HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/04/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
October 4, 2011
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring October 2-8, 2011, as Public Power Week.
B. Proclamation Declaring October 2011 as Conflict Resolution Month.
C. Proclamation Declaring October 2011 as Traffic Safety Awareness Month.
D. Proclamation Declaring October 2011 as National Bullying Prevention Month.
E. Proclamation Declaring October 2011 as National Arts and Humanities Month.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (limited to 30 minutes)
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 12. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar
and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Item No. 20, Pulled Consent Items. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
6. Consideration and Approval of the September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated
Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records
Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
The current version of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management
System (CAD/RMS/JMS) is outdated and does not operate in the latest Windows or Internet Explorer
environments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011,
authorizes the appropriation of funds needed for Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current
systems (software, hardware and project manager costs) through Tiburon, Inc. and will allow the
CRISP (Combined Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring the current
CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-date.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand
the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the
City Attorney.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the financial
disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City Manager, and City
Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or the
person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as
currently required.
9. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City
Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City
Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
City Code currently requires that all weeds and grasses (except “ornamental” grasses which cannot
exceed twenty percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in height. These
Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, will allow certain grass
types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit. The Code amendments will serve to
promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide options for Fort Collins
residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass. The grass types that would be exempt
are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would have a height limit of twelve inches.
10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City
Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City
Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weeds and
Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
Ordinance No. 126, 2011, will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with defendants for the
amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy
judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond thirty days. Ordinance No. 127,
2011, provides the option of an appeal process for weed and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the
Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services or with the Municipal Court Referee
which is consistent with the appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements. Both Ordinances
were unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital
Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing community
members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members
who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately three acres of land near the
main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance will appropriate funding in the amount
of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project.
Page 4
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason
Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
The final acquisition phase for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX) is set to begin
with Phase V. City Council has previously authorized the first five phases of acquisition work, which
included Phases I through IV, as well as a Phase III-A.
Phase V is comprised of 15 separate properties prepared for the acquisition stage. The City Council
authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s acquisition process for the
property interests within this phase.
As a federally-funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law
91-646). In accordance with this Act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of
eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest
Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners.
This letter is the first official step in the acquisition process, which must occur prior to the appraisals.
Given the recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be
conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required property
interests is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the
MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
END CONSENT
13. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
14. Staff Reports.
15. Councilmember Reports.
Page 5
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types
of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the
Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail. (staff: Rita Harris; 5 minute staff presentation; 20 minute
discussion)
This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be
mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active
registered electors. In addition, the Code would be amended to require that the City pay postage on
all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter
2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City
Council. (staff: Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
This Ordinance makes several changes to the way in which appeals to the City Council are handled.
The changes are in response to concerns and suggestions of persons who have participated in recent
land use appeals, and to direction provided by the City Council at a Council work session. The
changes deal with the following topics: the scheduling of the appeal hearing; the ability of
Councilmembers who file an appeal to participate in hearing the appeal; the ability of opponents of
an appeal to present their views in writing in addition to presenting argument at the hearing; the
manner in which site visits are conducted; the submission of written materials to the Council; and
expanding the group of persons who can participate in appeal hearings.
18. Resolution 2011-092 Further Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City
Council Meetings. (staff: Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 20 minute discussion)
This Resolution would further amend the rules of procedure with regard to comments by citizens
during the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings insofar as those comments are related
to quasi-judicial matters. The language would be refined to state that comments would not be
permitted on matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval or
disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council.
Page 6
19. Pulled Consent Items.
20. Other Business.
21. Adjournment.
a. Motion to adjourn meeting to October 11, 2011.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
urban renewal authority
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
WORK SESSION
October 4, 2011
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Revisions to the Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures; Options for the Citizen’s Advisory
Group. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Christina Vincent; 1 hour discussion)
The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and
Procedures (Policies) in May 2010 from the original Policies created in 2006. On May 17, 2011, the
URA Board discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices
and should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff also received feedback from the
June 14, 2011 work session to modify the language as proposed by the URA Board. These Policies
are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants,
staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. Staff is seeking direction on the
options of a recommending group to the URA Board.
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, we, the citizens of Fort Collins, Colorado, value local control of our
community services and have chosen to operate a community-owned, locally controlled, not-for-
profit electric utility; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority provide our homes,
businesses and schools with safe, reliable, environmentally responsible and affordable electricity;
and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority are valuable community
assets that contribute substantially to the well-being of local citizens through energy efficiency,
customer service, environmental protection, economic development and safety awareness; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power’s 2010 reliability rating of 99.9967
percent continues to be among the best in the nation; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the week of October 2-8, 2011, as the 25th annual
PUBLIC POWER WEEK
in Fort Collins to honor Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority’s consumer-owners,
policy makers, and employees who work together to provide the best possible electric service to our
community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, conflict resolution encompasses mediation, restorative practices, facilitation,
collaborative decision-making, and other responses to differences; and
WHEREAS, conflict resolution processes empower individuals, families, communities,
neighborhoods, organizations, and businesses to foster communication and devise solutions that are
acceptable to the needs and interests of all parties involved; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins provides conflict resolution services to the community
through the Community Mediation Program and Restorative Justice Services. These community-
based programs fairly and equitably resolve neighborhood and community conflicts, thereby
repairing, creating, and strengthening relationships; and
WHEREAS, the month of October is celebrated across the state as National Conflict
Resolution Month, and October 20, 2011, will be celebrated nationally and internationally as
Conflict Resolution Day.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October 2011 as
CONFLICT RESOLUTION MONTH
and I, along with the entire City Council, encourage Fort Collins residents to seek peaceful and
collaborative resolutions to conflicts and hence contribute to creating an exceptional, world-class
community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, there were over 3,500 traffic crashes in Fort Collins in 2010 - over 700 of
which were injury crashes and three of which were fatal; and
WHEREAS, the economic impact from traffic crashes in Fort Collins was in excess of $90
million in 2010; and
WHEREAS, safe roads are a critical part of a world class community; and
WHEREAS, the City tracks and analyzes crash records to identify crash patterns, crash
types and problem locations; and
WHEREAS, traffic data can direct practical community outreach strategies to increase
traffic safety awareness, educate citizens about common mistakes on the road, and remind drivers
about the dangers of distraction behind the wheel; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a comprehensive outreach plan to bring increased
awareness to traffic safety utilizing a variety of media outlets and conducting community safety
presentations to carry forward and reinforce safe driving in our community throughout the year.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim support for the designation of October 2011 as
TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH
in Fort Collins and encourage citizens to increase their awareness of safe driving, walking and
bicycling techniques and thereby promote a safe transportation system for travelers using all modes
of transportation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins recognizes October as National Bullying Prevention
Month; and
WHEREAS, bullying is physical, verbal, sexual, or emotional harm or intimidation
intentionally directed at a person or group of people and occurs in neighborhoods, playgrounds,
schools, and through technology, such as the Internet and cell phones; and
WHEREAS, various researchers have concluded that bullying is the most common form of
violence, affecting millions of American children and adolescents annually; and
WHEREAS, targets of bullying are more likely to acquire physical, emotional, and learning
problems and students who are repeatedly bullied often fear such activities as riding the bus, going
to school, and attending community activities while children who witness bullying often feel less
secure, and more fearful; and
WHEREAS, children who bully are at greater risk of engaging in more serious violent
behaviors; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Human Relations Commission and Youth Advisory Board
are jointly sponsoring a Bullying Prevention event on November 9, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October 2011 as
NATIONAL BULLYING PREVENTION MONTH
and call upon the people of Fort Collins to engage in a variety of awareness and prevention activities
designed to make our community safer for all children and adolescents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the month of October has been recognized as National Arts and Humanities
Month by thousands of arts and cultural organizations, communities, and states across the country,
as well as by the White House and Congress for more than two decades; and
WHEREAS, the arts and humanities embody much of the accumulated wisdom, intellect,
and imagination of humankind; and
WHEREAS, the arts and humanities enhance and enrich the lives of every American; and
WHEREAS, the arts and humanities play a unique role in the lives of our families, our
communities, and our country; and
WHEREAS, the nonprofit arts industry also strengthens our economy by generating $166.2
billion in total economic activity annually and by supporting the full-time equivalent of 5.7 million
jobs.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October as
NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH
in Fort Collins and call upon our citizens to celebrate and promote the arts and culture, and to
specifically encourage greater participation by our citizens in taking action for the arts and
humanities in Fort Collins.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting.
September 6, 2011
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, September 6,
2011, 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: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Daggett.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated a revised version of Resolution 2011-080 for Item No. 34, Items
Relating to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, was included in the read before packet.
Citizen Participation
Josh Kerson, 244 North College, supported allowing e-bikes on City trails. He noted individuals
with mobility challenges are lawfully allowed to use electric assist bicycles and he supported
signage being placed on the trails indicating that law.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, encouraged citizens to attend the Fort Collins Symphony. He
noted it is possible to acquire Lincoln Center tickets from the box office to avoid surcharges. He
urged Council to file a friend-of-the-court brief regarding Congressional redistricting.
Ron Young and Vicki Lutz, Crossroads Safehouse, thanked Council and staff for providing funding
assistance.
Virginia Farber, 1214 Bellvue Drive, opposed the proposed power line project through Pine Ridge
Natural Area and suggested a moratorium be placed on smart meters until further study has been
completed.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, read an editorial article from a newspaper in Denton, Texas,
discussing students who had been hospitalized after falling from a student housing unit. She
encouraged Council to consider the possible outcome of allowing potentially dangerous student
housing to be built in Fort Collins.
Lucia Liley, attorney, opposed Ms. Burnett’s comments.
1
September 6, 2011
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, asked about the relationship between the firm Black and Veatch
and the City’s Smart Meter project, Glade Reservoir Project, and ICLEI. She asked if Council has
asked the local press to not cover gang and meth related stories in Fort Collins. She discussed an
incident at the Larimer County Justice Center on August 24 and asked for the help of elected
officials.
Brian Wareing, Golden resident, discussed an incident with Clarion employees in Montana. He
stated Clarion is part of Agenda 21 and related to ICLEI.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Jerry Schiager, Police Chief, stated no direction has been given to local press to ignore or conceal
gang and meth related issues. He clarified Fort Collins Police Services has no jurisdiction over the
Larimer County Justice Center.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would contact Sheriff Justin Smith and provide Ms. Lynne’s
materials to the Sheriff’s Office.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Ms. Lutz and her work with Crossroads Safehouse.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked that a written response be provided to Ms. Lynne regarding Black and
Veatch.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 11, 2011 Special Meeting and the
August 16, 2011 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article
III of Chapter 2 of the City Code Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating a New Energy
Board.
Decisions Council makes today can have a significant impact on the community’s ability to
respond to changing conditions in the future. Council needs visionary and innovative advice
regarding the community’s energy future as it relates to the Plan Fort Collins goals for a
sustainable community. Council is in need of advice from subject matter experts, not just
in the electric engineering field, but also other experts who are knowledgeable about such
things as how the electrification of transportation impacts carbon emissions and energy
consumption. To this end, an Energy Board is being created to replace the Electric Board.
The purpose of the Energy Board will be to take a systems approach to the City’s energy
future looking out 10 years and beyond and to advise Council on such matters. This
Ordinance dissolving the Electric Board and establishing an Energy Board was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011.
2
September 6, 2011
8. Items Relating to the Linden Street Streetscape Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Linden Street Streetscape Project to the Cultural Services
Fund for the Art in Public Places Program.
B. Resolution 2011-072 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Purpose of
Commissioning an Artist to Create Art for the Linden Street Streetscape Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011, appropriates
$17,998 for administration, design, materials, installation and contingency for a project with
Fort Collins artist Susan Dailey, to create up to twelve granite pavers to be integrated into
the streetscape of the Linden Street Streetscape Project. $7,060 has already been
appropriated and is available in the Art in Public Places reserve account in the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund to pay for the art project. Resolution 2011-072 approves the
expenditures of $25,058 for the design, materials, installation contingency and maintenance
for the project.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services Fund and in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln
Center Renovation Project.
The Lincoln Center Renovation project is funded primarily through the Building on Basics
capital tax approved by voters in 2005. Unanticipated grant and donation revenue will be
used to complete the full scope of the estimated $8.2 million project. Approximately $5.5
million has been appropriated from the Building on Basics tax and $2.6 million from
unanticipated grant revenue and prior year reserves in the Cultural Services and General
Funds. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011,
appropriates $161,088 to the Cultural Services Fund and $14,620 to the Capital Projects
Fund.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Cultural Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery
Science Center Project.
The Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, has provided funds, currently held
in the Capital Projects Fund, in the amount of $738,034 in support of the exhibits for the new
Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility project. Also, $100,000
from the Fort Collins Museum Donation Reserves are being provided to support the exhibits.
Additionally, an estate gift in the amount of $150 has been provided. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011, appropriates these funds for the
project.
3
September 6, 2011
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011, appropriates
funding in the amount of $820,430 received from the Colorado Department of
Transportation for the South Transit Center Park and Ride Project, a component of the
Mason Corridor Project.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-2012 Safe Routes to School Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011, appropriates
a $99,800 federal grant received through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the
FY 2011-12 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. This funding will allow the City of
Fort Collins’ Safe Routes to School Program (administered and staffed by the Transportation
Planning Division) to provide pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues
in the General Fund for Police Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating
Budget.
Ordinance No. 104, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011,
appropriates a grant in the amount of $45,000 from the Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice Juvenile Diversion fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of
Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses,
and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program for all other offenses. An $8,700 cash
match is required and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget
designated for Restorative Justice Services.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2011, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of
City of Fort Collins, Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater Utility Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2011A, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal of Amount of $8,750,000 in the
Stormwater Utility Fund.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 16, 2011, appropriates
$8,750,000 to pay off the 2002 Storm Drainage Revenue bonds. The funding source is the
proceeds from the 2011A Storm Drainage refunding bonds. Market conditions are such that
they can be refinanced at lower interest rates, resulting in an estimated net present value
savings of $500,000.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of
City Property to the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company.
Arapaho Bend Natural Area is located along the Cache la Poudre River near I-25 and East
Harmony Road. The Lower Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) owns property
immediately to the south of the portion of Arapaho Bend that lies east of I-25. A wire fence
4
September 6, 2011
separates the two properties. A recent boundary survey revealed the fence separating the
two properties was located slightly north of the described property line. The fence has been
in place for greater than 18 years and has been recognized by the Natural Areas Program
(NAP) and LPAC as the boundary of the Natural Area since the property was purchased in
2000. The strip of property between the fence and the described boundary line contains
0.703 acres. City staff determined that it was necessary to explore options for cleaning up
the boundary issue to ensure clear boundary lines for future access, maintenance and use of
the sites for both the NAP and LPAC This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading
on August 16, 2011, authorizes a the conveyance of the 0.703 acre area south of the existing
boundary fence in exchange for an access easement across the LPAC property. LPAC has
agreed to the exchange. It also has agreed to pay the City an amount equal to fifty percent
of the costs to survey and document the new property boundary.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
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 2011 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.
17. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City
Code.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the
City Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter
17 of the City Code Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of
Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and
Public Indecency.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of
Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of
the City Code Pertaining to Loitering.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of
Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited.
5
September 6, 2011
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of
the City Code Pertaining to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses.
To maintain continuity with federal law, the revised statutes for the State of Colorado, and
the needs of citizens of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins City Code must be regularly updated
through amendments, deletions, and the creation of new ordinances. These amendments,
deletions, and creations of several new ordinances will allow law enforcement to more
effectively and efficiently protect and serve the citizens of Fort Collins.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers.
This Ordinance repeals the City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This
section is unnecessary because the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City
Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished through administrative action of the City
Manager.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code.
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative
session relating to state traffic laws. This Ordinance ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic
Code (the “Traffic Code”) is consistent with state traffic laws. During a review of the
statutory changes, staff identified additional amendments that would make the Traffic Code
more consistent and provide more effective and efficient local enforcement.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2011
annual update of the Land Use Code.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a
Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey.
In 1992, the final plat of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing dedicated Tract E to the City of Fort
Collins for the purposes of storm drainage, flood plain management and Department of Parks
and Recreation use. The intended purpose of the Parks and Recreation use was for a bike
trail. In 1998, the location of the bike trail was changed to be adjacent to Shields Street. To
accommodate this change, the City acquired Tracts A, B, and D of Clarendon Hills Fifth
Filing for the bike trail that has been constructed and is now in use. Due to the City’s change
of use for Tract E, the adjacent property owners, Kevin and Julia Caffrey, have expressed
an interest to obtain the portion of Tract E that abuts their property at 5424 Hilldale Court.
24. Resolution 2011-075 Approving the Design of the Restoration of the Coca-Cola/Angell’s
Delicatessen Sign on the J. L. Hohnstein Block, 220 East Mountain Avenue.
6
September 6, 2011
The City has received a State Historic Fund grant from the Colorado Historical Society to
protect the Coca-Cola and Angell’s Delicatessen sign on the J. L. Hohnstein Block, 220 East
Mountain Avenue. Councilmembers have expressed concern that the sign not be painted to
look new, and directed staff to investigate treatment options that would retain the faded look.
Four treatment options were originally identified, which were further narrowed to two
options. A conservation firm was hired to further investigate both options. Based upon their
findings, the consultants are confident that the paint, brick, and mortar can be successfully
conserved by reattaching and protecting the existing paint with a consolidating material. If
sufficient funding and time remains following the consolidation, a few missing elements of
the sign, including the artist’s signature, would also be restored. Staff is now requesting that
Council approve the recommended treatment for the restoration and rehabilitation of the
Coca-Cola/Angell’s Delicatessen sign.
25. Resolution 2011-076 Assigning a Councilmember as Liaison to the Energy Board.
Ordinance No. 098, 2011, adopted on Second Reading this same date, created a new Energy
Board. City Council appoints a liaison to each board and commission. This Resolution
appoints Councilmember Lisa Poppaw as the Council liaison to the newly created Energy
Board.
26. Resolution 2011-077 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
This Resolution makes appointments to fill current vacancies on the Building Review
Board, Commission on Disability, Human Relations Commission, Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board, Senior Advisory Board, Transportation Board and Youth Advisory
Board.
27. Routine Deed.
Deed of dedication from Cottonwood Land and Farms, Ltd., for land under future bridge,
on Zeigler Road between Drake and Horsetooth Roads.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article
III of Chapter 2 of the City Code Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating a New Energy
Board.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Linden Street Streetscape Project to the Cultural Services Fund for
the Art in Public Places Program.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services Fund and in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln
Center Renovation Project.
7
September 6, 2011
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Cultural Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery
Science Center Project.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-2012 Safe Routes to School Program.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues
in the General Fund for Police Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating
Budget.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2011, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of
City of Fort Collins, Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater Utility Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2011A, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal of Amount of $8,750,000 in the
Stormwater Utility Fund.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of
City Property to the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company.
31. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric
Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 26 of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and
Certain Definitions Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the
City Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
17. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City
Code.
8
September 6, 2011
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the
City Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter
17 of the City Code Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of
Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and
Public Indecency.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of
Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of
the City Code Pertaining to Loitering.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of
Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of
the City Code Pertaining to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a
Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey.
Councilmember Horak withdrew Item No. 16, First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
9
September 6, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like follow-up information prior to Second Reading,
regarding Item No. 20, First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to
the Land Use Code. He specifically requested more information regarding how, and from what part
of a stream, buffer zones are measured.
Councilmember Troxell supported Item No. 21, First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011,
Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Kevin P.
Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry introduced Mike Beckstead, the City’s new Chief Financial Officer.
Beckstead thanked Council, staff, and the community.
Craig Foreman, Park Planning and Development, gave an update on five projects.
Matt Day, Landscape Architect, discussed the natural playground at Gateway Park Natural Area and
the park adjacent to the Pelican Marsh Natural Area.
Craig Kisling, Apprentice Landscape Architect, discussed Registry Park in Registry Ridge.
Jason Stutzman, Park Planning and Development Civil Engineer, discussed the Fossil Creek trail
extension.
Kathleen Benedict, Park Planning and Development Senior Landscape Architect, discussed the new
neighborhood park adjacent to Zach Elementary School.
City Manager Atteberry commended the Parks staff and noted none of the projects would be
occurring without the citizen support of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot measure.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Weitkunat discussed Council’s joint meeting with Poudre School District and Larimer
County. Collaborative social efforts were discussed.
Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26,
the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for
Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
10
September 6, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26
of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and Certain Definitions
Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code
and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, make minor revisions
to the definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of the City Code and
the Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of General Manager,
clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and clarification regarding authority
to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements on behalf of the City. Light and Power
is also recommending adding clarifying language to the City’s indemnification and insurance
requirements contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards. These standards govern
operational and other requirements for interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric
distribution system. This item was withdrawn from the August 16th Consent Agenda but was not
considered because of the lateness of the hour.”
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated this item provides clarification
regarding definitions used in net metering and initiates changes in the indemnification portion of the
interconnection agreement.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked when the City would begin allowing more innovative
energy solutions. He suggested the City Code be changed to allow individuals to buy and sell
energy among themselves.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 079, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
11
September 6, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 081, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-078
Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the June 16, 2011,
Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Amended CSURF
Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 30, 2011, an appeal of the June 16, 2011 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to
approve the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan was
filed by representatives for Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond
on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA.
On August 23, 2011, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegation that:
• The Planning and Zoning Board improperly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the
Code.
At the August 23, 2011 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the
Appellants, and the Opponents to the Appeal. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council
determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did properly interpret and apply relevant portions
of the Code and Charter.
City Council determined to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.”
Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, reviewed the decisions made by Council concerning the
appeal and stated this Resolution will lay out findings of fact regarding its decision.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, stated the applicant was asked a variety of questions following
the appeal presentation though the burden of proof was on the appellants, to whom no questions
were asked. She opposed the process and Land Use Code policies relating to the property zoning.
12
September 6, 2011
(**Secretary’s note: Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, objected to Ms. Burnett’s
statements; however, Council opted to hear the testimony.)
Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes, attorney representing the applicant, objected to a letter sent by Ms.
Burnett to Council and supported adoption of the Resolution.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the appellants.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-078.
Councilmember Manvel noted adoption of this Resolution is procedural in nature and does not allow
for rehashing aspects of the appeal. He stated the neighborhood response has brought forth the need
for process and policy changes.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the motion but asked staff to provide information
to Council in the next couple weeks regarding the questions presented at the appeal hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-079
Makings Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the June 16, 2011,
Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Grove at Fort Collins
Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 30, 2011, an appeal of the June 16, 2011 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to
approve The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan was filed by representatives for
Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill
Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA.
On August 23, 2011, City Council voted to modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
to approve the Project Development Plan with two additional conditions. In order to complete the
record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and
finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegation that:
13
September 6, 2011
• The Planning and Zoning Board improperly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the
Code and Charter
At the August 23, 2011 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the
Appellants, and the Opponents to the Appeal. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council
determined that the Planning and Zoning Board did properly interpret and apply relevant portions
of the Code and Charter.
City Council determined to modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, by approving the
Project Development Plan with the following two additional conditions:
1. One building must be LEED certified and all buildings will be built to the specifications and
standards of the LEED-certified building.
2. Pets will be prohibited in the project.”
Jonathan Feiman, 959 Gilgalad Way, appellant, suggested The Grove at Fort Collins PDP is in
violation of conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Board when it approved the ODP. The notes
on the ODP are meaningful and applicable under the law as the Land Use Code outlines the purpose
of the ODP is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects. The
PDP does not conform with the development control parameters of the ODP. Note 3 of the 2003
ODP prohibiting residential construction in the 100 year floodplain was retained by the Board.
Substantial portions of buildings on the PDP are in the floodplain. Note 5 from the 2003 ODP
establishes a 0.37 floor area ratio, and was retained by the Board. Contrary to this condition of
approval, the PDP has floor area ratios of 0.45, 0.53, 0.69, and 0.90 on the lots. The Board
stipulated that the Land Use Code should prevail given a conflict between any note on the ODP and
the Land Use Code. He urged Council to reverse its approval of the PDP.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, appellant, opposed the project stating there is no primary
Employment zoning use in the project, parts of two buildings are within the FEMA floodplain,
standards for Rolland Moore Drive were administratively changed, and additional standards were
not met. She urged Council to reverse its approval of the PDP.
Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Drive, urged Council to reverse its approval of the PDP.
Ann Malone, 1220 East Stuart, suggested the issue be put to a vote of Fort Collins residents.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, stated he had attended a workshop discussing student
housing and encouraged residents of the appellants’ neighborhoods to put their energy toward
solving the community’s student housing issues.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Governmental Affairs, supported adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-079.
14
September 6, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the adopted PDP is in conflict with the adopted ODP, and, if so,
what are the ramifications of such a conflict.
Steve Olt, City Planner, replied staff has determined there is no conflict between the PDP and the
amended ODP.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the Resolution wording relating to the LEED certification of
one building and the phrase stating that the remaining buildings be built to the “same or comparable”
specificationsDeupty City Attorney Daggett replied the word “comparable” was used because the
buildings are not the same as one anther; therefore the specifications will not be able to be the same.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked who will determine whether or not the specifications are comparable.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the City will be in a position to enforce the standard.
Councilmember Manvel suggested the wording be changed to “same or superior” specifications.
Daggett replied the concept may be difficult to apply as the buildings are different; however, the
wording could apply to the LEED standards.
Councilmember Horak stated the wording could be rephrased to make the specifications comparable
and the standards the same or better than LEED certification standards.
Councilmembers Horak and Troxell accepted a friendly amendment to change the wording in
Section 2A of Resolution 2011-079 to state that at least one building must be LEED certified and
that all other buildings in the project will be built to comparable specifications and the same or
higher standards as LEED certified buildings.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated there are legitimate concerns on the part of neighborhoods that
opposing a development means not only opposing the developer, but also the City organization.
The vote on the motion to adopted Resolution 2011-079 as amended was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2011-080 Adopting the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Making
Findings Determining an Area Within the City of Fort Collins to Be a Blighted Area and
Appropriate for Inclusion in an Urban Renewal Plan.
B. Resolution 2011-081 Making Findings and Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the
Midtown Area and Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District for Prospect South.
15
September 6, 2011
Resolution 2011-080 will adopt the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and determine the Midtown
area is blighted. Resolution 2011-081 will formally adopt the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (URP)
and establish the area referred to as Prospect South as the first tax increment financing (TIF)
district. Staff has completed the necessary steps to bring forward the URP. On June 16, 2011, the
Planning and Zoning Board made a recommendation that the Midtown URP conforms to the
policies and principles of City Plan. Larimer County has reviewed the Midtown URP and the
Impact Report for the Prospect South TIF District with staff and resolution was reached about the
concerns the County expressed about the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1982, Council created an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and designated itself as the governing
board (known as the “Authority”). The boundaries of the URA are the municipal limits. The Fort
Collins URA was created to prevent and eliminate conditions in the community related to certain
“blight factors,” as defined in the State’s Urban Renewal Law. State statutes allow the URA broad
powers to carry out its statutory mandate, including powers to enter into contracts, borrow funds,
and acquire property voluntarily or by eminent domain, among others. Urban renewal projects may
be financed in a variety of ways. URAs are authorized to issue bonds and accept grants from public
or private sources. The principal method of financing urban renewal projects is through obligations
secured by property tax or sales tax increments from the project area, or “tax increment financing”
(TIF). The Authority exercises its powers by planning and carrying out urban renewal plans in
urban renewal areas.
Midtown, the South College Avenue commercial corridor running from Prospect Road to just south
of Harmony Road, has been in decline as a prominent regional destination for retail uses. Increased
regional competition, aging and outmoded space, and the impact of the national recession have
contributed to approximately 650,000 square feet of vacant space.
In 2009, Council recognized that Midtown deserved and required an immediate assessment of its
economic outlook and community aspirations for its future, and directed staff to initiate the Midtown
Redevelopment Study. This process occurred from late October 2009 to May 2010, during which
the consultant team worked with the City, stakeholders, and the public to assess Midtown issues,
make recommendations for its future, and outline next steps for action. The recommended actions
to help achieve the redevelopment envisioned by the Midtown Redevelopment Study include
additional design and planning efforts, financial feasibility analysis and further refinement of public
financing options.
Action A1 of the study’s implementation strategy directs the City to “Implement other Midtown
Corridor Redevelopment Opportunities…Prepare an existing conditions report for the Midtown
Study area (excluding Prospect South and Foothills Mall areas previously addressed).”
In February, 2011, as a result of the recommended action item, City Council adopted Resolution
2011-008 authorizing and directing staff to prepare an Urban Renewal Plan and Existing
Conditions Survey for the Midtown Area. From the perspective of the URA, there are essentially
four steps in the redevelopment process:
16
September 6, 2011
1. Complete an Existing Conditions Survey
2. Create an Urban Renewal Plan
3. Enable TIF
4. Participate in revitalization and improvements
Staff initiated the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey (Survey) upon adoption of Resolution 2011-
008, and completed the effort in April 2011. The purpose of the Survey was to determine whether
Midtown constituted a blighted area within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law. The
Survey area boundary began just north of Whole Foods shopping center continuing down the
commercial corridor along College Avenue until Fairway Lane, just south of Harmony Road. This
boundary is consistent with the Midtown Redevelopment Study, including Prospect South and
Foothills Mall.
In order to declare an area blighted, at least four of eleven physical, environmental, or social
factors must be present, including:
1. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures
2. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout
3. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
4. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
5. Deterioration of site or other improvements
6. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
7. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable
8. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes
9. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in
10. Environmental contamination of buildings or property
11. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal
services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, building, or other
improvements
As the Survey showed, seven factors were found in the area (shown in bold above).
In addition to the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey field work, both the Prospect South (2008)
and Foothills Mall (2007) Existing Conditions Surveys were updated in 2011 to ensure the findings
remain consistent with the original document, and to identify unfavorable conditions that have
occurred since the documents were finalized.
The major purpose of establishing a Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Midtown URP) is to permit the
utilization of tax increment financing (TIF) in redevelopment projects that would in return eliminate
or prevent conditions of blight in and around the Urban Renewal Plan Area (Plan Area). TIF is a
tool that is commonly used throughout Colorado for a variety of redevelopment and economic
development these purposes. TIF has also proven to be an effective tool in the North College Urban
Renewal Plan (North College URP) area to overcome significant public improvement costs and to
make their retail projects more competitive in the region and state. Given the lack of economic tools
at the City’s disposal and the proven effectiveness of TIF, staff believes that utilizing TIF is the most
effective tool to help keep the targeted redevelopment areas competitive with other communities
17
September 6, 2011
along the Front Range. An advantage to using TIF is that public assistance toward the development
is driven by enhancements to the assessed valuation of the property and is funded through property
tax revenues versus sales tax revenues. The temporary diversion of property tax revenues for 25
years benefits all the affected taxing entities at the end of the Plan Area’s life cycle, ultimately
increasing the collection of revenues for all entities because of the actions of the URA, without
raising new taxes.
At Council’s direction, staff has prepared the Midtown URP. Rather than take a holistic approach
and activate TIF for the entire Plan Area at once, thus triggering the 25-year clock corridor-wide,
staff recommends a more strategic approach commonly used in other Urban Renewal Authorities
in Colorado. The Plan states that within the Plan Area, separate TIF Districts could be created
based on necessity and qualified projects. The Plan proposes Prospect South, the area along
College Avenue from Prospect Road to parcels just north of Whole Foods to be the first TIF District
within the Midtown URP. This allows the URA Board to be more intentional with the use of TIF and
approve projects that are indeed qualified without jeopardizing the TIF timeline all at once (i.e.,
North College URP).
Before City Council can officially approve the URP, state law requires Council to formally submit
the URP to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation as to the URP’s
conformity with City Plan. In addition, Urban Renewal Law 31-25-107 (3.5)(a) requires the City
to submit the proposed URP to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners as well as an impact
report estimation about the time, increment created and impact to County resources, within 30 days
of the final hearing to approve the URP. Although not a requirement of Urban Renewal Law, the
City also committed to submitting the URP to the other affected taxing entities (i.e., Poudre School
District, Poudre Fire Authority, Library District).
On May 17, 2011, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-045 to formally submit the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District Board of Education,
and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners for their review and, with respect to the Planning
and Zoning Board a written recommendation as to its conformity with City Plan.
Upon adoption of Resolution 2011-045, Larimer County received the URP and impact report and
initially provided some concerns. Staff met with County officials and provided resolution to these
concerns. The County verbalized support for Midtown URP and the concept of creating TIF
districts.
The remaining affected taxing entities that received and reviewed the URP provided no additional
comments or concerns to staff.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
By adopting Resolution 2011-081, the Urban Renewal Authority is enabled to use the powers within
its authority, as identified in the Urban Renewal Plan, to provide assistance to eligible projects that
will aid in the elimination of blighted conditions within the Midtown commercial corridor. By
adopting the Resolution and approving the Plan, Prospect South is established as Midtown’s first
tax increment financing (TIF) District, thus allowing the Urban Renewal Authority to collect
18
September 6, 2011
property tax TIF based on the redevelopment activity that occurs over the statutory 25-year lifetime
of the District.
The timing for the creation of this plan area is intentional. Staff has been in negotiations with a
major catalytic student housing project over the past year. This project will be located in the
Prospect South TIF district and generate over $8 million in property tax increment over the
dedicated 25 years. This project has already spurred interest in Prospect South and staff is aware
of at least four potential projects in close proximity to the student housing project that will be
constructed in the next year as a result of this catalyst. Prospect South will be a prominent gateway
for Midtown and the southern entrance to Colorado State University (CSU) generating more tax
increment for area-wide improvements than a single project could provide; in excess of the
predicted $8 million.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Adopting Resolution 2011-081 will not have any direct environmental impacts. Potential
redevelopment projects resulting from this Resolution that request TIF assistance from the Urban
Renewal Authority will be subject to the pending 2011 revised URA Policies and Procedures. The
Policies and Procedures will require that projects adhere to the recently adopted Green Building
Code and prepare a Construction/Deconstruction Waste Management Plan, among other
sustainable practices. Preference will be given to projects that go above and beyond Code
minimums to ensure that TIF assistance is reserved for high quality, sustainable redevelopment. “
Christina Vincent, Urban Renewal Authority Redevelopment Program Administrator, stated this 9-
month process has involved many public outreach meetings. Resolution 2011-080, would adopt the
existing conditions survey and declare the area blighted. Resolution 2011-081 would adopt the plan
itself and create the first TIF district.
Megan Bolin, City Planner, discussed the proposed Midtown Urban Renewal Plan area. She
discussed the seven blight factors present in the area and the various abilities of the Urban Renewal
Authority.
Vincent clarified that Council’s action will establish the Urban Renewal Plan area on behalf of the
URA Board, which cannot establish its own plan area. The URA Board considered actions that are
a result of projects or decisions that relate to the established plan areas.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, South Fort Collins Business Association Board of Directors,
lauded the public process and staff’s work on the item and supported adoption of the Resolutions.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed the use of TIF assistance for the Midtown area.
David Everitt, 2413 Brookwood Drive, supported the Resolutions.
Spiro Palmer, 4323 Shoreline Drive, supported the Resolutions.
19
September 6, 2011
Gina Janett, 730 West Oak Street, noted South College Avenue has a great deal of private
redevelopment occurring, including the Mason Street Corridor, and questioned whether or not this
plan is needed.
Jay Girard, Fort Collins New Car Automobile Dealers Association President, supported the
Resolutions.
Bill See, 819 Strachan, supported the Resolutions.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, opposed the Resolutions and provided handouts to Council.
Ann Malone, 1220 East Stuart, opposed the Resolutions.
Les Kaplan, 140 Palmer Drive, supported the Resolutions.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked how TIF is awarded to projects and how the tax
increment that is diverted from other entities is calculated.
Allen Ginsborg, College and Horsetooth shopping center owner, supported the Resolutions.
Jim Palmer, South Fort Collins Business Association President, supported the Resolutions.
(**Secretary’s note: Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Manvel asked if it is possible for Council to amend the Urban Renewal Plan given
that it has received County approval as is. Daggett replied the statute requires that a substantial
modification would need to go through the review process.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the timetable to date in regard to the 120 days mentioned in
Resolution 2011-081. Vincent replied the 120 days began on May 17, 2011, when the plan was
referred to the existing taxing entities and the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern the Capstone project may not be approved by the URA
Board and asked about ramifications of approval of the Urban Renewal Plan. Vincent replied staff
would recommend stopping the tax increment financing clock until the proper catalytic project is
presented.
Councilmember Manvel asked if it would be possible to place a contingency clause on the TIF
district approval to begin if and when a project is approved. Daggett replied she would investigate
the option.
Councilmember Poppaw asked why the City is not encouraging development to occur on its own
as the Mason Corridor comes on line. Vincent replied the Midtown area is larger than just the
Mason Corridor and the investment in rapid transit alone cannot spur the development needed for
20
September 6, 2011
Midtown. City Manager Atteberry replied the Mason Corridor is a major asset to the Capstone
project.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how much money schools will lose given the fact that the State does
not have the money to backfill the losses. Vincent replied she would investigate the answer.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the model for the North College Citizens Advisory Group
(CAG). Vincent replied an ad hoc committee of City Councilmembers formed in 2006. That
committee formed a partnership with the North College Avenue Business Association to create a
citizens advisory group. The members are appointed by the North College Avenue Business
Association Executive Board. This proposed URA Board is not set up for that structure.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if there are any members in the North College Citizens Advisory
Group that do not have a financial interest in North College. Vincent replied one member is a past
employee of CSU and represents housing interests. Councilmember Manvel and Planning and
Zoning Boardmember Bridgette Schmidt sit on the Board as does Bob Brown, the Greenbriar
Homeowners Association president.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how many members are on the CAG. Vincent replied there are
eleven members and nine voting members. Bridgette Schmidt and Councilmember Manvel do not
vote.
Councilmember Troxell asked for the definition of a TIF. Vincent replied a TIF is the increment
above the current base as a result of development occurring. The taxing entities continue to receive
the base as well as an inflation rate every other year. The amount on top of the base, resulting from
development, is captured by the Urban Renewal Authority to be put back into infrastructure projects.
At the end of the time period, up to 25 years, the taxing entities receive the swell of funding
resulting from the public – private partnership.
Councilmember Troxell asked how a project qualifies for TIF. Vincent replied extensive policies
adopted by the URA Board guide applicants through the process. Applicants must submit to a
financial pro forma review and a review of the URA goals and objectives.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution
2011-080.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern regarding the extent of the area but noted there are many
examples of deterioration. He stated he would support the Resolution but noted not all projects will
be entitled to tax increment financing.
Councilmember Troxell agreed with Councilmember Manvel.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would support the motion and agreed Council should be
selective with the projects it selects to receive TIF.
21
September 6, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed TIF should be used selectively.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion as it will aid in advancing the community.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2011-081.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if URA statutes differ from the DDA, from which the taxing entities
did not receive the swell of money at the closure of the term. Vincent replied the legislation returns
the money to the taxing entities once the plan area has ended, in no more than 25 years.
Councilmember Horak discussed the evolution of the URA.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how many projects have unsuccessfully applied for URA assistance.
Vincent replied seven potential projects have not been recommended for approval, and that number
does not include a few projects along the I-25 corridor.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-082
Clarifying the Basis for the Setting of Development
Review and Building Permit Fees, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the June 14, 2011, Work Session, Council discussed a proposed change to the City’s cost
recovery philosophy for Building Permit and Plan Check Fees and an increase to these fees.
Council directed staff to conduct outreach to affected boards and interests, and bring the issue back
to Council for formal consideration. This proposal is consistent with the City’s practice of ensuring
that new development pays for the development related service costs. It represents a change of
philosophy to move from a goal of collecting 80% of the cost of the entire Development Review
Center through fees, toward recovering 100% of the cost of Fee-Related Services though Building
Permit and Plan Check Fees. This approach would result in an increase of 0.5% to 6.5% in
Building Permit and Plan Check fees, and yield an additional $714,098 in fee revenue to support
the Development Review Center. Fee increases would be implemented January 1, 2012.
22
September 6, 2011
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
For many years, the City had a Land Use Code policy to recover 80% of the costs of development
through the collection of fees on development. Though this official policy was eliminated in the
adoption of a more recent Land Use Code, the organization has continued to operate with the
expectation that it should recover a similar percentage of these development-related costs. In 2008,
staff examined its cost recovery performance and found that less than half of the costs of the
Development Review Center were recovered through fees. A combination of a lower number of
permits and development applications and a number of years without fee increases led to a lower
cost recovery. Adjustments to Building Permit and Plan Check fees were discussed with the Council
Finance Committee at that time, but staff received direction to postpone any increases until the
economic situation in the community improved. Staff returned to City Council with a new proposal
for consideration by the Finance Committee and the City Council at a work session and received
direction to continue to develop a proposal and seek community input.
Proposal:
Staff has developed a proposal for Council’s consideration which would increase the Building
Permit and Plan Check fees to reflect the current costs associated with providing these services, and
at the same time, update the philosophical underpinnings of the City’s method for calculating fees.
In the past, Council had expressed a desire to recover 80% of the Development Review Center’s
costs though fees, with 20% of the costs being attributed to community good. Since the fee formula
has not been updated for many years, and the City has experienced less construction activity in
recent years, current cost recovery is approximately 60% of the Development Review Center’s costs.
The Resolution, if adopted, clarifies that the City Manager is authorized to set a fee based on the
costs of providing development and building permit review services, pursuant to City Code Section
7.5-2. The result would be that the City Manager will implement a fee for these services designed
to recover 100% of the fee-related services (with some exceptions for items such as water heaters)
through the City’s Building Permit and Plan Check Fees. To determine the cost recovery goal,
expenses of the Development Review Center have been divided between fee-related services and
non-fee related services. Fee-related services are those which are directly tied to new development
or construction. Non-fee related services represent those activities of the department which are not
suitable for being funded through fees, either logistically or as a matter of public purpose. The cost
breakdown of services allocated to the Fee-related services category include the following:
23
September 6, 2011
2011 Fee Study: Recoverable Costs
Services % Costs
Recovered
Services % Costs
Recovered
Current Planning 20% Water Development Review 100%
Zoning 50% Wastewater Development
Review
100%
Customer and Administration 90% Stormwater Development
Review
100%
Building Inspection 75% Historic Preservation 50%
Plan Review 90% Green Building
Enforcement
100%
Construction Inspection 100% Community Development
Neighborhood Services
(CDNS) Hourly Staff
100%
Engineering Survey
Development Review
100% Management Information
Services (MIS) –
Development Tracking
System/Licensing
100%
Engineering Development
Review
35% MIS – Development Review
Geographic Information
Services (GIS)
100%
Traffic Development Review 100% Development Review
Laptop Replacement
100%
Light and Power Development
Review
100%
Within the Development Review Center (DRC), activities which link directly to development include
such services as plan checking, proposal submission and review, issuing building permits,
inspections, among others. Non-fee related services might include such things as Conceptual
Review, zoning questions not related to a specific project, special projects, Service Area Requests,
work for other organizations (reviewing a plan for Larimer County, Poudre School District, etc.)
An analysis of the cost breakdown between fee-related services and non-fee related services found
that 70% of DRC expenses result from fee-related services and 30% from non-fee related services.
This breakdown is further illustrated in Attachment 1, 2011 Fee Study—Building Permit and Plan
Check Fees, Figure 1.
In order to reach the goal of recovering 100% of the costs of fee-related services, the City is
currently approximately $700,000 short of covering fee-related services with fee revenue. In the
24
September 6, 2011
current budget, that funding comes from the General Fund and reserves, but adjusting fees would
result in a 100% cost recovery fee schedule for 2012.
Attachment 1, the 2011 Fee Study, Building Permit and Plan Check Fee proposal, provides
additional detail about the proposed approach to setting fees, the City’s relative position in the local
construction market (before and after implementation of the proposal), and the impact of the fee
change on a variety of types of building permits and valuations.
Attachment 2 includes the City’s current and proposed Plan Review and Building Permit Fee
Schedules.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This fee increase will apply to all building permits, including both new construction and
remodel/renovation projects. The impact on permit holders will be between 0.5% and 6.5%,
depending on the valuation of the project receiving the permit. The fee increase will result in
approximately $715,000 in new fee revenue to support the City’s Development Review Center.”
Ann Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager, stated the City charges building permit and plan check
fees based on a formula which has not changed since 1982. The fees are driven by valuations. The
previous goal was to recoup 80% of the cost of the Development Review Center through these fees.
It was discovered that amount recouped was actually only about 50%. The proposal is to have a
goal to recoup 100% of fee-related services and acknowledged the remaining costs are not easily
or appropriately recovered through fees. The Resolution acknowledges that the City Manager has
the authority to set administrative fees and endorses the methodology used to calculate the proposed
fees.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the wisdom of placing all of the funding for the
Development Review process on the developers.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, offered tentative support for the Resolution. He
suggested the possibility of a third party service provider and expressed concern regarding possible
additional fee increases and the outreach provided to the development community. He suggested
phasing in fee increases.
David Everitt, 2413 Brookwood Drive, stated cost recovery is not necessarily justifiable as costs
may either be below or above what is appropriate.
Jim Palmer, South Fort Collins Business Association, expressed concern his Association was not
part of the discussion regarding these changes.
Councilmember Troxell asked how it can be argued that processes are being improved and made
more efficient in light of the cost recovery approach.
25
September 6, 2011
Steve Dush, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied the question
of efficiency has been addressed in the Budgeting for Outcomes process as the Development Review
Center lost 7.2 full time positions. The proposed fees are lower than the industry standard.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the possibility of additional fee changes in the future.
Turnquist replied Council requested a review of building review and plan check fees as well as
capital expansion fees. The capital expansion fees will be explored as the next piece.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a downturn in development would result in City staffing shortfalls.
Turnquist replied there would be a direct tie between the number of building permits issued and
staffing levels.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the Development Review Center has specified levels of service
against which it can monitor and gauge its performance. Dush replied in the affirmative and stated
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official, prepares reports as to the number of days it takes for permits
to be completed. Process gaps are analyzed in weekly staff meetings.
City Manager Atteberry stated standards can be maintained while improving processes. Council has
approved the ability to use outside services for plan review, should it be needed.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what assurance Council has that this item will be evaluated in no
longer than two years. Turnquist replied this change ties the process to the Budgeting for Outcomes
process.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted increases in these fees have been delayed for years and were once
slated to be drastically higher than they are currently proposed.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about potential payment flexibility and timing. Dush confirmed certain
non-refundable fees are collected at the beginning of the development review process. The proposed
methodology applies to the permit review and plan check fees only.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about potentially phasing in the fees. Turnquist replied it is possible to
phase in the fees over a two-year period as the Development Review Center is funded at its current
Budgeting for Outcomes offer.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the financial goal. Turnquist replied the fees are slated to fill
a $714,000 gap; phasing would result in half of that being filled in 2012 and half in 2013.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the use of sales or use taxes as opposed to development fees.
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official, stated valuations could be used to collect sales tax. It would
be possible to place more audits on single-family projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern Fort Collins may be one of the last communities to adopt
2011 changes to the square foot fee table. Gebo replied the 2011 version increases a permit fee for
26
September 6, 2011
a typical single-family home over 20% and the City is using a fee table in the middle range of other
jurisdictions.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the City should be adopting the latest Codes on a quicker basis.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Resolution
2011-082 for implementation on January 1, 2012.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested a friendly amendment to phase in the fee increases over two years given
the current economic situation and other potential fee increases.
Councilmember Manvel did not support phasing given that the fee gap will be covered by all City
taxpayers if not by these fee increases.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson did not support phasing given the small amount of fee increases.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion without the inclusion of phasing.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like metrics regarding the building review timeline and
citizen satisfaction at the next Budgeting for Outcomes process. He suggested, rather than phasing,
the new fees could begin in 2013.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Weitkunat and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: Councilmember Poppaw left at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2011-083
Replacing the City’s Appointed Director on the Platte
River Power Authority Board of Directors, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
27
September 6, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) was established by the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland,
Longmont and Estes Park to be their wholesale power provider. The contract establishing PRPA
requires each municipality to have two members on the board of directors of PRPA. One is the
mayor, and the other is appointed by City Council.
This Resolution replaces the Utilities Executive Director with a member of the City Council.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) was established by the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland,
Longmont and Estes Park to be their wholesale power provider. The contract establishing PRPA
requires each municipality to have two members on the board of directors of PRPA. One is the
Mayor, and the other is appointed by City Council.
Historically, the Council-appointed Board member has been the Director of Utilities. The Director
of Utilities reports to and receives direction from the City Manager. As the policy making body for
the City, City Council believes that its appointed member of the Board should be a member of the
City Council.
This Resolution removes the Utilities Executive Director, Brian Janonis, and fills that vacancy with
a member of the City Council.”
City Manager Atteberry stated this Resolution would remove Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive
Director, from the PRPA Board and fill that vacancy with a member of City Council.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, encouraged the City to work with its PRPA partners.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2011-083 placing Councilmember Horak on the PRPA Board.
Councilmember Horak discussed his qualifications for the position.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated Councilmember Horak is extremely qualified to fill the position.
Councilmember Manvel stated Councilmember Horak, along with Mayor Weitkunat, will now have
the ability to bring policy direction to the Board.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
28
September 6, 2011
Ordinance No. 111, 2011
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated
Revenue in Various City Funds, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following is a list of funds that make up the increase in appropriations:
General Fund
Unanticipated Revenue $ 630,881
Prior Year Reserves
Traffic Surcharge Reserve $ 93,696
Camera Radar Reserve $ 274,485
Other Reserves $ 213,807
Capital Projects Fund $ 355,000
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund $ 53,768
Neighborhood Parkland Fund $ 167,797
Recreation Fund $ 151,901
Sales & Use Tax Fund $ 502,526
Transit Services Fund $1,445,784
Transportation Services Fund $ 36,500
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 2011 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 appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds.
The City Charter permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense from
prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated
revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though
revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A. GENERAL FUND
1. Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) has received revenue from various sources which
needs to be appropriated to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these items follows:
29
September 6, 2011
a. $34,500 - Chemical Test Fees and Driving Without Insurance Penalty Assessments -
Pursuant to C.R.S. 16-11-501(2)(j), the costs of chemical tests (blood/breath tests)
shall be reimbursed by the defendant to the law enforcement agency which
administered and paid for the test. The driving without insurance law provides
revenue to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation. It is projected that by
the end of 2011, $34,500 will have been collected by the courts and passed on to
FCPS under these provisions. This revenue is used to directly offset the actual cost
of testing for Driving Under the Influence and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs.
b. $3,800 - Training Revenue - In 2011, FCPS sponsored various classes which other
agencies paid tuition to attend. The training events were sponsored by the SWAT
Team. The revenue from these classes is used to offset the cost of supplies and to
fund other SWAT related supply costs.
c. $4,200 - Community Workshop Fees - FCPS conducts community education
workshops for Municipal Violation and Noise Violation offenders. Attendance is a
requirement as part of their sentence. The fee is $20 per participant. This money
is used to offset the overtime incurred by those teaching the course.
d. $12,390 - Miscellaneous Overtime Reimbursement - In 2011, Police Services billed
various outside entities for overtime expenses for the following activities: DEA
investigative partnership, Tour De Fat, Brew Fest and the Regional Auto Theft
Investigative Unit. The revenue collected directly offsets what was spent.
e. $38,200 - Police Report and Special Event Permit Fees - Police reports purchased
by the public and insurance agencies generate revenue of approximately $7.50 per
report. Special event permits are required if the public wishes to hold an event that
will interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or takes place on public property.
Special event permits cost $50 per event. In 2011, approximately $38,200 will be
collected from these fees. The fee revenue is used to subsidize the cost of copy
machine rental.
f. $200 - Community Contributions - In 2011, FCPS received a $200 donation from a
community member for the K-9 program. The money will be used to purchase
equipment for the program.
g. $93,696 - Traffic Surcharge Officer - In 2010, authorization was received to hire an
additional police officer assigned to the Traffic Unit, to be supported by the Traffic
Calming Surcharge. The addition was not part of the 2011 authorized budget. Since
inception, the fund has stabilized enough to support a third officer dedicated to
traffic enforcement. This appropriation covers the 2011 salary and benefits for the
officer.
h. $97,068 - Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funded District One Officer -
In 2010, the City of Fort Collins entered into an agreement with the DDA for the
DDA to provide two years of funding for an additional officer for District One. This
appropriation covers the ongoing operating expenses, salary and benefits for 2011.
30
September 6, 2011
i. $13,500 – Police Service Seizure Expense - In 2011, Police Services purchased a
Lexipol policy management system. The system allows for review of the origin of all
policy content, including federal and state laws and law enforcement best practices.
This system provides regular policy updates in response to legislative mandates, case
law and best practices evolution. Federal rules determine what seizure funds can
be used for and the purchase of this system is a permissible use of these funds.
j. $46,309 – In-Car DUI Officer Camera System - The old DUI car camera system was
failing, beyond its useful life and ability to be covered by a maintenance agreement.
A new system by the name of “Arbitrator” was purchased in 2011. City of Fort
Collins Purchasing Guidelines were followed in the acquisition of this system.
k. $228,176 – Patrol Car Modification Project - With the replacement of laptops
scheduled at the end of the year, modifications need to be made to the patrol cars to
accommodate the new laptop. The semi rugged laptop is at the end of its life cycle
and the next ruggedized series has a different “footprint”. Docking stations are
being installed to improve connectivity to (1) exterior antennas (Wi-Fi hotspots,
broadband, GPS signals) (2) power sources (battery, alternator and distribution
timers) and (3) interfacing USB devices (cameras, voice recorders, etc.)
The docking station also provides a locking mechanism for anti-theft and a more
sturdy housing than a stand-alone computer mount. Antennas will be added for
improved wireless coverage. The vehicles center console will be modified to
integrate the docking station and laptop safely and ergonomically instead of
installing separate computer mounts. New radio cabling will also be installed in
anticipation of mobile radio replacement in 2012 while the console is removed,
saving labor costs on that project. In total, 147 vehicles are being equipped. It is
estimated these consoles have a useful life of 10+ years.
l. $40,000 – Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System Storage Capacity Addition - The
aging CAD/RMS (Records Management System) system required a storage upgrade
in 2011. This appropriation will cover the cost of replacing the RMS component of
the CAD system. This will be funded by the CAD reserve account which was
established exclusively to repair/replace CAD components.
m. $6,000 - Seatbelt Enforcement Grant - In 2011, FCPS received a contract from the
State of Colorado Department of Transportation for $6,000 to be used for seatbelt
compliance enforcement.
n. $6,356 – Driving while Under the Influence (DUI) Enforcement Grant - FCPS
received an additional $6,356 of funding over what was originally appropriated for
the 2010 DUI enforcement grant. The grant pays for FCPS officer overtime during
multi-agency checkpoints.
31
September 6, 2011
o. $15,335 – DUI Enforcement Grant – Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) received
a grant for DUI enforcement in 2011. The grant pays for FCPS officer overtime
during multi-agency checkpoints.
p. $6,376 - Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children Grant - For late 2010 and early
2011 Fort Collins Police was the sub-recipient of $6,376 in grant funding as part of
the Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force. The Colorado
Springs Police Department administered the grant and FCPS received funds to pay
for ICAC sponsored community internet safety meetings and case related overtime.
The grant also provided funds to purchase computer equipment and to attend out of
state training.
q. $13,271 – Supplemental Grant Awards - Fort Collins Police Services is the
administrative agency for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF). The
NCDTF is the recipient of a grant from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. Occasionally, additional funding is available
to help offset the cost of illegal narcotics investigations. Supplemental funding was
received for both 2009 ($7,414) and 2010 ($5,857) grants.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $ 93,290
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DDA) $ 97,068
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Traffic Surcharge) $ 93,696
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Police Seizure) $ 13,500
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Camera Radar) $274,485
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (CAD Replacement) $ 40,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $ 6,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $ 21,691
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ICAC Task Force Grant) $ 6,376
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Drug Task Force Grant) $ 13,271
FOR: Police Services $612,039
FOR: Seatbelt Grant $ 6,000
FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $ 21,691
FOR: ICAC Task Force Grant $ 6,376
FOR: Drug Task Force Grant $ 13,271
2. The Climate Wise program received a private grant of $4,000 in 2010 for continuing
education, events and outreach to encourage further Climate Wise partner project
implementation and to reach new businesses. At the end of 2010, the revenue was closed
into the General Fund reserves. The grant period is from July 1, 2010 through June 30,
2011. This grant does not require a local match.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $4,000
FOR: Climate Wise Program Expenses $4,000
32
September 6, 2011
3. The Waste Innovation Program, which generates money from departments’ landfill tipping
fees, has a current balance of $105,307. To meet the City’s internal sustainability goals,
the City Manager established this fund in 2010 to be used for projects that improve various
departments’ ability to divert trash from landfill disposal. Working with Parks Maintenance,
Streets, and Environmental Regulatory Affairs, the Natural Resources Department has
developed a proposal to establish a fully permitted, outdoor facility that will be used for
composting landscape maintenance trimmings and fall leaves. The $105,307 in the Waste
Innovation Program will be applied to building the new composting facility, which has a
projected budget of $119,500 to complete Phase I (planning) and Phase II (implementation).
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $105,307
FOR: Waste Innovation Fund Expenses $105,307
4. a. The City Manager and Executive Leadership Team (ELT) considered ways to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. Changes impacting existing
service areas were approved in March 2011 and included the following:
1. Assistant to the City Manager - This new position is an executive level position
intended to support the City Manager in pursuing a world class community and
performance excellence. There will be primarily three areas of focus, including
Sustainability Coordination, Community Design & Special Projects, and Innovative
Culture.
2. Assistant to the City Manager - Employee and Communications Services
(Restructured Communications and Public Involvement Director Position)
3. Reclassify the current Public Relations Coordinator to the Communications and
Public Involvement Manager
This item appropriates $25,000 from General Fund Reserves to cover the costs for this
change in 2011.
b. On November 10, 2010 the Communications and Public Involvement Office (CPIO)
received and deposited a donation from the Johanna A. Favrot Fund to be used towards
the 2011 City Works 101 program. At the end of 2010, the revenue was closed into the
General Fund reserves. This item appropriates this donation in the amount of $6,000 for
that purpose.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $31,000
FOR: Communications & Public Involvement Office Expenses $31,000
5. Forestry has identified several high use public areas where trees need maintenance for
safety and tree health reasons. In some cases, maintenance has not been performed in over
a decade. This item appropriates $20,000 from the General Fund - Tree Donations Reserve
to be used to contractually prune and remove mature City trees.
33
September 6, 2011
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Tree Donations) $20,000
FOR: Forestry Expenses $20,000
6. This request is to appropriate a $30,000 donation from Poudre Valley Health Systems for
the 4th of July celebration in 2011. The donation paid for fireworks and other supplies for
the celebration.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $30,000
FOR: Parks Expenses $30,000
7. Operations Services-Facilities has performed construction, maintenance, repairs,
alterations, and facilities related services for various City departments on a cost
reimbursement basis. This work includes the recent project of repainting the interior of the
downtown Civic Center Parking Structure. This item appropriates $225,000 that has been
billed to those various departments to cover the cost of the work performed.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Work for Others) $225,000
FOR: Facilities Expenses $225,000
8. The Gardens on Spring Creek has received additional money from events above the original
revenue appropriated during the budget process. These revenues will be used to fund
hourly, seasonal staff and supplies at The Gardens. In addition, sponsorship dollars were
raised to support events. These monies must be spent on those specific events (Harvest
Festival, Garden of Lights, etc.).
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $50,000
FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek $50,000
9. The Gardens on Spring Creek received several grants in 2011 that need to be appropriated.
They are as follows: Can Do Grant - $13,000, Stanley Smith Horticulturist Trust Grant -
$19,350, and Colorado Health Foundation Grant - $55,835. The Can Do Grant and
Colorado Health Foundation Grant fund the Community Garden Outreach Program, which
grows food in the Garden of Eatin’, coordinates Garden Network meetings for those
interested in community gardens and growing food for low income populations, and provides
technical assistance to people and organizations that are creating community gardens
specifically targeting low income residents. The Stanley Smith Horticulturist Trust Grant
provides money for an hourly horticulturist to oversee construction and maintenance of the
Rock Garden which opens in September 2011.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $88,185
FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek Grant Expenses $88,185
B. RECREATION FUND
1. The following items appropriate expenditures from unanticipated revenue and unrestricted
reserves for programs in the Recreation Fund.
34
September 6, 2011
a. $24,000 – Recreator - Unanticipated revenue ($11,000) for advertising sales in the
Recreator and prior year Recreation reserves ($13,000) will be appropriated through
this item and used for increased production and distribution costs for the publication.
Over the next few months there could be additional unanticipated revenues that offset the
need to draw on the Recreation Reserves.
b. $17,260 – Northside Aztlan Community Center Rentals - Unanticipated revenue for the
Northside Aztlan Rentals will be appropriated through this item and used to cover
additional costs of increased rental activity.
c. $5,951 – Northside Aztlan Community Center Fitness - Unanticipated revenue in
Northside Aztlan Fitness programs will be appropriated through this item and used to
cover additional costs of the increased programming demand.
d. $35,000 – Trips and Travel Program - Unanticipated revenue in the Senior Center Trips
and Travel program will be appropriated through this item and used to cover additional
costs of increased programming demand.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fund) $69,211
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $13,000
FOR: Recreation Programs $82,211
2. The Recreation Division administers several restricted revenue accounts for various
programs. Revenues for these programs include grants, fund-raising events and activities,
and sponsorships. The following items appropriate unanticipated restricted revenue and
restricted reserves for specific programs.
a. $11,000 – Alternative Programs - Prior year reserves in the Alternative Program special
revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used for fall programs and
contractual staffing.
b. $7,000 – Youth Programs - Unanticipated revenue in the Youth Programs special
revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used for the Toys for Kids
program and fundraising activities.
c. $1,000 – Senior Center - Prior year reserves in the Senior Center special revenue
account will be appropriated through this item and used for an upgraded sound system
and fundraisers.
d. $8,855 – Senior Center - Prior year reserves in the Recreation donation special revenue
account will be appropriated through this item and used for a fundraising feasibility
study and a business plan for the Senior Center addition.
e. $2,800 – Youth Sports - Prior year reserves in the Youth Sports special revenue account
will be appropriated through this item and used to purchase youth sports equipment.
35
September 6, 2011
f. $17,500 – Club Tico - Unanticipated revenue ($16,000) and prior year reserves ($1,500)
in the Club Tico special revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used
for the architectural designs of phase two of the Club Tico renovation.
g. $4,535 – Active Kids - Prior year reserves in the Active Kids special revenue account will
be appropriated through this item and used to support youth physical activities.
h. $17,000 – Youth Football - Unanticipated revenues ($12,125) and prior year reserves
($4,875) in the Youth Football special revenue account will be appropriated through this
item and used to support youth football programs.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fund) $35,125
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $34,565
FOR: Recreation Programs $69,690
C. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND
1. Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Section 5309 State of Good Repair Funding - The City of
Fort Collins is the recipient of $1,200,000 in unanticipated 2010 FTA Section 5309 "State
of Good Repair" funding. The funding was awarded to the City to replace three heavy-duty,
diesel transit buses that have exceeded their useful life. Transfort intends to purchase two
35 foot alternative fuel (compressed natural gas) heavy-duty transit buses and one 60 foot
alternative fuel (compressed natural gas) articulated transit bus with the grant funding.
Federal funding has been awarded at an 83%/17% match rate and the local match in the
amount of $245,784 is requested from the Transit Fund prior year reserves.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (FTA Section 5309 Funding) $1,200,000
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Transit Services Fund) $245,784
FOR: Replacement Buses $1,445,784
D. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. Fort Collins FCBikes Program - This item appropriates unanticipated revenue for the 2011
FCBikes program. The Orthopedic Center of the Rockies contributed $500 for the 2011 Bike
Week events. These funds will be applied to program expenditures.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $500
FOR: FCBikes Program Expenses $500
2. Staff is requesting that the 2011 budgeted appropriation for expenses related to Senior
Alternatives in Transportation (SAINT) services be transferred from the Transit Fund to the
Transportation Fund. Historically, through the Transfort budget, the City of Fort Collins
has contributed annual funding to SAINT for the operation of a volunteer demand-response
transportation program for people 60 years old and older and people with disabilities. This
low-cost type of transportation eases the demand for more costly Dial-A-Ride services
provided by the City. A recent Federal Transit Administration procurement review
36
September 6, 2011
identified the need to use time consuming and expensive FTA procurement processes if the
City continues to make this $36,000 appropriation through the Transfort budget. These
requirements are not necessary if the appropriation is from another fund. As the current
2011 Transfort budget contains $36,000 to be paid to SAINT, staff is requesting that this
appropriation be transferred to the Transportation Fund to pay to SAINT. This issue will
be addressed as part of the 2013-2014 Budget process to eliminate the future need for a fund
transfer. This item appropriates the $36,000 in the Transportation Fund.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from Transit) $36,000
FOR: Transportation Services Fund-SAINT Expenses $36,000
E. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND
1. Trail Connection from Provincetown Development to Carpenter Road - The developer of
Provincetown 3rd filing was required to provide funding for the trail connection from the
development to Carpenter Road for access to Thompson Elementary School on the south side
of the road. Construction of an 8-foot wide concrete trail will be installed in 2011. The
funds will be used for the construction of the trail in conjunction with Waters Way
Neighborhood Park.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $167,797
FOR: Trail Development $167,797
F. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. Transfort is requesting that revenue and appropriations in the amount of $350,000, be
transferred from the Building on Basics (BOB) Transit Services Fund account to the Mason
Express (MAX) vehicles project in the Capital Projects Fund. BOB funding was awarded
to Transfort to serve as local match for the replacement of transit vehicles. The funds will
serve as a portion of the local match for MAX buses, which will replace older buses. This
transfer is requested to appropriately identify the funds that will be used to meet the local
match requirements for MAX transit vehicle procurement - in the Mason Corridor Capital
Project in the Capital Projects Fund.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $350,000
FOR: Mason Corridor Project $350,000
2. The Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund provided a $5,000 contribution from an anonymous donor
for bike lane/path improvements on Trilby Road from the railroad to Timberline Road.
Currently the additional funds needed for these improvements have not been identified. This
appropriates the contribution into the BOB funded Bike Plan project to be held until the bike
improvements project can move forward.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $5,000
FOR: BOB – Bike Plan Implementation Project $5,000
37
September 6, 2011
G. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND
1. City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public Places (APP) Program.
The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and
appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining
public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction
projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. The
APP Program has received unanticipated revenue for specific art projects. The following
items describe the revenue source and how the funds are to be used.
a. $3,468 is revenue from the North College Improvement Project in the Capital Projects
Fund. These funds will be used for the APP project for North College. This project is
currently in the design phase and will be brought to City Council for final review.
b. $9,800 has been received from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) These
funds will be used for administration for the collaborative projects with the Downtown
Development Authority. For the DDA Alley Paver Project, APP produced a total of sixty
pavers with drawings by local youth, to be installed in three alley projects. The Art in
Action Project had an artist working on Old Town Square during the summer months and
creating a final piece of artwork for display.
c. $40,500 has been received from the Bohemian Foundation for the “Pianos About Town”,
a collaborative project with the Bohemian Foundation and Downtown Development
Authority. These funds are the Bohemian Foundation’s contribution to the project. This
appropriation funds the overall project, including the tuning, moving, purchase, repairs
and artists painting the pianos, as well as a portion of the administration costs. There
will be fourteen painted pianos about town at the end of the project.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $53,768
FOR: Art-in-Public Places projects $53,768
H. SALES AND USE TAX FUND
1. The revenue forecast model was updated in July 2011 with data from the first six months of
the year. The net sales and use tax revenue increase is projected to be about 2.5% over the
budgeted amount. While staff does not recommend appropriating the additional revenue at
this time, the appropriations for transfers from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax, and to the Natural Areas
Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax need to be increased. Transfers to the
General Fund, the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund, and the Transportation Services Fund are
not needed because the tax revenues are recorded directly into the appropriate fund and do
not flow through the Sales and Use Tax Fund.
This item appropriates the projected increase of $217,500 for transfer from the Sales and
Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects fund for the Building on Basics projects and $217,500
38
September 6, 2011
from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund. These dollars will be held in
the respective fund reserves for future programs and projects.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales Tax) $435,000
FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $217,500
FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $217,500
2. In accordance with Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax
Rebate, $67,526 was paid out in March 2011 for the 2009 rebate program. The rebate
program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local
manufacturing firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the
rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $67,526
FOR: Manufacturers Rebate $67,526
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2011 appropriations by $3,926,145. Of that amount, this
Ordinance increases General Fund 2011 appropriations by $1,212,869. Funding for the total City
appropriations is $2,593,814 from unanticipated revenue, $942,863 from prior year reserves, and
$389,468 transferred from other funds.”
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 111, 2011, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like this appropriations of this type to go to the Finance
Committee and appropriate boards and commissions for review prior to Council. He objected to the
process for the selection of Bruce Hendee for the sustainability position.
City Manager Atteberry noted he discussed the appointment and position funding with the sitting
Council and the appointment was in response to Council direction to fill this type of need.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson and Troxell. Nays:
Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
39
September 6, 2011
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
40
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Susan Neiman
Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management
System Upgrade.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current version of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System
(CAD/RMS/JMS) is outdated and does not operate in the latest Windows or Internet Explorer environments. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, authorizes the appropriation of funds
needed for Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current systems (software, hardware and project manager
costs) through Tiburon, Inc. and will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to
bring the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 20, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Susan Neiman
Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Upgrade of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System.
A. Resolution 2011-085 Approving an Exemption to the Use of a Competitive Process for a Contract with
Tiburon, Inc. For System Upgrades to the Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail
Management System.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue
in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and
Jail Management System Upgrade.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records
Management and Jail Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) systems (software, hardware and project manager costs)
through Tiburon, Inc. which will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring
the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-date. The current version of CAD/RMS/JMS is outdated and does not
operate in the latest Windows or Internet Explorer environments. The Ordinance authorizes the appropriation of funds
needed to complete this project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Police Services (FCPS) conducted a competitive process in 2002 for a Computer Aided Dispatch/Records
Management/Jail Management system in which Tiburon, Inc. was selected. The current CAD/RMS/JMS system being
used by Fort Collins Police Services in conjunction with Larimer County Sheriff, Colorado State University Police, Estes
Park Police, Timnath Police, Poudre Fire Authority and Poudre Valley Ambulance was fully implemented in 2004.
Since that time, this system has not been upgraded. A software and hardware upgrade to this system is a vital
component to the operation of these agencies.
The vendor that supplies this application, Tiburon, Inc. has released several versions beyond the version installed at
the CRISP agencies. The City has spent significant effort to research the new software release and has deemed it
a very desirable upgrade. The latest release will align this system with the current standards and direction of the City’s
overall Information Technology strategies. The upgrade to the latest software release will be required in the future if
the City continues to use this vendor’s products. Although there are other vendors that supply similar applications,
the City would have to purchase an entire new system from those vendors. It is more cost effective to upgrade the
existing system with the software available from Tiburon, Inc.
Section 8-161 of the City Code states that any exemption to the use of competitive bidding in excess of $200,000 must
be approved by City Council. The Resolution authorizes the purchase of software, hardware and project manager
costs for the purpose of upgrading and replacing the current CAD/RMS/JMS system as an exemption to the use of
competitive bid or proposal as provided in Section 8-161(d)(1)b.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The cost of the software and hardware upgrade is approximately $1,600,000 but would not exceed $2,000,000. The
2011 costs for a project manager to oversee this upgrade is approximately $22,000. This request is to appropriate
$712,612 from the Building on Basics (BOB) sales and use tax allocated for the Police CAD replacement and $960,000
from the Police CAD Replacement Reserve in the General Fund. These appropriations are for Police Services to issue
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 20, 2011 -2- ITEM 13
purchase orders for the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
Police Services will continue its partnerships with the agencies that are currently a part of this project (listed above).
The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office has committed to fund 50% of this project ($750,000) and the costs of a Project
Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUE
IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE BUILDING ON BASICS POLICE
COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH, RECORDS MANAGEMENT
AND JAIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Police Services operates a computer aided dispatch,
records and jail management system (the “System”) in conjunction with the Larimer County Sheriff,
Colorado State University Police, Estes Park Police, Timnath Police, Poudre Fire Authority, and
Poudre Valley Ambulance; and
WHEREAS, the current System was fully implemented in 2004 and has not been upgraded
since that time; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed a ballot measure establishing
a one-quarter cent sales tax to fund the projects in the “Building on Basics” (“BOB”) program,
which program includes enhancements an updates to the System; and
WHEREAS, in order to enhance the functionality and preserve the continued viability of the
System, which is a vital asset of Fort Collins Police Services and critical infrastructure of the other
agencies that utilize the System, it is necessary to upgrade the existing software and hardware for
the System;
WHEREAS, the cost of the upgrades is estimated to be $1.6 million; and
WHEREAS, there currently exists in the BOB portion of the Sales and Use Tax fund the
amount of $712,612, available for expenditure on the System (the “BOB Funds”), which funds has
not been previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, the BOB Funds are available to be moved to the General Fund, as unanticipated
revenue, and appropriated therein for expenditure on the System; and
WHEREAS, the sum of $960,000 has been reserved in the General Fund for the System
upgrades; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue
in the General Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
TWELVE DOLLARS ($712,612) for the upgrade and replacement of the Police Services computer
aided dispatch, records management and jail management system.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the General Fund the sum of NINE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($960,000) for
the upgrade and replacement of the Police Services computer aided dispatch, records management
and jail management system.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial
Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the financial disclosure
requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney to include any and
all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the
property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as currently required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 20, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial
Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ordinance expands the financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council,
City Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or
the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as currently
required.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 2 of the City Code currently requires any candidate for the office of City
Councilmember, every member of the City Council, the City Manager and the City Attorney to periodically file with the
City Clerk a written disclosure statement, the contents of which are specified in Section 2-637 of the City Code. One
of the disclosures required under Section 2-637 is the disclosure of any interest in real property that is held or acquired
for the purpose of resale at a profit and that is owned by the person making the disclosure or such person’s spouse.
In the interest of transparent government, the City Council recently expressed a desire to expand this disclosure
requirement to include any and all interests in real property held by the person making disclosure or such person’s
spouse, regardless of whether such property is held for the purpose of resale and profit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-637 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO EXPAND THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY MANAGER,
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, in the interest of transparent government, the City Council has adopted Chapter
2, Article VIII of the City Code pertaining to financial disclosures; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Division 2 of said Chapter 2, Article VIII, any candidate for the
office of City Councilmember, every member of the City Council, the City Manager and the City
Attorney are required to periodically file with the City Clerk a written disclosure statement, the
contents of which are specified in Section 2-637 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, one of the disclosures required under Section 2-637 is the disclosure of any
interest in real property that is held or acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit and that is owned
by the person making the disclosure or such person’s spouse; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the citizens
of the City to expand this disclosure requirement to include any and all interests in real property held
by the person making disclosure or such person’s spouse, regardless of whether such property is held
for the purpose of resale and profit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that Section 2-637 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2-637. Requirements.
Financial disclosure shall include:
. . .
(3) The legal description of any interest in real property owned by the person
making disclosure or such person's spouse.
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Laurie D’Audney
Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding
Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding
Resource Conservation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Code currently requires that all weeds and grasses (except “ornamental” grasses which cannot exceed twenty
percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in height. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on September 20, 2011, will allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit.
The Code amendments will serve to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide
options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass. The grass types that would be
exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would have a height limit of twelve inches.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 20, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Laurie D’Audney
Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding
Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding
Resource Conservation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In an effort to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide options for Fort Collins
residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass, these Code amendments allow certain grass types to be
exempt from the current six inch height limit. The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss,
and they would have a height limit of twelve inches.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Code Section 20-42 requires that all weeds and grasses (except “ornamental” grasses which cannot exceed
twenty percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in height. In recent years, staff has heard from
citizens who would like to grow certain types of water-wise turfgrass. Some of these grasses need to grow higher than
six inches in order to thrive.
It is currently against City Code to have a yard of any grass or weeds in excess of six inches. During the past growing
season, Code Compliance Inspectors have sent violation notices to properties using water-wise turfgrass species that
were exceeding the height limit. This brought to light inconsistencies with the City’s messages encouraging
conservation and how the weed/grass height code is enforced.
Staff discussions and research looked at what other communities are doing regarding weed/grass height limits, the
allowance of certain native grasses, and the encouragement of water conservation through landscape decisions. Staff
also examined current policies and sought the advice of local experts.
City policies, as well as proposed policies in Plan Fort Collins, include strong messages to encourage water
conservation and to require quality and ecologically sound landscape design. Colleagues at both Colorado State
University and the Larimer County Extension Offices agreed that water conserving landscapes should be encouraged,
and they provided their input regarding which grasses should be exempt from the six inch height limit.
Staff is not aware of many properties in Fort Collins that currently have water-wise turfgrass. If adopted, this
amendment could encourage more people to use water-wise turfgrass within their landscape. Water-wise turfgrass
helps conserve water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The water conservation can be significant – Blue Grama
and Buffalograss need about three-quarter inch of water every two weeks; bluegrass needs about one and one-half
inch per week. This equates to about one-quarter of the water use when using water-wise turfgrass.
The staff team recommends amending Code Section 20-42 to provide an exemption for “water-wise turfgrass,” which
includes Blue Grama and Buffalograss, to exceed the six inch height limit but not to exceed twelve inches.
Additionally, staff recommends amending the Resource Conservation Ordinance, Code Section 12-120, to include
these water-wise turfgrasses as part of the Xeriscape Landscaping definition. This would prohibit homeowner
associations from restricting the use of these grasses.
During the review and discussion of these ordinances, staff also found some areas in need of minor updates. The
recommended amendments include: changing the title of Code Section 20, Article IV, to “Weeds, Grass, Refuse, and
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 20 2011 -2- ITEM 15
Rubbish”; changing the title of Code Section 20-42 to “Weeds, unmowed grasses, refuse, and rubbish nuisances
prohibited”; adding certain grasses to the list of “ornamental grasses”; adding a definition of grass; updating the weed
list; adding “public right-of-way or other public property” to the section prohibiting the deposit or accumulation of refuse,
rubbish, or storage of materials within or upon these public areas; and adding “buffer zone for natural habitat” as an
exemption from the weed/grass height requirements.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
These Code amendments would not have a financial impact on the City of Fort Collins. There could be a cost savings
for residents directly related to using less water.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Positive environmental impacts include water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions from less mowing,
improved water quality from having less water runoff into the storm drain, and less pesticides and fertilizers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
An article about water-wise turfgrass was included in the September Neighborhood News e-newsletter, which has over
700 subscribers, and the Neighbors in the Know email list (including over 90 active neighborhood leaders) in order
to explain this potential Code amendment and to solicit feedback.
If adopted, these Code amendments will be communicated to the public in several ways including:
• Neighborhood News and CityNews newsletters
• Education through Xeriscape and water-wise classes
• Coloradoan article
• Spotlight on the website
• Email distributions to homeowner associations and neighborhood group contacts
ATTACHMENTS
1. An Introduction to Blue Grama and Buffalograss
ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 20 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING WEEDS, GRASS AND RUBBISH
WHEREAS, Section 20-42 of the City Code requires that all weeds and grasses, with the
exception of ornamental grasses consuming not more than twenty percent of the landscape, be kept
to a maximum of six inches in height; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, City staff has heard from citizens who would like to grow
water-wise turfgrass, which requires a growth height of more than six inches to thrive; and
WHEREAS, staff has researched water-wise turfgrass in collaboration with colleagues at
both Colorado State University and the Larimer County Extension Offices and has concluded that
Section 20-42 should be amended to provide an exception for water-wise turfgrass, including Blue
Grama and Buffalograss, so as to allow such grasses to exceed six inches in height; and
WHEREAS, staff has also concluded that Blue Grama and Buffalograss should be excluded
from the definition of “ornamental grasses” under Section 20-42 so as to allow them to exceed
twenty percent of the landscape; and
WHEREAS, allowing Blue Grama and Buffalograss to exceed a height of more than six
inches and to exceed more than twenty percent of the landscape would be consistent with the City’s
message of encouraging water conservation and requiring quality and ecologically sound landscape
design; and
WHEREAS, staff has also proposed that the mowing of grasses in areas established as
natural habitat or other such features pursuant to the Land Use Code be regulated according to the
applicable provisions of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified other minor amendments that should be made to City Code
Sections 20-41 and 20-42 relating to weeds, grass and rubbish, including clarification of the scope
of the prohibition against depositing or storing materials on adjacent open areas and public
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 20-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition entitled “Grass” which shall read in its entirety as follows:
Grass shall mean any monocot plants of the family Poaceae, excluding any plants
that are weeds, as that term is defined hereinafter.
Section 2. That the definition “Ornamental grasses” contained in Section 20-41 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Ornamental grasses shall mean any of the following grasses: yellow foxtail
(Alopecurus pratensis), blue or western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii or
Pascopyrum smithii), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), bulbous oatgrass
(Arrhenatherum elatius), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), rattlesnake or
quaking grass (Briza media), feather reed grass (Calamagrostis acutiflora or C.
arundinacea), Korean feather reed grass (Calamagrostis brachytricha), golden sedge
(Carex elata 'Bowles Golden'), blue sedge (Carex glauca), Gray’s or morning star
sedge (Carex grayi), Japanese sedge (Carex hachijoensis ‘Evergold’), variegated
Japanese sedge (Carex morrowii), palm sedge (Carex muskingumensis), northern sea
oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloama), dwarf pampas
grass (Cortaderia sellonana), lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus), tufted hair grass
(Deschampsia caespitosa), blue lyme grass (Elymus arenarius), Canada wild rye
(Elymus canadensis), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), sand love grass
(Eragrotis trichodes), ravenna or plume grass (Erianthus ravennae or Saccharum
ravennae), Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), blue fescue (Festuca cinerea, F.
ovina or F. glauca), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), variegated mannagrass
(Glyceria maxima variegata), blue oatgrass (Helictotrichon sempervirens), needle-n-
thread (Hesperostipa comata), New Mexico feathergrass (Hesperostipa
neomexicana), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum),
Japanese blood grass (Imperata cylindrica), junegrass (Koeleria cristata, K. gracilis
or K. macrantha), woodrush (Leymus spp. or Luzula spp.), Great Basin wild rye
(Leymus cinereus), hairy melic grass (Melica ciliata), ruby grass (Melinus
nerviglumis), giant Chinese silvergrass (Miscanthus floridulus or M. giganeus),
Japanese silvergrass (Miscanthus oligostachys), flame grass (Miscanthus
purpurascens), silver banner grass (Miscanthus sacchariflorus), maiden grass or
silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis), moor grass (Molina caerulea), muhly grass
(Muhlenbergia spp.), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), Indian ricegrass
(Oryzopis hymenoides or Achnatherum hymenoides), switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum), feathergrass (Pennisetum alopecuroides), purple majesty millet
(Pennisetum glaucum), tender fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), feather top
(Pennisetum villosum), ribbon grass (Phalaris arundinacea), ruby grass
(Rychelytrum neriglume), plume grass (Saccharum ravennae), little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium or Andropogon scoparius), autumn moorgrass (Sesleria
autumnalis), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans or S. avenaceum), cord grass
(Spartina spp.), frost or graybeard grass (Spodiopogon spp.), prairie dropseed
(Sporobolus heterolepis), giant sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) and any other species
of grass approved by the City Manager that is customarily used for ornamental
purposes and not as a turf grass.
Section 3. That Section 20-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition entitled”Water-wise” which shall read in its entirety as follows:
-2-
Water-wise turfgrass shall mean blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis or Chrondrosum
gracile) or buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides).
Section 4. That Section 20-42 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 20-42. Weeds, unmowed grasses, refuse and rubbish nuisances
prohibited.
(a) All weeds, or unmowed grasses required to be mowed under Subsection
(c) of this Section, refuse and rubbish on a property within the City are hereby
declared to be a nuisance and a menace to the health and safety of the inhabitants of
the City.
(b) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit
refuse, or rubbish to accumulate on any part of the property. All refuse shall be
stored for prompt disposal on the premises in refuse containers, and the storage area
shall be kept free of loose refuse. Any refuse or rubbish which by its nature is
incapable of being stored in refuse containers may be neatly stacked or stored for
prompt disposal. The number and size of refuse containers shall be sufficient to
accommodate the accumulation of refuse from the property. Containers shall be
secured and placed where they are screened from view of the street and are not
susceptible to being spilled by animals or wind or other elements.
(c) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit
weeds to grow upon such property to a height of more than six (6) inches.
(d) Except as is provided in Subsection (e), (f) or (g) of this Section, it is
unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit grasses to grow upon
such property to a height of more than six (6) inches; provided, however, that this
Subsection (c) shall not be applicable to any ornamental grass so long as it is used
solely, or in combination with any other ornamental grass or grasses, as a supplement
to the property's overall landscaped area and does not constitute in square footage
more than twenty (20) percent of the property's overall landscaped area.
(e) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any open area, ditch, ditch right-of-
way or railroad right-of-way to allow weeds or grasses other than those grown for
agricultural purposes upon such open area, ditch or right-of-way to grow to a height
of more than twelve (12) inches.
(f) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to allow
grasses in any area planted predominantly in water-wise turfgrass to grow to a height
of more than twelve (12) inches.
-3-
(g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section which may be
construed to the contrary, the owner or occupant of any property that includes an
area that has been established as a natural habitat or feature pursuant to Section 3.4.1
(D) of the Land Use Code, or a buffer zone for natural habitat or feature pursuant to
Section 3.4.1 (E) of the Land Use Code, which area is managed and maintained in
accordance with specific conditions established in a site-specific development plan
or development agreement, shall not be required to mow said areas other than as
required in such development plan or agreement.
(h) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit the
growth of noxious weeds as designated by the Colorado Weed Law or Larimer
County Weed District, regardless of height.
(i) No person shall cause or allow the disposal of refuse or rubbish by burning
except in an incinerator that is designed for such purpose and pursuant to an
operating permit from the State Department of Public Health and Environment. In
no event may rubbish or refuse be burned in a stove or fireplace except for clean,
dry, untreated wood.
(j) No person shall, for a period longer than twenty-four (24) hours at any one
(1) time, store or permit to remain on any business, commercial or industrial
premises owned or occupied by such person, any manure, refuse, animal or vegetable
matter or any foul or noxious liquid waste which is likely to become putrid, offensive
or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare.
(k) No owner or occupant of any premises which are adjacent to any portion
of any open area, vacant lot, ditch, detention pond, storm drain, watercourse, or
public right-of-way or other public property, nor any other person, shall cause the
deposit or accumulation of refuse or rubbish, or the deposit, accumulation or storage
of materials, chattels, or fixtures other than those ordinarily attendant upon the use
for which the premises are legally intended, within or upon such adjacent areas.
(l) The property owners and the prime contractors in charge of any
construction site shall maintain the construction site in such a manner that refuse and
rubbish will be prevented from being carried by the elements to adjoining premises.
All refuse and rubbish from construction or related activities shall be picked up at the
end of each workday and placed in containers which will prevent refuse and rubbish
from being carried by the elements to adjoining premises.
(m) The accumulation of refuse and rubbish which constitutes or may create a
fire, health or safety hazard or harborage for rodents is unlawful and is hereby
declared to be a nuisance.
-4-
(n) The owner or occupant of any premises within the City, whether business,
commercial, industrial or residential premises, shall maintain the property in a neat,
tidy, methodical, systematic, clean and orderly condition, permitting no deposit or
accumulation of materials other than those ordinarily attendant upon the use for
which the premises are legally intended. If a property is used for a purpose
(including, without limitation, a junkyard) which, by its fundamental nature, cannot
be maintained as required above, then, in lieu thereof, such property, or any affected
portion thereof, shall be completely screened from public view and from the view of
any abutting property that is used for residential purposes.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-5-
ORDINANCE NO. 125, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING RESOURCE CONSERVATION
WHEREAS, on this same date, the City Council has adopted on First Reading, Ordinance
No. 124, 2011, which amends Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code pertaining to weeds, grass
and rubbish; and
WHEREAS, the effect of these amendments is to allow water-wise turfgrass, including Blue
Grama and Buffalograss, to exceed the six inch height limit contained in City Code Section 20-42;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that Section 12-120 of the City Code also be
amended to include these water-wise turfgrasses as part of the Xeriscape landscaping definition,
thereby prohibiting homeowner associations from restricting the use of these grasses; and
WHEREAS, in addition, staff has developed an updated and improved definition of the term
Xeriscape landscaping and has recommended that Section 12-120 be amended to reflect this
improved language.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the definition of “Xeriscape landscaping” contained in Section 12-120 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Xeriscape landscaping shall mean landscaping planned, designed, installed and
maintained so as to create a landscape that is sustainable in Colorado’s semi-arid
climate, based on seven basic principles:
(1) Preparation of a plan identifying major elements of the landscape,
including structures and plantings and characteristics influencing water
requirements;
(2) Soil improvements appropriate to optimize absorption and release of water
for plantings given the soils present;
(3) Use of efficient watering systems and practices to supplement water
naturally supplied to plantings, as appropriate;
(4) Grouping plants with similar light and water requirements together in an
area that matches these requirements;
(5) Use of appropriate mulches to keep plant roots cool, prevent soil from
crusting, minimize evaporation and reduce weed growth;
(6) Limiting the use of turf and plantings with high water requirements, with
consideration of visibility and functional needs, and incorporating water-
efficient alternative species, specifically including, but not limited to,
water-wise turfgrasses, as defined in Section 20-41;
(7) Providing appropriate water, pruning and fertilization, pest control and
other maintenance to preserve the sustainability and health of the
landscape.
Xeriscape landscaping shall not include artificial turf or plants; mulched
(including gravel) beds or areas without landscape plant material; paving of areas not
required for walkways, patios, or plazas or parking areas; bare ground; or weed-
covered or weed-infested surfaces.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining
to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow
for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making
Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 126, 2011, will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with defendants for the amount due for
civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to a
reasonable period of time beyond thirty days. Ordinance No. 127, 2011, provides the option of an appeal process for
weed and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services or
with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements.
Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 20, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining to
Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow for
an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making
Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The amendments to Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with
defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy
judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond thirty days.
The amendments to Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code will provide the option of an appeal process for weed
and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS)
or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the appeal process for sidewalk snow removal
abatements.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Currently the Code requires payment in full for civil infraction fines from defendants within ten days after the service
of the citation. Additionally, the Code limits a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy judgment after a final
hearing to thirty days. Recently, staff has heard that it is difficult for some defendants to pay the full fine within ten days
of service of the citation or to satisfy the final judgment within thirty days of the final hearing, and it would be helpful
if staff could offer a payment plan and to extend the timeframe of thirty days to a reasonable period of time so that the
defendant can pay the fine. Offering this flexibility will help defendants who are unable to pay the fine, and may help
the City collect the fine without the need to use a collection agency.
Additionally, the Code currently allows for the option of an appeal for a sidewalk snow removal abatement invoice with
the CDNS Director, or his or her designee, or the Municipal Court Referee, but the Code does not allow this option
for weed and rubbish abatements. This Code amendment would make this appeal process consistent for both weed
and rubbish abatements and sidewalk snow removal abatements.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This change may help the City recover more fines without the need to use a collection agency. This flexibility will help
defendants pay the fine in a reasonable amount of time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Defendants will be told about the ability to make payment plan arrangements and the appeal process when they are
provided information about the civil infraction process or when they receive an abatement invoice.
ORDINANCE NO. 126, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO RULES FOR
CIVIL INFRACTIONS AND MAKING EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS
TO ARTICLE V
WHEREAS, Section 19-66 of the City Code allows the Community Development &
Neighborhood Services Director or Forestry Director to accept a defendant’s payment in full for a
civil infraction if it is made within ten days after the service of the citation; and
WHEREAS, Section 19-66 of the City Code does not allow for an option of a payment plan;
and
WHEREAS, staff has heard complaints from numerous defendants that it is difficult to make
a payment in full without the option of a payment plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 19-69 of the City Code limits a defendant’s timeframe within which
to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to 30 days; and
WHEREAS, staff has heard complaints from numerous defendants that it is difficult to make
those payments within the 30-day timeframe; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends modifying Section 19-66 to allow for an option of a payment
plan and Section 19-69 to eliminate the 30-day restriction and to allow a defendant a reasonable
period of time within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified other minor amendments that should be made to City Code
Section 19 related to civil infractions, including updating department titles; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
approve these recommended amendments to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the title of Section 19-64 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-64. No jury trial for infractions.
. . .
Section 2. That Section 19-65(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-65. Commencement of action; citation procedure.
(a) Officers shall have the authority to initiate enforcement proceedings as
provided below.
(1) An officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a responsible party
has committed a civil infraction under this Code is authorized to serve a
notice of violation to the responsible party. Except as otherwise provided
in this Code, the officer shall set a reasonable time period within which the
responsible party must correct the violation. This determination shall be
based on considerations of fairness, practicality, ease of correction, the
nature, extent and probability of danger or damage to the public or
property, and any other relevant factor relating to the reasonableness of the
time period prescribed. An officer may immediately serve a civil citation
to a responsible party, without prior notice, if there is reason to believe that
the violation presents a threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or the
damage done by the violation is irreparable or irreversible, or the alleged
violation is of Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy
limits.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 19-66(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-66. Payment without appearance.
(a) The Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director or, in
the case of a forestry code violation, the Forestry Director, shall accept payment in
full of the amount due for a civil infraction from a defendant or make a payment plan
arrangement with a defendant if such payment or payment plan arrangement is made
within ten (10) days following service of the citation for the violation. Such payment
shall be separately accounted for and deposited into the City's general fund in
accordance with rules and procedures of the Finance Department.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 19-68(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-68. Subpoenas and discovery.
(a) At the request of any party to the hearing, the Municipal Judge or Referee
may subpoena witnesses, documents or other evidence where the attendance of the
witness or the admission of evidence is necessary to decide the issues at the hearing.
The issuance and service of a subpoena shall be as provided in Rule 217, C.M.C.R.
-2-
. . .
Section 5. That Section19-69 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 19-69. Judgment and procedures after hearing.
(a) If the civil infraction is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the
Municipal Judge or Referee shall find the defendant liable for the violation and enter
appropriate judgment. If, however, the civil infraction is not proven by a
preponderance of the evidence, the Referee shall dismiss the charge and enter
appropriate judgment.
(b) If the defendant is found liable, the Municipal Judge or Referee shall assess
the appropriate penalty and any additional costs or fees authorized by law or
ordinance.
(c) The judgment shall be satisfied upon payment to the Community
Development and Neighborhood Services Director or Forestry Director, with respect
to forestry code violations, in the total amount of penalty, costs and fees assessed.
(d) If the defendant fails to satisfy the judgment immediately following the
final hearing or within the time allowed by a reasonable extension, granted upon a
showing of good cause by and upon application of the defendant, then such failure
shall be treated as a default.
Section 6. That Section 19-71 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 19-71. Continuances.
Continuances may be granted by the Municipal Judge or Referee only upon a
showing of good cause by the City or the defendant.
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-4-
ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADDING A SECTION IN ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ALLOW FOR AN
APPEAL PROCESS TO CONTEST THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS OF
WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENTS AND MAKING EDITORIAL
CORRECTIONS TO ARTICLE IV
WHEREAS, Section 20-44 of the City Code does not currently allow for an option to appeal
the assessment of costs of a weed or rubbish abatement; and
WHEREAS, staff has found over the years that property owners and occupants often wish
to challenge the assessment of costs of weed and/or rubbish abatements; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 20-102(b) allows for a property owner or occupant to contest
the assessment of costs for sidewalk snow removal abatements; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends amending Section 20-44 to include an appeal process similar
to the appeal process set forth in Section 20-102(b) for sidewalk snow removal abatements; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends amending Section 20-44 to include an appeal process to allow
for a property owner or occupant to contest the assessment of costs of a weed or rubbish abatement;
and
WHEREAS, staff has identified other minor amendments that should be made to City Code
Section 20-44, including updating department titles; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
amend the City Code as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS Section 20-44 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 20-44. Notice of violation; removal authority and procedure; assessment
lien on property.
(a) The Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director and
any officer, as such is defined in § 19-66, are authorized and directed to give notice
to any owner and occupant whose property, open area, ditch or right-of-way is being
kept or maintained in violation of the provisions of this Article. Such notice may be
personally served upon such person or, if not personally served, shall be deposited
in the United States mail, addressed to the occupant and owner of record at the
address on the assessment roll of the County Assessor or at such other, more recent
address as may be available to the City, or with respect to notice to occupants, at the
address of the property so occupied. The notice shall state that, if the property, open
area, ditch or right-or-way has not been brought into compliance with this Article on
or before five (5) days from the date of such notice, a civil citation will issue and the
abatement of the nuisance will be done by the City and any costs of abatement,
including the cost of inspection, the cost of any grading or sloping necessary to
protect the public safety and other incidental costs in connection therewith and the
costs for carrying charges and costs of administration will be charged against the
property, open area, ditch or right-of-way, in addition to any other penalty and costs
or orders that may be imposed. With respect to rubbish only, the notice shall also
state that, if said owner desires a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration
of nuisance and/or the removal, such owner shall request such hearing in writing to
the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services within five (5)
days of mailing of the notice and shall further state that, if a request for such hearing
is made, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance with Subsection (b) below
and will store the material pending the holding of the hearing and the determination
therefrom. The notice shall further state that if no request for such hearing is timely
filed, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance with Subsection (b) below and
shall destroy or otherwise dispose of the rubbish.
(b) If the property, open area, ditch or right-of-way has not been brought into
compliance with this Article within five (5) days from the date of the notice and if
the owner has not requested a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration
of nuisance and/or the removal as provided in Subsection (a) above, the removal may
be done by the City, either by City personnel or by private contractors, as the
Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall determine.
In the event of such removal by the City, the cost, including inspection, removal of
obstructions, if any, the cost of any grading or sloping necessary to protect the public
safety, other incidental costs in connection therewith, and the costs for carrying
charges and administration shall be assessed against the offending property, open
area, ditch or right-of-way and the owner thereof. With respect to rubbish only, if the
owner has requested a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (a), removal
of the rubbish may be accomplished as provided in this Subsection; provided,
however, that such material removed shall be stored by the City until such time as
the Referee holds the hearing and determines, based upon the evidence presented by
the owner and the staff of the City, whether the nuisance should have been declared
and the rubbish removed. If the Referee determines that the declaration of nuisance
and removal are proper, then the rubbish shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of
by the City, and the additional costs of storage shall be assessed, together with all
other costs, as provided above. If the Referee determines that the declaration of
nuisance and removal were improper, then the material shall be returned to the owner
and no costs shall be assessed.
(c) If the property owner or occupant contests the assessment of costs with
regard to weeds and/or rubbish, he or she shall file a written request for review of
such assessment of costs with the Director of Community Development
Neighborhood Services, or a written request for a hearing on the same before the
Referee, within ten (10) days from the service of notice of assessment.
-2-
(d) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against
each property, open area, ditch or right-of-way from the date the assessment became
due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and
prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Director
of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, or his or her designee, to
the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at
the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more recent address as may be
available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be
known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been
billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter
certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the
name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the
amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the
same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The
County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place
it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same
manner as general property taxes are collected, together with any charges as may by
law be made by the County Treasurer and all laws of the State for the assessment and
collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid
taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the
collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending
property, open area, ditch or right-of-way is not subject to taxation, the City may
elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including
the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such
remedies as are provided by law.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-4-
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Kathleen Benedict
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the
Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing community members together
to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members who have served our country. The
plaza is located on approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This
Ordinance will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The concept to honor veterans from northern Colorado with a memorial originated in 2008. Spring Canyon Community
Park was identified as a suitable location for the Plaza. A minor amendment to the park site plan was approved by
the Planning and Zoning Board on September 2, 2008 to designate the proposed area of Spring Canyon Community
Park as the future Veterans Plaza location.
The first phase of the project incorporated concrete walks, a grass and stone seating amphitheatre, shade trees, a soil
garden with poppies, and a platform stage for celebrating the liberties and freedoms that have been protected by our
service members.
The final phase of the project will include a bronze statue, conveying the story of generations of sacrifice and two stone
memorial walls which will be embedded with touch screen/interactive monitors, allowing visitors to search for and view
the names, photos, and biographies of veterans who have ties to northern Colorado. This phase will also include
flagpoles, a stone wall behind the stage with military insignia, as well as stone monument pillars at the entryway to the
Plaza.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The first phase of the project is complete and cost $177,187. The final phase of the project is estimated at $182,813.
The estimated cost for the total project is now $360,000 and includes the monitors and software. $300,000 was
previously appropriated for the project. This Ordinance will appropriate revenue in the amount of $60,000, to finish the
Veterans Plaza. The Veterans Plaza Committee has solicited donations from the community and raised funds for the
final phase of the project.
Honoring veterans from across the northern Colorado, the Veterans Plaza draws visitors from throughout the region.
Excitement for the project has produced strong partnerships with area veterans’ organizations, the City, and various
interested donors.
The final annual operation and maintenance cost for landscaping, trees, sidewalks, and the plaza is estimated at
$5,000. Funding is available in the Parks Maintenance budget in 2011 and in future years. The Veterans Plaza
Committee is also raising funds to create an annuity fund for ongoing maintenance of the software and hardware
utilized in the touch screen/interactive video monitors of the Veterans Plaza. The $100,000 annuity fund is estimated
to generate an additional $5,000 per year.
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The landscape around the Plaza will be irrigated utilizing the raw water system that is already in place at Spring
Canyon Community Park. The Plaza site has been previously accounted for in the park’s stormwater and water quality
management system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Recreation Board was briefed on the project throughout 2009 thru 2011, and the Board will be updated
as the project progresses.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Veterans Plaza Board members and other supporters have promoted the project through meetings with groups such
as the Lions Club, Rotary clubs, Northern Colorado Honor Flight groups, and local veterans’ groups as well as the
media.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
Veteran’s Plaza
Project
ATTACHMENT 1
Aerial View
The Veterans Plaza being planned for Spring Canyon Community Park will incorporate concrete walks,
shade trees, and a grass amphitheatre with a stage. Adjacent to the stage will be a platform with an ap-
proximately 8’ tall bronze sculpture of a soldier and a child, created by artist Susan Raymond.
The sculpture, “The Soldier’s Gift,” will overlook the Plaza
and convey the story of generations of sacrifice by the
men and women who have served in our armed forces. It
will depict a World War II American soldier with his right
arm around the shoulder of a young boy. With his left arm,
the soldier makes a sweeping gesture as if showing the
boy the promise of the future.
Veterans VeteransDonation Plaza Art Donation
Drawing of Proposed Sculpture
ORDINANCE NO. 128, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
FOR THE VETERANS PLAZA PROJECT AT SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK
WHEREAS, in 2008, a group of Fort Collins citizens initiated a project that will honor
veterans in the community through the construction of a memorial to be constructed on City property
(the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, Spring Creek Canyon Park was identified as a suitable location for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Project was designed by an independent landscape architect retained by a
group of citizens known as the Veterans Plaza Committee (the “Committee”), with oversight by City
staff; and
WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project has been constructed at a cost of $177,187 and
incorporates concrete walks, a grass and stone seating amphitheatre, shade trees, a garden with
poppies, and a platform stage; and
WHEREAS, the final phase of the Project, the cost of which is estimated at $182,813, will
add a bronze statue, flagpoles, and other amenities, including two stone memorial walls embedded
with touch screen/ interactive monitors that will allow visitors to search for and view the names,
photos, and biographies of veterans who have ties to northern Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has raised sufficient funds to cover the final phase of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, all funds received by the Committee are being donated to the City to be
expended on the Project; and
WHEREAS, $25,000 of the total Project cost of $360,000 was appropriated by the City
Council in the form of Keep Fort Collins Great tax revenues through adoption of the 2011 Annual
Appropriation Ordinance, and $275,000 of donated revenues has also been appropriated by the
adoption of Ordinance No. 4, 2011; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance appropriates the remaining $60,000 of revenues from existing
and future donations; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
the sum of SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($60,000) for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring
Creek Community Park.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Patrick Rowe, Terry Tyrell
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain
Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase
V).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final acquisition phase for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX) is set to begin with Phase V. City
Council has previously authorized the first five phases of acquisition work, which included Phases I through IV, as well
as a Phase III-A.
Phase V is comprised of 15 separate properties prepared for the acquisition stage. The City Council authorization
specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s acquisition process for the property interests within this
phase.
As a federally-funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with
this Act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to
Colorado State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to
sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition process, which must
occur prior to the appraisals. Given the recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that
acquisitions must be conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required
property interests is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the MAX
Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, branded Mason Express or “MAX”, is a five-mile, north-south byway
which extends from the Downtown Transit Center on the north to the planned South Transit Center, south of Harmony
Road. MAX will link major destinations and activity centers along the City’s primary transportation and commercial
corridor including “Old Town”, Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and South College retail areas. In addition
to greatly enhancing the City’s north-south transportation movement, MAX will be a significant catalyst for economic
growth, both as a short-term stimulus and as a long-term development/redevelopment driver. The City is presently
targeting a 2014 operation date for the corridor.
The project is predominately located within the outside twenty-five feet of the east half of the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railway (the BSNF) property; however, overall project right-of-way will consist of a combination of property owned
by the BNSF, Colorado State University, private land owners, and the City. At present, in addition to the BNSF,
Colorado State University, the Colorado State University Research Foundation, and several ditch companies, the
project includes property acquisition from approximately forty-six (46) distinct property owners. Each acquisition is
unique, but the typical acquisition need for the Project can be characterized as a five-foot permanent easement and
a twenty-foot temporary construction easement along the rear of properties adjacent to the Project. Additionally, fee
simple ownership is also needed in a number of locations to accommodate stations, and other ancillary project
improvements. Different from earlier phases, Phase V also includes shared parking interests which are necessary
to accommodate MAX patron parking at various locations along the corridor.
To accommodate workflow and timing, property acquisitions have been broken into what has become six phases, with
the potential for additional phases, should a design change necessitate additional acquisitions. Phase V, the last
planned phase and the subject of this Agenda Item, consists of 15 distinct property ownerships which include fee
acquisitions for station improvements, shared parking easements to accommodate corridor parking needs, permanent
easements for slope and utility purposes, and temporary interests necessary for construction purposes.
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 12
Significant public outreach has occurred on this longstanding project in many forms and includes recent
communications to all 15 ownerships in Phase V. These recent communications included notification by certified mail
of staff’s intent to request authorization to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire the project property interests.
(In all communications staff strongly emphasizes the City’s desire to work cooperatively towards achieving a voluntary
agreement.)
To ensure the integrity of the project schedule, maintain certain project efficiencies, and to remain a viable Federal
Transit Administration funded project, it’s critical that the City have the ability to acquire the property interests in a
timely manner. In addition, since this is a federally-funded project, City Council must have eminent domain
authorization (only to be used if necessary) before staff is able to send out the required Notice-of-Interest Letter.
Staff has a high degree of respect and understanding for the sensitivity of the acquisition process and commits to
utilizing eminent domain only if absolutely necessary, and only if good faith negotiations are not successful. It is
important to note that City staff has taken great effort to minimize impacts to property owners, and will continue to do
so as the project progresses.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Property acquisition costs will be covered by available project funds, whether or not eminent domain is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Individual property owner correspondence has occurred for all fifteen property owners for this acquisition phase.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
ORDINANCE NO. 129, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
OF CERTAIN LANDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
RELATED TO THE MASON CORRIDOR BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (the “Project”) is scheduled for
construction in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Project involves the construction of a five-mile, north-south byway which
extends from Cherry Street on the north to a point south of Harmony Road (the site of the new South
Transit Center); and
WHEREAS, the Project will include a 24-foot wide traffic lane for buses with concrete
paving, retaining walls, curb and gutter, and drainage and utility improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project will greatly enhance north-south transportation through the City
and is expected to serve as a catalyst for economic growth and long-term development; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to acquire certain property rights (the “Properties”)
hereinafter described on Exhibits “A” through “N”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (the “Exhibits”), for the purpose of constructing the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to negotiate in good faith for the acquisition of the
Properties from the owners of the Properties; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Properties is desirable and necessary for the construction
of the Project, is in the City’s best interest and enhances public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Properties may, by law, be accomplished through eminent
domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that is necessary in the
public interest to acquire the Properties described on the Exhibits for the purpose of the Mason
Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other
appropriate officials of the City to acquire the Properties for the City by eminent domain.
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that, if acquisition by eminent domain is
commenced, immediate possession of the Properties will be necessary for the public health, safety
and welfare.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of July, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 5
Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 5
Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 5
Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 5
Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 5
Exhibit "B" Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "B" Page 2 of 2
Exhibit "C" Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "C" Page 2 of 2
Exhibit "D" Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "D" Page 2 of 2
Exhibit "E" Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "E" Page 2 of 2
Exhibit "F" Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "F" Page 2 of 2
Exhibit "G" Page 1 of 6
Exhibit "G" Page 2 of 6
Exhibit "G" Page 3 of 6
Exhibit "G" Page 4 of 6
Exhibit "G" Page 5 of 6
Exhibit "G" Page 6 of 6
Exhibit "H" Page 1 of 3
Exhibit "H" Page 2 of 3
Exhibit "H" Page 3 of 3
Exhibit "I" Page 1 of 3
Exhibit "I" Page 2 of 3
Exhibit "I" Page 3 of 3
Exhibit "J" Page 1 of 3
Exhibit "J" Page 2 of 3
Exhibit "J" Page 3 of 3
Exhibit "K" Page 1 of 3
Exhibit "K" Page 2 of 3
Exhibit "K" Page 3 of 3
Exhibit "L" Page 1 of 4
Exhibit "L" Page 2 of 4
Exhibit "L" Page 3 of 4
Exhibit "L" Page 4 of 4
Exhibit "M" Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "M" Page 2 of 2
Exhibit "N" Page 1 of 6
Exhibit "N" Page 2 of 6
Exhibit "N" Page 3 of 6
Exhibit "N" Page 4 of 6
Exhibit "N" Page 5 of 6
Exhibit "N" Page 6 of 6
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered
Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned
by Mail.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive
registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition,
the Code would be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both
amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Mail ballot elections in Colorado are governed by C.R.S, Title 1, Article 7.5, known as the “Mail Ballot Election Act”.
In 2006, the City of Fort Collins codified its own mail ballot election provisions, superceding the Mail Ballot Election
Act, although the City’s provisions as written in 2006 were closely aligned with the state law. This was permissible,
because under the State Constitution, elections are a matter of local concern.
Mail Ballot Recipients
The Mail Ballot Election Act and the City Code both require ballots to be mailed to “each active registered elector”.
Council has expressed a desire to expand the types of registered electors who automatically receive mail ballots in
a City election to include inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election.
Colorado uses a statewide voter registration system controlled by the Secretary of State. Each registered voter has
a designated status, which is defined in current rules promulgated by the Secretary of State as follows:
a. “Active status” or “active record” means that there are no conditions or restrictions on the voter’s
eligibility.
b. “Cancelled status” or “cancelled record” means that the voter’s registration has been cancelled
or revoked based upon a determination that the voter is ineligible, or the applicant has been
deemed not registered in accordance with these rules and Title 1, C.R.S.; or the voter has
withdrawn their registration.
c. “Inactive – failed to vote status” means that the voter was active prior to a General Election, but
subsequently failed to vote in that General Election.
d. “Inactive – returned mail status” or “inactive – undeliverable status” means that a voter information
card or confirmation card was returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States
Postal Service as undeliverable.
e. “Inactive – undeliverable ballot status” means that a voter was mailed a ballot that was
subsequently returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service as
undeliverable.
This proposal would target a segment of voters classified as “inactive - failed to vote”, specifically those voters who
are classified as such only because they failed to vote in the non-presidential General Election (Nov 2010, Nov 2014,
Nov 2018, etc.). Voters who failed to vote in both the presidential election (Nov 2008, Nov 2012, Nov 2016, etc.) and
the non-presidential election two years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
eligible voter (other than one who has a “cancelled” status) who did not automatically receive a ballot may request a
ballot by completing simple paperwork to document the request and update the voter’s registration information
(primarily current address). This paperwork is forwarded to the County elections office after the City’s election and
is used to not only update registration information, but also serves to change the voter’s registration back to “active”.
Return Postage
The second portion of the Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for voters to affix postage when returning a ballot
by mail, and instead, requires the City to provide postage. This can be accomplished through a postage permit under
which the City will pay postage only on those ballots returned, at the current first-class rate.
This change also differs from the Mail Ballot Election Act, which requires the voter to pay postage.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Mail Ballot Recipients
Approximately 9500 additional voters would have received a ballot for the April 2011 election if ballots were mailed
to inactive voters who had voted in the last presidential election. The approximate cost to include those additional
voters would have been $19,000.
Return Postage
For the April 2011 election, 16,965 ballots were returned by mail. If the City had paid return postage on those ballots,
the cost would have been $7,465.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 130, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF REGISTERED ELECTORS WHO
AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE MAIL BALLOTS, AND TO REQUIRE
THE CITY TO PAY THE POSTAGE DUE FOR BALLOTS RETURNED BY MAIL
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is a Colorado home rule municipality and, as such, is
authorized under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution to exercise certain specific
powers, including the power to legislate upon, provide, regulate, coordinate and control all matters
pertaining to municipal elections;
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 165, 2006,
establishing in Chapter 7, Article VII of the City Code its own provisions for conducting local mail
ballot elections; and
WHEREAS, among the provisions contained in Chapter 7, Article VIII is Section 7-186,
which establishes the procedure for mailing ballots to the registered electors of the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 7-186 presently states that ballots are to be mailed by the City Clerk
to each active registered elector in the City, which requirement is the same as exists under the state
Mail Ballot Election Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the citizens
of the City to expand the category of electors to whom ballots are mailed and to also amend Section
7-186 of the Code to require that the postage for such ballots be paid by the City, so as to encourage
more widespread participation in City elections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 7-186(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-186. Mailing of ballots; exception.
(a) No sooner than twenty-five (25) days before an election, and no later than
fifteen (15) days before an election, the City Clerk shall mail to each active
registered elector, at the last mailing address appearing in the registration records and
in accordance with United States postal service regulations, and to each inactive
registered elector who voted in the last presidential election, a mail ballot packet,
which shall be marked "DO NOT FORWARD," or with any other similar statement
that is in accordance with United States postal service regulations. Said packet shall
be sent in accordance with all applicable United States postal service regulations to
the last mailing address appearing in the registration records of the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder.
. . .
Section 2. That Section 7-190(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-190. Voting and return of ballots.
. . .
(b) The eligible elector may return the marked ballot to the City Clerk by
United States mail or by depositing the ballot at the office of the City Clerk or any
place designated by the City Clerk. The ballot must be returned in the return
envelope. If an eligible elector returns the ballot by mail, the elector must provide
the necessary postage cost of return postage shall be paid by the City. In order to be
counted, the ballot must be received at the office of the City Clerk or a designated
depository prior to 7:00 p.m. on election day.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Steve Roy
Karen Cumbo
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance makes several changes to the way in which appeals to the City Council are handled. The changes
are in response to concerns and suggestions of persons who have participated in recent land use appeals, and to
direction provided by the City Council at a Council work session. The changes deal with the following topics: the
scheduling of the appeal hearing; the ability of Councilmembers who file an appeal to participate in hearing the appeal;
the ability of opponents of an appeal to present their views in writing in addition to presenting argument at the hearing;
the manner in which site visits are conducted; the submission of written materials to the Council; and expanding the
group of persons who can participate in appeal hearings.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code establishes a procedure whereby the final decisions of certain boards
and commissions and other decision makers can be appealed to the City Council. Most frequently, this appeal process
is used for considering appeals from the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board or the City’s administrative
hearing officer on applications for approval of land use proposals. Over the recent past, parties on both sides of the
appeal process have expressed concerns about the process and have suggested ways in which it could be improved.
On June 14, 2011, at a City Council work session, the Council considered a number of these issues, including the
possibility of establishing a “de novo” appeal process in place of the existing “on the record” appeal process. Under
a de novo process, the Council would conduct an entirely new hearing on the matter that had been decided by the
initial decision maker rather than limiting the evidence at the appeal hearing to the record that was established at the
hearing before the initial decision maker. At the conclusion of the work session discussion, the Council indicated a
preference for retaining the current appeal process but making several revisions. The proposed revisions to be
included in this Ordinance were the following:
• eliminating the current provision that prevents Councilmembers who file an appeal from participating in
hearing the appeal;
• expanding the period of time within which the hearing on an appeal must be scheduled; and
• expanding the group of persons who are entitled to speak at an appeal hearing to include members of the
general public.
Those changes are included in the proposed Ordinance. In addition, City staff has recommended the following
additional changes:
• creating an opportunity for parties opposed to an appeal to file a statement in opposition to the appeal;
• clarifying the extent to which new evidence may be contained in written materials presented to the Council
prior to the hearing and in presentations made at the hearing;
• clarifying the purpose and procedure for conducting inspections of the site that is the subject of an appeal.
The primary purpose behind allowing opponents of an appeal to file a written statement in opposition to the appeal
is to give the parties on both sides of the appeal early notice of the other party’s position. In that way, the parties can
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 17
better prepare and focus their remarks at the appeal hearing. This change should also shorten the time needed at
the appeal hearing for the parties to make their oral presentations, especially in the case of appeals that are complex
in nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is supportive of all of the proposed changes with the exception of expanding participation in the appeal process
to allow comment at the appeal hearing by members of the general public in addition to parties-in-interest. Staff is
concerned about that proposal for several reasons.
First, the City’s decision whether to approve a land use proposal is made through a “quasi judicial” process in which
the decision maker (both the initial decision maker and the City Council), determine the rights of particular parties who
are directly and immediately affected by the proposal. The decision must be based upon established criteria. Those
who have been involved in the process prior to the Council appeal hearing and who are directly affected by a
development proposal are more likely to focus their remarks on the facts in the record and the relevant criteria rather
than on general policy consideration.
Second, the City Code already defines “parties-in-interest” to include not only the applicant, the interest holder in the
property that is the subject of the application, and those who live close to the site, but also those members of the
general public who sent comments to the initial decision maker or appeared at the hearing before the initial decision
maker. Thus, the general public is already able to participate in the process for reviewing land use applications.
Third, allowing the general public to speak at the appeal hearing would likely make it more difficult for the Council to
hear all persons who wish to speak at the hearing within the limited period of time that is available for presentations
at the hearing.
Finally, this change could be construed as expanding the group of persons who would have legal “standing” to
challenge the Council’s decision in court, in which case, then even nonresidents of the City who have no direct stake
in the approval or denial of the particular application could bring such a challenge. Therefore, if the Council decides
to make this change, staff recommends that additional language be added on Second Reading expressly stating that
the ability of members of the public to speak at the appeal hearing should not be construed as giving those members
of the public the right to challenge the City Council’s decision in court.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Chart of Appeal Timeline
2. Powerpoint presentation
1
Appeal Timeline
Notice of Appeal
Internal Review
Must be filed within 14 calendar days of date of
decision subject to appeal.
Within 5 working days of filing of Notice of Appeal –
City Attorney reviews.
Within 7 working days of filing of Notice of Appeal –
City Attorney’s comments are mailed to Appellant.
Within 14 working days of filing of Notice of Appeal -
Appellant may file an amended appeal.
Site Inspection? Within 10 calendar days of filing of Notice of Appeal,
Council may request a site inspection.
(Clerk provides Appellant inspection notice no less than 5 calendar days prior.)
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Appeal Timeline
Notice of Hearing
Statement in
Opposition
No less than 30 calendar days prior to the hearing
date – Notice of Hearing is mailed to parties-in-
interest.
Hearing Must be held within 120 calendar days of filing of
Notice of Appeal.
Within 10 calendar days after mailing of hearing
notice - any party-in-interest opposed to the
appeal may respond in writing.
1
1
Ordinance No. 131, 2011
Amending the Procedures for Hearing
Appeals to the City Council
Steve Roy, City Attorney
2
Council Appeal Process
• Council hears appeals from the following boards,
commissions and hearing officers that make “quasi-
judicial” decisions:
– Building Review Board
– Fire Board of Appeals
– Landmark Preservation Board
– Planning and Zoning Board
– A “decision maker” under the provisions of Sec. 2.2.12
of the Land Use Code
– Water Board
– Zoning Board of Appeals
ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
Quasi-Judicial Decisions
• Made at a hearing held after notice to affected
parties;
• Where the decision is based on:
– evidence in the record, and
– previously established criteria.
• The decision must be made by an impartial
tribunal.
4
• City’s appeal process is based on the
record of the hearing before the initial
decision maker—not an entirely new
hearing.
• Different than a “de novo” hearing.
3
5
Proposed changes
• Councilmembers who file an appeal may
participate in hearing the appeal;
• More time for holding appeal hearing –
increased from 60 days to 120 days after filing
of notice of appeal;
• Parties opposed to appeal may file statement
in opposition;
• Opportunity for written materials to be
submitted immediately prior to hearing
eliminated.
6
Proposed changes (cont’d)
• Clarifies provisions related to new evidence:
– May be included in opposition statement
but only if related to allegation of false or
misleading evidence;
– “Reconfigured” evidence not admissible at
hearing.
• Procedures for site inspections clarified.
• Members of general public allowed to
comment at hearing.
4
7
Staff Recommendation
• Approval of all changes except allowing general public
to comment at appeal hearing:
– Not directly affected by proposal;
– Can already participate if appeared at initial hearing
or sent comments to initial decision maker.
– May increase time needed at appeal hearing or take
time away from parties-in-interest.
– Would allow non-community members to challenge
Council decision in court as matter of principle even
if no direct involvement or impact.
8
Appeal Timeline
Notice of Appeal
Internal Review
Must be filed within 14 calendar days of date of
decision subject to appeal.
Within 5 working days of filing of Notice of Appeal –
City Attorney reviews.
Within 7 working days of filing of Notice of Appeal –
City Attorney’s comments are mailed to Appellant.
Within 14 working days of filing of Notice of Appeal -
Appellant may file an amended appeal.
Site Inspection? Within 10 calendar days of filing of Notice of Appeal,
Council may request a site inspection.
(Clerk provides Appellant inspection notice no less than 5 calendar days prior.)
5
9
Appeal Timeline
Notice of Hearing
Statement in
Opposition
No less than 30 calendar days prior to the hearing
date – Notice of Hearing is mailed to parties-in-
interest.
Hearing Must be held within 120 calendar days of filing of
Notice of Appeal.
Within 10 calendar days after mailing of hearing
notice - any party-in-interest opposed to the
appeal may respond in writing.
ORDINANCE NO. 131, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE APPEALS PROCEDURE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 2,
ARTICLE II, DIVISION 3 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR HEARING APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code establishes a procedure
whereby the final decisions of boards, commissions and other decision makers can be appealed to
the City Council (the “Appeals Procedure”); and
WHEREAS, City staff has identified a number of issues related to the appeal process that
warrant Council consideration, some of which were considered and discussed by the City Council
in a work session held on June 14, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the issues discussed by the City Council at the work session and the additional
issues that have been identified by City staff include the following:
• the period of time within which the hearing on an appeal must be scheduled;
• the fact that parties-in-interest to an appeal do not have an opportunity to respond in
writing to the allegations contained in the notice of appeal that is filed by appellants;
• the process for scheduling site inspections;
• the role of the public in appeal hearings; and
• whether Councilmembers who file an appeal should be able to participate in hearing
the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these issues should be addressed by
amendments to the Appeals Procedure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-48(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-48. Appeal of final decision permitted; effect of appeal; grounds for
appeal.
. . .
(c) Appeals filed by members of the City Council need not include specific
grounds for appeal, but shall include a general description of the issues to be
considered on appeal. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the director of the affected
City service area shall identify the specific Code provisions that may pertain to the
issues raised by such appeal and shall provide such information to the City Clerk
prior to the date that the notice of hearing on the appeal is to be mailed by the City
Clerk to parties-in-interest under § 2-54. Said information shall then be mailed to the
parties-in-interest together with the notice of hearing. Councilmembers who file an
appeal shall not participate in deciding the appeal. Such Councilmembers may,
however, participate in the appeal hearing in the same manner as other appellants,
notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2-568(c)(2)Councilmembers who file
an appeal may participate in hearing such an appeal in the same manner as they
participate in hearing appeals filed by other parties-in-interest.
Section 2. That Section 2-49 of the Code of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2-49. Filing of notice of appeal.
An appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of
a board, commission or other decision maker to which this Division applies with the
City Clerk within fourteen (14) days after the action which is the subject of the
appeal. Such notice of appeal shall be signed by all appellants and shall include the
following:
(1) The action of the board, commission or other decision maker which
is the subject of the appeal;
(2) The date of such action;
(3) The name, address, telephone number and relationship of each
appellant to the subject of the action of the board, commission or
other decision maker;
(4) For all appeals except those filed by members of City Council, the
grounds for the appeal, including specific allegations of error and a
summary of the facts contained in the record on appeal which support
those allegations; and
(5) For any appeal alleging under Subsection 2-48(2)c that a board,
commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to
its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, any
new evidence the appellant wishes to submit that tends to prove or
disprove such allegation; and
(65) In the case of an appeal by more than one (1) appellant, the name,
address and telephone number of one (1) such appellant who shall be
authorized to receive, on behalf of all appellants, any notice required
-2-
to be mailed by the City to the appellants under the provisions of § 2-50.
Section 3. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of
a new Section 2-53 which reads in its entirety as follows and all subsequent section are hereby
renumbered accordingly:
Sec. 2-53. Submissions related to appeal.
(a) Any party-in-interest opposed to the appeal who wishes to respond
in writing to the allegations contained in the notice of appeal or amended notice of
appeal, as applicable, may do so by filing a written statement with the City Clerk no
later than ten (10) days after the date of mailing of notice of the appeal hearing
pursuant to Subsection 2-54(a). No new evidence shall be contained within such
response unless such new evidence falls within the exception contained in
Subsection 2-57(b)(1). Any new evidence contained in the response that does not fall
within such exception shall be disregarded by the Council in deciding the appeal,
unless that same information is independently provided to the City Council at the
hearing under the exceptions contained in Subsection 2-57(2) or (3).
(b) Other than the notice of appeal, or amended notice of appeal, as
applicable, and a responsive statement filed by one or more parties-in-interest in
opposition to an appeal pursuant to Subsection (a) of this Section, no written
materials may be submitted by parties-in-interest in advance of the appeal hearing
in connection with an appeal.
(c) Parties-in-interest may provide copies of, or direct the City Council
to, specific evidence in the record of an appeal, but may not reconfigure, revise or
otherwise modify materials from the record for the purpose of presentation at the
hearing on the appeal.
Section 4. That Section 2-54 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 2-54. Scheduling of the hearing.
(a) In the event of an appeal, the City Clerk shall schedule a date for
hearing the appeal no less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60)one hundred
twenty (120) calendar days after the date of filing of the notice of appeal. Written
notice of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be mailed by the City Clerk to
the appellant and all other parties-in-interest no less than thirty ten (130) calendar
days prior to the date of said hearing. Said notice shall also include a copy of the
notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal, as applicable, and shall inform the
parties-in-interest of the period of time within which additional issues may be
identified under § 2-56.
-3-
(b) Any written materials that any party-in-interest may wish the City
Council to consider in deciding the appeal and that fall within the exception to new
evidence contained in Paragraph 2-57(b)(1) shall be submitted to the City Clerk no
later than 12:00 p.m. on the Wednesday immediately preceding the date upon which
the hearing on the appeal is scheduled to be held. Such materials shall then be
included by the City Clerk in the agenda materials pertaining to the appeal.
Section 5. That Section 2-55 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 2-55. Site visitsinspection/no ex parte contacts.
(a) If a Councilmember wishes to inspect the site of a project
development plan or other proposal that is the subject of an appeal, he or she may no
later than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing on the appeal request that the
City Manager schedule such inspection.Councilmembers may inspect the site of an
overall development plan, project development plan, or other proposal that is the
subject of an appeal, either alone or with City staff present, for the purpose of
gaining a better understanding of the physical characteristics of the site and the
surrounding area, as well as the issues on appeal. If a Councilmember wishes to
schedule a site inspection with City staff present, he or she shall, no later than ten
(10) days after the filing of the notice of appeal, request that the City Manager
schedule such inspection. Upon receipt of such a request, the City Manager shall
forthwith schedule the inspection for a date and time when he or she believes that
thea majority of the Councilmembers wishing to inspect the site will be able to
attend. The City Clerk shall, no less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing
on the appealsite inspection, mail notice of the proposed sitesuch inspection to the
appellant and to all parties-in-interest to whom notice of the appeal hearing was sent
by the City Clerk under Subsection 2-54(a) of this Article. The appellant and all
other parties-in-interest shall be entitled to attend such scheduled inspection, along
with any members of City staff whose presence is requested by the City Manager.
(b) Any Councilmembers conducting a site inspection under thisthe
provisions of Subsection (a) above, either alone or with City staff present, shall, at
the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or
conversations they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their
determination of the appeal. The requirements of this provision shall not apply to
observations made of the site by Councilmembers during the course of their travels
within public rights-of-way adjacent to the site, but only to site inspections
conducted for the express purpose of gathering additional information that may assist
them in determining the appeal.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to authorize any
Councilmember or other officer or employee of the City to enter upon any parcel of
-4-
real property that is not open to the public without the permission of the owner of
such property or the permission of such other person or entity as may be lawfully in
possession of the property.
(bd) In order to afford all parties-in-interest a fair opportunity to respond
to the information upon which the City Council is to base its decision on appeal, and
in order to preserve the impartiality of Councilmembers hearing the appeal, all
Councilmembers who intend to participate in hearing the appeal shall, to the extent
reasonably possible, avoid communications with parties-in-interest and members of
the general public regarding the merits of the appeal prior to the hearing on the
appeal.
Section 6. That Section 2-56(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-56. Procedure at the hearing.
(a) At the hearing on the appeal by the City Council, the presentation of
argument on the merits of the appeal shall be made in the following order, subject
to such limitations in time and scope as may be imposed at the discretion of the
Mayor:
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal and presentation by City staff;
(2) Comments by Councilmembers who have visitedinspected the site
pursuant to Subsection 2-55(a);
(3) Presentation of argument by the appellant and any party-in-
interest and/or other member of the public in support of the
appeal;
(4) Presentation of argument by any party-in-interest and/or other
member of the public who is an opponent of the appeal;
(5) Rebuttal presentation by the appellant and any party-in-interest
and/or other member of the public in support of the appeal;
(6) Rebuttal presentation by any party-in-interest and/or other member
of the public who is an opponent of the appeal;
. . .
Section 7. That Section 2-57(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
-5-
Sec. 2-57. New evidence; scope of review; alternative actions available to
the City Council; date of final action.
(a) The City Council shall consider an appeal based upon the record on
appeal, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and the grounds for appeal
cited in the notice of appeal, together with arguments in favor of and opposing the
appeal submitted or presented in accordance with the terms of this Article. Issues not
raised in the notice of appeal shall not be considered by the City Council in deciding
the appeal.
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-6-
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-092 Further Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution would further amend the rules of procedure with regard to comments by citizens during the Citizen
Participation segment of Council meetings insofar as those comments are related to quasi-judicial matters. The
language would be refined to state that comments would not be permitted on matters that are the subject of a pending
application with the City when the approval or disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its meeting on September 20, 2011, the Council approved certain changes to its rules of procedure for conducting
Council meetings. One of those changes dealt with a citizen’s ability to comment on quasi-judicial matters under the
Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings. After considerable discussion and citizen input, the Council
modified the language that had been proposed by staff so that citizens would be permitted to comment on land use
proposals up to the point in time when a formal application for approval of the proposal was filed with the City. After
that point in time, comments would not be permitted at Council meetings.
The language recommended by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council on September 20th reads as
follows:
Section 3. Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters
of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(2) a pending land use proposal that, if approved by the Planning and Zoning Board or hearing
officer, would be subject to appeal to the City Council.
Upon further review, staff believes that there are two problems with this language. First, it fails to take into
consideration other kinds of quasi-judicial decisions besides those dealing with land use proposals. Second, it is
limited to situations in which a proposal is approved by the initial decision maker and does not address proposals that
are not approved.
To address these concerns, staff is recommending that the language be further revised to read as follows:
Section 3. Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters
of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(2) a pending land use proposal that, if approved by the Planning and Zoning Board or hearing
officer, would be subject to appeal to the City Council matters that are the subject of a
pending application with the City when the approval or disapproval of the application is
appealable to the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-092
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FURTHER AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE
CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-091 making
certain amendments to the rules of procedure for conduct at City Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, one of those changes pertains to the ability of citizens to comment during the
Citizen Participation segment of City Council meetings about quasi-judicial matters; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney recommends that the language adopted by the City Council
on that subject be revised as shown below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the following revised rule governing the conduct of all regular City Council meetings
is hereby adopted by the City Council:
Section 3. Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment
will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the
following:
(1) items to be considered by the City Council under the discussion
agenda for that night’s meeting;
(2) a pending land use proposal that, if approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board or hearing officer, would be subject to appeal to the
City Council matters that are the subject of a pending application
with the City when the approval or disapproval of the application is
appealable to the City Council.
A maximum of five (5) minutes will be allowed per speaker. In order to
determine the actual amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Mayor
will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak. If the number
of persons intending to speak is more than six (6), the Mayor will shorten the
allotted time in order to allow as many people as possible to address the
Council within a reasonable period of time given the scheduled agenda.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th
day of October A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-2-
urban renewal authority
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
WORK SESSION
October 4, 2011
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Revisions to the Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures; Options for the Citizen’s Advisory
Group. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Christina Vincent; 1 hour discussion)
The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and
Procedures (Policies) in May 2010 from the original Policies created in 2006. On May 17, 2011, the
URA Board discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices
and should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff also received feedback from the
June 14, 2011 work session to modify the language as proposed by the URA Board. These Policies
are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants,
staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. Staff is seeking direction on the
options of a recommending group to the URA Board.
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Bruce Hendee
Christina Vincent
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Revisions to the Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures; Options for the Citizen’s
Advisory Group.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and
Procedures (Policies) in May 2010 from the original Policies created in 2006. On May 17, 2011,
the URA Board discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building
practices and should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff also received feedback
from the June 14, 2011 work session to modify the language as proposed by the URA Board. These
Policies are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to
applicants, staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. Staff is seeking
direction on the options of a recommending group to the URA Board.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the URA Board have concerns with the revised Policies and Procedures?
2. Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these revisions back for formal consideration in
November?
3. Is the URA Board interested in creating a new recommending body for all activities within
the URA?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The URA Board approved the first version of Policies in August 2006. Originally, the URA Board
formed an ad hoc committee to create a mission statement and develop general policies. Those
Policies have since guided the URA in the initial stages of preparing for future URA projects. There
are now several approved URA projects that both the URA team and staff felt needed further
clarification and direction when guiding applicants through the process.
In 2010, the URA Board approved the Policies document that is used today. The changes from the
original 2006 version were significant in comparison.
October 4, 2011 Page 2
2010 changes:
• Clear introduction with explanation of the purpose of the Policies and Procedures
• Clear distinction of the objectives, goals, and eligible development and costs
• Inclusion of green building techniques
• Establish evaluation criteria
N Financial feasibility (establishment of a threshold for projects that need proforma
analysis)
N Policy assessment
N Local ownership criteria changed from Larimer County to 40 mile radius from the
City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary
N All payments will be issued on a reimbursement basis at the issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the URA Board
• Inclusion of the URA application questions
• Step-by-step process illustration.
This document has been highly successful in setting clear expectations of the type of application and
project the URA will consider. That said, further clarification of the process and expectations was
directed to staff by the URA Board. Those additional requirements and expectations were captured
in the 2011 revision.
The 2011 revision contains the following changes:
• Assuring development is consistent with City Plan and the Urban Renewal Plans, and
adopted codes, ordinances, and resolutions.
• Promote green building and above-code energy and water efficiencies.
• Clarification of the acceptable affordable housing requirements to meet existing standards
defined in the Land Use Code.
• Inclusion of revised mission statement from 2006.
• Applicant must be in the City’s development review process; more specifically must have
received first round of review staff comments through a PDP, FDP, major/minor
amendment.
• State intended waste diversion and/or deconstruction methods of the project.
• Require a Construction Waste Management Plan for both existing development and new
construction projects to ensure proper methods of waste reduction, reuse and recycling will
occur for all URA projects.
• Creation of New Building and Existing Building criteria.
N New Buildings greater than 15,000 square feet must achieve LEED silver
certification.
N New Buildings less than 15,000 square feet must use the LEED checklist but are not
required to be certified.
N Existing Buildings must have an Efficiency Assessment completed. (Attachment 3)
Demonstration of completed action items from the report must be achieved to the
satisfaction of the URA staff with measurable simple pay back of less than 2 years.
Staff is seeking direction on the proposed revisions to be included in the 2011 revised Policies and
Procedures. (Attachment 1)
October 4, 2011 Page 3
Options for the URA Citizen’s Advisory Group
As part of the Policies revision, it is important that staff gain clarity on the direction from the URA
Board regarding the options for the URA Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG).
At the April 26, 2011 work session for the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey, City Council
requested research on the continued need for the CAG to advise the URA Board on URA projects.
It was not clear at that time whether a CAG would be the recommendation for this new plan area.
The CAG was formed in 2006 for the North College Urban Renewal Plan area as a recommendation
from both a URA Board ad hoc committee and staff (Attachment 6). It was created with the intent
for the URA Board to consult with an advisory group on all significant actions and decisions of the
Authority regarding the North College Urban Renewal Plan. There are nine voting members, one
City Council liaison, and one Planning and Zoning Board liaison. A current list of CAG members
is included as Attachment 7
Staff conducted a thorough analysis and benchmarking of several URAs along the Front Range to
evaluate other URAs with advisory committees, or groups structured like the CAG. (see Attachment
5.) With the exception of the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority, no other URA utilizes an advisory
group like a CAG. Staff made several presentations to the interested community groups on this
issue. The presentation consisted of four options listed below:
Option 1: Each URA Plan area and/or TIF district requires an individual Citizen’s Advisory
Group (CAG).
Option 2: Utilize an existing Board/Commission for Citywide URA activities and replace
existing CAG.
Option 3: Create new official recommending Board for the URA activities.
Option 4: No change, keep CAG for North College and do not create additional CAGs/groups
for other plan areas.
The pros/cons of each option are included in Attachment 8. There are a variety of opinions on this
issue and staff has received the following recommendations:
• At its June 2, 2011 meeting, the North College CAG recommended Option 1 with a
modification in the wording to read “The CAG recommends Option 1 with the suggestion
to customize the needs of that plan area and recommend that other CAGs be included but not
required.” (Attachment 12)
• The South Fort Collins Business Association, a business membership group in the Midtown
area, recommended Option 4.
• The Economic Advisory Commission formally recommended Option 3 (Attachment 13).
• The interdisciplinary URA staff team, representation of eight departments citywide,
recommended Option 3. There are no meeting minutes to reflect this recommendation.
October 4, 2011 Page 4
• The Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce provided a possible Option 5 with the
recommendation to create a board similar to the Downtown Development Authority that
would replace the City Council serving as the URA Board. (Attachment 9)
Staff is seeking feedback from the URA Board as to the appropriate direction for an advisory body
for the URA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2011 Redlined URA Policies and Procedures
2. Recommended Practices – Council of Development Finance Agencies
3. Sample Efficiency Assessment report
4. Work session Summary, June 14, 2011
5. Benchmarking URAs
6. North College Citizen Advisory Group – May 10, 2006
7. Current CAG membership list
8. Advisory Group Options for the URA Board
9. Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Recommendation
10. North Fort Collins Business Association Recommendation
11. Original Research 2008 State-by-State Report - Colorado
12. North College Citizen Advisory Group minutes – June 2, 2011
13. Economic Advisory Commission Minutes – August 17, 2011
14. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
1
2011 URA Policies and Procedures (unformatted version)
SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION
This policy is to provide guidance for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) staff,
Citizen Advisory Group (North College) recommending bodies, the URA Team and URA Board
(Board) in considering, reviewing and processing applications that seek to use Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) assistance for development activities within the designated plan areas. The URA
Board will have the option of amending or waiving sections of this document when determined
necessary or appropriate.
“The mission of the URA is to remedy blight, using Tax Increment Financing, to leverage private
capital investment and stimulate sustainable development and public improvements projects.”
The fundamental purpose for application to the URA for TIF assistance is to facilitate
desirable development/redevelopment projects within the URA plan that would not
otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through TIF.
Examples of costs eligible for TIF assistance are listed in Section 4 – Eligible Costs.
It is the intent of the Board where financial assistance is needed to provide the
minimum amount of TIF assistance to make the project viable. The provision of financial
assistance is at the sole discretion of the Board.
The Board reserves the right to reject or approve project on a case‐by‐case basis, taking
into account:
– Established policies;
– Specific project criteria; and
– Demand on City services in relation to the potential public benefit received from
the proposed project.
Meeting policy guidelines and other criteria does not guarantee the award of TIF
assistance. Furthermore, approval or denial of one project is not intended to set a
precedent for approval or denial of another project.
SECTION 2 ‐ OBJECTIVES
The URA exists to accomplish the following objectives:
Eliminating blight.
Improving the public infrastructure (streets, storm drainage, sewer, utilities, etc.) in
areas where deficiencies exist.
Creating a significant number of new primary jobs.
Removing impediments to development.
Retaining, expanding or attracting businesses for the purpose of improving the City’s
economic base as demonstrated by increased jobs, creation of primary jobs, higher
paying employment, installing manufacturing base, etc.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Encouraging development projects that enhance the streetscapes and pedestrian
experience and improve the vitality of commercial corridors by adding interest and
activity.
Providing a variety of quality affordable housing choices.
Encouraging development that is consistent with City Plan and approved Urban Renewal
Plans.
Providing Promoting “green” building standards and/or “above code” energy and water
efficiencies within buildings and developments.
North College Plan area priorities (specific to the North College Urban Renewal Plan
area):
– Enhancing transportation infrastructure;
– Providing stormwater drainage or floodplain improvements;
– Expanding or upgrading utility infrastructure; and
– Providing amenities that benefit the public including but not limited to
streetscapes, enhanced architecture and building materials, facade renovations,
special site improvements, etc. that contribute to a positive identity and image
for the North College area.
SECTION 3 – ELIGIBLE DEVELOPMENT
The Board may consider TIF funding for Projects that could include the following:
Business Development: the retention, expansion, and attraction of business in the plan
area.
Residential Development: new construction or rehabilitation of single family and/or
multi‐family housing.
Affordable Housing (must meet the minimum City Code requirement of 20% 10% of the
total units with 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or less).
Creation of a significant number of new primary jobs.
Green development which exceeds adopted code minimums (e.g. design, construction,
or retrofitting of buildings and sites to be certified through an approved green building
rating system).
Student housing, defined as multi‐unit residential structures that are leased in whole or
in part to students attending post‐secondary educational institutions.
Early childhood care and education centers.
Creation of a destination location that will capture additional revenue to the area.
Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Protection of natural habitats and features both on the development’s site and in the
vicinity of that site.
SECTION 4 – ELIGIBLE COSTS
The following are eligible costs that may be considered for TIF assistance:
Removal of hazardous materials or conditions (sites where remediation or mitigation
are required).
Site clearance or site acquisition.
ATTACHMENT 1
3
Land assemblage.
Parking/structured parking for the public.
Infrastructure that is extraordinarily costly to the project and/or serves other
development and redevelopment facilitating further improvements in the area. to
remedy (streets, stormwater, water/wastewater, light & power, gas, etc.).
Infrastructure that serves other development and redevelopment facilitating further
improvements in the area.
Sustainable and renewable energy features that greatly minimize the negative
environmental impact of any project.
Public amenities such as parks, plazas, community gathering areas and streetscapes to
enhance the aesthetics of the area.
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as identified by the City of Fort Collins.
Projects listed in Infrastructure Plans related to the Plan area, i.e., North College
Infrastructure Funding Plan.
SECTION 5 – EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following basic evaluation criteria will be used to review applications seeking TIF funding.
Since every project is unique, additional evaluation criteria may become necessary and will be
determined on a case‐by‐case basis.
Financial feasibility:
– TIF assistance will not be considered for projects that have the financial
feasibility to proceed without TIF assistance. Assistance will not be provided
solely to increase the developer’s profit margin on the project. Prior to
consideration of a TIF assistance request, the URA will undertake a financial
analysis of the project costs to ensure that the developer’s internal rate of return
(IRR) is reasonable and not excessive request for assistance is appropriate.
– For projects that will generate more than $1 million in TIF or create a project
that is more than 10,000 sq. ft. in size there may be an independent financial
analysis. The independent analysis will be contracted for by the URA and the cost
will be paid for by the applicant. Additionally, if the project is seeking more than
50% of the property tax increment generated from the project, or if the
applicant is asking for requesting more than $150,000 in financial assistance, an
independent financial analysis of the project may be required by the URA.
– Individuals requesting TIF assistance must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
URA, sufficient equity investment in the project prior to seeking TIF. Equity is
defined as cash or un‐leveraged value in land or prepaid costs attributable to the
project. Examples of equity may include personal cash, letter of credit, personal
investment, awarded grant monies, etc.
Policy assessment:
– A qualitative and/or quantitative analysis should be completed in order to
identify the costs associated with the project which benefit the public and
ATTACHMENT 1
4
achieve the broader community benefits and goals by alleviating an existing,
defined and described problem of City‐wide concern. Analysis of the benefits of
the project will be measured against the expectations set in the relevant plans
that may include, but not be limited by, City Plan (the City’s Comprehensive
Plan), Urban Renewal Plan, Community sub area plan, or in an adopted policy,
ordinance, or resolution of the City Council.
– Projects that do not provide sufficient public benefits may, after review, be
asked for revisions such as:
• Greater Developer contribution;
• Reduced TIF participation; and/or
• Redefiningtion of the scope of the project.
Revision may lead to approval or final denial of URA participant in the project.
The URA will give preference additional consideration to funding projects that have local
ownership, which is defined to mean any home location, business, developer located
within a 40‐mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Boundary.
The applicant must be able to demonstrate to the URA and Board’s satisfaction, an
ability to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project based upon past
experience, general reputation, and credit history, and equity investment.
The level of TIF assistance will be determined on the merits of the project.
The URA will give additional consideration to the following:
– Affordable housing projects that exceed the minimum City Land Use Code
requirement of 10% of the total units for households earning 80% or less of AMI.
– Projects that have local ownership, which is defined to mean any home location,
business, developer located within a 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins
Growth Management boundary.
Section 6 – Building Requirements
In 2006, City Council adopted a resolution stating that all new construction of city‐owned
buildings will achieve LEED Gold certification. In keeping with that standard, the URA requires
certain conditions for development/redevelopment projects containing buildings that are
seeking TIF assistance. Conditions are listed by category below:
New Buildings:
– All New Buildings that exceed 15,000 square feet must achieve US Green
Building Council (USGBC) LEED Silver certification, at minimum. It is
recommended that applicants hire an accredited LEED development team.
– All New Buildings that are less than 15,000 square feet must be able to
demonstrate that the building could meet or exceed the above requirement
through the use of the LEED checklist, without official submittal to the USGBC.
Existing Buildings:
ATTACHMENT 1
5
– All development/redevelopment projects with an existing building seeking TIF
must agree to an Efficiency Assessment of the existing building. This process will
be conducted by trained professionals through the City of Fort Collins. The
Efficiency Assessment provides historical use analysis, reviews current facility
operations, and identifies opportunities to reduce operating costs and
environmental impacts.
– Once the Efficiency Assessment is completed, the applicant must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the URA staff the measures which have a simple payback of
less than two years.
Infrastructure:
– Applicants seeking assistance with public infrastructure must agree to an
Efficiency Assessment of their existing building or business, even if no
construction is occurring to a building structure.
Section 7 – Other General Policies
TIF assistance for land/property purchase costs will not be provided in an amount
exceeding the fair market value of the property.
When considering the purchase of land, tThe fair market value will be determined by an
independent appraiser hired by the Board or the City of Fort Collins. The cost of the
appraisal will be paid for by the applicant.
TIF will not be used to retroactively reimburse projects or make payments to cover costs
associated with any actions already incurred by a development or redevelopment prior
to a request for financial assistance being considered by the URA final approval by the
Board.
TIF assistance will be on a reimbursement basis and only after the project valuation is
verified and the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Letter of Completion (LOC) is issued at
completion of construction. The funds will be paid upon actual costs with verifiable
receipts. Consideration for payments prior to obtaining the CO or LOC and valuation
may be made on a case‐by‐case basis and will require approval by the Board prior to
commencement of construction.
To be eligible to apply for TIF, the applicant must have submitted the proposed project
to the City as a Project Development Plan (PDP), Final Development Plan (FDP), or a
major/minor amendment and completed the first round of review with comments from
City staff.
A City of Fort Collins Construction Waste Management Plan must be submitted for both
new construction (including, but not limited to, rehabilitation and additions) projects as
well as existing projects that may have deconstruction onsite. Specific requirements are
stated in the plan and must be accompanied in the application.
Section 8 – Application Requirements
The applicant must complete the TIF application in its entirety, including the following
documentation:
ATTACHMENT 1
6
A location map
Site plans or project drawings/perspectives/elevations
Project Pro‐forma
Owner/Business resume
Executive Summary with the following questions answered:
What is the nature of the project?
Why is TIF assistance needed and how will the funds be used?
What sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF?
How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities,
drainage, etc.)?
How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of
the area?
How will the project help achieve the goals of the North College Urban Renewal Plan
and City Plan?
How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions?
How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building
techniques? Please be specific how this project uses energy and water efficiency
exceeding code requirements, renewable resources, natural resource conservation
techniques, or stormwater low impact design methods.
A Construction and/or Deconstruction Waste Management Plan that identifies how
waste will be reduced, reused, and/or recycled appropriately.
An Efficiency Assessment will be required, please provide any summary report if one has
been done in the past.
Please provide documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods and
effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features within the project.
What is the proposed project timetable (what is the estimated time frame for major
steps including the City’s planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start
of construction, and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (CO)?
Section 9 – Process (see illustration for condensed version)
Applications may be submitted to URA staff at any time during regular business hours.
After URA staff has done a preliminary analysis and made suggested edits or
modifications to the application, there will be a final submittal.
Additional community‐based input from affected groups may will be required.
‐ The final application will be reviewed by the URA Team, as well as an advisory
group for formal recommendation, made by a majority vote, to the URA Board.
– If the application is for a project located within the North College Urban Renewal
Plan, the North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) must make a
recommendation by a majority vote.
– The CAG meets on a monthly basis and the proposed project TIF application will
be scheduled on the agenda once the financial analyses are completed and the
URA staff has adequate information and achieved a staff recommendation to
present.
ATTACHMENT 1
7
– Feedback from community‐based input (i.e., North Fort Collins Business
Association, South Fort Collins Business Association) may require modifications
that delay approval and even require additional financial analysis.
If the goals of the URA are not clearly met and staff doesn’t make a favorable recommendation
to the Board, the application will be denied and will not move forward to the Board for
approval. The applicant may apply again if the project changes financially, present a different
project than previously submitted or with a change in the TIF calculation based on project
differences.
Once the URA staff and any community‐based organization have has recommended the
application, URA staff will work with the applicant to create a project specific
Redevelopment Agreement (RA) that will define the terms of URA participation and TIF
assistance, if any, for the project.
Once a final RA is agreed to URA staff will schedule the application for consideration at a
hearing before the Board. The Board typically meets bimonthly on Tuesday evenings
after City Council meetings.
Approval of the project at any point in the process, short of the Board’s approval, is no
guarantee that the project will receive any TIF assistance.
The Board will consider the application at the scheduled meeting. The Board will decide
whether or not to support the application. The support may include:
– Adoption of the RA,
– Denial of the application, or
– Conditional approval of the RA and the Board will provide clear direction on
suggested terms. The Board will also clearly indicate if the conditions are
mandatory for approval or optional enhancements. If denied, the URA Board will
not allow re‐application to the URA for TIF unless there are significant changes
from the original denied application.
All Redevelopment Agreements are valid for a 12 month period beginning on the date
the agreement was executed, unless otherwise stated in the agreement.
Building Assessment
(Business Name)
(Site Visit Date)
Facility Address: (Business Address)
Fort Collins, CO (Business Zip Code)
Assessment Contacts:
(Business Contact) – (Contact’s Relation to Business)
(Contact Phone); (Contact E-mail)
Michael Authier – Assessment Team
(970) 221-6768; mauthier@fcgov.com
Susan Blythe – Assessment Team
(970) 207-0058; sblythe@brendlegroup.com
(Picture of Business)
ATTACHMENT 3
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 2 of 10
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................... 3
Facility Background................................................................................................................................................... 3
Existing Practices ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Energy Background......................................................................................................................................................................4
Electric History ..............................................................................................................................................................5
Natural Gas History .......................................................................................................................................................6
Energy Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................................7
LEED Resources .............................................................................................................................................................7
Efficiency Challenge.......................................................................................................................................................7
HVAC Maintenance .......................................................................................................................................................7
Compressed Air System Maintenance ..........................................................................................................................8
Computer Power Management.....................................................................................................................................8
Parking Lot Lighting Upgrade ........................................................................................................................................8
Water....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Water Background.......................................................................................................................................................................9
Water Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................................10
Wastewater WQA Billing.............................................................................................................................................10
Irrigation System Controls...........................................................................................................................................10
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 3 of 10
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the onsite facility assessment. It provides historical use analysis, reviews
current facility operations, and identifies opportunities to reduce operating costs and environmental impacts.
All information gathered in this report is considered confidential and will only be provided to the customer.
Recommendation Annual Cost Savings Potential Incentive Cost with Incentive Payback
Rate Switch to Winter Quarter Average $800-$900 n/a $0 immediate
Compressed Air Maintenance $250 n/a $150 <1 year
Computer Power Management $160 n/a $120 1 year
Refer to each measure’s corresponding section for further details and additional, non-quantifiable measures.
Recommendation calculations are based on regional estimates and/or onsite measurements and should only
be used to help determine project feasibility. If utilizing outside help on any projects, get at least three bids
before beginning work.
Facility Background
(Business Name) occupies a 14,000-square-foot building that was constructed in 2008. (Business Description).
There are 20 employees and a variety of customers in the building Monday through Friday from 10:00 am to
7:00 pm and weekends from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm. The building faces east, has many windows, and has a
metal roof that conforms to requirements related to the historical building to the south of the parking lot. It
receives electricity and water service from Fort Collins Utilities and natural gas service from Xcel Energy.
Natural gas data was only provided for 2010 through 2011 (YTD).
Total Cost Breakdown by Service Type
dollars
Jun 2010 to May 2011 2011 (YTD) 2010 Monthly Comparison (Jun 2009 to May 2011)
9.7%
10.7%
17.1%
8.2%
14.7%
Wastewater
Stormwater
Electric
Water 10.1%
13.9%
49.2%
Natural Gas
62.5%
9.0%
19.0%
10.3%
14.7%
52.1%
6.0%
18.8%
8.9%
14.1%
50.9%
2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jun 09 Dec 09 Jun 10 Dec 10
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 4 of 10
Existing Practices
Many conservation efforts and efficiency improvements are already completed or underway, including:
High efficiency lighting and controls
Evaporative cooling, pre-cooling overnight, and building fans
Winter covers for evaporative coolers
Programmable thermostats
Tankless hot water
Low-flow end use water fixtures
Irrigation controls
Recycling, including single stream content and a large amount of cardboard
Recycled content paper towels
Direct deposit for employees
Some electronic payment and billing
Biodegradable degreaser for parts washing
Bicycle commuters
Teleworking
Carpoolers
Bicycle reward program
Bike racks and shower
Energy
Energy Background
Heating is provided by a number of gas unit heaters and radiant tube heaters, as well as a few electric
baseboard heaters in an office and a restroom. There is a building ventilation system with heat recovery, and
cooling is provided by three evaporative coolers for the main space and a single roof-top unit that serves a
tenant/storage space at the rear of the building. All of the heating and cooling equipment is controlled by
programmable thermostats. There also are ceiling fans in strategic locations. In addition, there is a 2.9 horse
power compressor in the shop area that is used daily.
Lighting in the building is primarily T5 and T8 linear fluorescents, high bay compact fluorescents, and some
light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures. Restrooms have occupancy sensors and other lighting is controlled by
timers, including exterior lighting. Because the building is relatively new, the only renovation planned is to
install a 10-KW solar photovoltaic system on the roof in the near future.
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 5 of 10
The facility’s energy use intensity (EUI) over the last 12 months was 88 kBtu/ft
2
, which was more than 14%
lower than the regions average of 103 kBtu/ft
2
for similar buildings. This lower EUI may be the result of
evaporative cooling rather than refrigerated air, as well as other features of the building, such as high
efficiency lighting and daylighting, insulation, etc.
Energy Use Benchmark Comparison
Typical Energy Use Breakdown Small Retail Benchmark
Heating = 103 kBtu / ft² annually
Lighting Energy Use
Cooling (Jun 2010 to May 2011)
Water Heating = 88 kBtu / ft² annually
Cooking = 14% below the benchmark
Other
Ventilation
Refrigeration
Office Equipment
*Based on regional benchmark data for Small Retail (Lear more at www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/conserve/education-tools/keep-current)
1%
6%
40%
23%
13%
10%
3%
3%
2%
Electric History
Fort Collins Utilities classifies the facility's three electric meters as E200 series accounts. These accounts have
two components: electric usage and facility demand. Electric usage is the total amount of electricity used
within the billing period. Facility demand is the highest average rate or speed at which electricity is used for
any 15-minute period during the billing month.
Facility demand is only billed for each kW above 25 kW per period. All three electric meters have been
consistently below this limit so no demand charges have been applied.
kW
17.9% Electric Srv 1
78.9% Electric Srv 2
3.3% Electric Srv 3
Monthly Electric Service Comparison
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jun 09 Dec 09 Jun 10 Dec 10
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 6 of 10
Since 2009, the first full year of occupancy at the facility, electric use and cost has been consistent and do not
indicate any spikes or anomalies.
Monthly Electric Use per Day
kWh/day
2011 (YTD)
2010
2009
2008
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Natural Gas History
The facility receives natural gas from Xcel Energy. On the basis of the provided 17 months of data, the
estimated energy rate is $0.82 per therm. Both natural gas cost and use peak during heating months and drop
off during cooling months as is expected in this climate.
Monthly Natural Gas Use
therms
2011 (YTD)
2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 7 of 10
Energy Recommendations
LEED Resources
To support (Business Name)’s effort to get LEED certification for its building, a number of resources are
available to guide the business in terms of identifying potential innovation and design credits that may apply.
For more information, visit the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) innovation credit catalog at
www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3569 or visit www.leeduser.com/.
Efficiency Challenge
Reducing the consumption of energy and water in a facility decreases costs, reduces greenhouse gas
emissions, and conserves valuable resources for the future. The Efficiency Challenge offered by Fort Collins
Utilities is a free educational program that works with staff to change behaviors and set greenhouse gas
reduction goals. The program starts with a customized presentation given by Utilities to engage the facility’s
staff. Once finished, Utilities provides an Excel™ utility tool for tracking monthly progress toward the facility’s
goal. A chart generated from this tool allows progress to be shared with all staff. Contact Marcee Camenson
of Fort Collins Utilities at (970) 224-6700 to schedule an appointment. Or for more information, visit
www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/conserve/education-tools/efficiency-challenge.
HVAC Maintenance
At the time of the site visit, the business contact indicated that the existing cooling provided by the three
evaporative units on the roof is not sufficient on hot days, especially in the retail area. There are several steps
to take to maximize existing system functionality before investing in additional cooling equipment.
1. To ensure the evaporative coolers operate at optimum efficiency, the units should be serviced
regularly and filters should be replaced as necessary. Also, at the time of the site visit, one of the units
was leaking water and another was not running. A service call by a reputable HVAC contractor may
help to identify problems that may be affecting the performance of these units.
1. Contact an evaporative cooling specialist who can offer guidance on the existing system, as well as any
upgrade options to optimize performance. For example, some units can be retrofitted with
indirect/direct evaporative cooling (IDEC). IDEC is some of the latest in evaporative cooling technology
and in Colorado can provide cooling that is comparable to direct expansion (DX) air conditioning but
without the additional electricity costs. IDEC can reach lower temperatures and does not add as much
humidity as traditional evaporative coolers.
2. Consider additional ceiling fans, particularly jet-type fans. For information on jet fans, visit
www.theairpear.com/.
3. Consider a mechanical upgrade to the existing system, but keep in mind that traditional mechanical
cooling will increase energy consumption four times that of the evaporative cooling at the building.
Also, traditional mechanical cooling systems typically require ducting, which would have to be added.
Fort Collins Utilities offers an Integrated Design Assistance Program that includes financial incentives
and technical support to businesses interested in high-performance buildings and high efficiency
equipment options. For more information, visit www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/conserve/rebates-
incentives/integrated-design-assistance.
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 8 of 10
Compressed Air System Maintenance
The shop area has a 2.9-horsepower compressor system that is on all the time. The first opportunity is to shut
off the compressor at night to minimize cycling. In addition, air leaks at valves, fittings, joints, and pneumatic
equipment are the biggest efficiency opportunity for compressed air systems. By fixing air leaks, the
percentage of time the compressor is loaded will decline, reducing the electric costs associated with supplying
the compressed air. Minimizing air leaks requires diligent effort by maintenance personnel. To achieve this
and to maximize system efficiency, employ a targeted preventive maintenance program to continuously check
for and repair air leaks.
A system free from leaks can often be set within 5 to 10 psig above the highest equipment pressure rating.
Review the required pressure for all equipment on the system and if possible, reduce the systems pressure to
lower the amount of energy needed to maintain it. Repairing a single leak (an example that assumes the leak
is 1/32 inch and lowering the system pressure by 10 psig (after leaks are repaired) could save 3,250 kWh and
$250 annually. This opportunity is estimated to cost $150 to implement resulting in a simple payback of less
than 1 year.
To learn more about improving compressed air systems, visit
www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/compressed_air_sourcebook.pdf.
Computer Power Management
ENERGY STAR recommends setting computers to enter system standby or hibernate after 30 to 60 minutes of
inactivity and setting monitors to enter sleep mode after 5 to 20 minutes of inactivity. Many fax machines,
printers, and copiers also include these features. Depending on manufacturer, equipment age, and
configuration, these settings can use 90% less power than the equipment’s regular operation, resulting in
more than a 60% reduction in overall energy use.
Although many products come with power management features, some may require activation. Monitor
screensavers, including the blank screen option, use as much power as an active monitor and may even
prevent the computer from using enabled power management features. Lastly, no power management
feature saves as much energy as turning off the equipment when not in use, especially at night and during
weekends.
Implementing the above power management recommendations on the desktop and point of sale computers
at the facility could reduce energy use by 2,000 kWh annually, saving approximately $160 per year. If outside
support is needed, this project would cost about $120 for a simple 1-year payback.
Parking Lot Lighting Upgrade
While (Business Name) has high-efficiency lighting inside the building, there is an opportunity to replace the
250-watt metal halide parking lot lights with LED fixtures. Replacing the 250-watt metal halides with 116-watt
LED fixtures would reduce energy consumption by 1,500-1,600 kWh, save $120 annually, and cost about
$4,000. This project could be eligible for a $160 rebate through Fort Collins Utilities, giving the project a 32-
year simple payback. While this opportunity has a long simple payback, the analysis does not include the
maintenance costs associated with replacing the metal halide bulbs that have an average lifetime of 15,000
hours compared to 180,000 hours with an LED fixture. To learn more about Fort Collins Utilities’ Business
Efficiency Program, visit www.fcgov.com/businessefficiency.
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 9 of 10
Water
Water Background
The restrooms are equipped with low-flow fixtures and a tankless water heater provides hot water for hand
sinks and the shower. The irrigation system is on a timer and is regularly maintained.
Fort Collins Utilities classifies the facility's water meter as a W520 series account. Monthly bills for W520
accounts have two components: base charge and volume charge. The volume charge has two tiers: fewer than
100,000 and over 100,000 gallons used. In addition, these tiers have a summer (May through October) rate
and a winter (November through April) rate. For example, water use that is
over 100,000 gallons in a summer month has the highest unit cost.
Wastewater is classified as S520 and has a base rate and a volume charge
per 1,000 gallons of water used. Storm water is classified as H212 and is
calculated based on lot square footage and percent of impervious area. To
learn more, visit www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/rates and go to the
corresponding water, sewer, or storm water page.
As is expected, higher costs can be linked to landscape irrigation during the
warmer months. There is a significant increase in water use in May of 2011
that may be the result of increased landscape watering over 2010 and leaks
in the evaporative cooling system.
Monthly Water Use per Day
gallons/day
2011
2010
1,126
1,094
Average
2009 1,350
2008791
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
gallons
0%
85%
Winter Quarter Avg
Winter Addition
Summer Addition
15%
2-Year Average
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Facility Assessment for (Business Name) Page 10 of 10
Water Recommendations
Wastewater WQA Billing
(Business Name) currently is billed for wastewater based on annual water use but has the option to be billed
based on the winter quarter average (WQA) from January through March. Since landscape irrigation is on the
same water meter, much of the summer water use is attributed to watering the landscaping and does not flow
to the wastewater system. WQA is a method of estimating only water use that ends up as wastewater and can
result in lower wastewater charges. It is estimated that the facility could save $800 to $900 annually by
switching to WQA-based wastewater billing.
More information including contact information and an application can be found on Fort Collins Utilities
website at www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/rates/wastewater.
Irrigation System Controls
On the basis of results from an irrigation system audit, the facility could modify the watering schedule
seasonally to meet the lawn’s need. Because clay soil can only absorb about .25 inch of water per hour, it is
recommended to have two or three start times to reduce runoff. Another alternative would be to upgrade the
current irrigation system’s controls to an evapotranspiration rate (ET) based Smart Controller. Smart
controllers are irrigation clocks that automatically adjust irrigation run times in response to site conditions and
environmental changes. Smart controllers use sensors and weather information to manage watering times
and frequency. As environmental conditions vary, the controller increases or decreases the amount of water
delivered. Coupled with a rain sensor, these controllers tend to save 15 to 30% over standard controllers in
Colorado’s climate zone.
urban renewal authority
300 LaPorte Ave • PO Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970-221-6505 • TDD 970-224-6002 • renewfortcollins.com
DT: June 17, 2011
TO: President and URA Board members
TH: Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
FM: Christina Vincent, Redevelopment Program Administrator
RE: June 14, 2011 Work Session Summary – URA Eligibility Policies
Board members present: President Weitkunat, Vice‐President Ohlson, Ben Manvel, Lisa Poppaw, Gerry
Horak
Staff present: Christina Vincent, Josh Birks, Mike Gebo
Discussion/Follow‐up points:
• The URA policies were presented with changes from the 2010 version. The Board requested
stronger language requiring Construction Waste Management Plans for both new
construction and deconstruction/demolition projects.
• The Board requested that the URA policies state that any project is subject to the Green
Building code effective the date of adoption; scheduled to be July 19.
• The Board requested to clarify the terminology does not only include recycling, however
should state: waste reduction, reuse, and recycling methods.
• The Board also requested to remove the Construction Waste Management from eligible
costs and ensure its expectation for every URA application.
• The Board requests reporting mechanisms and verification methods that are consistent with
the Green Building Code to be activated with a decision of approval on July 19.
Next Steps:
July 19 – The URA Board will consider adopting the updated URA Policies and Procedures.
ATTACHMENT 4
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Benchmarking - Summer 2011
Year Established # of Plan Areas
More Plan Areas in
Future?
# Current Projects # Staff, FTE
Arvada 1981 5 ‐ One sunsetted Not at this time. 13 3.5; 3 full time
Boulder 1979 2 ‐ One sunsetted
Diagnal Plaza, but Council
did not support blight
study in April '11.
1 0 full time; 1 part time
Brighton 2001 3 Not actively. 30
Paid by BURA ‐ 6 FTE
equivalent ‐ really only 1
that's full time BURA.
BURA reimburses City for
staff time.
Colorado Springs 1970 8
City is looking at a few
other areas, but no action
has been taken to initiate.
3
3 part‐time contract
employees. 2 years ago
the City cut back and
chose not to support URA
w/ staff. 1.5 full time
equivalent
Lakewood 1997 3 No 3 1.13 FTE
Loveland 2002
3 ‐ 1 is a small,
single development
project
1 FTE
Pueblo 1959
9 (One to sunset
next year)
One next year, mainly
focusing on growing
projects within existing
plan areas
20+
6 staff members, 3
full time
Westminster 1984/85 6
Nothin new; may reset
the clock on the oldest
one.
3
0 full time; City serves as
the URA staff as‐needed.
The URA reimburses the
City for staff time.
Council or Separate URA
Board?
Advisory or
Subcommittee that
advises Board?
Composition of Advisory
1
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
North College Urban Renewal Plan
Citizen Advisory Group
(revised May 10, 2006)
Creation
The intent of the North College Urban Renewal Plan is for the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners to consult with an advisory group on all
significant actions and decisions of the Authority regarding the North College Urban
Renewal Plan. Therefore, there shall be created and established a North College Urban
Renewal Plan - Citizen Advisory Group (the “Advisory Group”).
Membership; term
(a) Members of the North College Urban Renewal Plan - Citizen Advisory Group
shall be appointed by official action of the North Fort Collins Business
Association and shall consist of nine (9) members who are either landowners,
business owners, tenants, or residents within the boundaries of the North
College Urban Renewal Plan. City liaisons will be appointed to work with the
Advisory Group, consisting of one (1) Fort Collins City Councilmember
appointed by the City Council, and one (1) member of the Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board, appointed by the Board.
(b) Members appointed by the North Fort Collins Business Association shall
serve four (4)-year terms, with the first appointments being staggered to allow
for turn over and subsequent overlapping terms. Liaisons appointed by the
City Council and Planning and Zoning Board shall serve at the discretion of
the Council and Board respectively.
Jurisdiction
The Advisory Group shall exercise its powers within the boundaries of the North College
Urban Renewal Plan a map of which is on file in the City Clerk’s office.
Functions
The Advisory Group shall provide advice to the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Board of Commissioners on all significant actions and decisions of the Authority which
the Authority may undertake within the boundaries of the North College Urban Renewal
Plan, including the following:
1. Amendments to the North College Avenue Existing Conditions Survey
regarding findings of “blight” as defined by the Urban Renewal Law.
2. Amendments to the North College Urban Renewal Plan.
3. Requests for redevelopment/development project financing using the property
tax increment and/or sales tax increment to be accrued and used by the Urban
ATTACHMENT 6
2
Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners under the property and/or sales
tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law.
4. Public improvements to be financed by the Authority in order to promote the
effective utilization of developed, underdeveloped, or undeveloped land in the
Renewal Area.
5. Purchase of property by the Authority to for an urban renewal project to
remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal law and the North
College Urban Renewal Plan.
6. Demolition of existing development and clearance of existing sites by the
Authority as part of specific redevelopment/development projects.
7. Requests specifically directed to the North College Urban Renewal Plan -
Citizen Advisory Group by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board
of Commissioners and/or City staff.
Minutes
The Advisory Group shall take and keep on file for public inspection summary minutes
of any meetings where the Group discussed matters listed in the Functions section above.
North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG)
Name Company Position Phone Phone #2 Email
Neil McCaffrey Book Center of the Rockies, Inc. Land and Business Owner O: 970-493-4840 H: 970-207-1223 neil@bkctr.com
Bob Brown Brown Ruminant Consulting Inc., Greenbriar Village HOA President, Owner and Area Resident H: 970-224-2941 C: 307-630-0641 rumcon2000@aol.com
Dean Hoag RMB Recycling Land and Business Owner 970-690-3550 970-484-5384 dhoag2000@aol.com
Grant Sherwood Retired VP of Housing at CSU Area Resident 970-484-9658 Grant.Sherwood@colostate.edu
Jim Eddy Overland Partners Property Owner 970-581-7282 opllc@msn.com
Ron Lautzenheiser Big O Tires & Grease Monkey Land and Business Owner 970-493-3356 rklautz@msn.com
Mike Bello CPI Group Property Owner mbello10@comcast.com
Tim Kenney First National Bank Business Representative 970-619-3354 tkenney@fnbfc.com
Don Butler Cottonwood Plaza Land and Business Owner 970-484-6715 jockr5141@gmail.com
Brigitte Schmidt City of Fort Collins Plannning and Zoning Board 970-224-9418 970-491-7271 brigitte.schmidt@colostate.edu
Ben Manvel City of Fort Collins Council C: 970-217-1932 bmanvel@fcgov.com
City Council Liaisons
Planning and Zoning Board Liaison
Prepared by City of Fort Collins - Economic Health; Date Updated: 9/27/2011
ATTACHMENT 7
1
Advisory Group Options for the URA Board
September 27, 2011
Option 1: Each URA Plan area and/or TIF district requires an
individual Citizen’s Advisory Group (CAG)
Pros
• Buy‐in from local businesses and property owners of the district/area.
• Unofficial committee and do not need to follow formal Boards/Commissions
regulations; allows more freedom for members.
• Does not interrupt existing CAG membership and introduces new options for
other areas.
Cons
• Staffing support for multiple CAG(s) presents resourcing a challenge.
• Potential conflict of interest for members of the CAG, interests may not correctly
reflect the best interest of the URA if decisions for spending reside around the
property owner location.
• Question who would appoint the members of the CAG. NFCBA Executive Board
self appoints the CAG members.
• Unofficial committee without format or communication responsibilities of formal
Boards/Commissions regulations i.e. minutes, roster, calendar for public access.
Option 2: Utilize an existing Board/Commission for Citywide
URA activities and replace existing CAG
(Example of existing Board: Economic Advisory Committee)
Pros
• Utilize existing City resource and structure of Boards/Commissions.
• Official minutes and recommendations posted on the City Clerk’s website for
citizen’s (Currently a conflict for the CAG…can not be posted).
• No additional staff support needed beyond existing capacity.
Cons
• Seats are appointed by Council, 9 members already exist.
• Education needed for each member to fully understand the projects/actions of
the URA as well as its mission.
• Potential conflict of members to focus on City needs and not protect URA
interests.
ATTACHMENT 8
2
Option 3: Create new official recommending Board for the URA
activities
Pros
• Opportunity to create an official advisory Board with a variety of expertise:
o 1 seat – Development/Building community, preference for LEED AP
o 2 seats – Property Owners within the adopted Plan Areas
o 2 seats – Finance/Banking community
o 2 seats – citizen at large or business owner
o 1 seat – North Fort Collins Business Association
o 1 seat – South Fort Collins Business Association
o 1 – City Council Liaison
o 1 – Planning and Zoning Liaison
• Official minutes and recommendations posted on the City Clerk’s website for
citizen’s (Currently a conflict for the CAG…can not be posted).
• No additional staff support needed beyond existing capacity.
• Expertise of members (banking, development, etc) will be an addition and asset
to the URA for new & informed perspective.
• Citywide focus on URA activities.
Cons
• Disband existing CAG for North College.
• Need City Council approved Ordinance to create, will probably want URA Board
Resolution on this item as well since they originally recommended the CAG
structure.
Option 4: No change, keep CAG for North College and do not
create additional CAGs/groups for other plan areas
Pros
• No additional staff support needed beyond existing capacity.
• North College continues to get major attention with dedicated staffing.
Cons
• No opportunity for improvement in expertise and effectiveness.
• Minutes and group continue to be ambiguous to citizens.
• Self appointed by the North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA); seems
redundant to NFCBA
Advisory Group Options for the URA Board
As recommended by the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
August 30, 2011
Create a new official Board for the URA activities city-wide. This
independent Board would function similar to the DDA and would replace
the City Council serving as the URA Board. This Board would have final
decision making power on expenditure of URA funds.
The URA Board would have 11 seats and would be represented by
individuals having expertise in areas that would be of benefit to the URA:
• 2 seats – Development/Building Community
• 3 seats – Business Property Owners
(preference to owners in areas with URA Plans)
• 2 seats – Finance Community
• 2 seats – Citizen at Large
• 1 seat – Planning & Zoning Liaison
• 1 seat – City Council Liaison
The Board would be selected by the City Manager and appointed by the City
Council, serving two year terms. All actions of the URA Board would be
public record and available for review and public comment by citizens.
The Board would then have local, volunteer review teams that would be
invited to consider projects in the specific URA areas. For example, if a
project was being proposed for URA funding at Prospect and I-25, a local
review team of area business owners and other interested parties within a
certain radius of the project would join the meeting to see the presentation
and join the discussion. They would not be voting members of the Board,
but would provide valuable, localized input into the process.
The current Business Associations would be perfect audiences to target for
appointment to the Board.
ATTACHMENT 9
1475 N. College Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 (970) 484-5384
July 13, 2011
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City Manager:
Toward the end of his tenure as Fort Collins city manager, John Fishbach brought the idea of an urban renewal
plan area for North Fort Collins to the members of the North Fort Collins Business Association. While the
membership was generally supportive of the idea, members did express concerns about the use of eminent
domain, and about the Fort Collins City Council serving as the URA Board of Directors.
Mayor Hutchinson and then Councilwoman Weitkunat met with members of the NFCBA Board of Directors
and suggested a Citizens Advisory Group, chosen by the NFCBA, to help alleviate the concerns of the
Membership. The NFCBA concurred, and the Urban Renewal Plan activated.
The NFCBA is concerned that the present City Council my want to limit or eliminate the current Citizens
Advisory Board. The Board of Directors of the NFCBA, on behalf of the membership, respectfully requests
that Council continue the earlier commitment Council made to the NFCBA. The NFCBA believes strongly that
the collaborative effort of the URA and the NFCBA has been beneficial to North Fort Collins, and has led to a
spirit of mutual trust.
Thank you, members of Council, for the energy you have put into bringing North Fort Collins up to the
standards the rest of Fort Collins enjoys. You have done much, even as there is still work to do. We look
forward to continuing to work toward our mutual goal of a vibrant North end.
Kindest regards,
Dean Hoag
Dean Hoag
President
North Ft. Collins Business Association
ATTACHMENT 10
ATTACHMENT 11
ATTACHMENT #14
1
1
Urban Renewal Authority
2011 Policies & Procedures
URA WWoorrkksseessssiioonn
October 4, 2011
2
DIRECTION
•• Does the URA Board have concerns with the
revised Policies and Procedures?
•• Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these
revisions back for formal consideration in
November?
•• Is the URA Board interested in creating a new
recommending body for all activities within the
URA?
ATTACHMENT #14
2
3
POLICIES: PURPOSE
•• Provide Guidance
•• State the Objectives
•• Specify Eligible Development
•• Identify Eligible Costs
•• Evaluation Criteria
•• Building Requirements
•• Application Requirements
•• Formalize Process & Timeline
4
2006 vvss 2010 DIFFERENCES
•• Clearly state the financial need
•• Closer linkage to goals of Retention,
Expansion, and Attraction
•• Introduce a green building incentive
•• Give direction and expectations to applicants
•• Clearly state TIF is not an entitlement
•• Clearly state the evaluation criteria
ATTACHMENT #14
3
5
2010 POLICIES:
EVALUATION CRITERIA
•• Financial Feasibility
““But But For”” For test
Financial analysis of the project pro forma
Proven equity investment in the project
•• Policy Assessment
Project meets goals of various plans
If goals are not met, additional criteria may be
required
•• Land purchase will not exceed fair market value
6
2010 POLICIES:
EVALUATION CRITERIA ( con’’tt)con )
•• Cannot be retroactively reimbursed
•• Application must be complete
•• Applicant must provide past experience
•• TIF is based on project merit
•• TIF assistance on reimbursement basis
ATTACHMENT #14
4
7
2011 REVISIONS
•• Inclusion of revised mission statement.
•• Applicant must be in the City’’s City s Development
review process.
–– Specifically complete first round of review with
staff comments
•• Require Construction Waste Management Plan
for both new construction and deconstruction.
•• Clarify the LUC Affordable Housing minimum and
suggest exceeding the requirement.
8
2011 REVISIONS
•• Require the project be consistent with City Plan
and the Urban Renewal Plans.
•• Promote green building; exceed adopted code
minimums using LEED as a guide.
•• New Buildings > 15,000 ssqqfftt. . achieve LEED silver
certification
•• Existing Buildings must complete an Efficiency
Assessment.
•• Infrastructure with buildings on property must
complete an Efficiency Assessment.
ATTACHMENT #14
5
9
OPTIONS FOR ADVISORY GROUP
Option 1: Each URA Plan area and/or TIF district
requires an individual Citizen’’s Citizen s Advisory Group
(CAG)
Option 2: Utilize an existing Board/Commission for
Citywide URA activities and replace existing CAG
Option 3: Create new official recommending Board
for the URA activities
Option 4: No change, keep CAG for North College
and do not create additional CCAAGGss//groups for
other plan areas
10
OPTION 1: Each area requires an
individual CAG
Pros
•• Buy-Buy -in from local businesses and property owners of the
district/area.
•• Unofficial committee and do not need to follow formal
Boards/Commissions regulations; allows more freedom for
members.
•• Does not interrupt existing CAG membership and introduces new
options for other areas.
Cons
•• Staffing support for multiple CAG(s) s ) presents resourcing a
challenge.
•• Potential conflict of interest for members of the CAG
•• Question who would appoint the members of the CAG. NFCBA
Executive Board self appoints the CAG members.
•• Unofficial committee without format or communication
responsibilities of formal Boards/Commissions regulations
ATTACHMENT #14
6
11
OPTION 2: Utilize an existing Board for
URA activities and replace existing CAG
Pros
•• Utilize existing City resource and structure of
Boards/Commissions.
•• Official minutes and recommendations posted on the City
Clerk’’s Clerk s website for citizen’’s citizen s
•• No additional staff support needed beyond existing capacity.
Cons
•• Seats are already appointed by Council, 9 members already
exist.
•• Education needed for each member to fully understand the
projects/actions of the URA as well as its mission.
•• Potential conflict of members to focus on City needs and not
protect URA interests.
12
OPTION 3: Create new recommending
Board for URA activities
Pros
•• Opportunity to create an official advisory Board with a
variety of expertise:
–– 1 seat –– Development/Building community, preference
for LEED AP
–– 2 seats –– Property Owners within the adopted Plan
Areas
–– 2 seats –– Finance/Banking community
–– 2 seats –– citizen at large or business owner
–– 1 seat –– North Fort Collins Business Association
–– 1 seat –– South Fort Collins Business Association
–– 1 –– City Council Liaison
–– 1 –– Planning and Zoning Liaison
ATTACHMENT #14
7
13
OPTION 3: Create new recommending
Board for URA activities
Pros (continued)
•• Official minutes and recommendations posted on the City
Clerk’’s Clerk s website for citizens.
•• No additional staff support needed beyond existing capacity.
•• Expertise of members will be an addition and asset to the
URA for new & informed perspective.
•• Citywide focus on URA activities.
Cons
•• Disband existing CAG for North College.
•• Need City Council approved Ordinance to create.
•• Need URA Resolution to adopt.
14
OPTION 4: No change
Pros
•• No additional staff support needed beyond existing capacity.
•• North College continues to get major attention with
dedicated staffing.
Cons
•• No opportunity for improvement in expertise and
effectiveness.
•• Minutes and group continue to be ambiguous to citizens.
•• Self appointed by the North Fort Collins Business
Association (NFCBA); perception of redundancy to NFCBA
ATTACHMENT #14
8
15
CHAMBER RECOMMENDATION
Create a new official Board for the URA activities
city-city -wide.
The URA Board would have 11 seats:
•• 2 seats –– Development/Building Community
•• 3 seats –– Business Property Owners
(preference to owners in areas with URA Plans)
•• 2 seats –– Finance Community
•• 2 seats –– Citizen at Large
•• 1 seat –– Planning & Zoning Liaison
•• 1 seat –– City Council Liaison
16
DIRECTION
•• Does the URA Board have concerns with the
revised Policies and Procedures?
•• Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these
revisions back for formal consideration in
November?
•• Is the URA Board interested in creating a new
recommending body for all activities within the
URA?
Board
Separate URA Department or
within another City
Department?
Approximate Annual TIF
Revenue Stream
Arvada Separate Board No N/A URA is its own Department Didn't Respond
Boulder Separate Board No N/A
Within City's Economic Vitality
Program
2011 ‐ $1.3 million
Brighton Separate Board No N/A
Within City's Office of
Redevelopment, Economic
Development, and Community
Resource Office
$3.8 mil
Colorado Springs Separate Board No N/A Separate
2010 property tax =
$835,644
2010 sales tax =
$1,476,250
Lakewood City Council
CAG ‐ presents a
recommendation
to URA Board
Indiduals from the
business association,
property owners,
residents, 10‐12, ad hoc ‐
if another project comes
up, they'd pick a new
group.
Economic
2011 property tax =
$7,227,000
2011 sales tax =
$1,240,000
Loveland City Council
Downtown
Development Team
‐ broadly focused
on all Downtown
projects, not
exclusive to URA
11 members Didn't Respond Didn't Respond
Pueblo Separate Board No N/A
URA used to be located in long
range planning, moved out in
2006 it own building
$6 million
Westminster City Council No N/A
Not housed within a particular
department; Community
Development usually takes the
lead with help from Economic
Development
2011 sales tax =
$9,240,689
2011 property tax =
$7,950,124
2011 total = $17,190,813
Project Management & Staffing
Project Approval Process
ATTACHMENT 5
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec