HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/05/2010 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE N DATE: January 5, 2010
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek • • •
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 3 and November 17, 2009 Regular Meetings and the
November 10, 2009 Adjourned Meeting.
J
4
l
November 3, 2009
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 3,
2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy,
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Edmund Robert, 1923 Linden Ridge Drive, thanked City staff for the public outreach on the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan adoption. The Plan did not address a solution to solve the congestion
at North Lemay and Vine Drives.
Eric Kronwall, 1613 Barnwood Drive, stated the three-unrelated ordinance has created many
challenging situations for landlords who may not be aware of the City regulations.
Stacy Lynne,216 Park Street, stated concerns with the process used to place on-street bicycle racks
in the downtown area.
Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony;expressed concerns with the number of empty buildings in Fort
Collins. He did not agree with ending the vendor fee rebates.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Manvel stated the downtown bicycle racks are used by residents who shop in the
downtown area and encouraged more residents to ride bicycles.
Councilmember Troxell asked what process was used to review on-street bicycle racks and if there
are plans for more racks.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the downtown bicycle racks were installed with corporate sponsorship
and he did not support the use of corporate labels for public projects. City Manager Atteberry stated
the process to approve the on-street bicycle racks is under evaluation. The decision to enclose a
parking space is an administrative decision and does not require Council action.
470
November 3, 2009
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda and that Item #16
Public Hearing and First Reading ofOrdinance No. , 2009,Amending City Code Relating to Utility
Billing Errors is a public hearing.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, pulled Item #10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2009,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Funds or Projects and Item#16 Public
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. , 2009,Amending City Code Relating to Utility Billing
Errors.
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street, pulled Item #7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2009,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the
Transit Fund and Item #15 First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2009, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Energy Efficiency
Community Block Grant.
Councilmember Ohlson pulled Item #20 Resolution 2009- Finding Substantial Compliance and
Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CONSENT NON-BUDGET ITEMS
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services Fund to be Used for the Construction of the New Museum/Discovery
Science Center Joint Facility.
The City has received a donation of $88,966 from the Isabelle (Judy) Arnold Trust
designated for the Fort Collins Museum. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on October 20, 2009, appropriates that donation in the Building on Basics (BOB)
Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Project.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the Transit Fund.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2009, appropriates
funds received from the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to
purchase six NABI 40-foot Low Floor Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) replacement buses
and several Proximity Card Readers in 2009.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of the National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Department of Justice in
the General Fund for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
471
November 3, 2009
The City has received three grants for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force. The first is
from the Office of National Drug Control Policy for January 1-December 31, 2010, in the
amount of$84,124. The second is from the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the
amount of$24,703. The third is from the U.S. Department of Justice in the amount of
$108,275 for fiscal year 2009. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
October 20, 2009 appropriates these funds.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues
in the General Fund for Police Services and for the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2009, appropriates
funds from a grant in the amount of $30,000 received from the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice, Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, for the continuation of Restorative
Justice Services, which includes The RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses and
Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2009, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds or Projects.
The purpose of this annual "clean-up" Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or
reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses
that were not anticipated and,therefore,not included in the 2009 budget. The unanticipated
revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid
to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being
appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that
purpose. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 27, 2009.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106,2009,Amending Section 25-123(c)of the Cites
Relating to the Vendor Fee for Collecting and Remitting Sales Tax.
This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20,2009,eliminates the
City's current vendor fee for sales and use tax licensees. The proposed modification will
result in $300,000 of ongoing additional revenue being available for General Fund uses.
This change will not increase taxes or fees charged,but rather eliminates the amount of City
sales and use taxes that vendors are allowed to retain in exchange for the service they provide
in collecting City taxes. Currently, vendors are allowed to retain 1% of sales and use taxes
collected, up to a maximum of$45 per reporting period.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2009, Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code
Relating to the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First.Reading on October 20, 2009, amends the
Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program to increase the loan funding amounts from a
maximum of$5,000 to a maximum of$7,500. It also removes provisions related to the
472
November 3, 2009
application review schedule to allow for a more flexible,semi-annual competitive application
review process.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2009, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Drainage Easement on the Gustav Swanson Natural Area to Urban Development
Partners, LLC.
Urban Development Partners, LLC (the "Developer") is proposing to build an
industrial/office development which is commonly known as the Inverness Innovation Park
(the"Project"), located on East Vine Drive and north of the City's Gustav Swanson Natural
Area (the "Natural Area"). This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
October 20,2009,authorizes the conveyance of a drainage easement across the Natural Area
to allow for stormwater flows in case of storm events larger than a 100-year flood event.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2009, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Utility
Easement on a Portion of the Larimer County Landfill to Poudre Valley Rural Electric
Association, Inc.
Larimer County has entered into a Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement with Timberline
Energy, LLC for the County's Landfill Gas Project. The goal of this project is to create a
complete landfill gas recovery system for the Landfill. Under this Agreement, Timberline
will operate a facility at the Landfill to collect the methane gas. Once collected,Timberline
will sell the gas, to be used to generate electricity, and carbon credits to a commercial user
in the area. Timberline needs electric service for its landfill gas facility, to be provided by
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on October 20,2009,authorizes the conveyance of an easement to.REA to lay
an electrical line underground at the Larimer County Landfill.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Natural Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant.
This Ordinance appropriates S 1,307,900,received by the City under a Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program.
16. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. , 2009, Amending City Code Relating
to Utility Billing Errors.
This Ordinance codifies the Utilities' current administrative policy which addresses utility
billing errors. When a customer is overcharged, the Utilities will refund the customer the
overcharge for a period not to exceed six years from the time the error is discovered. If a
customer is undercharged for services received, the Utility will not back bill the customer,
however, should a customer have known about the error and failed to bring the error to the
Utilities attention, the customer will be held accountable for the charges for up to six years.
No interest will be paid or collected.
473
November 3, 2009
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 2009, Repealing Ordinance No. 007, 1975 Relating to
the Security of Buildings and Businesses in the City.
This Ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 007, 1975, which is now obsolete. Ordinance No.
007,1975 required the Police Department to maintain a register of all commercial buildings
and businesses in the city, including emergency contact information for a designated
representative for each business and building, and compelled property and business owners
to cooperate by providing information. Currently, such information is gathered and
maintained by the Poudre Fire Authority as a part of its building inspection program.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. ,2009, Adopting a Fee Schedule for Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries and Amending the Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries to add the Fee Schedule.
This Ordinance amends the Rules and Regulations governing Grandview and Roselawn
Cemeteries to add a list of the amounts of fees for 2010 and 2011, and to specify that in
future years fees will be increased based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price
Index for all Urban Consumers(CPI-U). If in any year the CPI-U does not increase,fees will
remain unchanged for the year.
Cemetery fees include not just the cost to purchase a right of interment and the perpetual care
fees,but also charges for such services as opening and closing graves,and setting memorials
or plaques. The Cemetery Rules and Regulations state that the perpetual care fee and
cemetery service charges will be set by the City Council. Rather than bring a resolution to
the City Council each time a change in fees is desired, staff would like to have the Council
amend the Cemetery Rules and Regulations to state the amounts of all fees and charges, and
then have those amounts automatically increase annually based on the CPI-U. In the past,
the fees were increased based on a survey taken by the Cemetery. The data was derived from
cemeteries along the Front Range, including private and municipal.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. ,2009,Amending the Zoning map of the City of Fort Collins
by changing the zoning classification for that certain real property known as the Mountain
Vista Subarea Plan Rezoning.
This Ordinance is a follow-up implementation action to the September 15, 2009 City
Council Hearing adopting the 2009 update of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan(Plan). In
conjunction with this proposed rezoning, the Neighborhood Sign District map is being
amended.
Concurrent with the adoption of the update to the Plan on September 15, an amendment to
the City Structure Plan was adopted to reflect the recommendations from the Plan. The
proposed rezoning changes will be consistent with the City Structure Plan. The rezoning
involves six areas within the subarea. These involve adjustments to the size and location of
Industrial, Employment, Community Commercial, Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, and Transition Zone Districts.
474
November 3, 2009
The total combined proposed rezoning acreage within the subarea is less than 640 acres,
which requires this quasi-judicial hearing process as defined in the Land Use Code.
20. Resolution 2009-Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for
the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation.
The applicant, Larry Gilleland, for the property owners,VPD 392 LLC and Peter Prato,has
submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 28.9 acres located on the south side of
Carpenter Road (County Road 32), at the southwest corner of Interstate 25 & Carpenter
Road.The property is undeveloped and is in the AP-Airport District in Larimer County.The
requested zoning for this annexation is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are
currently zoned POL— Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C—Commercial and T
—Tourist in Larimer County to the north, AP - Airport in Latimer County to the west and
south, and C - Commercial in the Town of Windsor to the east.
21. Resolution 2009- Adopting the City's 2010 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee(LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist
in the analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by
Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general
reference for our state legislators and congressional delegation.
CONSENT BUDGET ITEMS
22. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2009, Appropriating Downtown Development
Authority perating Funds, Debt Service Funds and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year
2010.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2009, adopts the
2010 Budget for the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and sets the amount of
$7,577,054 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2010. This Ordinance also sets the 2010 mill
levy for the Downtown Development Authority at five mills, unchanged since 2002.
23. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2010.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114,2009 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116,2009,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
475
1
November 3, 2009
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117,2009,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118,2009,Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code
to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119,2009,Amending Chapter 26 ofthe City Code
to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
Ordinance No. 113 and 114,2009 establish monthly water and wastewater rates. Ordinances
No. 116 through No. 119,2009,adopt revised water,sewer and stormwater plant investment
fees and electric development fees. The fees are one-time charges paid by developers or
builders for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve new development. Per
Council direction,plant investment fees are reviewed on an annual basis and revised during
the biennial budget cycle. Plant investment fees(PIFs)for water,wastewater and stormwater
were last updated with the 2008-2009 budget. Electric development fees and charges are
updated annually. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October
20, 2009.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 2009,Authorizing the Appropriation of 2010 Fiscal Year
Operatingand nd Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
The 2010 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $711,600, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city),and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort
Collins' contribution,which is a 50%share of the 2010 Airport budget and totals$355,800.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 501/o share of capital funds,
totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort
Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The 2010 Airport capital funds,
totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue runway improvements.
25. Resolution 2009- Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort
Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2010 for Operations
and Maintenance.
This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins
and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs of
Poudre Fire Authority.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services Fund to be Used for the Construction of the New Museum/Discovery
Science Center Joint Facility.
476
November 3, 2009
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the Transit Fund.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of the National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Department of Justice in
the General Fund for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104,2009,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues
in the General Fund for Police Services and for the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2009, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds or Projects.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106,2009,Amending Section 25-123(c)of the City Code
Relating to the Vendor Fee for Collecting and Remitting Sales Tax.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2009, Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code
Relating to the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2009, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Drainage Easement on the Gustav Swanson Natural Area to Urban Development
Partners, LLC,
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2009, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Utility
Easement on a Portion of the Larimer County Landfill to Poudre Valley Rural Electric
Association, Inc.
22. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2009, Appropriating Downtown Development
Authority Operating Funds, Debt Service Funds and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year
2010.
23. Items Relating to Utility Rates and Charges for 2010.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 of the City Code Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114,2009 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating to Wastewater Rates and Charges.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116,2009,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
477
November 3, 2009
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117,2009,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118,2009,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119,2009,Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
29. Second Reading of Ordinance No.112, 2009, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2010;Adopting the Budget for the
Fiscal Years Beginning January 1,2010,and Ending December 31,2011;and Fixing the Mill
Levy for Fiscal Year 2010.
30. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115,2009 Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Natural Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant.
16. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 121,2009,Amending Chapter 26 Article
XII of the City Code Relating to Utility Billing Errors.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122,2009,Repealing Ordinance No. 007, 1975, Relating to
the Security of Buildings and Businesses in the City.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2009, Adopting a Fee Schedule for Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries and Amending the Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries to Add the Fee Schedule.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2009, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Real Property Known as the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Rezoning.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2009, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2010 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
478
November 3, 2009
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell asked for the status of undergrounding the power line on Cathy Fromme
Prairie. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated Poudre Valley REA will be
responsible for undergrounding the power line and the time table to place the power line
underground is unknown. The power line could be quickly undergrounded if the City was willing
to pay the costs.
Councilmember Roy asked for the cost of undergrounding the Cathy Fromme Prairie power line.
Councilmember Troxell stated ending the vender fee rebates will create a hardship for small
businesses.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry noted the recent snow storm dumped almost two feet of snow on the city
and was well-managed by the Streets Department, with 13,638 miles of streets plowed.
City Manager Atteberry stated a multi-agency DUI sobriety saturation patrol occurred on October
30th to reduce the number of intoxicated and impaired motorists being involved in collisions and
resulted in 85 arrests.
Councilmember Reports
The Mayor stated the Platte River Power Authority Board discussed the possibility of a citizens'
advisory board composed of citizens from the four member cities. The City's Electric Board should
be consulted for suggestions on ways to improve citizen involvement.
Ordinance No.112, 2009,
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2010; Adopting the Budget for the
Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2010, and Ending December 31, 2011;
and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2010, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The AnnualAppropriation Ordinance ispresentedfor SecondReading. This Ordinance sets the City
Budget for the two-year period of 2010-2011. The approved budget becomes the City's Council
financial plan for the next two fiscal years.
479
November 3, 2009
FINANCL4L IMPACTS
This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2010, and adopts the total City
budget for fiscal year 2010 at $497.9 million and for fiscal year 2011 at $497.8 million. This
Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991,for fiscal year 2010.
J
BACKGROUND
Please note that the only changes are to add $75,000 for Affordable Housing and remove
$10,759,455 for AMI.
This biennial budget represents the work of many dedicated individuals who came together to
participate in the budget process. Since 2005, the City has used the Budgeting for Outcomes(BFO)
process. BFO has a number ofadvantages over traditional budgeting approaches;the BFOprocess
helps the City meet several important goals, including:
• Create clarity about the overall budget process for the community;
• Allocate revenues to the highest priorities and outcomes citizens want and need;
• Understand the choices for funding programs and services; and
• Emphasize staff accountability, efficiency, innovation and partnership.
Using this approach, City Council and staff worked in close collaboration over the past two months
to build a financial plan, based on revenue available, that will achieve service outcomes which
matter most to our citizens and community. This work has resulted in the development of the Final
2010-2011 Budget. The approval of the Appropriation Ordinance on First Reading represents a
major milestone in this process.
As the budget development process began in April 2009, City Council and staff met on several
occasions to outline goals and assumptions for developing the recommended budget. Council was
actively engaged in the development and approval of the seven Key Outcomes that have shaped this
budget.
Fort Collins has a healthy, sustainable
Economic Health economy reflecting the values of our unique
community in a changing world.
Environmental Health Fort Collins promotes,protects and enhances a
healthy and sustainable environment.
Safe Community Fort Collins provides a safe place to live, work,
learn and play.
Neighborhood Livability Fort Collins fosters and supports a variety of
quality neighborhoods.
480
November 3, 2009
Cultural and Recreational Opportunities Fort Collins encourages and provides diverse
cultural and recreational opportunities.
Transportation Fort Collins provides for safe and reliable
multi-modal travel to,from, and throughout the
City.
High Performing Government Fort Collins exemplifies an efficient, innovative,
transparent, effective and collaborative city
government.
Budget Highlights
The 2010-11 Final Budget is a financial and service plan linked to the seven key outcomes and
results that matter most to Fort Collins citizens. Some key highlights of the City Budget include:
1. The total budget for all City funds for 2010 is$508.6 million and$497.9 million and$497.8
million for 2009.
2. The budget includes no tax increase.
3. Sales and Use tax revenue accounts for approximately 55 percent of the General Fund
revenue collected annually. This tax revenue is projected to increase by 1%in 2010 with a
slightly larger increase in 2011 of 2%.
4. The projected Utility rate increases for 2010 to fund operations and maintain minimum
reserves are Wastewater a 10% increase; Electric a 7.4% increase; Water a 3% increase;
and, Stormwater no increase.
5. The budget will reduce classified, unclassified, and contractual City staff by a total of 10.20
full time equivalent positions. The estimated reduction in hourly staff is 12.45 full time
equivalent positions.
Budget Assumptions
.$T1
Total Budget
ttS
,,2009' 201O r O/`o'Chan�e u .:201'1= 0/o,Chan er
Operating $460.3 $429.9 -6.6% $442.3 2.9%,
Debt $27.4 $21.0 -23.4% $20.3 -3.3%
Capital $84.8 $57.7 -32.0% $44.7 -22.5%
481
1
November 3, 2009
otal Ci `A ro'riations ., $572.5 ".°$508 6.`'_ . 'j11:2% . . $507.3_ #'.. , 0:3.°e'
Less Internal Service Funds $62.6 -$58.1 -7.2% -$58.9 1.4%
Less Transfers to Other Funds -$114.6 -$99.4 -13.3% -$99.2 -0.2°
f' -I I2 3 et Ca .Bnd�etla.: 5 'O 3 �+....
.. .w 395.3 31.1 °. , / ,.
Total Budget
(in millions)
2009 2010 % Change 2011 Change
Operating $460.7 $430.9 -6.5% $442.7 2.7%
Debt $27.5 $21.3 -22.5% $21.1 -0.9%
Capital $84.8 $45.7 -46.1% $34.0 -25.6%
Total City Appropriations $573.0 $497.9 -13.1% $497.8 0.0%
Less Internal Service Funds -$62.6 -$58.1 -7.2% -$58.9 1.4%
Less Transfers to Other Funds -$114.6 -$97.7 -14.7% -$99.1 1.4%
Net Citv Budget $395.8 $342.1 -13.6% $339.8 -0.7%
Some of the key assumptions used in developing the Final Budget include:
1. Limited revenue growth for 2010 and 2011
Despite the collective signs of impending recovery, the turbulent economic conditions of 2009 will
likely persist into 2010. Most experts agree that the recovery will occur gradually with sectors of
the economy enduring a lasting reduction in output and employment. The 2010-2011 Budget,
therefore, employs conservative assumptions ofgrowth that reflect a cautiously-optimistic outlook
for the next two years.
2. Use of reserves
Approximately$2.5 million in General Fund reserves was used to balance the 2010 budget and$1.0
million in the 2011 Budget. Reserves are used primarily for one-time projects.
482
November 3, 2009
At its October 13 Work Session, Council gave staff direction to include an additional amount of
resources from General Fund reserves in the Appropriation Ordinance being considered on First
Reading. By using approximately$200,000 in additional reserves, the balance in the General Fund
reserve accounts would remain above the recommended level of 60 days Reserve (16.67% of
General Fund expenditures).
3. Public Safety needs, Economic Health and Environmental Health issues are funding
priorities
This budget focuses on the City Council and community priorities. In spite of limited revenue, this
budget maintains funding levels for Police and Fire Services. It also maintains funding and provides
additional staff resources (through the partnership between Natural Areas and Utilities)for key
environmental programs such as the Climate Action Plan implementation, Climate Wise, and
Utilities of the 21st Century. Economic Health programs are also maintained including supportfor
economic clusters, support of the Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative, and the next phase of the
"one-stop shop"for Community Development and Neighborhood Services.
4. Employee salary adjustments
No merit-based pay increases are budgeted for City employees in 2010.
Adjustments to the City Manager's Recommended Budget
City Council held its last budget work session on October 13, 2009. At the work session, Council
provided input and direction on budget items that fell into three categories:
1. Items now included in the budget
2. An item included in the budget needing further discussion
3. Items discussed but are not in the budget
483
November 3, 2009
ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET
OFFER TITLE AMOUNT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 179.4 SOLID WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING: $55,000
WASTE STREAM SYSTEM STUDY
(funded through General Fund landfill tipping fees
-one time)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Stop RESTORATION &REDUCTION $1-1,000
Doing IN AIR QUALITY PROGRAM* $8.000
List (funded by savings from Quiet Zone study
—one time)
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY 115.1 REINSTATE CODE ENFORCEMENT POSITION* $67.000
(funded by savings from Quiet Zone study—one time)
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY 115.6 I HOURLY CODE ENFORCEMENT $14,000
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY 116.4 I AFFORDABLE HOUSING $75,000
SAFE COMMUNITY 196.1 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MITIGATION $100,000
(funded through General Fund—one time)
TRANSPORTATION 24.2 LIQUID DE-ICER** $25.000
(fund through General Fund reserves—one time)
TRANSPORTATION 156.2 DIAL-A-RIDE PARATRANSIT ENHANCEMENT $112.019
(funded through General Fund reserves-one time)
GENERAL r TOTAL $442,019
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 179.6 PILOT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ROUNDUP $60.000
_ 2 Times Per Year
(funded through Stormwater—one time)
TRANSPORTATION 24.4 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SWEEPING $100.000
-4 Times Per Year
(funded through Stormwater—ongoing)
STORMWATER FUND TOTAL $160,000
TRANSPORTATION 156.3 DIAL-A-RIDE PARATRANSIT NIGHT SERVICE $43,751
(funded through Transfort technology deferral
—one time)
TRANSPORTATIONi TOTAL
*The quiet zone rail study offer was originally funded in the City Manager's recommended budget.
Staff is recommending that those finds be used instead to reinstate the Code Enforcementpositions
and restore cuts from the air quality program. Further, between first and second reading, staff
identified savings that resulted in an increase of only$8,000 for the Air Quality Program for 2010.
"The liquid de-icer offer is fully funded. The budget includes the incremental$25,000 that will be
combined with $80,000 already budgeted for ice control materials for a total of$105,000.
Other Items Considered by City Council at its October 13, 2009 Work Session
Additionally,several Council members expressed a desire for further discussion about the following
item
484
November 3, 2009
1. Historic Preservation Planner Position
In order to minimize the impact of reducing one Historic Preservation planner, staff has identified
the following methods to help backfill the loss:
• Train existing staff planners on the more routine questions
• Devote.2fte of a planning tech to perform research and administrative functions
• Look at reducing the LPC meetings from 2 per month to 1 per month
Additionally, staff is concluding a Historic Preservation Process Improvement Study that is
scheduled for the October 27, 2009 City Council Work Session. Some of the recommendations in
this study include process improvements that will produce efficiencies and assist in freeing up time.
2. Crossroads Safehouse
City Council provided direction to the City Manager to continue to seekfunding alternatives for this
critical community service in lieu of including funds within the budget.
3. Affordable Housing Program
At an average subsidy of between $7,500 and$10,000 per unit, the loss of$200,000 in the City's
Affordable Housing Fund means a loss of the ability to help build/rehab between 20 to 27 affordable
housing units. Affordable Housing Fund dollars also help leverage additional financial resources
at ratios that range from 8:1 to 76:1, depending upon the type ofproject. Please note that between
first and second reading of the budget, the majority of the City Council requested that an additional
$75,000 be added to the offer.
4. Railroad Quiet Zone Study
The City Manager's recommended budget included$100,000 to conduct a quiet zone study from
Laurel Street to the southernmost boundary of the City. This offer was subsequently not fimded so
that Code enforcement positions could reinstated and funds reduced for the air quality program
could be reinstated.
5. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
Given City Council's sensitivity to the rate increase forAMI and the viability ofdebtfznancing, staff
recommends that City Council not consider AMI as part of the budget ordinance and direct the City
Manager to come back with a proposal to formally consider debt financing for the AMI project.
-Staff expects that we can present a debt financing proposal in December. At Council's direction,
any proposal that staff considers will not be dependent on an additional rate increase for AMI in
2010.
Conclusion
The 2010-2011 Final Budget is a sound financial plan to deliver the services we believe our citizens
value most. Due to limited resources, it does not, however,fully meet the demand for services that
485
November 3, 2009
citizens need and expect. However, the Budgetingfor Outcomes process has enabled us to focus and
apply the resources available to key community outcomes. Citizens will receive excellent value for
their tax dollars.
Any final amendments agreed to by Council will be included in the second(and final)reading of the
budget ordinance on November 3, 2009. _ By Charter, the Budget must be adopted and
appropriations for the 2010 fiscal year must be approved by November 30.
City Manager Atteberry gave an overview of the process used to develop the 2010-2011 budget. The
budget does include solid waste recycling and the wastestream study, restoration of the air quality
program, a pilot program to encourage households to recycle hazardous waste, reinstatement of a
code enforcement position, neighborhood traffic mitigation, a liquid deicer facility, and more
neighborhood street sweeping.
Tess Heffernan,Policy and Project Manager,stated the request from Crossroads Safehouse has been
considered by staff. One possible solution is to sell the current Safehouse and give the equity to
Crossroads. The building appraisal is underway. A certain amount of the sale funds must be
refunded to CDBG,but the amount is not yet known. The City is working to secure a waiver of the
repayment of CDBG funds, but the process is very complex and takes about six months. Another
option would be for Crossroads to apply and compete in the 2010 CDBG competitive process which
starts in the spring. The funds would not be available until October. Federal funds have 'strict
requirements that would greatly increase the cost of rehabilitating the new facility. The City
Manager is also reviewing other revenue streams to what other funds might be found.
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager,stated the City has received a grant from the
Department of Energy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for development of
a smart grid (AMI). The total grant awarded through the City is $18.1 million and the City will
receive $15.4 million of those grant funds. The City partnered with Loveland, Longmont and
Fountain to apply for the federal grant. Staff recommends the AMI project not be funded in the
budget because the grant will pay for a large portion of the project.
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, stated the City will be able to treat 14.5 miles of streets with no
additional investment in the pavement management program in 2010. Adding another$2 million
to the current budgeted amount of$7.1 million will enable the City to treat 18.7 miles of street. If
$2 million is not invested in 2010,but is added to the 2011,budget, it will take another$250,000 to
treat 18.7 miles of streets. If the$2 million is left in reserves, it will earn about$40,000 in interest
which will offset some of the extra$250,000 cost. If the investment in the pavement management
program remains at $7.1 million over the next 10 years, 145 miles of streets will be treated or
maintained. After 10 years, the City will have an estimated 271 miles of failing pavement. If an
additional $2 million is invested each year for 10 years, 187 miles of streets will be treated and the
City would have 237 miles of failed pavement.
City Manager Atteberry stated Council requested an additional$75,000 for affordable housing at the
First Reading of the Ordinance but asked staff to determine where those funds would come from
before officially adding the extra funds to the budget. The Air Quality Program offer was mistakenly
486
i
November 3, 2009
listed for $13,000 and has now been corrected to $8,000 and that $5,000 difference will be added
to the affordable housing budget. Staff has determined that a$20,000 payment related to the Civic
Center Parking Garage does not have to be made. Staff recommends the remaining$50,000 come
from reserves. The budget has $8 million in reductions and many City jobs have been cut.
Hill Grimmett, Be Local Northern Colorado co-director,thanked Council for its support. Be Local
is now sponsoring more winter farmers' markets and is a growing organization.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, stated residential appraisals are coming in below the actual market
and a lower appraisal might adversely affect the sale of the current Crossroads Safehouse. Use of
bonds should be considered to finance the AMI project and pavement management. He supported
additional funding for affordable housing.
John Albright, 1606 Dogwood Court,urged Council to restore the historic preservation position that
has been cut from the budget.
Chadrick Martinez, 1303 West Swallow, CareHousing, Inc., asked Council to restore affordable
housing funding.
Candace Mayo,Habitat for Humanity Executive Director,stated affordable housing is an important
component of economic health and she urged Council to increase the funding for affordable housing.
v
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, supported cutting the appropriation for energy efficiency projects for
2010 because the proposed appropriation will not be effective in promoting energy efficiencies. The
funds currently used to purchase renewable energy credits should instead be used to promote energy
efficiencies.
Stacy Lynne,216 Park Street,stated the funding for City employee and elected official's food should
be removed from the 2010 budget. Funding should not be provided for Art in Public Places,energy
efficiency programs and rebates, or downtown landscaping. Utility rates should not be raised.
Jennifer Jones, Crossroads Safehouse Sustainability Director, urged Council to provide $500,000
to enable Crossroads Safehouse to move into a better facility that will enable Crossroads to serve a
greater portion of the community.
Laura Williams and Megan Schafer,Crossroads Safehouse,urged Council to provide greater funding
for Crossroads Safehouse.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, stated funding should not be provided for the solid
wastestream study and Crossroads Safehouse should not receive more funding.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for more information concerning the benefits from the AMI project
and asked what the Department of Energy grant will be funding. Catanach stated as part of the grant
application,the City committed to exploring opportunities for different rate structures. The Electric
Utility will undertake a cost of service study for the electric utility rates which identifies the specific
487
November 3, 2009
costs for each customer class. Different types of rate structures will be discussed after the study is
completed. City Manager Atteberry noted staff recommends the funding for AMI not be included.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why closed captioning will not be provided for Cable 14 broadcasts.
City Manager Atteberry stated Cable 14 solicited public input into the use of closed captioning and
received no public response,so the funding to continue closed captioning was removed. Fort Collins
is the only city in Colorado that does closed captioning.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if`Be Local' will be receiving funding in the 2010 budget. City
Manager Atteberry stated funding for 2010 has been provided.
Councilmember Manvel asked if more information about the federal grant for the AMI project will
be provided. Catanach stated staff will provide many details about the grant, the project and
potential sources of funding the remaining costs in a few months.
Councilmember Ohlson noted it may take six months to work with the federal government to find
a solution for the Crossroads Safehouse and he asked if anything could be done to speed up the
process. Heffernan stated the Denver HUD office has been very clear that it cannot help the City
resolve the issue of CDBG funds. Staff has contacted the Washington, D.C., HUD legal staff to
work on the problem. The Colorado legislators will be asked to be of assistance once it becomes
clear how the federal regulations will be interpreted and exactly what the City is asking.
Councilmember Manvel asked if Crossroads will be able to move into the new facility if funds from
the sale of the current facility cannot be used. Heffernan stated it does not seem likely that CDBG
funds can just be transferred from one facility to another. The current facility needs to be sold first.
Staff is attempting to get a CDBG waiver on returning any portion of the funds used to purchase the
current facility. An appraisal of the property has been ordered, but it will take about a month to
complete. City Attorney Atteberry stated the property has City equity and CDBG funds. Other
sources are also being sought.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the appropriations ordinance contained the proposed additional
$75,000 for affordable housing. Mike Freeman, Chief Financial Officer, stated the additional
funding has not yet been included in the 2010 budget because a motion by Council is needed to add
the additional funding.
Councilmember Roy asked if emergency appropriations have been considered to provide the needed
funding for Crossroads Safehouse. City Manager Atteberry stated Council must direct staff to bring
an emergency appropriations ordinance for its consideration. He did not recommend the use of
emergency appropriations. He did not know if there was any immediate deadline for Crossroads to
acquire the needed funding for the new facility.
Vicki Lutz, Crossroads Safehouse Director, stated Crossroads has submitted $1.7 million in grant
proposals to various foundations. Crossroads has received a$50,000 grant, but will lose the funding
if 100% of the funds are not raised by October 2010. Another $1.1 million in pledges and actual
dollars has been raised. It is unknown if the other grant proposals that have been submitted will be
488
November 3, 2009
awarded because of the difficulty caused by the economy. Construction costs for remodeling the
new facility will continue to increase with any delay in funding. Crossroads must have the upfront
funds to start the project before it can receive any grant funds. Crossroads would like to secure
$1.638 million in funding to be able to begin the project as soon as possible.
Councilmember Roy noted the pavement management program could see savings of between
$250,000 and $340,000 if$2 million in reserves is approved for the 2010 budget.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked what funds will be used for the solid wastestream reduction study.
City Manager Atteberry stated tipping fees assessed on City departments by the Landfill will be used
to fund the study. The tipping fees generate between $100,000 and $125,000 each year.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for the source of the funding of$8,000 for the Air Quality Program.
Freeman stated the Quiet Zone Study will not be funded and those funds will be used for the Air
Quality Program.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 112, 2009 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to add $70,000 to
the budget for affordable housing.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to amend
Councilmember Manvel's motion,to redirect$50,000 designated for the solid wastestream reduction
study and$8,000 from the Air Quality Program for affordable housing,instead of using reserves for
affordable housing.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not support removing the funding for the solid wastestream
reduction study or the Air Quality Program.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated the additional use of reserves is not a wise use of resources when
other options are available.
Councilmember Troxell stated the solid wastestream reduction study is a result of a recommendation
made at a work session and is intended to understand all aspects of the wastestream. Creation of
pay-as-you-throw rates has negated the need for the study because the information received from the
study would have been beneficial in the discussion of the formation of trash districts. He supported
deleting the funding for the solid wastestream reduction study and using the funds for affordable
housing.
Mayor Hutchinson noted he did not support the further use of reserves and would support the use
of the solid wastestream reduction study funds for affordable housing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, and Troxell. Nays: Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy.
489
November 3, 2009
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on the motion to add$70,000 to the budget to fund affordable housing,using$50,000 from
reserves and $20,000 from financing savings regarding the Civic Center Garage was as follows:
Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel to use $2 million from
reserves for the pavement management program.
Councilmember Manvel stated providing more funding for the pavement management program is
an investment in the future but he did not support the use of more reserves for 2010.
Councilmember Troxell stated reserves should not be used for a maintenance program.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated the use of$2 million from reserves will used two-fifths of the total
reserves and she did not support the use of reserves for pavement management. The cost of
postponing pavement management for one year is $210,000 but the reserves should not be used.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the discussion of funding the pavement management program can
continue into the next year since Council will be considering another budget for 2011-201'2. He
requested a description of the street specifications compared to industry standards, what peer cities
are doing for pavement management, what checks are in place to ensure streets are built correctly
and that chemicals are not being used that will destroy the roads three times faster than necessary.
City Manager Atteberry stated Council has received information from staff regarding street standards
and chemicals used by City but he will provide further information for Council.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a chart showing the recommended street standards and some
history about pavement management, the dates when Council changed the street standards, and
which streets are failing.
Mayor Hutchinson stated waiting one year to provide more funding for pavement management did
not seem to greatly jeopardize the program and he did not support the use of reserves for pavement
management.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel,Ohlson,
Poppaw, and Troxell.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the City loaned the Urban Renewal Authority over$5 million from
reserves for the RM12 project and greater scrutiny of that project should have occurred to consider
the effects to the City's reserves.
490
November 3, 2009
Mayor Hutchinson noted the use of reserves for RMI2 was a loan and will be repaid. City Manager
Atteberry stated the use of reserves for RM12 was a loan and was not a one-time use of reserves.
Freeman stated the first repayment of the RM12 loan for$2.8 million occurs at the end of 2010. If
other fundraising by RM12 is successful, a larger repayment will be made. The outstanding debt
after 2010 will probably be $1 million to $1.5 million.
Councilmember Troxell noted the rate increase that would fund the AMI project has been removed
from the budget and he asked if staff would be bringing forward a debt financing proposal for the
project. City Manager Atteberry stated staff will return to Council next year with options to finance
the City's portion. This Council does not support a rate increase to fund AMI,as least through 2010.
If a borrowing option does not come to fruition, it appears this Council would delay funding AMI
which can become problematic with the DOE grant.
Councilmember Troxell noted the award was received between first and second reading of the
budget ordinance and he asked how the match for the grant will be funded. City Manager Atteberry
stated the award of$15.4 million is not just for AMI and a match is needed. Staff will meet with
DOE representatives to determine the details. Catanach stated the funding from DOE is over a three-
year period. Staff believes the match can be accomplished without raising rates.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the funding for AMI is not currently in the budget. An amendment will
be necessary to add the AMI funding back into the budget.
Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for the effort put forth to bring the budget to Council.
Councilmember Roy thanked citizens for participating in the budget process.
Councilmember Ohlson noted staff is working diligently to acquire more funds for the Crossroads
Safehouse than would be available by using reserves.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the BFO process focuses the budget on services people need and expect
from the City and the process has served the City well.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1121 2009, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED. '
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Ordinance 115, 2009
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates,
Fees and Charges, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
491
November 3, 2009
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance adopts monthly electric rates effective for all billings on or after January ], 2010.
Based on the direction received from City Council on First Reading of the Ordinance on October
20, 2009, and the very recent award announcement offundingfrom the Department of Energy Smart
Grid grant, a second option is presented for Council's consideration on Second Reading.
Option A is the Ordinance as approved on First Reading. It increases electric rates for all customer
classes by 9.5%. The 9.5% increase is based on increased costs for purchase power, renewable
energy, and enhanced energy services to meet Energy Policy and Climate goals. Also included in
the 9.5%is 2.08%to fund Light and Power's portion of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure(AMI)
capital project. With this option, a typical single family residence's electric bill would increase
$4.82 from $50.66 to $55.48.
Option B raises electric rates by 7.42%for all customer classes. The increase related to AMI
funding has been eliminated. The 7.42% increase continues to fund purchase power, renewable
energy and enhanced energy services. A typical single family residential electric bill would increase
$3.77 from $50.66 to $54.43 with Option B.
BA CKGRO UND/DISCUSSION
OPTION A
A 9.5% electric rate increase was included in the City Manager's recommended budget. The
increase applied to all customer classes. The 9.5% rate increase is made up of the following
components:
Retail Electric 2010
Rate Increase
Purchase Power 4.79%
Purchase Power—Renewables 0.82%
Energy Services 1.81%
Advanced Metering Infrastructure 2 08%
(AMI)
Total Electric Rate Increase 9.50%
Platte River's increases are due to several factors:
• Capital investments=$335 million over ten years:transmission approximately$149 million,
production approximately $179 million, general at approximately $7 million (cost of
materials is increasing, underground transmission).
• Craig coal costs have increased.
492
November 3, 2009
• Reserve requirements increasing.
• Xcel Energy is beginning to charge for ancillary services.
• Surplus sales are decreasing (the margin from surplus sales subsidizes the rate to the
municipalities) as municipal energy consumption increases.
• Interest income has decreased due to lower interest rates.
Platte River's wholesale premium charge for renewable energy will increase from $0.012 per kWh
to $0.019 per kWh. The increase is due primarily to increasing the amount of generation plant
compared to renewable energy credits as directed by Platte River's Board approved Renewable
Policy.
The Energy Services increase will fund additional conservation programs and customer initiatives
to support Energy Policy goals.
If the appropriation is approved, the Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI)project is estimated
to cost $21.5 million with Light and Power's share at $17.5 million. A 2.08% increase was
requested for AMI. While longterm savings were projected, cash flow projections required a rate
increase to fiord the AMI project on a pay-as you-go basis while keeping reserves at minimum levels.
A second 2.08%increase for AMI was projected for 2011.
Option A is no longer recommended by staff On October 27, 2009 the City was notified that it had
been awarded a Smart Grid Energy grant as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). The City's portion of the grant is approximately $15.4 million. An ordinance related to
this grant appropriation will be presented to Council at a later date when the grant award is
finalized. Staff will present options to fund the required match at that time but it will not require the
2.08%rate increase for AMI.
OPTION B
The Ordinance-Option B eliminates that portion ofthe proposed electric rate increase attributable
to the AMI project. The October 27, 2009 award of stimulus funding eliminates the need for the
2.08% increase for AMI. The Utilities was awarded Federal stimulus funding in the amount of
$15.4 million in support ofprojects totaling$30.8 million. Projects include AMI,, several smart grid
enhancements and implementation of several long-range IT projects related to AMI. The grant
requires a 50%match by the Utilities. Financing options, including debt financing,for the match
will be presented to Council once the award negotiations are complete and an appropriation is
requested.
Option B eliminates the 2.08%increase in 2010 reducing the total electric rate increase from 9.5%
to 7.42%. If the Ordinance- Option B is approved, staff will return to Council at a later date with
additional specifics related to the grant award and funding options, including debt financing,for
the project. Appropriations for the AMI project could be approved at that time.
493
f
November 3, 2009
The chart below provides Council with the projected rate increases given the following
considerations:
Option A — 9.5%, Ordinance as approved on first reading 1012012009.
L
Option B— 7.42%, Ordinance revised to exclude rate increase for AMI.
Electric Rate O tions or 2010
Cost for 700
kWh -
Residential $Increase %Increase
Rate from 2009 from 2009
2009 Rate $50.66
2010 Option A — 9.5% $55.48, $4.82 9.5%
2010 Option B— 7.42% 1 $54.43 1 $3.77 1 7.4%
With either option,Fort Collins electric rates remain competitive with those ofsurrounding utilities.
FINANCL4L IMPACTS
The rate Ordinance is projected to increase the annual operating revenues of the Light and Power
Fund by approximately 9.5% (Option A) or 7.42% (Option B).'
The annual electric bill for typical residential electric customer (700 kilowatt-hours per month)
would increase $57.84 with Option A and$45.24 with Option B.
SUSTAINABILITY. ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Environmental—Each option includes funding to enable the utilities to move toward meeting the
goals and objectives of the Energy Policy including the targeted reduction in consumption of 1.5%
and the City's carbon reduction goal to reduce carbon emissions to 80%of 2005 levels by 2020.
Economic—The proposed increase in electric rates will increase the cost oflivingfor our customers,
however, the rates for all customer classes remain among the lowest in the State. To lessen the
financial impact, customers have the ability to reduce their energy use to lower their utility bill.
AMI will provide additional information to customers to help them manage their usage.
Social- The rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue to provide safe reliable power for the
benefit of the citi=ens and businesses of Fort Collins."
Ellen Switzer, Utility Financial Operations Manager, stated Option A of the electric rate ordinance
will increase rates 9.8%and was adopted by Council on First Reading on October 20,2009. Option
B increases electric rates 7.42%in 2010 and excludes the 2.08%rate increase for AMI. The Utilities
has been awarded a S 15.4 million SmartGrid investment grant from the Department of Energy. Staff
494
November 3, 2009
is exploring debt financing and other options for the utilities match needed for the grant. Either
option of the electric rates provides Fort Collins residents with low electric rates, compared to other
cities in the state.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, stated the rate increase for renewable energy goes to pay for an
increase in delivery of energy from the Silver Sage Project in Wyoming. Council should have
considered this rate increase before any commitment to purchase renewable energy from the Silver
Sage Project was given. The way Platte River Power Authority bills Fort Collins for electric power
is not acceptable and should be examined. Debt financing should not be considered for the AMI
project.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, stated the increase in rates for renewable energy does not
benefit Fort Collins residents. More consideration should be given to using nuclear energy in
America.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Option B of
Ordinance No. 115, 2009, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy stated renewable energy is clean energy and does not produce the adverse
effects of nuclear energy.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion to lower the energy efficiency services increase from 1.8%
to .9% each year. The motion did not receive a second.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification of the issue raised concerning Silver Sage Project.
Brian Janonis,Utilities Executive Director,stated the rate increase associated with renewable energy
is related to Platte River policy of moving away from renewable energy credits(RECs)to more"on
the ground" renewables. Fort Collins is not the only member seeing a rate increase for renewable
energy. The Platte River tariff charged to all four member cities is increasing.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Fort Collins has a policy of moving away from RECs and Platte River is
responding to Fort Collins' request to use fewer RECs.
Councilmember Ohlson stated conservation efforts by residents and the use of renewable energy will
make a difference in the future.
Councilmember Troxell asked if Option B has been considered by the Electric Board. City Manager
Atteberry stated there was no time between First and Second Reading of the Ordinance to have the
Electric Board review Option B of the Ordinance. The Electric Board will provide further input into
any proposal brought forward regarding the financing of the AMI project.
495
November 3, 2009
Councilmember Kottwitz stated the City's low utility rates attract new employers to the community
and a 1.8%increase rates for energy efficiency services seems too high. Fees are a form of tax that
citizens do not get to vote on and should not be raised without greater scrutiny from Council.
Councilmember Manvel stated fees are paid by residents receiving a service and are not a tax.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what happens to the rate increase funds collected for the energy
conservation programs if those programs do not produce a certain level of success. Janonis stated
the utility is a non-profit and if the funds are collected for a specific project are not used,the funds
are used in future years to offset a rate increase or go into reserves.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if a rate increase for energy conservation programs will be proposed
for 2011 if the programs are not successful in 2010. Janonis stated rate increases associated with
Platte River will occur in 2011 and any funds that are not used for other programs will be used to
offset the Platte River rate increase.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Option B removes a 2.08% rate increase for AMI.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 102, 2009,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act to the Transit Fund, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 20, 2009, appropriates funds
received from the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009(ARRA)to purchase six NABI40-
foot Low Floor Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) replacement buses and several Proximity Card
Readers in 2009."
Stacy Lynne,216 Park Street, asked for the cost of each bus,the total amount of funds appropriated
and what will happen to the buses being replaced.
Maryls Sittner, Transfort/Dial-A-Ride General Manager, stated each bus will cost approximately
$375,000 and no matching funds from the City were required. Buses that have greater than 500,000
miles or at least twelve years old are considered to be past their useful life. The buses will be
auctioned after they are replaced.
496
November 3, 2009
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw to adopt Ordinance No.
102, 2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 105, 2009,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various
City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between
Funds or Projects, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this annual "clean-up"Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that
need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not
anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2009 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily
from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset
specific expenses. Prioryear reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation
expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on October 27, 2009. "
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, stated the ordinance appropriates $450,000 from other funds into a
Department of Energy/FortZed/RDSI grant project. In June, Council removed the FortZed/RDSI
project from the competitive bidding process in the belief that there was urgency to the project and
action needed to be taken immediately yet the funds are only now being appropriated. He asked for
the source of funds to purchase the diesel to be used in the diesel generators that will feed the grid
for FortZed. He did not support the use of diesel generators to feed the grid for FortZed because
such generators were wasteful.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the diesel generators are not intended to be a source of ongoing energy
production but will be used to load the system and test the grid.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.
105, 2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 120, 2009,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the
Natural Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
497
November 3, 2009
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $1,307,900, received by the City under a Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program.
BA CKGR O UND/DIS C USSION
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, directs the Department
of Energy to award formula-based grants to local governments under the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program. The Recovery Act's purposes are to stimulate the
economy, create and retain jobs, and conserve resources in an expeditious manner.
Fort Collins applied for an EECBG grant, and has been awarded$1,307,900. Pending Department
of Energy approval, these funds would be used for a number of projects as follows:
1. City Building Load Management, $35,000
Automated controls for electric load management to reduce peak demand in
four buildings, 281 North Mason, Senior Center, Transit Center, and Transfort.
2. Educational Outreach, $40,000
Education and public relations campaign for energy conservation among City
employees, including a web-site to share Citypractices and monitoring energy-
conservation performance of individual departments[energy, trash,fuel, and
water].
3. Waste Diversion, $42,000
Additional recycling bins for Parks and Natural Areas, demonstration project
on diversion of organic waste with several Climate Wise partners, and
cardboard compacting units.
4. Photo-Voltaic Expansion, $125,900
Quadruple capacity of the Northside Aztlan Community Center Photo-voltaic
system 20 kW.
5. Boiler Upgrades, $140,000
Replace antiquated boilers with high-efficiency units in the Museum and old
Police Buildings.
6. Server Virtualization, $185,000
Purchase innovative computer hardware and software that would enable the
retirement& virtualization of 80 inefficient servers.
7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, $325,000
a. Install Mountain Avenue sidewalklbike lanes from Meldrum to Riverside,
about 1 114 miles
498
November 3, 2009
b. Extend Lincoln Street pedestrian path in the vicinity of Buckingham
Neighborhood, about 112 mile
c. Pilot-test a Bike Box, an intersection safety improvement for bicyclists, at
Plum and Shields Streets.
8. Green Building Program Implementation, $245,000
Review, adopt, implement, and enforce new Green Building Standards,
including inspector training and enforcement of current energy codes.
9. Climate Wise Technical Assistance, $45,000
Additional technical assistance to support new,and existing Climate Wise
partners to implement and report more energy-efficiency projects. Funds will
be partially matched by Governor's Energy Office.
10. Solar Thermal Incentive Program, $75,000
Provide incentives for installation of residential and small-business solar
thermal hot water systems. Funds will be matched by Governor's Energy
Office.
11. Climate Action Plan Technical Assistance$30,000
Data collection, tracking, and progress reporting for the community carbon
inventory mandated by the Climate Action Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The City has been awarded a grant of$1.3 million to further the energy efficiency and other
objectives of the American Recovery &Reinvestment Act. The grant requires no match from the
City.,,
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street, stated a portion of the grant that is slated for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements should be used to enforce the dismount zone in the downtown area and to remove
bicycle racks from parking spaces in the downtown area.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if any of the grant funds will be used to create and retain jobs. Brian
Woodruff, Environmental Planner, stated the purpose of the Department of Energy grant is to
promote energy efficiencies and conservation as well as generate jobs.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated these grant funds should be used in place of a 2011 rate increase for
energy efficiency programs.
Councilmember Troxell asked what was included in the grant application toward job creation and
retention. Woodruff stated the Department of Energy dictated what the job creation numbers should
be in the proposal, based on the types of activities proposed. He will provide the exact figures to
Council.
499
November 3, 2009
Councilmember Ohlson asked if this grant was connected to the grant the City has received for AMI.
City Manager Atteberry stated the City has received one grant for the AMI project and a separate
grant for the proposed projects.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if these grant funds will be used to restore some of the ClimateWise
program activities that had been cut from the budget. City Manager Atteberry stated staff is looking
in other areas for funds to enhance ClimateWise programs and items within the Climate Action Plan
that were not funded in the budget. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated the funds for
the grant were awarded based on a formula from the Department of Energy. The grant provides
$45,000 for ClimateWise Program and $30,000 for the Climate Action Plan.
City Manager Atteberry noted a report detailing the amount of ARRA funds the City has received
will be provided to Council.
Councilmember Troxell asked that the report shows what amount of local match is required for each
award received from ARRA. Stokes clarified the Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant does
not require a local match.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.
1201 2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 121, 2009,
Amending Chapter 26 Article XII of the City Code Relating to Utility
Billing Errors, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance codifies the Utilities'current administrative policy which addresses utility billing
errors. When a customer is overcharged, the Utilities will refund the customer the overcharge for
a period not to exceed sixyears from the time the error is discovered. Ifa customer is undercharged
for services received, the Utility will back bill the customer only if the undercharges occurred less
than six years before the date the error is discovered and either the undercharges are for a minimal
amount or the customer could not have discovered the error with reasonable inquiry. No interest
will be paid or collected.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Utilities staff endeavors to accurately compute all electric, water, wastewater and stormwater
billings, but misreporting, data errors and equipment failures do occur. When customer billing
errors are discovered, corrections are made based on an administrative policy approved in 2000.
500
November 3, 2009
Essentially, overpayments are reimbursedfor a period not to exceed 6years and under-billings are
forgiven when it is reasonable to presume that customer was unaware of the billing error. The
administrative policy has functioned well in the vast majority of circumstances; however, it lacks
the authority of City Code. The proposed language incorporates the existing billing error policies
as a new section in Chapter 26 of the City Code.
The proposed new section also stipulates that it is a punishable Code violation for a customer to
make any attempt or action to mislead the utility related to a billing error. It further states that the
customer is responsible for due diligence in-reviewing their billing statements and for reporting
errors to the Utilities.
In addition to the new Code Section 26-721 titled Billing errors, the Ordinance makes clarifications
in Section 26-119 Charges in event of meter failure. The Ordinance also retitles Section 26-720
from "Administrative procedures" to "Administrative rules and regulations. "
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, asked why the public notice was directed only to out-of-city utility
customers and why a draft of the proposed ordinance was not available for Water Board and Electric
Board members to review. He asked what the legal remedies for rate payers are currently available.
Councilmember Manvel asked what the proposed ordinance will change from current practices
regarding discrepancies in utility billing. Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial Operations Manager,
stated the ordinance will codify the administrative policy used by the Utilities for nine years and
clarify the process for customers. Occasionally,an error is found that has occurred over many years
and customers question the six-year limit contained in the refund policy. Having the specifics in the
Code will help resolve conflicts with customers.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a customer currently in a dispute with the Utilities regarding an
overpayment covering more than six years would be grandfathered in for a refund covering more
than six years. Switzer stated the policy is to refund not more than six years. City Attorney Roy
stated no customer would be grandfathered and the intent of the Ordinance is to address errors that
may have occurred several years ago. The Ordinance strengthens the position the City has taken
through its administrative policy by codifying the same rule that has existed for many years.
Councilmember Troxell asked why a cutoff of six years is needed if the City has been overcharging
a customer for a longer period of time. Switzer stated there have been cases where refunds have
exceeded several thousand dollars. City Attorney Roy stated a timeframe needs to be established.
Councilmember Roy asked if a grace period could be included in the Ordinance to allow customers
up to one year to discover any errors in billing before the Ordinance becomes law.
Councilmember Manvel noted the Ordinance is codifying an administrative policy already in place
which has included a six-year limit of overcharge refunds. He did not support any grace period
because the six-year limit is not a new rule and applies to both overcharges and undercharges.
501
November 3, 2009
Councilmember Troxell asked how many errors occur in utility billing over the past twenty years.
Switzer stated billing errors are fairly rare but an occasional error effects many customers. The
number of errors for the past twenty years is not available,but staff can provide information for the
past two or three years. The records do not exist from twenty years ago.
Councilmember Troxell asked how a customer could dispute utility billing from six years ago if the
records do not exist. Switzer stated six years of utility billing records are available but those records
may not be flagged to indicate any adjustment for a billing error.
City Manager Atteberry asked if Councilmember Troxell's concerns were about the City's ability
to successfully manage the billing for the proposed pilot trash district or about errors in utility
billing.
Councilmember Troxell stated the Ordinance is limiting ratepayers ability to recover overpayment
and he questioned the number of errors in billing that occur. Trash services is another customer
oriented billing and the same questions may arise with the trash district at a later date.
City Manager Atteberry noted Utilities has been in customer service the entire time of its existence
and the Utility Billing Department.works diligently to ensure customers have good, accurate and
reliable billing. He asked if Utility Billing had any reports to show the data that errors occur
infrequently. Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, stated staff will review the billing as far
back as it can to determine the number of billing errors that occurred.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for a report that gives data-based assessment of the rate of utility billing
errors.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked staff to ensure that enacting the six-year limit for the refund of
overpayment does not adversely affect any customer currently in dispute about a utility billing error.
Councilmember Roy asked why the Electric Board and Water Board were not given drafts of the
proposed Ordinance to review before the Boards voted on whether to recommend approval of the
Ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the process to produce ordinances and resolutions for Council
consideration is time-sensitive. Ordinances are revised up to the point of printing Council's agenda.
Boards and commissions are presented the concepts contained in ordinances but do not receive the
actual language because the ordinances are not ready. The discussion of boards and commissions
should not focus on the wording of an ordinance but should focus on the concept contained in the
ordinance. Council would need to direct staff to provide boards and commissions with ordinances,
where possible.
Mayor Hutchinson noted boards and commissions only meet once a month and trying to provide the
actual wording of ordinances is not practical.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he supported providing draft wording of ordinances to boards and
commissions when possible. City Attorney Roy stated a draft of an ordinance can change
considerably from the time a board or commission sees the draft, depending on the date of the
502
November 3, 2009
meeting of a board or commission. Any wording changed or discussed at the board or commission
meeting is likely to be changed after the meeting and the board's time would have been wasted.
Attention would have been called to wording that might no longer exist and may stir up controversies
that become nonissues by the time the item is considered by Council. Providing the wording of an
ordinance is a question of timing. If the board or commission is meeting a day or two before the
agenda goes to print, the final wording can be provided for the board or commission's review.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
121, 2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2009-099
Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation,Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Larry Gilleland, for the property owners, VPD 392 LLC and Peter Prato, has
submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 28.9 acresllocated on the south side of
Carpenter Road(County Road 32), at the southwest corner oflnterstate 25&Carpenter Road. The
property is undeveloped and is in the AP-Airport District in Larimer County. The requested zoning
for this annexation is C - Commercial. The surrounding properties are currently zoned POL —
Public Open Lands in the City to the north, C—Commercial and T— Tourist in Larimer County to
the north, AP-Airport in Larimer County to the west and south, and C- Commercial in the Town
of Windsor to the east.
This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code,
the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor Intergovernmental
Agreement, and the I-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan. There are no known controversies
associated with this annexation. A few issues to be addressed as part of a future site specific
development plan relate to: coordination of the SH 392 and southwest frontage road alignments
and right-of-way delineations;and,potential impacts on the existing wetlands on the middle portion
of the property. The development review process has protection measures within Section 3.4.1(E)
of the Land Use Code to ensure that existing wetlands on the property are adequately protected and
buffered. Within this section is the requirement for the provision of an ecological characterization
study, which is the foundation for establishing buffer zones to protect the wetlands.
503
November 3, 2009
BA CKGRO UND/DISCUSSION
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal
Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and
directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time offirst reading of the
annexation and zoning ordinances.Not less than thirty days ofprior notice is required by State law.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.According to policies and
agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of
property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The
property lies within the Corridor Activity Center boundary in the I-251SH 392 Interchange
Improvement Plan. It gains the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common
boundary with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space Annexation (June, 2008) to the north. "
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the Planning and Zoning Board will review the annexation if the
Resolution initiating annexation proceedings is adopted. City Attorney Roy stated state statute
requires an annexation proceeding to be initiated by Council to begin consideration of an annexation.
The Planning and Zoning Board will review an annexation application and determine whether or not
to recommend approval. The initiating Resolution is not an endorsement of the annexation by
Council.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if initiating the annexation included any zoning decision. City
Attorney Roy stated the discussion about whether to annex and what zone district the property should
be placed in will occur at First Reading of the annexing and zoning ordinances on December 15.
The initiating Resolution complies with state statute that requires certain prerequisites be met in
order for a petition for annexation to be sufficient by law.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that the item be placed on discussion on December 15 to ensure the
property receives the proper zoning. City Manager Atteberry noted the zoning of the property will
be consistent with the Structure Plan.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2009-099. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz,Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by�Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m., Tuesday, November 10, 2009 to consider adjourning into executive session to conduct the
annual performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge. Yeas:
Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
504
November 3, 2009
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
i
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
l
505
November 10, 2009
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November
10,2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson;Poppaw,Roy
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
City Manager Atteberry announced the public hearing on the pilot trash district that was scheduled
for November 17, 2009, has been canceled since an agreement with the trash hauler who has been
awarded the pilot trash district has not been reached. City staff will conduct another meeting with
the trash hauler in an effort to reach agreement on a contract.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go into executive
session, as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1)(a) of the City Code to review and discuss the
performance and proposed compensation and benefits of the City Manager, City Attorney and
Municipal Judge. Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.)
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk {
506
November 17, 2009
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 17,
2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy,
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the public hearing for the pilot trash district,originally scheduled for this
evening,had been postponed. The negotiation process with the trash hauler was more extensive than
was anticipated. Negotiations are not yet completed and not all the information is available that was
to be provided at the public hearing. The hearing will be rescheduled once all the negotiations are
completed and the information is available. Council must consider a Resolution on December 1 to
extend the original deadline.
Matt Robbins, Community Relations Specialist with the Colorado Lottery, presented the 2009
Starburst Conservation Award for Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. The award recognizes excellence
in the use of lottery funds that promote community building, partnership, conservation and
commitment to the recreational needs of Colorado residents.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 631LaPorte, stated concerns with the loan made to the Urban Renewal Authority
for the RMI2 project. He stated he has submitted a complaint to the District Attorney asking the
URA be required to refund the money to the City.
Eric Kronwall, 1613 Barnwood Drive, stated much confusion exists among the city's landlords
regarding enforcement of the occupancy ordinance. He did not believe rental registration or rental
licensing would clear up the confusion that the occupancy limits have caused.
Steve Levinger, 259 South College Avenue, Fort Collins Innkeepers Association President, stated
his Association is concerned that allowing City facilities to acquire liquor licenses will give the
facilities an unfair advantage over private banquet and catering businesses.
Jackie Adolph, Fort Collins resident, Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, stated her group
opposes in situ uranium mining proposed for Nunn, Colorado. She urged support for HB 1161.
1
November 17, 2009
Vivian Armendariz,820 Merganser Drive,stated no one should denythat domestic violence happens
in many homes. Transfort held a public hearing regarding changes to Route 16, but public
notification was very limited and should have been posted on Dial-A-Ride buses. The hearing was
held at an inconvenient time and location. Motorists do not treat wheelchairs as pedestrians and
more enforcement is needed to protect wheelchair users. Businesses need to remove snow from their
storefronts.
Doug Keasling,217 Orilla Del Lago,expressed concerns about allowing the City to acquire a liquor
license at the Northside Aztlan Community Center because it is an inappropriate location for the sale
of alcohol and the City should not be in competition with private venues.
John Dickson,Fort Collins resident,opposed the proposed uranium mine that would be located only
ten miles from Fort Collins.
Stacy Lynne,216 Park Street,thanked the staff at Northside Aztlan Community Center for providing
excellent service. She stated concerns with the proposed pilot trash district and with the disposal of
CFL lights.
Monte Barry,415 South Howes,stated police cars should not be used on the City's trails. Allowing
wheelchairs to use bike lanes when necessary was a good decision by Council.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, stated the negotiations for the pilot trash district should be
made public.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, stated the City is providing approximately 75% the funding to
construct the RMI2 project. Staff and Council discussed the risks and costs associated with the loan
at the time the URA Board approved the loan. The Master Covenant, First Right of Refusal, and
First Right of Offer are some of the signed documents that protect the City's interests and ensure the
facility will be use for economic development purposes.
City Attorney Roy stated the Legal Investments Act does not preclude the financial arrangement
from the City's perspective because the Act expressly acknowledges the power of a home-ruled city
to invest any public funds as permitted by ordinance of the Council. The RMI2 appropriation was
approved by ordinance. The loan can also be viewed as an expenditure supported by a public
purpose. Both of these reasons justify the City's role in the transaction. The proper analysis of the
URA loan is not as an investment. The URA powers are not limited to investing but are broadly
worded in the statute that spells out the powers of urban renewal authorities to carry out urban
renewal projects in urban renewal areas. The loan to RM12 is permissible under the Urban Renewal
statute in the same way an outright acquisition of property within a project is permissible as a way
for the Urban Renewal Authority to redevelop properties contained with the area.
Councilmember Troxell stated the hearing for the pilot trash district should be held as a question and
answer forum so Council can listen to citizens and questions can be answered.
2
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the citizens speaking out against uranium mining.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published Agenda.
Steve Levinger, 259 South College, pulled Item #17, Resolution 2009-104 Authorizing the City
Manager to Apply for Liquor Licenses on Behalf of the City.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, pulled Item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2009,
Amending Chapter 26 Article XII of the City Code Relating to Utility Billing Errors.
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street and Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, pulled Item #7 Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund
for the Natural Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 29,2009 Special Meeting and
the October 6 Regular Meeting,
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120,2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Natural Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3,2009,appropriates
$1,307,900,received by the City under a Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
(EECBG) Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2009, Amending Chapter 26 Article XII of the City
Code Relating to Utility Billing Errors.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2009, codifies the
Utilities' current administrative policy which addresses utility billing errors. When a
customer is overcharged, the Utilities will refund the customer the overcharge for a period
not to exceed six years from the time the error is discovered. If a customer is undercharged
for services received,the Utility will back bill the customer only if the undercharges occurred
less than six years before the date the error is he
and either the undercharges are for
a minimal amount or the customer could not have discovered the error with reasonable
inquiry. No interest will be paid or collected.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122,2009,Repealing Ordinance No. 007, 1975, Relating
to the Security of Buildings and Businesses in the City.
3
November 17, 2009
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2009, repeals
Ordinance No. 007, 1975, which is now obsolete. Ordinance No. 007,1975, required the
Police Department to maintain a register of all commercial buildings and businesses in the
city, including emergency contact information for a designated representative for each
business and building, and compelled property and business owners to cooperate by
providing information. Currently, such information is gathered and maintained by the
Poudre Fire Authority as a part of its building inspection program.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2009, Adopting a Fee Schedule for Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries and Amending the Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries to Add the Fee Schedule.
This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2009, amends the
Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries to add a list of the
amounts of fees for 2010 and 2011, and to specify that in future years fees will be increased
based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers(CPI-
U). If in any year the CPI-U does not increase, fees will remain unchanged for the year.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124,2009,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Real Property Known as the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Rezoning.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2009,rezones six
areas within the Mountain Vista subarea. These involve adjustments to the size and location
of Industrial, Employment, Community Commercial, Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods, and Transition Zone Districts.
The proposed rezoning changes are consistent with the City Structure Plan.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125,2009,Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2010 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2010 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $711,600, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on November 3, 2009, appropriates the City of Fort Collins' contribution,
which is a 50% share of the 2010 Airport budget and totals $355,800.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds,
totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort
Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The 2010 Airport capital funds,
totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue runway improvements.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126,2009,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Employees' Retirement Plan.
4
J
November 17, 2009
The City Council created the General Employees' Retirement Plan in 1971 to provide a
retirement benefit in addition to the Social Security system. Oversight is provided by a six-
member Committee, five of whom are appointed by Council, the other being the Financial
Officer.
The single-sum benefit, approved by City Council in 1998, is designed to be actuarially
neutral to the Plan. When an employee elects to receive a lump sum amount from the Plan,
the liability of providing a future pension benefit to the employee is removed from the Plan.
Although actuarially neutral, voluntary elections of single sum payments reduce the
uncertainty regarding the number of employees for whom the Plan must provide an income
over an unknown period of years. From that standpoint,lump sum payments are considered
financially favorable.
14. Items Relatine to Fossil Creek Reservoir Area.
A. Resolution 2009-102 Authorizing an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County Concerning the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
Property.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2009, Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer
County of Portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Property Leased by the City from
North Poudre Irrigation Company.
This amended and restated Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) summarizes the original
IGA and the two previous amendments into a single document. It also changes the
Agreement to allow the County the right to continue as a managing entity while also
requiring the City to assume certain management and operation responsibilities.
The new sublease between the City and County will allow the County the ability to continue
enforcing County regulations on the south shore of the Fossil Creek Reservoir.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No.129, 2009, Authorizins the Conveyance of a Temporary
Construction Easement on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Larimer County for the
Fossil Creek Restoration Proiect.
The Larimer County Engineering Department is working on the Fossil Creek Restoration
Project, designed to restore a portion of the existing Fossil Creek Channel. In 1972,
approximately 1,300 feet of Fossil Creek was shifted to its current location in order to
facilitate the operation of the Landfill. The current location of the Channel is on the Larimer
County Landfill property,just south of the boundary of Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area.
This section of Fossil Creek has eroded downward as much as 12 feet and is beginning to
widen due to continued erosion. This erosive process now threatens an adjacent existing
sewer main and the Landfill liner. To prevent the failure of the sewer main and the Landfill
liner,Larimer County is proposing to move Fossil Creek back into a historic channel located
5
November 17, 2009
on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The County is requesting a temporary construction
easement on Cathy Fromme Prairie to accomplish this action.
16. Public Hearing and Resolution 2009-103 Approving the Programs and Projects That Will
Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)and Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating
$1,001,776 of City financial resources to affordable housing and community development
programs/projects.
17. Resolution 2009-104 Authorizingthe Manager to Apply for Liquor Licenses on Behalf
of the City.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to apply for liquor
licenses for City facilities as the City Manager determines appropriate. It also authorizes the
City Manager to designate other members of City staff as the City Manager deems
appropriate to apply(as co-applicant) on behalf of the City for such license and to apply to
be a registered manager of a licensed premises. The application for,and management of,the
licensed facilities will, for the purposes of indemnification under the City Code and the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), be considered within. the scope of
employment of the City Manager and his designees and among the official duties they are
to perform for the City.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120,2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Natural Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2009,Amending Chapter 26 Article XII of the City
Code Relating to Utility Billing Errors.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122,2009,Repealing Ordinance No.007, 1975,Relating
to the Security of Buildings and Businesses in the City.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2009,Adopting a Fee Schedule for Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries and Amending the Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and
Roselawn Cemeteries to Add the Fee Schedule.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124,2009,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Real Property Known as the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Rezoning.
6
November 17, 2009
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125,2009,Authorizing the Appropriation of 2010 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126,2009,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Employees' Retirement Plan.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2009, Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer County of
Portions of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Property Leased by the City from North Poudre
Irrigation Company.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No.129, 2009, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary
Construction Easement on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Larimer County for the
Fossil Creek Restoration Project.
21. Emergency Ordinance No. 128, 2009, Imposing a Moratorium Upon the Acceptance of
Applications for the Issuance of Licenses or Permits Related to Businesses that Seek to
Dispense Medical Marijuana.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Bob Browning for his years of service on the CDBG Commission
and the Affordable Housing Board.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel noted he and Councilmember Troxell attended a reception at the Museum
of Contemporary Art to celebrate the success of RamRide which has provided over 100,000 safe
rides home to CSU students from the downtown area.
Emergency Ordinance No. 128, 2009,
Imposing a Moratorium on the Acceptance of Applications for the Issuance of Licenses
or Permits Related to Businesses That Seek to Dispense Medical Marijuana and on the
Establishment of Such Businesses in the City, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
7
November 17, 2009
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has recently seen a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries ("MMDs') within its
boundaries, some of which are operated as "home occupations"in zone districts that are primarily
residential in character. As of November 9, 2009, twenty-six such businesses had been issued sales
tax licenses by the City, twelve of which have been issued in the last month, and City staff continues
to receive inquiries from persons interested in establishing additional such businesses at the rate
of approximately ten per week.
Fort Collins Police Services has serious concerns about the secondary effects of MMDs. Staff has
held a number of meetings to discuss this issue and, on November S, 2009, the City Manager, City
Attorney, Chief of Police, Planning Director and members of their respective staffs met with their
counterparts from Larimer County and the City of Loveland to discuss a coordinated approach to
dealing with MMDs. Because court rulings and regulations at the state level are rapidly changing
with regard to MMDs and because there is a strongpossibility that the state legislature will address
this subject during its upcoming legislative session, City staff recommends that the City Council
impose a ten-month moratorium on MMDs, by means of this emergency ordinance, until the laws
and regulations that govern MMDs are clarified and until the City has had an opportunity to
determine how best to deal with them at the local level in the event that statewide regulations prove
to be inadequate.
This moratorium would maintain the status quo in that those MMDs that have been established
would be allowed to continue to operate unless, under current law, they are illegal.
BA CKGR O UND/D IS C USSION
The origin of MMDs in Colorado.
The reason that MMDs have come into existence is that, in November of 2000, the voters of the state
of Colorado approved a constitutional amendment(the Amendment) that created an exception and
an affirmative defense to the state's criminal laws so that patients and their 'primary care-givers"
who are in lawful possession of a registry identification card can possess and use a certain amount
ofmarijuanaformedicalpurposes. Thepresumptive amount which is, by definition, "lawful"under
the Amendment, is two ounces or six plants per patient. However, as an affirmative defense to any
prosecution, a person charged under state law may assert and prove that greater amounts were
"medically necessary. "
The Amendment states that no person shall be entitled to the protection of the Amendment for
acquisition,possession,manufacture,production, use,sale distribution, dispensing or transportation
of marijuana for any use other than medical use.
The Department of Public Health and Environment(the "Department')is required and authorized
under the Amendment to maintain a confidential registry ofpatients who have applied for and are
entitled to receive a registry identification card. Local law enforcement officers can access the
registry only if they have "stopped or arrested a person who claims to be engaged in the medical
8
November 17, 2009
use of marijuana and is in possession of a registry identification card or its functional equivalent"
and only for the purpose of verifying that the individual is lawfully in possession of the card. The
Amendment sets forth in detail the criteria and procedures for obtaining such a card. Patients may,
but are not required to, designate a primary care-giver.
The Amendment defines a primary care-giver as a person other than the patient and the patient's
physician who is eighteen years of age or older and who has a "significant responsibility for
managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition. " However, the
Amendment does not define the term "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a
patient. "
A combination of factors have led to an insurgence of MMDs in Colorado municipalities.
In the absence of a constitutional definition of this term, the rules made by the Department have
largely determined the extent to which the Amendment has provided a "safe harbor"for MMDs.
Initially, there was limited growth on the medical marijuana registry and in 2004, the Department
created an administrative guideline that a primary care-giver could provide for only five registered
patients. In 2007, however, a Denver District Judge overturned this limitation because ofprocess
concerns with the way the guideline had been adopted, including the fact that no public hearings
were conducted by the Department. After this ruling, more MMDs began to open in communities
throughout the state.
In July of this year, the Department, through formal action of its Board following a public hearing,
adopted a rule defining the term "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient
who has a debilitating medical condition" that further opened the door to MMDs. It defined the
term to mean "assisting a patient with daily activities, including but not limited to transportation
or housekeeping or meal preparation or shopping or making any necessary arrangementfor access
to medical care or services or provision of medical marijuana."(Emphasis added.)
This rule adopted by the Board suggested that MMDs that have little, if any, actual responsibility
for managing the well-being ofpatients could claim entitlement to the protection of the Amendment
as primary care-givers. At its July hearing, the Board not only revised the definition to include the
provision of marijuana as a way of assisting a patient with daily activities, but it also declined to
limit primary care-givers to a certain number of patients.
In addition,shortly after the Board hearing, the Obama administration announced that, even though
the manufacture, distribution,possession and use ofmarijuana isprohibited byfederallaw,federal
law enforcement agencies should not seek to prosecute marijuana cases in which the defendant is
in compliance with states'medical marijuana programs. This reduced the risk that a MMD would
be raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Finally, the state legislature has not tried to clarify or limit the extent to which MMDs fall within
the protection of the Amendment, which has led to an even larger influx of MMDs in Colorado.
In combination, these factors have created a huge growth in number of patients on the medical
marijuana registry and a blossoming industry for producing and distributing the drug.
9
November 17, 2009
In Fort Collins, the first sales tax license for a MMD was issued by the City on February S, 2008,
with a second issued on July 28, 2008. There have been 24 more issued to date in 2009 (12 in the
last month). It also appears that more physicians have begun.recommending marijuana to their
patients and the number of written recommendations of medical marijuana issued by those
physicians has increased dramatically.As ofAugust 17, 2009, 732 ofthe 17,142 physicians licensed
in Colorado (4.3%) had made recommendations for medical marijuana. Two of those physicians
have written 38%of the recommendations, and the top 15 have made 76%of the recommendations.
Recent rulings are more limiting.
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in late October that "the act of supplying marijuana for
medical use, by itself, is insufficient to constitute significant management responsibility for a
patient's well-being, and consequently is insufficient to constitutionally qualify a person doing so
as a "primary care-giver. " People v. Stacy Clendenin, Colorado Court of Appeals, announced
October 29, 2009. However, the court did not address the question of whether the Board's
regulatory definition of the term "significant responsibility for manage the well-being of a patient"
would have changed its ruling because that definition was not in effect at the time of the defendant's
trial and conviction in the case before the court. On the heels of the Court of Appeals decision,.the
Board repealed its definition of"significant responsibility for managing the well being of a patient"
so as to be consistent with the court ruling. That decision of the Board, like the 2004 administrative
guideline, was subsequently overturned by the Denver District Court.
Therefore, at the present time, because of the conflict between the Court of Appeals decision and
the Department regulations, it is unclear whether MMDs must provide daily assistance to patients
beyond just providing marijuana to them. Hopefully, the courts, the Board or the state legislature
will soon clarify what MMDs need to do in order to qualify as 'primary care-givers". In the
meantime, City staff continues to have serious concerns about the unregulated proliferation of
MMDs in the City.
The health and safety problems presented by MMDs.
Police Services has identified a number of specific health and safety problems associated with
MMDs. They include the following:
1. Thousands of people who do not meet the intended definition of "debilitating medical
condition"are receiving certif cates for medical marijuana. The number is growing too fast
to obtain current statistics, but the number may be approaching 20,000 registered patients.
About 10%of the certificate holders reside in Larimer County.
2. There are no regulations regarding MMDs. The term "dispensary" is not defined at the
state level. There are no rules limiting the location, hours of operation, use on site, or
criminal background of people who operate MMDs. At least six of the MMDs in Fort
Collins are in residential areas. In Loveland, there is a MMD immediately next to a high
school. Several of the Fort Collins MMD.operators have arrest records for drugs and other
10
November 17, 2009
serious crimes, criminal histories, includingfelony convictions for marijuana cultivation and
distribution.
3. Due to the unregulated nature of MMDs and marijuana growing operations, and the
quantity of money and drugs involved, there is serious crime associated with them. There
have been several violent robberies and burglaries ofMMDs and growers in Fort Collins.
Many associated crimes go unreported because of the potentially illegal actions of the
victims.
4. A large amount of marijuana is being grown in residential houses and being imported from
other areas to meet this demand. There is no provision in the Amendment for third party
producers;however, this is the manner in which many MMDs obtain their supply to meet the
recent demand. There has been damage to rental properties and disruption to
neighborhoods caused by these marijuana growing operations. There are also hazards
associated with electrical wiring coupled with high electrical demand of indoor growing
operations, air quality issues and mold and fungus that develops in these indoor grows.
There are also no controls to ensure that the marijuana grown and distributed under the
protective umbrella of the Amendment is consumed by registered users. There have been
local cases where medical marijuana has been distributed on the illegal market and even to
high school students.
5. There is no requirement that a business disclose that it is providing medical marijuana on
its sales tax application. While there are 23 businesses that have specifically listed it,Police
Services believes that there are other businesses that are dispensing marijuana under
licenses listingproducts like horticulture supply,paraphernalia and herbal medicine. Some
MMDs may not have sales tax licenses at all. There is no way to determine how many
MMDs are actually operating in the City.
6. Investigating unregulated MMD'sforpossiblecriminalviolationsisextremelydifficult. For
example, there is no requirement, as exists at liquor licensed establishments, that MMD
operators allow police into theirfacility to ensure that applicable laws are being followed.
Some MMDs advertise popular music, game rooms and smoking rooms where young users
can "medicate"together. These look more like bars than medical facilities with none of the
regulatory framework.
7. The laws and regulations concerning MMDs at the state and federal levels are unsettled at
best, with several changes in the past few months. This makes it very difficult for Police
Services to differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana activity. There are also liability
risks ifperceived errors are made in this uncertain environment. It is very difficult to create
an enforcement strategy until these issues are resolved.In addition,Police Services does not
have adequate staffing to devote to these investigations. This contributes to the completely
unregulated nature of the marijuana business in the Fort Collins area. Depending on
actions taken at the state level,further regulation may be necessary at the local level to
regulate this industry in accordance with local values.
11
November 17, 2009
Possible Regulatory Approaches.
Colorado municipalities have taken a variety of approaches to addressing MMDs. Many have
enacted ordinances establishing a moratorium on MMDs pending further study. Long-term
approaches range from adopting no local regulations to imposing a total ban. Regulations include
locational requirements(e.g., minimum distances from schools or particular zone districts)as well
as regulations limiting on-site quantities, signage, hours of operation, on-site consumption etc.
Some municipalities issue permits to MMDs and make the permits subject to suspension or
revocation much like a liquor license. Each ofthese approaches reflects aparticularpolicyposition
with regard to MMDs and each is designed to address certain perceived problems, such as their
proximity to facilities that are occupied or frequented by school age children, or the possibility that
MMDs will serve as 'fronts"for illegal drug trafficking, etc.
Before City staff can make an informed recommendation to the City Council as to how to deal with
MMDs, much needs to be determined. First and foremost, the law needs to be clarified as to just
what the Amendment allows and does not allow. This clarification can come from either the Board
or the state legislature or both. In addition, City staff needs to investigate the most reasonable
approach to dealing with MMDs at the local level. Finally, the City needs to coordinate its efforts
with Larimer County,Loveland and other neighboring municipalities so that the approach it adopts
takes into consideration the impact of the City's regulations on neighboring communities.
The recommended ten-month period of time should be sufficient to allow for the formulation of
recommended amendments to the City Code to deal with MMDs in the City. In the.interim, staff
J believes that an adequate number of MMDs already exist in the City to meet the intent of the
Amendment at the local level.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
• Potential sales tax and licensing revenues associated with MMD's during the Moratorium.
• Staff time and resources associated with research and potential code changes to address the
use.
SUSTAINABILITY.ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Part of the purpose of this proposed moratorium is to understand the economic, environmental and
social impacts associated with MMD's. It is unclear as to the impacts MMD's as allowed by State
Law would have on our community. The economic impacts associated with regulating and
enforcement is unknown as well as the impacts of not regulating or enforcing them as a complete
and unfettered allowance of the use may have economic impacts associated with safety issues as the
use andpotential negative impacts enter into residential neighborhoods. The environmental impacts
are also unclear as there are potential issues associated with the varying scales of the MMD's.
Finally, the social impacts are also unclear as the absence of any regulatory criteria may cause the
residential character of neighborhoods to decline and sensitive uses such as schools, places of
worship, daycare facilities, etc could also be impacted. The proposed moratorium will allow the
12
November 17, 2009
City to review potential impacts and provide the City Council with information to make an informed
decision regarding the appropriate regulatory methods to address MMD's. "
City Manager Atteberry stated the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries(MMD)is brought as an
emergency ordinance because staff believes this issue needs Council's immediate attention. Police
Services is concerned over the proliferation of MMDs and Financial Services is concerned about
processing the influx of requests for sales tax licenses. The issue of MMDs is not about the
appropriate use of marijuana but focuses, on the effective regulation of medical marijuana
dispensaries. Currently, no Land Use regulations are enacted to regulate the location of these
facilities. The requested moratorium will give staff time to propose Land Use regulations for
Council's consideration. The moratorium will be up to ten months,but proposed regulations could
be brought forward sooner. No criteria exist to regulate who could receive a sales tax license to
operate a MMD. The application process to acquire a liquor license is quite extensive and no similar
process is in place for MMDs.
City Attorney Roy stated the term medical marijuana dispensaries is not a term found in the
Constitutional amendment that gave rise to the current situation. The term is used to describe
persons or entities who sell or otherwise distribute marijuana for the purposes permitted under
Amendment 20, which was approved by Colorado voters in 2000. Amendment 20 establishes an
affirmative defense and exceptions to the state criminal laws pertaining to marijuana. The phrase
in the Amendment that spawned the proliferation of MMDs is "primary care giver". The
Amendment allows the use of marijuana for medical purposes by persons with debilitating medical
conditions and their primary care givers, a person other than the patient who is 18 years of age or
older,and has"significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient". The Amendment
does not define"significant responsibility". Medical marijuana dispensaries are being established
on the premise that they qualify as primary care givers. At this point,the law is very unsettled about
the definition of a primary care giver.
A proliferation of MMDs has occurred in the city as a result of the current definition of primary care
giver which has been reinstated in the Department of Public Health regulations. These regulations
indicate the mere provision of marijuana constitutes significant responsibility for managing the well-
being of a patient and makes one eligible, as a primary care-giver, even though other kinds of
assistance with daily activities may not be provided. There is a lack of state regulation of MMDs;
although,the State Legislature may address the subject to provide some baseline of regulation. Also,
there has been a directive from the federal level not to enforce marijuana laws in areas that comply
with state laws that allow for medical use of marijuana.
Steve Dush,Current Planning Director,stated a medical marijuana dispensary is currently classified
as a retail store or a combination of retail store/clinic or personal service. The use classification
could change in the future, depending on future changes by the Department of Public Health.
Currently, there are no land use criteria to review or mitigate impacts of MMDs, such as location
impacts. The use is allowed in all non-residential zones and some residential zones as a retail use
establishment. The use is also allowed as a home occupation in all zones. Currently, there are 8
MMDs located in residential zones, with seven of those requiring home occupation licenses. One
is grandfathered in through the City's old Land Development Guidance System. As of the end of
13
November 17, 2009
business today, two more home occupation license applications were received. No sales on the
premise are allowed with a home occupation license,but the product can be grown and stored in the
house and delivered to customers offsite. A detached building cannot be used and the product cannot
be grown or stored outside. To date, the City has eight licenses in residential zones, 18 licenses in
commercial zones and two licenses for addresses not in the city,but intending to do business in the
city. Since Friday,November 13th, 19 additional requests for sales tax licenses have been received
and are still pending.
Jerry Schiager, Police Services, stated in 2001, the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment began accepting applications for the medical marijuana registry. At that time there
were no known dispensaries in Fort Collins. In November 2004,the Department created a guideline
that a primary caregiver could only provide marijuana for up to five patients after a concern was
raised about caregivers claiming to provide for hundreds of patients. At that point there were 512
patients listed on registry with no known dispensaries in Fort Collins. The guideline was overruled
in 2007 by a Denver District Court judge because the rule had been created without using the proper
public process. The registry had 1350 patients by 2007 and no known dispensaries were located in
Fort Collins. The first sales tax license in Fort Collins was issued to a medical marijuana dispensary
in 2008. In 2609,the Obama administration stated federal resources should not be used to prosecute
people who were in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. There were 5,000 people listed
on the registry when the presidential statement was issued, with three dispensaries located in Fort
Collins. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment held a public hearing in July
2009 to establish rules regarding the medical marijuana program and decided not to reestablish the
five patient per caregiver rule. The Board defined the term"significant responsibility for managing
the well-being of a patient' to include simply providing marijuana. At that time there were about
10,000 people listed on the state registry with 10 dispensaries in Fort Collins. In October 2009,the
Court of Appeals ruled that to qualify as a primary caregiver, a person must do more to manage the
well-being of a patient,than simply providing marijuana. The state registry now had 20,000 patients
listed and 20 dispensaries were located in Fort Collins. In November 2009, the Board held an
emergency meeting to change its definition to be consistent with the Court of Appeals ruling, but
was overruled by the Denver District Court judge. Currently,there are over 21,000 people listed on
the state registry, with over 600 applications received each day. Larimer County has about 10%of
the registered patients.
Some perceived abuses exist in the medical marijuana program. Some physicians are making
recommendations for people who probably do not have legitimate debilitating medical conditions.
Out of 17,000 licensed physicians in Colorado, 732 physicians have written at least one
recommendation for medical marijuana. Two physicians have written 38%of the recommendations
and the top fifteen physicians have written 76%of the recommendations. Large retail dispensaries
probably do not meet the definition of a primary caregiver. Large quantities of marijuana are being
produced in underground growing operations with no control or accounting as to where it is
distributed. Police Services has worked several cases where marijuana grown under the protection
of the medical marijuana laws has been sold illegally. The State does not have any regulations in
place for this program and there are very few regulations at the local level. No qualifications or
background checks are required for those who apply for sales tax licenses for dispensaries. Several
applicants have had drug-related arrests. Dispensaries are not required to disclose that the business
14
November 17, 2009
is selling marijuana. A business that opened prior to becoming a medical marijuana dispensary is
not required to add the sale of medical marijuana to its sales tax license as aproduct being provided.
No restrictions exist for location, hours of operation or on marijuana use on the site of the MMD.
Signage and advertising are not regulated. The kitchens producing marijuana food products are not
controlled by health inspections. Liquor licensing regulations control many of these issues for liquor
distribution and similar types of regulations would be appropriate for medical marijuana
dispensaries.
It is difficult for law enforcement to distinguish between legal medical marijuana business and illegal
drug trafficking. Possession of marijuana may or may not be a crime at the time of possession
because the people caught with the marijuana do not have documentation to justify legal use and
there is no way to verify legal use through the state registry. Many marijuana growers are exceeding
the limits of allowed growth of marijuana. One section of the State Amendment allows growers to
have six plants or two ounces and another section allows growers to present evidence that more
marijuana is needed for their condition. It is difficult to distinguish between growers that are legally
in production and those that are illegal. The confidentiality rules contained in Amendment 20 have
made it very difficult for law enforcement to obtain any information. The patient/caregiver/physician
information is protected information. A registered patient can buy from multiple dispensaries. Some
dispensaries do require a"change of caregiver"form to be completed before dispensing,but others
do not require the form to be signed.
Serious crimes are associated with marijuana. Large amounts of money are involved in the sale of
marijuana and provides an impetus for crime. Many crimes are not reported because people are
unsure of their legal status or the theft of marijuana is not reported, which creates inaccurate police
reports. There have been five armed robberies where armed robbers have invaded homes looking
for medical marijuana in the past year. Seven burglaries were specifically related to medical
marijuana business and one kidnaping where the victim reported being forced to show the kidnappers
where medical marijuana was being grown. The Drug Task Force is seeing crossover between
medical marijuana and other drugs where medical marijuana users and growers are caught dealing
in heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines and other drugs.
Health and safety issues are associated with growing marijuana in residential areas. Many growing
operations have electrical hazards, air quality issues, and use of chemicals such as pesticides and
fertilizers. Mold growing in the basements.used for marijuana cultivation is another problem in
residential areas.
Although many are legitimate users of medical marijuana,many abuses exist in the current system.
Regulations are needed to distinguish legitimate users from abusers at both the state and local level.
The upcoming state legislative session will probably consider enacting regulations but land use
regulations at the local level should also be put into place.
City Attorney Steve Roy noted the approaches taken by other municipalities to address this issue
range from a total ban to doing nothing. Some municipalities have placed limitations on location
and are imposing operating regulations similar to those imposed on applicants for liquor licenses by
requiring background checks and limiting hours of operation,imposing distance requirements from
15
November 17, 2009
schools, regulating quantity of product, security precautions, and signage. An emergency
moratorium is requested by staff because the number of applications for dispensaries is rapidly
increasing and the lack of regulation creates substantial health and safety risks.- Once the state
legislature and Department of Health have made decisions regarding regulations,the City will need
to consider appropriate regulations for Fort Collins. The proposed ordinance would impose a ten-
month moratorium on the issuance of sales tax licenses or home occupation licenses for the
establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. A revised version of the ordinance was provided
to address concerns about a provision in the ordinance which would have precluded the processing
of pending applications for sales tax licenses. Some applicants have relied in good faith on the
issuance of a sales tax license as an administrative act and have made substantial expenditures such
as investment in real property, signing leases or making improvements directed solely towards
establishing an MMD. The optional version of the ordinance would allow discretion in the handling
ofpending applications. The City Manager,pursuant to administrative guidelines,would review the
19 additional applications that are pending and determine if a substantial expenditure had been made.
It would not affect existing MMDs that are in appropriate zone districts and have appropriate
licenses, unless and until Council adopts additional regulations. Individual primary caregivers
serving one individual would be exempt. The Ordinance allows time for the state to act and gives
the City time to decide what to regulate at the local level. The City Manager and City Attorney
would be directed to develop recommendations and would allow Council to lift the moratorium as
soon as it felt it was appropriate to do so.
City Attorney Roy read the changes to the ordinance into the record.
The following people spoke in opposition to the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries:
Theresa Gomez, 1412 Castlerock Drive
Eli Trofle, Fort Collins resident
Kim Lurbe, Fort Collins resident
Monte Barry, 415 South Howes
Karen Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court
Phillip Hales, Fort Collins resident
Trent Minor, Longmont
Timothy Tipton, Cannabis Therapy Institute
Leslie Ashford, Fort Collins resident
Andrew Cumar, Fort Collins resident
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road
Evan Stafford, Fort Collins resident
Lori Creho, Cannabis Therapy Institute
Sarah Cure, Attorney, Fort Collins resident
Tim Gordon, Medicinal Gardens of Colorado
Travis Cutbirth, Medicinal Gardens of Colorado
Charles Perry, Fort Collins resident
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
16
November]7, 2009
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the moratorium will halt the issuance of licenses for dispensaries
or will halt the sale of marijuana to people seeking to use marijuana for medical purposes. City
Attorney Roy stated the moratorium would halt the processing of applications for permits or licenses
related to the establishment or operation of MMDs and limits the establishment and operation of
MMDs to those entities that have received a sales tax license and comply with the City's zoning
regulations in terms of location. A person who has qualified as a medical marijuana patient would
be able to purchase marijuana at a dispensary that was already established.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if current dispensaries will be required to cease operations under a
moratorium. City Attorney Roy stated no new dispensaries would be allowed during the
moratorium. Those already in operation would be allowed to continue.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if a current establishment that had not yet acquired a sales tax license
would be required to stop doing business. City Attorney Roy clarified the current dispensaries that
will be allowed to continue in business under the moratorium are those that currently have a sales
tax license and are in the proper zone district.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for the number of current dispensaries that meet the requirements and
would be allowed to continue doing business if the emergency ordinance is adopted. Dush stated
27 dispensaries have sales tax licenses and are in the correct zone district. Since Friday, 19 new
applications for sales tax licenses have been received but the licenses have not been issued. City
Attorney Roy stated there could be more than 27 businesses that are dispensing medical marijuana.
The number of new businesses that were issued sales tax licenses since 2008 where businesses
specifically indicated part of their purpose is selling medical marijuana is 27. It is unknown how
many additional businesses, if any,that have held sales tax licenses for many years,have added the
sale of medical marijuana to their existing business and are also in the correct zone district.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if ten months for the moratorium was chosen to allow time for the
state legislature to address the issues raised by MMDs. City Attorney Roy stated the state legislature
might act and some court decisions may also be issued to clarify some of the issues.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked how many new sales tax licenses might be issued if the ordinance
is not adopted as an emergency ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the issuance of a sales tax
license is not a lengthy process and the practice is to process applications on a weekly basis. Any
applications that come in during the time between First Reading and the date the ordinance becomes
effective will be processed. The potential exists for many more dispensaries to be established.
Chuck Seest, Finance Director, noted the processing time to issue a sales tax license is three to five
days.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there are any specific Code references to medical marijuana dispensaries.
Dush stated there are Code requirements for home occupation businesses and general retail uses,but
are no specific Code references to MMDs.
Councilmember Manvel asked why sales tax can be charged on medical marijuana. Seest stated the
State Attorney General has declared sales tax can be collected on medical marijuana sales.
17
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if declaring a moratorium will force some MMDs underground.
Schiager stated much of the business of dispensing medical marijuana has been underground but a
moratorium should not push new activity underground. The goal of creating a regulatory framework
is to bring all MMDs into legitimate standing.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked how much time would be needed to create the needed regulations
for Council consideration. City Attorney Roy stated staff would need at least three months to create
regulations if no consideration is given to any action taken by the state. In Fort Collins,the process
to create legislation typically involves much public input. A longer moratorium was suggested by
staff to allow the state time to enact legislation.
Councilmember Troxell asked if liquor stores were considered differently from other types of retail.
Dush stated the issuance of a liquor license is a separate process from the issuance of a sales tax
license. The Land Use Code considers a liquor store as a retail establishment. The liquor licensing
process imposes other provisions on the location of a liquor store.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a medical clinic or pharmacy is regulated by the Land Use Code.
Dush stated a medical clinic is only permitted in certain zone districts, according to the parameters
of the zoning. There are no specific provisions to address a clinic. A pharmacy is considered
general retail and must follow the regulations for that classification.
Councilmember Manvel asked for the penalties of violating the City's requirement for businesses
to hold a sales tax license and if dispensaries will operate illegally without a license if the
moratorium is put into place. Schiager stated the moratorium will prohibit the opening of a
storefront retail business. Dispensaries have been operating illegally and will probably continue to
do so.
Councilmember Manvel asked if storefront retail is a small percentage of dispensaries. Schiager
stated according to addresses received on sales tax applications, many are in business areas. Nine
MMDs are located along the College corridor.
Councilmember Manvel asked what will happen with those dispensaries that are issued a sales tax
license but might not comply with future regulations adopted by Council. City Attorney Roy stated
many will probably be grandfathered in, depending on the wording of any new regulation. Staff
considers this issue an emergency because many of the businesses that open now will probably be
grandfathered in their current locations,assuming the businesses can come into compliance with the
new regulations and do not have just a home occupation license, which lasts only two years.
Councilmember Troxell asked for the legal status of marijuana outside of the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. Schiager stated the federal law classifies marijuana as Schedule 1 narcotic which
is potentially the most serious level of offense. The classification means the federal government has
declared marijuana is a substance with a high potential for abuse and has no legitimate medical use.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the proposed moratorium is related to medical marijuana dispensaries and
not with the illegal use of marijuana.
18
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Troxell noted a dramatic increase in dispensaries occurred after the federal
government announced it would not enforce marijuana laws in areas that comply with state laws that
allow for medical use of marijuana but federal law considers marijuana an illegal substance.
Schiager stated the federal directive was a contributing factor to the growth of MMDs in Colorado.
City Attorney Roy clarified grandfathering. Some businesses will not be granfathered if they are
clearly illegal after the state legislates and clarifies what is permissible under Amendment 20.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked how many emergency ordinances have been adopted and for what
reasons. City Attorney Roy stated he did not know how many emergency ordinances have been
adopted.
Mayor Hutchinson noted an emergency ordinance uses a different procedure than adoption of a
regular ordinance. An emergency ordinance does not mean catastrophe but does take effect
immediately upon adoption. City Attorney Roy stated five Councilmembers must adopt an
emergency ordinance and the ordinance takes effect immediately. The nature of the emergency must
be specified in the ordinance.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Council could choose to adopt the ordinance as a regular ordinance with
two readings and an effective date ten days after second reading.
Councilmember Ohlson'stated many MMDs located close to schools are in residential areas'have
home occupation licenses, which may not be renewed after two years if they do not comply with
regulations. City Attorney Roy stated Council can consider conditions to allow grandfathering when
it discusses regulations.
Councilmember Ohlson stated regulations are needed for MMDs, but the issue does not meet the
qualifications for an emergency ordinance. Regulations developed by Fort Collins could be used at
the state level when the legislature determines regulations. In the past, Fort Collins did not adopt
a moratorium for land use regulations during periods of great growth,for a transition from the Land
Development Guidance System to City Plan or for infill development to prevent mansions next to
bungalows in the downtown area. He did not support the use of a moratorium.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt Emergency
Ordinance No. 128, 2009, as amended and read into the record.
Councilmember Manvel stated concerns that MMDs may become established that, in the future,
would be in violation of the regulations that will be established and yet would be grandfathered and
allowed to continue doing business. Adoption of the emergency ordinance might prevent some of
those establishments from opening.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to amend the
Ordinance to remove the emergency language.
19
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Roy stated he did not support the use of an emergency ordinance for this issue and
a moratorium should not be established.
Councilmember Manvel stated time is needed to develop regulations with public input.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not believe grandfathering of establishments in unwanted
locations will be much of an issue and the City can develop regulations regarding location of MMDS
and address other issues that have been raised.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated adoption of the ordinance as an emergency ordinance is not fair to
all citizens.
Councilmember Troxell stated the moratorium should go into effect immediately to support Police
Services because the legal status of MMDs is so unclear. The lack of regulations has created health
and safety risks. The problem will be exacerbated if the ordinance is not adopted as an emergency
ordinance.
The vote on the motion to remove the emergency language from the ordinance was as follows:Yeas:
Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy. Nays: Hutchinson, Manvel, Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel noted Amendment 20 gives people the right to use marijuana for medical
purposes and that right should not be infringed upon. Regulations need to be created to ensure the
safety of the people using medical marijuana and the process to develop those regulations will take
several months.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated regulations are needed but a ten month moratorium is too long.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support a shorter moratorium.
Councilmember Roy stated regulations are needed for MMDs but a moratorium is too extreme. Staff
can draft regulations that will be effective and appropriate for the city.
Councilmember Poppaw stated concerns that Fort Collins may be creating more problems for
neighboring communities because a moratorium could cause many more MMDs to open in
surrounding communities and in Larimer County.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to amend
Ordinance No. 128, 2009, to change the moratorium to three months instead of ten months.
City Attorney Roy stated any changes to the Land Use Code are required to be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation. Staff needs time to develop the regulations, take
them to the Planning and Zoning Board and to hold a work session with Council to gather its input.
20
November 17, 2009
Diane Jones,Deputy City Manager,stated public outreach also needs to be included in the regulation
process.
City Attorney Roy stated staff will return to Council on Second Reading with a recommendation on
whether a moratorium is still-worth doing and a closer estimate for the amount of time needed to
complete the regulation development process.
Councilmember Troxell stated a three month moratorium will expire in the middle of the state
legislative session and the issue will not be settled at that time. There is no benefit to rushing the
regulation process and allowing more time for the moratorium will allow for more deliberation and
public input.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the ordinance states the moratorium will be for a maximum of ten months
and development of regulations could occur much sooner.
Councilmember Roy stated no moratorium should be put into place. Staff should be given enough
time to thorough develop reasonable recommendations and be directed to bring regulations for
Council for consideration. Three months is not enough time for the regulations to be fully
determined.
Mayor Hutchinson stated staff could take as long as is necessary to create regulations. The
amendment states the moratorium will expire after three months. It does not direct staff to bring
regulations forward within three months.
Councilmember Ohlson did not support waiting for the state legislature to create regulations. He
believed Fort Collins could do a better job of creating rules that would be reasonable and best for
the city.
Councilmember Manvel stated his support in changing the moratorium from ten months to three
months because a short time period will push staff to create regulations in a timely manner. An
adjustment to the moratorium period can be considered in two weeks on Second Reading if staff
determines a longer time is needed to gather public input and board and commission
recommendations.
Councilmember Roy stated the moratorium is unnecessary and based on fear. The citizens of
Colorado voted to legally allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes and the dispensaries are
legal. Regulations are necessary for the dispensaries but a moratorium should not be put in place.
Councilmember Poppaw stated a moratorium will only make the problem worse and she did not
support any period of moratorium.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he supported changing the length of time for the moratorium because the
process has been changed from an emergency ordinance to a regular ordinance and this is now First
Reading. Staff has been directed to return on Second Reading with more specifics on the process
of creating the regulations.
21
r
November 17, 2009
The vote on the motion to amend the Ordinance by changing the period of moratorium from ten
months to three months was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson. Nays:
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated her concerns with the use of a moratorium to control the
proliferation of dispensaries and that a moratorium may only make the issue worse.
Councilmember Manvel stated more information on the issue is needed for Second Reading. The
use of medical marijuana is not prohibited and regulations need to be developed to protect
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Ohlson asked staff to determine if imposing a three month moratorium will provide
any benefit. Deputy City Manager Jones stated staff will bring its recommendation on whether to
continue the moratorium for Second Reading.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 128, 2009, as amended on First Reading, was as
follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, and Troxell. Nays: Poppaw, Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 120, 2009,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural
Resources Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 3, 2009, appropriates
$1,307,900, received by the City under a Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
(EECBG) Program. "
Bruce Lockhart,2500 East Harmony,stated the grant money will be spent on programs that will not
have any lasting effect on the amount of energy consumed by the City.
Stacy Lynne, 221 Park Street, stated global warming is not proven and she did not support the use
of federal funds for any projects designed to address global warming.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, stated humans have greatly impacted the world's environment and
global warming is a reality. All people need to practice energy conservation.
22
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
120, 2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 121, 2009,
Amending Chapter 26 Article XII of the City Code
Relating to Utility Billing Errors,Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on FirstReadingon November 3, 2009, codifies the Utilities'
current administrative policy which addresses utility billing errors. When a customer is
overcharged, the Utilities will refund the customer the overcharge for a period not to exceed six
years from the time the error is discovered. If a customer is undercharged for services received, the
Utility will back bill the customer only if the undercharges occurred less than sir years before the
date the error is discovered and either the undercharges are for a minimal amount or the customer
could not have discovered the error with reasonable inquiry. No interest will be paid or collected. "
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, asked why the public notice was addressed only to out-of-city
customers. He asked why the Electric Board was not asked to make a recommendation on the
wording of the Ordinance since the Board met after the Ordinance was adopted on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why the Electric Board did not consider the Ordinance after it was
adopted on First Reading. Steve Catanach,Light and Power Operations Manager,stated the Electric
Board did meet last week but the Board did not discuss the Ordinance because it had already had a
discussion of this item in September.
Councilmember Ohlson stated a greater effort must be made to provide boards and commissions
with the wording of ordinances so they can provide Council as much input as possible. City
Attorney Roy stated boards and commissions typically review outlines of ordinances and resolutions
and are not provided with the draft language. A further discussion is necessary if Council believes
the current process is not providing boards and commissions with enough information to provide
recommendations. Ordinances and resolutions are revised up to the last minute before they go to
print. Sometimes, the wording of an ordinance can become the focus of a discussion and then, as
the wording for the ordinance evolves, the wording that was the focus of the previous discussion
becomes a nonissue and much time was wasted on a point that was no longer under consideration.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the purpose of boards and commissions is to provide input on concepts and
ideas as the main focus.
23
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
121, 2009 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell thanked staff for the information provided after First Reading regarding the
numbers of billing errors that occurred. The data showed billing errors are minimal and do not often
occur.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2009-104
Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Liquor
Licenses on Behalf of the City, Postponed Indefinitely
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to apply for liquor licenses for
City facilities as the City Manager determines appropriate. It also authorizes the City Manager to D
designate other members of City staff as the City Manager deems appropriate to apply (as co-
applicant) on behalf of the City for such license and to apply to be a registered manager of a
licensed premises. The application for, and management of, the licensed facilities will,for the
purposes of indemnification under the City Code and the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
(CGIA), be considered within the scope of employment of the City Manager and his designees and
among the official duties they are to perform for the City.
BA CKGR O UND/D I S C USSION
The City Manager initially intends to apply as co-applicantfor a hotel-restaurant liquor license on
behalfofthe City and the licensed premises will be the Northside Aztlan Community Center(NACC).
The NACC makes certain facilities available to the public for rent and many renters wish to serve
alcohol at their events. Although NACC staff submitted two different RFPs to select a private
vendor to sell alcohol at NACC, no one submitted a proposal the first time and one proposal was
submitted the second time but did not meet the City's qualifications. Undercurrent City policy, the
City allows those who rent space at the NACC to serve alcohol gratuitously at private events.
Consequently, alcohol cannot currently be sold at the NACC. Renters who wish to serve alcohol at
their private events must buy it themselves and provide it to patrons at no charge. This greatly
increases the expense of holding events at the NACC, and limits its ability to attract rentals. If the
City holds the liquor license, renters would not have to incur the expense ofproviding the alcohol.
24
November 17, 2009
Beverages could be sold to eventguests, with revenues covering expenses and producing a profitfor
NACC.
The application and qualification process for the City's hotel-restaurant license for NACC will be
conducted through the City Clerk's office. Designated City staff will complete the registered
manager application and will name the management-level person who will be responsible for the
day-to-day management ofalcohol sales and service at the applicable City facility.If this Resolution
is adopted by the City Council, the City Manager may also apply for other City facilities to become
liquor licensed establishments instead of having a vendor hold the license. The City Manager is
required to provide Council with at least 60 days advanced written notice of any proposed liquor
license application.
Adoption of the Resolution provides the City Manager with the authority to apply for and hold a
liquor license on behalf of the City. This Resolution makes it clear the City's Manager's actions in
this regard are within the scope of his responsibilities and those of his designees.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
With the City holding the liquor license, renting NACC becomes more affordable, and attractive
from a customer standpoint. More renters will select NACC as the place to host their event if
alcohol service is provided by the NACC.
Funds to purchase alcohol will be provided from the NACC rental budget. Revenue generated from
the sale of alcohol during these events will more than offset any expense and will add to the overall
revenue base of the NACC. "
Steve Levinger, Fort Collins Innkeepers Association, stated the Association has concerns with the
City facilities having full liquor licenses that will allow the City to compete with local businesses
and could give the City an unfair advantage over private facilities. He asked Council to postpone
consideration of the item to provide more time to discuss the item.
Eric Sutherland,631 LaPorte,asked for an announcement early in the evening if Council determines
it needs more information before considering an item and decides not to vote on that item. He did
not support the issuance of a liquor license for the City because it will create an unfair competition
between the City and local business owners. Cash bars should not be allowed in the Northside
Atzlan Center because the facility is frequented by many young people.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 2009-104 until a date to be determined by the Leadership Planning
Team. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
25
November 17, 2009
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
26