenous protected areas? Staff Answer: There was a great deal of discussion about it and the Civic Assembly deliberately identified Indigenous engagement in how the site gets used and emphasized a gathering place. But they really tried to leave it up to the City to negotiate with Tribes in the local Indigenous community. Site planning would navigate different requests from the range of the indigenous community. LCSB Comment: The three PATHS founders are Indigenous Chicana and connection to the land is why they became involved in this effort ten years ago. The NAD engagement with indigenous groups is appreciated. Staff Response: The NAD hired an archaeologist. Staffing under the Equity and Inclusion Office has changed, but the City-wide Native American and Indigenous engagement and consultation effort will continue with a team be led by the Equity Office. There are regular open community meetings with the Indigenous community posted on the Equity Office calendar. There was a discussion about previous uses at the Hughes site and the development of city permitting for folks who request events onsite. LCSB Comment: The City has a good history of integrated planning, and there are good opportunities for integrated use on that site, so the member hates shutting the door on that. LCSB Comment: If the Yes for Hughes Natural Area does pass, it will determine one path, if it does not pass, the integrated site planning would occur. LCSB Comment: Member is not excited about this being decided by voters in the first place; does not support the civic process of design. They are not sure they could support a 35-acre bike park, but these park features could be designed with native vegetation to look and feel like a natural area. If this had been allowed to go through the regular civic planning process and be vetted fully, the community would be probably happy with the outcome. Perhaps that’s why Council is trying to put forward a juxtaposition of options. Not excited about the specifics that are available right now. LCSB Comment: As a person who has worked on this issue for years, don’t underestimate what the voters understand. At multiple listening sessions, participants knew what a natural area is, though there is some confusion about the difference between a natural area and open space. People know what they want and have asked for it over and over again. Connection to the adjacent natural areas is unique and the opportunity should be taken. The Civic Assembly process was fraught with problems; it was a black box. Comparing a 10-year community process to a brief Civic Assembly process, this has resulted in something extremely vague. There is too much vagueness and ambiguity. LCSB Comment: The Hughes site is a treasure. The Board’s direction should be making sure where there's ambiguity that the City errs on the side of maintaining current and future Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 174 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 7 ecological value. LCSB Comment: Concerned about being stuck between a rock and a hard place; there are opportunity costs, and significant differences in the conditions across the parcel. In the past, LCSB has written about encouraging certain uses and discouraging others. If the process had been able to follow the normal path, a good result might have been possible. High impact uses like a bike park are concerning, especially if it is regional scale. Additional traffic into the existing NAs could be impactful. Member feels that a bike park is not compatible. If Council is going to refer something to the ballot, this is the one chance for LCSB to make for the wording. Declining to endorse a second ballot initiative might give up the opportunity to weigh in on improving the language. LCSB Comment: Agree about weighing in on language. Agree that the City has done great work in the past. Assuming the planners will do the right thing. The Board could weigh in on ecological elements such as lighting, location of the bike park, etc. The Board could get more prescriptive about what to protect. LCSB Comment: If properly worded, a “no” recommendation could be useful to Council. Following the election, Council could come up with a more detailed plan or potential future ballot initiatives. Not sure how to rewrite the resolution, so suggesting falling back on principles. LCSB Comment: It would hard to be get to agreement on more detailed uses. The concept of the wildlife center has morphed over time. LCSB Comment: The Civic Assembly has some good ideas, but they are highly conceptual. The regular next step is for professionals to do more detailed design work; that does not seem feasible with the current timeframe. LCSB Comment: The opportunity afforded by the Hughes site is so unique, it should be done with a great deal of thought. The Board discussed potential wording of a motion and whether or not to include language around the competing ballot measures. They also discussed whether or not to separate the issues of the civic assembly recommendation and the referral to the ballot. They discussed how competing ballot issues have been presented to voters in the past and revisited concerns that the Board was unfamiliar with the applicable statute or legal process for determining a winner for competing ballots. LCSB Comment: A concern is that competing ballot measures could impact the outcome of other ballot initiatives related to Natural Areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 175 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 8 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Meadow Springs Ranch Conservation Discussion Chair Cunniff invited board discussion and feedback on the draft Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Conservation and Environmental Protection memo. The LCSB discussed edits and additions, including an executive summary. Staff reported that Utilities has drafted a memo on biosolids testing at MSR but because the One Water Director has been out of town she has not been able to sign and forward it to NAD staff. The board would like to include relevant information from the Utilities memo in their recommendation to Council. The board is concerned about PFAS and other possible contaminants on property that may be considered for future NAD acquisition or conservation easement. LCSB asked if it was possible for a voter approved deed restriction/conservation easement. Staff reported that the One Water Director is reluctant to propose any future use of MSR until Utilities has completed a comprehensive assessment. LCSB is considering a conservation easement on roughly 20-25% of the highest value habitat portions of MSR. LCSB would like Utilities to complete quick inventory/ecological assessment because of the concern of potential contaminants. LCSB noted Utilities Platinum accreditation from the National Biosolids Certified Management Program might be a process-based accreditation and not an outcome based one. Their recommendation to do soil sampling is to make sure that the processes that we're following are actually leading to the results that we're hoping to get. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 4 176 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 9 Black footed ferrets should be included in the memo; there are BFF operations on the east portion of MSR. The LCSB agreed to amend the draft memo and to consider it for adoption after further discussion during the regular August meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C 8/13/2025 Attachment B ERB AIS 4 177 Attachment B ERB AIS 4 178 Information Committee The Information Committee is a group of 12 Fort Collins residents who represent a diverse array of experience and opinion on this topic. The Information Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing the information gathered by the community survey and the Community Guides. They have nominated several background presenters, who will speak to you about the topic during your ﬁrst weekend together. The Information Committee is made up of: ● 4 members of City of Fort Collins Boards & Commissions ● 4 Community Guides ● 4 Community Members The Boards represented in the Information Committee were determined by City Staﬀ, after which members of each Board nominated a representative to join the Information Committee. Community Guides and community members were chosen at random, similar to how Delegates in the Assembly were chosen. Members of the Information Committee Name Role Anaya Echo-Hawk Community Guide Christina Swope Community Member Dawson Metcalf Natural Resources Advisory Board Holger Kley Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Logan Cummings Community Member Lorena Falcon Parks & Recreation Natalie (AJ) Omundson Community Guide Sam Milchak Youth Advisory Board Shirley Peel Community Guide Susan Baker Community Guide Vara Vissa Community Member Wyatt Reis Community Member healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • info@healthydemocracy.org Attachment C ERB AIS 4 179 Attachment C ERB AIS 4 180 )$*($#+$( ,- ./ 0 11 1.3 11/1 0 111 567'$ 1 1 ,48,2 0 12 ,- .01 9 0 1 1 1 .:;:< @ABCDEDFAGHIGHGJKLMNMOMPQRPRSTUVNSMTWXRTWYMSPZ[QNX\]ZSXSXY^]OZR_`Q_MNXORT_MWOZ`Q_MW_QbcQTMURdefSNMURTWgNQ_Md_hRdQTXMN`MWLfPZMX^gMTigRdMSTjkjl\ngMd_MWUSTRgNQoQfTWpaRT_RPQTSX_SdRd_RPRSTX_PNRXXNQQ_XdS_ScMTqWNS`MTrMsQdNRdaU_ZMtS_aZRWMW_QsQ`MoQNORNWOS_ZNMoMNNSTPR[RppQ_sMRXfNM_ZR_gNQsQ_MXuQovtQfTdSpsMs[MNXwQOTqSsgRd_UgM_gNQzMd_XoQNLfPZMX^gMTigRdM_ZR_fTWMNsSTM_ZMQNSPSTRpdQTXMN`R_SQTST_MT_Qo_dS_ScMTSTS_SR_S`M\mXsRTaST_ZMgf[pSdXfXgMd_MWU_ZMtS`SdmXXMs[paORXRTMngMTXS`MNfXMTWMW_QgNQsQ_M_ZMtS_awX{|}~{~€ {~‚|ƒ„€ƒ…†WMdMg_S`Mgf[pSdgNQdMXX\[paU‡ˆ‰Š‹‡Œˆ Ž‰ ‘ ’“Œ”•ˆ–Œ—‡˜”™ŠZRXNMsRSTMW_NRTXgRNMT_RTW_NfM_Q_ZM`SXSQT_ZR__ZsfTS_aZRXpQTPZMpWoQNLfPZMXqpRTWRTWOSpWpSoMdQTXMN`R_SQTOS_ZpQOqSsgRd_NMdNMR_SQTUTQTqfsg_S`MfXMXURTW_ZMR[XMTdMQo`SMOq[pQdšSTP[fSpWSTPXUoQN_ZM[MTMoS_Qom››sMs[MNXQoQfNsfTS_aRTWpQdRpOSpWpSoMœdQTXSX_MT_OS_ZQ_ZMNVQN_tQppSTXYR_fNRpmNMRXš\tQfTdSpwXNMoMNNMW[RppQ_sMRXfNMSX_ZMgNQWfd_QoRWf[SQfXgNQdMXX_ZR_gf_XgQpS_SdRpST_MNMX_XWQodQssfTS_a`QSdMX\mTWU_ZMtQfTdSpWSW_ZSXOS_ZRopSdšQoRgMTUNR_ZMN_ZRTOS_Z_ZMXRsMZš_ZR_QNPRTScMNXRTW`QpfT_MMNXST`MX_MW[adQppMd_STPžŸ| ¡€}¢¡QogM_S_SQTXSPTR_fNMXRTWMTPRP Attachment D ERB AIS 4 181 !"#$%&'() *+,-# -#./0-1), %234+5%)% .6%# (1)3!7-#. 35(&3!78 -39("4 :;)-&>B>CDEF>GHECIGJJ=DKGL>CDK?>E?>J>GHJDF>DMH=>JCNO>@IGA@ANO>ODFEDG>GHJDMH=>PQRP@QFEJ>WPUX=>JE?DEDJICJYIJODGJNA>?>ALZH=>[NHZ\JS[NBNO]JJ>FLCZW^I_`@E>?JDGMDOUJX?DUEJUEEHNGX_abc?>JNA>GHJDMdD?H[DCCNGJef^g>>JO?>>GJ=DHJL>CDKef<=NJNJK=IHH=>[NHZ[DUGONCIGAH=>HNDGJKIGHMD?H=>EULCNOCZ@DKG>APUX=>JDE>GJEIO>f Attachment D ERB AIS 4 182 !!"#$%&'()*+,)-.,/0.1,23 42 5%'6778+9:;<0+='6+>?@A0:96+2BCDCEFGHBIJKBLMNOPQKBRISTSGKONSBPUVWSXOGKQPHPQKBCYZ[\]F^_`aEbcUdFCE\UVbeUdbCV^UVW^aFfbUgbVdFEF^d^hbd]WFFaiaCfjFdFWY[VWFE^kwv mƒvpŽosysym ‘mƒo’mvsrqoto ‚ppm’“q…”ƒw mp‘mvŒ‘r m•mm„p–‡—˜ Attachment D ERB AIS 4 183 ! "#$% $ &'&( )! # *$+ Attachment D ERB AIS 4 184 ( )*+ ( '$ Attachment D ERB AIS 4 185 Attachment D ERB AIS 4 186 #&-56 Attachment E ERB AIS 4 187 !"#!"$$"%&'(')''* ' '+, - .'''*++ /0 )%+' '++' '0 1% + % *02'' )3-& ''* +& % /0 4 % ''*'* **+%% 3-0 ) *-&- ,250 %1,89 :8);<" $9= >=?)% & '0'+-*' %'* + % 1 *%& 1+,D %F*G1HD(% IJ ') K(1+C''E',N- )D'E++L)O('F %,HK-J%Q' Q1+*H''K4 R' J ')EL2C* %(% ' %1,J2P++ F(S 2 1+, ' %'* 4('( 4'* P(-* ' )4* %TU67'*'1 4+0'4(',%& $ !"Y??"XZ A[\][^_!"YY!)('*' 40(1+( 2a'*( (' '-(00 '` %'*',% & +0 '(' b ''* ++4'* '/0, %++(+%4(%'2C*' ''0(1+'* & 1+,2'*0 ''4G1'* 1-(%4'* 2G1 /0+ %*'* % +1-(''* defghijklmn'',0++,&+& %0+'+0 )%*'* +0&% 2 '++0 0+ 'q%-(%'*'* ’“” •–—˜™š •’ ˆ›”š—–Ž‹œ‹ Žˆ›”—‰› ˜– ™šž–š•Ÿ›—–£¤¥¦§¨©sª¥¦ Attachment E ERB AIS 4 188 !"#$!%&' (& "&)*)+,-!.&-!,&)/"! 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 5 6'&%*789)"(--! ')&'!%& "'0 5 = > 2 ? 0 ( !-@)AB&''! C 0 0E 0 5F5 G H G5II J 5 ;00K 3L M 0 : =0N 0 5 P Q N= qrsltuvwxyltqngzsyvumj{jlmgzsvhzlwulx|}uyt~zvu Attachment E ERB AIS 4 189 !"#$%$&'()*+))',-.$')+(/,$($01-.$#)234563789:;<=>=?@A<B ! C"@A=D=E"@FGC"@;<=A@HB"IJK"L "@A=""@MC!N" nopiqrstuviqnkdwpvsrjgxgijdwpsewitriuyzrvq{wsr Attachment E ERB AIS 4 190 July 23, Special LCSB Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF DISCLOSURE DISCUSSION – Ross Cunniff: Before we dive into the action items, I wanted to do a little [garbled) I I think all the board members got a copy of the e-mail, hopefully had a chance to see it from Katie with the city attorney's recommendations. Ross Cunniff: I want to disclose that I am a donor to some of the organizations that are planning to, or hoping to have wildlife, rehab and education on that site. But I don't think it affects my impartiality. So I just want to be aware of that. If you have any concerns, let me know. Elena Lopez: Well I do obviously. So yeah. So as you know, I've been working on the, the Hughes issue since 2000...probably 16 [2016], when it was ﬁrst announced that, CSU was going to, knock the stadium down and do something with that land. But with regard to my activity now, it's been very much scaled back. I don't have a ton of time to do much. I worked until 3 a.m. last night, just as an example. I'll probably do the same tonight. So I'm not an elector on the petition this time and not, I didn't collect ant signatures. I was a petitioner. I'm not a spokesperson per se. Even though I’ve been quoted in the Coloradoan, I get it. A lot of people have been quoted. They just selected my quotes. What can I say? We don't have any spokespeople associated with the Hughes. It's very, very, grassroots driven and very, sort of um decentralized. So, I would not call myself a representative per se. But I do I have worked on that issue for a long time. Ross Cunniff: disclosure is the key thing. The city code talks about, ﬁnancial conﬂict, which doesn't sound like either of our conﬂicts are really ﬁnancial. There's a personal conﬂict which has to be unusually unusual. And unlike that of general public. So it's up to each member then to decide for that second one, usually whether it ﬁts Elena Lopez: right in as a, as a, member of a nonproﬁt or a leader of a nonproﬁt. Ross Cunniff: Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't apply. But I thought it was important to get the disclosure [garbled]. Elena Lopez: Yeah, yeah. For sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Ross Cunniff: Yeah. Any other disclosures? Jennifer Gooden: I think we're also to disclose if we collected signatures for petitions. I did not for the Hughes area, but I collected petitions for other natural areas. Attachment F ERB AIS 4 191 Ross Cunniff: If we if it comes up to a disclosure on Yes for natural areas, if we're going to make a recommendation on that, I would also disclose that I am a petition gatherer and a donor to the cause. But yeah, we'll get there again And, yeah, a few, quite a few of us were on that one. Scott Mason: I circulated petitions for, yes to natural areas, and I'm, I donated money to yes to natural areas, so I guess I'm disclosing that. Elena Lopez: Oh, and I do have in-kind donations to, to this current issue. Ross Cunniff: I think I may have donated to the original PATHS. Holger Kley: I gathered signatures for Yes to Natural Areas *Staff also believes that Mark Sears disclosed that he was collecting signatures for Yes to Natural Areas during this meeting, but it may have been later during discussion of the Civic Assembly proposal. Attachment F ERB AIS 4 192 From:Katie Donahue To:Mary Boyts; Denise Culver; Elena Lopez; Emily Shingler; Holger Kley; Jennifer Gooden ; Julia Feder; Kelly Ohlson; Mark Sears; River Mizell; Ross Cunniff; Sarah Kane; Scott Mason; Tawnya Ernst; Tom Shoemaker Subject:RE: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:59:00 AM Attachments:image002.png Hi all, In preparation for upcoming LCSB action items related to the Hughes site and local ballot initiatives, Ross asked me to share the following summary of guidance we received from the City Attorney’s Office. This is intended to support transparency and help us all navigate questions of potential conflicts of interest or appearances of bias. Conflict of Interest Considerations While conflicts of interest are often thought of as financial, a Board member’s advocacy role in a current campaign can present a perceived or actual conflict—particularly if the Board is asked to make recommendations on the same topic. Under the Boards and Commissions Code of Conduct, members are expected to: Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and Recuse themselves from voting when they have a personal interest that could impair impartiality or undermine public trust. (See City Code §§ 2-568 and 2-569; City Charter Article IV, Section 9) Recommendations: If a Board member is currently involved in a campaign committee, they should publicly disclose that role during Board discussions. If that involvement is significant—e.g., campaign organizer, Attachment G ERB AIS 4 193 spokesperson, or ballot author—they should strongly consider recusing themselves from related votes to avoid any appearance of undue influence. This guidance is not aimed at any individual, and it’s not a legal mandate— it simply reflects our consistent approach to promoting integrity and public confidence, especially on high-profile or controversial issues. Petition Circulation and Advocacy Circulating petitions as a private citizen is not inherently a conflict. However, transparency remains key when advocacy overlaps with Board topics. Suggested Best Practices: Disclose recent or current advocacy during Board meetings when related issues arise. Consider recusal from voting if the level of advocacy could compromise impartiality (e.g., highly visible campaign role). Even where recusal is not required, disclosure helps the public understand where each member is coming from and reinforces trust in our work. See you all tonight, Katie Katie Donahue Pronouns: she/her/hers Director Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 970-416-8067 office Attachment G ERB AIS 4 194 From: Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:10 PM To: Denise Culver <drculver23@gmail.com>; Elena Lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Emily Shingler <eshingler@fcgov.com>; Holger Kley <Holger31@comcast.net>; Jennifer Gooden <fortcollins.jennifer.gooden@gmail.com>; Julia Feder <jfeder@fcgov.com>; Katie Donahue <kdonahue@fcgov.com>; Kelly Ohlson <kohlson@fcgov.com>; Mark Sears <MARKESEARS1@msn.com>; Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com>; River Mizell <rivermizell@gmail.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@gmail.com>; Sarah Kane <SKane@fcgov.com>; Scott Mason <scmason511@gmail.com>; Tawnya Ernst <ternst@fcgov.com>; Tom Shoemaker <shoemakertom1@gmail.com> Subject: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 All, The Agenda for next week’s Special Meeting of the LCSB is attached. For reference, the Board’s prior memorandums to City Council regarding Meadow Springs Ranch and the former Hughes Stadium site are included. As usual, the meeting will be hosted in person as well as Teams (see Teams details below) and an evening meal will be provided. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary Boyts Business Support III Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 1745 Hoffman Mill Rd. 970.221.6640 office mboyts@fcgov.com Attachment G ERB AIS 4 195 Microsoft Teams Need help?Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 288 149 839 970Passcode: qWnmft Dial in by phone +1 970-628-0892,,857769512# United States, Grand JunctionFind a local numberPhone conference ID: 857 769 512# For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN Attachment G ERB AIS 4 196 Sec. 2-577. -Additional ethical rules of conduct-Board or commission members. (a) In any action in which a member of a City board or commission ("member") declares a conflict of interest or is prohibited from participation pursuant to subsection (5) below, or for any other reason, such member shall not communicate to or attempt to influence such board or commission regarding such item, in any capacity, except that: (1) the member may communicate with said board or commission to protect a strictly personal interest, in the same or similar ways in which the public is permitted to communicate with the board or commission. (2) the member may prepare materials on behalf of another for a project in the normal course of business or operation, so long as the purpose of those materials is not directly and substantially related to advocacy before said member's board or commission. Those materials may be included in materials submitted by another to said member's board or commission so long as they fall within this exception. For illustrative purposes, such materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to architectural plans, technical studies, and engineering designs. (3) if a member is precluded from participating in or influencing the decision of their board or commission, they may request a variance from the limitations of this subsection from the City Council in the following circumstances, and in the following manner: a. The member must submit a request for a variance to the City Clerk on a form provided by the City Clerk for such purpose. b. The member must demonstrate that without the variance, they would suffer an exceptional hardship, and that no reasonable alternative exists that would allow for that hardship to be avoided or substantially mitigated; c. The City Council must act by resolution to approve or disapprove the requested variance. (4) This limitation does not apply to persons other than the member who are affiliated with that member's firm or entity, and such other persons, but not the member, may continue to work on the project and may advocate to such member's board or commission, provided that the member complies with the applicable requirements and limitations. (5) Additional limitations on participation. a. Attachment H ERB AIS 4 197 No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, who has participated or intends to participate as a member of the public, or on behalf of another person or entity, to provide input or public comment as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required (such as, for example, speaking at a neighborhood meeting for a development project or appearing at an administrative hearing for a project), is allowed to participate in that process in their role as a board or commission member. 1. In the event such input or public comment has been provided, or is expected to be provided, the commission member must promptly provide written notice to the City Clerk that they are required to refrain from participation in their role as a commission member in the City process or decision. 2. The commission member must also provide the required notice to the chair of the commission of which they are a member. b. The prohibitions and requirements of this subsection (5) apply whether or not a conflict of interest is presented or has been declared and are in addition to, and not in place of, the requirements applicable to any officer or employee in the event of a conflict of interest. c. No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, may provide input or public comment on behalf of that commission as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required, except as expressly authorized and directed by such commission. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 162, 2000, § 2, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 109, 2002, §§ 1-4, 8-20-02; Ord. No.145, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No.159, 2014, §§ 1-3, 11-18-14; Ord. No. 037, 2017, §§ 2, 3, 3-7-17; Ord. No. 167, 2017, § 2, 12-19-17; Ord. No. 057, 2020, § 2, 4-21-20; Ord. No. 072, 2021, §§ 2, 3, 7-20-21; Ord. No. 120,. 2023, § 3, 9-19-23) Sec. 2-579. -Board of ethics. (a) In order to assist the Council members and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board." (b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of the Review Board. (c) Attachment H ERB AIS 4 198 Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review Board shall be as follows: (1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Council members or board and commission members by any person; (2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members; (3) After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected board or commission concerning the same; and (4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City. (d) Inquiries and complaints shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) City Council inquiries. Any Council member may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Council member or board and commission member. a. In performing its review and investigation of any inquiry submitted in accordance with this Subsection (d)(1 ), the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its advisory opinion and recommendation. b. It is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public comment on an inquiry, although the Review Board may do so if it determines public input will assist the Board in its consideration of the inquiry. c. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. d. After consideration of an inquiry, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said advisory opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. e. Attachment H ERB AIS 4 199 Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (2) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Council member or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board or commission member named in the complaint, the City Council and the City Attorney. Each complaint shall name only one officer as its subject. b. The City Attorney shall periodically seek proposals and select and retain, after consultation with the Review Board, one or more qualified attorneys to review complaints filed against Councilmembers under this subsection (2) and determine whether the complaint warrants investigation in light of the applicable screening criteria and commonly known and documented facts and circumstances. Such review attorneys shall also function as investigators to develop the facts relevant to a complaint under investigation and interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. c. For a complaint against a board or commission member: i. The City Clerk shall schedule the complaint for consideration by the Review Board as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board will meet and consider the complaint within thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint. In the event extenuating circumstances arise in the scheduling and preparation for such meeting the Review Board shall meet to consider the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable. ii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for initial review of the complaint to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. iii. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the screening criteria set out in this subsection (d)(2)f below. If the Review Board Attachment H ERB AIS 4 200 determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council. iv. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d)(2)c hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. v. Prior to reaching a decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, however, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. vi. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. vii. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. d. For a complaint against a Councilmember: i. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the complaint, including a copy of the complaint and brief explanation of the review process, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint. ii. The City Attorney shall forward the complaint to a review attorney retained as described above in subsection (d)(2)b for review of the complaint. No more than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, subject to extenuating circumstances making delay reasonably necessary, the review attorney shall evaluate the complaint to determine whether it is sufficient and warrants investigation Attachment H ERB AIS 4 201 pursuant to the screening criteria set out in subsection (d)(2)f below. The review attorney shall promptly provide to the City Clerk and City Attorney for distribution to the Review Board a written determination of whether the complaint warrants further investigation, including a brief explanation of the decision. iii. The City Clerk shall send written notice to the complainant of the review attorney's determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the Council member named in the complaint, as well as the City Council and City Attorney. iv. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint does not warrant investigation, no further action will be taken on the complaint. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint warrants investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for investigation by the review attorney who completed the initial review or another retained review attorney, depending on availability and other related circumstances and considerations. v. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in their review and investigation of any complaint, the investigating attorney shall interview the complainant and all affected or interested Councilmembers to learn their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law, may interview such other persons as the investigating attorney reasonably believes may have relevant or useful information pertinent to the investigation, and may request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public that the investigating attorney considers reasonably necessary or helpful to the investigation or determination. In addition, the investigating attorney shall have the power as vested in the Review Board to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the investigating attorney may consider necessary to the investigation. vi. Upon completion of the investigation the reviewing attorney shall interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and, based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. vii. The City Clerk shall schedule the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint for consideration by the Review Board within thirty (30) working days after receipt, or, as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board shall meet to consider the determination and recommendations and render a formal Review Board opinion based upon the determination and in light of the recommendations, but shall not be bound to follow the recommendation made. Attachment H ERB AIS 4 202 viii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for consideration of the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint to the complainant, the Councilmember named in the complaint, and the City Council and City Attorney, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. The complaint and investigation attorney's determination and recommendations shall be provided with such notice and shall be available with the agenda for the meeting. ix. Prior to reaching a final decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, and the subject of the complaint an opportunity to present facts and argument related to the complaint. However, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. x. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. xi. Any Councilmember whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. e. Alternate Review Procedures. i. In the event multiple complaints are filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection that allege a related violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate) and are subject to investigation and a decision by the Review Board, such complaints shall not be considered by the regular Review Board but instead upon a determination that the complaints warrant investigation, shall be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaints. ii. In the event related complaints are filed naming five (5) or more Councilmembers and upon review it is determined that an investigation of complaints naming five (5) or more Councilmembers is warranted, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards or commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven member board. Said Board or commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the determination that further investigation is warranted is received by the City Clerk. Any board or commission member selected by the City Clerk who elects not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter Attachment H ERB AIS 4 203 select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in the applicable subsections of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. f. Screening criteria. The determination as to whether a complaint merits investigation and further action shall be made on the basis of one or more of the following considerations: i. The City Council has no jurisdiction over the individual(s) alleged to have violated the relevant ethics provision; ii. The alleged violation, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions; iii. The allegations of the complaint were previously asserted in another complaint that is already being considered or was resolved by the Review Board and/or City Council; iv. The alleged violation, even if true, is minor in nature and fails to justify the use of public resources to investigate or prosecute; v. The allegations of the complaint involve actions or events that occurred more than one (1) year prior to the date of the filing of the complaint and, due to the passage of time and the likely unavailability of evidence, witnesses, and witnesses' recollections, investigation and prosecution of the complaint will not justify the use of public resources, except that complaints based on conduct resulting in a criminal conviction (regardless of the type of plea entered) or entry into a plea agreement subject to a deferred prosecution, deferred judgment, or deferred sentencing agreement may be referred to an appropriate enforcement agency; vi. The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; vii. Attachment H ERB AIS 4 204 The alleged violation is unlikely to be proven by the required standard of preponderance of the evidence due to the evidence consisting of conflicting oral testimony and unverifiable statements; viii. The person who is the subject of the complaint has admitted wrongdoing and made or committed to make sufficient redress or remedy satisfactory to Review Board or City Council; ix. The matter has become or will become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a city official or will no longer be a city official prior to the conclusion of any consideration or investigation of the allegations in the complaint; x. The person who is the subject of the complaint previously obtained an advisory opinion under this code of ethics that identified the conduct as not being in violation of the code of ethics; or xi. The City Council has elected to refer the complaint to another agency with jurisdiction of the allegations of the complaint and such referral will better serve the public interest (e.g., law enforcement, district attorney, state or federal attorney general; or department of justice). (e) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Review Board. (g) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-576(a) (7). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Council member or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 17, 1993, 2-16-93; Ord. No. 64, 1993, 7-20-93; Ord. 132, 2001, § 2, 9- 18-01; Ord. No. 110, 2002, §§ 1-3, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 144, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No. 102, 2019, § 2, 9-3-19; Ord. No. 153, 2022, § 2, 1-17-23; Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, 9-19-23) Editor's note-Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, adopted Sept. 19, 2023, renumbered the former § 2-569 as § 2-579. Historical notations have been retained for reference purposes. Attachment H ERB AIS 4 205 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 5 September 30, 2025 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council – Ethics Review Board Carrie Daggett, City Attorney , Senior Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT -579(d)(2) of whether an ethics complaint filed on 28, 2025, by Nick Armstrong alleging that Elena Lopez (Member), member of (LCSB), violated City Code Section 2-577, part A, subsections 1 and when, as a member of the LCSB, Lopez voted in favor of a resolution recommending that the City Council Site Civic Assembly Process ssembly). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the Ethics Review Board (the Board) to complete the initial screening of an complaint filed by Nick Armstrong (Complainant) about the conduct of the Member filed with the City under City Code Section 2-579(d) (the Complaint), Attachment A, as described below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the Board consider the allegations made in the Complaint and relevant records and decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. The Board must use the screening criteria in City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)f to determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the Complaint. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under City Code Section 2-579(d)(2)(a), “[a]ny person who believes that a Councilmember or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk . . . .” (emphasis added). After notice to the complaining party and the subject of the complaint(s), the Board then considers the complaint and whether to investigate. Background: The City convened the Civic Assembly to consider potential uses for the Hughes site that will contribute most effectively to Fort Collins’ long-term vitality and meet the requirements outlined in the 2021 ballot measure that rezoned the Hughes site to use the property for parks, recreation, open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration. On July 23, 2025, the LCSB, including the Member, met and discussed the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report. The minutes of the meeting are attached. 000206 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 5 According to the minutes, the following occurred: Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. On the same date, the LCSB submitted a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council “to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations.” A copy of the memorandum and Mayor Arndt’s response are included in Attachment B. The LCSB memo repeats the minutes excerpt above. Attachment B also includes the minutes of the July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting. According to the minutes, the Member did not declare a conflict of interest or recuse herself from the discussion or consideration of the motion described above. The Civic Assembly process culminated in City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 141, 2025, approved on September 2, 2025, which adopted the Civic Assembly’s recommendations about development and use of the Hughes site. On September 2, 2025, the Council also adopted Resolution 2025-082, which referred Ordinance No. 141, 2025 to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular general election. These actions diverged from the LCSB recommendation. The Complaint: The Board will consider the Complaint filed with the City Clerk through the City’s online ethics complaint submittal form on August 28, 2025, by Complainant, a Fort Collins resident, against the Member. The Complaint alleges that the Member is also a member of a special interest group and that the Member’s action taken concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report constitutes an ethical violation of City Code Section “2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2.” The system that accepts ethics complaints does not allow complaining parties to submit attachments with their complaint. On September 23, 2025, Complainant confirmed in writing that he would like the Board to consider the following additional documents: • a document describing the Information Committee, the tasks assigned to the committee, and the information committee members. It is printed on Healthy Democracy letterhead and is marked as Attachment C. • a printout of a website “Yes for Hughes Natural Area.” It is marked as Attachment D. • a printout of a site that is an article about civic assemblies. It is marked as Attachment E. On September 25, 2025, Complainant asked that other documents be considered as part of his complaint. One is a transcript of a discussion the LCSB had about disclosures during a special LCSB meeting that took place on July 23, 2025. The document is marked as Attachment F. Another document is a copy of an email to LCSB members that summarizes guidance Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director, received from the City Attorney’s Office. The document is marked as Attachment G. Attachment G was emailed to LCSB members midday on July 23, 2025. The following excerpts are from Mr. Armstrong’s August 28, 2025, Complaint: The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the 000207 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 5 Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. *** The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of “Friends of Hughes Natural Area”. *** The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. The Board Determination: The Board is required under the Code to evaluate the Complaint and determine by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint allegations. If the Board determines that the Complaint does not warrant investigation, the Board then directs staff to provide written notice to the Complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that notice is also sent to the subject of the Complaint and the City Council. In evaluating a complaint, the Board must consider screening criteria identified in City Code Section 2- 579(d)(2)f. Analysis of Relevant Screening Criteria 1) Jurisdiction The City Council has jurisdiction over the Member as he is an appointed member of the LCSB. 2) Whether Allegations Would, If True, Constitute a Violation: This screening criterion is intended to determine whether the Complaint alleges a violation that would, if true, constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions. In this case, the Complainant asserts that the Member violated City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2), which prohibits a board member from participating in any action where they have declared a conflict of interest. According to the LCSB meeting minutes, no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. LCSB members, including the Member, disclosed their personal involvement with “ballot issues that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions.” City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2) is not useful because no LCSB member declared a conflict of interest. On their face, the allegations made in the Complaint and supporting documents do not, if true, constitute a violation of City Code Section 2-577(a)(1) and (2). According to the transcription of the LCSB discussion during the July 23, 2025, meeting, each member discussed their involvement with the “Hughes issue” and “Yes to Natural Areas.” See Attachment F. 000208 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 5 The question then becomes whether the Member had a personal interest in the action the LCSB took later the same evening about whether to recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site nor refer it to the ballot. Outline of Relevant Ethics Provisions Generally, the ethics provisions established by the City include City Charter Article IV, Section 9, and City Code Section 2-568. As a City officer under the ethics provisions, Member Kley is required to disclose upon discovery using the appropriate form any personal interest in a Board decision and to refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a City officer. The City Charter, Section 9(a)) defines the key term personal interest as “any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public. Related definitions in Code Section 2-568(a) include: Different in kind from that experienced by the general public means of a different type or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from that experienced by the public generally. Direct means resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not from an intervening cause. Benefit means an advantage or gain, while detriment means disadvantage, injury, damage or loss. Substantial means more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent. Analysis According to the transcript marked as Attachment F, Member’s statements about the details of her involvement with the Hughes issue are more difficult to interpret on their face. Member mentions that she has worked on the Hughes issue for a long time and later says her involvement has been “very much scaled back.” She mentions that she was a petitioner and says she didn’t collect signatures. Member also said that she has “in-kind donations to, to this current issue” but does not clarify which issue. The Board may determine that the Complaint concerning the Member does not warrant further investigation and notify the appropriate parties as described above. Or the Board may elect to investigate the Complaint at an upcoming meeting. If the Board decides to investigate, the Member must be given the opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its option and recommendation. The Complainant must be given the opportunity to present facts and argument in support of his complaint. And the ERB may request such additional information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. Any guidance or information Board members about information they are interested in reviewing would be helpful. The Board has the power to compel by subpoena both witness testimony and production of documents they consider necessary to the investigation. In this case, it may be that more information is needed about Member’s involvement in the Hughes issue to determine whether Member had a personal interest in the LCSB discussion and decision about whether to recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution about the Hughes site nor refer it to the ballot. 000209 City Council ERB Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 5 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Not applicable. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS A.August 28, 2025, Armstrong Complaint B.One pdf document that includes August 14, 2025, letter from Mayor Arndt to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, the July 23, 2025, Memorandum from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to City Council, and July 23, 2025, LCSB meeting minutes C.Information Committee description on Healthy Democracy letterhead D.Yes for Hughes Natural Area website E.Online article about civic assemblies F.July 23, 2025, transcript of LCSB disclosures discussion G.July 23, 2025, email from Katie Donahue to LCSB members that summarizes guidance received from the City Attorney’s Office H.City Code Sections 2-577 and 579 000210 From:Alchemer To:City Clerk Office Subject:[EXTERNAL] New Ethic Rules Violation Complaint Response Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:28:47 AM Page 1 Questions 1. Complainant Information Name: Nick Armstrong Address: 2238 Ballard Lane Phone: 9705813036 Email nick@wtfmarketing.com 2. Grounds for Complaint Name of alleged violator: Elena Lopez Date(s) of alleged violation(s): 07/23/2025 Please describe in detail: 1) the rule, code, or state law you believe has been violated, and 2) the facts available to you or that you believe support your complaint that a violation(s) occurred. I'm writing in reference to the attached memo submitted by the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board to City Council concerning the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report, retrieved from the City Council's email archive today, August 19. The actions of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board in the attached memo dated July 23, 2025, are deeply inappropriate and constitute a potential ethical breach by the Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board under City Code Sec. 2-577 part A subsection 1 and 2. The memo and motion read as an attempt by members of a special interest group also serving on the Board (who anonymously disclosed their conflict of interest in the memo) to re-write history and stage a coup against the representative will of the Fort Collins community in favor of an outcome more closely tailored to the particular interests of "Friends of Hughes Natural Area". See: https://yes4hughesnaturalarea.com/civic-assembly The Civic Assembly Process was described as follows: "1) A democratic lottery selects Delegates for an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community and fully Attachment A ERB AIS 5 000211 supported to participate. 2) A deliberative process allows the Delegates to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Rehashing for clarity: "an Assembly that is demographically representative of the community to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations." Members of many Boards and organizations, including the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board, participated in the process as well. https://healthydemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025FoCo-Information-Committee-Google- Docs.pdf The claim that the Civic Assembly Process lacks merit because "[p]rescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas," is, kindly, nonsense and disingenous when a member of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board participated in the vetting and planning process where those concerns should have been voiced. To be clear: the "prescriptive uses" the Board objects to in the memo are well vetted because they were indicated by the ballot language approved by nearly 28,000 voters representing over 68% of the voting public in 2021. That ballot language reads, in part: "to use said property for parks, recreation, and open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration." The specific allotment of each use case is yet to be scoped. It does not appear in the final Civic Assembly report as "prescriptive" but rather as starting points for future scoping once the use cases of interest to the community have been identified and clarified. That was the explicit intent for the Civic Assembly Process and is clear from the thoughtfulness of the outcome. https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/blog/civic-assemblies-in-action-lessons-on- civic-engagement-from-fort-collins/ To ensure accountability, transparency, and public trust in the Boards and Commissions principles and processes, the City Council and the Boards and Commissions leadership should reaffirm the legitimacy of the Civic Assembly process and begin an investigation into this matter as a potential ethics violation by Members of the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board. The memo and resolution therein constitute a potential ethical violation as well as a direct violation of the Guidelines for Board and Commission members, who are expected to behave according to the ethics guidelines starting on page 20 of the 2025 Boards and Commissions Handbook and should have recused themselves from any such motion or vote. Attachment A ERB AIS 5 000212 Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com August 14, 2025 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board c/o Katie Donahue, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Cunniff and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with July 23, 2025 memorandum regarding Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution wherein you recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot. We also appreciate receiving the minutes of the July 23 special meeting wherein you discussed the topic at length before arriving at this recommendation. As you know, City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the resolution on Tuesday, August 19. We invite you to view the Council meeting that night in person at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., online on fcgov.com/fctv or via cable TV. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000213 City Clerk’s Office 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295 - fax Boardsandcommissions@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Subject: Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution This memo is to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations. Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000214 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Special Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road July 23, 2025 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Denise Culver, Member River Mizell, Member Mark Sears, Member Tom Shoemaker, Member Jennifer Gooden, Member 7 /23 /20 2 5 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LCSB: Denise Culver, Jennifer Gooden, River Mizell, Elena Lopez, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Ross Cunniff, Scott Mason, Holger Kley NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Matt Parker, Julia Feder, Elaine Calaba, Emily Shingler, Mary Boyts 3. AGENDA REVIEW: The Board agreed to change the order of the two Action Items. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Patricia Babbitt, Doug Henderson, Melissa Rosas, Diana Murphy 5. ACTION ITEMS Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report Discussion Prior to opening the discussion, LCSB members disclosed their personal involvement with ballot initiatives that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions. LCSB Question: The use of “development” in the draft resolution is causing questions regarding intent; is it meant to describe land use planning or the construction of buildings? Staff Answer: In this case, the term refers to the creation and implementation of the proposed land use. LCSB Question: Was the 60 acres of natural areas listed in the draft resolution derived from the Civic Assembly process or was staff involved? Staff Answer: It was a bit of both. Staff provided an FAQ document to the Civic Assembly delegates that broke that property into quadrants based on conditions and features, noting the ecological condition on the west side is more aligned with the existing natural area. The FAQs also provided a very rough estimate of ecological restoration costs. Council members requested some acreage limits for some of the proposed features, so those were added to the Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000215 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 2 draft resolution. LCSB Question: The draft resolution states not more than 60 acres for a natural area. How does that align with previous staff analysis? Staff Answer: NAD does not have a position on the resolution. Natural Areas can implement whatever City Council decides. LCSB Comment: Previous memos submitted by LCSB were not specific on acreage, just themes like connectivity and compatibility. LCSB Question: Please clarify the current repayment of COPS financing using half Natural Area Fund and half General Fund. Staff Answer: It was arranged that way for financial expediency using two fund codes; purely budgetary. The final uses by acreage will determine how much of each fund will be used to cover the cost. There won’t be any financial adjustment until the final acreages are determined, i.e. if NAD overpaid, the Natural Areas fund will be refunded. LCSB Comment: It should be based on valuation. There are some portions of the land that would probably be assessed at a higher value than others. Staff Response: The typical practice is that the entire parcel is appraised. Any given parcel might have widely varying conditions. In this case the site was valued at a single price and Council agreed to a simple acreage split. The initial purchase price was about $12.5M, and the full debt repayment will be about $14M. LCSB Comment: Primary concerns include final acreage and location of a natural area. The member would support staff’s decision on acreage and location, but the process for determining these seems sort of loose. Staff Response: Due to the lack of time for a full site drawing and vetting process, the resolution language is designed to give a general idea but it is not perfectly specific. NAD staff would weigh in during design discussions that the west side of the property adjacent to Maxwell would make the best habitat connectivity and trail connections. LCSB Comments: The bike park folks are interested in part of the land (west side) that has more drop in elevation; it sounds like there's conflict there. One of the stated reasons for the bike park community wanting Hughes is the elevation change. Staff Response: They have also stated they are willing to work with what makes sense for the other occupants (uses) of the parcel. LCSB Comment: Concern there may be no limit on expansion in the future if there aren't some hard numbers on percentages and acres. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000216 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 3 LCSB Comment: LCSB visited the site in 2023 and noted all of the wildlife, not just on the west side, but in general including vocalizing birds and vocalizing chorus frogs. There is potential conflict with wildlife on the west side. LCSB Question: Both the Civic Assembly report and Council Agenda Item Summary seem very vague on the retention pond area which includes the disc golf course. Will the retention pond remain and will Stormwater acquire it? Staff Answer: There's no plan for the city to change that stormwater feature at the moment, but language could be left open for potential future changes to community stormwater needs. Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the resolution would probably be under Parks management. LCSB Question: If that area was carved off and included the retention pond, sledding, the disc golf course and potentially part of the bike park, would that all be managed as a part of the Park area and paid for by Park fees? Staff Answer: City staff have stated throughout this process that there is no funding for design or implementation. Right now, they're just trying to identify a plan and the funding for implementation will follow. LCSB Question: How does that coincide with the proposed CCIP tax, that lists the $5 million for the bike park. Staff Answer: The Hughes site is just one area under consideration as part of the bike park feasibility study. The purpose of the proposed CCIP tax would be funding for a bike park somewhere in Fort Collins. If CCIP gets approved by the voters, then there would be dedicated funding for that. LCSB Question: Do you know anything about the bike park feasibility study; the status on when specific parcel information will be released? Staff Answer: During the work session discussion with Council it was stated the specific parcel locations are not likely to be released because they're not owned by the city; this is a similar practice to future NAD acquisitions. LCSB Question: Given that the impermeable surface of the parcel has changed significantly with the demolition of the stadium, has stormwater done a new study to determine the appropriate size for that pond? Staff Answer: NAD staff is not aware of any design study following demolition. The resolution is the initial vision of what uses might be realized on the property with comprehensive site planning with steps like public engagement and Tribal consultation to follow. LCSB Comment: It is concerning to have to make a decision on this with so many unknowns. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000217 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 4 LCSB Question: The High Plains Environmental Center did an ecological characterization study. Is it possible for us to get a hold of that? Was the study done in conjunction with Natural Areas? Staff Answer: The study was initiated by an Assembly delegate. NAD staff does not have a copy but can attempt to locate it in the Civic Assembly documents. LCSB Questions: There are several examples of trail connectivity between Parks and Natural Areas, any examples of where that connectivity between uses that was deliberately limited? Would the planning process include looking at the characterization of the site and identifying areas where a trail would not be appropriate? Staff Answer: The Civic Assembly did call out trail connections to Maxwell and Pineridge. Staff imagine that there would probably be a trail connection to Maxwell but that would be part of the comprehensive site planning process. NAD has an interdisciplinary review process to identify the most sustainable trail alignment and there might be a portion of the property where we would not invite public access. Adjoining natural areas are on-trail only. LCSB Comment: The resolution’s 35-acre limit on the bike park does not include parking, restrooms or other infrastructure; that would make it the biggest bike park in Colorado. Staff Response: That figure represents a limitation on bike features. Parking and other infrastructure planning would take into account all future uses on the property, not just the bike park features. LCSB Question: Dueling ballot measures is a big concern. Is it written down somewhere that the one with the most votes wins? Staff Answer: NAD staff received that information from the City Attorney’s Office. LCSB Question: The focus of the joint project between the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and the Northern Colorado Wildlife Center has changed from animal rehabilitation to education. Was that discussed and why did it change? Staff Answer: 20 people were trying to work in a tight time frame to come to language that they all understood and that is not overly prescriptive. Staff did not get the impression that it changes the nature of the proposal from the Conservation Campus partners. LCSB Comment: The resolution does not constrain Council to the original vision of the joint project. Staff Response: This is why LCSB is discussing, to provide feedback to Council on how language might be interpreted. LCSB Question: Has NAD looked at the impact of purchasing 60 acres on the department budget? Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000218 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 5 Staff Answer: The purchase price is in the ballpark of what the department has been spending per year on property acquisition. Staff discussion is framed around opportunity cost. We can project that there would be enough funds to pay for the entire 164 acres out of the Natural Areas fund, but the tradeoffs would come in properties that NAD would not be able purchase. LCSB Question: The City’s 2023 Financial Report stated a NAD balance of $23 million. Please clarify how much is spent per year for land conservation. Staff Answer: The $23 million was a specific snapshot from 2023 and is not an accurate accounting of current funds. Staff believe if our sales tax projections come through there will be sufficient funds to complete the purchase for any acreage directed by Council. NAD typically budgets $5 to $7 million in spending depending on what sales are finalized. LCSB Question: There's opportunity cost also in not purchasing land locally. Does staff think costs are going to go up in town? Staff Answer: The NA ballot language is structured to account for the increasing cost of land and the NAD is focused on purchasing land earlier at lower cost. If Natural Areas covers the City’s $14 million commitment it would eliminate other purchasing opportunities. LCSB Question: Would NA be required to pay $14 million all at once? Staff Answer: None of the reconciliation process has been identified. If NAD was required to purchase the entire property it is likely the full debt service would be transferred to NAD rather quickly so it would have an immediate impact in that way. When General Fund or NA Fund that has already been spent would be reconciled, would be determined after the fact. LCSB Comment: Because of the uncertainty of dueling ballot measures, perceptions of meddling in the public dialogue, the inappropriateness of specifying acreages, and the mislabeling of the animal rehabilitation use as education, Council should not adopt this measure. LCSB Comment: There is opportunity for the LCSB to recommend implementation of wildlife coexistence features and the avoidance/mitigation of land uses that are disadvantageous to wildlife on portions of the property that would not be designated a natural area, such as lighting standards that would be compatible with Natural Areas management. There is room for negotiation between the most disadvantageous situation possible and an ideal situation. LCSB Comment: There will be time for weighing in on those things, perhaps in August or after the election. Noted parallels between spaces like Spring Canyon Park and natural areas – potential for creating policy around these transitions. LCSB Comment: Other possible topics to include would be reduction of habitat fragmentation and minimizing hardened surfaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000219 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 6 LCSB Question: Has anyone through this process discussed Indigenous protected areas? Staff Answer: There was a great deal of discussion about it and the Civic Assembly deliberately identified Indigenous engagement in how the site gets used and emphasized a gathering place. But they really tried to leave it up to the City to negotiate with Tribes in the local Indigenous community. Site planning would navigate different requests from the range of the indigenous community. LCSB Comment: The three PATHS founders are Indigenous Chicana and connection to the land is why they became involved in this effort ten years ago. The NAD engagement with indigenous groups is appreciated. Staff Response: The NAD hired an archaeologist. Staffing under the Equity and Inclusion Office has changed, but the City-wide Native American and Indigenous engagement and consultation effort will continue with a team be led by the Equity Office. There are regular open community meetings with the Indigenous community posted on the Equity Office calendar. There was a discussion about previous uses at the Hughes site and the development of city permitting for folks who request events onsite. LCSB Comment: The City has a good history of integrated planning, and there are good opportunities for integrated use on that site, so the member hates shutting the door on that. LCSB Comment: If the Yes for Hughes Natural Area does pass, it will determine one path, if it does not pass, the integrated site planning would occur. LCSB Comment: Member is not excited about this being decided by voters in the first place; does not support the civic process of design. They are not sure they could support a 35-acre bike park, but these park features could be designed with native vegetation to look and feel like a natural area. If this had been allowed to go through the regular civic planning process and be vetted fully, the community would be probably happy with the outcome. Perhaps that’s why Council is trying to put forward a juxtaposition of options. Not excited about the specifics that are available right now. LCSB Comment: As a person who has worked on this issue for years, don’t underestimate what the voters understand. At multiple listening sessions, participants knew what a natural area is, though there is some confusion about the difference between a natural area and open space. People know what they want and have asked for it over and over again. Connection to the adjacent natural areas is unique and the opportunity should be taken. The Civic Assembly process was fraught with problems; it was a black box. Comparing a 10-year community process to a brief Civic Assembly process, this has resulted in something extremely vague. There is too much vagueness and ambiguity. LCSB Comment: The Hughes site is a treasure. The Board’s direction should be making sure where there's ambiguity that the City errs on the side of maintaining current and future Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000220 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 7 ecological value. LCSB Comment: Concerned about being stuck between a rock and a hard place; there are opportunity costs, and significant differences in the conditions across the parcel. In the past, LCSB has written about encouraging certain uses and discouraging others. If the process had been able to follow the normal path, a good result might have been possible. High impact uses like a bike park are concerning, especially if it is regional scale. Additional traffic into the existing NAs could be impactful. Member feels that a bike park is not compatible. If Council is going to refer something to the ballot, this is the one chance for LCSB to make for the wording. Declining to endorse a second ballot initiative might give up the opportunity to weigh in on improving the language. LCSB Comment: Agree about weighing in on language. Agree that the City has done great work in the past. Assuming the planners will do the right thing. The Board could weigh in on ecological elements such as lighting, location of the bike park, etc. The Board could get more prescriptive about what to protect. LCSB Comment: If properly worded, a “no” recommendation could be useful to Council. Following the election, Council could come up with a more detailed plan or potential future ballot initiatives. Not sure how to rewrite the resolution, so suggesting falling back on principles. LCSB Comment: It would hard to be get to agreement on more detailed uses. The concept of the wildlife center has morphed over time. LCSB Comment: The Civic Assembly has some good ideas, but they are highly conceptual. The regular next step is for professionals to do more detailed design work; that does not seem feasible with the current timeframe. LCSB Comment: The opportunity afforded by the Hughes site is so unique, it should be done with a great deal of thought. The Board discussed potential wording of a motion and whether or not to include language around the competing ballot measures. They also discussed whether or not to separate the issues of the civic assembly recommendation and the referral to the ballot. They discussed how competing ballot issues have been presented to voters in the past and revisited concerns that the Board was unfamiliar with the applicable statute or legal process for determining a winner for competing ballots. LCSB Comment: A concern is that competing ballot measures could impact the outcome of other ballot initiatives related to Natural Areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000221 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 8 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Meadow Springs Ranch Conservation Discussion Chair Cunniff invited board discussion and feedback on the draft Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Conservation and Environmental Protection memo. The LCSB discussed edits and additions, including an executive summary. Staff reported that Utilities has drafted a memo on biosolids testing at MSR but because the One Water Director has been out of town she has not been able to sign and forward it to NAD staff. The board would like to include relevant information from the Utilities memo in their recommendation to Council. The board is concerned about PFAS and other possible contaminants on property that may be considered for future NAD acquisition or conservation easement. LCSB asked if it was possible for a voter approved deed restriction/conservation easement. Staff reported that the One Water Director is reluctant to propose any future use of MSR until Utilities has completed a comprehensive assessment. LCSB is considering a conservation easement on roughly 20-25% of the highest value habitat portions of MSR. LCSB would like Utilities to complete quick inventory/ecological assessment because of the concern of potential contaminants. LCSB noted Utilities Platinum accreditation from the National Biosolids Certified Management Program might be a process-based accreditation and not an outcome based one. Their recommendation to do soil sampling is to make sure that the processes that we're following are actually leading to the results that we're hoping to get. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000222 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 9 Black footed ferrets should be included in the memo; there are BFF operations on the east portion of MSR. The LCSB agreed to amend the draft memo and to consider it for adoption after further discussion during the regular August meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C 8/13/2025 Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000223 Attachment B ERB AIS 5 000224 Information Committee The Information Committee is a group of 12 Fort Collins residents who represent a diverse array of experience and opinion on this topic. The Information Committee was tasked with reviewing and prioritizing the information gathered by the community survey and the Community Guides. They have nominated several background presenters, who will speak to you about the topic during your ﬁrst weekend together. The Information Committee is made up of: ● 4 members of City of Fort Collins Boards & Commissions ● 4 Community Guides ● 4 Community Members The Boards represented in the Information Committee were determined by City Staﬀ, after which members of each Board nominated a representative to join the Information Committee. Community Guides and community members were chosen at random, similar to how Delegates in the Assembly were chosen. Members of the Information Committee Name Role Anaya Echo-Hawk Community Guide Christina Swope Community Member Dawson Metcalf Natural Resources Advisory Board Holger Kley Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Logan Cummings Community Member Lorena Falcon Parks & Recreation Natalie (AJ) Omundson Community Guide Sam Milchak Youth Advisory Board Shirley Peel Community Guide Susan Baker Community Guide Vara Vissa Community Member Wyatt Reis Community Member healthydemocracy.org • (503) 841-6865 • info@healthydemocracy.org Attachment C ERB AIS 5 000225 Attachment C ERB AIS 5 000226 )$*($#+$( ,- ./ 0 11 1.3 11/1 0 111 567'$ 1 1 ,48,2 0 12 ,- .01 9 0 1 1 1 .:;:< @ABCDEDFAGHIGHGJKLMNMOMPQRPRSTUVNSMTWXRTWYMSPZ[QNX\]ZSXSXY^]OZR_`Q_MNXORT_MWOZ`Q_MW_QbcQTMURdefSNMURTWgNQ_Md_hRdQTXMN`MWLfPZMX^gMTigRdMSTjkjl\ngMd_MWUSTRgNQoQfTWpaRT_RPQTSX_SdRd_RPRSTX_PNRXXNQQ_XdS_ScMTqWNS`MTrMsQdNRdaU_ZMtS_aZRWMW_QsQ`MoQNORNWOS_ZNMoMNNSTPR[RppQ_sMRXfNM_ZR_gNQsQ_MXuQovtQfTdSpsMs[MNXwQOTqSsgRd_UgM_gNQzMd_XoQNLfPZMX^gMTigRdM_ZR_fTWMNsSTM_ZMQNSPSTRpdQTXMN`R_SQTST_MT_Qo_dS_ScMTSTS_SR_S`M\mXsRTaST_ZMgf[pSdXfXgMd_MWU_ZMtS`SdmXXMs[paORXRTMngMTXS`MNfXMTWMW_QgNQsQ_M_ZMtS_awX{|}~{~€ {~‚|ƒ„€ƒ…†WMdMg_S`Mgf[pSdgNQdMXX\[paU‡ˆ‰Š‹‡Œˆ Ž‰ ‘ ’“Œ”•ˆ–Œ—‡˜”™ŠZRXNMsRSTMW_NRTXgRNMT_RTW_NfM_Q_ZM`SXSQT_ZR__ZsfTS_aZRXpQTPZMpWoQNLfPZMXqpRTWRTWOSpWpSoMdQTXMN`R_SQTOS_ZpQOqSsgRd_NMdNMR_SQTUTQTqfsg_S`MfXMXURTW_ZMR[XMTdMQo`SMOq[pQdšSTP[fSpWSTPXUoQN_ZM[MTMoS_Qom››sMs[MNXQoQfNsfTS_aRTWpQdRpOSpWpSoMœdQTXSX_MT_OS_ZQ_ZMNVQN_tQppSTXYR_fNRpmNMRXš\tQfTdSpwXNMoMNNMW[RppQ_sMRXfNMSX_ZMgNQWfd_QoRWf[SQfXgNQdMXX_ZR_gf_XgQpS_SdRpST_MNMX_XWQodQssfTS_a`QSdMX\mTWU_ZMtQfTdSpWSW_ZSXOS_ZRopSdšQoRgMTUNR_ZMN_ZRTOS_Z_ZMXRsMZš_ZR_QNPRTScMNXRTW`QpfT_MMNXST`MX_MW[adQppMd_STPžŸ| ¡€}¢¡QogM_S_SQTXSPTR_fNMXRTWMTPRP Attachment D ERB AIS 5 000227 !"#$%&'() *+,-# -#./0-1), %234+5%)% .6%# (1)3!7-#. 35(&3!78 -39("4 :;)-&>B>CDEF>GHECIGJJ=DKGL>CDK?>E?>J>GHJDF>DMH=>JCNO>@IGA@ANO>ODFEDG>GHJDMH=>PQRP@QFEJ>WPUX=>JE?DEDJICJYIJODGJNA>?>ALZH=>[NHZ\JS[NBNO]JJ>FLCZW^I_`@E>?JDGMDOUJX?DUEJUEEHNGX_abc?>JNA>GHJDMdD?H[DCCNGJef^g>>JO?>>GJ=DHJL>CDKef<=NJNJK=IHH=>[NHZ[DUGONCIGAH=>HNDGJKIGHMD?H=>EULCNOCZ@DKG>APUX=>JDE>GJEIO>f Attachment D ERB AIS 5 000228 !!"#$%&'()*+,)-.,/0.1,23 42 5%'6778+9:;<0+='6+>?@A0:96+2BCDCEFGHBIJKBLMNOPQKBRISTSGKONSBPUVWSXOGKQPHPQKBCYZ[\]F^_`aEbcUdFCE\UVbeUdbCV^UVW^aFfbUgbVdFEF^d^hbd]WFFaiaCfjFdFWY[VWFE^kwv mƒvpŽosysym ‘mƒo’mvsrqoto ‚ppm’“q…”ƒw mp‘mvŒ‘r m•mm„p–‡—˜ Attachment D ERB AIS 5 000229 ! "#$% $ &'&( )! # *$+ Attachment D ERB AIS 5 000230 ( )*+ ( '$ Attachment D ERB AIS 5 000231 Attachment D ERB AIS 5 000232 #&-56 Attachment E ERB AIS 5 000233 !"#!"$$"%&'(')''* ' '+, - .'''*++ /0 )%+' '++' '0 1% + % *02'' )3-& ''* +& % /0 4 % ''*'* **+%% 3-0 ) *-&- ,250 %1,89 :8);<" $9= >=?)% & '0'+-*' %'* + % 1 *%& 1+,D %F*G1HD(% IJ ') K(1+C''E',N- )D'E++L)O('F %,HK-J%Q' Q1+*H''K4 R' J ')EL2C* %(% ' %1,J2P++ F(S 2 1+, ' %'* 4('( 4'* P(-* ' )4* %TU67'*'1 4+0'4(',%& $ !"Y??"XZ A[\][^_!"YY!)('*' 40(1+( 2a'*( (' '-(00 '` %'*',% & +0 '(' b ''* ++4'* '/0, %++(+%4(%'2C*' ''0(1+'* & 1+,2'*0 ''4G1'* 1-(%4'* 2G1 /0+ %*'* % +1-(''* defghijklmn'',0++,&+& %0+'+0 )%*'* +0&% 2 '++0 0+ 'q%-(%'*'* ’“” •–—˜™š •’ ˆ›”š—–Ž‹œ‹ Žˆ›”—‰› ˜– ™šž–š•Ÿ›—–£¤¥¦§¨©sª¥¦ Attachment E ERB AIS 5 000234 !"#$!%&' (& "&)*)+,-!.&-!,&)/"! 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 5 6'&%*789)"(--! ')&'!%& "'0 5 = > 2 ? 0 ( !-@)AB&''! C 0 0E 0 5F5 G H G5II J 5 ;00K 3L M 0 : =0N 0 5 P Q N= qrsltuvwxyltqngzsyvumj{jlmgzsvhzlwulx|}uyt~zvu Attachment E ERB AIS 5 000235 !"#$%$&'()*+))',-.$')+(/,$($01-.$#)234563789:;<=>=?@A<B ! C"@A=D=E"@FGC"@;<=A@HB"IJK"L "@A=""@MC!N" nopiqrstuviqnkdwpvsrjgxgijdwpsewitriuyzrvq{wsr Attachment E ERB AIS 5 000236 July 23, Special LCSB Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF DISCLOSURE DISCUSSION – Ross Cunniff: Before we dive into the action items, I wanted to do a little [garbled) I I think all the board members got a copy of the e-mail, hopefully had a chance to see it from Katie with the city attorney's recommendations. Ross Cunniff: I want to disclose that I am a donor to some of the organizations that are planning to, or hoping to have wildlife, rehab and education on that site. But I don't think it affects my impartiality. So I just want to be aware of that. If you have any concerns, let me know. Elena Lopez: Well I do obviously. So yeah. So as you know, I've been working on the, the Hughes issue since 2000...probably 16 [2016], when it was ﬁrst announced that, CSU was going to, knock the stadium down and do something with that land. But with regard to my activity now, it's been very much scaled back. I don't have a ton of time to do much. I worked until 3 a.m. last night, just as an example. I'll probably do the same tonight. So I'm not an elector on the petition this time and not, I didn't collect ant signatures. I was a petitioner. I'm not a spokesperson per se. Even though I’ve been quoted in the Coloradoan, I get it. A lot of people have been quoted. They just selected my quotes. What can I say? We don't have any spokespeople associated with the Hughes. It's very, very, grassroots driven and very, sort of um decentralized. So, I would not call myself a representative per se. But I do I have worked on that issue for a long time. Ross Cunniff: disclosure is the key thing. The city code talks about, ﬁnancial conﬂict, which doesn't sound like either of our conﬂicts are really ﬁnancial. There's a personal conﬂict which has to be unusually unusual. And unlike that of general public. So it's up to each member then to decide for that second one, usually whether it ﬁts Elena Lopez: right in as a, as a, member of a nonproﬁt or a leader of a nonproﬁt. Ross Cunniff: Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't apply. But I thought it was important to get the disclosure [garbled]. Elena Lopez: Yeah, yeah. For sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Ross Cunniff: Yeah. Any other disclosures? Jennifer Gooden: I think we're also to disclose if we collected signatures for petitions. I did not for the Hughes area, but I collected petitions for other natural areas. Attachment F ERB AIS 5 000237 Ross Cunniff: If we if it comes up to a disclosure on Yes for natural areas, if we're going to make a recommendation on that, I would also disclose that I am a petition gatherer and a donor to the cause. But yeah, we'll get there again And, yeah, a few, quite a few of us were on that one. Scott Mason: I circulated petitions for, yes to natural areas, and I'm, I donated money to yes to natural areas, so I guess I'm disclosing that. Elena Lopez: Oh, and I do have in-kind donations to, to this current issue. Ross Cunniff: I think I may have donated to the original PATHS. Holger Kley: I gathered signatures for Yes to Natural Areas *Staff also believes that Mark Sears disclosed that he was collecting signatures for Yes to Natural Areas during this meeting, but it may have been later during discussion of the Civic Assembly proposal. Attachment F ERB AIS 5 000238 From:Katie Donahue To:Mary Boyts; Denise Culver; Elena Lopez; Emily Shingler; Holger Kley; Jennifer Gooden ; Julia Feder; Kelly Ohlson; Mark Sears; River Mizell; Ross Cunniff; Sarah Kane; Scott Mason; Tawnya Ernst; Tom Shoemaker Subject:RE: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:59:00 AM Attachments:image002.png Hi all, In preparation for upcoming LCSB action items related to the Hughes site and local ballot initiatives, Ross asked me to share the following summary of guidance we received from the City Attorney’s Office. This is intended to support transparency and help us all navigate questions of potential conflicts of interest or appearances of bias. Conflict of Interest Considerations While conflicts of interest are often thought of as financial, a Board member’s advocacy role in a current campaign can present a perceived or actual conflict—particularly if the Board is asked to make recommendations on the same topic. Under the Boards and Commissions Code of Conduct, members are expected to: Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and Recuse themselves from voting when they have a personal interest that could impair impartiality or undermine public trust. (See City Code §§ 2-568 and 2-569; City Charter Article IV, Section 9) Recommendations: If a Board member is currently involved in a campaign committee, they should publicly disclose that role during Board discussions. If that involvement is significant—e.g., campaign organizer, Attachment G ERB AIS 5 000239 spokesperson, or ballot author—they should strongly consider recusing themselves from related votes to avoid any appearance of undue influence. This guidance is not aimed at any individual, and it’s not a legal mandate— it simply reflects our consistent approach to promoting integrity and public confidence, especially on high-profile or controversial issues. Petition Circulation and Advocacy Circulating petitions as a private citizen is not inherently a conflict. However, transparency remains key when advocacy overlaps with Board topics. Suggested Best Practices: Disclose recent or current advocacy during Board meetings when related issues arise. Consider recusal from voting if the level of advocacy could compromise impartiality (e.g., highly visible campaign role). Even where recusal is not required, disclosure helps the public understand where each member is coming from and reinforces trust in our work. See you all tonight, Katie Katie Donahue Pronouns: she/her/hers Director Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 970-416-8067 office Attachment G ERB AIS 5 000240 From: Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:10 PM To: Denise Culver <drculver23@gmail.com>; Elena Lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Emily Shingler <eshingler@fcgov.com>; Holger Kley <Holger31@comcast.net>; Jennifer Gooden <fortcollins.jennifer.gooden@gmail.com>; Julia Feder <jfeder@fcgov.com>; Katie Donahue <kdonahue@fcgov.com>; Kelly Ohlson <kohlson@fcgov.com>; Mark Sears <MARKESEARS1@msn.com>; Mary Boyts <mboyts@fcgov.com>; River Mizell <rivermizell@gmail.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@gmail.com>; Sarah Kane <SKane@fcgov.com>; Scott Mason <scmason511@gmail.com>; Tawnya Ernst <ternst@fcgov.com>; Tom Shoemaker <shoemakertom1@gmail.com> Subject: Special Meeting of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 7/23/2025 All, The Agenda for next week’s Special Meeting of the LCSB is attached. For reference, the Board’s prior memorandums to City Council regarding Meadow Springs Ranch and the former Hughes Stadium site are included. As usual, the meeting will be hosted in person as well as Teams (see Teams details below) and an evening meal will be provided. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary Boyts Business Support III Natural Areas Department City of Fort Collins 1745 Hoffman Mill Rd. 970.221.6640 office mboyts@fcgov.com Attachment G ERB AIS 5 000241 Microsoft Teams Need help?Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 288 149 839 970Passcode: qWnmft Dial in by phone +1 970-628-0892,,857769512# United States, Grand JunctionFind a local numberPhone conference ID: 857 769 512# For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN Attachment G ERB AIS 5 000242 Sec. 2-577. -Additional ethical rules of conduct-Board or commission members. (a) In any action in which a member of a City board or commission ("member") declares a conflict of interest or is prohibited from participation pursuant to subsection (5) below, or for any other reason, such member shall not communicate to or attempt to influence such board or commission regarding such item, in any capacity, except that: (1) the member may communicate with said board or commission to protect a strictly personal interest, in the same or similar ways in which the public is permitted to communicate with the board or commission. (2) the member may prepare materials on behalf of another for a project in the normal course of business or operation, so long as the purpose of those materials is not directly and substantially related to advocacy before said member's board or commission. Those materials may be included in materials submitted by another to said member's board or commission so long as they fall within this exception. For illustrative purposes, such materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to architectural plans, technical studies, and engineering designs. (3) if a member is precluded from participating in or influencing the decision of their board or commission, they may request a variance from the limitations of this subsection from the City Council in the following circumstances, and in the following manner: a. The member must submit a request for a variance to the City Clerk on a form provided by the City Clerk for such purpose. b. The member must demonstrate that without the variance, they would suffer an exceptional hardship, and that no reasonable alternative exists that would allow for that hardship to be avoided or substantially mitigated; c. The City Council must act by resolution to approve or disapprove the requested variance. (4) This limitation does not apply to persons other than the member who are affiliated with that member's firm or entity, and such other persons, but not the member, may continue to work on the project and may advocate to such member's board or commission, provided that the member complies with the applicable requirements and limitations. (5) Additional limitations on participation. a. Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000243 No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, who has participated or intends to participate as a member of the public, or on behalf of another person or entity, to provide input or public comment as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required (such as, for example, speaking at a neighborhood meeting for a development project or appearing at an administrative hearing for a project), is allowed to participate in that process in their role as a board or commission member. 1. In the event such input or public comment has been provided, or is expected to be provided, the commission member must promptly provide written notice to the City Clerk that they are required to refrain from participation in their role as a commission member in the City process or decision. 2. The commission member must also provide the required notice to the chair of the commission of which they are a member. b. The prohibitions and requirements of this subsection (5) apply whether or not a conflict of interest is presented or has been declared and are in addition to, and not in place of, the requirements applicable to any officer or employee in the event of a conflict of interest. c. No member of a Quasi-Judicial Commission, as defined in Article Ill of this ChaP-ter 2, may provide input or public comment on behalf of that commission as part of a City process about a particular proposal or project for which a City review, permit or approval is required, except as expressly authorized and directed by such commission. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 162, 2000, § 2, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 109, 2002, §§ 1-4, 8-20-02; Ord. No.145, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No.159, 2014, §§ 1-3, 11-18-14; Ord. No. 037, 2017, §§ 2, 3, 3-7-17; Ord. No. 167, 2017, § 2, 12-19-17; Ord. No. 057, 2020, § 2, 4-21-20; Ord. No. 072, 2021, §§ 2, 3, 7-20-21; Ord. No. 120,. 2023, § 3, 9-19-23) Sec. 2-579. -Board of ethics. (a) In order to assist the Council members and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board." (b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of the Review Board. (c) Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000244 Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review Board shall be as follows: (1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Council members or board and commission members by any person; (2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members; (3) After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and any affected board or commission concerning the same; and (4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City. (d) Inquiries and complaints shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) City Council inquiries. Any Council member may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Council member or board and commission member. a. In performing its review and investigation of any inquiry submitted in accordance with this Subsection (d)(1 ), the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its advisory opinion and recommendation. b. It is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public comment on an inquiry, although the Review Board may do so if it determines public input will assist the Board in its consideration of the inquiry. c. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. d. After consideration of an inquiry, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said advisory opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. e. Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000245 Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (2) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Council member or board or commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board or commission member named in the complaint, the City Council and the City Attorney. Each complaint shall name only one officer as its subject. b. The City Attorney shall periodically seek proposals and select and retain, after consultation with the Review Board, one or more qualified attorneys to review complaints filed against Councilmembers under this subsection (2) and determine whether the complaint warrants investigation in light of the applicable screening criteria and commonly known and documented facts and circumstances. Such review attorneys shall also function as investigators to develop the facts relevant to a complaint under investigation and interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. c. For a complaint against a board or commission member: i. The City Clerk shall schedule the complaint for consideration by the Review Board as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board will meet and consider the complaint within thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint. In the event extenuating circumstances arise in the scheduling and preparation for such meeting the Review Board shall meet to consider the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable. ii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for initial review of the complaint to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. iii. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the screening criteria set out in this subsection (d)(2)f below. If the Review Board Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000246 determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the board or commission member named in the complaint, as well as the chair of the board or commission of which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council. iv. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d)(2)c hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. v. Prior to reaching a decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, however, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. vi. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. vii. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. d. For a complaint against a Councilmember: i. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the complaint, including a copy of the complaint and brief explanation of the review process, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint. ii. The City Attorney shall forward the complaint to a review attorney retained as described above in subsection (d)(2)b for review of the complaint. No more than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, subject to extenuating circumstances making delay reasonably necessary, the review attorney shall evaluate the complaint to determine whether it is sufficient and warrants investigation Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000247 pursuant to the screening criteria set out in subsection (d)(2)f below. The review attorney shall promptly provide to the City Clerk and City Attorney for distribution to the Review Board a written determination of whether the complaint warrants further investigation, including a brief explanation of the decision. iii. The City Clerk shall send written notice to the complainant of the review attorney's determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the Council member named in the complaint, as well as the City Council and City Attorney. iv. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint does not warrant investigation, no further action will be taken on the complaint. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint warrants investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for investigation by the review attorney who completed the initial review or another retained review attorney, depending on availability and other related circumstances and considerations. v. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in their review and investigation of any complaint, the investigating attorney shall interview the complainant and all affected or interested Councilmembers to learn their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law, may interview such other persons as the investigating attorney reasonably believes may have relevant or useful information pertinent to the investigation, and may request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public that the investigating attorney considers reasonably necessary or helpful to the investigation or determination. In addition, the investigating attorney shall have the power as vested in the Review Board to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the investigating attorney may consider necessary to the investigation. vi. Upon completion of the investigation the reviewing attorney shall interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and, based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. vii. The City Clerk shall schedule the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint for consideration by the Review Board within thirty (30) working days after receipt, or, as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board shall meet to consider the determination and recommendations and render a formal Review Board opinion based upon the determination and in light of the recommendations, but shall not be bound to follow the recommendation made. Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000248 viii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for consideration of the investigating attorney's determination and recommendations on a complaint to the complainant, the Councilmember named in the complaint, and the City Council and City Attorney, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. The complaint and investigation attorney's determination and recommendations shall be provided with such notice and shall be available with the agenda for the meeting. ix. Prior to reaching a final decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, and the subject of the complaint an opportunity to present facts and argument related to the complaint. However, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. x. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. xi. Any Councilmember whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. e. Alternate Review Procedures. i. In the event multiple complaints are filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection that allege a related violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate) and are subject to investigation and a decision by the Review Board, such complaints shall not be considered by the regular Review Board but instead upon a determination that the complaints warrant investigation, shall be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaints. ii. In the event related complaints are filed naming five (5) or more Councilmembers and upon review it is determined that an investigation of complaints naming five (5) or more Councilmembers is warranted, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards or commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven member board. Said Board or commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the determination that further investigation is warranted is received by the City Clerk. Any board or commission member selected by the City Clerk who elects not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000249 select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in the applicable subsections of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. f. Screening criteria. The determination as to whether a complaint merits investigation and further action shall be made on the basis of one or more of the following considerations: i. The City Council has no jurisdiction over the individual(s) alleged to have violated the relevant ethics provision; ii. The alleged violation, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions; iii. The allegations of the complaint were previously asserted in another complaint that is already being considered or was resolved by the Review Board and/or City Council; iv. The alleged violation, even if true, is minor in nature and fails to justify the use of public resources to investigate or prosecute; v. The allegations of the complaint involve actions or events that occurred more than one (1) year prior to the date of the filing of the complaint and, due to the passage of time and the likely unavailability of evidence, witnesses, and witnesses' recollections, investigation and prosecution of the complaint will not justify the use of public resources, except that complaints based on conduct resulting in a criminal conviction (regardless of the type of plea entered) or entry into a plea agreement subject to a deferred prosecution, deferred judgment, or deferred sentencing agreement may be referred to an appropriate enforcement agency; vi. The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; vii. Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000250 The alleged violation is unlikely to be proven by the required standard of preponderance of the evidence due to the evidence consisting of conflicting oral testimony and unverifiable statements; viii. The person who is the subject of the complaint has admitted wrongdoing and made or committed to make sufficient redress or remedy satisfactory to Review Board or City Council; ix. The matter has become or will become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a city official or will no longer be a city official prior to the conclusion of any consideration or investigation of the allegations in the complaint; x. The person who is the subject of the complaint previously obtained an advisory opinion under this code of ethics that identified the conduct as not being in violation of the code of ethics; or xi. The City Council has elected to refer the complaint to another agency with jurisdiction of the allegations of the complaint and such referral will better serve the public interest (e.g., law enforcement, district attorney, state or federal attorney general; or department of justice). (e) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Review Board. (g) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-576(a) (7). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Council member or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. (Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 17, 1993, 2-16-93; Ord. No. 64, 1993, 7-20-93; Ord. 132, 2001, § 2, 9- 18-01; Ord. No. 110, 2002, §§ 1-3, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 144, 2014, 11-4-14; Ord. No. 102, 2019, § 2, 9-3-19; Ord. No. 153, 2022, § 2, 1-17-23; Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, 9-19-23) Editor's note-Ord. No. 120, 2023, § 4, adopted Sept. 19, 2023, renumbered the former § 2-569 as § 2-579. Historical notations have been retained for reference purposes. Attachment H ERB AIS 5 000251