HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/18/2011 - 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 18, 2011
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring October 2011 as Disability Awareness Month.
B. Proclamation Declaring October 18, 2011 as United Way of Larimer County’s Give, Advocate, and
Volunteer Day.
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 15. 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. 22, 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.
NON-BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2011 Regular Meeting.
7. Second 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, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on October 4, 2011, will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of
the Veterans Plaza project.
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. 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).
Right-of-way acquisition continues for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, pertains to the final acquisition
phase of the BRT Project and is comprised of 15 separate properties ready 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.
9. Second 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.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends 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 will
be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both
amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
This Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to add language clarifying that ballots will be
mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”, but
who voted in the last presidential election.
10. Postponement of Second 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 to December 20, 2011.
This item is being postponed to December 20, 2011 to allow time for public outreach.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the
Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with
Pinnacle Public Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to
be lease-purchased is $1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787
in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the
debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.8%.
A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes
acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining to
the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338
of the City Code to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the
Board to promote awareness and appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource
contributing to the quality of Fort Collins.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add
New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City
facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to
be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This
Page 4
Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s
authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined
which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances.
14. Resolution 2011-093 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Award and Agreement with the
U.S. Department of Transportation for a Grant Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the United States
Department of Transportation. The grant is in the amount of $221,500. The grant will be used to fund
the Airport’s efforts to address the air service needs of the community through completion of an air
service development, communications and marketing plan for the Airport and development of a plan
for the wingless flight program.
BUDGET CONSENT ITEM
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year Operating
and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport
operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each city),
and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort
Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport
from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General
Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue major Airport
improvements such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master
planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development.
END CONSENT
16. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
17. Staff Reports.
18. 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.
BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown
Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012. (staff:
Matt Robenalt, Kathy Cardona; 10 minute discussion)
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority is presented for First
Reading. Ordinance No. 137, 2011, sets the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount
of $814,380 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the
amount of $1,652,346 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the
2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since
2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012.
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond
proceeds. Examples of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday light
display, facade improvements, the enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and participation
in the river district improvement projects, etc.
20. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012. (staff: Brian Janonis, Ellen Switzer; 30
minute discussion)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Water Rates and Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Water Plant Investment Fees.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
Page 6
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Development Fees and Charges.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012.
% Increase
Water 6.0%
Wastewater 8.0%
Electric 8.3%
The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no
change in the monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to
study proposed changes to the electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as
“RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15, 2011, to recommend changes to the RESR.
All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced above. The electric rate
increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed changes will
impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages.
With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single
family customer’s monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions to the
RESR are approved by Council at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see an
additional increase in costs. The later change will depend on the rate form option preferred by City
Council.
Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also
go into effect if the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment fees
(PIFs) and a 1.2% increase in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater PIFs is
recommended. On average, electric development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for residential and
decrease less than 1% for commercial.
Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances above.
NON-BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEM
21. Resolution 2011-094 Directing Certain Actions Be Taken to Improve Coordination and Consultation
Between the City and Platte River Power Authority in Connection with the Dixon Creek Substation to
Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project and for Future Projects. (staff: John Stokes, Steve
Catanach, Ginger Purvis; 30 minute discussion)
This Resolution directs the City Manager and City Attorney to take certain follow up actions in light of
recent discussions and analysis related to the Platte River Power Authority Dixon Creek Substation to
Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project. The City Council discussed this issue at its
adjourned meeting on October 11, 2011, and the Resolution calls for follow up work to: (1) address
impacts from the proposed Project; (2) develop a set of policies and procedures for planning and
consultation related to future Platte River projects; and (3) improve the City’s level of involvement in
future infrastructure and specific project planning by Platte River. The Resolution also directs the City
Manager to provide a copy of the Resolution to Platte River and the other Platte River member cities.
Page 7
22. Pulled Consent Items.
23. Other Business.
24. Adjournment.
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.
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
SKYVIEW SOUTH
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 MEETING
October 18, 2011
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South
General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the
District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike
Beckstead; 5 minute discussion)
The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year
2012. The total amount will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AGENDA
WITHDRAWN
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING
October 18, 2011
(after the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General
Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to
Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year
2012 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 5 minute discussion)
The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year
2012. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like
automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to
total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $303,179.
4. Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan.
(staff: Clark Mapes; 20 minute discussion)
City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID).
The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian,
and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial
area.
The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA
October 18, 2011
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. (staff: Clark
Mapes; 15 minute discussion)
This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1)
Fund Balance for fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic
design of a sign system was done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward
implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and
construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the
City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop
may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds
used to cover those costs. Installation will occur in 2012.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
October 18, 2011
after the General Improvement District No. 1 Meeting
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Presentation of the City Manager's Recommended 2012 Budget Revision Requests.
(staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 2 hour discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to review the 2012 Budget Revision Requests to be
considered for inclusion in the 2012 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. The Ordinance
will be considered on First Reading on October 18, 2011. This is a continuation of the
work session agenda from October 11, 2011.
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the City wants to recognize the valuable contribution citizens with disabilities
make to this community; and
WHEREAS, the month of October is National Disability Awareness Month and National
Disability Employment Awareness Month; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is interested in the welfare of, and improving the
quality of life for, citizens with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the City wants to encourage businesses, individual citizens and the community-
at-large to promote full inclusion for citizens with disabilities in work and recreation in the
community.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of October 2011 as
DISABILITY AWARENESS MONTH
in the city of Fort Collins and ask the citizens to recognize and include in all activities, all citizens
with disabilities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, for over 50 years United Way has strived to ensure that our community’s
important health and human service needs are met in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust; and
WHEREAS, the historic roles of United Way include providing leadership in identifying
and prioritizing health and human service issues in Larimer County, and conducting major
fundraising campaigns to support solutions for those needs in our communities; and
WHEREAS, the partnership role between the community at large and United Way of
Larimer County is broadening to include an emphasis on community solutions, charitable giving and
volunteer contributions; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins ranks 5th in volunteering among mid-size cities; and
WHEREAS, United Way of Larimer County strives to improve our local community
through its nationally recognized Make a Difference Day, as well as through the annual fundraising
campaign.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October 18, 2011 as
United Way of Larimer County’s
Give, Advocate, and Volunteer Day
in Fort Collins and I urge all citizens of Larimer County to become actively involved in supporting
United Way, through its campaign and volunteer initiatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2011 Regular Meeting.
September 20, 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 20,
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: Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Horak
Staff Members Present: Williams, Harris, Roy.
Agenda Review
Assistant City Manager Williams noted a revised version of Resolution 2011-090 for Item No. 24
Documenting and Presenting the City Council’s Comments on the North I-25 Final Environmental
Impact Statement was included in the Read Before the Meeting packet.
Citizen Participation
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, supported Bas Bleu Theater and the Fort Collins Symphony
and urged Council to support the jail sales tax extension on the November ballot.
Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, gave an update on the Wood Street
mobile home park redevelopment and urged community support of the residents.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the financing of the RMI2 building and Mike
Freeman’s role in the financing.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 23, 2011, Adjourned Meeting and
the August 31, 2011, Special Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, repeals the
City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This section is unnecessary because
41
September 20, 2011
the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City Charter, and such adjustment
is accomplished through administrative action of the City Manager.
8. Second 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. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, by a vote of 5-1
(nays: Horak) appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City
funds.
9. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City
Code.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of
the City Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. Second 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. Second 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. Second 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. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17
of the City Code Pertaining to Loitering.
F. Second 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. Second 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 Ordinances,
42
September 20, 2011
unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, will allow law enforcement
to more effectively and efficiently protect and serve the citizens of Fort Collins.
10. Second 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading
on September 6, 2011, ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic Code is consistent with state
traffic laws.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, makes
various changes, additions and clarifications in the 2011 annual update of the Land Use
Code.
12. Second 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.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, authorizes
the conveyance to the Caffreys of two small triangular areas in Tract E, totaling 547 square
feet in area, that are outside the erosion buffer limits, the City’s floodway, and therefore are
not required for flood plain management or for storm drainage by the City.
13. 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.
43
September 20, 2011
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.
14. 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.
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.
15. 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.
I n 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.
16. 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, Adding a Section in Article IV of Chapter
20 of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of
Costs of Weed and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article
IV.
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
44
September 20, 2011
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.
17. Resolution 2011-086 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed
Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and the
Territory of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District.
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District
Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2010 from the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District and the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District in accordance with
state law and to allow for the provision of fire protection services to such properties by the
Poudre Fire Authority.
18. Resolution 2011-087 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Leistikow Annexation.
The applicants, Wayne B. and Janice E. Leistikow, the property owners, have submitted a
written petition requesting annexation of 18.035 acres located on the east side of South
Timberline North Road, and on the south side of Trilby Road. The property contains a
single family detached home approved in Larimer County under FA-1 zoning as part of the
Leistikow Minor Residential Division approved in 1992. The requested zoning for this
annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The parcel to the north is the Westchase P.U.D., zoned
L-M-N and U-E and annexed into the City of Fort Collins in 2001. The properties to the
east, south and west are currently zoned FA-1 and located in Larimer County.
19. Resolution 2011-088 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Courtney Annexation.
The applicants, C. Scott and Nancy E. Courtney, the property owners, have submitted a
written petition requesting annexation of 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south
of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as
3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way
for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is
developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning
for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned
FA1 – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, east and south; and, UE – Urban Estate
in the City to the west.
45
September 20, 2011
20. Resolution 2011-089 Extending the Deadline for the City and Town of Windsor to Take
Certain Actions Required by the Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the
Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with the
Town of Windsor pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection
of State Highway 392. The IGA states that the City and Windsor will take certain actions
to implement the IGA by March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, Council extended the
deadline for all actions to be taken under Section 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.3.8 of the IGA to June
7, 2011.
On May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041, extending the deadline
for staff of both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach until September
20, 2011. The staff of both municipalities recommend that the September 20, 2011, deadline
be further extended to December 6, 2011, in order to allow additional time to complete their
studies and public outreach and make their recommendations.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
9. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City
Code.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of
the City Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. Second 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. Second 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. Second 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. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17
of the City Code Pertaining to Loitering.
46
September 20, 2011
F. Second 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. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17
of the City Code Pertaining to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
12. Second 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.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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, Adding a Section in Article IV of Chapter
20 of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of
Costs of Weed and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article
IV.
47
September 20, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt the Consent
Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell asked if Councilmembers should disclose their primary residences in
reference to Item No. 14, 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. City Attorney Roy replied the new language would require
disclosure of all property.
Councilmember Troxell asked if other species of grass are included in Item No. 15, Items Relating
to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services
Manager, replied the item is specific to the two species mentioned.
Staff Reports
Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager, updated Council on the Natural Areas Education and
Outreach Program. She stated the City of Fort Collins received the runner-up title for the Best of
the Web award from the Center for Digital Government. Additionally, the City has received an
Award of Excellence from the City-County Communication and Marketing Association for the Keep
Fort Collins Great tax initiative.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel discussed the grand opening of the new Crossroads Safehouse facility and
commended the community support for the project.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport runway has recently been
completed. Additionally, the airport is enlarging its passenger waiting area, making parking lot
improvements, and developing flightless travel to Denver International Airport.
Resolution 2011-090
Documenting and Presenting the City Council’s Comments on
the North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North
I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The
purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern
48
September 20, 2011
Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans
for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor.
CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments
through October 3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments
to share with City Council and CDOT as part of this public review period. The September 20
regular session action represents the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential
community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect
Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and
transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. (Please see
Attachment 1 for a copy of the Final EIS Executive Summary, including a copy of the study area map
shown on page ES-2).
City Councilmember Ben Manvel and staff from Advance Planning/Transportation Planning have
been participants on CDOT’s Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) throughout the EIS process. The TAC members are comprised of technical staff
from the various local municipalities, plus regional, state, and federal agencies. The RCC includes
elected officials from communities throughout the North I-25 EIS project area. The RCC and TAC
members have provided comments and feedback to CDOT’s EIS project team throughout the multi-
year planning process.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) released the Final North I-25 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) document for a public review period on August 19 and is
seeking agency and public comments through October 3.
CDOT has an electronic version of the FEIS document available for public review via their website:
(http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis) and hard copies are available at the City’s
Transportation Planning office located at 281 North College Avenue and at the main Library on
Peterson Street.
In addition to reviewing the FEIS document via CDOT’s website, the City has an electronic copy
available for review/download. The following are directions for staff and City Council to access the
electronic FEIS documents (please note that the FEIS document is very large so we do not
recommend printing it):
Click on your computer’s “start menu” and select the “run” option
• Copy the following text:
explorer.exe ftp://gw-download:ven53dor@ns2.fcgov.com/North_I_25_EIS/
• Paste this text into the "Run" window's text box
49
September 20, 2011
• Click the "OK" button
• View or copy the files in this folder
It is important for the City of Fort Collins staff and City Council to provide formal comments on the
FEIS document so that our concerns, questions, and issues are part of the formal record for the
Colorado Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration to consider when
finalizing the document and completing the environmental clearance process for these identified
highway and transit improvements.
There may be instances where the City’s comments do not directly result in a change to the final EIS
document at this time, however this information will be useful input as the local, state, and federal
agencies move forward with implementing these important transportation improvements in the
future. Some of our concerns may be more applicable at the more detailed design, engineering,
and/or construction phases of these transportation projects.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CDOT has provided the following information regarding the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred
Alternative is a combination of previous highway and transit alternatives developed by CDOT
during the earlier draft phases of the EIS process. It is based upon technical data analysis as well
as upon input from the various local, state, and federal agencies and the general public.
The Preferred Alternative includes:
•Multimodal improvements on several regional corridors, including highway and transit
improvements along I-25, US287, and SH85. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, I-25
would be widened with general purpose lanes and Tolled Express Lanes (TELs). Substandard
interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs and replace
aging infrastructure.
• Commuter rail transit service using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor from
Fort Collins to the planned FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Longmont. The
commuter rail service is planned to continue to Downtown Denver’s Union Station via the
North Metro route. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to the
Northwest Rail line at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. The commuter rail line would
consist of a single track with occasional passing tracks.
• Express bus service would operate in the TELs along I-25 to connect northern Colorado
communities to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). The express bus
service would utilize existing, expanded and new park & rides along I-25.
• Commuter bus service along US85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with stops
at the communities along the route.
50
September 20, 2011
Please see Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-8) for a map illustrating the
recommended transportation improvements included in the Preferred Alternative.
PHASING
To accommodate current funding limitations, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into
phases. The first phase is estimated to cost approximately $670 million (in 2009 dollars) and would
be constructed with funding projected to be available in the amended 2035 Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP). Total cost for all of the improvements shown in the Preferred Alternative is
approximately $2.178 billion. Future phases would be constructed over time as funding is
available.
Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page
ES-18) and includes the following elements within the Fort Collins area:
• Widening I-25 between SH392/Carpenter Road and SH14/Mulberry Street - would initially
be used as continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes but would ultimately become part of
the general purpose lanes. The widening of I-25 between SH392 and SH14 would eventually
accommodate TELs. Widening would include water quality ponds, and median barrier
features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated
with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section is also included.
• Interchange replacement and upgrades – SH14/Mulberry and Prospect interchanges would
be constructed to their ultimate configurations. The interchange improvements at I-25 and
SH392 will be completed as part of the separate joint agency project already underway.
• Park & ride improvements at I-25 interchanges.
• Commuter Rail Right-of-Way (ROW) preservation – All ROW necessary to construct the
ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1.
• Initial I-25 Bus – Regional bus service connecting from Fort Collins to downtown Denver
and DIA would be initiated. Transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1 and
buses would be purchased.
The culmination of the EIS process is for CDOT to seek a Record of Decision (ROD) from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The ROD
will signify federal agency approval for the highway and transit improvements identified in Phase
I of the Final EIS (FEIS) document.
The ROD will identify funding for Phase 1 consistent with regional transportation plans included
in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s planning documents. The ROD will be prepared only
for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative.
51
September 20, 2011
For the remaining phases, the rest of the project elements would then be implemented to complete
the ultimate Preferred Alternative over time, depending upon safety factors, transportation needs,
and available resources/funding.
Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont,
constructing TELs and associated interchange upgrades between SH14/Mulberry and SH56 and
between E-470 and 120th Avenue.
Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the commuter rail from Loveland to Fort Collins,
constructing the general purpose lanes from SH14/Mulberry to SH66, and constructing TELs from
SH66 to E-470. Subsequent RODs will be prepared for these future phases, as funding becomes
available.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENTS ON THE EIS
City Council and staff have previously commented on the EIS process and draft documents over the
years, with the most recent being two City Council work sessions in 2009 (February and October)
as well as formal comments provided by the City on the Draft EIS document in 2008.
Prior Fort Collins City Council and staff comments/concerns expressed to CDOT to-date include
phasing and details of proposed commuter rail and highway improvements; impacts to wildlife
habitat areas, air quality, water quality, and stormwater contaminants; as well as the need for
bigger picture cost/benefit analysis considering long-term sustainability objectives.
Exhibit A to the Resolution contains the City of Fort Collins comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement that were submitted to CDOT in 2008 and comments from the 2009 City Council
Work sessions. This information includes CDOT responses to prior City comments as well as
new/additional City staff comments that have been added based upon review of the Final EIS
document.
Staff comments on the 2011 FEIS document are consistent with the same themes of concerns shared
with CDOT as part of the City’s comments on the prior draft EIS document and proposed
alternatives in 2008-2009.
Staff is pleased that many of our prior comments, concerns, and suggestions shared with CDOT over
the years have been incorporated in to the FEIS document such as the inclusion and importance of
the multimodal options to provide express bus and commuter rail service in the core activity centers
and corridors of our community as well as the highway and interchange improvements needed to
improve safety and capacity for automobile and freight traffic.
CDOT has recognized Fort Collins’ land use and transportation planning visions as documented
in Plan Fort Collins (City Plan and Transportation Master Plan), and also integrated the
multimodal improvements included in the City’s Mason Corridor master plan into their commuter
rail corridor planning and station locations. For example, the three future commuter rails stations
shown in the FEIS Preferred Alternative are co-located with the City’s MAX Bus Rapid Transit
52
September 20, 2011
(BRT) stations at the South Transit Center, University station, and Downtown Transit Center to
integrate regional passenger rail service with our local transit plans. Similarly, CDOT’s regional
express bus service shown along Harmony Road will integrate regional and local transit service
along this corridor from the City’s South Transit Center to the transfer center currently located at
Harmony/I-25. This interface with the Mason/MAX and Harmony corridors will support local
transit passengers wishing to connect with regional service to downtown Denver and Boulder.
While many of the prior City comments/questions/concerns have been addressed by CDOT in the
FEIS, City staff continues to have concerns regarding several areas of the FEIS document.
Highlights of these continuing concerns include the following points:
• Implementation phasing for the various transportation improvements, specifically the
phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail service extending from Loveland to Fort
Collins is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+). Staff recommends
that CDOT revise the FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as shown now, as the
“fiscally constrained plan” based on anticipated funding levels through 2035. Then, the new
“Phase 2” would include all of the remaining elements of the Preferred Alternative and be
considered the “unfunded” items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year time horizon.
These transportation improvements – highway and transit – shown in Phase 2 and 3 need
to be implemented sooner rather than later to serve the regional travel demand forecast for
2035. Dividing them into two artificial phases does not solve the issue that the future
regional transportation needs significantly outpace our current funding sources. The EIS
Preferred Alternative should be a catalyst for convening regional discussions and
partnerships to work together toward accomplishing these needs within the 2035 timeframe.
• The transportation and air quality analysis included in the FEIS results in travel demand
projections that do not reflect changing fuel costs, use of alternative fuel vehicles, changing
lifestyle choices and long-term sustainability values, as well as other potentially significant
factors that would influence the demand for interstate and transit travel in the future. Our
cities, our region, and our country are facing a very different paradigm in the future. It
seems that traditional analysis tools based on the past 50 year trends may not be accurate
for predicting future demand and travel behavior. Staff recommends that CDOT perform a
Triple Bottom Line method of analysis that factors in traditional transportation analysis
methods along with including Environmental, Economic, and Human factors. While staff
recognizes the need for addressing pressing safety, capacity and ageing infrastructure
concerns along I-25, we also hope that roadway investments made in the near future will not
become stranded assets as mode shift occurs. Fortunately the transit system in the Preferred
Alternative can accommodate increases in transit mode share over time by adding additional
transit vehicles.
• Every effort to implement non-barrier methods of noise mitigation along I-25 (for example,
where it passes Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be implemented. Staff does not support
construction of a barrier to mitigate noise in this area. In addition, potential
fencing/barriers/sound walls within other areas of Fort Collins, either along the highway
and/or commuter rail corridor, are not permitted in Fort Collins from a community planning
53
September 20, 2011
and environmental perspective. Staff requests that CDOT delete these elements and/or
include other options to maintain view sheds and wildlife movement corridors.
• Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional area should be mitigated within the same
Fort Collins regional area. Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code should be considered for locally (Fort Collins) impacted wetlands. Staff supports the
mitigation of both federally jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands throughout the
project area.
• Regarding floodplains, the mitigation in the FEIS document for each creek, river, or other
drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluation for direct and
indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are
identified for separate drainages. Staff requests that revised, site specific mitigation plans
for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to
comment on either as part of the EIS process and/or as part of the design process that moves
forward for implementation. In addition, CDOT should state that all regulations will be
followed including federal, state, and local requirements (not just the FEMA regulations as
noted in the FEIS).
• Regarding the Floodplain Report, Cache La Poudre River section, the information should
be corrected to reflect that the City of Fort Collins staff highly supports removing the split
flow on the west side of I-25 if regulatory issues can be resolved through mitigation. The
split flow current heads south and crosses Harmony Road. Eliminating this split flow would
be an important life-safety issue since Harmony Road, a major arterial into Fort Collins, is
overtopped in less than a 100-year flood.
Exhibit A to Resolution 2011-090 is a summary of more detailed comments/concerns from City staff
on the 2011 FEIS document. The City comments are organized by topic area and include analysis
of CDOT’s responsiveness to the City’s prior comments as well as new staff
comments/questions/concerns based on the FEIS.
Comments that are submitted to CDOT as part of the public review period will be noted for CDOT
response and included for review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of their
formal review process of the EIS. As part of the Record of Decision (ROD) approval process,
FHWA will consider whether or not CDOT has adequately addressed the comments received during
the public review period. The EIS Phase 2 and 3 improvements will need to go through a
subsequent formal review process by FHWA before they can be implemented. CDOT will be
confirming the future process for Phase 2 and 3 improvements for the public and local agencies as
part of the upcoming public outreach process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NEXT STEPS
CDOT is hosting a series of public meetings regarding the FEIS document from 4:30 – 7:30 p.m.
on the following dates:
54
September 20, 2011
• September 12– Southwest Weld County Building,4209 Weld County Road 24 ½ (I-25 exit
#240)
• September 13 - Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont
• September 15 – The Ranch (Budweiser Events Center), 5290 Arena Circle (I-25 exit #259)
The format for each of the public hearings will include an open house from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm with
a brief presentation beginning at 5:30 pm followed with an opportunity to comment. City staff will
be attending the public meeting on September 15th to share comments with CDOT’s EIS project
team as well as to listen to community comments.
Once CDOT and FHWA have an approved ROD for the North I-25 EIS, they are planning to move
forward with the design phase of the I-25 highway improvements from SH14 south to SH392. City
staff will continue to work with CDOT throughout this design process to carry forward the issues,
comments, and suggestions discussed during the EIS process.
In addition, CDOT and the Army Corps of Engineers are currently working on the 404 permitting
requirements for wetland mitigation and have submitted a separate permit application to the City’s
Natural Resources department for review. City staff is reviewing this information concurrently with
the EIS review and will be providing consistent comments on both the FEIS and the 404 permit
application regarding the desire for wetland mitigation to be done locally if possible.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Fort Collins at this time based on the review of
the FEIS document.
In the future, the City of Fort Collins will need to address potential opportunities for partnering with
CDOT and other local/regional agencies to fulfill the implementation of the various transportation
projects included in the FEIS Preferred Alternative.”
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning and Special Projects, stated staff has reviewed
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for its consistency with the City’s adopted plans.
CDOT is in the process of seeking a record of decision, which will involve comments from
appropriate municipalities and the public, for the Federal Highway Administration. The preferred
FEIS alternative includes highway improvements along I-25, interchange improvements, and transit
improvements. The total cost of the preferred alternative is $2.178 billion. The implementation of
the preferred alternative has been phased into three sections and CDOT is currently seeking input
on the record of decision for Phase One, which will be implemented through 2035. Staff is
concerned about the Fort Collins area improvements not being implemented until Phase Three,
which will not begin until 2055, and with the potential underestimated transportation demand
projections. Staff is also concerned about potential physical barriers created along I-25 that may
restrict viewsheds or wildlife movement corridors, and about wetland mitigation.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked CDOT for its work in the Fort Collins area and asked about the
possibility of the concerns being addressed in the final report. Johnny Olson, CDOT Regional
55
September 20, 2011
Director, thanked City staff for its work on the report. He stated many of the concerns are project
development issues and all of the concerns will be documented in a mitigation plan. Floodplain
issues and the Poudre River split will be addressed on a project planning basis.
Myron Hora, CDOT Planning and Environmental Division, stated funding challenges necessitated
phasing. The final record of decision will indicate that items can be moved forward and
implemented in earlier phases, should funding become available.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about wetland mitigation. Mr. Hora replied the plan is to mitigate
prior to making the impact. All of the disturbed wetlands will be replaced in one, high-quality
location. The wetlands disturbed in the Fort Collins area total less than an acre.
Councilmember Manvel stated he has been involved in this process for about five years and
commended the process. He questioned the use of the assumption that the price of fuel will remain
constant.
Mayor Weitkunat supported the plan and noted it will be in place when funding becomes available.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2011-090 as amended.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why no attempt was made to include possible fuel price fluctuations
in the modeling. Mr. Hora replied other assumptions, such as inflation, may have been included.
Mr. Olson thanked Council for its support of the Resolution and agreed the formation of the plan
is an important step in garnering funding for specific aspects of the plan. He thanked staff for their
work on the plan.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-091
Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing
the Conduct of City Council Meetings, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution amends the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council meetings
with regard to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings. The 30-
minute time limit that currently exists for the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings would
56
September 20, 2011
be eliminated and certain topics would be specified as not being appropriate for comment during
that portion of the meeting: matters on the discussion agenda for the meeting and quasi-judicial
matters.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2003, the Council has conducted its meetings under rules of procedure that govern the length
of meetings, citizen comment, Council questions and debate, and basic rules of order. The rules
relating to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings state that such
comment will be limited to a total of 30 minutes. Over recent years, the practice has been to allow
all citizens who wish to comment to do so, subject to limits on the amount of time that each citizen
may speak. That time limit depends on the number of speakers. In order to conform this portion
of the rules to the current practice, the Resolution would eliminate the 30-minute overall time limit
and instead allow the Mayor to set the individual time limit in order to allow as much citizen input
as reasonably practicable given the scheduled agenda for the meeting.
The Resolution also changes the Order of Business to clarify that Agenda Review will take place
before Citizen Participation, so that citizens are not prevented from speaking during Citizen
Participation regarding items that were originally scheduled for Council consideration but removed
from the agenda after publication of the agenda materials.
In addition, the Resolution would clarify the topics that are appropriate for comment by citizens
under this segment of the meeting. The first clarification is that comment is not permitted on matters
that will be addressed later in the meeting as part of the discussion agenda for the meeting. The
second is that comment is not permitted on quasi-judicial matters that may in the future be
considered by the Council during an appeal. The reason for this second clarification is twofold.
First, quasi-judicial matters must be decided solely on the basis of the information that is provided
to the original decision maker at a public hearing held for that purpose. To respect that
requirement, comments made to the Council by citizens at a regular Council meeting would have
to be transcribed and submitted to the decision maker for consideration at the quasi-judicial hearing
so that all parties directly affected by the decision could be made aware of the comments and have
an opportunity at the hearing to respond to them. In addition, the Council must remain impartial
if it is to hear an appeal of the original decision makers’ decision. Comments made during Citizen
Participation may compromise the Council’s impartiality if the matter addressed by the citizens
later comes to the Council on appeal.”
City Attorney Roy stated this Resolution would make three changes to Council’s rules of procedures
for conducting City Council meetings. It would change the order of the meeting by moving the City
Manager’s Agenda Review prior to Citizen Participation, eliminate the 30-minute citizen
participation time limit, and would specify two types of topics as not appropriate for citizen
participation comment: items already on the discussion agenda and comments relating to quasi-
judicial matters. City Attorney Roy detailed the definition of quasi-judicial.
57
September 20, 2011
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, expressed concern this change could create the impression
that Council is unapproachable. He questioned the language relating to items which “may” be
subject to litigation.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, disagreed with City Attorney Roy’s legal interpretation and
suggested Council table the issue until potential changes to the appeal process have been made.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, discussed Federalist governments and encouraged
leniency in citizen participation.
Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and the Environment, opposed the Resolution and
supported an examination of best processes in other communities.
Councilmember Manvel stated the item may need additional work.
City Attorney Roy noted it would be possible to document and transcribePlanning and Zoning Board
comments made to Council as part of the appeal record, although it would require some resources.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated his support for the Resolution is questionable because he did not
support limiting citizen comment on quasi-judicial matters that may be the subject of future
consideration by Council.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Councilmembers can recuse themselves based on the fact that they
may no longer feel impartial.
City Attorney Roy stated Councilmembers may recuse themselves at any point; however, a judge
has the right to determine whether a reasonable person in that situation would still be impartial.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-091.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated Councilmembers appreciate citizen opinions; however, quasi-
judicial matters are part of Council and these changes are in the best interest of transparency.
Mayor Weitkunat stated these changes are a result of an increasing City size and additional land use
and development issues.
Councilmember Manvel noted the quasi-judicial items are not limited to solely Planning and Zoning
Board items. City Attorney Roy replied the Building Review Board is responsible for licensing
decisions, outside the land use context, which could also be quasi-judicial. However, the vast
majority of quasi-judicial matters are related to specific development proposals.
Councilmember Poppaw expressed concern regarding the quasi-judicial aspect of the Resolution.
58
September 20, 2011
Councilmember Troxell stated the Resolution is designed to maintain fairness.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported the aspect of the process involving citizen participation at each
agenda item, regardless of where it falls on the agenda. He suggested the planning process may
need review and improvement prior to making a decision regarding the quasi-judicial issues.
City Attorney Roy asked for Council direction as to how the Resolution should be reworked, should
it opt to not take action on the quasi-judicial aspect of the Resolution.
Councilmember Manvel opposed pulling out the quasi-judicial aspect of the Resolution as the
Resolution essentially codifies the existing practice.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested eliminating the word “precisely” in reference to the meeting start time,
and changing the phrase relating to Council’s breaks to reference “short” rather than a specific time.
Councilmembers Kottwitz and Troxell accepted the friendly amendment to make the changes.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested language changes relating to the quasi-judicial aspect. City Attorney
Roy suggested the following language: “particular land use proposals that, if approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board or hearing officer, would be subject to appeal to the City Council.”
Councilmember Poppaw offered a friendly amendment to add City Attorney Roy’s suggested
language. Councilmembers Kottwitz and Troxell accepted the amendment.
City Attorney Roy stated the word “pending” could be applied to land use proposals.
Councilmember Poppaw suggested a friendly amendment to replace the word “particular” with
“pending” in the aforementioned language. Councilmembers Kottwitz and Troxell accepted the
amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for a definition of “pending.” City Attorney Roy replied he would
interpret the word to mean that an application has been filed with the City for an Overall
Development Plan or Project Development Plan.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 2011-091, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
59
September 20, 2011
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
60
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Kathleen Benedict
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, will appropriate funding in the amount of
$60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
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
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 18, 2011
STAFF: Patrick Rowe, Terry Tyrell
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second 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
Right-of-way acquisition continues for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, pertains to the final acquisition phase of the BRT Project
and is comprised of 15 separate properties ready 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
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
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 12
easements for slope and utility purposes, and temporary interests necessary for construction purposes.
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 18, 2011
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends 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 will be amended to require that the City pay postage
on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
This Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to add language clarifying that ballots will be mailed to inactive
registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”, but who voted in the last presidential
election.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. June 23, 2011 Memo Analyzing Possible Changes to Mail Ballot Provisions
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
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
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
the non-presidential election two years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
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, and to each inactive registered elector with a status designation of
“inactive-failed to vote”, but 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 may provide
the necessary postage or, if not so paid by the elector, the 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 18, 2011
STAFF: Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Postponement of Second 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
to December 20, 2011.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is being postponed to December 20, 2011 to allow time for public outreach.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends postponement of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the
Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public
Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,495,000.
Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments
is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to
raise the total City debt by 0.8%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease.
Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle
Public Finance at 2.35 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the
agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to
a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease
terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase
financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins.
All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City
realizes all cost savings.
The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in
accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community.
An "Equipment Request" justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece of fleet equipment is on file with Fleet
Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected
maintenance costs, fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been
approved in accordance with departmental procedures.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City's lease-purchase policy provides that:
The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment,
vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This
method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have
developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of
operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year.
The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds
equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation
by the Council each year.
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 11
Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are:
* Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment.
* Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog.
* Conserving operating reserves.
* Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life
of the equipment.
* Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease-
purchasing.
It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the
option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment.
According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total
expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property;
and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the
agreements, including all optional renewal terms.
Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies
include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden.
The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following:
Description Quantity Cost
Traffic - Replacement Vehicle
Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736
Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151
Transportation Fund Total: $ 27,887
Parks - Replacement Vehicle
Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000
Forestry - Replacement Vehicle
Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736
Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870
Forestry Total: 93,606
Building Inspection
Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275
Operations Services - Replacement
Vehicles
Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918
Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000
Ops Services Total: 55,918
Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles &
Radios
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000
Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 36,000
Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188
Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 292,188
Investigations - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000
Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872
Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872
Police Information Services
Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000
Equipment Fund Total: $ 593,859
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 11
Police Patrol - New Officer Vehicles
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Patrol Vehicle equipment 1 lot 30,000
Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 170,000
General Fund Total: $ 170,000
MIS
Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124
Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130
Data & Communications Fund Total: $ 703,254
Lease Total: $ 1,495,000
Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new and replacement vehicles and equipment.
Information on replacement units is given below.
See Attachment 1 for a list of vehicle and equipment purchases organized by department.
The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement. These
units are included in the financing list, above.
Department Old unit: Age:
Miles /
hours: New unit:
Disposal of
old unit: Notes:
Traffic Ops 2270 14 119,497 Pickup Auction Unit beyond useful life
Parks 2452 11 101,119 1-ton flatbed Auction Unit beyond useful life
Forestry 2449 17 4888 Chipper truck Auction Unit beyond useful life
Building Insp. 26700 9 100,673 Small pickup Auction Unit beyond useful life
Ops Services 2653, 26300 13
94,870 &
90,539
HVAC &
Electrician
vans Auction Units beyond useful life
Patrol
1167, 11033,
11020, 11008,
11055 9-10 > 90,000 Patrol cars Auction Units beyond useful life
Investigations
11608, 21602,
21620 5-10 >90,000 Inv. cars Auction Units beyond useful life
Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement vehicles arrive.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Due to improvements in emissions and engine technology, new vehicles and equipment will use less fuel and produce
fewer emissions than the units being replaced.
Police vehicles are replacements except for those needed for newly-authorized positions. This represents an increase
in fleet size, with a corresponding increase in fuel usage and emissions. The new officers to be added by Police were
approved by Council and vehicles must be added to accommodate the increase in staffing levels. Those vehicles are
as fuel efficient as can be provided pursuant to the needs of patrol and investigation officers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vehicle and Equipment Purchases by Department
ATTACHMENT 1
Vehicle and Equipment Purchases by Department
Description Quantity Cost
Traffic - Replacement Vehicle
Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736
Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151
Traffic Total: 27,887
Parks - Replacement Vehicle
Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000
Forestry - Replacement Vehicle
Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736
Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870
Forestry Total: 93,606
Building Inspection
Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275
Operations Services - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918
Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000
Ops Services Total: 55,918
Police Patrol - New & Replacement Vehicles & Radios
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 10 280,000
Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000
Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 66,000
Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188
Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 462,188
Investigations - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000
Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872
Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872
Police Information Services
Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000
MIS
Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124
Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130
MIS Total: 703,254
Lease Total: $ 1,495,000
ORDINANCE NO. 132, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY
LEASE-PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR SUCH PURPOSE
WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to provide certain real and personal property
for City purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, the City
Charter, and Section 31-15-801, C.R.S. (the “Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in
order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or
proprietary purposes, and such agreements may include options to purchase and acquire title to such
leased or rented property; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Pinnacle Public Finance to lease
equipment to the City, consisting of the following:
Description Quantity Cost
Traffic - Replacement Vehicle
Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736
Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151
Transportation Fund Total: $ 27,887
Parks - Replacement Vehicle
Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000
Forestry - Replacement Vehicle
Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736
Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870
Forestry Total: 93,606
Building Inspection
Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275
Operations Services - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918
Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000
Ops Services Total: 55,918
Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles & Radios
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000
Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 36,000
Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188
Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 292,188
Investigations - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000
Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872
Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872
Police Information Services
Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000
Equipment Fund Total: $ 593,859
Police Patrol - New Officer Vehicles
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Patrol Vehicle equipment 1 lot 30,000
Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 170,000
General Fund Total: $ 170,000
MIS
Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124
Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130
Data & Communications Fund Total: $ 703,254
Lease Total: $ 1,495,000
and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to lease
the above-described equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also providing financing for
the Equipment acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the
leasing and financing of the Equipment; and
WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase
term of five (5) years; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments to result from the proposed
arrangement will require payments by the City in the sum of $79,447 per quarter, and that payments
in that amount are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the Equipment; and
WHEREAS, funds for the 2012 lease payments are included in the 2012 budget; and
WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct or
indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X §20(4)(b) of
the Colorado Constitution and may therefore be entered into without voter approval; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the 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 previous appropriations for that
fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
-2-
Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-purchase
agreement for the above-described Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in accordance with the
following terms and provisions:
a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the
agreement through December 31, 2011. The agreement shall provide for
renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of five (5) years,
subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The
total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, shall not
exceed the useful life of the property.
b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such
agreement but subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for such
payments.
c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal terms,
the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the principal,
$1,495,000, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to 2.35% per year, which is a
reasonable amount.
d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on
any quarterly payment date of any term. The option to purchase shall be
exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said date and the unpaid
principal due after said date.
e. If the City renews the agreement for all the renewal terms and makes all
payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised the
option to purchase said Equipment.
f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall
not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues.
Section 2. That the amount of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED
EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($27,887) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is
hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Transportation Fund from unanticipated revenue in the
appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 3. That the amount of FIVE HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND,
EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY NINE DOLLARS ($593,859) to be provided under the lease-purchase
agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Equipment Fund from unanticipated revenue
in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment for Parks, Forestry, Building
Inspection, Operations Services, and Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
-3-
Section 4. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($170,000) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for
expenditure in the General Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the
acquisition of vehicles for Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase
agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 5. That the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND, TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR DOLLARS ($703,254) to be provided under the lease-purchase
agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from
unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 6. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of the
Act is intended by the Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the City Charter and shall supersede, to the extent
permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and
Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code
to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and
appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of Fort Collins.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Parks and Recreation Board has long wanted to promote awareness and appreciation for the value that the Park
and Recreation system has on the quality of life for the citizens and visitors of Fort Collins. The Board has discussed
ways to communicate these values to the community but there has been no formal way that they can, as a group forward
these ideas. The Board is requesting this amendment to the City Code because it is very interested in promoting the
positive aspects of parks and recreation to the citizens of Fort Collins, but the current Code language does not empower
the Board to do so.
The amendment would also clean up outdated department and entity names in Section 2-338.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This has been a Parks and Recreation Board discussion item since April 2011. At its August 24 and September 14,
2011 meetings, the Board discussed the wording of the Code modification and voted unanimously to recommend
Council adopt the Code amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, August 24, 2011 and September 14, 2011
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
September 14, 2011
DRAFT
Communications & Stewardship Sub-Committee
Waiting for approval of update to Bylaws to determine which way to proceed. Rob
Cagen and Michael Chalona spoke with Kelly Ohlson regarding the delay to update the
Parks & Recreation Bylaw language to include “promote awareness and understanding
of, and appreciation for, the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to
the quality of our city”. After the proposal was presented to the Leadership Team, they
felt that other Boards bylaws should be reviewed to see if it made sense to add this
language to their bylaws as well, or if it should even be added.
Discussion:
Kelly – The reason for the hesitation, is because historically, there have been issues with
other Boards going beyond their boundaries. So, while this added language may work for
the P&R Board, the question came up; “what about other Board?”
Board – We understand the issue with the Code, but we’ve been working on this for
about six months, and a delay in allowing this language to be added to our bylaws while
they examine other Boards will reduce our chance to engage our target audience; which is
the schools.
Kelly – I’ll visit with the team on Monday, September 19, to see if we can move the
Parks & Recreation bylaws update along, and allow the other Board to “catch up”.
Board – We do have respect for the process, but we’re only asking to have the ability to
promote sustainability and appreciation for the parks and recreation facilities; which
doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request.
Kelly – If you can send me some talking points that I can refer to at the Leadership
meeting, that would be great.
* Note: P&R Board worked via e-mail on Thursday & Friday and sent the
following talking points to Kelly on September 16:
• As Parks & Recreation Board Members, we’re amazed by all that the City is
doing with parks and recreation, and want to share the information we’ve
learned with the citizens of Fort Collins. To this end, our communication
subcommittee spent most of 2011 researching the optimal way to do so.
• We have already spent five months trying to expand our bylaws.
• One of the Board’s top priorities is to coordinate with Poudre School District
(PSD) to improve stewardship in parks to reduce vandalism and other
inappropriate uses. If we have to wait for other boards and go as a group it may
put us out 9-12 months. If this is the case, not only will we lose momentum, and
enthusiasm, but we’ll lose an entire school year.”
ORDINANCE NO. 133, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-338 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO THE DUTIES AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
WHEREAS, Section 2-338 of the City Code sets forth the functions of the City's Parks and
Recreation Board (the “Board); and
WHEREAS, those functions are presently limited to advising the City Council and City staff
with regard to rules, regulation, policies, and administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the
Parks and Recreation Department and assisting the City in cooperating with Poudre School District
and other organizations and individuals interested in the City’s Parks and Recreation programs; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meetings on August 24 and September 14, 2011, the Board voted
to recommend that the City Council adopt a proposed City Code amendment expanding the Board’s
functions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has recommended to the City Council that the Board’s functions be
expanded to include publicly promoting awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the
value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of life in our community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
expand the functions of the Board accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 2-338 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2-338. Functions.
The duties and functions of the Board shall be as follows:
(1) To advise and make recommendations to the Cultural, Library and
Recreational ServicesCulture, Parks, Recreation and Environment Director
and the City Council for their approval as to rules, regulations, policies,
administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the Department,parks
and recreation but excluding matters relating to the operation and
maintenance of City-owned golf courses and cemeteries;
(2) To assist the City in cooperating with the Poudre R-1 School District and
other organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and
recreation programs.;
(3) To promote community awareness and understanding of, and appreciation
for, the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the
quality of life in Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Ann Turnquist
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions
Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties.
The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead),
or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility
naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an
Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The purpose of this policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach for the official naming of parks,
recreational facilities, cultural facilities, natural areas, trails and civic buildings, or portions thereof.
The City’s objectives for naming of facilities include:
• To name City facilities through a consistent, fair and appropriate process utilizing established criteria.
• To ensure that City-owned facilities are easily identified and located.
• To encourage the dedication of lands, facilities, or donations by individuals and organizations.
City-owned facilities include all property assets under the City’s ownership and control including parks, recreational
and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, and trails. Such facilities will not include streets which are named
according to policies established through the City Code Sec. 24-91 and as a part of the Development Review Process.
CITY COUNCIL NAMED FACILITIES:
Under the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-141 Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities), the City
Council has the authority to select or approve the naming of a facility or a portion of a facility that is to be named after
individuals, organizations (e.g., foundations) or corporations. Provisions include the following:
A. Donor Naming Policy
In circumstances where a significant financial donation has been made for the acquisition, construction or improvement
of the facility, the facility or a portion of the facility may be named either for the donor or in consideration of the wishes
of the donor. The following guidelines shall be used when such a name is proposed:
1. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to the total cost of the facility or portion of the facility
to be named. As a guideline, a donation of 75 percent (75%) or more of the value of the facility, feature or
portion of the facility to be named is a baseline in determining a naming or recognition opportunity.
2. It is the City’s intent to encourage and recognize private contributions. If a significant donation is received
from the private sector or an individual, significant consideration will be given to a donor’s naming or
recognition request while balancing the public interest.
3. If the City does not believe a donation is sufficiently large to warrant the naming of an entire facility after the
donor individual or organization, the City may offer the donor the opportunity to name a part of a facility or a
feature of the facility to recognize the donation.
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 13
B. Non-Donor Honorees
A facility or portion thereof may be named for a community member or other significant contributor to the community
(living or deceased), subject to approval of City Council. If such a naming is to be considered, the City may solicit
nominations for such naming. Such nominations will be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers and
appropriate staff members. The ad hoc committee will make recommendations to the full City Council regarding the
nominations.
Names which are proposed to honor a non-donor deceased person shall be subject to a minimum 12 month waiting
period following the death of such honoree. Such honorees should have provided significant service or direct benefit
to the community which will endure over many years.
When the City Council is to select or approve the name of a facility or portion thereof, an ad hoc Council Committee
will first review the proposal in preparation for formal consideration by City Council. Names selected pursuant to this
Ordinance will be adopted by Council Resolution. The Council may solicit input from the public and City boards and
commissions as deemed appropriate and advisable.
The proposed Resolution will include the following information:
• A description of the contributions of the individual, organization, or corporation to the City.
• Written documentation of approval by next of kin of the person to be honored (if available/possible) is required
as part of the proposal if the facility is to be named after a deceased person. Exceptions to approval of a
relative or executor will be considered when no living relatives can be identified or are unable to participate
in such approval process.
• A provision allowing the City to change or modify the approved name in the future, should such a modification
be necessary for the public good (e.g., change of use for the facility; future negative associations with the
selected name, etc.), regardless of whether the naming was for a donor honoree or non-donor honoree.
ADMINISTRATIVELY NAMED FACILITIES
Other naming of facilities will occur in compliance with an Administrative Policy approved by the City Manager.
Provisions of the policy include the process for naming of facilities which are not named after individuals, organizations
(e.g., foundations) or corporations. This authority is outlined in the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-142 Naming of
properties and facilities for other than persons or entities.) The attached draft administrative policy outlines the process
to be used for administrative naming of City-owned facilities and properties. (See Attachment 1)
OTHER NAMING POLICIES
The proposed Ordinance applies to City-owned parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas,
and trails. The provisions do not apply to the naming of City streets. Arterial and collector streets are named through
provisions of the City Code Section 24-91.
Sec. 24-91. List of street names.
All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to
be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council. The list of street names shall
be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens
of the City or Growth Management Area whom the Council would like to honor posthumously, and
such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the Council may approve. With respect
to citizens of the City whom the Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have
devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former
Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a
former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall
be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which
are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of
street names, and the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services shall strike names
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 13
from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall
promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk.
Local streets are named by developers as part of the Development Review Process. During the Development Review
Process, staff reviews the proposed names of local streets to ensure that the selected names do not duplicate existing
names, create confusion with other similar names within the City or adjacent areas, or are “sound-alike” to existing
street names. When staff finds problems with a developer’s proposed names, they will reject the names under these
criteria, but otherwise do not make changes to those names.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Administrative Naming Policy
Attachment 1
DRAFT
Administrative Naming Policy
The City Manager is authorized to select or approve the name of a facility or portion of a facility
(e.g., a room in a facility) that is not named after individuals, organizations, or corporations.
These facilities may include parks, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, natural areas, trails
and civic buildings, or portions thereof.
A. Administrative Naming Conventions:
1. Most facilities will be named from any one of the following categories:
a. Geographic location (e.g., neighborhood, historic area, etc.)
b. Unique natural features (e.g., Rabbit Brush Park)
c. Specific purpose of the facility (e.g., Senior Center, Museum of
Discovery, Utilities Service Center, etc.)
d. Place of historical or cultural significance
2. Names that are similar to existing parks, natural areas, trails, recreation facilities,
cultural facilities and civic buildings in the City system (or other systems in the
region) will not be considered if they cause confusion with existing facilities.
3. Facilities shall not be named after products or commodities.
4. Naming rights for City facilities shall not be offered for sale or at auction, separate
from the provisions of this policy.
B. Administrative Name Selection Process:
For facilities or for portions of facilities which are to be named by the City Manager:
The Manager may solicit input from the City Council, the public and City Boards and
Commissions as deemed appropriate and advisable.
A Service Area, Unit or Department may submit to the City Manager a request for
naming a park, natural area, trail, recreation facility, cultural facility or civic building,
or portion thereof.
Those submitting a naming request should show how the proposed name is consistent
with the criteria stated in this policy.
The City Manager will review the proposal for adherence to the Facility Naming
Policy and approve the name in writing.
C. Related Code Provisions:
In accordance with City Code Sec. 23-141. Naming of Properties and facilities for
persons or entities adopted by City Council on ________, the City Council is responsible
for naming City facilities or properties when the such facility is to be named for an
individual (living or deceased), an organization (e.g. foundations) or a corporation.
Arterial and collector streets are named in accordance with City Code Sec. 24-91. List of
street names; local or residential streets are named by developers as part of the
development review process.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 134, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE V, OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS RELATED TO
THE NAMING OF CITY PROPERTIES AND FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City Code is silent as to the process for naming of City properties and
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed a concern about establishing a systematic and
consistent approach for the official naming of parks, recreational and cultural facilities, natural areas,
trails, and other civic lands, buildings and facilities, and portions thereof; and
WHEREAS, the objectives to be served through the naming of such City properties and
facilities include:
• fairness and appropriateness;
• easy identification and location of City facilities by users, public officials and
the general public; and
• encouragement of the dedication of lands and facilities and the donation of
funds by individuals and organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has proposed and recommended to the Council the procedures
and standards for naming of City properties and facilities as set forth below as new City Code
Sections 23-141 and 23-142; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that this issue should be addressed by amendments
to Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities Generally, as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities
Generally, be amended by the addition of a new Section 23-141 to read as follows:
Sec. 23-141. Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities.
(a) The requirements of this Section shall apply to the naming of City-owned
or operated properties or facilities for persons or entities, including but not limited
to individuals, families, designated groups of persons, and for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations and associations. Any property assets under the City’s
ownership and control including parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic
buildings, natural areas, trails, or any portions of such properties or facilities shall
be named in accordance with this Section, except that the naming of streets and
alleys, to the extent carried out by the City, shall be governed by § 24-91.
(b) The naming of a City property or facility, or portion thereof, for one or more
persons or entities shall be approved by the City Council by resolution, after review
by an ad hoc City Council committee formed for the purpose of selecting and
recommending a name for such property, facility or portion thereof. The formation
of an ad hoc naming committee may be initiated by request of the City Manager or
the Mayor or by majority vote of the City Council. An ad hoc naming committee
may seek such public input, and may request and consider proposals and
recommendations of City boards and commissions and the City Manager, as said
committee deems appropriate. A resolution approving a City property or facility
name pursuant to this Section shall include a description of the donation or other
significant service or benefit to the community, that is the basis for the designation
of the name approved. The resolution shall further provide that the City may modify
or remove the approved name in the future, in the event that the City Council
determines such modification or removal to be appropriate in light of changed
circumstances or other matters of public interest or convenience. Examples of such
grounds for modification of an approved name include a change of use of the facility;
a change in public perception of the name, or development of a new purpose or
priority for the property named.
(c) In the event that a significant financial donation has been made for the
acquisition, construction or improvement of a property or facility, the property or
facility or a portion thereof may be named either for the donor or in consideration of
the wishes of the donor. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to
the total cost of the property or facility or portion thereof to be named. Generally,
the donation should be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the
property, facility, feature or portion thereof to be named. If such a donation is
received from an individual, family or entity, the City Council will give significant
weight to a naming or recognition request from the donor, but will consider such a
request in light of other policy or practical priorities and concerns and the public
interest in general. In some instances, the naming of a portion of a property or facility
or a specific feature of the property or facility for a donor may be an appropriate
alternative to naming the entire property or facility.
(d) A property or facility or a portion thereof may be named for a community
member or other significant contributor to the community, after solicitation of
nominations from the general public for appropriate names of honorees. Other than
names for donors as described in subparagraph (c), above, to be eligible for
consideration under this subparagraph (d) a name must be either the name of a living
person or an entity, or the name of a person deceased for no less than twelve (12)
months at the time of nomination. Persons or entities for which a property or facility
or portion thereof is named hereunder shall be determined to have provided
significant service or direct benefit to the community that has endured, or will
endure, over many years.
-2-
(e) Prior to final approval of the naming of a property or facility is named for a
deceased person, the City shall make reasonable efforts to identify, locate and obtain
the consent of next of kin of such person.
Section 2. That Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities
Generally, be amended by the addition of a new Section 23-142 to read as follows:
Sec. 23-142. Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or
entities.
(a) The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules and
procedures for the selection and approval of names for City-owned or operated
properties or facilities, except as specified in § 23-141 and § 24-91. All
administrative naming of properties and facilities, and portions thereof, shall be in
accordance with such rules and procedures.
(b) The City Manager shall not name City owned or operated properties or
facilities, or portions thereof, for products or commodities, and shall not offer for
sale or auction the name or naming rights of any such property, facility or portion
thereof.
(c) In connection with the naming of such properties and facilities, the City
Manager shall generally give preference to the use of names associated with
geographic location, unique natural, historical or cultural features or significance,
and the specific purposes of the property or facility, and the avoidance of confusion
with existing facilities or locations.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
Jason Licon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-093 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Award and Agreement with the U.S. Department
of Transportation for a Grant Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the United States Department of
Transportation. The grant is in the amount of $221,500. The grant will be used to fund the Airport’s efforts to address
the air service needs of the community through completion of an air service development, communications and
marketing plan for the Airport and development of a plan for the wingless flight program.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
With funds made available through the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program, the Airport, in
conjunction with the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins, plans to develop and implement a community based air
service strategic plan with goals and objectives of meeting the growth needs of their aviation requirements needs for
their citizens and businesses. This plan will work to increase awareness of Airport initiatives, support incumbent
carriers, provide new jobs and improve the region’s access to the air transportation network. This plan will also include
substantial public engagement in the local Airport sponsor communities to further enhance the relationship between
the Airport and community members, including the general public and business interests.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The funding derived from the grant totals $221,500, and the Grant requires local matching cash funds in the amount
of $19,602, which are available for appropriation from the Airport Fund balance, and a local matching “in kind”
contribution valued at $16,335, to be provided by the Airport.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-093
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT
AWARD AND AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR A GRANT PERTAINING TO THE
FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland jointly own and operate the Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Cities have applied for a grant under the Small Community Air Service
Development Program from the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) in the amount of
$221,500 (the “Grant”) to fund a the Airport’s efforts to address the air service needs of the
community through completion of an air service development, communications and marketing plan
for the Airport and development of a plan for the wingless flight program; and
WHEREAS, the DOT has notified that the Grant has been awarded to the Airport on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Grant Award and Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (the “Grant Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Grant requires local matching cash funds in the amount of $19,602 (the
“Local Cash Funds”), which are available for appropriation from the Airport Fund balance, and a
local matching “in kind” contribution valued at $16,335 to be provided by the Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Grant funds and the Local Cash Funds required under the Grant Agreement
will be appropriated by the City of Loveland as a supplement appropriation to the Airport’s 2011
budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Grant Agreement and the Grant Assurances attached thereto are
hereby approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager is authorized, following consultation with the City
Attorney, to modify the Grant Agreement in form or substance as deemed necessary to effectuate
the purposes of this resolution or to protect the interests of the City.
Section 3. That the City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed
to execute the Grant Agreement, and the Grant Assurances attached thereto, on behalf of the City
of Fort Collins.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of October A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
Jason Licon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital
Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues,
contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This
Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share
of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal
and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport
capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron
rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport
business development.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional aviation facility and
became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, located approximately 16 miles southeast
of downtown Fort Collins, just west of Interstate 25 on Earhart Road. The Airport is operated as a joint venture
between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing
equally in policy-making and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating
costs associated with the Airport.
The Airport’s mission is to provide a safe and efficient air transportation airport facility to the general public and aviation
community by providing airport facilities that meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety standards and to
implement a plan that ensures the efficient development of the Airport to meet the needs of the Fort Collins and
Loveland communities.
Airport revenues cover operating costs and capital projects. Each city contributes equal funding for Airport operating
and capital costs. Airport development and improvement funds are also received, for eligible projects, from the FAA
and the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
The annual operating costs for 2012 for the Airport are $779,550, and the City of Fort Collins contribution is $389,775.
In addition, the Airport Manager is recommending additional capital expenditures and has identified the following
funding sources:
FAA Entitlement Grant $ 1,000,000
State Grant 108,500
Airport Revenues 108,500
Total $ 1,217,000
The additional capital expenditures will be to continue runway improvements and for utility master planning and design
engineering to accommodate Airport business development, $1,217,000. Thus, the City of Fort Collins appropriation
for the capital expenditures identified above is $608,500 (50% of the total).
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM15
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance appropriates the City’s 50% share ($998,275) of the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2011 for Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport budget. The City of Loveland manages the Airport’s budget and finances; however,
since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50% portion of the
Airport budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 135, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF 2012 FISCAL YEAR
OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS FOR
THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, in 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland (the “Cities”) agreed
to establish a regional general aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-
Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Airport is operated as a joint venture between the Cities, with each city
retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-making and management, and
assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated May 16, 2000,
between the Cities for the joint operation of the Airport (the “IGA”), the Airport Manager is
responsible for preparing the Airport’s annual operating budget and submitting it to the Cities for
their approval; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Manager has submitted for City Council consideration a 2012
Airport operating budget totaling $779,550 and the City’s share is $389,775; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to authorize the City of Loveland to
appropriate the City’s share of the necessary funds for operating costs of the Airport, totaling
$389,775, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Manager recommends the following capital improvements for 2012,
totaling $1,217,000, that are not included in the 2011 Airport operating budget:
Taxiway Improvements and Utility Master
Planning and Design Engineering $1,217,000
WHEREAS, funding for the 2012 capital improvements has been identified as follows:
FAA Entitlement Grants $ 1,000,000
State Grant 108,500
Airport Revenues 108,500
Total $ 1,217,000
WHEREAS, the City’s 50% share of the 2012 capital improvement costs is $608,500; and
WHEREAS, under the IGA, the City’s share of existing and unanticipated Airport revenue
will be held and disbursed by the City of Loveland as an agent on behalf of the Cities since the City
of Loveland provides finance and accounting services for the Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b), of the City Charter, any expense
or liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an
appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2012 Airport operating budget.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS
($389,775) to be expended to defray the operating costs of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of SIX HUNDRED
EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($608,500) to be used for 2012 capital
improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Matt Robenalt
Kathy Cardona
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown Development Authority
for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority is presented for First Reading.
Ordinance No. 137, 2011, sets the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt
service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown
Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since 2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown
Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012.
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond proceeds. Examples
of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday light display, facade improvements, the
enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and participation in the river district improvement projects, etc.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) was created in 1981 with the purpose, according to State statue,
of planning and implementing projects and programs within the boundaries of the DDA. By state statue the purpose
of the ad valorem tax levied on all real and personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five
(5) mills, shall be for the budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development
that specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes of the State
statue and the Plan of Development the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various tax increment bonds, which
require debt servicing.
The DDA staff and Budget Committee are very cognizant of the changed revenue environment of the organization and
economic conditions, and have made a strong effort to budget conservatively to reflect this climate.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is requesting approval of the DDA Operations and Maintenance
budget, for fiscal year 2012, in the amount of $814,380. It is also requesting approval of the DDA debt payment
commitments in the amount of $1,652,346 for 2012 obligations.
Uses:
Personnel Services: $452,768
Contractual Professional Services: 318,114
Purchased Supplies and Commodities: 23,635
Other: 19,863
Total $814,380
The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service payments for
2012.
Uses:
Debt Payment: 2012 $1,652,346
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 8, 2011 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its proposed
budget for 2012 totaling $2,466,726 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative
costs incurred by the DDA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of the Downtown Development Authority.
2. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-03 Recommending to Council the
Determining and Fixing of the Mill Levy of the DDA for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012
3. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-04 Recommending to Council the
Budget of the Estimated Amounts Required to Pay the Expenses of Conducting the Business of the DDA for
the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012
4. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-05 Recommending to Council the
Appropriation of $1,368,973 and $283,373 from the DDA Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service and
the DDA’s Obligation for the Civic Center Parking Structure for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012
5. Powerpoint presentation
E VINE DR
RIVERSIDE AVE
SMITH ST
E ELIZABETH ST
S MASON ST
N COLLEGE AVE
S LEMAY AVE
MATHEWS ST
LOCUST ST
WHEDBEE ST
PETERSON ST
E LINCOLN AVE
E MYRTLE ST
LINDEN ST
STOVER ST
REMINGTON ST
S COLLEGE AVE
12TH ST
MAPLE ST
E PLUM ST
9TH ST
W OAK ST
S HOWES ST
CHERRY ST
E OLIVE ST
W OLIVE ST
CONIFER ST
E OAK ST
E MULBERRY ST
BUCKINGHAM ST
S MELDRUM ST
W LAUREL ST
W MYRTLE ST
LAPORTE AVE
HEMLOCK ST
WILLOW ST
S WHITCOMB ST
N LEMAY AVE
REDWOOD ST
1ST ST
3RD ST
2ND ST
W MAGNOLIA ST
N SHERWOOD ST
W MULBERRY ST
N WHITCOMB ST
W MOUNTAIN AVE
CA
J
E
TA
N
ST
10TH ST
COWAN ST
N MASON ST
O
S
I
A
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
1
Ordinance No. 137, 2011 addresses the following:
a. Within DDA boundary, sets DDA property tax levy at 5 mills for 2012
b. Appropriation of DDA’s Operations & Maintenance (“O&M”) Budget
c. Appropriation of 2012 debt payment expenditures on existing bond
and lease obligations
DDA statute requires annual Council action on each item listed above.
This ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the
DDA funded with bond proceeds.
1
DDA Funding Sources
5 mill Property Tax Levy
Funds O&M budget to operate organization.
•personnel •contractual •professional •purchased services supplies services services
Property Tax Increment
Services debt on bonds and leases approved by City Council on behalf of
the DDA Board. Bond proceeds used to fulfill Board commitments to:
•facade •capital •grants •maintenance •art •project and to projects planning - culture public the city obligations investments private improvements
2
ATTACHMENT 5
2
Questions for DDA Staff?
3
ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) has been duly
organized in accordance with Section 31-25-804, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, the DDA Board of Directors (the “DDA Board”), acting
under the provisions of Section 31-25-816, C.R.S., adopted a budget for the fiscal year beginning
January 1, 2012 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment during fiscal year
2012 of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate the sum of TWO MLLION,
FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY SIX DOLLARS
($2,466,726) in the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund and the Debt Service Fund for the fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012, to be used as follows:
DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 814,380
DDA Debt Service Fund 1,652,346
$2,466,726
WHEREAS, the DDA Board has recommended to the City Council a mill levy of five mills
upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the DDA District, such levy
representing the amount of taxes for DDA purposes necessary to provide for payment during the
ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and
WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board
of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2011.
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 the Downtown
Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED
FOURTEEN THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($814,380), to be
expended for the authorized purposes of the DDA.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund the sum of ONE MILLION, SIX HUNDRED FIFTY
TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX DOLLARS ($1,652,346), for payment
of debt service on previously issued and outstanding bonds, to pay the City’s investment service
charge, and to be used to cover the DDA’s one-third share of payment on the Civic Center Parking
Structure.
Section 3. That the 2012 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed
valuation of all taxable property within the DDA District as of December 31, 2011 shall be five (5)
mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for the District purposes to provide for payment
during the aforementioned fiscal year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the
DDA. Said mill levy shall be certified to the County Assessor and the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, by the City Clerk as provided by law.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and
Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant
Investment Fees.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater
Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant
Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates,
Fees and Charges.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric
Development Fees and Charges.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant
Investment Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012.
% Increase
Water 6.0%
Wastewater 8.0%
Electric 8.3%
The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no change in the
monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to study proposed changes to the
electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as “RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15,
2011, to recommend changes to the RESR. All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced
above. The electric rate increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed
changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages.
With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single family customer’s
monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions to the RESR are approved by Council
at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see an additional increase in costs. The later change will
depend on the rate form option preferred by City Council.
Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also go into effect if
the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment fees (PIFs) and a 1.2% increase
in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater PIFs is recommended. On average, electric
development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for residential and decrease less than 1% for commercial.
Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances above.
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Monthly Utility Rates
The recommended 2012 rate increases differ from the rates that were proposed in the original 2011-2012 Budget.
The changes are summarized in Attachment 1 and further explained by the staff memos included as Attachments 2
and 3. All proposed rates would be effective for meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
A. Monthly Water Rates (Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water
Rates and Charges.)
Staff proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate classes. With the
proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer’s monthly bill will increase 6% as shown in the following
table:
Single Family
Typical Use
2011 Monthly
Water Bill
Proposed 2012
Monthly Water Bill $ Increase % Increase
January
5000 gallons $24.13 $25.58 $1.45 6%
July
21,000 gallons $65.11 $69.04 $3.93 6%
Monthly Average* $35.87 $38.05 $2.18 6%
*Average based on seasonal use of 117,131 gallons per year
Although water rates were increased 3% in 2007, 2010 and in 2011, total Water Fund revenues decreased 23%
between 2006 and 2010. The reduction in use is thought to be a combination of conservation, weather and economic
factors. While water use is down, the vast majority of the costs of operating the water system are fixed and do not vary
based on customer use. The proposed 2012 rate increase is required to fund operations, capital improvements and
maintain debt service coverage. Staff has increased projections for Water Fund capital projects needs between 2013
and 2020 by $33 million. Most of this increase is for distribution system replacement ($22 million). The distribution
system project increase is a result of the preliminary data from the asset management program. The increase is not
related to Halligan Reservoir which is to be funded from the Water Rights Reserve. The Water Rights Reserve is
funded by developers’ cash-in-lieu-of water rights payments and is restricted to the purchase of water rights and water
storage only. See Attachment 2 for additional detailed explanation of the water rate increase.
In addition, staff is proposing to eliminate unmetered construction water for customers with planned water services
with meters greater than 1-inch. Staff is also recommending a monthly charge for 3/4-inch and 1-inch construction
water service. Construction water will remain unmetered for 3/4-inch and 1-inch services but instead of a flat one time
fee on the building permit (equivalent to 1.5 times the base charge for the future account), a monthly account will be
established and billed a flat charge based on estimated construction use of 7000 gallons per month. Monthly billing
will continue until the permanent meter is set. These changes are proposed to eliminate, or at least reduce, the
extended over use of the unmetered construction service and will better reflect the cost of the water provided.
Construction Water
Frequency of Billing
3/4-inch
Meter 1-inch Meter
Current 2011 One time charge $ 20.40 $ 50.93
Proposed 2012 Monthly charge $ 25.46 $ 48.55
Includes PILOTs
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 20
B. Monthly Wastewater Rates (Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Staff proposes an 8% wastewater rate increase for 2012. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate
classes. With the proposed increase, a typical residential customer’s bill will increase from $28.59 to $30.88 or $2.29
per month. The typical customer is based on 4,800 gallons of winter quarter water use.
Council previously approved a series of annual wastewater rate increases starting in 2008. The prior rate increases,
as well as the proposed 2012 increase, are necessary to fund wastewater operations and meet the increase in long
term debt service obligations for the now completed capital project which replaced the trickling filter, made odor control
improvements and prepared for future regulatory requirements at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility.
C. Monthly Electric Rates (Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Based on Council response at the September 13, 2011 Work Session, the electric rate ordinance does not contain
any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers. The changes to the RESR will
be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011 and will contain several rate form alternatives. The
ordinance for consideration at this meeting pertains only to the Residential Demand, Commercial (General Service,
General Service 25, General Service 50), Industrial (General Service 750) and Traffic rates.
Fort Collins’ wholesale and retail electric rates are among the lowest in the region and nation. This will continue to
be true following the 8.3% electric rate increase proposed for 2012. The 8.3% increase is the system average and
will not be equally applied to all customer rate classes. Based on a cost-of-service study, the proposed rates vary by
rate class as follows:
Proposed Rate Class Increases for 2012
Individual customers will vary from the class average.
Summer increases (June, July and August) will be greater than average.
RESR – Not included in Ordinance No. 142, 2011 6.0%
Residential Demand Rate 15.9%
1. General Service (small commercial less than 25 kW) 3.9%
1. General Service 25 (small commercial between 25-49 kW) 15.5%
General Service 50 (medium commercial between 50-749 kW) 8.7%
General Service 750 (large com/industrial greater than 749kW) 11.0%
Traffic Signals 11.3%
Floodlights 0.0%
Average System Increase 8.3%
1. New rate classes proposed for 2012
4.8% of the 8.3% system-wide increase is due to a 6.4% increase in Platte River Power Authority’s purchase power
rates. In addition, Platte River’s wholesale rate will be seasonal, with higher rates in June, July and August. Platte
River’s 2012 purchase power rate increase is due to several key factors:
• Reduced surplus sales
• Increased operating and maintenance costs
• Increased financing and depreciation costs as new projects are placed into service
• Reduced interest income – due to low interest rates and lower cash reserves
The remaining 3.5% of the 8.3% is required to reduce the use of Light and Power’s reserves to cover the cost of
system improvements and replacements. While the reduction of reserves has been intentional, expenditures in the
Light and Power Fund have exceeded revenues each year since 2007. Even following the proposed 3.5% increase,
expenditures are projected to exceed revenues for 2012.
October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 20
The larger commercial classes are experiencing a greater than average increase due to the shift of purchase power
costs from demand charges to energy charges in Platte River’s new rate form. Those customers with larger load
factors, typically larger commercial and industrial customers and also the traffic signal system, will have larger than
average increases in the purchase power components of their rates. (Load factor measures the consistency of power
use over time.)
Although the last cost-of-service study showed that the residential demand (“RD”) rate was 18% under cost-of-service,
all rate classes were limited to a 10% increase in 2011. The 2012 increase brings the RD rate class up to full cost-of-
service. The rate has traditionally been selected by high-use customers such as those who exclusively heat their
homes with electricity. The increase to this rate will make the RESR more economical for many of the existing RD
customers in 2012. Staff is also recommending that the RD rate be available only to those customers providing
documentation that their home is heated entirely with electric energy. These changes will begin a phase-out of the
RD rate.
Electric Rate Form Changes
Changes in the electric rate forms are necessary to align rates in support of the City’s Energy Policy and Climate
Action Plan goals. By adopting rate forms to incentivize customers to conserve and use energy more efficiently and
by providing energy conservation assistance and programs to our customers, the City will more likely be able to
achieve its policy goals. In addition, successful implementation of these tools will delay or defer the expense of
constructing additional generation resources. Rate form changes are also needed to pass through the seasonal cost
differentials that will be charged by Platte River Power Authority beginning in 2012. All rates will have higher costs
in the summer (June, July and August) than during the remaining nine “non-summer” months. Consistent with Platte
River, the recommended rates also shift a greater proportion of the rate from the demand charges to energy charges.
Rate form options were presented to the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and to the full Council at
work sessions on September 13, 2011 and October 11, 2011. Based on Council’s responses to the questions posed
at the work sessions, there is a delay in the ordinance making changes to the RESR until November 15, 2011. Several
options for the RESR ordinance will be presented at that time. The changes recommended for the RD and
Commercial/Industrial rates seemed to have wide-spread support at the September 13 Work Session. The following
summarizes changes to the electric rate forms that are included in the proposed electric rate ordinance.
• Residential Demand: The residential demand rate will be increased to the cost-of-service and energy
charges will reflect the seasonal differential. The rate will be available only to customers who heat their
residences exclusively with electricity.
• Small /Medium Commercial: The General Service rate is currently one rate class serving all commercial
customers with average monthly demands of less than 50 kW. Staff is proposing that it be split into two rate
classes beginning in 2012.
N General Service - energy-only seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of less than
25 kW
N General Service 25 - energy/demand seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of
between 25 and 49kW
• Large Commercial / Industrial: The recommended rate form changes for the GS50 and GS750 rate classes
are due to Platte River’s seasonal wholesale rate.
N General Service 50 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with
average demands of between 50-749 kW
N General Service 750 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with
average demands of 750 kW and greater
Additional Amendments to Electric Article and Rates
• Wholesale Transactions: Staff is recommending the addition of a Code section and definition to clarify terms
of wholesale transactions and to specify that the retail rates, requirements and electric development fees do
not apply to wholesale purchases.
October 18, 2011 -5- ITEM 20
• Clarification of Net Metering Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate schedule specify that credits for net
excess generation due to net metering will be based on the summer season retail energy charge as reflected
in the new rate structure.
• Clarification of Parallel Generation Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate tariff schedule specify that
credits for parallel generation delivered to the utility will be based on Platte River Power Authority’s avoided
cost rate.
• Clarification of Distribution Facilities Demand: The proposed change more fully defines distribution facilities
demand for the large commercial and industrial rate classes and permits the Utilities Executive Director to use
an alternative method to recover a customer’s cost-of-service share of distribution demand if the costs
associated with serving a customer are not fully recovered by the standard rate.
Monthly Rate Increase Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family residential
customer:
Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill
Current
2011
Estimated
2012
$
Increase
%
Increase
Electric
700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * *
Wastewater
4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0%
Stormwater
8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0%
Water
117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0%
Total Estimated Average Monthly
Utility Bill
$138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2%
* The 2012 electric RESR will not be considered by Council until a later Council meeting and therefore will not be
effective as of January 1, 2012. A change, averaging 6% is expected to be effective February 1, 2012.
October 18, 2011 -6- ITEM 20
The following charts compare Fort Collins Utilities’ monthly rates to others along the Front Range. The electric rate
shown for Fort Collins for 2012 is the current 2011 rate. A change to the RESR is expected to be effective in February.
The average change to the residential energy rate class is projected to be 6%.
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
January Water Use - 5,000 Gallons
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
Stormwater $7.13 $10.39 $8.89 $7.10 $14.26 $5.63 $14.26 $- $8.16
Wastewater $20.38 $18.11 $15.83 $20.32 $28.59 $20.48 $30.88 $31.27 $16.72
Water $13.96 $13.19 $18.05 $18.85 $24.13 $26.70 $25.58 $25.26 $38.41
Electric $51.65 $55.37 $76.21 $76.21 $59.94 $76.21 $59.94 $77.47 $76.21
Longmont Loveland Denver Boulder Ft. Collins Greeley Ft. Collins
'12
Co.Sprs Aurora
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
July Water Use 21,000 Gallons
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Stormwater $10.39 $7.13 $14.26 $7.10 $14.26 $8.89 $5.63 $8.16 $-
Wastewater $18.11 $20.38 $28.59 $20.32 $30.88 $15.83 $20.48 $16.72 $31.27
Water $40.71 $59.18 $65.11 $60.14 $69.04 $80.71 $80.14 $123.46 $128.10
Electric $55.37 $51.65 $59.94 $85.16 $59.94 $85.16 $85.16 $85.16 $77.47
Loveland Longmont Ft. Collins Boulder Ft. Collins
'12
Denver Greeley Aurora Co.Sprs
October 18, 2011 -7- ITEM 20
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Development Fees
City Code requires staff to present water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees to Council for approval
no less than every other year. These fees were last changed in 2009 effective on January 1, 2010. Staff is
recommending changes to each of the wet utility PIFs. Water and Stormwater PIFs are increasing 4.7% and 1.2%
respectively. Wastewater PIFs are recommended to decrease 3%.
Electric development fees are also required to be approved by City Council no less than every second year, although
historically staff has recommended annual changes. The current electric development fees were approved by Council
in 2010 and were effective January 1, 2011.
Staff is recommending the following changes to be effective on January 1, 2012.
A. Water Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.)
The water plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current value
of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net water system equity, capacity
units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Water PIFs are calculated to increase an average of 4.7%
for 2012.
There are two major factors influencing the increase. First, projected capital improvements related to regulatory
requirements have been allocated to the PIF for that portion of the improvements that will serve new growth. Other
revisions have been made to the long range capital improvement plan which also impacted the Water PIF calculations.
Together, these capital changes have increased the PIF requirement.
The second factor offsets the increase. In 2009, detailed information was not available to classify the construction
work in progress. The decision was made to treat it all as backbone related capital additions. This overstated the 2010
PIF requirement. Since that time, additional reporting is available to clearly classify the work in progress. This resulted
in a reduction in equity of the backbone system.
Water PIF charges for a typical single family lot (8600 sq ft) would increase from $3,826 to $4,084 or $258. The
following table shows the proposed increases for water PIFs.
Water Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential:
Domestic Interior Use - Flat Charge $ 730 $ 730 0.0%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.36 $ 0.39 8.3%
Duplex and Multi Family:
Domestic Interior Use - Charge per Unit $ 490 $ 510 4.1%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.27 $ 0.27 0.0%
Non-Residential by Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,530 $ 7,880 4.6%
1" $ 21,730 $ 22,750 4.7%
1-1/2" $ 45,300 $ 47,410 4.7%
2" $ 69,070 $ 72,290 4.7%
3" $ 157,920 $ 165,290 4.7%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
October 18, 2011 -8- ITEM 20
B. Wastewater/Sewer Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.)
The wastewater plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current
value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net wastewater system
equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Wastewater PIFs are calculated to decrease
3% for 2012. Like the Water PIF, this reduction is in part due to a change in the basis for calculating construction work
in progress. Other recent revisions to the long range capital improvement plan have reduced the Wastewater PIF
calculations.
Wastewater PIF charges for a single family lot would decrease from $3,550 to $3,440, a reduction of $110. The
following table shows the proposed changes.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential $ 3,550 $ 3,440 -3%
Duplex and Multi Family, per unit $ 2,490 $ 2,410 -3%
Non-Residential by Water Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,100 $ 6,880 -3%
1" $ 17,880 $ 17,300 -3%
1-1/2" $ 31,490 $ 30,480 -3%
2" $ 55,290 $ 53,520 -3%
3" $ 150,130 $ 145,310 -3%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
C. Electric Development Fees (Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.)
Electric development fees recover both actual on-site costs (building site charges) and allocated off-site costs (electric
capacity charges) to serve commercial or residential development. These fees are typically adjusted annually to reflect
changes in costs. Proposed 2012 fees will increase slightly for some developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly
for others. The table below shows the changes for a typical single family lot and a model commercial development.
Typical Single Family Lot
8600 square feet, 70 foot of street frontage, 150 amp service, 4/0 secondary service
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$3,139 $3,233 $94 3.0%
Model Commercial Development
82,000 sq ft, 1900 ft street frontage, 250 ft primary srv, 600 amps, 208Volt, 3-phase, 1-transformer
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$31,076 $30,981 -$95 -0.3%
D. Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees)
The Stormwater PIFs are recommended to increase 1.2% in 2012. The increase represents a $7.3 million increase
in capital facilities added since the last study. However, annexation has caused an increase in total developed and
developable acres which results in an increased divisor in the calculation. The two changes result in a modest
increase of 1.2%. The PIF will increase from $6,313 per acre to $6,390 per acre.
Stormwater PIF charges for a typical single family lot would increase from $1,069 to $1,082, an increase of $13.
October 18, 2011 -9- ITEM 20
PIF Change Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed PIF and development fee changes on a typical residential
lot:
PIF Changes for Typical Single Family
Current
2011
Proposed
2012
Change
%
Change
$
Water1
Raw Water2
Wastewater
Stormwater3
Electric1
Total
$3,826
$5,203
$3,550
$1,069
$3,139
787
$4,084
$5,203
$3,440
$1,082
$3,233
$17,042
6.7%
0.0%
-3.1%
1.2%
3.0%
1.5%
$258
$0
(-$110)
$13
$94
$255
1Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70-foot street frontage
2 No increase for Raw Water
3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way; .5 run off
coefficient
Next Steps:
November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting
• Second Reading of these seven Ordinances
November 15, 2011 City Council Meeting
• First Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance with seasonal and seasonal-tiered options
• First Reading of Service Charges Ordinance with increases for after-hours service charges and a monthly fee
for manual meter reading for customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project.
December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda
• Second Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance
• Second Reading of Service Charges Ordinance
January 1, 2012
• Effective date of the seven Ordinances included in this agenda item summary and for changes in service
charges. (Monthly rate ordinances are effective for billings with meter readings on or after this date.)
October 18, 2011 -10- ITEM 20
the total increase. That amount will depend on the rate form option selected by Council at the November 15, 2011
Council meeting. Utility programs can help customers to reduce their water and electric use and to lessen the financial
impact of the rate increases.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Funding from the proposed electric rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue programs and services aimed at
meeting the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Accurate seasonal price signals may
delay/ avoid the need for additional peak electric generation. Water and wastewater rates provide funding for
conservation programs and environmental regulatory compliance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 15, 2011 meeting the Water Board recommended approval of the proposed 2012 water and
wastewater monthly rates and the plant investment fees for 2012.
At its October 6, 2011 meeting, the Electric Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed 2012 electric rates
(exclusive of the Residential Energy Services Rate) and the proposed 2012 electric development fees.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in the Coloradoan on October 2, 2011 and a mailing was
sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with PUC requirements. Electric rate forms were
discussed at the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and at a Council Work Session on September 13.
A written review of all the rates was included in the October 10, 2011, Council Finance Committee Agenda; however,
discussion of the item was postponed until October 17, 2011.
Staff plans to conduct outreach to all customers following adoption of the Ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012 Utility Rate Increases – Explanation of Change
2. Staff memo to Council related to water rate increase, September 19, 2011
3. Staff memo to Council related to electric rate increase, September 19, 2011
4. Staff memo to Council related to plant investment fees, September 19, 2011
5. Council Work Session Summary September 13, 2011
6. Council Finance Committee, August 15, 2011
7. Water Board minutes, September 15, 2011
8. Electric Board minutes, October 6, 2011
9. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
2012 Utility Rate Increases
Current
Original Projection Recommendation
2011-2012 Budget 2012 Revised Budget Explanation of Change
Electric
Purchase Power 4.53% 4.80% 2012 purchase power rate will increase 6.4% for Fort Collins. This was projected at 6.0% in 2010 when the 2011-2012 Budget
was prepared.
Capital Funding 1.70% 3.50% Expenditures have exceeded revenues since 2008. During this time, much of the capital and system replacement program has
been intentionally funded by reserves, which has resulted in reduced L&P reserves balances. Two substations ($11.3 million),
the SW Annex Electric Transfer ($1.9 M to date) and replacement of aging infrastructure ($7.4M) have proceeded without
raising rates for the construction. Miscellaneous revenues (primarily interest income and development fees), which have helped
to fund fixed costs and capital projects and system replacement in the past, have declined significantly. Growth in energy
sales, which has also forestalled rate increases in the past, has declined. Projected reserves are now anticipated to fall below
minimum policy levels as early as 2013 without a series of rate increases starting in 2012. The 1.7% originally planned, is no
longer adequate to reverse this unsustainable deficit.
Total Electric 6.23% 8.30% The 8.3% projection does not include rate increases for the Fort Collins Solar Program and the Energy Effeciency Financing
Program 2012 Budget exception requests.
Water 0% 6% Actual total water fund revenues have decreased 23% between 2006 and 2010. A 6% rate water rate increase is needed to
address steadily declining water fund revenues due to customer conservation and wet weather. These uncertainties, as well as
the slow economy, have made it difficult to project water revenues. Actual revenues from the sale of water were $6.4 million
less than projections between 2006-2010. Since 2010, demand projections have dropped from 150 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) to as low as 138.5 gpcd. The water fund has also been impacted by a drop in interest revenue and plant investment fees
requiring the Water Fund to rely more heavily on rate revenue to cover fixed costs and capital improvements. The proposed
increase is necessary to stabilize revenue and net income and maintain adequate reserves to fund long term capital
maintenance programs.
Wastewater 8% 8% No change from 2011-2012 Budget.
Stormwater 0% 0% No change from 2011-2012 Budget.
ATTACHMENT 2
Utilities
City of
electric
stormwater. wastewater water
7CC Wood Street
Fort
CoLLins
:
utilities @fcgov. corn
fcgov.cornJutthlies
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19. 2011
To: Mayor Weilkunat and Councilmembers
From: Kevin Geruig, Water Resources & Treatme.i.X)peia[ions Manager
-tJ
Brian Janoni.s. Utilities Executive Directoi
,
Ii
Thru: Darin Atteherry. City Manager ‘‘rfi )
Re: 2012 Water Fund Rate Increase
The proposed 6 percent water rate increase for 2012 is needed to address steadily declining water
fund revenues. The impact of customers’ response to water saving measures. the unusually wet
weather in 2009 and again this year, as well as the decline in the economy, has negatively
impacted water fund revenues. The unstable environment created with the changes in the
economy, conservation, and weather makes it difficult to project water fund revenues. Actual
operating revenues between 2006 and 2010 were a total of $6.4 million less than projections.
As of the end of May the 2011 demand projections have been decreased from 150 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) to 145.9 in order to accommodate the wet year. The May demand
adjustment reduces the 201 lopcradng revenue projections by $159,000, or 1°A. More recent
information indicates that it may drop by an additional 5(4
to [38.5 gpcd resulting in a further
reduction in revenue of $675.000.
The following is a five year analysis of actual water fund revenue from 2006-2010:
• Actual total water fund revenues between 2006 and 2010 have decreased 23°A.
• Operating revenue has decreased l0’7 over the last five years after factoring in the
6% rate increases (3’% in 2007 & 2010).
• Development related revenue declined 74(4.
• Non operating revenue decreased 63%
• With shrinking develonment revenue, operating revenue is being relied upon to cover
more of the costs.
• In 2006 operating revenue was 7ILA of total revenue: by 2010 it was 89/o 01 total
revenue.
• Demand decreased 15(4 over the last five years and is projected to drop by 19 if the
2020 water conservation goal is met.
The proposed rate increase is intended to stabilize revenue, as well as net income, and rnaiiitaii
adequate reserves which help fund long term capital maintenance projects. Net incoim’ has
declined an overall $4.8 million from 2006 to 2010.
City cf
Fort Collins
Although the water utility continues to experience increased costs in chemicals, supplies and
energy. the overall increase in actual expenses from 2006 through 2010 have been contained at
10’A. During that period the cost of the operating programs, which includes treatment,
transmission and distribution, engineering, laboratory services, water resources and conservation.
increased by 169; administrative costs increased 24Vc, and interest expense decreased 504. The
Water Fund’s 2011 operating budget is 6°/c lower than 2010’s operating budget. The graphs
below demonstrate a 5-year history of actual revenue and projected revenue through 2020. with
and without the 6% rate increase in 2012. Additional graphs include a 5-year history of
expenditures in the water fund, the comparison of projected operating revenues vs. actual
operating revenues, and the impact on net income.
$10
$40
$35
$30
I Develop Revenue
Water Fund Revenue
With 0%Rate Incr 2012 & 2°/i 2.5%2013-2014
C Other Nonoperating
-.-—-_—-—.-•-•-----•---. mOperatingRevenue
Actual ojected
Revenue —-- - Revenue
$25
$20
$15
$5
S.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
I Develop Revenue
Water Fund Revenue
With 6% Rate lncr 2012 & 8% 2013-2015
0 Other Nonoperahng
$40 — -------• ------- iOperatirigRevenue
-
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20’4 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ft°o([
ins
Water
Operating
Expenditures,
Capital,
&
Bond
Principal
IapitalF’ojects $3,623,369 $3,318,667 $3,401,817 $3,754,579 - $5,515,793
D kro- CaptaI $841,535 $617,586 $594,378 $713,005 $499,069
oBondftincipal $5,300,935 $4722,368 $4,868,800 $4,227,982 I $2,574,911
C Transfer to CS & A F,rid $2,835,917 $2,901 642 $3,859,087 $3,839,790 $3,897,100
O
Pynnts
& Transfers $4,318,426 $4,309,071 $4,229,206 $3,916,545 $3,553,911
D Water Conservation $- $. $- $1,269 $273,262
DWaterResources $1,376,381 t. $1,389,636 t $1,386,216 $1,493,842 f $1,449,875
4 - —
0
Water Quality $878,464 $940,117 $874,180 $941,200 $897,282
•WaterT&D Eng $2056236 $2167859 $2316977 $2255027 $2369234
4-.-
0
Water F1’oduction $3,898,511 $4,160,623 $4,355,886 $4,772,714 $4,444,073
•
Water
ter
Ope-ators $451,944 $466,530 $522,268 $543,655 $583,148
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10 -i
$5
—
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$10
$81
$6
City
of
Fort
CoLLins
U,
0
Water
Revenue
-
Charges
for
Services
Actual
Revenue
is
$6.4
mIllion
Iessthan
projected
2006-2010
$30
$251..
-
$20
$15
sioL
$5
4
2006
2007
2008
2009
—.—
Actual
Operating
Revenue
2010
Fojected
Net
Income-
Water
Fund
2006-2010
$4
$2
$-
L*
2010
2006
2007
2008
2009
—.—Net
Income
$7,904,128 $6,946,393 $5,326,007 $1,124,766
$3,144,821
ATTACHMENT
3
Utilities
C.t
f
electric stormwater
wastewater
I water
0
700 Wood Street
Fort
CoLlins
970221.66
19
utllhties@fcgov corn
fcgov.com/utililies
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September
19,
2011
TO:
Mayor
Weitkunat
and
Councilmembers
FROM:
Steve
Catanach,
Light
and
Power
Operations Manager
41
Ellen
Switzer, Utilities Financial
Operation4anager
.
st’
Brian
Janonis,
Utilities
Executive
Director
THRU:
Darin
Atteberry,
City
Manager
RE:
2012
Electric
Rates
-
Additional background
for
the
September
26,
2012
Otyof
rtIns
the total cost of operating, maintaining and improving electrical infrastructure. The original 2012
budget provided a I increase to begin funding more of the costs of the capital improvements through
monthly rates, however, the draw down on reserves has been accelerated due to significant decreases in
interest income and development fee revenue. Without a series of 3.5% rate increases starting in 2012
to cover the costs of capital additions and improvements, Light and Power Fund working capital
reserves will fall below minimum policy levels starting as early as 2013. (Note: These proposed 3.5%
increases do not include any purchase power adjustments.) The following chart shows the reduction in
these revenue sources.
Light and Power - Non Operating Revenues
$9- -—
$8 . I Misc Reenue
- —1 I —-——- o DeIopment Fees
$6 -
— • inteist
w - I-....
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 BudOet Est 2011 Otiginat Revised
2011 Budget Est2012
2012
• Development related revenue declined 67% between 2006 and 2010.
• Interest revenue decreased 63%
• With these shrinking revenues; operating revenue is being relied upon to cover more of the costs
of capital additions and replacements.
Net Assets:
Change in Net Assets declined from $9.8 million in 2006 to $1.2 million in 2010 and was -$1.0 million
in 2009. This provides funding for all system additions and capital projects except for those funded by
bond issues. The proposed 8.3% rate increase is will begin to stabilize revenue, as well as net income,
and maintain adequate reserves for operating and capital contingencies. The graph that follows shows
the annual change in net assets over this period.
Change In Net A5seta L&P Fund
(M Rind fliwnu.e .me AS Op.ratJn E.sp.nua IncIui5n Depr.cletton)
512
-.-- Change In Net Melts
62782OW
5(2)
City of
ECcjins
Increases for implementation of the Energy Policy Services have been funded by earlier rate increases in
2010 and 2011. However, labor, services and materials for Light and Power operations and
maintenance, as well as, capital projects and system additions and improvements continue to increase.
Since 2006 the combined cost of the Light and Power Operations and System Additions and
Replacement programs increased 25%, with an increase of 19% in personal services and an increase of
34% in non-personal services purchases. During periods of consistent 3+% annual growth, increased
fixed costs were able to be funded by revenues from increased kWh sales. KWh sales have stabilized
and even declined over the last few years. While this is consistent with Energy Policy objectives, it does
not provide adequate ongoing funding for the distribution system. Rate increases are required to cover
the increasing fixed costs of operating and improving the electric system.
Summary: The following graphs show the gap between Light and Power’s total revenues and
expenditures. Revised Estimate 2012 includes the projected rate increase of 8.3%. Please observe that
even with this rate increase, expenses will continue to exceed expenses and the Utility will continue to
draw on remaining reserves for the difference.
Light and Power - Expenditures with Depreciation
O,fi P...d Oil
Iudg2OlO 2012
Light and Power - Expenditures without Depreciation
-
$120- --—---
4-_;i-
‘
C 1
lii
I
2004 2007 2004 0009 2010 bidcil2Oll 0112011 Odgil R.iadE,l
Totai Revenuwa ITotaI fljy lUdi4 2012 2012
While the draw down on reserves was intentional, reserves are projected to be reduced to minimum
levels in the next few years. A series of rate increases, starting in 2012 are necessary to reverse this
unsustainable deficit.
$140
$120
$100
$80
fr
$40
$20
2004 2007 2001 2009 2010 Budgil 2011 Lii 2011
1otaI Revenuel nTolai Expancttures
Recommendation: Staff recommends an 8.3% rate increase for 2012.
ATTACHMENT
4
Utilities
C
ity
of
electric
storrnwater wastewater
water
700 Wood
Street
Fort
ColLins
97Q2
TOD
utilities
@fcgov.
corn
(cgov corn/utilities
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September
19,
2011
TO: Mayor
Weitkunat
and
Councilmembers
FROM:
Bill
Switzer,
Rate
Analyst
•
Brian
Janonis,
Utilities
Executive
Directori!6
ThRU:
Darin
Atteberry,
City
Manager
€if
RE:
2012
Utility
Plant
Investment
Fees
—
Additional
background
for
the
September
26,
2012
Council
....F&iboWns
Water Plant Investment Fees
Initially, in 2005, the approach used to calculate the water PIFs was the Buy-In approach based
on the understanding that all “backbone” and treatment facilities necessary for future growth had
been constructed. However, to accommodate the additional capital needed to meet future
growth, a 14MG treated water reservoir was scheduled (in 2009) for construction in 2016-17 for
an estimated cost of $23M The need for this project resulted in a change to the Hybrid
approach for the 2009 study.
Table A below shows an overall increase of 4.7% to the proposed 2012 water PIFs. All 2011
values are in current dollars. Three items of significance need to be highlighted:
Water Plant investment Fee analysis and update - Table A
2009 Study 2011 Study for2Ol2 Fees
Descnptlon Change
$ $ $
Existing Backbone Facilities
Distritution System (16-Inch and larger) 87,1 00.000 86,400,000 (700,000) -0.8%
Less $5.5M Contract investment I 968 (10,1 00,000) (1 0800,000) (700,000) 6.9%
Other Facilties 237,100.000 250.700,000 13600,000 5.7%
Less $2,313K Contract investment 1988 (4,200,000) 14,500,000) (300,000)
Less $668K Contract investment 1999 (900,O00 (1,000,000) (1 00,000)
Proposed Growth Related Capital Mdltions
Capital improvements 27,660,000 3,000,000
Regulatory projects attributed to unused capacity (27.7 of 78.0 Mgd) - 31,400,000
Total capital Additions 27,660,000 34,400,000 6,740,000 24.4%
CWIP 2010 10,894,766 309,746 (10,585,020) -97.2%
Total Existing Backbone Facilities 347,554,766 355,509,746 7,954,9602.3%
Less: Outstanding Existing Debt Principal (a) (29,800,000) (23,303,000) 6,500,000 -21.8%
Total Debt Service — (29,800MOO) (23,300.000) 6,500,000 -21.8%
Total System Valuation 317,754,766 332,209,746 14,454,980 4.5%
Goss System CapacIty 87,000.000 87,000,000 0
Less: Contract CapacIty 9,000,000 9,000,000 0
Not System Capacity, GPO 78,000,000 76,000,000 0 0.0%
Proposed PIF, $ per gpd 4.07 4.26 0.19 4.7%
(a) Ewisting debt principal excludes remaining A-Bpilncipaipayrnents.
1. The following changes have been made to the proposed capital additions:
• A 14MG treated water reservoir ($23M) scheduled for 201 6-2017 was removed from the
CIP for reasons described by the Lisa Voytko: “it has been determined that the
proposed new 14 Mgal reservoir is not required, iF a new chlorine contact basin at the
Water Treatment Facility is constructed. While storage for emergency, fire and
operational needs is still required, it can be met by using the existing finished water
reservoirs on site to their full extent. Currently part of the volume in those reservoirs
must be reserved to meet chlorine contact time, a requirement for disinfection. When a
new stand-alone chlorine contact basin is constructed, that volume in the reservoirs will
CT
o1
Fart
Collins
be
available,
and
will
meet
the
projected
future
needs
of
the Fort
Collins
rate
payers
for
storage
(fire,
emergency,
operational).”
•
There
are
also
significant
projects
planned
for
regulatory
purposes
(including
the
chlorine
contact
basin
mentioned
above).
Those
portions
of
the
regulatory projects
attributable
to
unused
capacity
are considered
as
growth
related
expenses
and
included
in
the
PIE
calculation.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
C:ey cf
fort
CoWns
In 2005, the Hybrid approach was and continues to be used to calculate the wastewater PIEs
because the City’s wastewater growth met the criteria (above) for this approach.
Table B below shows an overall reduction of 3% to our 2012 wastewater PIEs. Four items of
significance need to be highlighted:
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee analysis and uDdate -Table B
2009 Study 2011 Study
Change
Description $ $ -
Existing Backbone Facilities
Coflection System (10-Inch and larger) 61,900,000 67,600,000 5,700,000 9%
Other Facilities 215,600,000 232,700,000 17,100,000 8%
Less $19M Contract investment 1987 (35,800,000) (38,100000) (2,300,000) 6%
cWl) ‘:•. I 8,400,000 1,6b1 562 ( IS 798,4313; -91%
Total Existing Backbone FacilitIes 260,100,000 263,801,562 3,701,562 1%
Proposed Capital Additions
Capital Improvements (w/o collection) 91,000,000 55,500,000 )95,50Q,000 -39%
Capital rn proveme nts - collection only 1 0,661 081 1 0,400,000 (261,03!) -2%
Regulatory projects attributed to unused capacity (9.5 at 27.2 Mgd) . 0 1 9,400,000 19,400,000
Total Proposed Capital Additions 101,661,081 65,300,000 (16361,081) -16%
Debt Service
Proposed Debt Carrying Costs
Less: Outstanding Existing Debt PrIncipal (39,700,000) (37,300,000) 2,400,000
Less: Poposed Debt Principal 0
Total Debt Service (39,700,000) (37:300,000) 2,400,000 -6%
Total System Valuation 322,061,081 311,801,562 (10,259 519) -3%
Giss System Capacity 29,000,000 29,000,000 0 0%
Less: Con tract Cape city 1.800.000) 1.800000) 0 0%
Net System Capacity, Gala per Day 27,200,000 27,200,000
Proposed PIF, $ per gpd $ 1184 $
1 1.46 -3%
1. A $38M South Process Train Expansion project planned for 2014-15 was removed from
the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In 2009, projected growth needs were re-evaluated
with the result that this project is no longer necessary due to significantly reduced growth
projections.
2. There also are significant projects planned for regulatory purposes. Those portions of
the regulatory projects attributable to unused capacity are considered as growth-related
expenses and included in the PIF calculation.
3. In 2009, in a manner similar to the situation detailed above for water PIFs, we incorrectly
classified all 2008 CWIP ($18.4M) as growth-related construction. More recently
available detailed reports reveal that related to both 2008 and 2010 CWIP totals; little
Ft°oLLins
was
applicable
for
backbone
facilities.
Thus
the
value
of
the
system
was
overstated
in
the
2009
calculation
for
the
2010
PlFs.
4.
As
with
water
PIFs,
an
average
calculation
of
the most
recent
four
years’
history
has
been
used
to
set
estimated
usage
for
new
customers
with
tap
sizes
of
3”
or less.
The
most
recent
four
years’
history (2007-2010)
shows
significant reduction
Backbone System Investments
Existing infrastructure equity
Replacement Costs
Master Plan Expenses
Flood Mapping
Developer Repays
Annual Inflationary Increase
Total
Capital Improvements
2008/10 Cost Levels
Annual Inflationary Increase
Total
Total Backbone Facilities asof 12/31
Total Principal Outstanding
Total Backbone System Equity
Amount per acre
Average runoff coefficient
Fee per acre adjusted for run-off factor
Estimated fee per equivalent residential un
Existing developed & developable acres
Proposed developed & developable acres
Total projected
Fto11ins
77 1.2%
13 1.2%
1. The existing developed and developable acres have increased significantly, primarily from
the South West Annexation which increased the Fossil Creek portion within the City limits by
over 50%. This increase in the divisor of the PIE formula almost offsets the 11.2% increase
In system backbone equity.
Table C
2009 studi 2011 study Change
Proj 12/31/09 Proj 12/31/11 $ [ O/,
$146,369,006 $ 11,833,301
$ 4,683,808 $ (966,691)
$151,052,815 $ 10866,610
8.8%
7.8%
$ 134,535,705
$ 5,650,500
$ 140186205
6,897,000
$ 289,674
$ 7,186,674
$ 147372,879
$ 34,087,500
$ 113,285,379
$ 3,472
0.55
3,484,000
$ 111,488
$ 3,595,488
$
$
$
(3,413000) -49.5%
(178,186)
(3,591,186) -50.0%
$ 154,648,303 $ 7,275,424 4.9%
$ 28,622,500 $ (5,465,000) -16.0%
$
ATTACHMENT
5
Utilities
City
of
elctic
stomiwater
wastewater
water
700
Wood
Street
Fort
CoLLins
IICO
80522
974
=
TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov
coin/utilities
Memorandum
Date:
September
15,
2011
To:
City
Councilmembers
Thru:
Darin
Atteberry, City
Manager
Brian
Janonis,
Utilities
Executive
Director
From:
Patty
Bigner, Utilities
Customer
and
Employee
Relations Manager
Re
Work Session
Summary
(Partial)
—
September
13,
2011
Electric
Rate
Options
All
City
Councilmembers
cQins
Examples
of
customers
in
the
proposed
OS
customer
class include
housing
services
for
condos
and
apartments
(lights, laundry,
etc.);
small
retail;
professional offices; non-profit
agencies;
and
small
churches.
The proposed
GS
25
customer
class includes
fast
food restaurants, medium-
sized
churches,
restaurants,
larger
retail,
fraternity
and
sorority
houses,
convenience
stores, copy
centers
and
banks.
The
remaining large
commercial
industrial
rates
will
remain
in
the
coincident
peak form
but
with
a
Cityof
Fort
CoLLins
of
the
rate,
if
it
is
changed,
will be
delayed beyond
January
1,
2012.
Typically,
rate
changes
occur
with
the
first
meter
reading
of
the
new
year.
Staff
plans
to
move
forward
with rate
changes
with
the
exception
of
the
Residential
Energy
Rate.
Rate
ordinances for
the
Residential
Demand,
GS,
GS
25,
GS
50 and
GS
750
rate
classes
will be
discussed
at
ATTACHMENT 6
1
Attachment 7
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, September 15, 2011
2012 Water/Wastewater Budget Exceptions and Rate and PIF Recommendations; 2012
Stormwater Budget Exceptions and Rate and PIF Recommendations
(Attachments available upon request).
Chairperson Janett introduced this item and reminded the current members that the previous
Water Board recommended a 3 percent rate increase for 2011-2012. They also recommended
small incremental rate increases more often rather than large rate increases less often. The Water
Board made this recommendation to Council; however, they did not approve a 3 percent rate
increase for 2012.
Water Fund
Financial Analyst Rita DeCourcey presented information on this item and stated the budget
exceptions include a 6 percent increase for the water fund. This is needed to stabilize the water
fund revenue. This is projected to result in $1.5 million additional operating revenue in 2012,
depending on demand. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) transfers will have to be increased by
approximately $88,000 to cover the 2012 rate increase. Additional funds are needed to accelerate
the normal upgrade process for meter replacements to meet the timeline of the Automated
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project.
Wastewater Fund
There are no exceptions to the wastewater fund. There is an 8 percent water fund rate increase
included in the original 2011-2012 biennial budget for the wastewater fund. The 6 percent rate
increase for 2012 is needed to stabilize the water fund revenue, fund long term capital programs,
meet debt service requirements, maintain adequate reserves, and meet financial reserve policies.
Water Fund Revenue
Total Revenue has dropped almost 23 percent from 2006 to 2010. Since the Operating Revenue
has increased from 70.7 percent in 2006 to 88.5 percent in 2010, it has to cover a greater
percentage of the costs. Demand has dropped 15 percent from 172 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) to 146 gpcd.
Water Fund Expense Analysis 2006-2010
There was a 10 percent overall increase in operating and interest expense and a 16 percent
increase in operating program expenses, including an increase in Commodity Costs (chemical
costs increased 34 percent even though less water was treated). Payments and Transfers
increased 44 percent, including increased funding for the General Employees Retirement Plan
(GERP) and asset management. Interest Expense decreased 50 percent because 2002 bonds were
paid off and 1998 bonds were refinanced at lower interest rates. Operating expense for the
CS&A fund increased 28 percent from 2006 to 2010, including 11 percent for Asset
Management. Ms. DeCourcey noted most of the costs for Asset Management are one-time costs.
Water Fund Fixed and Variable Expense
87 percent of the costs are fixed considering PILOTs. If PILOTs are removed, approximately 94
percent of the costs are fixed. Demand decreased 15 percent and the total variable expense
increased 11 percent. This includes increased electrical and chemical costs such as alum and
lime. Ms. DeCourcey noted that alum and lime are utilized the most in the treatment facility.
2
Water Fund Net Income
The net income has dropped approximately $4.8 million from 2006 to 2010.
Water Fund Reserves
As Is Rate Increases and Capital per 2011 – 2012 Budget and Revised Capital
If Utilities looks at capital reserves without the rate increase and the revised capital budget, the
capital budget will be increased by approximately $33 million from 2012 to 2020 above the
original 2011-2012 budget. If Utilities looks at limiting the capital expense approximately $5
million from 2012 to 2014, this will assist the reserve calculations. Utilities will look at
prioritizing capital projects to see what needs to be completed in the future. The water fund 6
percent rate increase is an across the board increase and does not vary by customer class. A
typical residential customer’s bill will increase $1.47 for winter use (5,000 gallons) and $3.93 for
summer use (21,000 gallons).
Water Rate Comparison
Ms. DeCourcey showed a graph comparing the water rates for the City of Fort Collins with other
cities in the Front Range. This water rate comparison is for average residential usage in January
and July.
Board discussion:
A board member asked for clarification on the administrative costs and why they increased?
The biggest component is the transfer to the CS&A fund and this included the new asset
management program. Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jon Haukaas
stated most of the costs are up-front fees associated with the consultants as a part of setting up
the program.
A board member questioned the item concerning over charging from the Water Fund Expense
Analysis. Ms. DeCourcey stated the internal IT department overcharged Utilities for an internal
service charge. Utilities will receive a reimbursement from this overcharging.
Will customer billing become less costly? Financial Analyst Phil Ladd stated Utilities does not
expect an increase and no upgrades are planned to the billing system. Some other services will be
brought in house and this may offset the costs.
Are more people having trouble paying their water bill? Mr. Ladd stated the collection rate has
stayed steady. The City of Fort Collins has a lien ordinance which states that if a tenant moves
out of the property without paying their water bill, the bill is collected from the property owner
when the property changes hands.
A board member noted reserves decline over time. At what level does Utilities want the reserves
and why at that particular level? Ms. DeCourcey stated Utilities would like to cover their capital
appropriations including prior year and new appropriations, a 5 percent operating reserve, a
principal and interest reserve, a debt service reserve, and an Art in Public Places reserve.
Are the costs for the Halligan project included in the projections? Yes, those costs are included
in prior year capital projects.
A board member suggested showing the rate comparison over time rather than showing year to
year increases.
3
Chairperson Janett stated when the Legislative, Finance, and Liaison (LFL) Committee reviewed
the financial information at their September meeting, they noted that even though demand is
going down, fixed costs are increasing. Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode reiterated this
point by stating the water use for August was less than predicted. Ms. DeCourcey stated this may
be due to the fact that industry is learning how to use less water in their processes and consumers
are more educated on water usage.
Chairperson Janett stated this is a dilemma because it sends a mixed message to consumers that
they should save water even though their rates are increasing.
Is the 15 percent decrease in demand per person? Yes.
Chairperson Janett requested the information presented to the LFL Committee concerning the
concept of less demand and increased costs be sent to the entire board.
Stormwater Fund 2012 Budget Exceptions
Mr. Ladd presented information on this item and stated there are three budget exception requests
for the Stormwater Fund:
• Land Acquisition – Remove structures from Poudre River Floodway
• Land Acquisition – Master Plan Flood Mitigation project property
• Household Hazardous Waste Community Event Increase (The event held in 2011
exceeded expectations so additional funding is needed for 2012.)
Board discussion:
Do the expenses for the hazardous waste event include paying for the waste to be hauled away?
Yes, the items are removed by professionals who handle household hazardous waste.
What is the largest volume of items collected? Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong
stated paint is the most collected item. A pilot project is being implemented to use collected paint
for a graffiti abatement program.
How much is going to the landfill versus what is going down the drain? Ms. Strong stated she is
unsure how much is collected versus what is sitting in garages and such.
Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig stated there will also be a
prescription drug collection event sponsored by Police Services. This event will be held in
October 2011.
A board member stated he felt the numbers are overwhelming. He feels that it is important to
portray the information to the public and feels staff should remind the public of the costs
associated with projects such as the renovation of the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility
(MWRF). It is also important to consider population density when presenting the numbers, such
as comparing Denver to the City of Fort Collins.
Stormwater Rate Comparison
Mr. Ladd presented a graph showing stormwater rates for the City of Fort Collins compared with
other cities along the Front Range. Utilities does not anticipate an increase in fees.
Will there be any reduction in fees? Yes, there is the potential for reduced fees because debt will
be paid off in 2017.
4
How long has the rate been at $14.26? It has been at this current rate since 2005. Stormwater
and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley stated since these fees have funded capital
improvement projects, it is not a straight comparison when looking at other cities in the graph.
A board member expressed concerns that Utilities promised the rates would be reduced and they
haven’t been reduced as of yet.
Plant Investment Fees (PIF) (Developer Fees)
Utility Rate Analyst Bill Switzer presented information on this item and stated City Code
requires Utilities to review the fees annually and submit for Council approval at least every
second year. Plant Investment Fees are an additional source of revenue and help offset rate
increases. The fees presented are the maximum allowable. A consulting company was hired in
2005 to set up a new PIF model. In March 2011, the City Manager asked Utilities to review the
fees.
• Water PIFs increased 4.7 percent for all commercial customer classes.
• Wastewater PIFs decrease 3 percent for all customer classes.
• Stormwater PIFs increased slightly by 1.2 percent. Increased infrastructure was offset by
an increased service area.
Board discussion:
Chairperson Janett stated because of the reduction in water usage, there is excess capacity in
both the water treatment and wastewater treatment plants. The concept of sharing capacity with
the special districts has been discussed. What would happen with the PIFs at that point? Mr.
Switzer stated this would be beneficial in relationship with Capital Investment Fees.
Chairperson Janett stated this is another incentive to encourage cooperation with neighboring
districts.
Additional Fee Changes – Construction Water
Mr. Haukaas stated there are additional fee changes including construction water fees and
miscellaneous service charges. Construction water fees are applied to new construction projects
for water that is not metered. The contractor pays 1.5 months of their base charge. Since there
has been a slow down in the building industry and some of the projects have taken longer than
anticipated, Utilities is losing revenue and metering of actual water usage with these construction
projects. Utilities would like to initiate a monthly billing charge. As soon as the property has a
certificate of occupancy, the user would receive a meter and would be charged actual usage at
that point. If there is a large development, a temporary meter pit may be installed to meter the
usage. Utilities can track the usage better with this implemented.
Additional Fee Changes – Miscellaneous Service Charges
The after-hours water connect fee and the fees for special trips will increase because Utilities
desires to recover their actual costs. The after-hours water connect fee of $85.35 includes two
hours of personnel time and one hour of vehicle usage time.
Board discussion:
What does Utilities define as a special trip? A special trip is defined as any service request from
a citizen including water turn-ons and turn-offs.
This does not include normal projects such as turning on a water meter? No.
5
Why would Utilities make a trip after hours? This is simply because of customer service issues.
Will the 6 percent rate increase for 2012 pay for future projects or will there be another rate
increase? Utilities is only asking for the board’s recommendation for the 2012 budget. Utilities
needs time to determine what other projects are priorities and what kind of rate increase may be
needed at a later time. The current rate increase is to stabilize the revenues and balance
increasing expenses.
A board member suggested it might be beneficial to remove the line item concerning the asset
management expenses from the operating expense presentation when the information is
presented to Council. This may be helpful in showing that the increase was not as severe because
most of the costs associated with asset management were up-front fees. Also, when presenting
information on the average bill, it may be beneficial to present the information relative to several
years’ worth of data. It may also be beneficial to show what the average consumer will conserve
over time.
Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously.
Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously.
Board discussion:
A board member asked for more details on the land acquisition items under the 2012 Budget
Exception Requests for the Stormwater Fund. Mr. Haukaas stated that when the 2011-2012
budget was submitted, there was not a major capital project identified for 2012. Typically,
Utilities does approximately $3 million in capital projects every year. At that time, the only
identified stormwater item was for approximately $300,000. If a project is not identified, the
funds would be earmarked for later capital projects. Utilities desires to have the budget exception
in place for a grant match for acquiring property in the floodplain and floodway areas. Utilities
desires to have funds available for buying properties to remove from the floodway in the College
Avenue and Vine Drive area. The second budget exception relates to a master plan flood
mitigation project property near LaPorte Avenue and Vine Drive east of Taft Hill Road.
Is this the direction the City wants to go in philosophically from the City’s Master Plan? This
policy has been in place for a number of years. Utilities will revisit the grant application process
in 2012. The City desires to have the grant match funds available if the opportunity becomes
available to purchase the properties.
What is the benefit for the city? The primary benefit is public safety; however, there are also
environmental and recreational benefits when the properties are converted to open space.
Would the Water Board revisit the issue or does the board have one chance to review the
information? Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis stated the negotiations are not held in the
public format because of sensitivity with the negotiation process.
Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt
the proposed 6 percent across the board water rate increase and the 8 percent across
the board wastewater increase for 2012. Board Member Goldbach seconded the
motion.
Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt
the proposed changes to the 2012 plant investment fees for water, wastewater, and
stormwater. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion.
6
Floodplain Administrator Marsha Hilmes-Robinson stated there are no capital projects mitigating
flood damages on the Poudre River. There are regulations in place to control new development
and land acquisition is just another tool for the City to use to remove the risks. With the risk,
there are damage potentials that affect the City as a whole such as debris removal and landfill
storage issues.
Chairperson Janett reminded the board there was less impact during the 1997 Spring Creek
flooding because the City bought properties and removed some of the risk.
A board member stated that it seems counter productive for the City to remove successful
businesses. Mr. Haukaas stated the properties are only purchased when the property owners are
willing to sell the property.
A board member asked for clarification on the concept of how the properties are sought for
purchase? Mr. Haukaas stated Utilities and Real Estate Services staff members handle the
negotiations on a one-on-one approach for each property.
Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously.
* Board Member Eccleston departed at 7:05 p.m.
Board Member Balderson moved that the Water Board recommend City Council approve
the Water and Stormwater Funds’ 2012 proposed exceptions to the 2011-2012 Budget.
Board Member Bovee seconded the motion.
1
Attachment 8
Excerpt from Unapproved Electric Board Minutes, October 6, 2011
2011 L&P Budget Exceptions and Rate Recommendations
(Presentation available upon request)
Utilities Financial Operations Manager Ellen Switzer presented information on this item. She
began the presentation by thanking the board members for arranging their schedule to review the
information before it is presented to Council. The residential energy rate will not be presented to
Council at this time. It will be presented later this year.
Electric Rate Increase
Staff is recommending an 8.3 percent electric rate increase. There are several components to the
rate increase. The wholesale electric rates from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) will
increase 6.4 percent, with a 4.8 percent increase at the retail level. There will be higher seasonal
rates in June, July, and August. More costs will shift from the demand component to the energy
component. There are several key factors relating to the PRPA rate increase, including reduced
surplus sales, increased Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, increased financing cost and
depreciation, and reduced interest income. Reduced interest income is affecting all the Utilities
funds.
Board discussion:
Did anyone question the increase to O&M costs? Mr. Catanach stated he will have to research
the answer to this question.
Ms. Switzer stated the remaining 3.5 percent rate increase is related to internal needs for Light
and Power. Utilities is trying to slow the use of reserves for capital projects. Since 2007,
expenses have been greater than revenues.
Is there a target for reserves? Mr. Catanach stated there is a mandated minimum that Utilities
should preserve. He also stated Light &Power operational expenses for 2010-2011 have been
reduced by 9 percent. The budget structure was revamped and there was a 2.4 percent reduction
for the 2011-2012 Budget.
Is the reserve based on a percent of the revenue? Ms. Switzer stated it is based on two things.
There is an operating reserve equal to 8 percent of the operating budget less purchase power.
There is also a capital reserve. There was also a fairly large reduction in other revenues not
related to rates, including increased development fees. Also, because of lower interest rates,
interest income has been reduced.
Proposed Electric Rates
All electric rates will be seasonal. Rates will be higher during the months of June, July, and
August. The residential energy rate is not included in the ordinance. The residential demand rate
will be restricted to those customers who do not have natural gas service.
Board discussion:
A customer will have to be 100 percent electric to participate in the residential demand rate?
Currently, it is an option.
2
The General Service (GS) Rate will be split into two classes (General Service <25 kW Energy
Only and General Service >25kW Energy and Demand). General Service 50 and 750 (larger
commercial and industrial customers) will retain coincident peak pricing with seasonal
differential.
Ms. Switzer stated the rate schedules are posted on the City Clerk’s webpage at www.fcgov.com.
Ms. Switzer explained the graph for the 8.3 percent electric rate increase by customer class for
Summer, Non Summer, and Average. The average increase is 6 percent.
Board discussion:
This chart shows the percentage in rate change? Where does that leave the overall rate? Ms.
Switzer stated the actual rate schedules are on the City Clerk’s webpage with the old and new
rates listed. The rate changes are based on load factor and load characteristics.
What is a typical customer profile for GS<25? Ms. Switzer stated this is typically a small office,
such as an attorney or accountant.
What customer class do most of the restaurants belong to? Most of the restaurants are as high as
GS50.
What are the criteria for generating the differential for cost of service versus seasonal rates?
Ms. Switzer stated this is purely based on purchase power cost from PRPA.
Recommended Electric Rate Clarifications
Staff is recommending a new definition for wholesale transactions be included in the City Code.
This is subject to requirements for interconnection and is not governed by the electric rate
schedules or electric development fees. The code clarification sets the value of the energy.
Mr. Catanach stated there will be a net metering credit for net excess generation that will be
based on the summer season retail energy charge. The value is carried month to month. With the
tiered rate structure, the value is impossible to track over a 12 month period. Utilities will
purchase the power back at the lowest tiered rate for the season.
Board discussion:
Is there more incentive in the summer? The majority of the production is in the summer.
Mr. Catanach stated the parallel generation credit for energy delivered to the utility will be based
on PRPA’s avoided cost rate. The Special Services Agreement states the customer can earn the
credit for offsetting the demand. If a customer consistently generates a benefit to the system (for
example 10 kW), Utilities is willing to recognize the demand benefit. Since Utilities has to invest
in system capacity, it is important to ensure the rate reflects the true value that a generating
customer brings to Utilities.
Was there a change in the City Code to implement this? No; however, the change in the Special
Services Agreement was presented to Council.
Electric Development Fees
The Electric Development Fees are required to be adjusted by Council every other year.
Typically, they are presented to Council every year. The 2011 Electric Development Fees were
approved in 2010. The proposed changes for 2012 include a 3.0 percent increase for a typical
3
single family lot and a 0.3 percent decrease for a model commercial development. The changes
are based on the current construction estimates.
Ms. Switzer explained the graph for the 2011-2012 Electric Development Fee Comparison based
on a typical single family lot and a model commercial development.
Board discussion:
How do these rates compare with other cities? Mr. Catanach stated these rates are comparable
with other nearby cities.
Miscellaneous Fees
These changes will be presented to Council on November 15, 2011. The after-hours service
charge will increase to $85.35. It is currently at $55.45. A monthly charge for manual meter
reading for those customers who opt out of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
program needs to be determined. Currently, it is estimated at $10-15 per month. Mr. Catanach
stated the rate should not be a punishing rate for individuals who choose to opt out of the AMI
program.
Board discussion:
How long do you expect this rate structure to continue? When is the next phase of the rate
change for the other classes? The rate form will remain the same until at least 2014.
A board member expressed concern that the timing of the rate changes along with the AMI
program implementation should be considered.
2012 Budget Revisions/Exceptions
The following changes are recommended to the original 2012 budget:
• Purchase Power: $1,724,505
• Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs): $121,969
• Energy Efficiency Financing Program: $300,000
Ms. Switzer stated the $300,000 for the Energy Efficiency Financing Program will cover loans
and fees to set-up and administer the program. Council has been asking for this program.
Board discussion:
Is this in lieu of on-bill financing? Energy Services Manager John Phelan stated there is a range
of options with the program. The requested amount would be sufficient to get the program
started as a pilot program. Utilities would like the program up and running in the first quarter of
2012.
What is the increase from last year’s budget? Last year’s budget was $50,000.
Is this an exception or a revision? Ms. Switzer stated that typically these are called exceptions;
however, a Councilmember requested they be referred to as revisions in the future.
Ms. Switzer stated there may also be a city wide exception for increasing salaries for employees
currently paid less than market value. This is a city wide recommendation. Mr. Catanach stated
the City has budgeted 2 percent for increases. $800,000 would be dedicated to market increases.
The City will also supplement this with a budget exception.
4
How far are some of the Utility employee’s salaries below market value? Mr. Catanach stated
some salaries are 15-20 percent below market value; however, some of these positions are entry
level or new hire positions. Approximately half of the Light and Power employee’s salaries are
6-7 percent below market value.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
* Chairperson Wolley abstained from the vote due to a conflict of interest as a representative of a
business.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Discussion on the motion:
A board member recommended the line item for the Energy Efficiency Financing Program be
removed from the list of exceptions. He would like more explanation on the program.
A board member asked for clarification on the item. Is it a form of a loan program? Yes.
How did Utilities arrive at $300,000 for the program? Mr. Phelan stated this amount is enough
to establish a pilot program.
When City Council requested an increase to the budget, did they ask for a specific increase for
this item? No, Council only asked that the program be implemented.
What is the duration of the loan program? Typically, it is 5-10 years. Utilities can design the
terms of the loan.
Does Utilities have a document that describes the scope of the program? No, not currently.
A board member suggested dividing the recommended motion into two segments. Vice
Chairperson DeCourcey withdrew the original motion. Board Member Yurash requested a
friendly amendment to staff’s recommended motion.
Board Member Yurash moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council adopt
the proposed electric rate increases for all rate classes with the exception of the Residential
Energy Rate. Board Member Graham seconded the motion.
Board Member Harris moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council adopt
the proposed changes to the 2012 Electric Development Fees and Charges. Vice Chairperson
DeCourcey seconded the motion.
Vice Chairperson DeCourcey moved that the Electric Board recommend that City Council
approve the proposed exceptions to the Light and Power Fund’s 2011-2012 Budget. Board
Member Graham seconded the motion.
Amended Motion: Board Member Yurash moved that the Electric Board recommend that
City Council approve the recommended budget additions for Purchase Power costs,
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs), and the creation of an exception for increasing Utility
employees’ salaries for market rate adjustments. Vice Chairperson DeCourcey seconded the
motion.
5
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board discussion:
Is the last chance for Utilities to add this amount to the exception process? Yes, it will be voted
on by Council on October 18, 2011.
The board members agreed to not modify the recommendation concerning the Energy Efficiency
Financing Programs. A board member felt the original recommended motion concerning this
was too vague.
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
1
1
2012 Utility Rates and Fees Ordinances
First Reading
October 18, 2011
2
7 Ordinances – Effective January 1, 2012
• Monthly Water Rates
• Monthly Wastewater Rates
• Monthly Electric Rates (excludes the Residential Energy Rate)
• Water Plant Investment Fees
• Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
• Electric Development Fees
• Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
2
3
Monthly Utility Rates
Water 6.0%
Stormwater 0.0%
Electric 8.3%
Wastewater 8.0%
Average
Increase
• Water and Wastewater
– across the board to
all customers
• Electric increases vary
– by customer class
– within classes
– seasonally
4
6% Water Rate Increase
• Stabilize Water Fund revenue
• Revenues decreased 23% between 2006-2010
• Demand down 15%
• The vast majority of costs are fixed
• Variable costs (chemicals/electricity) increasing
• Fund capital projects (not Halligan)
• Slow use of reserves and maintain debt
coverage
• Also change billing for water used during
construction
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
3
5
8% Wastewater Rate Increase
• Part of planned series of wastewater
increases to fund the debt for the Mulberry
Wastewater Treatment Facility
• Wastewater revenues are increasing less
than the adopted rate increases
• Loss of large contract customer
• Reduced water use
6
8.3% Electric Rate Increase
• Residential Energy Rate
– not changed in tonight’s ordinance
– will come back to Council November 15th with options
• Two factors in 8.3% increase
+4.8% retail impact from PRPA’s 6.4% rate increase
+3.5% needed to slow the use of L&P reserves for capital
additions
• Fort Collins Electric Rates remain among the lowest in the state
and nation.
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
4
7
Rate Increase Varies by Customer Class & Season
2012 RATE INCREASE
16.8%
19.6%
18.1%
27.0%
20.0%
20.7%
19.2%
2.0%
15.1%
10.9%
4.7%
7.6%
4.4%
6.0%
15.9%
3.9%
15.5%
8.7%
11.0%
8.3%
-1.6%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
RESIDENTIAL
- Not included
in proposed
Ord
RESIDENTIAL
DEMAND
RATE GS<25
RATE GS>25
GS50
GS750
system
Summer Non Summer Average
8
Recommended Electric Rate Clarifications
• Wholesale transactions - add new Code section
–retail rates do not apply to purchases
• Net metering credit for net excess generation
–based on the summer season retail energy charge
• Parallel generation credit for energy delivered to utility
–based on Platte River’s avoided cost rate
• Clarification of distribution facilities demand for the
largest customers
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
5
9
Current Estimated $ %
2011 2012 Increase Increase
Electric
700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * *
Wastewater
4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0%
Stormwater
8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0%
Water
117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0%
Total Estimated Average
Monthly Utility Bill $138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2%
2012 Utility Rates Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill
* The 2012 electric residential energy rate will not be implemented January 1, 2012.
A change, averaging 6% is expected to be effective February 1, 2012.
Monthly Rates Summary
10
Plant Investment Fees
• By Code, PIF/ Electric Development Fees are to be
adjusted at least biennially
• Proposed changes for 2012:
Water PIF +4.7%
Wastewater PIF -3.0%
Stormwater PIF +1.2%
Electric Development Fees:
• Residential +3.0%
• Commercial -0.3%
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
6
11
PIFs Summary
PIF Changes for Typical Single Family
Current Proposed Change Change
2011 2012 % $
Water1 $3,826 $4,084 6.7% $258
Raw Water2 $5,203 $5,203 0.0% $0
Wastewater $3,550 $3,440 -3.1% ($110)
Stormwater3 $1,069 $1,082 1.2% $13
Electric1 $3,139 $3,233 3.0% $94
Total $16,787 $17,042 1.5% $255
1 Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70' street frontage
2 No increase for Raw Water
3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way;
.5 run off coefficient
12
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
July Water Use 21,000 Gallons
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Loveland
Longmont
Ft. Collins
Boulder
Ft. Collins '12
Denver
Greeley
Aurora
Co.Sprs
Electric Water Wastewater Stormwater
Conclusion: Total utility costs are competitive in the region.
Electric rates are among the lowest in the country.
Attachment 9 - Utility Rates
7
13
Next Steps
• November 1, 2011
– 2nd
reading of these 7 ordinances
• November 15, 2011
– 1st reading of Residential Energy Service Rate
(RESR) Ordinance with seasonal & seasonal-
tiered options
– 1st reading of Service Charges Ordinance
• December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda
– 2nd
reading of RESR & Service Fees Ordinances
• January 1, 2012 - All rates effective except RESR
• February 1, 2012 - Proposed effective date of RESR
14
Questions?
ORDINANCE NO. 138, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE WATER RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates,
fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay
the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-118 of the City Code requires that the City Manager analyze the
operating and financial records of the water utility during each calendar year and recommend to the
City Council the user rate fees to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed water rates, fees and charges for 2012
at its September 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval of the proposed rate changes by a
unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following
water use rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-126 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-126. Schedule A, flat rates for unmetered construction water use.
For residential and nonresidential premises under construction there shall be
a one-time charge equal to one and one-half (1½) times the monthly base charge as
specified for the applicable residential or nonresidential account in § 26-127.with a
planned meter size greater than 1”, no flat unmetered water service will be provided.
For residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter
size of 1-inch or less, the following flat rates will apply per month until the
permanent meter is set:
¾-inch construction service, flat charge per month $24.02
1-inch construction service, flat charge per month $45.80
Section 2. That Section 26-127 (a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
1
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall
pay a base monthly charge of twelvethirteen dollars and eight-
threesixty cents ($12.8313.60).
b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of onetwo dollars and ninety-two and eight-tenthsten and five-tenths
cents ($1.9282.105) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
two dollars and twenty-one and six tenthsforty-one and nine-tenths
cents ($2.2162.419) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
fifty-four and nine-tenthsseventy-eight and three-tenths cents
($2.5492.783) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of fifteen dollars and ninety-seven cents
($15.097).
b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of onetwo dollars and ninety-one and three-tenthstwo and eight-
tenths cents ($1.9132.028) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and nineteen and nine-tenthsthirty-three and one-tenth
cents ($2.1992.331) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
fifty-three and zero tenthssixty-eight and two-tenths cents
($2.5302.682) per one thousand (1,000) gallons.
2
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of twelvethirteen dollars and
seventy-threeforty-nine cents ($12.7313.49) for the first dwelling unit
and four dollars and twenty-fourforty-nine cents ($4.244.49) for the
second and each additional dwelling unit.
b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and
eighty-four and eight-tenthsninety-five and nine-tenths cents
($1.8481.959) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter
season months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of two dollars and thirty-one and zero tenthsforty-
four and nine-tenths cents ($2.3102.449) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons used in the summer season months of May through October.
The meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal
monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more
than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential customers shall pay a base monthly
charge based on meter size as follows:
Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base Charge
¾ $ 11.4812.17
1 32.0333.95
1½ 87.1092.33
2 131.26139.14
3 200.21212.22
4 314.30333.16
6 609.72646.30
8 1,077.121,141.75
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of one dollar and fifty-nine and seven-tenthssixty-
nine and three-tenths cents ($1.5971.693) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons used in the winter season months of November through April.
They shall pay a monthly quantity charge of onetwo dollars and nine
and six-tenthseleven and six-tenths cents ($1.9962.116) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May
through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine
the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however, no customer shall be
3
billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts
specified in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and
twenty-nine and five-tenthsforty-three and three-tenths cents
($2.2952.433) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter
season months of November through April. Monthly water use in
excess of the amounts specified below shall be billed at twothree
dollars and eighty-seven and zero tenthsfour and two-tenths cents
($2.8703.042) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer
season months of May through October. The meter reading date shall
generally determine the seasonal billing excess quantity charge;
however, no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing
cycles at the summer excess quantity charge.
Meter Size (inches) Specified Amount (gallons per month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
. . .
Section 3. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein
shall go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
4
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
5
ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates,
fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay
the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-120 of the City Code provides that the rates and parameters of the
Water Plant Investment Fees be reviewed annually by the City Manager and shall be presented to
City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 116, 2009,
which established the plant investment fees that are now in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to
contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that existing Water Plant Investment Fees be adjusted
based on the current replacement cost of the capital facilities that will be needed to serve new
development and for future growth related capital expansion; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the adjustments to the
Water Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Water Plant Investment Fees for 2012
at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees by an
unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Section 26-
128 of the City Code to revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-128 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-128. Schedule C, water plant investment fees.
The water plant investment fee prescribed in § 26-120 shall be payable by
users both inside and outside of the City, as follows:
(1) Single-family residential buildings: For the first three-fourths-inch
water tap or meter, a fee of seven hundred thirty dollars ($730.) for
a single-family residence, plus thirty-sixthirty-nine cents ($0.360.39)
for each square foot of lot area. For a single-family residential lot
greater than one-half (½) acre in size, the lot size shall be deemed to
be one-half (½) acre for the purpose of this fee calculation. For each
additional tap or meters larger than three-fourths (¾) inch, the
nonresidential rate shall apply.
(2) Residential buildings of two (2) or more dwelling units: For each
residential building unit, a fee of four hundred ninetyfive hundred ten
dollars ($490.510.), plus twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each square
foot of lot area. The fee will provide for one (1) tap per residential
building and an adequate number of additional taps to serve common
irrigable areas, if any. The number and size of taps shall be
determined by the Utilities Executive Director based upon the criteria
established in the Uniform Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to
Chapter 5 of the Code.
(3) Mobile home parks: For each mobile home park, a fee of four
hundred ninetyfive hundred ten dollars ($490.510.) for each mobile
home space in the park, plus twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each
square foot of lot area. The fee will provide for one (1) tap per mobile
home park. The size of the tap shall be determined by the Utilities
Executive Director based upon the criteria established in the Uniform
Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Code.
(4) Hotels, rooming houses, sororities, fraternities and similar uses: The
nonresidential rate shall apply.
(5) Nonresidential service:
a. Service to all nonresidential taps, including but not limited to
taps for commercial and industrial service, shall be charged
according to the size of the meter pursuant to the following
schedule:
Meter Size (inches) Nonresidential Plant Investment Fee
¾ $ 7,5307,880
1 21,73022,750
1½ 45,30047,410
2 69,07072,290
3 157,920165,290
b. The fee for all meters larger than three (3) inches shall be
negotiated withdetermined by the Executive Director and
-2-
shall be based on estimated peak day demand but shall not be
less than the charge for a three-inch meter.
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect on January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE WASTEWATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the wastewater utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 requires that the City Manager analyze the operating
and financial records of the wastewater utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City
Council the user rate fees or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 further requires that the user rates be revised as
necessary to assure equity of the rate system established and to assure that sufficient funds are
obtained to adequately operate and maintain the wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the Mulberry Wastewater Reclamation Plant has undergone a upgrade of the
plant's treatment processes to prepare the plant for future regulation-based improvements and to
make odor control improvements; and
WHEREAS, such improvements are not related to growth and will require increased user
rates to generate sufficient revenues to repay the debt necessary to finance these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed wastewater rates, fees and changes
for 2012 at its September 22, 2011, meeting and recommended approval of the changes by
unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following
wastewater rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-280 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-280. Service charges established by category.
The schedule of rates for each category described in § 26-279 shall be as
follows:
Category Class of Customer Rate
A Single-family residential
user (flat rate)
$31.2433.74 per month
Single-family residential
user (metered water use)
$13.9515.07 per month plus $2.7122.929 per 1,000
gallons of either winter quarter water use or 3,000
gallons, whichever is greater. For single family
customers who have not established a winter quarter
water use at the service address, a system average of
4,800 gallons per month shall be billed.
B Duplex (two-family)
residential users (flat rate)
$48.7852.68 per month
Duplex (two-family)
residential users (metered
water use)
$18.0719.52 per month plus $2.7122.929 per 1,000
gallons of either winter quarter water use or 4,000
gallons, whichever is greater. For duplex customers
who have not established a winter quarter water use at
the service address, a system average 7,200 gallons
shall be billed.
C Multi-family residential
user (more than two
dwelling units including
mobile home parks) and
winter quarter based
nonresidential user
$2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of winter quarter water
use, plus a base charge of $2.132.30 per month per
dwelling unit served. For multi family customers who
have not established a winter quarter water use at the
service address, a system average of 3,400 gallons per
living unit shall be billed.
D Minor nonresidential user $2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured
sewage flow or winter quarter water use, whichever is
applicable, plus the following applicable base charge:
Size of water
meter (inches)
¾ or smaller
1
1½
2
3
4
6
8
Base
Charge
$7.838.46
18.0719.52
36.3739.28
62.2367.21
99.43107.38
157.03169.59
688.35743.42
794.80858.38
-2-
E and F Intermediate
nonresidential user and
Significant industrial
user
$2.7122.929 per 1,000 gallons of water use,
measured wastewater flow or winter quarter water
use, whichever is applicable; plus a surcharge of
$2.8053.029 per million gallons for each milligram
per liter of suspended solids in excess of 235
milligrams per liter; plus a surcharge of
$2.3362.523 per million gallons for each milligram
per liter of BOD in excess of 265 milligrams per
liter or a surcharge of $1.4751.593 per million
gallons for each milligram per liter of COD in
excess of 400 milligrams per liter, or a surcharge of
$4.3674.716 per million gallons for each milligram
per liter of TOC in excess of 130 milligrams per
liter, whichever is applicable. The user shall pay this
calculated amount plus the applicable base charge
set forth below:
Size of water meter
(inches)
¾ or smaller
1
1½
2
3
4
6
8
Base
charge
$7.838.46
18.0719.52
36.3739.28
62.2367.21
99.43107.38
157.03169.59
688.35743.42
794.80858.38
G User outside City limits The rate for users outside the City limits shall be the
same as for like service inside the City limits as is
specified in Categories A—F and H in this Section
H Special with agreement The rate pursuant to a special wastewater services
agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to §
26-290 shall be set forth in said agreement.
Section 2 That Section 26-281(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(c) The amount of the wastewater strength surcharge to be billed each
user shall be calculated from one (1) of the following three (3) formulas, depending
on whether the wastewater is more amenable to testing for BOD, COD or TOC or on
the selection of the Executive Director in the absence of monitoring:
-3-
(1) Cs=Vu[Bc(B) + Sc(S)]
(2) Cs=Vu[CODc(COD) + Sc(S)]
(3) Cs=Vu[TOCc(TOC) + Sc(S)]
Where:
Cs = User's surcharge for wastewaters of excessive strength per billing
period
Vu = Volume of water used or wastewater discharged per billing period
Bc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of BOD
B = Concentration of BOD from a user in excess of two hundred sixty-
five (200265) mg/l
Sc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of TSS
S = Concentration of TSS from a user in excess of two hundred
fiftythirty-five (250235) mg/l
CODc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of COD
COD = Concentration of COD from a user in excess of threefour hundred
(300400) mg/l
TOCc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of TOC
TOC = Concentration of TOC from a user in excess of one hundred thirty
(100130) mg/l
Section 3. That Section 26-282(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-282. Wastewater strength or industrial surcharges and categories
established.
(a) The schedule of wastewater strength surcharge for customers located either
inside or outside the City limits shall be as follows:
Parameter Excess over (mg/l) Rate per 1,000 gallons
BOD 265 $0.0023360.002523
COD 400 0.0014750.001593
TOC 130 0.0043670.004716
TSS 235 0.0028050.003029
Section 4. That Section 26-289 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-289. Miscellaneous fees and charges.
The following is a schedule of miscellaneous fees and charges:
-4-
Description Amount
(1) Connection fees and service
charges
Fees shall be set forth as in §
26-712(b)
(2) Industrial discharge permits:
a. Administration $76.00 annually
b. Surveillance Determined for each user
annually, based on direct
cost plus 15% indirect costs,
billed monthly
(3) Laboratory support services Determined on a case-by-
case basis based on direct
cost plus 15% indirect costs
(4) Determined on a case-by-case basis
based on direct cost plus 15% indirect
costs
Cost plus 15%
(5) Charges for disposal at the Fort
Collins Regional Sanitary Waste
Transfer Station:
a. Septic tanks, vaults, privies, portable
toilets:
Generated within Larimer
County
$0.0660.071 per gallon
Generated outside Larimer
County
b. Recreational vehicle sanitary
waste holding tanks:
$0.1000.108 per gallon
Residential customers of the
City of Fort Collins Wastewater
Utility
No charge for single
individual disposal at
Transfer Station
Others $2.182.35 base fee plus
$0.0660.071 per gallon
(6) Miscellaneous fees Determined on a case-by-
case basis based on direct
costs plus 15% indirect costs
Section 5. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein
shall go into effect for billings based upon meter readings on or after in January 1, 2012.
-5-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-6-
ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE SEWER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the wastewater utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-277 of the City Code requires that the City Manager analyze the
operating and financial records of the wastewater utility during each calendar year and recommend
to the City Council the user rate fees or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-283 of the City Code provides that the City Manager review the
rates and parameters of the Sewer Plant Investment Fees annually and present them to City Council
for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2009,
which established the Sewer Plant Investment fees now in effect; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council’s intent that existing Sewer Plant Investment Fees be
adjusted based on the current replacement cost of the capital facilities that will be needed to serve
new development and for future growth related capital expansion; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the adjustments to the
Sewer Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees
by an unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-284(a) and (d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-284. Sewer plant investment fees and surcharges established.
(a) The schedule of sewer plant investment fees, subject to the exceptions and
additional requirements provided in this Section, is as follows:
Category SPIF
A $ 3,550.3,440.
B and C $2,490.2,410. for each dwelling unit or mobile home
space
Category
Water meter
size (inches) Fee
D, E, F ¾ $7,1006,880
1 17,88017,300
1½ 31,49030,480
2 55,29053,520
3 150,130145,310
4 and above Calculated on an individual basis based on peak wastewater
flow (determined in the manner set forth hereinafter) but not less
than the charge for a three-inch meter
G Same as equivalent category, plus any
special sanitation district fees.
H Determined pursuant to paragraph (d)
of this Section.
. . .
(d) The amount of the plant investment fee and surcharge for each nonresidential
surcharged user, users in Category H and any user that is expected to generate
greater than its proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant for the
applicable category (including both contributed wastewater volume and volume
related to infiltration and inflow), shall be calculated utilizing the following formula:
SPIF = Site Flow x [Flow$ + (BOD x BOD$) + (TSS x TSS$)] + I&I Flow x [Flow$
+ (200 mg/l x BOD$) + (250 mg/l x TSS$)]
Where:
SPIF = Plant investment fee for Category H users and users
discharging wastewater with average concentrations of BOD
and/or TSS which exceed those average concentrations
which are set forth in § 26-282(b) under Category E-34
Site Flow = The user's proportionate share of peak day flow at the
treatment plant based on
site flow discharge from user's site
-2-
I&I Flow = That proportionate share of peak day flow due to infiltration
and inflow as
allocated to user's site flow discharge
Flow$ = $6.346.10 per gallon (unit cost of facilities attributable to
treating wastewater flow)
BOD = Average BOD concentration for user category or measured
BOD concentration for the user as determined in accordance
with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 200
mg/l
BOD$ = $0.01380.0134 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to
treating BOD)
TSS = Average TSS concentration for user category or measured
TSS concentration for the user as determined in accordance
with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 250
mg/l
TSS$ = $0.01100.0107 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to
treating TSS)
. . .
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect on January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority (“Platte River”) costs are increasing due to
reduced surplus sales, increased operating costs for aging plants and environmental mitigation,
increased financing costs, and continuing capital investment; and
WHEREAS, Platte River will increase the City’s wholesale cost of power approximately
6.4% in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the increased wholesale power costs will require a 4.8% increase in the City’s
electric rates; and
WHEREAS, the revenues in the Light and Power Fund have not been sufficient to fund
capital projects and system replacements and reserves have been utilized to make up for the short
fall; and
WHEREAS, the reduction in reserves was accelerated due to reductions in interest revenue
and development fee revenue; and
WHEREAS, without additional rate increases, reserves are projected to fall below minimum
policy levels as early as 2013; and
WHEREAS, a 3.5% rate increase will begin to fund the necessary capital improvements and
system replacements and will also begin to stem the decline in reserves; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to enact rate structures to encourage additional energy
conservation measures in order to meet Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and
WHEREAS, in order to further encourage energy conservation, the recommended
adjustments to the electric rates include an amendment to the residential demand service rate
schedule limiting participation to those customers who establish to the satisfaction of the Utility that
their residences are heated entirely by electric energy; and
WHEREAS, City Council has requested an additional work session to review and study the
rate form options for the residential energy service rate class and will defer making a decision
related to changes for the 2012 residential energy service rate until that review is completed later
in 2011 or early 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to City Council the following
adjustments to the existing residential demand, general service, general service 50, general service
750 and traffic signal electric rates for all billings issued with meter readings on or after January 1,
2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to City Council the creation of
a new rate class, general service 25; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise electric rates, fees and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition “Wholesale energy” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Wholesale energy, as used in this Article, shall mean that energy sold to the City or
to Platte River Power Authority by negotiated contract to be sold by the City or
Platte River Power Authority to others.
Section 2. That Sections 26-446 and 26-447 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be renumbered as Sections 26-447 and 26-448 respectively.
Section 3. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition
of a new Section 26-447 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-446. Wholesale transactions.
The sale of wholesale energy, as defined in this Article, shall be subject to
requirements for interconnection to the City’s electric system and requirements for
sales to the City, if applicable, will not be governed by the electric rate schedules or
electric development fees and charges set out in this Article.
Section 4. That Section 26-465(a), (c), (k) and (q) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
are hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Availability. The residential demand service rate, schedule RD, shall be
available within the corporate limits of the City and the suburban fringe. Service
under this rate class is available only to customers who establish to the satisfaction
of the utility, by providing to the utility such documentation as the utility may deem
appropriate, that the residence served is heated entirely by electric energy. Such
documentation must be submitted by April 1, 2012. At such time that the utility
implements a time-of-use rate, this rate schedule will no longer be available.
-2-
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates are as follows:
(1) Ffixed charge, per account: Six dollars and thirty-twoseven dollars
and twenty-four cents ($6.237.24).
(2) Ddemand charge, per kilowatt: Three dollars and eighty-seventwo
dollars and forty-three cents ($3.872.43).
(3) Ddistribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: Onetwo and eighty-
eight one-hundredths cents ($0.018800.0288).
(4) Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-eight one-
hundredths cents ($0.0248).
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of monthly service charges billed pursuant to this
Section.
. . .
(k) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such
customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and
conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and the credit for energy delivered to
the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection.
. . .
-3-
(q) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be
measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has
produced more electricity than the customer-generator has consumed, the
customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production.
During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall
receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding
twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to
the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 5. That Section 26-466(b), (c), (m) and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-466. General service, schedule GS.
. . .
(b) Applicability. This schedule applies to individual commercial and
industrial services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's
distribution system; and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in
existence prior to January 1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living
quarters are served through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five
(5) horsepower may be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule
applies to an individual single or three-phase service with an energy-only meter and
for demand metered services with an average metered demand of not greater than
fifty (50)twenty-five (25) kilowatts.
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) Ffixed charge, per account:
a. Ssingle-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and
twenty-onesixty-eight cents ($3.213.68).
b. Ssingle-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: Nine
dollars and forty-sixten dollars and eighty-three cents
($9.4610.83).
c. Tthree-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: Four dollars and
eight-eightfive dollars and fifty-nine cents ($4.885.59).
-4-
d. Tthree-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: Eleven
dollars and fifty-sixthirteen dollars and twenty-four cents
($11.5613.24).
(2) Ddemand charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. First two thousand (2,000) kilowatt-hours: Three and sixty-
two one-hundredths cents ($0.0362).during the summer
season billing months of June, July and August: two and
sixty-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0267).
b. Next five thousand (5,000) kilowatt-hours: One and seventy-
eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0178).during the non-summer
season billing months of January through May and September
through December: one and thirty-nine one-hundredths cents
($0.0139).
c. All additional kilowatt-hours: Zero ($0.00).the meter reading
date shall generally determine the summer season billing
months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three
(3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) Demand charge, per kilowatt:
a. All kilowatts billed in excess of twenty-five (25) kilowatts:
Six dollars and fifty-seven cents ($6.57).
(43)Ddistribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: Oone and fifty-
eighteighty-one one-hundredths cents ($0.01580.0181).
(54)Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-eight one-
hundredths cents ($0.0248).
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
-5-
(65)Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(m) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their
instantaneous energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in
parallel with the utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under
the special services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such
facility is constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of
the electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such
customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and
conditions described in Subsection (r) below, and the credit for energy delivered to
the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection.
. . .
(r) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 6. That Section 26-466 (f) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
deleted and the remaining sections 26-466 (g) through 26-466 (r) are renumbered 26-466 (f) through
26-466 (q) respectively.
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
-6-
(1) The monthly standby distribution charge shall be three dollars and
two cents ($3.02) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This
charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all
metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby
distribution charge shall be nine dollars and six cents ($9.06) per
kilowatt.
(2) In the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of
the new contract period will become the current billing month and
such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable
contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service
may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance
charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby
service.
Section 7. That currently numbered Sections 26-467 through 26-473 are renumbered as
Sections 26-468 through 26-474 respectively and that an entirely new Section 26-467 General
service 25, schedule GS25, is hereby inserted to read as follows:
Sec. 26-467. General service 25, schedule GS25.
(a) Availability. The schedule GS shall be available within the corporate limits
of the City and the suburban fringe.
(b) Applicability. This schedule applies to individual commercial and industrial
services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's distribution system;
and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in existence prior to January
1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living quarters are served
through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five (5) horsepower may
be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule applies to an individual
single or three-phase service with an average metered demand of not less than (25)
kilowatts or greater than fifty (50) kilowatts.
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) fixed charge, per account:
a. single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and
sixty-eight cents ($3.68).
b. single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: ten dollars
and eighty-three cents ($10.83).
c. three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: five dollars and
fifty-nine cents ($5.59).
-7-
d. three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: thirteen
dollars and twenty-four cents ($13.24).
(2) demand charge, per kilowatt:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: seven dollars and seven cents ($7.07).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: four dollars
and thirty- six cents ($4.36).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: one and eighty-one
one-hundredths cents ($0.0181).
(4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited
to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to
customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths cents ($.019) per kilowatt hour. The
utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance
the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-
adopted policy applicable to the utility.
-8-
(e) Excess capacity charge. A monthly capacity charge of two dollars ($2.) per
kilowatt may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in
accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations.
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) the monthly standby distribution charge shall be four dollars and
twenty-seven cents ($4.27) per kilowatt of contracted standby
service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities
charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount,
the standby distribution charge shall be twelve dollars and eighty-one
cents ($12.81) per kilowatt.
(2) in the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of
the new contract period will become the current billing month and
such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable
contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service
may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance
charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby
service.
(g) Service charge. Service charges and connection fees shall be as set forth in
Subsection 26-712(b).
(h) Conservation assistance, rebates and incentives. The utility may establish
programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers in order to reduce
energy consumption or system peak demands consistent with Council-adopted policy
applicable to the utility. Such programs may include financial or technical assistance,
incentives or rebates and shall be consistent with program objectives approved by the
Utilities Executive Director.
(i) Billing demand. The billing demand shall be determined for each point of
delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest fifteen-minute integrated
demand occurring during the billing period.
(j) Power factor shall be determined by using watt and volt-ampere
measurements collected by the electric meter at the point of service. The power
factor calculated from such measurements shall be the basis of billing adjustment
until satisfactory correction has been made. Review shall be conducted on a monthly
basis by the utility. If the power factor falls below ninety-percent lagging, a power
factor adjustment may be made by increasing the billing demand by one (1) percent
for each one (1) percent or fraction thereof by which the power factor is less than
-9-
ninety-percent lagging. This adjustment shall be based on the power factor at the
time of maximum demand as recorded during the billing period.
(k) Service rights fee in certain annexed areas. A fee for defraying the cost of
acquisition of service rights from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association
(PVREA) shall be charged for each service in areas annexed into the City after April
22, 1989, if such area was previously served by PVREA. The service rights will be
collected monthly for a period of ten (10) consecutive years following the date of
acquisition by the City of electric facilities in such area from PVREA. If service was
previously provided by PVREA, the fee shall be twenty-five (25) percent of charges
for electric power service. For services that come into existence in the affected area
after date of acquisition, the fee shall be five (5) percent of charges for electric power
service. In the event that the City Council has determined that a reduction of the
service rights fee is justified in order to mitigate the economic impacts to a lot or
parcel of land at the time of annexation of said lot or parcel of land, the service rights
fee charged pursuant to this Subsection may be reduced by the City Council pursuant
to a schedule set forth in the ordinance annexing said parcel or lot. The service rights
fee charged pursuant to this Subsection shall not be subject to a charge in lieu of
taxes and franchise otherwise required in this Section.
(l) Special services. Special services or complex service arrangements that are
beyond those required for service under this rate schedule may be arranged by a
written services agreement that the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and
enter into on behalf of the utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and
conditions for any special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by
reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable. Any special services
agreement modifying the rates, fees or charges for said services from those set forth
in this Article shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with
Section 6 of Article XII of the Charter.
(m) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such
customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and
conditions described in Subsection (r) below, and the credit for energy delivered to
the electric utility shall be calculated as described in the Subsection.
(n) Commodity delivery. If the electric utility authorizes the delivery of electric
capacity or energy utilizing the utility's distribution system under mandatory
provisions of state or federal law, a credit will be applied to the customer's monthly
electric bill based upon the electric utility's displaced costs as credited to the utility
-10-
by its supplier of electric energy. Capacity, energy, standby capacity, backup
capacity and special services shall be delivered, metered, billed, dispatched and
controlled in accordance with a special services agreement with the electric utility.
(o) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes
delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.
(p) Contract period. The applicant shall take electric service under this or any
other applicable schedule which is in effect during the term of the contract subject
to adjustment from time to time by the City Council. All contracts under this
schedule shall be for twelve (12) months and shall be automatically renewed
annually. The contract may be terminated at the end of the term upon the giving of
ten (10) days' advance written notice to the City or may be terminated upon the
giving of ten (10) days' advance written notice to the City in the event of vacation of
the premises or a change in ownership or tenant occupancy status.
(q) Rules and regulations. Service supplied under this schedule is subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in the electric utility rules and regulations as approved
by the City Council. Copies may be obtained from the Utility's Customer Service
Office.
(r) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing
electric energy exclusively with a qualifying facility when the
generating capacity of the customer-generator's qualifying facility
meets the following two (2) criteria:
a. the qualifying facility is sized to supply no more than one
hundred twenty (120) percent of the customer-generator's
average annual electricity consumption at that site, including
all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer-
generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused
by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-
way or utility rights-of-way; and
b. the rated capacity of the qualifying facility does not exceed
the customer-generator's service entrance capacity.
(2) The energy generated by an on-site qualifying facility and delivered
to the utility's electric distribution facility shall be used to offset
energy provided by the utility to the customer-generator during the
applicable billing period.
(3) The customer-generator and electric service arrangements shall be
subject to the requirements and conditions described in the City of
-11-
Fort Collins Utility Services Interconnection Standards for
Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution
System.
(4) A customer-generator who receives approval from the electric utility
to obtain net metering service shall be subject to the monthly rates
described above in this rate schedule section.
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 8. That renumbered Sections 26-468(c), (f), (g), (k), (p) and (u) of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-467468. General service 50, schedule GS50.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) Ffixed charge, per account: Eighteen dollars and thirty-sixtwenty-one
dollars and two cents ($18.2621.02). An additional charge of forty
dollars and zero cents ($40.) may be assessed if telephone
communication service is not provided by the customer.
(2) Ccoincident demand charge, per kilowatt: Twelve dollars and eighty
center ($12.80) but not less than one cent ($.01) per kolowatt hour.
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: ten dollars and thirty-six cents ($10.36).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: seven dollars
and seventy-six cents ($7.76).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
-12-
(3) Ddistribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: Four dollars and
eighty-twofive dollars and fifty-two cents ($4.825.52).
(4) Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-eight one-
hundredths cents ($0.0248).
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) Sstandby distribution charge.
a. Tthe monthly standby distribution charge shall be three
dollars and ninety-onefour dollars and forty-eight cents
($3.914.48) per kilowatt of contracted standby service. This
charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For
all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the
standby distribution charge shall be eleven dollars and
seventy-threethirteen dollars and forty-four cents
($11.7313.44) per kilowatt.
b. Iin the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first
month of the new contract period will become the current
billing month and such month's metered demand shall
become the minimum allowable contract demand for the
standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject
-13-
to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge
may be added for special facilities required to provide
standby service.
(2) Sstandby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred
by the utility under Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs,
as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer
as a standby generation and transmission charge.
(g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires
excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity
of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an
annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) Tthe excess circuit charge shall be eighty-threeninety-five cents
($0.830.95) per contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month.
For any metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the
excess circuit charge shall be two dollars and forty-nineeighty-five
cents ($2.492.85) per kilowatt.
(2) Iin the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual
contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is
exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall
become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit
charge.
. . .
(k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facility demand charge used
by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the
electric distribution system and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand
(kW) of a customer’s monthly electric use. Under the utility’s billing system, cost
recovery is based on a twelve month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12)
of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve-month use
patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings.
(1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point
of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour
integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not
be less than seventy (70) percent of the highest distribution facilities
demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11)
months.
(2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines the calculation
described in (1) above does not recover the customer’s share of the
-14-
actual distribution facilities costs, the customer’s distribution
facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing
calendar designed to fully recover said customer’s share of the
distribution facilities costs.
. . .
(p) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all
of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3:
Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges
incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer
is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by
the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and
the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described
in that Subsection.
(u) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 9. That renumbered Sections 26-469(c), (f), (g), (k), (q) and (v) of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-468469. General service 750, schedule GS750.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
-15-
(1) Ffixed charge, per account: Fifty four dollars and elevensixty-one
dollars and ninety-six cents ($54.1161.96).
a. Aadditional charge for each additional metering point: Forty
seven dollars and eighty-onefifty-four dollars and seventy-
four cents ($47.8154.74).
b. Aan additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.)
for each metering point may be assessed if telephone
communication service is not provided by the customer.
(2) Ccoincident demand charge, per kilowatt: Twelve dollars and sixty-
one cents ($12.61) but not less than one cent ($0.01) per kilowatt
hour.
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: ten dollars and twenty cents ($10.20).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: seven dollars
and sixty-four cents ($7.64).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) Ddistribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt:
a. Ffirst seven hundred fifty (750) kilowatts: Four dollars and
seventy-fivefive dollars and forty-four cents ($4.755.44).
b. Aall additional kilowatts: Two dollars and eighty-fourthree
dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.843.25).
(4) Eenergy charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and forty-five one-
hundredths cents ($0.0245).
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and sixty-seven one-hundredths cents
($0.0367).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
forty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0349).
-16-
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) Sstandby distribution charge.
a. Tthe monthly standby distribution charge shall be two dollars
and ninety-seven three dollars and forty cents ($2.973.40) per
kilowatt of contracted standby service. This charge shall be
in lieu of the distribution facilities charge. For all metered
kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the standby
distribution charge shall be eight dollars and ninety-oneten
dollars and twenty cents ($8.9110.20) per kilowatt.
b. Iin the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first
month of the new contract period will become the current
billing month and such month's metered demand shall
become the minimum allowable contract demand for the
standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject
to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge
may be added for special facilities required to provide
standby service.
(2) Sstandby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred
by the utility under the Platte River Power Authority's applicable
tariffs, as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the
customer as a standby generation and transmission charge.
(g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires
excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity
of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an
annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
-17-
(1) Tthe excess circuit charge shall be sixty-threeseventy-two cents
($0.630.72) per contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month.
For any metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the
excess circuit charge shall be one dollar and eighty-ninetwo dollars
and seventeen cents ($1.892.17) per kilowatt.
(2) Iin the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual
contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is
exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall
become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit
charge.
. . .
(k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facilities demand charge used
by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the
electric distribution system and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand
(kW) of a customer’s monthly electric use. Under the utility’s billing system, cost
recovery is based on a twelve month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12)
of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve month use
patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings.
(1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point
of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour
integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not
be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the highest distribution
facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding
eleven (11) months.
(2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines the calculation
described in (1) above does not recover the customer’s share of the
actual distribution facilities costs, the customer’s distribution
facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing
calendar designed to fully recover the customer’s share of the
distribution facilities costs.
(q) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all
of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3:
Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges
incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer
-18-
is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by
the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and
the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described
in that Subsection.
. . .
(v) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 10. That renumbered Section 26-471 (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-470471. Traffic signal service, schedule T.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates (including a six-and-zero-tenths-percent
charge in lieu of taxes and franchise) are as follows:
(1) Ffixed charge, per account: Sixty-three dollars and ninetyseventy-
three dollars and sixteen cents ($63.9073.16).
(2) Ccharge, per kilowatt-hour: Five and fifty-fivesix and eighteen one-
hundredths cents ($0.05550.0618).
(3) Sservice extensions and signal installations made by the utility shall
be paid for by the City General Fund, subject to material and
installation costs at the time of installation.
Section 11. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
-19-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-20-
ORDINANCE NO. 143, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to
contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires the City Manager and staff to annually
consider the parameters and rates related to setting electric development fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires that the electric development fees be
presented to the City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 115, 2010,
which established the electric development fees now in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the
following adjustments to the electric development fees and charges for all invoices paid on or after
January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise electric development fees and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-471 the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subsection (e) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(e) This Section does not apply to wholesale energy transactions, as defined in
this Article. Any applicable fees and charges will be addressed in a written services
agreement subject to approval by City Council in accordance with Section 6 of
Article XII of the Charter, if applicable.
Section 2. That Section 26-472(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-472. Residential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, dwelling charge and
systems modification charge, to be determined as follows:
(1) Tthe site footage charge shall be the combined total of:
a. Ffour and nine hundred fifty-four thousandths cents
($0.049540.04950) per square foot of developed site square footage,
including all applicable tracts but excluding the area dedicated public
rights-of-way; and
b. Eightten dollars and seventy-eight cents ($8.7810.08) per lineal foot
of the developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway.
(2) Tthe dwelling unit charge shall be as follows:
a. Ffor a single-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service
(nonelectric heat), one thousand two hundred eighty-fiveeighty-one
dollars ($1,285.1,281.) per dwelling unit;
b. Ffor a single-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with
one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), two thousand one
hundred seventy-sixsixty-five dollars ($2,176.2,165.) per dwelling
unit;
c. Ffor a multi-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service
(nonelectric heat), eight hundred fifty-sixfifty-four dollars
($856.854.) per dwelling unit;
d. Ffor a multi-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with
one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), one thousand five
hundred twenty-sixnineteen dollars ($1,526.1,519.) per dwelling unit.
(3) Aa system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service
will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base
electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system
modifications will be included in the calculated ECF.
(c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for any new or modified residential service
shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the related construction or
modification. The BSC shall be based upon the current rates as of the time of
issuance of the building permit. The BSC shall be the total of the secondary service
charges, and any additional charges, determined as follows:
-2-
(1) Tthe secondary service charge shall be as follows:
Secondary
Service Size
Charge
(up to 65 feet)
Plus Per Foot
Charge For Each
Foot Over 65
1/0 service $639.00642.00 $4.664.65/Foot
4/0 service $813.00821.00 $5.835.82/Foot
350 kCM Service $830.00818.00 $6.566.54/Foot
1/0 Mobile Home
Service $499.00503.00 N/A
4/0 Mobile Home
Service $638.00646.00 N/A
(2) Aactual special costs to the utility of installation of secondary service
resulting from site conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional
charges. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky
soil, concrete cutting and asphalt replacement.
Section 3. That Section 26-473(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-473. Nonresidential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, kVA service charge and
systems modification charge, to be determined as follows:
(1) Tthe site footage charge shall be the combined total of:
a. Ffour and nine hundred fifty-four thousandths cents
($0.049540.04950) per square foot of developed site square footage,
including all applicable tracts but excluding the area of dedicated
public rights-of-way; and
b. Tthirty-eight dollars and zerothirty cents ($38.0038.30) per lineal foot
of the developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway.
(2) Tthe kVA service charge shall be determined as follows:
a. Ffor customer electric loads served by the utility the kVA service
charge shall be:
i. Uutility owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge shall
be fifty-nine dollars and sixfour cents ($59.0659.04) per
kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating.
-3-
ii. Ccustomer owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge
shall be forty-eight dollars and sixty-one fifty-nine cents
($48.6148.59) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating.
b. Ffor the utility to receive customer generation in excess of the
customer’s electric service provided by the utility, the following
KVA service charge will also apply:
i. Uutility owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge shall
be forty-eight dollars and sixty-four fifty-nine cents
($48.6448.59) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service
rating in excess of the service load rating as paid per
subparagraph (2)a.i. above. Such ratings shall be determined
by the Utilities Executive Director.
ii. Ccustomer owned transformers: Tthe kVA service charge
shall be thirty-eight dollars and nineteennine cents
($38.1938.09) per kilovolt-amp (kVA) of generation service
rating in excess of the service load rating paid per
subparagraph (2)a.ii.above. Such ratings shall be determined
by the Utilities Executive Director.
(3) Aa system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service
will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base
electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system
modifications will be included in the calculated ECF.
(c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for extending primary circuitry to the
transformer for any new or modified nonresidential service shall be invoiced and
paid in the same manner and at the same time as the ECF is invoiced and paid
pursuant to Subsection (a) of this Section. The BSC shall be the total of the primary
circuit charge, transformer installation charge and any additional charges, determined
as follows:
(1) Tthe primary circuit charge for service from the utility source to the
transformer shall be as follows:
a. Ffor single-phase service, a charge of eightnine dollars and seventy-
sixfifteen cents ($8.769.15) per foot of primary circuit;
b. Ffor three-phase service, a charge of eighteen dollars and forty-
threezero cents ($18.4318.00) per foot of primary circuit.
(2) Tthe transformer installation charge shall be as follows:
-4-
a. Ffor single-phase service, a charge of one thousand three hundred
eighteentwo hundred seventy-eight dollars ( $1,318.1,278.) per
transformer;
b. Ffor three-phase service, a charge of two thousand four hundred
twenty-onethree hundred eighty-five dollars ( $2,421.2,385.) per
transformer.
(3) Aactual special costs to the utility of installation of service resulting from site
conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such
conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete
cutting and asphalt replacement.
Section 4. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect as of January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
ORDINANCE NO. 144, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE STORMWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection
of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues
sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the storm water utility, as set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-511(a) of the City Code requires that the City Manager review the
rates and parameters of the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees annually and present them to City
Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 119, 2009,
which established the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees now in effect; and
WHEREAS, the Council has adopted stormwater basin master plans recommending
stormwater facilities that are necessary to provide for the proper drainage and control of flood and
surface waters within the City; and
WHEREAS, existing stormwater rate payers have paid for the design, right-of-way and
construction of stormwater facilities identified in the drainage basin master plans that will benefit
and be utilized by new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should pay its
proportionate share of the costs of the stormwater infrastructure as it exists at the time of
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the revised Stormwater
Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees
by an unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-512(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-512. Stormwater plant investment fees established.
. . .
(2) Plant investment fee base rate. The stormwater plant investment fee base rate
is six thousand three hundred thirteenninety dollars ($6,3136,390.) per gross
acre of area.
. . .
Section 2. That the amendment to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: John Stokes, Daylan Figgs
Steve Catanach, Ginger Purvis
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-094 Directing Certain Actions Be Taken to Improve Coordination and Consultation Between the City
and Platte River Power Authority in Connection with the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation
Transmission Line Project and for Future Projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution directs the City Manager and City Attorney to take certain follow up actions in light of recent
discussions and analysis related to the Platte River Power Authority Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation
Transmission Line Project. The City Council discussed this issue at its adjourned meeting on October 11, 2011, and
the Resolution calls for follow up work to: (1) address impacts from the proposed Project; (2) develop a set of policies
and procedures for planning and consultation related to future Platte River projects; and (3) improve the City’s level
of involvement in future infrastructure and specific project planning by Platte River. The Resolution also directs the
City Manager to provide a copy of the Resolution to Platte River and the other Platte River member cities.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its October 11, 2011 meeting Council directed City staff to develop a resolution expressing the intent of the City
Council that the City Manager and City Attorney work closely with Platte River staff, and that the City’s representatives
on the Platte River Board of Directors work closely with their counterparts on the Platte River Board, in order to
establish procedures and policies that will improve the level of coordination and communication regarding Platte River
infrastructure and project planning.
This direction grew out of a review of a proposed transmission line that crosses Pineridge Natural Area. The review
was conducted by a consulting firm (SAIC) on behalf of PRPA and the City. Based on that review, Council concluded
that the proposed alternatives to the existing project were not worthy of support at this time. However, Council desires
improved communication and influence with respect to PRPA project infrastructure planning and implementation and
directed staff to create a resolution that specifically referenced a number of areas for improved communication and
collaboration, including:
1. formal notice to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the proposed project;
2. formal notice to City representatives, including the Mayor and City Manager;
3. written description and analysis of alternative means to accomplish the project, alternative routes,
configurations and designs, and analysis of related impacts, costs and benefits;
4. detailed analysis of natural resource, aesthetic and other impacts and evaluation of means by which such
impacts may be avoided, minimized, or offset; and
5. a process for soliciting and considering input by City boards and commissions and the City Council.
Included in the Resolution is direction to staff to develop a written plan to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts
associated with the Pineridge crossing.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Other than staff time to develop these initiatives, none.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed efforts have the potential to lessen environmental impacts associated with PRPA infrastructure projects.
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 21
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-094
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE COORDINATION
AND CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PLATTE RIVER
POWER AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIXON CREEK
SUBSTATION TO HORSESHOE SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION
LINE PROJECT AND FOR FUTURE PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority (“Platte River”) is in the process of developing
new power transmission facilities as part of its Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation
Transmission Line Project, and has planned to proceed with the initial work required for Phase III
(the “Project”) of that larger project, the purpose of which is to complete a redundant 230 kV
transmission circuit to the City of Loveland and portions of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Platte River has proposed to install new and upgraded
transmission facilities in existing Western Area Power Administration (“WAPA”) rights-of-way
across the City’s Pineridge Natural Area (“Pineridge” or the “Natural Area”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concerns about the Project and has expressed
objections to the impacts the Project may have upon the Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, in light of the concerns raised regarding the Project, the City and Platte River
on August 26, 2011, entered into an Interim Agreement staying work on the Project in order to allow
additional review and analysis of the Project, possible transmission-related alternatives to the Project
as originally planned by Platte River, and impacts, costs and benefits associated with such
alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the City and Platte River have worked cooperatively and shared the cost of
evaluating the foregoing, and those efforts are outlined and described in a report entitled “Pineridge
Transmission Alternatives Study, dated October 2011, by SAIC, a copy of which is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (the “Alternatives Report”), and which
Alternatives Report is incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Alternatives Report and related analysis have identified no alternative to
the Project that is clearly preferable to the Project in light of the overall impacts, costs and benefits;
and
WHEREAS, Platte River has expressed serious concerns regarding further delay of the
Project in light of its desire to provide increased transmission capacity in certain areas of its
transmission system; and
WHEREAS, it is not the intent of the City Council to delay the Project if no constructive
benefit can be accomplished as a result of such delay; and
WHEREAS, Platte River staff has agreed to work closely with City staff to avoid and
minimize impacts to the Natural Area and surrounding properties in connection with the Project; and
WHEREAS, Platte River staff has further agreed to work closely with City staff to develop
a plan and procedure for future consultation and review of Platte River projects; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that the City Manager and City Attorney
work closely with Platte River staff, and that the City’s representatives on the Platte River Board
of Directors work closely with their counterparts on the Platte River Board, in order to establish
procedures and policies that will improve the level of coordination and communication regarding
Platte River infrastructure and project planning.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Manager and City Attorney are directed to work with Platte
River staff to negotiate and establish by written agreement the means by which Platte River will
avoid, minimize and offset damage to the Natural Area and the natural resources in the vicinity of
the Natural Area in connection with the Project.
Section 2. That the City Manager and City Attorney are directed to work with Platte
River staff to develop and present for City Council and Platte River Board of Directors approval a
consultation and review process to be used by Platte River in connection with Platte River projects
on or impacting City property, to include provisions addressing the following items, together with
such other provisions as may be determined to be appropriate:
a. formal notice to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the
proposed project;
b. formal notice to City representatives, including the Mayor and City Manager;
c. written description and analysis of alternative means to accomplish the project,
alternative routes, configurations and designs, and analysis of related impacts, costs
and benefits;
d. detailed analysis of natural resource, aesthetic and other impacts and evaluation of
means by which such impacts may be avoided, minimized, or offset; and
e. a process for soliciting and considering input by City boards and commissions and
the City Council.
Section 3. That the City Manager is directed to work with the City’s representatives on
the Platte River Board of Directors and Platte River representatives in order to improve and expand
upon the degree of consultation and coordination between Platte River and its member cities in
connection with the ongoing and periodic development of plans for Platte River system
infrastructure.
Section 4. That the City Manager is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to
Platte River and to each of the member cities of Platte River.
-2-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of October A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
SKYVIEW SOUTH
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 MEETING
October 18, 2011
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South
General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the
District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike
Beckstead; 5 minute discussion)
The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year
2012. The total amount will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AGENDA
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 3
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement
District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board
of Commissioners of Larimer County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012. The total amount
will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2009, the City annexed Phase 3 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The area annexed included the entire
Larimer County Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (GID No.15). A map of the GID No. 15 is
attached. The County organized GID No. 15 in 1997. Pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., since the annexation
involved the entire improvement district, GID No.15 became a City-operated district and Council acts as the ex officio
Board of Directors of the District. Under state law, the City is required to set the mill levy for the District and to certify
the amount of the levy to Larimer County. This Ordinance continues the establishment, as in years past, of a levy of
10.0 mills.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance sets the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 mill levy, which will generate about
$24,615 at 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of GID No. 15
ORDINANCE NO. 002
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SKYVIEW
SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15,
DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE SKYVIEW SOUTH
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY
TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (the “GID”) was
created by Larimer County in 1997 and annexed into the City by phase three of the Southwest
Enclave Annexation in 2009; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., and Section 37-25-609, C.R.S., as a
result of the annexation of the entire GID into the City, the GID is now a district of the City and
the City Council is to act as the ex-officio board of directors of the GID; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on
the taxable property in the GID and recommends establishing a levy of 10.0 mills upon each
dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID for 2012; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 10.0 mills will result in $24,615 of
revenue; and
WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so
that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the
Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins Skyview South
General Improvement District No. 15, as follows:
Section 1. That the 2012 mill levy rate for taxation upon each dollar of the assessed
valuation of all taxable property within the GID shall be 10.0 mills.
Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 10.0 mills to the County
Assessor and the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado as provided by law.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D.
_________________________________
Mayor , Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
W TRILBY RD
S COLLEGE AVE
W SKYWAY DR
CONSTELLATION DR
MARS DR
VENUS AVE
ARAN ST
ORBIT WAY
DEBRA DR
H
OLYOKE C
T
P
O
L
A
R
I
S DR
S
T
A
R
W
A
Y
S
T
AV
O
NDALE R
D
RAMA
H
D
R
N
E
P
T
U
N
E
D
R
GALA
X
Y
W
A
Y
URANUS ST
F
LA
G
L
E
R
R
D
WITHDRAWN
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING
October 18, 2011
(after the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General
Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to
Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year
2012 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; 5 minute discussion)
The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year
2012. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like
automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to
total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $303,179.
4. Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan.
(staff: Clark Mapes; 20 minute discussion)
City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID).
The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian,
and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial
area.
The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA
October 18, 2011
5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. (staff: Clark
Mapes; 15 minute discussion)
This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1)
Fund Balance for fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic
design of a sign system was done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward
implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and
construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the
City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop
may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds
used to cover those costs. Installation will occur in 2012.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 3
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No.
1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners
of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Appropriation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional
revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad
valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is
expected to be $303,179.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The recommended appropriations for this amount are as follows:
Projects:
• $246,031 to be used for capital improvements in the downtown area for projects yet to be determined
Other expenses:
• $20,338 for staffing
• $11,000 for the Larimer County Treasurer’s fee for collecting the property tax
• $23,000 for the property tax rebate program
• $2,500 for estimated electrical costs for downtown lighting and water
• $310 for miscellaneous expenses
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2012 at $303,179. This item also sets the General Improvement
District No. 1 mill levy, which will generate about $249,000 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional 2012 revenue
for the GID No. 1 includes auto specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest which are projected to be
$54,179 in 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of GID No. 1.
ORDINANCE NO. 061
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012;
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY
TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the
statutes of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the
taxable property in the GID and recommends that a levy of 4.924 mills upon each dollar of the
assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID is required during 2012 to pay
the cost of operating the GID; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 4.924 mill will result in $249,000 of revenue;
and
WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so that
prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution;
and
WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board
of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and
WHEREAS, additional revenue is collected by the GID from such sources as the automobile
ownership tax, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings and that revenue for 2012 is anticipated to
be $54,179; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting as the ex-officio Board of Directors
of the GID, to appropriate the necessary funds for operating costs and capital improvements of the
GID for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District
No. 1, as follows:
Section 1. That, for the purpose of providing the necessary funds to meet the expenses
to be incurred in the General Improvement District No. 1 in 2012, 4.924 mills is hereby levied upon
each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the General Improvement District
No.1 as of December 31, 2011.
Section 2. That the Secretary of the General Improvement District No. 1 is hereby
authorized and directed to certify such levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer
County as provided by law.
Section 3. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of City of
Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, hereby appropriates out of the revenues of General
Improvement District No. 1 for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31,
2012 the sum of THREE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE
DOLLARS ($303,179) to be raised by taxation and additional revenue to be expended for the
authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Clark Mapes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 4
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID). The GID is a property
tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvements to
enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area.
The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to guide the use of
the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Purpose
The purpose of the new CIP is to guide ongoing work by staff, and provide a framework for Board decisions. The CIP
does not represent a specific commitment or obligation to fund any given project.
Need
A CIP for the GID was last updated in 1994. That CIP consisted of a memo to City Council that identified a list of
potential projects to be pursued over approximately a 15-year period. Most of the projects on that list have been
completed, along with several others. Bonds that financed a group of the projects were retired in 2009. Additional
background on the past project list is included later in this Agenda Item Summary.
As the previous list of projects has approached substantial completion, a number of questions and issues have
emerged over the past several years regarding the use of the GID fund. A new CIP is needed to identify the next
generation of potential projects to pursue. The new list provides clarification and information on the key questions and
issues, including:
• What new capital improvements should be listed as potential projects to pursue?
• What maintenance and renovations of existing improvements should be on the list?
• What are the top priorities?
• What is the right balance of responsibilities for various special improvements among the City’s General Fund,
the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the GID, considering recent changes in budgets and
revenues among the three funding sources?
• What is the best balance between a fixed project list and schedule that commits the GID Fund, versus a more
general list with flexibility for staff to respond to partnership opportunities or urgent needs that may arise?
• What financing and funding options should be considered?
Process to Develop the Plan
The CIP process involved property owners who self-fund the GID, the GID Board of Directors (City Council), and other
key stakeholders to determine how the GID should continue to invest in Downtown public improvements with a new
list of potential projects. The City's Advance Planning Department managed the process in collaboration with other
City departments and the DDA. One aspect of the process was the opportunity to remind property owners and other
stakeholders about the GID, and review how it works.
The main steps in the process were:
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 4
• May – Assembled background information, identified issues, and brainstormed potential future GID projects.
• June – Discussed the CIP with the DDA Board and Downtown Business Association (DBA) Board, the DBA
Executive Committee, and DBA Membership.
• Late June/Early July – Gathered owner and public input with a mailing, open house, and online
questionnaire, seeking thoughts and ideas on projects and priorities.
• August – Discussed preliminary material with the GID Board (City Council) at the August 9 Work Session.
Continued internal work among key City departments and DDA to flesh out project ideas with analysis of costs,
partnership opportunities, constraints, etc. Assembled draft Plan material. Continued communications with
the DBA.
• September - Reviewed draft Plan material with owners and the public at a second open house. Assembled
the CIP document. Reviewed material with the DDA and DBA.
• October – Presentation of the Plan to the GID Board (City Council) at the October 18 meeting for
consideration.
List of Potential Projects
The primary emphasis of the Plan was to develop a preliminary list of potential projects for staff to pursue using the
GID Fund. The list is derived from planning documents, staff discussion, and public outreach.
Some notable aspects of the top projects on the list are:
• Two of the top projects are DDA projects -- Old Town Square Renovations, and Additional Pedestrian-
Enhanced Alleys. These also happen to be the largest projects envisioned in the plan. They are dependent
on the DDA’s revenue stream, and possibly other funding sources as well, in addition to the GID, in order to
be feasible within a time frame of less than 15 years. They will require a high level of coordination in pursuit
of a viable funding package.
• Another top project is dependent on the outcome of another planning effort currently underway:
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway and Streetscape Improvements. This could emerge as the first project to move
forward to construction, because it may offer the opportunity to partner with committed funding by the
Colorado Department of Transportation and the DDA within 1-2 years.
Besides the list, the plan also contains background information, implementation recommendations, and conceptual
project descriptions.
Additional Context: Capital Improvements History
The GID transformed the face of downtown with streetscape installations on College Avenue and Linden Street. A
large initial package of improvements was constructed in 1977, closely related to the creation of the GID in 1976.
Attachment 5 contains key excerpts from the founding Ordinance and Resolutions that describe the original purposes
of the GID. That initial package included the corner plazas, medians, and street trees along College Avenue, the
Oak/Remington parking lot, and Oak Street Plaza. The GID provided the primary financing with a $1.1 million, 15-year
bond issue. Secondarily, a special assessment on specified properties provided additional funding.
In 1992, the bonds that financed the initial package were paid off. A public process affirmed support for continuation
of the GID, and a list of potential projects was developed. The list was last updated in 1994 (see Attachment 4), and
since then, most of the projects have been completed, along with a few other projects as well.
Some of the completed projects involving paver replacement were done as a group, with a $1.1 million bond issue
providing financing. That bond debt committed most of the GID Fund revenues for a ten-year period from 1999-2009.
Other projects were completed on a pay-as-you-go basis, using available reserves and revenues. Staff formulated
these projects in response to leverage and partnership opportunities, and urgent needs. These include some projects
from the list, and some additional projects that were not on the list. The intent of the new CIP is to continue to allow
flexibility for staff to pursue opportunistic projects, in addition to projects on the list.
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 4
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The GID was established to fund improvements in the Downtown; and the proposed CIP is a framework and guide
for future spending of GID revenues.
While the plan does not create any direct financial obligations, the City does provide indirect financial support for the
GID and its projects, with staff work by various departments, maintenance and operation of GID improvements, and
occasional participation in projects by City departments and other capital improvement programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
GID improvements support pedestrian use and efficient parking, which help make Downtown arguably the City’s best
example of urban development that makes efficient use of resources.
City Plan emphasizes that keeping Downtown vital is a big part of sustainable solutions to land use and resource
issues; and GID capital improvements are a major factor in the vitality of Downtown. The CIP reinforces Downtown’s
efficient, livable mixeduse development, which makes it the most walkable part of the city, thus mitigating emissions
created by driving to and from destinations and activities.
The purpose of GID improvements is to enhance Downtown as a business and commercial area, which supports sales
tax revenues that are used, in part, for environmental programs and quality of life initiatives that define Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach centered around two open houses with mailings to all 900 property owners in the GID. All open house
information, including a significant questionnaire, was online, as well. The other significant outreach was with the
Downtown Business Association Board, membership, and Legislative Affairs Committee; and the Downtown
Development Authority Board. Staff found wide agreement and very little controversy regarding the Plan. A log of
public outreach is Attachment 2, and a log of public comments is Attachment 3.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital Improvements Plan
2. Log of Public Meetings and Outreach
3. Log of Public Comments
4. Previous List of Projects (1994)
5. Original Purposes of the GID
6. Work Session Summary, August 9, 2011
7. Powerpoint Presentation
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
II GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
October 12, 2011
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-221-6376
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
For additional copies, please visit our website, or contact us using the above information.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 III
Table of Contents
General Improvement District #1 (GID)........................................1
What Is the GID?.............................................................................................. 1
Background and Context: Capital Improvements History.............................................. 2
GID Revenues ................................................................................................. 4
GID Administration .......................................................................................... 5
Capital Improvements Plan.......................................................6
Use of the Plan ............................................................................................... 6
Potential Projects List ...................................................................................... 6
Capital Improvements Plan Implementation..................................9
Needed actions............................................................................................... 9
Financing ...................................................................................................... 9
Project Descriptions............................................................. 11
Old Town Square Renovations ............................................................................ 11
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway Urban Design and Landscaping ....................................... 12
Reserve Fund to Respond to Emerging Partnership Opportunities and............................. 13
Urgent Needs ................................................................................................ 13
Additional Pedestrian-Enhanced Alleys ................................................................. 14
Enhanced Crosswalks....................................................................................... 15
Enhanced Crosswalks Continued:......................................................................... 16
Shorten East/West Pedestrian Crossings Leading Into the Core Area .............................. 16
Old Town Square Lighting Renovation................................................................... 17
Jefferson Streetscape...................................................................................... 18
Mulberry/Mason Gateway and Streetscape............................................................. 19
Public Restrooms Funding ................................................................................. 20
Public Restrooms Funding, Continued ................................................................... 21
Holiday Lights and Electricity Funding .................................................................. 22
Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters Replacement ........................................................... 23
Linden Street Pedestrian Lights Augmentation ........................................................ 24
Mulberry/College Streetscape/Gateway ................................................................ 25
Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations..................................................... 26
Other Ideas ........................................................................ 27
Conclusion......................................................................... 28
IV GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 1
General Improvement District #1 (GID)
WHAT IS THE GID?
The Downtown GID is a property tax district initiated by Downtown property owners in 1976
for the purpose of funding parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvement
projects, to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area.
Map of the GID boundary
City staff manages the GID, working with finances and budgets, and planning, design,
engineering, operations, and maintenance of projects. City Council serves as the Board of
Directors.
North
2 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HISTORY
The GID was formed by City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 77, 1976. It was formed
specifically to fund the 1977 package of capital improvements that included the original set
of College Avenue corner plazas, medians, and landscaping, along with the Oak/Remington
parking lot and Oak Street Plaza. The GID provided the largest share of financing for that
package, with a $1.1 million, 15-year bond issue. Secondarily, a special assessment on
specified properties provided additional funding.
In 1992, the bonds that financed the initial package were paid off. A public process affirmed
support for continuation of the GID, and the GID was reauthorized and reaffirmed by City
Council Resolution 92-37 in 1992. A new capital improvements plan -- consisting of a list of
potential projects -- was developed. That list was updated in 1994, and then it served well as
a working framework for about 15 years’ worth of projects. The projects involved
renovations and extensions of College Avenue streetscape improvements, and a customized
Downtown sign system. Most of the streetscape projects were completed by 2004, and work
is underway on a sign system.
One project not completed from the 1994 list is a streetscape enhancement project at the
northwest corner of the Mulberry Street/College Avenue intersection, to help mark the
intersection as the main south entry to Downtown. This project is being carried forward as a
potential future project, and is related to concepts for future redevelopment of the block.
Several of the completed projects, involving corner plazas, were done as a package with a
$1.1 million bond issue providing financing. That bond debt committed most of the GID Fund
revenues for a ten-year period from 1999-2009.
Also, a number of projects have been completed on a pay-as-you-go basis, using available
reserves and revenues. Staff formulated these projects in response to urgent needs, leverage
opportunities, and partnership opportunities. These include some additional projects that
were not on the 1994 list:
► Oak Street Plaza renovation, done in a funding partnership with City and DDA funds.
► A package of sidewalk, curb, and gutter replacements, largely completed over the
past two years, with another phase of replacements scheduled for later in 2011.
► On a much smaller scale, a package of bicycle dismount signs and sidewalk decals.
The intent of capital improvement plans is to allow flexibility for staff to pursue these kinds
of opportunistic projects, in addition to projects on the list.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 3
Thanks to Downtown leaders in
the 1970s, the GID has
transformed the face of
Downtown with streetscape and
parking enhancements on
College Avenue and Linden
Street. Features include
paving, trees, planters, seating
…irrigation and drainage… bike
dismount decals…
…College Ave. medians and
crosswalk islands… Oak Street
Plaza…and the Oak/Remington
Parking Lot. Most projects have
partnered with and leveraged
other funding sources.
Linden Streetscape, done in a
partnership that saved the Linden
Hotel and reconstructed Linden
Street.
4 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
GID REVENUES
The GID receives revenues primarily from a property tax mil levy set by City Council members
acting as the Board of Directors. The mil levy has remained at 4.94 mils since 1992.
Secondarily, the GID receives other revenues from a share of vehicle registration tax, and
interest on the fund balance. The general magnitude of the GID Fund can be demonstrated,
using 2012 budget figures, as follows:
Property tax revenues: $249,000
Other revenues: $ 54,000
Total revenues: $303,000
Fixed and Administrative Costs: $ 56,000
Revenues available for projects: $247,000
Fund balance:
(separate from 2011 revenues): $818,000
15-year projected revenues: $5-6 million
15-year projected revenues
available for projects: $4.5-5.5 million
Annual revenues are projected to continue growing slowly, from approximately $300,000 in
2012, to approximately $500,000 over 15 years to 2026, depending on property values.
The Board approves spending in the City’s overall budget process, and in any other funding
appropriation requests that may occur between budget cycles. Approximately $36,000 is
committed annually for ongoing, routine disbursements including residential rebates, Larimer
County Treasurer's Services, and small water and electric bills for irrigation and lighting.
Starting in 2011, the budget also included funding for staff administration in the amount of
$38,000, partly to conduct the public process to develop this capital improvement plan. The
budget item for staffing drops to $20,000 in 2012, and after 2012 it will be determined in
future budgeting processes.
$500,000 of the $818,000 fund balance has been earmarked to build the Wayfinding Sign
System, which is a project from the 1994 list. Whenever any budget or appropriation item is
requested, the Board will have the opportunity to provide direction on the project involved.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 5
GID ADMINISTRATION
The GID is managed collaboratively by City staff in several departments, without any formal
organizational structure. A general outline of the informal organization of staff work is as
follows:
The City Manager’s Office provides executive leadership. The Finance and Budget offices
administer finances and prepare budget statements. Advance Planning develops and oversees
a capital improvements plan with a list of projects, formulates projects, prepares budget
offers, monitors expenditures, and serves as a primary point of contact for project-related
ideas, questions, and issues. Parks provides comprehensive, crucial maintenance of GID
improvements, and also formulates projects. Engineering assists with design and provides
construction supervision. Parking Services operates the GID-built Oak/Remington parking lot,
and collaborates on all projects and ideas that affect parking.
Besides these primary roles, staff in all departments and the Downtown Development
Authority (DDA) coordinate and collaborate in many other ways. A few examples are
identifying project ideas, vetting ideas, formulating projects, seeking opportunities to
leverage resources, and resolving technical questions and issues.
In addition to City staff, the DDA staff coordinates and collaborates with City staff in matters
of mutual overlapping interest. The DDA formulates and executes capital projects that
overlap with the purposes of the GID, and it manages property tax revenues that are
interrelated with the GID’s revenues. Three high priority projects on the potential projects
list are DDA projects; the top priority project, Old Town Square Renovations, involves the
DDA-owned Old Town Square.
6 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
Capital Improvements Plan
This capital improvements plan is a key aspect of the GID. City Council Resolution 92-37
requires staff to prepare and maintain a plan, in consultation with property owners, with a
list of projects to guide the use of the GID’s revenues.
Accordingly, this plan is essentially a list of potential projects to be pursued by staff using GID
funding. The list is intended to represent about a 15-year time frame.
USE OF THE PLAN
This plan is a guide and framework for staff work, and for Board decisions. It does not
represent a specific commitment or obligation to fund any given project. Staff uses the plan
to formulate projects, assemble funding packages, and move projects forward to execution.
The Board uses the plan to provide context for annual budgeting, other funding requests, and
any other governance issues.
Besides the projects on the list, the intent of this plan is to continue to allow flexibility for
staff to respond to other new opportunities or urgent needs that may arise, as has been the
practice in the past. Also, the plan should be updated as needed to remain useful as new
information emerges and conditions change.
POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST
The crux of this plan is the Potential Projects List. The list was developed in an open
planning process in 2011,which sought all thoughts and ideas for projects, starting with ideas
from other previous planning efforts. The overall pool of ideas was then refined in staff
discussion and analysis, public outreach, and review by City Council sitting as the GID Board
at a worksession.
Two primary considerations in evaluation of any project ideas are:
► The appropriateness of GID funding relative to other funding sources. The GID is for
enhancements that would not otherwise be done -- GID funds should not be used as a
substitute for City funding of items the City is normally obligated to do, and would do
if the GID did not exist.
► The importance to downtown as a business and commercial area, in terms of the
original purposes of the GID-- identity and image, pedestrian use, and parking.
Another significant consideration is the potential to leverage or partner with other funding
sources to maximize the effects of GID funding.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 7
Priorities
Table 1 (opposite) shows three levels of priority that emerged in the planning process, with
groups of projects in each level. Projects within each level are also listed in general order of
priority. Priorities are based on rankings by property owners and the public, discussion with
the GID Board, and staff evaluation of projects considering all input and other factors.
Priority refers to priority for staff work and funding commitments. The intent is to guide the
allocation of staff work to get projects formulated, funded, and executed; and to guide the
spending and accrual of revenues. Priorities do not necessarily refer to priority for timing of
execution -- some smaller projects could be completed while larger, higher-priority projects
are still being planned, designed, and financed.
Priorities are not meant to prevent efforts or actions on any projects if opportunities arise to
initiate action at any time on any project, regardless of priority shown.
Hypothetical Scenario for GID Funding, 15-year total
Table 1 shows a hypothetical funding scenario for how the GID’s projected funding capacity
could be allocated among the projects on the list. Revenues available for project funding are
projected in the range of $4.5-5.5 million. This scenario is shown only to illustrate the
general magnitude of what might be possible.
The figures are hypothetical GID funding contributions to each project over a 15-year period
starting in 2012. They reflect educated guesses of funding amounts that would be realistic
and substantial enough to make the projects financially feasible. Most of the projects are
expected to involve funding packages that include other funding sources.
Some projects may involve an initial, one-time cost for construction; others may involve an
initial cost and a subsequent annual line item commitment for maintenance; and others may
only involve an annual line item commitment for an ongoing program.
To develop actual funding scenarios, each project will require further planning, design, cost
estimating, and financing work to define a scope and funding package. All projects will be
formulated to account for long term maintenance and operations.
8 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
Potential Funding Partners
Conceptual ideas for potential funding partners are shown for each project. These are
suggestions for funding sources that appear appropriate to the project, and worth pursuing
with further staff work. Some projects will only be feasible as envisioned with participation
by funding partners. Others could be feasible without partners, at least at some level, but
partnerships would still be highly advantageous for the extent and quality of execution, the
efficiency of joint efforts, and the maximum effect of GID funds.
Table 1. Potential Projects
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 9
Capital Improvements Plan
Implementation
NEEDED ACTIONS
Needed actions include the following:
► Meet to review and discuss this capital improvements plan with all affected City
departments, following adoption.
► Maintain contacts among staff to monitor and coordinate with all related non-GID
projects and efforts. Examples include Jefferson Street planning and Parking Plan
projects, Mason Corridor, private development projects, budget discussions involving
holiday lights and other projects, ongoing conversations about public restrooms,
pavement management programs, and other efforts to maintain and enhance streets,
sidewalks, and crosswalks.
► Flesh out specific project needs based on project descriptions, including timing for
actions by staff, and incorporate the needs into departmental work plans and budgets
for appropriate years.
► Develop and maintain funding and timing scenarios for the overall project list, to
determine financing options that may include debt financing.
► Explore funding scenarios with the DDA.
► Explore feasibility of including top projects the next citywide capital improvement
package for voters in 2015, with the City Manager’s Office.
► Examine suggestions for private sector participation in funding, by owner and business
interests.
► Develop scope, conceptual design, and cost estimates for projects.
FINANCING
As staff proceeds with work on the project list, financing approaches will be explored. For
some smaller projects, available revenues may be adequate to proceed on a pay-as-you-go
basis.
Some larger projects, or groups of projects, may need up-front debt financing such as bonding
or borrowing against the revenue stream, in order to allow timely completion, or timely
participation with other funding sources.
The annual revenue stream available to fund projects is projected to grow from about
$240,000 in 2012, to about $440,000 over 15 years. If these projections prove valid, this
stream could support debt financing of about $2-2.5 million over 15 years.
For up-front debt financing of projects, borrowing from City reserves may be a possibility to
consider and explore, along with private market bonds or loans. While borrowing from City
reserve funds may be possible, in 2011 it has become a highly scrutinized and competitive
activity to be used considered only for the highest priority projects.
10 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
If bonding or borrowing is to be part of project financing, lead time is a major issue not to be
overlooked by staff. Debt financing can take a year or more to execute. Time requirements
include:
► The political approval process.
► Incorporation into City budgets if borrowing from City reserves.
► An election of GID electors as defined by State law.
► Technical work to structure loan or bond packages and sell any bonds.
Any of these steps can typically involve 3-6 months or more.
Packaging of debt financing is an issue, particularly if external markets, rather than the City,
are considered. External markets are not as interested in small packages, and it is a much
more efficient use of the revenue stream to finance a larger package all at once, versus
multiple smaller packages, because of the fixed costs for each loan or bond issue. These
factors would also apply to borrowing from City reserves, although perhaps to a lesser degree.
Timing of financing is a current issue in 2011. Interest rates are at 50-60-year lows and are
forecasted to remain low for the near future. Staff should consider whether a funding
scenario with debt financing in the near future could be worthwhile in this regard. The
limitation on this idea is that borrowing years in advance of project construction can have tax
implications that negate the benefit of the borrowing at low rates. While advance borrowing
could be advantageous, it should only be considered if projects are well-defined and ready to
proceed to construction on a timely schedule.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 11
Project Descriptions
OLD TOWN SQUARE RENOVATIONS
This potential project would enable the GID to assist the DDA with funding of portions of Old
Town Square renovations. Specific components would be determined through additional
planning and design work.
Some example needs include: reconfiguration of the fountain, stage, and kiosk/restroom
building to make room for larger performances and enhance the connection with Linden
Street; electric infrastructure for performance sound and lighting; plaza lighting renovation;
renovation of the fountain equipment; and updating of finishes, plantings, and irrigation.
Old Town Square is now over 25 years old, and draws more, bigger crowds than ever.
Numerous needs and ideas for renovations have come up over the years. While it is highly
successful as the #1 focal point of Downtown, it has been described as “tired” and
renovations emerges as the most important project for GID funding. It is owned and
maintained by the DDA, but DDA funding is now sharply reduced to a level where it has lost
the ability to cover renovation costs in the near future.
There is a conceptual cost estimate of $2.5 million in 2010 dollars. Other recommended
funding sources include the DDA, and the next Citywide Capital Improvements Program
package (e.g., 1997 BCC, 2005 BOB), which is expected to be presented to City voters in
2015.
A hypothetical funding scenario of approximately $1 million each from the GID, DDA, and the
next citywide package should be a starting point for staff work in formulating a financing
package. Staff should continue to explore other funding sources as well.
Origin: Old Town Square Needs Assessment Study, 2009.
North end of Old Town Square at its junction with Linden Street.
12 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
JEFFERSON/MOUNTAIN GATEWAY URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING
This potential project is dependent on the outcome of a Jefferson Street Alternatives
Analysis Study currently underway by the City, DDA, and CDOT. That study is scheduled for
completion in Fall 2011. It includes funding for construction of its recommendations.
However, the funding is not expected to adequately address the community’s need and desire
to mark this Downtown gateway with pedestrian and beautification enhancements.
This project is to capture the opportunity to partner in design enhancements to fully realize
the community’s desires to enhance this intersection, if such enhancements exceed the scope
of the committed funding as expected. Any GID funding would be used to augment and
partner with, and not to replace, the committed funding.
Origin: Downtown Plan
Existing conditions at the southwest corner of this key Downtown entry.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 13
RESERVE FUND TO RESPOND TO EMERGING PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND
URGENT NEEDS
This is a general idea for the GID to be able to respond opportunistically to projects that may
arise as new priorities. A number of possible examples have been noted:
► Repairs and Renovations to Existing GID Improvements
► Enhanced linkages to Mason Corridor
► Additional Bike Parking
► Bike Parking Maintenance and Operations
► Additional Enhanced Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage
► Enhanced Linkages to New Museum, Possibly with Expansion of GID Boundary
► Pedestrian Lighting, Mountain South Side, College to Remington
► Pedestrian Lighting, Other Locations
► Canyon Art Walk
► West Oak Street Parking - Design to Close for Events
► Linden Street Paver Renovation
► Pine Street Streetscape Enhancements
► Amphitheatre Participation
► Special Events Facility Participation
► Community Marketplace Participation
► Parks Maintenance Shop Participation
► Ice Rink, Full Size, Multi-Use, All-Season Outdoor
► Redevelopment Projects - Streetscape or Parking Partnerships
► Another Parking Structure - Funding Participation
► College Avenue Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing, Civic Center Garage to Old Town Square
via Opera Galleria and Trimble Court per Downtown Strategic Plan
► Expand Planting Program for Corner Noses at Street Corners
► Annual Maintenance of Existing GID Improvements, If City Funding Becomes
Unavailable
14 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN-ENHANCED ALLEYS
This potential project is to enable the GID to assist in funding additional enhanced alleys.
A Downtown Alleys Master Plan Report by the DDA identifies a system of alley makeover
projects to enhance pedestrian connectivity and interest. A number of these projects have
been executed by the DDA, but more remain. Candidate alley projects are: Linden to
Chestnut, behind Armadillo and the Wright Life; Mountain to Olive on the west side of
College, behind Old Chicago and Ace Hardware; Laporte to Tenney Court between the Civic
Center garage and Tenney Court; and Oak to Olive at the Oak/Remington Lot, behind the
Aggie Theater and Tony’s Lounge. Long-term, specialized maintenance is a key component to
include in the formulation of any more alley enhancements project.
Origin: Downtown Plan
Existing alley on extending south from Mountain Avenue, across Oak Street to Olive Street,
on the west side of College Avenue. (Behind Old Chicago and Ace Hardware.)
A pedestrian-enhanced alley (Trimble Court).
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 15
ENHANCED CROSSWALKS
This project would enhance key street crossings to more visibly support pedestrian use. The
project would begin with identification of the key crossings that warrant enhancements.
One prime example location would be the crossing of Mulberry Street along College Avenue,
to better tie Downtown to CSU. That location, which is considered the southern entry into
Downtown, could also potentially be related to a larger gateway streetscape project, and also
be related to similar enhancements at the crossing of Mulberry Street one block to the west
where the Mason Corridor enters Downtown.
Origin: Downtown Plan, Downtown Strategic Plan
Hypothetical example of crosswalk enhancement concept with colored, textured paving.
Actual Downtown example of an enhanced crosswalk with colored, textured paving, a median
refuge, and corner plaza pavers.
16 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
ENHANCED CROSSWALKS CONTINUED:
SHORTEN EAST/WEST PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS LEADING INTO THE CORE AREA
At key street corners, crosswalk enhancements could include the extension of curb lines to
shorten the pedestrian crossing and provide additional landscaping and seating areas.
The Downtown Strategic Plan recommends orienting redevelopment in the near West Side and
East Side areas to east/west streets leading into the core area, and recommends this kind of
enhancement. For example, crossing Mason and Howes at Mountain, Oak, and Magnolia are
mentioned. Those crossings of Mason could also include exploration of smoother rail crossings
for bicycles.
Some east side locations may be similar, e.g., Olive at Remington and Mathews.
Origin: Downtown Strategic Plan
Example of Olive Street crossing Remington
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 17
OLD TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING RENOVATION
This project would be included as part of any larger Old Town Square renovation package, but
it was also suggested as a special, smaller project to highlight separately as a possible first
step. The idea is to update lighting with more historic-styled fixtures that offer today’s
better performance in terms of energy efficiency, aesthetics, and functionality in lighting the
plaza.
The predominant existing lighting type in Old Town Square.
18 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
JEFFERSON STREETSCAPE
This project idea is dependent on outcome of a Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study
currently underway by the City and CDOT. That study is scheduled for completion in Fall
2011. It includes a funding allocation for subsequent construction of its recommendations.
This project idea is to help meet a need or opportunity for additional streetscape
enhancement funding that the GID could add to committed funding, assuming that the
committed funding will not adequately cover the full streetscape recommendations that may
result from the study. Any GID funding would be used to augment and partner with, and not
to replace, the committed State funding.
Concept sketch of one early alternative being examined, with three traffic lanes, median
segments, a bike lane, and improvements to parking and sidewalks.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 19
MULBERRY/MASON GATEWAY AND STREETSCAPE
This potential project would augment the Mason Corridor bus rapid transit improvements.
This intersection will become a significant south entry to Downtown, with a role similar and
related to the role of the Mulberry/College intersection.
Conceptual graphics from discussions a few years ago suggest enhanced crosswalks and corner
ramps; improvements could also include urban design features, such as the low planters/seat
walls and corner plazas found at other downtown corners.
Existing conditions.
Conceptual illustration of street improvements and future redevelopment.
Example gateway streetscape improvements.
20 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
PUBLIC RESTROOMS FUNDING
This project is a general idea for staff to assist ongoing efforts to provide appropriate public
restroom facilities Downtown. This may involve defining specific needs, evaluating options
and technologies, seeking additional locations for public facilities, improving existing
facilities, seeking partnerships, and using GID funding if necessary to leverage other funding.
The recommendation is for any GID funding to be used for permanent physical facilities; and
to be used to leverage other funding sources.
Restroom issues are a continual, multi-faceted topic for Downtown property and business
owners, the DDA, Police District 1, City facilities managers and maintenance crews, and other
interests.
Example of a “have2p” restroom locator for smart phones from another city that has
restroom options.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 21
PUBLIC RESTROOMS FUNDING, CONTINUED
Part of the general idea to provide appropriate public restroom facilities, includes
transforming the nondescript, anonymous appearance of the facility at the Oak/Remington
parking lot with an architectural makeover or replacement.
The concept is that the character of the facility may be contributing to lack of awareness that
it exists, and also to undesirable/illicit activity, both of which are problems; and that
enhancing the appearance and identity of the facility could affect behavior and use of the
facility. Possible enhancements are a roof, fascias for signage, opaque glass block inserts,
and other architectural enhancements. Also, the current door/entry arrangement, which is
based on occupying the facility behind a closed door, could be reconsidered with different
entry arrangement. Other ideas, such as adding classical music, could be tried.
Existing public restroom in the Oak/Remington lot.
An example from another city.
22 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
HOLIDAY LIGHTS AND ELECTRICITY FUNDING
This potential project would enable the GID to assist with funding of a share of the annual
holiday lighting installation. The recommendation is for any GID funding to be limited to
capital investment in equipment or permanent infrastructure; to be used to leverage other
funding sources more appropriate for event installations; and to be considered only if
necessary to prevent the loss of the program.
This annual installation is currently funded by the DDA under a contract set to expire after
2011. The DDA, DBA, and City have been parties to a three-way partnership in the contract,
but all three have had revenue cuts that place the program in question.
This potential project is not the type of capital project envisioned in the original creation of
the GID, and has raised particular questions and mixed reviews regarding appropriate use of
GID revenues. However, it is of top importance to the public and the Downtown business
community and thus is included as a potential project to support with GID funding.
Holiday lights in trees along East Mountain Avenue.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 23
SIDEWALKS, CURBS, AND GUTTERS REPLACEMENT
This potential project is an ongoing program to repair and replace damaged sidewalks, curbs,
and gutters. A large, one-time project is currently fixing the extra-wide, core-area sidewalks
in 2011. This project would fund smaller scale replacements, throughout the GID, as an
ongoing program.
Modest funding amounts could be useful, e.g., as little as $10,000 in a given year. There is
currently no effective program for this concrete work. Municipal Code places responsibility
on property owners to maintain sidewalks, curbs, and gutters so they do not endanger the
public; but that is difficult to implement, and does not require consistent quality of finish. A
GID program could provide a more practical, organized, quality approach for Downtown.
New sidewalk, curb, and gutter fitted in among older existing
portions of sidewalk that were in good condition.
Example showing cracks and heaving in concrete sidewalk and tree grate curb.
24 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
LINDEN STREET PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS AUGMENTATION
This project would design and install additional lighting consistent with other similar areas.
Linden Street lighting between Walnut and Jefferson is not consistent with lighting levels in
other high-activity areas, due to long distances between the current pedestrian fixtures,
creating darker areas.
This project should be considered in relation to Old Town Square lighting renovation. A goal
for overall Old Town Square renovations is to strengthen the visual linkage to this block.
Replacement of lighting to continue the same matching fixtures throughout Linden Street and
Old Town Square should be considered as a way to achieve the goal.
A stretch of Linden Street sidewalk that would benefit from more street/sidewalk lighting.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 25
MULBERRY/COLLEGE STREETSCAPE/GATEWAY
This project was on the previous 1994 project list. It would upgrade the west side of College
Avenue at current Sports Authority frontage, reinforcing the theme set by landscaping on the
east side. The goal is to enhance the image at this key south entry to Downtown. Street
trees, low screen walls, plantings, irrigation, and a seating area are recommended. Also, a
median planter could reinforce the Downtown theme, and new enhanced crosswalks could aid
pedestrian crossings and highlight the link between Downtown and CSU.
Origin: Downtown Plan
Existing Conditions
Landscaping on the east side of College Avenue at Mulberry
Existing median Downtown median planter
Existing crosswalk Enhanced crosswalk
26 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
PARKING FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS
This project idea is dependent on outcome of a Parking Plan for Downtown scheduled for
completion in 2012. That plan is expected to recommend improvements to public garages
and lots to create a more positive brand, and improve the everyday experience for users.
Example features may include better-designed, coordinated signage and paint. It may also
recommend additional parking, considering shared parking and partnerships in new lots or
garages.
Successful examples of user-friendly finishes and signage
transforming garages in other cities.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 27
Other Ideas
During the process, some ideas were suggested that fall outside the scope of this capital
improvements plan, but are recorded here for future reference and further consideration by
appropriate entities.
Expansion of the GID’s Boundary: The question of possible expansion of the GID’s
boundaries was raised, related to ideas for potential projects outside of the GID. Three areas
in particular were noted:
► The north edge -- the two blocks bounded by Maple Street, Cherry Street, College
Avenue, and Howes Street, with Mason Street separating the two blocks.
► The River District area – the area bounded by Jefferson/Riverside, the Poudre River,
Lincoln Avenue, and College Avenue.
► The south edge -- the commercial areas between Mulberry and Laurel.
Any of these ideas would involve outreach and complex discussion of issues, pros, cons, and
logistics. Boundary expansion is allowed by State law, and would require initiation by a
petition of property owners, then City Council approval, and an election by electors in the
expansion area.
Ice Rink Funding: This suggestion was for the GID to assist with funding of the annual holiday
ice rink installation and removal, if no other funding is available to continue the program
after 2011. The installation has been funded by the DDA, but major revenue reductions in
2011 have led the DDA to discontinue its funding. The cost is about $40,000 in 2011. This
was rated very highly as being important to Downtown in the 2011 planning process.
However, as a temporary attraction, it was not widely supported as being appropriate for GID
funding, in light of the needs for other, permanent capital improvements that are more
consistent with the purposes of the GID.
Other Ideas:
► Shuttles from/to hotels and other south Fort Collins locations.
► Shuttle to Lincoln Center.
► Portable security cameras.
► Downtown circulator shuttle along key routes within and around Downtown.
► Trolley expansion to the Trolley Barn.
► Surcharge on certain criminal citations to help pay for restrooms and maintenance.
► Noise abatement, especially train noise.
► Development and maintenance of an email list of property owners.
28 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
Conclusion
This plan will guide discussions and efforts over years, with updates as needed. New
information and changes have been constant, and that is expected to continue. The project
information will evolve and change as progress is made and new information is available.
Still, this plan is important in determining a basis for staff work to pursue projects, funding,
and coordination efforts by various stakeholders.
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
Log of Public Meetings and Outreach
June‐September, 2011
June 8 DBA Board, introduction, thoughts and ideas
June 9 DDA Board, introduction, thoughts and ideas
June 15 DBA Legislative Affairs Committee, thoughts and ideas
June 23 DBA membership, introduce and invite to Open House
June Neighborhood News newsletter
June 27, 28 Open House #1with mailing and online information
June 27–July 15 Online Questionnaire with Facebook link
August 9 City Council Worksession
August 10 DBA Board, review public outreach
August 18 DBA membership, review public outreach
Sept. 7 DBA Legislative Affairs Committee, review draft materials
Sept. 8 DDA Board, review draft materials
Sept. 12, 13 Open House #2 with mailing and online information
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
Log of Public Comments
June – September, 2011
Following are comments received in response to an online questionnaire and two public
open houses on potential projects to fund using the GID.
Online Comments:
1. Enhance lighting from College to Remington parking garage along South side of
Mountain Ave.
2. Keep up the good work with District One officers. They help to make it safer
for regular folks who want to enjoy downtown. My Mom enjoys Old Town, but
without police presence, I don't take her there.
3. Move some events more north.
4. We need a festival grounds somewhere near downtown to put all the public
events that are so popular here. Where, I don't know.
5. I think more bike parking would be a good thing. You can’t ride them
downtown so it would be great to have enough places to park them!
6. Could the 200 N. College block be improved? There are no street lights on the
sidewalk. For shoppers, it would be nice to even have a garbage can on the
northwest corner. I'm not sure if there could be benches and other
improvements made on the street as well, but it is a really neglected street
that holds the city building on it. If the city wants growth in the downtown to
continue, I would think that this block that links the downtown to the bus stop
and the discovery center would be an important street to improve to
encourage people to go downtown after being in the museum/discovery
center.
7. Consider partnerships for funding a permanent full size multi-use outdoor ice
rink downtown to accommodate all season activities.
8. The pedestrian bulbs that stick out in the streets, for example on Mountain and
Mason, are hazardous to bike riders because they push them into the traffic
lane. While I appreciate the new sharrows, the drivers don't know what they
mean and it's still dangerous to ride in the middle of the lane. I'd suggest not
adding any more bulbs. How about smoothing out the railroad crossings at Oak
and Olive. They almost knock your teeth out on a bike. How come the city is
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
ATTACHMENT 3
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
2
studying sound protections from trains only south of downtown and not in
downtown? The residents here have to listen to loud and frequent train horns
in the middle of the night.
9. Wide streets need large banners. Some of the existing banners have been too
small and do not call enough attention to themselves. Size the brackets
accordingly. I am interested in how the public art/artists is/are chosen. I think
we need to have some standards for the public art.
10. Restroom Signs, and more public transport at
night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11. Yes, please oh please....more parking for bikes! We are finally getting folks to
ride downtown, but they have no place to lock up. I hate to see people lock to
trees....
12. Large downtown roofed amphitheater two small open-air amphitheaters two
hotels--boutique and mid-level--200 rooms max round-about at
College/Laporte/Walnut
13. Instead of extending the trolley straight east on Mountain, send it up Howes to
Laporte and over on the north side of Laporte to Mason. This will allow for
Transfort and the Municipal Railway to be more seamlessly integrated. On
Jefferson/Riverside, positioning the bike lanes between moving traffic and
parking lanes is unacceptable considering the truck traffic. Bikes will either
have to choose between getting doored or going under the wheels of a semi
truck. A 2 way contra-flow cycle-track constructed on the Northeast side of
Riverside would be safer and more pleasant to ride.
14. I guess this is outside the GID area, but there is significant tourist (and local)
travel between downtown and Odell Brewing (and FCB) via West Mountain Ave
and Lincoln Ave (by bike, car, and some pedestrians). Pedestrian sidewalks and
bike lanes (and signage, landscaping, etc) along Lincoln Ave would be a benefit
and have a high-profile. A friendlier connection from Odell's to Linden and/or
NBB via Willow or 1st Street also is an idea. (and/or enhanced visibility of the
entrances to the Poudre trail there.) (b) The railroad crossings on Mason Street
at Oak and Olive are very rough for bicycles. It would be great to upgrade
them to the track crossing type used at Mountain and Laporte. (c) rather than
add downtown circulator shuttles, I’d rather see more circulator shuttles to
get to and from downtown from area hotels, etc. (d) Kudos to DDA on the
great alleyway improvements in recent years. Thanks for the downtown
planning and ongoing improvements.
15. Better public transit options for getting to downtown from other areas.
16. More regular late bus routes to downtown from other parts of Fort Collins
(Such as Harmony and Timberline). The routes right now are not viable options
for going out even for dinner on some evening, or downtown events.
17. This is a great list so far! Keep up the good work.
18. There is a street in Denver that has open grates in the sidewalk where sounds
emanate from. It leads to the art and cultural complex and is so cool! I think
that when considering art in the public places (which is always interesting)
that this "sound art" could be incorporated somehow.
19. Extend trolley line to new museum.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
3
20. Not at this time but the need for proper toilet and trash facilities is very
important in my opinion. I'm not even sure I would know where to find a
restroom if I were in Old Town at 11pm.
21. Keep the Mason Corridor project alive!!! Especially through/around campus!
22. Didn't see the year-round community market place anywhere in here. A market
place would add a lot more to Old Town than fancy cross walks.
23. Some great ideas here!
24. Downtown tries to be very pedestrian friendly but it still has 287 running right
through the center. I think the best thing for Old Town is reducing the traffic. I
wish I had suggestions on how to reroute traffic away. The other thing as far
fetched as it is would be a monorail. They can be beautiful and they are raised
so they don't affect traffic. Also, it can be used to get all around town and
even connect surrounding towns.
25. A non-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the railroad track running through
Mason Street.
26. Get folks who live in FC to volunteer to help on projects, including labor
(skilled and unskilled). People will show up and help if asked.
27. Thanks for posting on FB for more input.
28. All of these projects are nice, but if we don't get a grip on the drunks and
violence surrounding Old Town then all of the improvements are in vein.
29. Physically separated bike lanes are welcome anywhere downtown where
appropriate!
30. Watch the spending.
31. Please consider adding a fence to the Oak Street Plaza fountain. My family
loves to play in the water, but I hesitate to take them because there is no
visual barrier from the street fountain and the street. Perhaps a row of
benches, it would add additional seating and create a boundary for children. It
feels very unsafe in its current condition. Thank you for taking time to gather
opinions!
32. I strongly support projects that integrate solar and other renewable
technologies that showcase art and the City's commitment to being green. In
my opinion projects that directly relate to the Mason Street BRT investments
will be extremely valuable long-term and will make the community that much
more accessible and appealing to students, visitors and existing residents. I'm
not sure if Lincoln Street is included in the boundary but I think it is one of the
biggest priority streetscape/improvement projects that needs to be addressed
due to the significant bike traffic and impression that it leaves on tourists
(visiting the breweries).
33. THE PIAZZA~ A brilliant idea to create a 'european style' open plaza behind the
twenty-plus restaurants that currently back up to the existing parking lot near
the south east corner of mason and mountain ave. Remove the parking and
build a beautiful plaza for outdoor patios connected to each restaurant etc.
The patios could include Tasty Harmony, the Rio Grande, Ingredient, Lulu's,
Beach House, Sonnys?, Old Chicago, The Indian Buffet, Fish, Dempseys?, and
Joes Coffee, This would GREATLY enhance our town!!
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
4
34. I think the sidewalks are in extreme need of repair and should be the top
priority. It would be neat to extend the plaza at Oak westward and remove
parking to keep it completely for pedestrians. Jefferson definitely needs
streetscape improvements - I liked the rendering showing a median -that might
help mitigate the truck noise. The alley/parking lot behind 281 N
College/Washingtons needs lighting and other enhancements - it does not feel
safe there at night. Improving that same section along College is necessary as
well. The aesthetics drop in quality on that block compared to south of
Laporte. The alley improvements are wonderful and shouldn't stop until they're
all complete.
35. I'd like to see projects that help bring a closer link between old town and
attractions like: 1) the Breweries (bike tours) 2) new Museum on Cherry 3) and
even the Poudre river. Given this, I like the ideas involving enhancements of
roadways, sidewalks, signs, etc. on the East and North sides of Old Town.
Biking Jefferson can be a little scary without a bike lane. Proactively search
for and incentivize business to develop the empty block between Maple and
Cherry. Develop something that complements Fort Collins and helps attract
visitors and additional tax revenues!! A little tax incentive now will pay off in
the long run. From my experience, most people drive their own cars or bike to
Old Town. I feel addressing high dollar public transportation projects is
something that can wait until Old Town is beefed up a bit.
36. If mini electric cars grow then create parking spaces for them because you can
get 2 in one auto spot. Also more parking for bikes & under 50cc scooters.
Thank you!!
37. Keep some holiday lighting in the trees up year-round
38. Adding medians down Loomis Ave. To slow traffic down and make it safer for
bikes, pedestrians and also slow storm water
39. Use FEDERAL grants and opportunities to fix roads, traffic lights, etc.
40. Keep up the great work!
41. The trolley extension to Mason is a bad idea! The goal is to reach the old
trolley barn on Howes. That needs to have the priority.
42. Yeah, enhance the streets, they need repaving!
43. GID funds should be used primarily for new capital projects and not for
maintenance of existing or new projects. Need to do projects that increase
activity and interest in downtown which will generate more money for GID to
do more projects.
44. Maintain existing facilities ... quit spending on useless ideas.
45. There is nothing about bicycling enhancements here. Bike guideways through
Oak St. Plaza and Old Town Square would help direct and smooth out cycling in
old town. Also, roundabouts at Canyon and Magnolia, Olive and Oak would help
make this a better bike route to Old Town. (Not to mention Mulberry and
Canyon).
46. I endorse Glenn Konen's "The Piazza" project between Mountain and Oak
Street.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
5
47. Gateways at Mulberry and Whitcomb, and at Mulberry and Canyon, to invite
and lead the CSU communities toward the downtown. 2. Roundabout at
Mulberry and Canyon.
48. Improve the DDA parking lot that "fronts" and is defined by two intersecting
alleys between Mountain and Oak to become a Piazza for public events etc., in
the same way that so many open spaces occur in Europeon cities and towns.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY IT BECOME A "park" that is mostly green OR to become
another Oak Street Plaza dominated with things and trees but an open, mostly
hard surfaced space with pavers that are loose set for easy revisions and
maintenance and other infrastructure to support the "events".
49. Public transportation is key for this town going forward.... a street car or
electric car system would put Fort Collins above and beyond the future........
the bus system is simply not up to par for a town of our size.......... safety call
phones would be another great addition....to be able to call for assistance if
needed.
50. I would really like the downtown to work on getting more free parking because
I really believe that that issue is a big reason why FC has a successful
downtown.
51. The questionnaire is a bit too long and it would be helpful when setting a
priority if you could see the list of possibilities at the beginning. I live on W.
Oak and go into the downtown daily. While it is a central place for our entire
community, it is also a part of our own neighborhood and we "locals" support it
more than the rest of the community because we are there more often. The
residential neighborhood surrounding Old Town should always have
opportunities for direct impact on DDA activities.
52. Less about making it look pretty and more about functionality, first!!!!
53. If Mulberry street leading to College and Mason streets is considered the major
DT gateway, then it seems to me that a vision plan is necessary that would
guide future enhancements, future developments (Sports Authority lot, for
example), signage, streetscaping, etc... I suggest that this also ties in nicely to
the pending Mason Corridor. If some of the suggestions in this surveys had been
more connected as part of a plan, it would be easier to assessment them
relative to one another and prioritize accordingly.
54. PLEASE do not invest in the $500,000 bathroom on Oak Street. Can't believe
the City is recommending such a boondoggle!
55. A thought: with enough foot traffic downtown, a private entity could run
something like the ice rink. With that in mind, perhaps GID and public funding
should focus on advancing public works (e.g., streetscapes, gateways, shuttles
between downtown and conference hotels) which help maintain activity and
interest downtown.
56. Many parking issues could be resolved by putting parking outside the downtown
area and providing free, or inexpensive, consistent shuttle service into the
core area. This would reduce the number of cars in old town while potentially
increasing the number of pedestrians.
57. I would really like to see Old Town get away from using pavers. I'm guessing
they are as costly as quality concrete, but seem more prone to settling causing
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
6
tripping hazards and more work when it comes to snow removal. In addition, if
business owners need to use a lift to maintain their facade, much more work
goes into protecting the pavers from damage. They seem really 80s too, just a
terrible idea!
58. Thanks for taking input....our city rocks.
59. I am happy to see continued focus to make this one of the best towns ever. We
had friends in from Texas and Arizona this weekend, and LOVED the Old Town
atmosphere! Beautiful flowers, music in the square, art visible, just a great
mix!
60. A lot of the projects are ridiculous and seem totally unnecessary.
61. Thank you for getting people's opinions.
62. Spend more money just outside downtown....like Mid Town.
63. Include fiscal information in the questionnaire. Knowing approximately how
much of the GID funding will be used for each of these projects, and how much
each of the projects cost could significantly change my opinion of what is
important.
64. I would have appreciated the option to respond "DO NOT SUPPORT THIS
PROPOSAL AS DEPICTED HERE". Hi, Medium, Low priority or No Opinion do not
cover the spectrum!
****************************************************************************************
Open House #1 Comments:
Wayfinding Sign System
65. Need signage for existing restrooms.
66. Way-finding to Poudre Trail access – current signage is very poor; need to be a
local to know where to go.
67. Need way-finding on I-25 – it is very poor as it exists.
68. The way-finding in Grand Junction is very effective and impressive. The scale,
color and location are all great. In Grand Junction it is difficult to find Old
Town and the National Monument, but they did a fantastic job.
69. High priority because we need cohesive signage that leads visitors all the way
to Old Town from I-25 to parking garages, museum and river corridor.
70. Pedestrian Signs/Kiosks are another target for graffiti; at least in the form you
are showing now.
Mulberry/College South Entry to Dowtnown
71. I really like the pavers for interest. Check out Weaverville, CA. They have
thermoplastic fake bricks that look really fun. Can see on Google street view.
72. Mulberry/College needs major help. Really would be great to have pedestrian
refuges but not sure if possible. Encourage parking lot to be mini pocket park
w/ mini smoothie/coffee or other small business idea.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
7
Canyon Avenue Art Walk & Southwest Entry at Canyon/Mulberry
73. Yes, yes, yes, but NOT a roundabout.
74. Very dangerous intersection solution potential. Suggestions: create a
roundabout, close off Canyon to Mulberry, and reduce the number of options
leaving South from Canyon to Mulberry.
75. Repaint crosswalk by Mulberry pool to Mulberry. NO ONE stops for pedestrians.
76. I really like the pavers for interest. Check out Weaverville, CA. (Caltrans
Project – view a Google street view). They have thermoplastic fake brick X-
walls that look really fun.
77. Mulberry and College needs major help! Really would be great to have
pedestrian refuges not the same, if possible. Encourage parking lot at Sports
Authority to be mini pocket park with mini smoothie/coffee or other business
idea at corner.
78. Hire the designers who did Ashland Oregon’s Lithia Park. It fully utilizes a
small, narrow area for a fantastic public park. Adds value to the town.
79. Too much money to rebuild now. Put a Farmer’s Market here. Close Mulberry
connection. Two narrower lanes.
80. I am a big fan of gateways to Old Town so pedestrian traffic is comfortable,
safe and it is a pleasant stroll downtown.
81. Narrow Canyon to two narrow travel lanes and provide a public space for
Farmer’s Markets, concerts etc, and during off time, a place to travel through
or to and enjoy Fort Collins.
Linden Street Paver Sidewalk Paver Renovation
82. When is Linden going to be paved? I love paved streets. Are we going to
continue with pavers on NE Linden?
83. When is paving on Linden Street going to be done?
Jefferson Streetscape
84. No median. Jefferson should be part of DBA. Fort Collins history is very
important on corner of Jefferson and Linden. I think it should be kept quiet.
Make Willow a truck route.
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway
85. NO Roundabout. Landscaping great. Jefferson should be inclusive for Old Town.
A walkable area from Linden to College.
86. I like these because of leverage possibilities and the entrance aspect to
Downtown.
87. Enhanced gateway to Old Town great use of GID.
88. Roundabout please.
Old Town Square
89. I’m not so sure about a fire place.
90. We need more enforcement in Old Town Square for people on their bikes and
skateboards.
91. Cameras in Old Town Square will deter negative behavior.
92. Cameras would be great there for negative behavior. More cafes/restaurants
with outside seating or rooftops for people to sit and eat during concerts.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
8
93. Economic driver of Old Town. Let’s keep it current and viable. Good use of
GID.
Holiday Lights
94. Lights in picture have been reduced – it made a difference. Photography setting
at OTS drop-off completely different (worse). Museum cuts also.
95. Have private sponsors, businesses, NGO’s and foundations fund.
Ice Rink
96. NO ice rink.
97. I like the idea of a new full size rink, but where?
98. Fund new full size rink in appropriate location.
99. We need to make the plaza more family friendly than a bar district.
100. Move it to parking lot behind Lyric Cinema, or Oak and Remington parking lot.
Does not add to ambience of Old Town feel.
Sidewalks, curbs and gutters
101. GID funding should not be used for costs related to city maintenance. This is
general fund projects responsibility.
Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing, Civic Center Garage to Old Town Square via
Opera Galleria and Trimble Court
102. I like the centerline at College parallel parking idea with sidewalk in middle.
It is challenging today the way it exists.
103. Paid parking downtown like Boulder.
Enhanced Crosswalks
104. Enhancement of crosswalks period! Drivers do NOT stop.
105. Thermoplastic brick x-walks. The city standard enhanced seems to not be eye
catching enough and too pale.
East/West Pedestrian Crossings into Downtown
106. Bulb-outs whenever possible. I agree – shorten the ped crossings. Art on the
corners could be low maintenance.
Additional Pedestrian-Enhanced Alleys
107. Love the alleyway projects. Good on ya DDA !
Enhanced Linkages to new Museum
108. This would get people’s attention more once the museum is built. Yes, we
definitely need an enhanced pedestrian connection between the transit
center and Mason Ct. Mid-block crossing possible?
109. High importance once it is built.
Public Art
110. Love the utility box art.
111. The wonderful planters and flower beds are more important for me if costs
compete.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
9
112. Art on the corners like Grand Junction. Call them and ask them for details.
113. NO TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS, PERIOD! Hideous, white, marble monstrosity
and other “modern” art stinks!!!
114. I like the new location of the white statue. In the right location it shines
and is appropriate.
Additional Public Restrooms
115. Public restrooms need to be highly maintained. Example of restrooms in
Bryant Park, NYC.
116. Should be paid for by City General Fund, not GID.
Upgrade Existing Restrooms at Oak/Remington
117. Restrooms must be maintained, ex. Bryant Park, NYC.
118. Downtown needs far more restrooms to accommodate the late night crowd,
which can be 2000-3500 on any given weekend night. Would cut down on
public urination.
119. Good idea to improve this and it will reduce public urination and make it
more comfortable for Old Town pedestrians.
120. Existing restrooms are often locked by cleaning service. Ensure these are
available for residents and citizens.
Oak Street Parking Lot
121. I like this idea. Temporary sounds great.
122. West Oak St and Chestnut St. could be more utilized for events.
Enhanced Bus Stops
123. I totally agree! Also, have additional pull-outs for buses to keep traffic
moving.
124. This should be funded by City General Transportation Fund, not GID.
125. I am the only person I know who rides the bus.
Transit Circulator
126. The cost of maintaining this transit circulator negatively impacts other more
important projects.
Trolley Track Extension
127. I like anything to do with the trolley. Extend tracks to trolley barn, have
parking there, run the trolley more often, get the second car up and
running, etc.
128. Have parking at City Park with free rides for people who get validated
tickets from merchant. Don’t know how to manage, but …
129. The loss of parking for the infrequent use of the trolley is not a good idea.
Additional Ideas - Additional Parking Facility
130. Include river district into to GID and extend Old Town feel to Poudre River –
expand boundary.
131. We have two parking structures – probably should be free so people will use
them.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
10
Additional Ideas - Noise Abatement
132. Yes, noise abatement in Old Town! Especially train noise.
133. Bars on College that have outside patios, especially Tony’s. It is so annoying
since that was put in.
Other
134. Tie in North College improvements to Old Town appearance. Fill in blocks
that don’t have continuous sidewalks/bike lanes/ landscaping. Partner with
city funds for this North Gateway to Old Town.
135. Enhance Mulberry/College intersection AND Mason St. block west of
intersection to improve “gateways” to Old Town.
136. More bike racks like the NB ones in parking spaces.
137. Jefferson St. is so much a part of Old Town – on the west side with shops
and on the east side with Historic site. Please do not put a roundabout
there. I suggest moving it for traffic to Willow and Lincoln. More areas for
business and arts.
138. I coordinate responsible alcohol retreats (CRAR) and we work to get people
home from bars safely. Tow signs and ticketing are a deterrent for people
needing to leave their car in Old Town. I’d like to explore the idea of
developing some sort of system that would exempt a tow or a ticket from
someone who sought a safe walk home (rather than drive drunk). Bars would
distribute them.
139. The property north of transit facility (Maple, Cherry, College and Mason)
block 23 is under contract for several million dollars and is zoned for a 9-
story building. How about having a basement parking garage, and the first
four story exterior similar to Northern Hotel, with floors 2 and 3 affordable
rent or purchase condos, 4,5,6 and 7 hotel, floor 8 six-figure condos, and
floor 9 seven-figure penthouses.
140. Move bike parking from on-street parking places to upper level of
courthouse parking garage and make those parking places into handicapped
parking. NO METERS EVER! Reduce two-hour parking to one hour and expand
two-hour parking area.
141. We need to move bicycle parking off sidewalks and streets to parking
garages or create bicycle lots.
142. Enforcement of bikes and skateboards on sidewalks.
143. I like the idea of a horse trolley. I hope the city would partner with local
companies to make this work.
144. Hard to get things done in one hour – need to park longer than two hours.
145. People shopping in Old Town can’t get things done in one hour – need to
move car every hour. Encourage use of parking structures – there is parking!
146. How about creating gateways to downtown either at Mulberry and Howes,
or at Mulberry and Canyon? These would clearly identify the old town
boundary, but would serve as welcoming points into the downtown,
particularly to the students, faculty and employees of CSU. These
welcoming points might resemble the city gates we see in European cities
which stand as reminders of the history of the area and lend a feeling of
welcome and inclusion into something special. At either point, a large
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
11
roundabout (yes, I know…) might work. Or, perhaps landscaping and signage
would suffice. Then, configuring the streets to welcome bicycles and an
easy flow of traffic would do the rest. These would complement the newly
developed Mason Street Corridor--all of them saying "Come on down" to the
35,000 people on campus.
147. Don’t let GID substitute for City General Fund responsibilities (things the
City is normally obligated to do if there was no GID.)
148. Need a standing permanent committee with owner/stakeholder
representation like the North College CAG.
Open House #2 Comments:
Overall Project List:
149. More Alleys should be #1
150. Love the enhanced alleys, support Old Town Square Renovations, support
public restrooms, support leveraging funds.
151. Yes to Old Town Square as #1 project venue for events to promote
Downtown.
152. I like Jefferson/Mt. gateway idea. This area is seeing a lot of traffic and
gateways are important to show you are in Downtown.
153. Again, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters should be paid for by City General
Fund.
154. Where is railroad horn issue ? ? ?
155. Project list should be flexible because of additional funding and bonding
potential in addition to partnering with development.
156. Basic maintenance should be paid for by general fund, but maintenance of
enhanced alleys and pavers should be paid for by the GID fund.
157. Yes to top 5 and another parking structure.
158. Very important to maintain existing improvements.
159. Very important to take advantage of developments and tie landscaping and
sidewalks to look of downtown.
160. Integrating Mason Corridor very important.
161. What about maintenance? Cleaning paving. REQUIRE businesses to clean
their grease.
162. Spread out the improvements out from the core where most of the
attention is.
163. Pine Street needs some design improvements.
164. Chestnut Street – New Garage.
165. Like the capital projects. They can create leverage. Lead Downtown
forward. This GID could easily degenerate into a maintenance thing fixing
cracks, planting flowers, putting up lights.
Old Town Square Renovations:
166. Overdue. It’s tired. #2. (After Alleys).
168. #1.
169. Yes #1.
170. Old Town Square is a focal point of Old Town.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
12
171. #1 priority.
172. #1. Layout needs to be updated for size of events held there. Permanent
concession building would be beneficial to DBA.
173. Kids and homeless people hanging out by restrooms discourages some
people from going “back there” to use restroom.
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway and Streetscape:
174. Yep!
175. #1
Reserve Fund for Emerging Opportunities:
176. Maybe not the most exciting, but likely very important to get to smaller
projects.
Alleys:
177. Love the alley enhancements. I think it makes them safer and more
attractive to use as walkways to other parts of Downtown.
178. Consider Oak to Olive alley between Remington and Matthews. It gets used
as a connection, and for drinking and vandalism.
Mulberry/MasonGateways:
179. Making Mulberry/Mason look more like a gateway is VERY IMPORTANT.
180. Yes – may have to wait ‘til redevelopment occurs.
Crosswalks:
181. Need Pine and Jefferson Cross Walks. Tie in Rodizio.
182. Yes to enhancing Remington/Olive crosswalks leading to downtown.
Important corner.
Jefferson Streetscape:
183. Not my top priority. What does this redesign do to truck traffic?
Old Town Square Lighting Renovation:
184. #2 Priority.
185. Make this continuous down to Jefferson along Linden Street. (Overlaps with
Linden Street Lighting Renovation project idea.)
186. Only do this if it’s in context with square renovation plan that we’re sure
of.
Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations :
187. Why don’t we put bathrooms in parking garages?
Public Restrooms Funding :
188. More, smaller facilities. Consider off-the-shelf facilities that come with
complete systems like in Europe and big cities.
189. Yes! #1.
190. Better signage on existing restrooms.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
13
191. Improvement of bathrooms and signage needed. Also, make them safer to
use.
192. YES.
Sidewalks, curbs and gutter replacement :
193. No.
194. No.
195. Partner with City General Fund.
Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations :
196. Why don’t we put bathrooms in parking garages?
Downtown
General Improvement District No. 1
Capital Improvements History
Previous List of Projects (1994)
In 1992, a public process affirmed support for continuation of the GID, following the final
payment on bonds that financed the original 1977 package of GID improvements. The
continuation of the GID included development of a list of potential projects. The list was last
updated in 1994 (see below), and since then, most of the projects have been completed.
List and Status of “Future GID Capital Projects” from 1994:
Project Status
1. Paver Replacement, Oak /College intersection
east side.
Completed, 1996.
2. Laporte/College intersection streetscape. Completed, 2001.
3. Paver Replacement, Mountain/College
intersection.
Completed, 2001.
4. Mulberry/College intersection streetscape
(west side of College).
Not Completed. Carried forward as a potential
future project in 2011 CIP.*
5. North College streetscape, Laporte Avenue to
the river.
Completed, 2004.
6. Paver replacement, bus shelter and fountain
improvements, west side of Oak/College
intersection.
Completed, 2006.
7. Downtown Signage. Not Completed. Design work underway;
proposed for installation in 2011.
* This project has not proceeded toward completion because it is related to concepts for redevelopment on the
adjacent “Wells Fargo” block. Ideally, this project would be done in partnership with redevelopment, and it has
not made sense to proceed while redevelopment ideas were being explored.
Several of the completed projects involving paver replacement at intersections were done as a
package, which also included paver replacement at the Olive/College intersection in addition
to projects on the list. The paver replacement projects included related renovations of
irrigation, drainage, and benches.
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
ATTACHMENT 4
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Original Purposes, As Stated in the
Founding Ordinance and Resolutions
A few key paragraphs in the founding Ordinance and related City Council
Resolutions address the purposes of General Improvement District #1:
Resolution 76‐63, 1976
“…the City Council hereby declares its intent to form a local improvement district for the purpose of
improving the visual appearance of streets and other public ways and to make such streets and other
public ways better accommodate pedestrians and vehicular traffic within the district, such
improvements to include generally construction and reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and
streets, installation of planters and landscaping, installation of street furniture, installation of plazas,
installation of light signalization for traffic and other allied improvements and for the purpose of
acquiring property and constructing parking facilities thereon to serve the area…”
Ordinance No. 77, 1976
“…to create a general improvement district within the City, for the purpose of acquiring property and
constructing parking facilities thereon, and constructing and installing other street beautification
improvements, all as particularly set forth in…[Resolution 76‐63].”
Resolution 92‐37, 1992
“…to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the Existing Improvements and the costs of
constructing, installing and operating other improvements and works of the GID …so long as such
improvements are within the purposes for which the GID was created and organized as described in
Ordinance No. 77. 1976”
“…to fund the cost of operating and maintaining the Existing Improvements, constructing extensions
and betterments thereto, and constructing installing and operating such additional improvements as
may be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors.”
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
MEMORANDUM
DT: August 9, 2011
TO: General Improvement District #1 Board of Directors
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FM: Clark Mapes, City Planner
RE: August 9 City Council Work Session Summary –
Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvements Plan
Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, Wade Troxell, Aislinn
Kottwitz, Gerry Horak, Ben Manvel.
Staff present: Joe Frank, Clark Mapes, Matt Robenalt.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
• Does the Board have any questions, comments, or ideas about potential projects and
priorities?
• Does the Board need any additional information for the adoption hearing on October 18?
Summary of discussion:
Council had general comments and questions about the approach to the GID, and specific
comments and questions about individual projects.
General comments and questions:
The GID should not fund projects that would otherwise be the responsibility of the City
or other funding source.
Questions about the original purpose of the GID were discussed. Projects should
continue to reflect original purposes of beautification, pedestrian, and parking
improvements.
ATTACHMENT 6
Staff answered questions about the stated purposes in founding documents. There is wide
latitude in the purposes. The purposes noted above are to “enhance the Downtown as a
business and commercial area”; and in addition to the purposes noted above, operations
and maintenance of improvements are allowed, along with “other improvements as may
subsequently be approved by the Board”.
Council will need to see staff recommendations for the project list, and not just results of
public outreach.
Council needs more explanation of costs and funding, and how listed projects relate to
revenue projections.
The question of expansion northward to Cherry Street was discussed, with the idea of
linkages to the new museum in mind.
The question of expanding south toward CSU, similar to the DDA, was raised.
Specific comments and questions:
Public restrooms need better signage or other wayfinding.
Council expressed support for keeping a reserve for unforeseen projects.
Mulberry/College intersection gateway improvements may involve so much work that
they may not be the best choice for limited funds.
Follow up items:
Council noted the need for further analysis of needs regarding public restrooms.
Crosswalks are an increasing issue. Council requested any information that may be
available to provide context for crosswalk improvements, i.e., previous lists, known
priorities, or other efforts by the City.
Next steps include development of staff recommendations and clarification of how to use
the cost magnitude shown for potential projects on the list.
1
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
1
THE THE GID GID
2
North
ATTACHMENT 7
2
33
44
3
5
66
4
77
88
5
9
y Annual Revenues about $300,000
y 15-Year Projection $5-6 million
y Annual Revenues about $300,000
y 15-Year Projection $5-6 million
THE THE GID: GID: MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE
10
DOWNTOWN GID
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
DOWNTOWN GID
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
10
• Guide Staff Work
• Framework for Decisions
• NOT a commitment or obligation
• Guide Staff Work
• Framework for Decisions
• NOT a commitment or obligation
6
11
PROCESS PROCESS
► Mailings to all 900 property owners
► Two Open Houses (June and September)
► Downtown Business Association (DBA) and
Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
►City Council Worksession (August)
► Mailings to all 900 property owners
► Two Open Houses (June and September)
► Downtown Business Association (DBA) and
Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
►City Council Worksession (August)
12
POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST
7
13
POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST
14
► Budgets
► Coordination with City departments and DDA
► Funding scenarios with DDA
► Scope, conceptual design, and cost
estimates for each project.
► Funding and timing scenarios for the list
IF IF APPROVED: APPROVED:
8
15
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ACTION REQUESTED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ACTION REQUESTED
Resolution 022
Adopting the General Improvement District
#1 Capital Improvements Plan
Resolution 022
Adopting the General Improvement District
#1 Capital Improvements Plan
16
9
GID GID and and DDA DDA Boundaries Boundaries
17
Maple Street
Vine Drive
Peterson
Street
Lemay
Avenue
Jefferson Street
Meldrum
Street
Laurel Street
Mulberry Street
18
NEED NEED for for a a NEW NEW CIP CIP
• Project list last updated in 1994
• Mostly completed
• Bonds retired in 2009
• New Ideas, questions, and issues
• Project list last updated in 1994
• Mostly completed
• Bonds retired in 2009
• New Ideas, questions, and issues
10
19
THIS WORK SESSION
20
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
• Are there any questions, comments, or ideas about:
- Potential projects?
- Priorities?
- The balance of responsibilities among the City, the
DDA, and the GID?
- The balance between a fixed project list and
schedule, and a more general list with flexibility for
staff to find partnerships or respond to needs?
• Does the Board need any particular information for
the adoption hearing on October 18?
• Are there any questions, comments, or ideas about:
- Potential projects?
- Priorities?
- The balance of responsibilities among the City, the
DDA, and the GID?
- The balance between a fixed project list and
schedule, and a more general list with flexibility for
staff to find partnerships or respond to needs?
• Does the Board need any particular information for
the adoption hearing on October 18?
11
21
COST COST ESTIMATES ESTIMATES
22
12
23
24 24
13
25
26 26
14
27 27
28
PROCESS PROCESS
• May -- Grounding, issues, and brainstorming.
• June -- Discussions with DDA Board, and DBA
Board, the DBA Executive Committee, and DBA
Membership.
• June/July -- Sought thoughts and ideas from
property owners and the public: mail, open house,
online.
• May -- Grounding, issues, and brainstorming.
• June -- Discussions with DDA Board, and DBA
Board, the DBA Executive Committee, and DBA
Membership.
• June/July -- Sought thoughts and ideas from
property owners and the public: mail, open house,
online.
15
29
PROCESS PROCESS
• August
-- GID Board Work Session
-- Analyze costs, partnership opportunities, constraints,
etc.
• September
-- Review draft CIP material with property owners and
the public
-- Assemble the CIP document.
• October 18 – Board Meeting for Approval.
• August
-- GID Board Work Session
-- Analyze costs, partnership opportunities, constraints,
etc.
• September
-- Review draft CIP material with property owners and
the public
-- Assemble the CIP document.
• October 18 – Board Meeting for Approval.
30
DOWNTOWN GID
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
DOWNTOWN GID
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
30
RESOLUTION NO. 022
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”)
has been duly formed and organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the
statutes of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, in 1994, a list of capital improvement projects was identified, most of which
are now complete or underway; and
WHEREAS, City staff has been working on a new capital improvements plan for the
GID to identify potential future projects and priorities for the GID; and
WHEREAS, the content of the plan was developed by staff with input and guidance from
City Council and after public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the General Improvement District
No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan, dated October 12, 2011, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk and available for public inspection, and which is incorporated herein by this
reference (the “GID No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan”) is in the best interests of the GID as it will
provide a guide and framework for using GID revenue to best serve the needs of the district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement
District No. 1, that the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan is hereby
approved and adopted.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fort Collins
General Improvement District No. 1, this 18th day of October A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Clark Mapes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 5
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District fund for
the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for
fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was done in
2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign
company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and
coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop
may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those
costs. Installation will occur in 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A memorandum to City Council dated September 20, 2011, introduced this item (Attachment 1).
A customized Downtown Wayfinding Sign System has been listed as a potential project for GID No. 1 funding since
the early 1990’s. It is the last project to be executed under a list of GID capital improvement projects approved by City
Council in 1994. A sign system is also recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan and the 2004 Downtown Strategic
Plan; and is part of recommendations in a 2008 report by UniverCity Connections.
The appropriation will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual,
which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009. The manual spells out parameters for a new sign system
and a new staff team to administer the system. It may be found online at
http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/downtown-sign-system-doc.pdf.
Objectives of the sign system are to:
• Build awareness of downtown by announcing its presence along main thoroughfares.
• Lead visitors to main entries and clarify the entrance and arrival sequence.
• Help visitors locate public parking garages and lots, and make the garages more user-friendly, to reduce
common anxieties about public garages.
• Help visitors navigate the area and find destinations easily, in cars or on bikes, and then on foot once parked.
• Build awareness of attractions in and around downtown by highlighting key destinations that may not be
immediately obvious.
• Add a sense of welcome in support of the overall image.
• Enhance the perception of downtown as an interesting and desirable place with distinctive, helpful graphics.
• As much as possible, allow for flexibility and updating of signs.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The appropriation of $500,000 for this project is from the GID No. 1 Fund reserve balance, which is projected to be
$818,000 at the end of 2011.
Installation of the sign system will create the need for ongoing annual maintenance and administration by a staff team.
The cost of this will be determined as part of final design, but a conceptual estimate in approximately $5,000 per year
for materials. The division of responsibility for ongoing funding between the City General Fund and GID No. 1 will be
determined in annual budget processes.
The system is intended to enhance the Downtown area as a business and commercial area.
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The parking signage included in the system is partly intended to reduce trolling for parking in the Downtown -- that is,
the tendency for drivers to drive around looking for parking. The system as a whole is intended to support objectives
for getting vehicles parked efficiently, and encouraging pedestrian use in the Downtown.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A sign system has consistently been a prominent, highly supported project in extensive public participation in the
following planning efforts:
The 1989 Downtown Plan.
The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan.
The 2008 UniverCity Connections Transit and Mobility Task Group Report.
The 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Memorandum, September 20, 2011
2. Powerpoint Presentation
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
Memorandum
September 20, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation Services
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development & Transportation Director
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FM: Clark Mapes, City Planner
RE: Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Appropriation Request
This memorandum updates Council about the ongoing project to create a customized sign system
for Downtown, and informs Council about a pending appropriation request to fund installation of
signs under the system. That appropriation item is scheduled for the October 18 Council
meeting. In the meantime, Council is invited to relay any questions and comments to staff
through the City Manager’s Office.
The proposed sign system is a project of the Downtown General Improvement District (GID).
City Council acts as the Board of Directors of the GID, and may also have an interest in this
project from a Council perspective.
The GID is self-funded by Downtown property owners for the purpose of improvements such as
parking, pedestrian, and beautification facilities and amenities. A sign system has been included
on GID project lists since the early 1990’s. A sign system was first recommended in the 1989
Downtown Plan, and is also recommended in the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan. It is also part
of the recommendations in a 2008 report by UniverCity Connections.
The purpose of the proposed sign system is to help visitors more easily locate public parking
facilities and navigate the area, to increase awareness of Downtown attractions, and to enhance
public perception of the Downtown as a distinct place.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
The proposed system is described in the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System
Schematic Design Manual. The manual outlines design parameters, and explains that a
significant new City program, with a staff team, will be required to successfully administer and
maintain the system. The manual may be found online at:
http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/downtown-sign-system-doc.pdf
Also, some examples of the design concepts are included at the end of this memo.
The manual was developed in a public process in 2008-2009 that included meetings with
stakeholders, a public open house, and a full-size outdoor mock-up demonstration. The most
interested stakeholder group is the Downtown Business Association, and they are anxious to
implement the system.
The planning-level cost estimate for full installation of the system by a sign contractor is
approximately $500,000. Value engineering in the final design phase, and the potential for some
work to be done by the City’s Sign Shop, may reduce this cost.
Previous Council Presentation
At the April 21, 2009 Council meeting, staff presented a draft schematic design of the proposed
sign system during the City Manager’s Staff Report.
The key point in the discussion was a concern that Council should be kept informed, and given a
chance to weigh in, on such a highly visible project. The conclusion was that staff would send
the design illustrations electronically to Council, which was done the next day; and that Council
members would contact the City Manager’s office with any desires for further involvement such
as a work session discussion or another briefing. Otherwise, staff was to proceed with
installation of signs under the system as a part of ongoing operations, similar to the way existing
signs are managed. No feedback was received from Councilmembers.
Ongoing Communication
As the staff team proceeds with implementation, it will continue to inform and coordinate with
interested parties. In particular, the team will:
o Maintain communications with the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and
Downtown Development Authority (DDA).
o Work with the DBA to encourage owners and businesses to become advocates for the
sign system, anticipating questions about any spending on signs, design choices,
implementation, and so on.
o Inform Council/GID Board, via memos, about implementation progress, including final
design, scheduling of installations, and spending of GID funds.
3
Appropriation and Implementation
The next step toward implementation is an appropriation request to the GID’s Board of Directors
(City Council) for $500,000 from the GID Fund. The $500,000 comes out of a projected year-
end fund balance of $818,000. Upon approval of the appropriation, staff will develop a Request
for Proposals seeking a sign contractor to prepare final design and construction details, and then
fabricate and install signs in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations
Sign Shop. Installation is expected in 2012.
Design Examples
Following are illustrations of a few representative signs showing the main aspects of the
schematic design for the sign system.
Within Downtown, signs would be metal with a consistent theme of mottled, faux-weathered
brown finish and background panels of textured aluminum. Parking signs build from a basic
circle “P” symbol, with a flexible system allowing for additional information as appropriate to
specific locations, such as the word “Downtown”, the facility name, or “First Hour Free.”
Outside of Downtown along key inbound routes, the design style would be an adaptation of
standard traffic signs to reflect the City’s branding kit, to establish the identity of Fort Collins in
the sequence leading visitors to Downtown.
Some examples of the schematic design are shown on the following pages.
4
Parking directional signs showing
multiple options, to be tailored
to specific locations for user-
friendliness.
About 8 feet
Selected Examples: Downtown Wayfinding Sign System
Schematic Design
5
Parking facility identification and entry signs:
building–mounted format, at right; and
freestanding vertical format, below.
The freestanding sign below features a
changeable information panel for information
on pricing and events.
These would be double-sided, dimensional
cabinets with illumination.
6
Sign
Panel
Option
That Can
Be
Wall-
mounted
Parking Garage/Lot “You Are Here” Pedestrian Informational Sign –
Freestanding and Wall-Mounted. Would include a guide map, and be easily
updatable.
Sign shown as
freestanding; but
sign panel can be
wall-mounted if
more appropriate to
specific locations.
1
1
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Appropriation of Funds
for
Wayfinding Sign System
$500,000 out of $818,000 Balance
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Appropriation of Funds
for
Wayfinding Sign System
$500,000 out of $818,000 Balance
1
2
General Improvvement
District
(GID) Funding:
Funded by
Commercial Property Owners
Downtown
General Improvvement
District
(GID) Funding:
Funded by
Commercial Property Owners
Downtown
ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
Sign System:
Implements Adopted Plans
and
1994 List of GID Projects
Sign System:
Implements Adopted Plans
and
1994 List of GID Projects
4
Sign Sign System System Purposes Purposes
3
5
6
► Downtown Business Association (DBA)
► Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
► Council/GID Board
► Downtown Business Association (DBA)
► Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
► Council/GID Board
Ongoing Ongoing Communication Communication
4
7
Board of Directors Action
Requested:
Board of Directors Action
Requested:
Ordinance No. 062
Appropriating Funds in the
General Improvement District #1 Fund
Ordinance No. 062
Appropriating Funds in the
General Improvement District #1 Fund
ORDINANCE NO. 062
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND FOR THE
DOWNTOWN WAYFINDING SIGN SYSTEM PROJECT
WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the
statutes of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors
of the GID, to appropriate $500,000 for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project (“the
Project”); and
WHEREAS, a wayfinding sign system has been included on the GID project lists since the
early 1990's and was recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan, the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan,
and in the 2008 UniverCity Connections report; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the sign system is to help visitors better navigate the area, easily
locate public parking facilities, increase awareness of Downtown attractions, and to enhance public
perception of the Downtown as a distinct place; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and
construction details, and to fund fabrication and installation of the signs; and
WHEREAS, the GID will collaborate with the City’s Traffic Operations’ Sign Shop, the
Downtown Business Association, and the Downtown Development Authority on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign
System Schematic Design Manual, which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009; 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District
No. 1, that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General
Improvement District No. 1 Fund the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000) for expenditure on the Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
October 18, 2011
after the General Improvement District No. 1 Meeting
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Presentation of the City Manager's Recommended 2012 Budget Revision Requests.
(staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 2 hour discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to review the 2012 Budget Revision Requests to be
considered for inclusion in the 2012 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. The Ordinance
will be considered on First Reading on October 18, 2011. This is a continuation of the
work session agenda from October 11, 2011.
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
October 18, 2011 Page 2
Based on Council discussion, several modifications and additions have been made to the 2012
Budget Revision Recommendations as outlined below:
• Eliminated the Below Market Pay Adjustment request
• Changed funding source from KFCG to General Fund on the Downtown Ice Rink
Installation and Removal, Downtown Holiday Lighting, Mason Street Parking Study, and
Poudre Fire Authority Non-Discretionary and Total Compensation Increase
• Added 2012 Budget Revision Requests to support
N Regional Planning Assistance – Attachment #1A
N Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) – Attachment #1B
N Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance – Attachment #1C
An updated listing of all Budget Revision requests and funding sources is provided in Attachment
2. Revised Citywide supplemental appropriations under consideration now total $8.2M, reflecting
a net reduction of $637K based on the changes described above. The General Fund share increased
by $380K to $2.0M. The Utility Funds share decreased by $317K to $5.4M. All Other Funds share
decreased by $700K to $0.8M.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The overall impact to City fund balance if all revisions are approved is an increase of $437K. The
General Fund balance will increase by $1.2M and the KFCG fund balance will increase by $773K.
By using General Fund rather than KFCG funding for the four items described above and adding
the three Council requests, the amount being added to the General Fund balance is $379K lower than
originally anticipated. A summary of economic impacts is provided in Attachment #2.
ATTACHMENTS
1. October 11, 2011 Council Work Session Summary
2. 2012 Budget Revision Request Detail - updated October 14, 2011
3. Work Session Item #3-Follow-up from October 10, 2011 Council Finance Committee
Meeting
4. 2011 (only) Budgeting for Outcomes Unfunded Offers
5. Keep Fort Collins Great 2011 Offer Status
Financial Services
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2259
fcgov.com/business
ATTACHMENT #1
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: October 14, 2011
To: Mayor and City Council
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Re: Oct. 11, 2011 Work Session Summary Follow up – 2012 Budget Revisions
City Manager Darin Atteberry reviewed a high-level summary of the City Manager's
Recommended 2012 Budget Revisions.
Councilmembers raised various questions in preparation for 1st reading of the budget. It was
decided that it was appropriate to have an additional work session to continue the discussion.
That work session is scheduled for October 18 and 1st reading of the 2012 Annual
Appropriation Ordinance is postponed until November 1, 2011.
For questions that were not able to be answered during the meeting, the answers to the
majority of those are included in this memo. Some questions may require additional time to
adequately research and respond.
/sek
Attachment
Page 2 of 8
October 11
th
Council Member Requests re: 2012 Budget Revisions
1) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz
Can trail connections in southeast Fort Collins be considered in 2012
Response from Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning & Development
In 2012 the Fossil Creek Trail at east Trilby Road will be joined with the Power Trail and a
new underpass installed under the road from which the Fossil Creek Trail will extend south
along Stanton Creek. This section of trail will connect to the Fossil Creek Trail being
constructed this fall in the Greenstone Development that is located just north of Carpenter
Road along Stanton Creek.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz
What would be required, including cost, to do an ice rink or City funded holiday lights in south
Fort Collins?
Response from J.R. Schnelzer, Director of Parks and Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks
Ice rink in south Fort Collins:
• A location and electricity requirements would need to be determined.
• An ice rink would cost approximately $300,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the size.
• If a permanent site could not be found, annual set up and tear down costs would be
$40,000 to $50,000 depending on rink size. If a permanent sight was found, annual
maintenance costs might be $10,000 to $15,000, but the City has no experience with
permanent outdoor rinks, so this estimate is very preliminary. The Recreation
Department could operate the ice rink. The Old Town Square ice rink generates
sufficient revenue to cover Recreation’s expenses to operate the rink.
Holiday lights in south Fort Collins:
• The City would need to work with businesses to determine locations and electricity
availability.
• If the amount of lighting requested is similar to the lighting in downtown, the lights
would cost approximately $125,000, and the annual installation and removal would
cost approximately $70,000. A light replacement program would need to be
established and would cost an additional $20,000 per year after the first three years of
use.
In Old Town Square, the DDA purchased a used ice rink in 2005 and paid for annual
maintenance through the 2011 holiday season. Additionally, the DDA purchased the
downtown lights in 2007 and initially a portion, and then in 2010 all, of the annual installation
and removal of the lights through the 2011 holiday season.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 3 of 8
3) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz
Can transit service south of Harmony be considered in 2012
Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Marlys Sittner, Transfort/DAR Gen. Mgr.
Transfort staff received feedback from City Council at the September 27
th
work session that
the addition of transit service along Lemay Avenue south of Harmony Road should be
considered in a more systematic, fully vetted manner as part of the 2013-2014 BFO process.
Staff recommends this as the preferred course of action in consideration of the Transfort
Strategic Operating Plan.
Should City Council choose to add this service in 2012, $320,000 is needed to fund the fixed
route service along with the ADA-mandated complementary paratransit (Dial a Ride) service.
Please note that although this is a one-time budget amendment request, if accepted this
would become an ongoing cost to be incorporated into Transfort’s 2013-2014 BFO service
provision offers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4) Request from Gerry Horak
Please provide a written 2012 Budget Revision Request for Regional Planning Assistance
Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Mark Jackson, PDT Budget, Policy &
Communications Manager
Please refer to Attachment #1A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5) Request from Gerry Horak
Please provide a written 2012 Budget Revision Request for a Neighborhood Planning
Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman)
Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Steve Dush, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services Director
Please refer to Attachment #1B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) Request from Gerry Horak
Please provide a written 2012 Budget Revision Request for Affordable Housing Relocation
Assistance
Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
Please refer to Attachment #1C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7) Question from Gerry Horak
What happens to the $812k that won't be used for Below Market Pay Adjustments?
Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Excluding any additional requests from Council, that amount would go into fund balance of
multiple funds. In the General Fund that amount would be $140k.
Page 4 of 8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8) Statement from Gerry Horak
Not pleased with the process, or lack thereof, used for the additions to the 2012 budget, no
public outreach, no options from which to choose.
Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Your concerns have been heard and changes will be made to the next budget revision
process in 2013. Those changes include:
• Starting the process earlier including time at the annual Council workshop after
Council elections
• Public outreach will be included in the process
• The revision requests will go to Council Finance earlier in the year
• One or two Council Work Sessions will be conducted depending on the volume of
revision requests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9) Question from Gerry Horak
How will the elimination of the Furlough day be funded?
Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
The budgeted savings of $130k in 2011 will be covered by forecasted underspending with the
various funds. We do not need to appropriate an additional $130k due to existing
appropriations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10) Question from Gerry Horak and Aislinn Kottwitz
What is the forecasted General Fund balance at the end of 2011?
Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
The forecasted General Fund balance at the end of 2010 was $39.9 million. The actual fund
balance at year-end was $40.9 million.
For 2011, there was a budgeted use of $4.1 million of reserves which contributed to a 2011
projected General Fund balance of $35.8 million. Based on revenue changes, supplemental
appropriations, and departmental underspending, we are now forecasting to end 2011 with a
General Fund balance of $38.6 million.
In 2012, we originally budgeted to use $400k of General Fund reserves. Based on net
changes to forecasted General Fund revenue and the 2012 Budget Revisions, the 2012 year-
end General Fund balance is forecasted to be $39.4 million, an increase of $800k over 2011.
Page 5 of 8
General Fund Fund Balance Reconciliation
amounts in millions
Fund Balance 2010 forecast $ 39.9
Fund Balance 2010 actual $ 40.9
2011 Budget Surplus (Deficit) Original (4.1)
PO carryforward appropriations (2.4)
Supplemental Approriations (5.0)
Grant Revenue (supplemental) 1.1
Revenue variance * 4.9
Department savings (underspending) 3.2
2011 forcasted deficit $ (2.3)
2011 Forecasted ending fund balance $ 38.6
2012 Budget Surplus (Deficit) orginal (0.4)
Net 2012 Budget Revision impact 1.2
2012 Forecasted ending fund balance $ 39.4
* Includes $2.2 million in Sales & Use Tax revenue greater than budget, as well as updated forecasts
for other General Fund revenue items based on October YTD actuals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11) Question from Kelly Ohlson
Can Old Town Properties contribute to downtown holiday lighting?
Response from J.R. Schnelzer, Director of Parks and Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks
The City will contact the DDA, DBA and Old Town Properties to determine if other funding
options exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12) Question from Kelly Ohlson
What is driving the $3.1M increase in Sales Tax in 2012; is it an increase in the base or a
change in the % increase; and what is the forecasted increase?
Response from John Voss, Interim Finance Director
The $3.1 million increase is due to a change in the base. The forecasted increase in Sales
Tax from 2011 to 2012 is 1.95%.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 6 of 8
13) Question from Kelly Ohlson
What rate was the assumed interest income in 2011-12 budget, what is current rate
forecasted, when was new forecast developed, why the change?
Response from Harold Hall, Investment Administrator
The interest rate assumption that was projected in year 2010 for the 2011-2012 budget was:
2011 = 2.25%
2012 = 2.50%
The current Interest rate forecast assumption was developed and revised in August 2011 as
part of the 2012 Budget Revision Process.
2012 = 1.25%
YTD actual interest rate earned in 2011 = 1.42%. Reasons for the downward change in
interest rate assumptions:
1) The expected recovery that was projected by economists for the US economy in year
2010 and beyond did not materialize
2) In an attempt to stimulate the economy, the Federal Reserve Bank lowered the
Overnight Funds rate to a range of 0% to.25% in December 2008
3) The Federal Reserve is not expected to increase the Overnight Funds rate until mid
2013 or later
4) Because of the financial crisis unfolding in Europe and the continued weakness in the
domestic economy investors have flocked to safe investment classes such as
Treasury and Agency securities
5) The increase in demand for safe investments has increased their prices and lowered
their interest rates to historic lows
6) The City investment policy restricts our investment options to the same fixed income
securities that currently have historically low interest rates
7) The City investment portfolio is structured so that maturities are laddered from
immediately to as long as 5 years
8) As older higher yielding investments mature they are reinvested at the new lower
yields
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14) Statement from Kelly Ohlson
Disagree with the proposed uses of KFCG funds – change all to General Fund where
appropriate
Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Those changes have been made and are reflected in the AIS for the October 18 Council
Work Session. There is now no requested use of additional KFCG revenue that was not in
the adopted 2011-12 budget.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 7 of 8
15) Question from Lisa Poppaw
How will the new affordable housing/human services dollars be leveraged?
Response from Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT and Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
This budget amendment request provides funding for necessary administration costs of the
City’s local Affordable Housing and Human Services programs and services. Federal funds
are restricted from paying for local program administrative costs. As a result of federal
funding reductions, there is only enough funding available for federal program administration.
No funds are currently allocated for local program administration.
Several factors have led to the need for this budget request.
• The City’s Human Services Program and Affordable Housing Fund programs have
seen recent marked growth, both in terms of actual dollars and in corresponding
administration /implementation resources required.
• To date, no local program funds have been allocated to cover the administration costs
of the two growing City programs. All funds have been directed to programs.
• Federal funds, which until now have always covered oversight of those two City
programs, have been cut—impacting the separate funding categories of administration
and project financing. There are now only enough federal resources to administer the
federal programs.
• Federal audits are bringing increased compliance scrutiny. It is inappropriate for
federal funds to be used to administer our local programs.
This proposal does not add FTEs; it only shifts work responsibilities where most needed. The
request also does not use City dollars to cover federal programs and tasks. Lastly, it does
not take away program funding for 2012. Those direct service dollars have already been
committed and allocated to needed programs and projects.
Managers of these local programs continue to seek opportunities to leverage funds with
grants and partnerships as they arise. The goal is to maximize service provision to the
Community while tracking, reporting and managing cases in a responsible and transparent
manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
16) Question from Lisa Poppaw and Aislinn Kottwitz
Why are there no 2012 Budget Revision Requests that benefit south Fort Collins?
Response from Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
The biennial revision process is focused on the City's business needs, as well as the latest
forecasts for revenue and expense changes since the original budget was adopted a year
ago. It allows for mid course corrections to reflect those changes and a more accurate
financial understanding of the second year of the biennial budget.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 8 of 8
17) Question from Wade Troxell
Is it feasible to fund the Digester Gas Treatment System offer from 2011 in 2012?
Response from Link Mueller, Utilities Project Manager and Kevin Gertig, Water Resources
and Treatment Operations Manager
Since the last BFO process, staff has been working on alternative methods of methane gas
usage other than the gas treatment system offered in the 2011/2012 budget.
• A CSU graduate team is investigating DWRF’s existing gas production capacity and
the potential for utilizing CSU’s waste food as a feed stock for additional gas
production.
• Staff is participating in Natural Resources’ solid waste analysis to identify other
possible waste food sources for gas production
• A GEO phase 1 technology grant has been applied for to investigate the installation of
micro-turbines at DWRF in the event a stable feedstock supply can be secured
Staff recommends that any available enhancement funds for the reclamation plants be
applied to the elimination of chlorine gas disinfection
• As directed by Council, staff is preparing a ultra-violet (UV) enhancement offer for
submission in the 2013-2014 BFO process
• A CSU senior design group is working with staff to investigate various ultra-violet
disinfection alternatives for DWRF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attachment #1A - From the October 11 Work Session Summary Memo
Revision Title:
Fund: Contact: Cumbo/Jackson
Result Area: Package/Offer #: N/A
Total Amount: $50,000
Funding Source #1: Funding Amount #1: $50,000
FTE Requested:
Description:
2012 BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
Regional Planning Assistance
None
This offer creates a funding source for participation in regional planning opportunities that arise from time to
time. Some of these opportunities are regional partnerships that require financial participation. An example of
a current funding partnership need is the currently ongoing "Embrace Northern Colorado" effort. Note: These
funds are separate and in addition to annual dues allocated for membership in the North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization (regional transportation and air quality planning).
The cost for this proposal is suggested to be in the $25,000 to $50,000 range, and is requested to come from
General Funds. Note: This is a one time (2012) budget amendment request. If accepted, this fund pool would
have to be considered as part of the 2013-2014 BFO process as an ongoing expense.
100 - GENERAL FUND
Economic Health
General Fund
Attachment #1B - From the October 11 Work Session Summary Memo
Revision Title:
Fund: Contact: Cumbo/Dush
Result Area: Package/Offer #: N/A
Total Amount: $75,000
Funding Source #1: Funding Amount #1: $75,000
FTE Requested:
Description:
2012 BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman)
1.0 FTE
This request funds a new position to act in a liaison role between the City's Current Planning Department
and citizens and neighborhood organizations potentially affected by proposed development. This
Neighborhood Outreach Specialist would assist citizens throughout the development review planning
process.
This position is to be housed in the Neighborhood Services Division of CDNS. Specific personnel costs have
not been determined yet by CDNS and Human Resources, but it is anticipated that this position is likely to fall
in or near the Administrative Professional (AP) level 03. Fully loaded personnel costs may be in the range of
$75,000. There may also be additional resources needed for materials, office expenses, etc.
Please note that this is a one time budget amendment request. If approved, these costs would be added as
ongoing expenses as part of the 2013-2014 CDNS/Neighborhood Services BFO offers.
100 - GENERAL FUND
Neighborhood Livability
General Fund
Attachment #1C - From the October 11 Work Session Summary Memo
Revision Title:
Fund: Contact: Cumbo/Frank
Result Area: Package/Offer #: N/A
Total Amount: $50,000
Funding Source #1: Funding Amount #1: $50,000
FTE Requested:
Description:
2012 BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance
None
This request creates a pool of funds to provide affordable housing relocation assistance. If deemed
appropriate and legal, these funds are intended to serve as matching money to other services and resources
provided by the developer and other public agencies (e.g. Larimer County). These funds would be managed
by the City's local Affordable Housing/ Human Services programs.
Funds would be eligible only for documentable expenses such as, but not limited to, moving expenses,
security deposits, first month rent, temporary hotel costs, and food vouchers.
General funds are requested for this fund pool. Other funding options could include use of 2012 local
Affordable Housing and Human Services program funds. Note: If local AH/HS funds are used for this pool, this
would mean fewer resources available to go to other program needs.
The City will not receive FY 2012 Federal funds (e.g. Community Development Block Grant) until October 1
and may not be available in time to address immediate relocation needs. Another consideration when
contemplating use of federal funds, is the associated regulations and rules that come with federal funding. If
these regulations and requirements are not followed, federal funds such as CDBG would not be eligible.
Note : This is a one time budget amendment request. If approved, these costs would be added
to Advance Planning's ongoing services 2013-2014 BFO offer.
100 - GENERAL FUND
Neighborhood Livability
General Fund
ATTACHMENT #2
Page General KFCG Utility Other
Number Adjustment Requested Fund Fund Funds Funds Total Comments
Eliminated Requests
36 Below Market Pay Adjustment $139,799 $0 $317,205 $355,386 $812,390 Pulled from consideration by City Manager
Perceived Council Support
8 Police Services Ticket Surcharge Officer (1 FTE) $118,709 $118,709
9 Affordable Housing/Human Services $54,499 $54,499
21 Restore Conservation Trust Funds for Trail Construction $546,571 $546,571
25 Development Review - Customer Service Demand (1 FTE) $65,000 $65,000
32 CMO Policy and Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE $29,157 $29,157
34 Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services $200,000 $200,000 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund
35 Reorganization Office of Sustainability $91,650 $30,550 $122,200
43 Light & Power Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase $121,969 $121,969
47 Purchase Power Increase $1,724,505 $1,724,505
49 Water Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase $88,054 $88,054
54 Water Meter Replacement and Rehabilitation $580,000 $580,000
55 Household Hazardous Waste Community Event $22,000 $22,000
56 Remove Structures from Poudre River Floodway $1,000,000 $1,000,000
57 Master Plan Flood Mitigation Project Property $1,600,000 $1,600,000
58 MIS Email, Blackberry & Smart Phone Services $108,000 $108,000
59 MIS Network Services Resource Support $62,400 $62,400
60 MIS Technology Customer Software Compliance Support $59,488 $59,488
61 MIS Technology Customer Support Restructure $30,709 $30,709
62 Microsoft Office 2010 Software Upgrade $550,000 $550,000
Total by Fund $1,105,586 $0 $5,136,528 $841,147 $7,083,261
Council Discussion
7 Assistant to the City Manager and CPIO (1 FTE) $176,320 $176,320
22 Development Review Succession Planning (1.25 Cont. FTE) $75,341 $75,341
31 PFA Non-Discretionary & Total Compensation Increase $228,926 $228,926 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund
33 Federal Legislation Analysis and Action $79,414 $79,414
41 Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal $40,000 $40,000 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund
42 Downtown Holiday Lighting $85,000 $85,000 Changed all KFCG funding to General Fund
48 Energy Efficiency Financing Program (.5 FTE) $300,000 $300,000
Total by Fund $685,001 $0 $300,000 $0 $985,001
New Proposals
Regional Planning Assistance $50,000 $50,000 As requested by Councilmember Horak
Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) $75,000 $75,000 As requested by Councilmember Horak
Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance $50,000 $50,000 As requested by Councilmember Horak
$175,000 $0 $0 $0 $175,000
Total Request by Fund $1,965,587 $0 $5,436,528 $841,147 $8,243,262
2012 Budget Revision Request Detail
Updated 10/14/2011
IDALIA DR
Y
U
M
A CT
I
D
A
L
I
A CT
RICK DR
SOLAR CT
M
E
R
C
U
R
Y
D
R
W SATURN DR
F
O
S
S
IL CREST DR
E TRILBY RD
E SATURN DR
G
A
L
A
X
Y
CT
E SKYWAY DR
PLATEAU CT
AURORA WAY
LEO CT
OR
I
O
N CT
PLUTO CT
SUNDOWN CT
FL
A
G
L
E
R
RD
General Improvement Skyview South District No. 15
Legend
General Improvement District #15
Parcels 1 inch = 600 feet
ATTACHMENT 1
the
City Council
Finance Committee
on
Sept.
26,
2011.
Public
notification
will
begin
October
2
and
Electric
Rate
Ordinances
will be
considered
by
City
Council
at
first reading
Oct.
18,
2011.
Second reading
isNov.
1,2011.
Next
Steps
September
26
-
Council
Finance Committee
related
to
all
utilities
rates
and
fees
October
11
-
Work session
on
Residential
Energy
Rate
October
18
-
I
reading
of
Electric
Rates
(without changes
to
Residential Energy
Rate);
also 1’
reading
of
ordinances for
water
and
wastewater
rates and
PIFs/development
fees
October
25
-
Work session
on
Energy Conservation
Programs
November
1
-
2
reading
of
Rates
and
Fees
Jan.
1,
2012
-
all
rates
effective except for Residential Energy
Rate
Late
2011
or
early
2012
-
1
5t reading
of
ordinance changing Residential
Energy
Rate
to
be
effective
shortly
thereafter.
seasonal
adjustment.
Questions for
City
Council included:
Residential Rate
Options
1.
Of
the
four
proposed rate
options
for
the
residential
energy
rate, which specific option
is
preferred?
2.
Does City
Council
support
the
proposed
change
to
the
residential
demand rate?
Commercial Rate
Options
I.
Does
City
Council
support
the
proposed
change
that
would
create
an
additional
rate
class
from the
existing General
Service
rate class?
Questions
from
Councilmembers
primarily
focused
on
aspects
of
the
residential
energy
rate,
its
merits
in
addressing
carbon
reduction
and
energy
efficiency
goals,
and
its
impacts
on
customers
as
well
as
the
perceived
value
or
lack
of
value
to
the
system
(generation,
transmission
and
distribution). Other
questions
focused
on
the
impacts
to
customers
related
to
size
of
households
and
square
footage
of
homes,
number
and
type
of
appliances,
and
electricity
use
associated
with
lifestyle
(home
office or
other differences).
City
Council
requested additional information:
1.
Assumptions
related
to
elasticity
(in
plain
English)
—
what
kind
of
impact
can be
expected? What
is
the
corresponding
carbon
reduction?
2.
Are
the
options
designed
to
be
revenue neutral?
If
demand
and
energy
are
reduced,
the
purchase
power requirements
will
also
be
reduced
lowering
overall revenue
requirements.
3.
Provide
more
context
on
system
impacts. How might
the
tiered
rates
affect
shifts
in
demand
which
may
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
overall load?
4.
Provide
more
data
on
the
monthly variation
in
bill
impacts,
including
the
typical
variation
in
monthly
use.
5.
Provide
sample
(8
to
10)
scenarios
of
year-round
use and
the
price
impacts
of
the
options.
Examples:
Large
users with
no
air
conditioning
(AC), large
users
with
AC,
small users
with
AC,
small
users
without
AC,
etc.
Changes
to
the
Residential Demand
Rate
and
the
Commercial General Service
Rate were
discussed
and
generally seemed
acceptable.
Councilmembers
had
a
number
of
unresolved
questions regarding
the
Residential Energy Rate
and
requested
a
follow-up
Work
Session,
now
scheduled
for
Oct
1
1,
2011.
Councilmembers
recognized
that
the
schedule
for
implementation
were
present.
Utilities
Executive
Director
Brian
Janonis
provided
introductions
and noted
that
the
consideration
of
a
change
to
the
electric
rate
form
is
unprecedented
in
the
history
of
the
Light and
Power
Utility.
Presentations
were provided
by
Patty
Bigner
and
SAIC
consultant Joe
Mancinelli. Staff answering
questions included
Bill
Switzer,
Steve
Catanachm
and
Patty
Bigner.
SAIC
consultant
Joe
Mancinelli
provided
a
brief presentation
on
industry
trends and
response
to
those trends
by
utilities
across
the
country,
with
specific
information
on
electric
rates,
customer
assistance,
time
of
use
rates,
and
special
programs
for electric
vehicles.
The
residential energy
rate
options proposed
for
Council
discussion
included:
•
Single
Tier
(current
rate
structure)
• Seasonal (Platte
River Power
Authority
[PRPA]
pass-through)
•
Three
Tier
•
Five Tier
Staff
also
proposed phasing
out
the Residential
Demand
Rate
and
suggested limiting
the
rate
to
residential
customers
who could
provide
documentation
of
total
electric
residence
(no
natural
gas).
One
change
to
the
rate
form
is
proposed
for
the
commercial
rate
classes.
As
noted
in
the
Agenda
Item
Summary,
the
proposed change
to the
General
Service
(GS)
or
commercial
rate
class would
more
accurately
reflect electric
use
of
this
diverse group
of
customers.
This
change
would
create
a
fourth
commercial
rate class
to
include
the
lower
end
of
the
mid-sized
commercial customers
by
splitting
the
GS
customer
class
into
two
customer
classes,
GS
and
GS
25.
$
1 26,025,803
3,514
0.55
$ 12,740,424
$ 42
$
S 6,313 $ 6,390
11.2%
1.2%
1,069
32,628
$
$ 1,082 $
35,860 3,232 9,9%
in
use
from
the
four
year
history
two
years
previous. The
history
used
for
wastewater
calculations
is
for
the
6
winter
months
(November
through
April).
This
continued
trend
appears
unstable
and,
as
a
result,
the
estimated
usages
will
remain
the
same as
used
in
the
prior
PIE
study
until
a
more
stable
trend
or
methodology
is
developed.
The
following
table
shows
the
resulting
fee
impact
of
the
new
$/gpd
as
applied
to
the
estimated
gpds
for
the
customer
classes:
Wastewater
Plant
Investment
Fee
analysis
and update
Current
Proposed
2012
Volume
Proposed
Fee
Customer
Class
05-’08
data
PIF
Change
gpd
$ $
%
Single family
Res
300
$
3,550
$
3,440
-3%
Duplex&
Multi-tam
210
$
2,490
$
2,410
-3%
Nonresidenia
I
Meter
Size
(inches)
3/4”
600
$
7,100
$
6,880
-3%
1’,
1,510
$
17,880
$
17,300
-3%
1
1/2”
2,660
$
31,490
$
30,480
-3%
2”
4,670
$
55,290
$
53,520
-3%
3”
12,680
$
150,130
$
145,310
-3%
Stormwater
Plant
Investment
Fees
The
current
methodology
used
for
calculating
storm
water
PlFs
was designed
by
Jim
Hibbard
and
endorsed
in
the
Fee
Study
Draft
Report
presented
in
June
2010
by
Red
Oak
consulting.
It
is
essentially
a
buy-in
method
with
the
system
value
consisting
of
land,
master
plan
and
drainage
system
and
the
capacity
defined
as
the
City’s
developable
acreage.
The
fee
is
adjusted
to
reflect
the
average
runoff
coefficient
for
the
City.
The
fee
per
acre
is
then
applied
to
all
new
developments
based
on
the
average
acreage
of
the
development.
Table
C
below
shows
an
overall
increase
of
1.2%
to
our
2012
storm
water
PIFs.
One
item
of
significance
needs
to
be
pointed
out:
2.
In
2009
we incorrectly
classified
all
2008 Construction
Work
in
Progress
(CWIP;
$1
0.8M)
as
growth
related construction.
More
recently
available
detailed reports
reveal
that,
for
both
2008
and
2010
CWIP
totals,
little
was
applicable
for
backbone
facilities.
Thus
the
value
of
the
system
was
overstated
in
the
2009
calculation
for
the
2010
PlFs.
3.
An
average
calculation
of
the
most
recent
four
years’ history
has
been
used
to
set
estimated
usage
for
new
customers
with
tap
sizes
of
3”
or
less.
The
most
recent
four
years’
history
(20072010)
shows
significant reduction
in
use
from
the
four
year
history
two
years
previous.
Staff
considers
the
recent
four
years
of
use
less
than what
would
normally
be
expected
due
to
above
average
annual
rainfall
for
the
same
period.
As
a
result
the estimated
usages
will
remain
the
same
as
used
in
the
prior
PIE
study
until
a
more
stable
trend
or
methodology
is
developed.
The
following
table
shows
the
resulting
fee
impact
of
the
new
$/gpd
to
the
customer
classes:
Water
Plant Investment
Fee
analysis
and
update
2009
Study
2009
implemented
2011
Study
Average
Use System
Peak Peak
Day
Use
Fee
Customer Class
par
Bill
(a),
(b) r
per
Bill
(a),
tb)
PIF
Fee
PIF
Fee
PIF
Fee
Change
gpd
gpd
$
$
$
%
Single
Family
flea
Domestic
Use
(base)
172 172
700
730
730
0.0%
Peak
Use
(par
sqft)
785
0.370
0.360 0.390
8.3%
Total
319
3.00
957
Duplex,
per
unit
Domestic
Use
(base)
120
120
490
490
510
4.1%
Peak
Usa
(persqft)
217
0.260
0.270 0.270
0.0%
Total
153
2.20
337
MultI-family
Domestic
Use
(base)
120
120
490 490
510
4.1%
Peak
Use
(per
sqft)
217
0.260 0.270
0.270
0.0%
Nonresidential
Meter
Size
Inches
3/4
561
3.10
1.850
7,530
7,530
7,880
4.6%
1
1,820
3.10
5,340
21,730
21,730
22,750
4.7%
1
1/2
3,375
3
10
11,130
45,300
45,300
47,410
4.7%
2
5,144
3.10
16970
69,070
69,070
72,290
4.7%
3
11,766
3.10
38,800
157,920
157,920
165,290
4.7%
a)
Indoor
usage
is
based
on
2005-2.008 winter
average
use.
Total
dass
use
is
based
on
252
08
annual
average.
(b)
Includes
6
percent
(or
waterlosses.
Finance
Committee
AIS
Plant
Investment
Fees
(PIFs)
are
used
to
finance
growth
related
capital
facility
costs
for
water
and
wastewater
“backbone”
(transmission and
distribution
mains
for
water;
trunk
and
collection
mains
for
wastewater)
and
treatment
facilities
and stormwater infrastructure. The
fees
establish
equity
between
existing
customers
and
new
customers
by
sheltering
existing
customers
from
the
cost
of
growth,
and
must
be
established
and
applied
in
a
legal
manner
(Colorado
Senate
Bill
15,
2001).
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
legal
requirements
allow
a
maximum
threshold
for
PIFs
but
do
not
require
the
utility
to
charge
at
these
levels.
The
utility
can
charge
less than the
legal
allowable
requirements.
In
2005,
the
City
of
Fort
Collins
Utilities
hired
Red
Oak
consulting
to
assist
in
creating
models
to
develop
PIFs
consistent
with
the above
requirements.
Staff
has
updated
this
model
every
two
years
to
set
PIEs
in
accordance
with
City
Code
requirements.
In
March
2010,
the
City
Manager
asked
Red Oak
consulting
to
review
the
City’s
existing
development
related
fees
which
included
the
four
Utility
Plant
Investment
Fees;
storm
water,
water,
wastewater
and
electric.
In
a
June
10,
2010
draft
report,
Red
Oak
found
all
four
Utilities’
fees
as
“reasonable
and
sound’.
This
report
has
yet
to
be
finalized.
There
are
three
design
approaches
to PIF
methodology:
•
The
Buy-In
approach
-
-
used
when
existing
capacity
is
sufficient
to
meet
future
needs
to
build-out
in
2040.
PIFs
are
to
recover
the
growth
related
portion
of
capacity
carried
by
current
customers
in
their
rates.
•
The Incremental
approach
--
used
when
no
current
capacity exists
to
meet
additional
growth.
The
PIFs
are
to
recover
the
costs
of
the
new
capacity
planned
to
accommodate
growth
to
build-out
in
2040.
•
The
Hybrid
approach
--
used
when
some
capacity
is
available
but
more
is
needed
to
meet
projected
growth
to
build-out
in
2040.
This
combines the
buy-in
and
incremental
methodologies.
Council
Finance
Committee
AIS
When developing
the
2011-2012
Budget,
staff
projected
a
6.23%
increase
in
electric
rates for
2012.
The
current recommended increase
is
8.3%.
The
components
of
the
rate
increase
are
as
follows:
2012
Electric
Rate
Increase
-
Original
Budget 2012
Recommended
2012
Retail
Purchase
Power
Rate
Increase
4.53%
4.80%
Increase
for
Capital
1.70%
3.50%
Total
Increase
6.23% 8.30%
Increase for
Purchase
Power
Platte
River’s
rate
increase projection
has
increased for
2012
from
6.0%
to
6.4%.
In
addition,
Platte
River
is
revising
its
rate
structure
to
charge more
per
kWh
and
peak
kW
for
the
three
summer
months
of
June,
July
and
August
and
is
increasing
the
per unit
energy
cost
while
reducing
the
per
unit
peak
demand
charge.
This
results
in
a
projected
increase
of
4.8%
to
the
City’s
retail
rates,
an
increase
of
0.27%
from the
original
2012
budget projection.
KWh sales
are
projected
at 2010
levels.
Increase
for
Capital
Light
and
Power
is
moving
from
a
period
where
capital
expenditures
were
funded
mainly through
system
growth
and
development
fees
to
a
future
where
the
majority
of
resources
will
be
directed toward
maintaining, upgrading
and
replacing existing
capital
infrastructure
which
must
be
funded through
rates.
Over
the
last
few
years,
instead
of
raising
rates
for
these needs,
Light
and
Power
has
been
intentionally
drawing
down
reserves
to
fund
many
capital
expenditures.
During
this
time
two
substations
were
built,
much
of
the
Southwest Annexation
was
transferred,
and
aging
infrastructure
was
upgraded
without
an
impact
on
rates.
Because
of
the
availability
of
surplus reserves, rate
increases
have not
kept
pace
with
February 1, 2012
• Proposed effective date of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance. (Effective for billings with meter
readings on or after this date.)
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rates are projected to increase 2012 annual operating revenues of the Water Fund by 6%, the Wastewater Fund
by 8% and the Light and Power Fund by 8.3%. (The short delay in adopting the RESR increase will slightly reduce the
increase for Light and Power.) The projected revenue from the rate increases is included in the revised 2012 budget
projections. The increases are necessary to fund purchase power, operations and system additions and replacements
and to meet debt service requirements.
The proposed water and wastewater rate ordinances will increase costs for a typical residential customer by $4.47 per
month if such customer’s water use remains unchanged. An additional change to the RESR at a later date will change
N
DE
R
ST
N HOWES ST
JEFFERSON ST
J
E
R
O
M
E
S
T
MAIN ST
COLORADO ST
HO
F
FM
A
N MI
L
L RD
P
A
S
C
A
L
S
T
WALNUT ST
O
V
A
L
D
R
S SHERWOOD ST
E MOUNTAIN AVE
ENDICOTT ST
11TH ST
SYCAMORE ST
MU
L
L
E
I
N
DR
EAST DR
E LAUREL
S
T
FRONTAGE RD
PINE ST
WOO
D
L
AW
N
DR
LESSER DR
BEL
L
F
L
OWE
R
D
R
WEST DR
OLD MAIN DR
E MAGNOLIA ST
LILAC LN
MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY
PENNOCK PL
MARTINEZ ST
ELM
S
T
TENNEY CT
LINCOLN AVE
LOPEZ CT
EASTDALE DR
TRUJILLO ST
LINDE
N
C
ENTER DR
BAUM ST
S SHERWOOD ST
E LAUREL ST
FRONTAGE RD
N
LEMAY A
V
E
N MASON ST
Downtown Development Authority Boundary Map
Legend
Parcels
Downtown Development Authority Boundary 1 inch = 1,320 feet
.
Amended: April 1, 2008 Printed: 1/20/2011
ATTACHMENT 1