HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/01/2012 - 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
Rita Harris, Interim 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
May 1, 2012
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring May 6-12, 2012 as Salvation Army Week.
B. Proclamation Declaring May 2012 as Mental Health Month.
C. Proclamation Declaring May 6-12, 2012 as Drinking Water Week.
D. Proclamation Declaring May 6-12, 2012 as National Women’s Health Week.
E. Proclamation Declaring May 3, 2012 as the National Day of Prayer.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 18)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 21)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
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 14. 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. 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.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining 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
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the April 3 and April 17, 2012 Regular Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for On-
Bill Utility Financing.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17, 2012, revises language in
Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide financing and on-bill servicing of loans for
energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new
program element for 2012, providing on-bill financing for residential customers participating in the
Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate Program and for customers who need to repair or replace
a water supply line. The primary goal of the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency
upgrades in the residential sector. These upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources,
reduce our environmental footprint, promote local economic health by investing in our built
environment and improve the health, comfort and safety of our homes.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General
Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and Projects for the
Multi-jurisdictional Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
The City has received three grant awards from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the
Department of Justice in the amount of $201,579 for the operation of the Northern Colorado Drug
Task Force (NCDTF) to help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2012, Appropriating Additional Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the
Intersection of College and Mountain Avenues.
Unexpected costs, including higher bid prices and additional work requested by the owner, have
resulted in the Avery Building restoration and renovation project costing more than originally provided
for. The original cost of $430,270 was funded by a State Historic Fund grant for $215,135, matched
by an equal amount provided by the property owner, Avery Building, LLC. The property owner has
now provided the City with additional revenue in the amount of $220,000 to cover the additional costs.
The award-winning project is nearing completion, and is expected to be finished at the end of May
2012.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non-
Exclusive Utility Easement on City Parks Property to Maple Hill Master Association.
In April 2004, the City of Fort Collins Parks Department acquired Tract I, Maple Hill, located in
northeast Fort Collins, near Turnberry and Country Club Road. The City purchased this tract for a
future public neighborhood park as well as for access, drainage and utility easements. Maple Hill
Homeowners Association has requested a utility easement for an eight-foot wide irrigation easement
through the corner of Tract I.
11. Items Relating to the Wild Plum Farm No. 1 Annexation.
A. Resolution 2012-028 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wild
Plum Farm Annexation No. 1.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1.
This is a request to annex 0.64 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately
1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA – Farming Zone
District in Larimer County. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the
Larimer County to the north, west and south; and, Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Middle School)
to the east. The zoning ordinance will come forward on May 15, 2012.
Page 4
12. Items Relating to the Wild Plum Farm No. 2 Annexation.
A. Resolution 2012-029 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wild
Plum Farm Annexation No. 2.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2.
This is a request to annex 3.32 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately
1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in
Larimer County. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County
to the north, west and south; and, Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east.
The zoning ordinance will come forward on May 15, 2012.
13. Resolution 2012-030 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the
912 Wood Street Annexation.
The applicant, Sidehill Investment LLC., the property owner, has submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 17.34 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320
feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties
are currently zoned O – Open in the Larimer County to the south and west, and POL – Public Open
Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate
to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort
Collins Intergovernmental Agreements.
The only known issue with this annexation is the previously expressed concern by community
members and one Councilmember with the LOMR-Fill (Letter of Map Revision-Fill) process that
occurred while the property is still in the County. While the floodplain regulations for the Poudre River
Basin generally match across the City and the County, the City conditions its approval of LOMR-Fill
applications in a way that the County does not. In this instance, the LOMR-Fill was approved by the
County and portions of the site have been removed from the floodplain prior to annexation. Remaining
portions of the site that are in the floodplain will be required to comply with the City’s floodplain
regulations.
14. Resolution 2012-031 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16, 2012,
Planning and Zoning Board Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed
Remington Annex Located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street.
On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
to deny the Remington Annex, Modification of Standards was filed by Christian and Robin Bachelet
of Remington Annex, LLC.
On April 17, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In
order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making
findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
END CONSENT
15. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
Page 5
16. Staff Reports.
• Library District Annual Report
• Mason Minute - Update on the Mason Corridor
17. Councilmember Reports.
18. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
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.
19. Resolution 2012-032 Recognizing the Veterans Plaza Time Capsule and Directing a Future City
Council to Open the Time Capsule on Veterans Day 2111. (staff: Josh Jones, Wendy Williams; 5
minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion)
A time capsule containing donated items was buried at Veterans Plaza in Spring Canyon Community
Park in 2011. This Resolution formalizes its burial and requests that it be opened 100 years from now
by a future City Council on Veterans Day 2111 with the media and community present.
20. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish
a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers. (staff: Lance Smith, Patty Bigner, 10 minute
staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance
for customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electrical durable
medical equipment in their household. The program is focused on providing a discount to qualifying
customers by reducing the cost associated with the electrical needs of durable medical equipment.
The program also provides a discount for those eligible customers with qualifying medical conditions
who use air conditioning during the summer billing months. The pilot program will include an income
limitation of 60% of the Area Median Income. The amount of the discount is consistent with 150 kWh
per month of electric energy usage to those customers with durable medical equipment and
consistent with an additional 350 kWh per month of electric energy usage for those with qualifying
medical conditions who use air conditioning during the summer billing months. Staff will prepare a
report for the City Council on the first year of the pilot program before June 2013.
Page 6
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-1 (Nays: Troxell; Kottwitz absent). On
Second Reading, the Ordinance has been amended in the following ways:
• One of the recital clauses has been amended to reference increased wholesale energy costs
as the basis for the assistance program and another recital clause is deleted.
• The Code language has been re-worded and reformatted to actually establish the discounted
rates, rather than simply stating the maximum amounts of the discounts, and to clarify that
the discounts may apply either to electrical durable medical equipment or air conditioning, or
both, depending upon which is medically necessary for that particular customer.
21. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
22. Other Business.
23. 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.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Salvation Army acts as a responsible steward of charitable dollars to
achieve a diverse range of missions and goals; and
WHEREAS, the Salvation Army continues to handle many unmet needs of the community
during these adverse times; and
WHEREAS, the Salvation Army provides for the solace and spiritual needs of the
community; and
WHEREAS, the accomplishments of the Salvation Army deserve affirmation and
celebration.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim May 6-12, 2012 to be
SALVATION ARMY WEEK
and encourage all our citizens to recognize and support this organization in our community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, mental health is essential to everyone’s overall physical health and emotional well-
being, yet one in every four families is affected by a mental illness in a given year regardless of age, gender,
race, ethnicity, religion or economic status; and
WHEREAS, Colorado is ranked as the 18th most depressed state and has the 9th highest suicide
rate in the United States; and
WHEREAS, the vast majority of children, youth, and adults in Colorado who have mental health
disorders are not receiving the help they need; and
WHEREAS, access to medically necessary medication and treatment helps prevent individuals from
ending up in emergency rooms and corrections facilities and from becoming homeless and, most
importantly, prevents suicide; and
WHEREAS, it costs 6.5 times more to incarcerate an individual experiencing mental health issues
than to treat them in the community and indirect costs of mental illness in Larimer County total over $22
million per year; and
WHEREAS, improvements are being made in the quality and quantity of mental health care that
is being delivered, and research in this field is being accelerated; and
WHEREAS, with appropriate care, people who have a mental illness can recover and lead full,
productive lives and comprehensive, community-based services that respond to individuals with mental
health needs and their families are cost-effective and beneficial to consumers and to our community.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort collins do hereby proclaim
May 2012 as
MENTAL HEALTH MONTH
in Fort Collins. I call upon the citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, businesses
and schools to recommit our community to increasing awareness and understanding of mental health, and
the need for appropriate and accessible services for all citizens.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins
this 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Interim City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, water is our most valuable natural resource; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins tap water delivers public health protection, fire protection, support
for our economy and the quality of life we enjoy; and
WHEREAS, any measure of a successful community – low mortality rates, economic
growth and diversity, productivity and public safety – is in some way related to access to safe water;
and
WHEREAS, we are all stewards of the water infrastructure upon which future generations
depend; and
WHEREAS, each citizen of Fort Collins is called upon to help protect our source waters
from pollution, to practice water conservation, and to get involved in local water issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim May 6-12, 2012, as
DRINKING WATER WEEK
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Interim City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, National Women’s Health Week in 2012 begins on Mother’s Day, May 13, and
continues until May 19; and
WHEREAS, National Women’s Health Week is coordinated by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services’ Office on Women’s Health; and
WHEREAS, May 14, 2012, is National Women’s Checkup Day, designated to encourage
women to visit health care professionals to receive or schedule a check-up; and
WHEREAS, women are often the caregivers of their spouses, children and parents, and,
according to research, the health of the whole family improves when women take care of
themselves.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, proclaim the
week of May 13 through May 19, 2012, as
NATIONAL WOMEN’S HEALTH WEEK
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Interim City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the authors of the Declaration of Independence recognized “That all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;” and
WHEREAS, the National Day of Prayer, established in 1954 and defined by President
Ronald Reagan as the first Thursday in May, provides Americans with the chance to congregate in
celebration of these endowed rights; and
WHEREAS, each citizen has the freedom to gather, the freedom to worship, and the
freedom to pray, whether in public or private; and
WHEREAS, the 2012 theme is “One Nation under God” inspired by Psalm 33:12 “Blessed
is the nation whose God is the Lord.”; and
WHEREAS, the history of this great nation is indelibly marked with the role that prayer has
played in the lives of individual Americans; and
WHEREAS, the President, Governors, Mayors and our spiritual leaders are calling our
nation to pray; and
WHEREAS, all citizens from the Fort Collins area are invited to participate; and
WHEREAS, this year’s observance includes a Prayer Breakfast at the Fort Collins Hilton
Hotel on Thursday, May 3, from 6:30a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim Thursday, May 3, 2012, as
NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the April 3 and April 17, 2012 Regular Meetings.
April 3, 2012
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, April 3, 2012, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by
the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy, Daggett.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Rick Price, 1925 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the lack of a strategic plan for the
City’s bicycle program and encouraged budgeting for outcomes offers supporting the Bike Safety
Plan and Bicycle Ambassador Program.
Anne Lance, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center Executive Director, announced April
as the “Month of the Young Child” and discussed the need for affordable early childhood education
in the community.
Leah Grossman, Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Center Infant Teacher, discussed the need
for affordable early childhood education in the community.
Bev Thurber, Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Executive Director, thanked Council for
declaring the Month of the Young Child and discussed the need for affordable early childhood
education in the community.
Vicky Hays, Poudre River Public Library District Early Literacy Librarian, discussed the need for
affordable early childhood education in the community.
Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at Colorado State
University and presented an informal petition he had circulated in his neighborhood.
Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheely Dr, expressed concern regarding development in and around the Sheely
Historic District and supported an overlay zoning district.
304
April 3, 2012
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, expressed concern regarding three new student housing
developments near her neighborhood and stated the West Central Neighborhood Plan includes
protections for neighborhoods, but needs to be revised. She expressed concern that two promised
parks were not constructed.
Deb Applin, 1608 Sheely, expressed concern regarding the density of developments proposed near
the Sheely Historic District.
Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Drive, expressed concern regarding the density and intensity
of student housing developments on the south side of Colorado State University.
Frank Johnson, Sheely Addition resident, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium and asked how
the massive traffic impact on Prospect between College and Shields will be addressed; how the
stadium would affect the City sewer system; and how security for surrounding neighborhoods will
be addressed during games.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw requested responses to Mr. Johnson’s questions regarding the traffic,
utility, and security impacts from CSU and asked if the Transportation Master Plan has prepared for
the stadium. City Manager Atteberry replied he would present the questions to CSU and stated the
Transportation Master Plan did not anticipate a new stadium.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the speakers who discussed the Month of the Young Child and
early childhood education.
Councilmember Troxell requested an examination of the impacts of student housing on surrounding
neighborhoods.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked the speakers who discussed early childhood education. He stated
City staff presented some questions to CSU regarding the stadium and asked if those questions can
be publically divulged. He asked if CSU is proposing any kind of environmental impact study
regarding the proposed stadium or if the City would be requesting such a study. He requested an
analysis of the West Central Neighborhood Plan and a report relating to whether the Plan has been
honored and how it will be honored in the future, and requested information regarding planned
parks. City Manager Atteberry replied he could not speak to whether CSU is planning impact
studies and stated Deputy City Manager did provide a public list of questions to CSU regarding the
stadium. He stated he would follow up on the questions relating to the West Central Neighborhood
Plan.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the speakers who discussed early childhood education.
Councilmember Troxell stated he submitted questions regarding the stadium and has yet to receive
a response. He asked if citizen questions submitted to City officials have been passed on to CSU.
City Manager Atteberry replied questions have been passed on to appropriate CSU officials.
305
April 3, 2012
Councilmember Horak requested that Council receive regular updates regarding adopted Plans and
Policies and how they interconnect. City Manager Atteberry replied he will look at the master
database regarding review periods for adopted Plans.
Councilmember Horak suggested the list of questions proposed to CSU be placed on the City’s
webpage. City Manager Atteberry stated that will be completed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Redistricting.
The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be
based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City
Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than
a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than
one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the
population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved
problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions
to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of
contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City
Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame,
due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on March 20, 2012, will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk
to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather
than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication
of the census data.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation
District.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, authorizes
conveyance of a non-exclusive permanent easement to Boxelder Sanitation District to install
rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery
Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder
Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized
expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was
no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
306
April 3, 2012
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not
be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for
completion of the project in 2012
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent
dollars previously appropriated in 2011
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into
individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2012 Adopted City Budget.
Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund;
therefore, funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and the dedicated
funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Any unspent
funds and excess revenue lapses into fund reserves at year-end. These reserves then need
to be appropriated into the following year’s budget to use the funds for their intended
purpose. The purpose of these appropriations is land conservation, construction of public
improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit
the citizens of Fort Collins.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
This Ordinance appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum
Exhibit Capital Project.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate
approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson;
Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the
City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the
Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs
with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use
tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6
million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less
that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000.
307
April 3, 2012
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, 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.
The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest
rate will not exceed $167,010 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 1.03%. 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.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
Over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City
organizational titles and department names that are included in the Code. Changes in the
titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the Code, as well as various
department names have changed, but not been reflected in relevant Code sections. This
Ordinance makes these housekeeping changes. No substantive changes are included in the
Ordinance.
In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no
longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms
are updated in the Ordinance.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the
Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD)
holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I
(north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who
reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their
parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This amendment to the easement grants
permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to
make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right
for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this
opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement
capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection
with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer.
The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer (the “Project”) is a road
improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of
Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, City Council passed Ordinance No. 085, 2010,
308
April 3, 2012
authorizing the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property
interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move
forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff
determined that additional right of way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed
on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has
contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new
acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation
(“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this
acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous
acquisitions for the Project. It is required that City staff obtain authorization to use eminent
domain proceedings for this additional acquisition since it was not included in Ordinance
No. 085, 2010.
16. Items Relating to State Grants for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
A. Resolution 2012-021 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement
(CDAG #12-FNL-01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado
Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of Equipment and Improvements Pertaining to
the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
B. Resolution 2012-022 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement
(CDAG #12-FNL-I01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado
Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of an Intern Position Pertaining to the Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
Resolution 2012-021 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the
State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $400,000. This State
Aviation Discretionary Grant will be used to match the FAA 2012 Entitlement Grant for
Design Services for the capital construction project that will be completed in 2013 and an
additional Snow Removal Equipment, a Utilities Master Plan, a Runway Weather Instrument
System and an Airport Service Vehicle.
Resolution 2012-022 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the
State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $14,560. This second
State grant will fund 50% of the Airport’s Intern Program for 12 months.
17. Routine Easement.
Easement Deed and Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Line from Hyde Living Trust, to grant
a sanitary sewer easement at no cost to the City for the purpose of a new City-owned
sanitary sewer line that will serve three nearby residences, located at 2500 North Overland
Trail.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Redistricting.
309
April 3, 2012
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation
District.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2012 Adopted City Budget.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, 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.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection
with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson withdrew Item No. 11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard
Company in Support of the Building 6 Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
Councilmember Horak withdrew Item No. 8, First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
310
April 3, 2012
Staff Reports
Bob Glancy, National Weather Service, presented Mike Gavin, Office of Emergency Management,
and the City with a Storm Ready recognition award.
Police Chief John Hutto discussed his goal of creating community forums and announced the first
forum to be held April 19, 2012 at Dunn Elementary School.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel discussed a presentation by Blair Levin from the Aspen Institute.
Councilmember Troxell encouraged City Manager Atteberry to pursue the concepts presented by
Mr. Levin.
Councilmember Horak reported a search firm has been hired for a new Platte River Power Authority
(PRPA) General Manager and announced wholesale rates will increase approximately 10% to its
member cities, partly due to the increase in coal costs. He reported on a Poudre River Trail tour and
discussed the future of the Poudre River Trail connections and a GOCO grant request.
Councilmember Poppaw asked why PRPA has an interest in the Windy Gap project if it is selling
water. Councilmember Horak replied PRPA is selling water due to requests; it is not marketing the
water. He stated he would request additional information regarding the Windy Gap issue.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on the Poudre River Trail tour and discussed the Airport Steering
Committee meeting.
Ordinance No. 025, 2012,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures
were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because:
• there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known
vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies
• the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be
completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of
the project in 2012
• to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars
previously appropriated in 2011
311
April 3, 2012
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual
fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies.
Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows:
General Fund $1,083,767
Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $ 349,719
Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $ 106,102
Recreation Fund $ 51,000
Cemetery Fund $ 50,000
Transportation Services Fund $ 44,000
Light and Power Fund $ 49,366
Water Fund $ 143,340
Storm Water Fund $ 21,228
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
GENERAL FUND
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
1. Historic Preservation Grant Support - $50,500 General Fund, $25,000 Keep Fort Collins
Great Fund
This request is for reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $75,500 for Historic
Preservation grant matching funds, and for hourly staff support for grant management and
development project review. City matching funds provide a significant source of preservation
monies; for every $1 of City funds, the City typically receives $4 in grant funding. In addition to
assisting with development project review, in 2011 one part-time hourly staff assisted the 0.8
Historic Preservation Planner in managing seven different grant projects totaling $1,123,100 in
direct funding. Due to the grant funding cycle for State Historic Fund and Certified Local
Government grants, these grant monies were not fully expended in 2011. Monies requested for
reappropriation comprise the matching funds for these 2012 grants and are needed to continue these
projects.
Economic Development
2 Transportation Utility Analysis - $145,500
During the development of the 2011-2012 budget and through the discussions regarding Keep Fort
Collins Great, the community requested that the City consider developing a Transportation Utility
to fund basic transportation related programs and services. This funding will be used to bring in
outside resources to help in the development of the Transportation Utility concept, the financial
model, identification of programs to be funded, and more. Funds were not expended in 2011
because other operational priorities delayed the start of this project and the issuance of an RFP for
outside consulting services to complete the project. Given the 2010 voter approval of the new sales
tax, the urgency of this project was somewhat diminished from its original schedule.
312
April 3, 2012
Environmental Services
3. Air Quality Monitoring Equipment - $4,500
This funding was approved in 2011 for continuing operation of the City’s fine-particle air pollution
monitor. The monitor provides hourly fine-particle readings (particulate matter smaller than 2.5
micrometers in diameter, or PM2.5). Operation, maintenance, and data quality assurance and
reporting are efficiently provided through a partnership with Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division and Larimer County Health Department. Full funding for services was not billed in 2011.
The final invoice was received in January 2012. These funds are needed to fund that final invoice
for 2011 services.
4. Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study - $9,874
This project was approved in the 2011-2012 budget to reduce lung-cancer risks by increasing the
rate of radon mitigation among homeowners with high radon test results. CSU researchers in social
marketing and epidemiology will carry out the Study, to determine the mitigation rate and barriers,
and to scientifically test interventions to increase the mitigation rate. City Council approved
$10,000 for the Study, or 23%, with the balance to be secured from outside grants. The State Indoor
Radon Grant program has since contributed $21,525, or 50%, leaving an unfunded balance of
$11,525. This reappropriation request is for $9,874 to substantially complete the project budget,
making the overall project funded nearly half-and-half by Colorado and Fort Collins.
5. Zero Interest Loan for Air Quality - $8,197
Each year, $30,000 is appropriated for zero interest loans for citizens to remove or upgrade old
wood stoves or install radon mitigation systems. For most of 2011, loan applications were halted
while the City developed a way to address new federal restrictions on loan processing. This
prevented usage of the majority of the funds in 2011. This request is to carry over $8,197 of 2011
funding to support zero interest loans for air quality.
6. Environmental Services Copier Maintenance - $4,700
In 2011, the copier maintenance costs for Natural Resources work group located at 215 North
Mason were shared between General Fund and the Natural Areas Fund in order to serve staff from
both divisions. With the separation of Natural Areas into a new department and new location, the
Environmental Services Department will need to fund all of the copier maintenance costs in 2012.
This request is to allocate a portion of the unspent 2011 funding to cover the gap in copier
maintenance costs for Environmental Services.
7. Sustainability Strategic Plan - $6,600 General Fund, $3,300 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
A multi-day sustainability strategic planning charrette was conducted in February 2012 with
approximately 40 City staff participating. The goal was to develop a preliminary Sustainable
Strategic Plan that would identify priority project areas, potential collaborations, and integrated
BFO offer ideas. These preliminary goals were accomplished but additional resources are needed
to flesh out a more comprehensive Strategic Plan. Unspent resources from several program areas
313
April 3, 2012
are being requested to support continued work on a Sustainability Strategic Plan for the remainder
of 2012.
8. Waste Reduction and Recycling - $18,709
This funding was approved to help the community make progress in meeting the adopted goal of
diverting 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal. Communitywide education and outreach
projects are implemented through this program to encourage involvement in recycling and
composting, re-use, and source reduction and contribute to less trash being generated. In 2011,
$55,000 was dedicated to a Waste Stream Study that was awarded to a consulting firm in September,
2011 and $39,468 was ear-marked for conducting two Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Collection Events for the public. These funds will be used to conduct advertising and public
involvement activities that raise awareness of recycling and reduction opportunities in Fort Collins,
complete the Waste Stream Study in 2012, and help pay for the HHW event scheduled for June 2,
2012.
9. Waste Innovations Program - $100,987
The money comes from landfill tipping fees paid by City departments, and is intended to pay for
innovative waste diversion projects. These projects are solicited from the Utilities, Streets, Parks
Maintenance, and Forestry Departments to be applied to the City’s street sweeping, debris clearing,
and excavation work that generate specific types of “industrial” waste. During 2011, only limited
expenditures were made, including large-diameter tree trunk and limb grinding by the Forestry
Department, and to investigate establishing a compost site for departments’ use. Departments that
initiated waste diversion investigations in 2011, such as drying/screening soil that gets excavated
during water main break occurrences, and small-scale composting approaches, are still working
to finalize proposals to the Waste Innovation Program for money to purchase more permanent,
larger-scale equipment in 2012 that will enable the City to divert more of its own waste stream from
landfill disposal.
Human Resources
10. Performance Based Pay - $18,000
The City implemented a uniform employee performance assessment process in 2007 and tied 2008
employee pay increases to overall job performance. Each year, staff has evaluated the process and
made changes based on the previous year’s experience and the availability of budget dollars to fund
employee pay increases. Financial limitations have created challenges in implementing
performance based pay as it was originally designed. These funds will be used to hire a consultant
to evaluate the current performance based pay process. The desire to utilize external experts to
assist with this project was expressed late in 2011. This request is to use the unspent 2011 budget,
originally allocated for performance management, to be reappropriated for 2012.
11. Learning/Organizational Development - $40,000
During the 2011-2012 BFO cycle, funding was approved for design and implementation of several
employee programs, such as on-boarding, supervisory summit and supervisory development. When
the Leadership Development Programs (Lead 1.0 and Lead 4.0) were subsequently funded with
314
April 3, 2012
Keep Fort Collins Great dollars, deployment of those leadership programs became the higher
priority. Both of these programs were newly designed and a collaborative effort with Poudre School
District and Larimer County, which presented a variety of challenges to overcome. As the priorities
for the Learning Division shifted, design and implementation of the other employee programs
stopped due to resource constraints regarding staff and time. This request is for the reappropriation
of $40,000 for consultative services and resources to redesign and implement supervisory summit
and on-boarding processes for the organization.
Parks
12. Fourth of July - $5,000
In 2011, $30,000 was donated by Poudre Valley Health Systems for the 4th of July celebration.
Only $25,000 was spent. Therefore, $5,000 is requested for reappropriation in 2012 for this year’s
celebration.
13. Storm Clean Up - $4,000
In 2011, the Parks Division received $19,000 for storm clean up. Only $7,051 was spent in 2011.
In 2012, $4,000 is requested for reappropriation to cover chipper rental costs to complete the clean
up.
14. Lifecycle Funding - $9,206 General Fund, $18,584 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund
In 2011, lifecycle funding of $27,790 was anticipated to be spent on replacement of the Rolland
Moore playground restroom. Due to the need for additional funding, this project will now be
completed in 2012.
Planning, Development, and Transportation Administration
15. PDT Administration - $10,000
PDT Administration identified funds in the 2011 budget for service area reorganization facilitation.
A scope of work could not be finalized prior to year end to select a vendor and encumber these
funds. The need for facilitation is crucial to address the service unit’s key vacancies and
reorganization issues, and there are not funds available in the 2012 budget. PDT Administration
is requesting $10,000 be reappropriated from the unspent 2011 budget for organizational
facilitation and training in 2012.
Advance Planning
16. Homebuyer Assistance Program - $119,948
Affordable Housing funds for the Homebuyer Assistance Program could not be encumbered without
a contract and the funds cannot be contracted until all monies are available to issue an Homebuyer
Assistance loan. These funds are requested for reappropriation for the Homebuyer Assistance
Program.
315
April 3, 2012
The following three requests (17, 18, & 19) were approved in 2011; Affordable Housing funds
lapsed as no contracts were signed. Contracts are now ready and the funds are requested for
reappropriation to complete the programs.
17. Habitat for Humanity - $82,500
Funds for Habitat for Humanity were approved in November 2011 by City Council. These funds
need to be reappropriated for the purchase of land.
18. Fort Collins Housing Authority - $97,524
The Fort Collins Housing Authority - Legacy Senior Apartments were approved by City Council in
November 2011. The amount could not be encumbered without a contract. This project is in
Development Review and in order to proceed with the project these funds need to be reappropriated.
19. Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland - $120,000
Funding for Housing Authority of Loveland was approved by City Council in November 2011. Staff
is waiting for contracts to be signed so they can proceed with this program. This is a countywide
program administered by the City of Loveland. All monies from Fort Collins are used for Fort
Collins projects.
Police Services
20. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - $21,878
The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) collects a monthly fee from all county
telephone users. This fee is used to purchase and maintain equipment and train users to process
E911 phone calls and dispatch appropriate emergency services providers for the Poudre Emergency
Communications Center/Fort Collins Police Services. LETA uses a formula to determine the annual
budget for each emergency services dispatch center based on its number of dispatchers and the
number of E911 phone calls received in the center. The formula takes into consideration any
unspent balance from the prior year allotment and these funds were unspent due to staffing
shortages, training needs and equipment replacement schedules, etc. Any funds remaining from the
2011 allocation must be used for LETA specified purchases during 2012. The amount from the 2011
LETA funding to be reappropriated for use in 2012 is $21,878.
21. Computer Automated Dispatch System - $99,712
In October 2011, approximately $1.7million was appropriated for hardware upgrade and
replacement of the countywide computer aided dispatch/records and jail management system
(CAD/RMS). The process was delayed due to the need for Police Services to hire a project
manager. There was also some delay on the vendor’s part in producing the specifications and
hardware requirements for the upgrade. The 18 month CAD/RMS upgrade project will kick off in
April 2012. The funds will be spent in 2012 as the equipment is ordered and installed.
316
April 3, 2012
City Manager
22. Performance Excellence Program - $81,432
These funds will be used to pay for contractual services for the Performance Excellence program.
Staff’s work on the organizational strategic plan has been completed and the ongoing work toward
developing systems for performance improvement and measurement will continue throughout 2012.
Funds were originally appropriated for this program in 2011, but were not spent until later in the
year due to other priorities. These reappropriated funds will provide organizationwide continued
contractual support for the program.
23. Internal Focus Groups - $5,000
The internal service focus groups are intended to provide a data collection tool to evaluate the
service provided to internal customers by City departments. The initial concept for this tool was to
develop an online survey to collect internal services data. However, after meeting with the City’s
Strategic Issues Team (SIT), the decision was made to conduct focus groups to obtain initial
qualitative information on internal services. An outside consultant was used to conduct the focus
groups and provide an analysis of the results. Normally, this is funded bi-annually; however, staff
is seeking remaining funding for additional work in 2012.
Finance
24. Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements - $20,000
At the completion of each Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process feedback is gathered from the
various constituents involved in it as part of a continuous improvement process. There are two
areas of improvement planned that require consulting services and were not completed in 2011. The
first of those is assisting Results Teams and Sellers with the performance measures in the Request
for Results and Offers, respectively. This aligns with Citywide efforts around operational excellence
and performance measurement. The second area for improvement is with relative offer
prioritization. Staff has done a good job prioritizing offers within each Outcome, but this
enhancement will enable staff to take a systematic, data driven approach to looking at all Offers
across all Outcomes. This item reappropriates $20,000 for these BFO improvements.
KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT (KFCG) FUND
Requests in the amount of $46,884 are included in the General Fund descriptions (Items 1, 7, and
14 listed above).
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
25. Design Assistance Program - $20,848
This item requests the reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $20,848 for the Design
Assistance Program. Program policies and procedures were developed for this program during
2011 and monies offered to potential recipients starting in late June. Because the program was in
effect for only a portion of 2011, all available funds were not expended. $19,152 of the $40,000
available was paid in 2011. Staff is requesting that the balance of $20,848 be made available for
317
April 3, 2012
2012 Design Assistance Program efforts, in addition to the $40,000 that has been budgeted in 2012
for this purpose.
Environmental Services
26. Unified Carbon Accounting System - $4,296
Two KFCG offers were approved to increase the City’s transparency and rigor of environmental
data reporting. One provided funds for a new Environmental Data Analyst staff position and
another provided funding for a unified carbon accounting database. This reappropriation request
is to use remaining non-personnel dollars to increase the support for further needed enhancements
for the City’s unified carbon accounting system, GEMS (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management
System).
27. Healthy Sustainable Homes (HSH) - $6,000
The HSH Program (formerly called “Volunteers for Sustainable Homes”) provides direct personal
assistance to help residents improve indoor air quality to ease asthma and/or COPD, a health
concern shared by 26% of area residents. Volunteers train to become Sustainability Masters and
then provide in-home assessment and recommendations. Homeowners voluntarily request the
service and then make voluntary in-home changes. 2011 funds were used to compile materials, train
volunteers and begin in-home assessments. Remaining funds will be used to continue program
marketing and outreach.
28. Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting - $19,947
This funding was approved to develop efficient, innovative improvements to the City’s physical plant
and operational procedures. These improvements focus on reducing costs, reducing energy and
water use, and reducing the City’s environmental and carbon footprint. Projects are evaluated by
an interdepartmental team using a triple bottom line approach, however, projects with the best
return on investment are given priority. The Innovation Fund is not a new idea; many communities
and organizations have implemented similar funds over the last decade. In fact, Poudre School
District (PSD) has its own version, which has helped the District save millions of dollars in
operational costs while significantly reducing environmental impacts. The remaining funds are
intended for Senior Center lighting improvements approved, but not implemented in 2011.
29. Sustainability Outreach and Education - $8,923
This funding was approved to increase outreach and education on internal and external
sustainability. Sustainability outreach efforts focus on empowering individuals to improve their
environmental and carbon footprint. The areas of particular focus are educational displays and
training and the remaining funds will be used for these purposes.
30. Commercial Recycling Outreach and Incentive Programs - $3,168
This funding provides services and programs that augment the City’s overall waste reduction and
recycling program, as part of achieving the goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste from
the landfill. Specifically, this new effort focuses on getting more commercial and multi-family
318
April 3, 2012
generators to start recycling or composting programs. For these customers, specialized educational
material, site analyses, and financial incentives help encourage them to sign up for recycling or
composting services. Unspent funds from 2011 are being requested to support the newly initiated
recycling rebate program.
31. Eco Industrial Center - $16,517
A contract for $69,000 was signed with a consulting firm to conduct a real estate analysis for
locations to establish a new recycling center, and to design it as an operational facility that expands
the City’s recycling drop-off site capacity. The final report was completed in February 2012.
Remaining funds will be used to pay for final invoices on this consulting project, and to pay for any
additional reporting/investigations needed to answer questions about the feasibility of constructing
a new, expanded recycling drop-off site in Fort Collins.
32. Earth Tub Composting Vessels - $3,540
This funding contributes to the operations of a demonstration site for composting food waste using
a contained, “in-vessel” system. As a pilot project, the Earth Tubs provide an opportunity for the
City to evaluate a waste diversion strategy applicable for small local districts such as the Old Town
area; several local restaurants and City buildings participate in this pilot food waste composting
project.
Human Resources
33. Learning/Organizational Development - $12,200
Following the approval of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot measure, City Council allocated a
portion of the 11% of the ”other community priorities” for Executive Leadership Development
(Lead 4.0) in the amount of $109,950. Implementation of the program was delayed due to: (1)
Executive leader schedules; (2) the Police Chief recruitment process;and (3) the effort to
collaborate with Larimer County and Poudre School District for their participation. The program
is now well underway; the reappropriation of $12,200 is requested to complete the Lead 4.0 pilot
program. Funds will be used to continue professional business coaching and specific competency-
based training.
Natural Areas
34. Stream and River Rehabilitation and Restoration - $10,528
The remaining balance of this $250,000 Keep Fort Collins Great line item will be used to further
the City’s stream restoration and rehabilitation efforts. Funds were expended in 2011 on several
projects, including improvements at Fossil Creek, and McMurry Natural Area; planning for
additional implantation in 2012; and, development of an ecological model of the Poudre River.
Stream rehabilitation and restoration projects are often complex and require several years of
planning and permitting; thus, it is expected that this particular fund will carryover monies on a
regular basis.
319
April 3, 2012
Engineering
35. Skyway Transit Stop and Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements - $4,157
This project will provide accessibility from Foothills Gateway to the existing Transfort bus stop at
Skyway Drive and South College Avenue. Specifically, this project will construct a concrete
sidewalk along the south side of Skyway Drive from Gateway Center Drive to South College Avenue.
The preliminary design has been completed. Final design and construction will be in 2012. The
total project cost is $157,000.
36. Drake – Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements - $14,000
The Drake/Redwing project is a pedestrian safety project intended to better serve users of the Mason
Trail. Right-of-way issues involving CSU and the BNSF railroad delayed the project in 2011.
Completion is anticipated within the month.
37. Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs - $23,868
This request will allow for improvements to sidewalk and ramps in various locations within the City.
Street Oversizing
38. Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program - $141,909
These funds are designated to cover the City’s portion of the arterial and collector roadways built
as part of developments. Approximately $152,691 was spent in 2011 on replacing traffic signals
on arterial streets. The balance will be used in 2012 for construction of Turnberry Road, done in
conjunction with the developer’s contribution.
Parking Services
39. Parking Services - $12,934
Parking Services received KFCG funding for long-needed maintenance projects for the Old Town
Parking Structure. The majority of the projects identified for 2011 were completed, but work on the
entry/exit area redesign could not be completed until 2012. The remaining balance of $12,934 is
needed to complete the architectural work on the entry/exit area redesign.
CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND
40. Art-in-Public-Places - $106,102
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $106,102 in the Cultural
320
April 3, 2012
Services Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue into
2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these
projects, including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, North College Improvements and other
miscellaneous projects.
RECREATION FUND
41. Security Camera Installation - $51,000
In 2011, $200,000 from Recreation reserves was appropriated for various improvements and life-
cycle replacements at the different Recreation facilities. A project that did not get completed in
2011 was installation of security cameras at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan
Community Center, and EPIC, leaving $51,000 in unused, appropriated funds. Recreation has been
coordinating with Transfort to “piggy-back” with a similar project in order to receive cost savings;
however Transfort was not ready to sign a contract by year end 2011. Installation of security
cameras is a high priority for safety and security of both employees and citizens using the facilities;
therefore, Recreation is requesting reappropriation of $51,000 for this project in 2012.
CEMETERY FUND
42. New Cemetery Management Computer System - $50,000
The process was initiated in 2011 to purchase a new cemetery management system. The bid process
was not completed before the end of 2011. Therefore, funding will need to be reappropriated in
2012 to cover the cost of the new system.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
43. Parking Services - $44,000
Parking Services has a comprehensive service agreement for the access and revenue control systems
for the two parking structures. Funds were budgeted in 2011 for this expense and the renewal was
due in November. However, the vendor was still determining final costs for upgrades required for
credit card systems so a Purchase Order could not be issued and paid prior to the end of the year.
The vendor has continued to cover maintenance during the interim and will be sending an invoice
for the renewal in February. The cost of the service agreement is $44,000.
LIGHT AND POWER FUND
44. Residential Solar Rebates - $26,000
This item reappropriates $26,000 in the Light and Power Fund for residential customer solar
rebates. Due to construction delays for seven residential solar electric rebate applicants, projects
which were approved in 2011 will not be completed until 2012. The rebates range from $3,500 to
$3,750 per customer. The Utilities is requesting reappropriation of 2011 funds in order for these
solar rebate incentives to be paid in 2012.
321
April 3, 2012
45. Art-in-Public-Places - $23,366
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $23,366 in the Light and
Power Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue
in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue
these projects including the Transformer Cabinet Mural project.
WATER FUND
46. Art-in-Public-Places - $143,340
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $143,340 in the Water Fund
to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP
funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects
including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Linden Street Pocket Park.
STORM WATER FUND
47. Art-in-Public-Places - $21,228
City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The
purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding
value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is
funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over
$250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $21,228 in the Stormwater
Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012.
As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these
projects including the Flood Markers, Manhole Covers and the Storm Drain Markers.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations by $1,898,522. A total of $1,083,767 is requested
for reappropriation in the General Fund and $814,755 is requested from various other City funds.
Reappropriation requests represent amounts budgeted in 2011 that could not be encumbered at
year-end. The appropriations are from 2011 prior year reserves. “
Councilmember Horak expressed concern regarding a $145,500 appropriation for a Transportation
Utility Analysis, which he understood would not been needed if ballot initiative Keep Fort Collisn
Great passed. City Manager Atteberry replied this addressed the revenue diversification issue. Ann
Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager, replied the budget offer is being continued because the
322
April 3, 2012
revenue diversification issues were expected to remain, and Council had wanted to continue to
discuss the Transportation Utility Fee.
Councilmember Manvel asked if it makes sense to move forward with this study rather than look
at other revenue diversification strategies. City Manager Atteberry replied it should be done in the
context of other diversification strategies.
Councilmember Horak stated this is premature and he does not want the funds appropriated for this
particular use.
City Manager Atteberry stated, should this not be approved, an offer will return in the future,
perhaps within a greater context of revenue diversification.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2012, on First Reading, deleting the reference to the Transportation Utility Analysis. Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use
Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex
Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved
by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw;
Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard
Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The
additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The
City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab
equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax
rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On May 18, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution approving a Business Investment Agreement
(“Agreement”) between the City and Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”) for the Building 6 Annex
Expansion. HP expanded operations at the Harmony Road facility, including construction of an
Engineering Focused Lab by retrofitting 40,000 square feet of the Building 6 Annex. The additional
operations created over 100 jobs with an annual average wages of $90,000. The expansion included
two phases totaling $64.4 million in construction and equipment investment.
The Agreement includes two performance based investments: (1) a one-time Use Tax rebate on the
lab equipment purchased at installation; and (2) a Personal Property Tax rebate on the same lab
323
April 3, 2012
equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect
if the expansion did not occur. The total investment package has a value of $1.6 million over ten
years. During the same time period the City will receive $2.0 million in revenues net of the
investments made through the agreement.
HP has completed the expansion and submitted an application for Use Tax rebate under the terms
of the Agreement. The Agreement authorized a Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement of $600,000.
After thorough review by the City’s Sales Tax department, the application requests $241,193 in Use
Tax rebate.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Ordinance will have the following impacts on the City of Fort Collins finances:
• $241,193 of General Fund Reserves will be appropriated for the purpose of remitting a Use
Tax rebate to HP. The Use Tax was received in a prior year and is now held in reserves.
• The Sales Tax Department has validated that HP remitted at least $241,193 of Use Tax
through the purchase of eligible equipment as indicated in the Agreement.
Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Regional Economist at Colorado State
University prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of HP’s planned expansion. The following
summarizes that analysis:
Construction Benefits/Impacts
• Direct Employment and Income – Based on a $34.4 million budget for retrofit, the
proposed expansion will directly support approximately 336 construction jobs during the
construction phase earning an average wage of $52,300 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional
Economist).
• Spin-off Employment and Income – The construction jobs will support approximately 207
spin-off jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $35,600 (Source:
IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist).
• Total Employment – The project will support a total of 543 direct and spin-off jobs during
construction, with an average annual compensation of $45,900(Source: IMPLAN, CSU
Regional Economist).
• Construction Use Tax – Based on an investment of $34.4 million in retrofit, the City will
receive approximately $620,000 in construction use tax. The calculation assumes 60 percent
of the investment is in materials and 40 percent in labor. (Source: Insight Fiscal Impact
Model; CSU Regional Economist)
Operations Benefits/Impacts
• Direct Employment and Income – Per HP, 100 positions will be created after the retrofit
of Building 6, earning an average wage of $90,000. Total payroll including benefits is
approximately $12.6 million (based on an assumption of 40 percent of gross pay in benefits).
324
April 3, 2012
• Spin-off Employment and Income – Based on the anticipated job growth supported by the
expansion of Research and Laboratory space at HP, the 100 direct jobs will support an
additional 124 spin-off positions in Larimer County with an average wage of approximately
$32,900 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist).
• Total Employment – The proposed expansion will support a total of 224 direct and spin-off
jobs (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist).
• On-going Real Property Taxes – Based on a $24 million investment in Building 6, it is likely
the Real Property Taxes will increase after completion. This increase in value could
generate an additional $88,000 annually in property tax revenue to the City or $880,000
over ten years.
• On-going Use Tax – Assuming HP replaces 50 percent of the $30 million investment in
equipment over the next ten years, this could result in an additional $450,000 in equipment
use tax revenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The HP retrofit will impact the environment in the following ways:
• An existing building on the HP Harmony Campus will be retrofit for a productive use
allowing 100 new jobs to be added to the community without consuming additional raw land.
The stated goal of the facility is to develop an Engineering Focused Laboratory with a
“sustainable data center” and provide additional energy efficiency improvements.
• HP has and remains a strong ClimateWise partner. Energy Efficiency projects to-date have
included lighting upgrades, chiller plant expansion and upgrade, air handling unit upgrades,
a building tune-up, and ice thermal storage. The total power savings equals 6.2 million
Kilowatt Hours annually and a reduction in demand of 1,641 kilowatts.
• Annual water consumption will increase by 8.0 million gallons as a result of cooling
operations. A great deal of this water will not enter the waste water system due to
evaporative loss.
• Annual electricity consumption will increase by 10.67 megawatts.”
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a
previously declared conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to see individual incentives become performance-
based.
Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, stated the level of sophistication relating to incentives can be
elevated in the future. A natural evolution is to add additional accountability into these types of
incentives, including demonstrable proof as to the number of jobs being created.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated budget offers would be involved in the 2013-2014
budget to aid in increasing the transparency and visibility of these kinds of incentive programs.
325
April 3, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested statements indicating job creation numbers should not be
provided without evidence. Birks agreed and City Manager Atteberry replied data from Hewlett
Packard will be provided to Council.
Birks noted this addition has created one of the first data centers that is being operated in a more
efficient environment.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 028, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial
of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments
Located at 1305-1319 South Shields Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January, 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd, (Appellant) submitted two stand-
alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B)
of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible
for local landmark designation, and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure
(Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319
South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated
outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately ten units per building.
On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand-Alone Modification
of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicant, the public
and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of
standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s
Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because
it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly
interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone
modification of standards requests.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The existing buildings at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street are over fifty years old. Therefore, the
proposal to demolish these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code,
commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” In November 2011, pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services
(CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the
326
April 3, 2012
house at 1319 South Shields and the outbuildings at 1305 South Shields Street were not individually
eligible for local landmark designation. The residence at 1305 South Shields Street was reviewed
by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair on three separate occasions, in September, November,
and December, 2011, and each time the dwelling was unanimously determined to be individually
eligible for local landmark designation.
Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed
demolition of the dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the
Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration. At this Preliminary
Hearing, the Appellant did not discuss or provide any alternatives to demolition, and a mutually
agreeable solution to demolition of the home was not identified. The Commission moved that the
application proceed to a LPC Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing would be scheduled after the
receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property.
For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with
all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. As conceptually proposed,
the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate
either that the plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South
Shields Street by incorporating the building in his proposal; or by providing evidence that the
applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the Code provision and that
no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or
minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellant chose
to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions:
1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff,
and unanimously voted (6-0) to deny the modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and
3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code.
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
327
April 3, 2012
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The
Appellant, who was the applicant before the Planning and Zoning Board, alleges that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of
standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code.
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered
Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading.
The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination
of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated
to be blatantly incorrect...”
The Appellant maintains that the Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly
misleading. In support, the Appellant cites the November 9, 2011 staff report to the Landmark
Preservation Commission; the initial determination of eligibility; the State of Colorado, Cultural
Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by the historic preservation firm
HistoryMatters, LLC. The Appellant asserts these contained false information and that the Board
relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 1305
South Shields structure. The Appellant further details other aspects of these materials, as well as
information from a separate report provided by the Appellant, referenced as the Rogue Architects
Report, in support of this assertion.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not receive nor did they discuss the November 9, 2011 staff
report prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Board did
not discuss any information contained in said report in connection with its decisions on the
modifications of standard request.
Similarly, none of the three determinations of eligibility were provided to the Planning and Zoning
Board. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, provides that the
determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with Chapter
14 of the Municipal Code. The applicable provisions of Chapter 14 provide for the determination
of eligibility to be made by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or, in the case of conflicting
determinations, by the Landmark Preservation Commission. In this instance, three separate
determinations of eligibility were made for the building at 1305 South Shields Street. On each
occasion, the CDNS Director and LPC Chair determined that the building is individually eligible
for local landmark designation.
The factual information that the house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation was provided to the Board on page 3 of the staff
report on the modifications of standards. This information was also verbally relayed to the Board
at the hearing, as documented in the transcript of the meeting (Transcript, pg.15).
The HistoryMatters, LLC report, commissioned by private citizens, was sent to the Planning and
Zoning Board electronically on February 16, 2012, at the same time as electronic copies of the
Appellant’s Rogue Architecture and Gebau reports were sent. The Planning and Zoning Board did
328
April 3, 2012
not review or consider any of these reports in making its decisions on the modifications of standards
(transcript, pg.15). The transcript of the February 16, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
reflects that, when asked about the relevancy of these documents to the Board’s consideration, the
Appellant, Mr. Charles Bailey stated, “The fact of relevancy of these documents is that, again, we’re
not asking for a declaration that the home isn’t eligible, these are just supporting materials that
were part of the slide show.”…. and, “But the Gebau report and the Rogue report, you know, were
not asking that your decision hinge on those reports.” (Transcript, pg.15).
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the
Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not
detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan, West Central
Neighborhood Plan, and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility
of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would
be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of
retaining the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street outweigh the benefits to the community
of additional student housing at this location.
The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good
because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant
modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code
(LUC) Sections are as follows:
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard
If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark …, then to the maximum extent feasible,
the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and
adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design
shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic
property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or
(b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must
be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether
on the development site or adjacent thereto
Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition
A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation … may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion
of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible,
attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the
standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is
not feasible.
329
April 3, 2012
In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E),
the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or
more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with.
LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that:
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and
that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact
that the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City
Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project
practically infeasible.
The staff report to the Board notes that, “while providing for infill and redevelopment as well as
student housing is a goal of City Plan… providing for the protection of historic resources is also
required.” The Planning and Zoning Board’s discussion at the Hearing did not specifically cover
policy documents such as City Plan as they relate to the requested modification. In its denial of the
two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make
specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of
Appeal.
The Appellant states that granting the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because
the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressing policies from the West
Central Neighborhood Plan as established in three Maps, one Policy and three Housing
Objectives.
On page 3 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant references WCNP Map 4- Zoning District Map.
This map was not part of the record and the Planning and Zoning Board did not take the WCNP
Map 4 into consideration when moving to deny the two modifications based on the fact that they are
detrimental to the public good.
As the staff report states on page 2, providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student
housing is a goal of the West Central Neighborhood Plan; however, providing for the protection of
historic resources is also required. In terms of the public good, the staff report to the Board notes
that, “the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked
to the identity and heritage of an area and its people and a modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and
(E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street
could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it could weaken the sense of
heritage and area identity.”
330
April 3, 2012
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the
two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the
cited West Central Neighborhood Plan Maps, Policies or Housing Objectives referenced in the
Notice of Appeal.
The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public
good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property.
In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested
modification of standard.
The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter
14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of
individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Additionally, the State
of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form that the Appellant references
on page 4 of the Notice of Appeal was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, as the
Planning and Zoning Board has no ability to consider, make, or change a determination of
eligibility. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that
the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the
process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the
residence at 1305 South Shields Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of
the Municipal Code.
The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood
definition of “substantial.”
Section 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code gives the Director authority to interpret or define words, terms
and phrases not explicitly defined in LUC Section 5.1.2. The definition of substantial, as stated in
the staff report, was determined using Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)
pursuant to LUC Section 5.1.1. The definition provided by staff to the Board was “considerable in
amount, value or worth.” In context with the complete modification criteria of subsection
2.8.2(H)(2) (below), the definition of the word substantial was appropriately interpreted by staff and
subsequently the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2.8.2(H)(2) states,
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such
a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the
two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the
word substantial nor did they make any specific findings in relation to the word substantial.
331
April 3, 2012
The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the
requested modification of standard and demolition of the Property substantially alleviates
existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and
benefits important community needs.
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the
two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted
city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project
in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2).
SUMMARY
The house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation pursuant to the process and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
When a building that has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished
or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards
contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section
3.4.7 requirements and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the
submittal of a Project Development Plan, which was heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant
a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land
Use Code. The Board moved to deny both of the request for modifications based on their
determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good.”
Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett stated this appeal was filed prior to the adoption of Ordinance
No. 131, 2011, which amended the appeal procedure. Daggett added that new evidence is only
admissible in certain circumstances: evidence that is presented to support or oppose a claim that the
Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to its decision that was substantially false
or grossly misleading and evidence offered in response to questions of Councilmembers during this
proceeding. Only parties-in-interest are allowed to participate in this hearing. Council may opt to
uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board’s denials, or may remand all or part of
the decisions back to the Board for re-hearing or further consideration of specific matters.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she took part in a site visit to the property, along with Councilmembers
Horak and Ohlson.
Courtney Levingston, City Planner, stated the Planning and Zoning Board denied two modification
requests relating to the demolition of the house at 1305 South Shields Street, which was determined
to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Levingston described the conceptual plan
for development of the site.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, described the demolition alteration review
process. As conceptually proposed, the Carriage House Apartments project does not comply with
two sections of the Land Use Code for Historic and Cultural Resources and the applicant has,
therefore, requested modifications of standard. Following the Board’s denial of said modifications,
the appellant filed a notice of appeal with the City Clerk’s Office citing grounds that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code.
McWilliams and Levingston discussed the allegations in the appeal.
332
April 3, 2012
Appellant Presentation
Charles Bailey, Catamount Properties, appellant, introduced attorney Jeff Johnson, and historic
architectural specialists, Jim Burshoff from Oz Architects and Juan Luna from Rogue Architects.
He requested consideration of three key elements: review of the Planning and Zoning Board’s
decision and findings, definition of public good, and a final determination based on facts. He stated
plans have not been submitted, given the potential of the historical aspect preventing the project.
Mr. Bailey discussed the history of the area on Shields Street and pointed out the lack of historical
features of the house at 1305 South Shields Street. He discussed a report from Rouge Architects
which was received by the Planning and Zoning Board at the night of its hearing and noted it was
presented late due to the nature of the modification request at that hearing; there was no request to
deny the historical designation of the structure at that hearing.
Mr. Bailey discussed the errors, in his opinion, of the Historitecture Report relied upon by staff to
conclude that the structure is individually eligible for historical designation. He stated this home
has no historical integrity or significance and should not be eligible for designation.
Mr. Bailey discussed the policies in various City Codes and Plans which are supportive of his
proposed project.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted Mr. Bailey provided copies of a highlighted document of
record and stated the Code requires any new written materials be submitted by noon the Wednesday
prior to the Council meeting. She recommended that Council consider whether or not it will accept
the documents at this point. The attorney for the opponents did not have any objection to the
submission of the material and Council opted to accept the highlighted documents.
Opponent Presentation
Sandra Quackenbush, 1308 Bennett Road, discussed the development process and historical
designation process to this point.
Dave Taylor, 1302 Bennett Road, addressed City Code provisions and stated the Planning and
Zoning Board provided a fair hearing and correctly and fairly applied Land Use Code provisions.
He requested the Planning and Zoning Board decision be upheld.
Andrew Bantham, 1214 Bennett Road, supported the Planning and Zoning Board denial of the
modification requests and suggested the applicant is attempting to circumvent the development
process by requesting that he not have to comply with certain Land Use Code sections.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Bailey introduced Bev Carlson, the property owner at 1305 South Shields Street. She opposed
the historical designation of the home and stated her rights have been disregarded with regard to her
desire to sell the property.
Jeff Johnson, attorney for Mr. Bailey, stated the appellants are not circumventing the development
process, but rather implementing it in the only way allowed to challenge the fundamental decision
of the Director of Neighborhood Services and the Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson.
333
April 3, 2012
He stated the applicant believes this project enhances the public good and is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. Additionally, the project satisfies the requirements to
grant the modification.
Opponent Rebuttal
Mr. Bantham stated the neighborhood supports student housing but stated it is not the only goal
which should be supported by the development process. He requested Council uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Council Discussion
Mayor Weitkunat commended both sides on their presentations and requested input from Deputy
City Attorney Daggett regarding the purview of Council regarding this decision. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied there are two types of questions before Council: the first relates to the
hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Board. Assuming Council finds the Board hearing
to be fair with a proper process, Council would then move to the question of whether or not the
Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Troxell stated the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) application contained
incorrect information; parts of the justification for declaring this property to be historic are
inaccurate.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the Planning and Zoning Board hearing could be considered
unfair as they may or may not have been presented with accurate information, and asked if this
process is part of the appeal process for the Landmark Preservation Commission. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied the Land Use Code specifically references the Chapter 14 process and
states that a structure that is determined to be eligible for historic designation is considered to be
eligible for the purposes of the Land Use Code. Chapter 14 does not specify an administrative
appeal process for determinations made relating to eligibility for landmark designation; therefore,
the process in Chapter 14 and the Land Use Code becomes the process by which those issues are
tackled.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if property owners can reapply or go through the Planning and
Zoning Board with the same property once it has been determined to be eligible. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied this project actually had three different reviews at the Chapter 14 level,
all of which resulted in determination of individual eligibility. There is no limit in Chapter 14 on
eligibility review and the Land Use Code has limits on resubmissions of ODPs and PDPs in terms
of timing, but does not address resubmission in terms of modifications.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the referenced preliminary and final hearings. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied the preliminary hearing process is a process in which the LPC attempts to
work with the applicant to come up with ideas which may result in a mutually agreeable outcome.
If that does not occur, the project continues through the process and the LPC provides a final review
of an approved plan. That review cannot undo the Land Use Code approval.
Councilmember Manvel asked why no development plan has been submitted. McWilliams replied
the process would typically involve a preliminary hearing with the LPC to discuss alternatives that
would meet the different Code standards and would allow the applicant to develop the project. If
334
April 3, 2012
a solution is not found, the applicant can develop plans and submit them for approval. At that point,
the plans would return to the LPC. The LPC could then approve the project as submitted, opt for
a maximum of a 45-day postponement to create a solution among neighbors, or state that the
property has such significance it should be considered for landmark designation against a property
owners’ desire. In that case, Council would make the final decision. Any decision made by the LPC
in its final hearing is appealable to Council. Council makes the final decision regarding all landmark
designations, based on recommendation from the LPC.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett noted the process referenced in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code
is an eligibility process, not the actual designation process.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the decision is not being appealed in terms of the property’s
eligibility for designation. McWilliams replied, once the building is found to be individually
eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, the applicant would develop plans.
Councilmember Troxell stated that presupposes that the eligibility is valid. McWilliams confirmed
that is what the applicant maintained; however, the eligibility of the property was reviewed on three
separate occasions, the first two of which were based solely on the property’s architectural merits,
its rarity in Fort Collins, and the age of additions or alterations. The fact that Mr. Carlson had lived
in the building was not brought forth at all until the third determination of eligibility. The report
presented by the neighborhood group was present for the third determination of eligibility.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the structure has been determined to be eligible for historic designation.
The applicant chose to go before the Planning and Zoning Board to request a stand-alone
modification of standard. The Board had to first determine whether or not the granting of that
modification would impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code or substantially alleviate
an existing and defined problem. Council must now determine whether or not the Board properly
applied the Code.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Manvel noted the Planning and Zoning Board was making its decision with the
given that the property was eligible for designation, and agreed the hearing was fair.
Councilmember Troxell agreed the hearing was fair; however, he stated the process with the LPC
is flawed and lacks checks and balances.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from 3.4.7(B) of
the Land Use Code.
335
April 3, 2012
Councilmember Kottwitz requested Council examine the process regarding the LPC. City Manager
Atteberry stated he has already met with staff regarding that issue and he will return to Council with
additional information.
Councilmember Troxell stated the LPC process is flawed but supported the motion regarding the
modification of standard.
Councilmember Horak stated he could not yet agree the process if flawed. Councilmember Troxell
replied the application for this property represents 1301 South Shields as part of the justification as
to why it should be applicable for historical designation; therefore the Planning and Zoning Board
decisions have been based on flawed materials that have gone through the LPC.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the motion but agreed the LPC process needs to be
reviewed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standard from Section
3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Poppaw requested that staff prepare information regarding an unused medicine
disposal site and place the item on the six month planning calendar. The discussion should include
all pharmaceutical and personal care products.
Councilmember Kottwitz agreed and suggested possibly partnering the event with the hazardous
waste disposal day.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed and requested an examination of all possible options.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
336
April 17, 2012
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, April 17, 2012,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated the order of the agenda has been changed and Item #23
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two
Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715
Remington Street will be considered after Items #24 and 25.
Citizen Participation
Karen Miller, 4407 Hummingbird Drive, suggested Hughes Stadium could be refurbished rather
than CSU constructing a new stadium.
Judy Rodriguez, 525 East Stuart, asked about the future plans for Hughes Stadium.
John Hurst, PO Box 999, discussed Resolution 2006-126 regarding Front Range Village and stated
the public should be informed of the PIF via placards at registers.
Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU.
Chase Eckert, Associated Students of Colorado State University Governmental Affairs Director,
discussed the increase in Transfort ridership for CSU students.
Carl Patton, 619 Skysail Lane, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU and suggested
Council read a statement compiled by the SOS Hughes group.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU and
questioned the future of Hughes Stadium.
337
April 17, 2012
Sandy Lemburg, 6851 Poudre Canyon, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at CSU and
suggested Council pass a non-binding resolution opposing the stadium.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, requested that Council question Dr. Frank about CSU’s plans
for additional student housing and the way in which those plans may be affected by the proposed
stadium.
Thomas Sneider, 416 West Swallow, urged Council to ask Dr. Frank if he is willing to make a
commitment that private funding will pay for the impact of the stadium on City infrastructure.
Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, stated a representative from IKON stated the City will not
be responsible for funding infrastructure improvements.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat stated Council has a meeting next Tuesday, April 24, with Dr. Frank, CSU
President.
City Manager Atteberry stated staff will review the possibility of a placard requirement at Front
Range Village.
Councilmember Troxell thanked Mr. Eckert for his service at ASCSU and recognized CSU students
for the positive impact they have on the community.
City Manager Atteberry expressed appreciation for Mr. Eckert and the ASCSU group.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and March 20, 2012, Regular
Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior
year’s reserves for expenditures authorized in 2011 by Council but which could not be
completed by the end of 2011. This Ordinance was amended on First Reading to remove
the request of $145,500 for a Transportation Utility Analysis.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2012 Adopted City Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior
year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of land conservation, construction
of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs
to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins.
338
April 17, 2012
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
Ordinance No. 027, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012,
appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital
Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public
Finance at 2.15% interest rate. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444.
Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 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 1.03%. 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.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, updates titles and
terminology used in the City Code to correspond with current City organizational titles and
department names. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition,
certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer
consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are
updated in the Ordinance.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the
Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD)
holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I
(north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who
reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their
parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes an amendment to the easement to grant
permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to
make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right
for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this
opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement
capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE.
339
April 17, 2012
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to
Conifer.
The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer is a road improvement
project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on
the north. In 2010, Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorized the use of eminent domain
proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests
were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the
upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right-of-way area containing
approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a
planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open
to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) facility and the Project is partially funded by CDOT,
this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous
acquisitions for the Project. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 3, 2012.
14. Resolution 2012-023 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 812 North Shields
for Up to Two Years.
In 2000, the City purchased the property located at 812 North Shields as part of the
Operations Services Master Plan. Leasing of the property has been continual from the time
of purchase. Staff recommends that the City continue to lease this site.
15. Resolution 2012-024 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of
Traffic Signals Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.
The City has a long-standing contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) to maintain traffic control devices within the City’s Growth Management Area.
This update increases the amount that CDOT pays the City for maintenance of signs and
pavement markings to more accurately reflect actual costs incurred by the City. Under this
new contract, the amount paid to the City by CDOT will increase from $193,440 to
$217,568 annually. The contract is for 5 years.
16. Resolution 2012-025 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16,
2012, Planning and Zoning Board Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning
the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street.
On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to deny the Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standards was filed by
Charles A. Bailey with Catamount Properties, Ltd.
On April 3, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a
Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
340
April 17, 2012
17. Resolution 2012-026 Making an Appointment to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board
of Commissioners.
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw’s term on the Fort Collins Housing Authority expires on May
1, 2012. Councilmember Poppaw has expressed a desire to be reappointed. This Resolution
will reappoint Councilmember Poppaw to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners until May 1, 2017.
18. Resolution 2012-027 Making an Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of
Selena Paulsen. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz
reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending Todd Galbate to fill
the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2012 Adopted City Budget.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, 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.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to
Conifer.
26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
341
April 17, 2012
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to
Establish a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow
for On-Bill Utility Financing.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 034, 2012,
Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical
Assistance Program for Electric Customers, Option C Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance
for customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical
equipment in their home. Staff is presenting three options for consideration by Council. Fort
Collins Utilities is seeking direction on the program details and approval from the City Council to
implement this program. Specifically, staff is asking City Council to determine the scope of the
program and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the establishment of the program.
The program is focused on reducing the cost associated with the additional electrical needs of those
with life support equipment in their household. Options for other medical equipment and air
conditioning needed to improve the quality of life for those with immune compromising diagnoses
are also being presented for consideration.
• Option A limits coverage to electrical life support and mobility durable medical equipment.
The maximum discount is $12.50 per month.
• Option B extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment. The maximum
discount is $12.50 per month.
• Option C extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment and includes a
discount for customers whose medical needs require air conditioning. The maximum
discount during non-summer months is $12.50 per month. The maximum discount during
summer months is $41.73 per month.
The key differences between the three options are shown in the Ordinance in bold-face type.
342
April 17, 2012
Fort Collins Utilities is recommending the implementation of Option C with an income limitation
as a pilot program to be implemented by June 1, 2012 when the higher seasonal tiered rates become
effective. Based on 2012 participation and costs of the program for the remainder of the year, the
program can be adjusted prior to the 2013 cooling season for any necessary changes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On December 6, 2011, Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the Residential Class
Electric Rates. The new rates support the conservation values of the City through a tiered rate
structure and include a seasonal variation to reflect the higher cost of energy during the summer.
In the discussion leading up to the vote to adopt the Ordinance, Council requested Fort Collins
Utilities to develop a program so as not to impose any additional economic hardship on those
customers who may have sufficient monthly energy usage attributed to medical equipment to be
pushed into the second or third tiers. The Pilot Medical Assistance Program is the result of that
request.
The program could include an income limitation to focus the program on those most in need of
economic assistance. It could also include a component with an air conditioning allowance during
the cooling season (June – August) for those with medical conditions adversely affected by hotter
summer temperatures.
Research indicated there are a number of discount programs for customers with medical issues
around the country. Comparisons of the programs in the western region of the United States served
as a basis for the development of this program. Please see Attachment 2 for a table comparing the
programs at other utilities. In addition, outreach for this program has involved review by the
Energy Board and meetings with patient advocacy groups and physicians.
In determining a reasonable household income ceiling, the Area Median Income (AMI) used by the
Federal Housing Authority provided an independent source of income information based on the
number of people in a household. The AMI is specifically formulated for Larimer County and
factors in local costs of living. Without more detailed information than the median income, it was
necessary to take some portion of this AMI as the program is designed to help those customers who
will see the tiered rate increase as a substantial economic hardship. The income table included in
the draft application shows the income ceiling as 60% of the Larimer County AMI. This level of
income is close to 185% of the federal poverty level and is higher than that used for many other
income-based social assistance programs.
A certain level of fraud prevention is recommended for this program. The application requires the
customer to sign an affidavit allowing for Fort Collins Utilities to request documentation to verify
income qualifications, if the pilot program has an income ceiling. The application also requires a
signed affidavit from a physician verifying the need for durable medical equipment which requires
electricity or the need for a temperature controlled household for those customers with certain
immune compromising diagnoses. The lawful presence affidavit is required by Colorado state law
because participation in the program is considered a local public benefit.
An appeal process will be included in the program for those customers who are experiencing a
financial hardship due to their medical needs or whose medical condition requires air conditioning,
yet fall outside the scope of the program. The Utilities Executive Director will have the authority
343
April 17, 2012
to consult a medical professional as a hearing officer for medical appeals of a decision that any
electrical medical equipment does not meet established criteria. The Utilities Executive Director
will have the authority to allow an exception to the established financial criteria.
Staff is providing Council with three options for the program. Attachment 1–Program Options
summarizes the options, including the pros and cons and the associated costs of each option. Based
on City Council’s direction and adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading, staff will return with
the specific program for Council to consider adopting on Second Reading on May 1. If adopted,
staff anticipates implementation of the program before June 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is difficult to estimate the anticipated enrollment in this program and the enrollment depends on
what is included in the adopted program. This is because the program may potentially be more
comprehensive than other programs reviewed by staff. In addition, data on the prevalence of
certain diseases in Fort Collins is not available. For these reasons it is recommended that we
consider this program to be a pilot program from June 2012 through May 2013. Once the program
has been implemented, enrollment and costs will be better understood so any changes necessary to
continue the program or better meet these customers’ needs can be brought back to City Council
by the second quarter of 2013. The revenue shortfall in 2012 associated with this program will be
accommodated within the Light & Power Reserves for 2012 and 2013.
While it is hard to estimate the economic impacts of a new program, this program is not increasing
electric rates for customers at this time and is providing a reduction for the eligible customers.
Thus, it is not expected that this program will have any substantial economic impact on the
community as a whole but it will provide some relief for customers participating in the program.
It is expected that the savings seen by these customers will be spent elsewhere within the local
community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This program has minimal negative environmental impacts. This program in conjunction with the
new tiered rate structure has the potential to help customers be more aware of their personal energy
usage and may be an opportunity in the future to expand on energy efficiency education programs.”
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, stated this item was postponed from
March 6 to allow for additional community outreach. Since the initial discussion before Council,
staff has spoken with citizens, physicians, and patient advocacy groups, and has presented the item
to the Energy Board and Senior Advisory Board. He discussed the three options available for
Council consideration and stated staff is recommending this program proceed as a pilot program to
be reviewed in one year.
Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson, stated the Energy Board supported Option C with an
income limitation.
Dolores Kueffler, Fort Collins Program Manager for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
supported Option C.
344
April 17, 2012
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the wording of the options.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council received a revised Ordinance which includes two provisions that
define the terms electrical durable medical equipment and healthcare common procedure coding
system.
Councilmember Manvel asked why the discounts are being given at the bottom rather than at the
top tier. Smith replied the recommended program gives all customers the same incentive to
conserve.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the cost estimates for implementing the pilot program. Patty
Bigner, Utilities Customer Relations Manager, replied this program will be absorbed into the
existing customer service function and it is not anticipated that the program will require additional
staffing or cost.
Councilmember Manvel suggested deleting or changing the wording regarding tiered rates on the
program application form. City Attorney Roy suggested referencing the general rate increase as the
justification for the program rather than the tiered rate structure.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Option C
of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, as amended by removing the reference to the tiered rates in the second
Whereas clause, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he does not support the tiered rate structure and can therefore not
support the item.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 033, 2012,
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for
On-Bill Utility Financing, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance revises language in Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide
financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy
projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on-bill
financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate
Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line. The primary goal of
the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These
upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources, reduce our environmental footprint, promote
local economic health by investing in our built environment and improve the health, comfort and
safety of our homes.
345
April 17, 2012
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 for the 2012 budget to provide $300,000 for on-
bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the City Code and additional details of
the pilot program. Funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for
Outcomes process.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Policy Alignment
The proposed pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort
Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan. The Program will
be a valuable addition to Utilities’ efficiency and renewable energy programs which foster
sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local contractors and investment in the built
environment and improved home comfort, health and safety.
Specific Council Policy references:
• Development of On-Bill Financing is a near-term priority action item (#35) within Plan Fort
Collins.
• Energy Policy objectives which align with On-bill Financing include:
N Promote sustainable practices in homes and businesses by supporting increased
efficiency in existing buildings.
N Strive to invest climate improvement monies locally in programs that have long-term
positive impacts.
History
Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan Program (ZILCH) since the early 1980s.
The Program was very successful for many years. However, in recent years the Program saw
relatively little activity. The recent national mortgage crisis resulted in changes to the requirements
for local government entities to be able to originate loans for home improvements. As a result, the
Zero Interest Loan Program was suspended in early 2011. The Program restarted in fall 2011
under a model where the loans are unsecured. The On-Bill Financing Program will supersede the
energy and water efficiency aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program. The air quality related
aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program, with funding from the Environmental Services
Department, will be continued under a revised administrative model that is currently being
developed.
Home Efficiency Program Description
Utilities began offering the Home Efficiency Program to customers in 2010, with a goal of providing
a comprehensive and best practices approach to improving the performance of existing homes. The
Home Efficiency Program elements guide homeowners with:
• Low-cost audits which prioritize home improvement measures to address the barrier of
“what to do”
• Participating contractor lists which address the barrier of “who to call”
• Rebates which partially address the “first cost” barrier
346
April 17, 2012
• Installation standards and verification which address the barrier of “is it done right”
Since January 2010, the Home Efficiency Program has:
• Completed over 1,100 audits
• Supported efficiency improvement projects in over 375 homes
• Trained over 100 individuals from 40 contracting companies
• Received ratings from customers of over 95% “extremely satisfied” with the audit,
contractor and rebate aspects of the Program
The On-Bill Financing Program will be integrated into the Home Efficiency Program and provide
the financing mechanism for homeowners to implement recommendations from the audit using the
established contractors and installation standards of the Home Efficiency Program.
Pilot Program Summary
The objective of the On-Bill Financing Program element is to increase the number of residential
efficiency and renewable energy projects by addressing the up-front cost barrier via on-bill
financing. Key aspects of the Program include:
• Simple application and approval processes
• Financing 100% of project costs
• Repayment of loans on the utility bill
Specific elements of the Program include:
• Eligible properties are single family homes and townhomes, both owner occupied and rental
properties with the owner as applicant.
• Project types are based on existing definitions within utility programs and include energy
efficiency (e.g., insulation, furnace, AC, windows), water supply line replacement/repair and
renewable energy (e.g., solar PV and wind)
• Direct Program expenses will be recovered via fees and interest rates
• On-Bill Financing will replace the existing Zero Interest Loan Program.
The proposed Program is based on selecting best practices from on-bill programs in Kansas,
Kentucky, South Carolina and Oregon and loan parameters from a successful Fannie Mae and
Pennsylvania energy improvement loan program. Together with the proven components of Fort
Collins Home Efficiency Program, an On-Bill Financing Program element will further support
customers who choose to improve the efficiency of their homes.
347
April 17, 2012
Pilot Program Details
Description Details
Customer
eligibility
Energy projects – Utilities electric customer
Water projects – Utilities water customer
Project
eligibility
Home Efficiency Program
• 23 types of projects based on rebate categories
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/energy-
efficiency/home-efficiency-program/rebates
Renewable energy rebate requirements
• http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/renewables/solar-
rebates
Water supply line replacement/repair (similar to Zero Interest Loan Program)
Not carried over from Zero Interest Loan Program
• Air quality projects, high efficiency clothes washers
Rental
properties
Owner is applicant and note holder
Owner options for payment mechanism:
• Owner receives separate loan payment bill from Utilities, or
• Tenants may make payments depending on lease type and if utility
account is in tenant’s name (requires notification and acknowledgement
by tenant)
Applicant
qualification
Varies with loan amount and credit score (2 tiers)
• Utility bill payment history
• Credit score
• Income
Loan details Amount: $1,000 to $15,000
Term: 3 to 10 years
Interest: prime plus 2-5%
Application fee ($25)
Origination fee ($150)
Risk
mitigation
and security
Chapter 26 utility service – permanent lien and disconnect provisions
Recorded lien (provides notification for title search)
Loan qualification track record
Payments
and Payoff
Payments on utility bill
Payoff on loan completion or property sale
Pilot Program Administration
The pilot program will be administered collaboratively by Utilities staff and a third party (to be
selected). Due to the state and federal requirements related to mortgage origination, Utilities will
seek a third party to complete several of the steps in the loan process. The table below represents
a simple overview of steps and likely split of responsibilities between Utilities and the third party.
348
April 17, 2012
Loan Process
Responsible Party
Utilities 3rd Party
Efficiency Audit required X
Application: project approval based on preliminary rebate
application and contractor estimate XX
Application: Bill payment history, credit score, income X X
Project verification X
Loan origination X
Contractor payment X
Set up loan within billing system X
Recording of obligation X
Loan payment servicing X
Pilot Program: Next Steps
Utilities has several tasks that need to be completed prior to being able to offer the pilot On-Bill
Financing Program to customers. The goal is to be ready to offer this service to customers by June
1. These steps include:
• Finalize testing of billing system
• Document/finalize internal business processes and 3rd party resources
• Document accounting procedures
• Integrate financing options with existing Home Efficiency Program outreach and marketing
plans
On-bill financing has great potential to increase efficiency and renewable energy projects in the
community. It is the intent of this 2012 pilot program to prove the concept in Fort Collins with a
limited scope of building, project types and available funds. Future expansion of the Program could
include the small commercial sector and additional projects types (e.g., expanded water
conservation measures, both indoor and outdoor).
The structure of the pilot, especially the loan parameters, is based on successful programs with
extended track records. This structure was chosen because it is scalable, both in administrative and
financial terms. The long-term vision is to attract capital to the loan fund so that the funding is not
limited to what Fort Collins Utilities can provide, either through reserves or ratepayer funds.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject
to bringing the necessary changes in City Code and additional details of the pilot program, which
are presented here. This funding for the 2012 pilot is coming from Utilities reserves. Utilities
expects to also have available approximately $30,000 in remaining Zero Interest Loan funds from
the 2012 adopted budget which can be utilized by the pilot program. Based on 2011 efficiency
project rebate requests, it is expected that this level of funding will support 50 to 75 efficiency
projects.
349
April 17, 2012
The On-Bill Financing Program element will add to the positive economic impact of the Home
Efficiency Program. There are currently 40 participating contractors working with the Program,
with over 100 individuals going through training for best practices installation standards. Retrofit
projects in 2011 represented an investment (by homeowners, supported by rebates) of approximately
$1.2 million towards improving existing home efficiency. Utility bill savings from improved homes
also results in additional spending on local goods and services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The On-Bill Financing Program supports the City’s goals for energy use reduction through
efficiency, carbon emissions reduction from improving the efficiency of the built environment and
increasing local renewable energy production. Homes are seeing 5-50% (15% on average) energy
reductions as a result of improvements made through the Home Efficiency Program. The
opportunity for on-going participation in the Program is many thousands of homes. The On-Bill
Financing Program is expected to be a very effective approach to reaching these homes in the
coming years.
The Home Efficiency Program also directly addresses indoor environmental air quality. The audit,
installation standards and project verification testing specifically address combustion safety of
natural gas appliances and educate homeowners on other aspects of indoor air quality.“
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, commended John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services
Manager, and Jessica Ping-Small, Sales Tax Manager, for their work on the proposed program. He
noted the detailed implementation work will occur following Council adoption.
John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services Manager, stated Council previously appropriated $300,000
for an on-bill utility financing program, subject to staff returning with a proposed structure and
details. Tonight’s item will set the parameters of the proposed pilot program and make revisions
to Chapter 26 of the City Code to establish financing and the servicing of loans as a utility service.
Phelan detailed the specifics of the proposed program and noted the program will not be subsidized.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested loans, not giveaways, should be subsidized.
Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson, stated the Energy Board supported this program.
Fred Kirsch, Fort Collins resident, Community for Sustainable Energy member, thanked staff for
its work on the item and stated this will be an example for other programs throughout the state.
Mayor Weitkunat requested that staff address the loan cap written into the document. Beckstead
replied the loan cap is within the range of home equity loans and car loans. The range of 3% to 6%
interest will not deter customers from using the program.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the rate range. Beckstead replied the range was set for
flexibility.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the application and origination fees. Beckstead replied they
will be used on a trial basis during the pilot program and can be revisited at its conclusion. Phelan
350
April 17, 2012
replied the application fee is a one-time payment and the origination fee can be included in the loan
financing.
Councilmember Troxell asked about cost estimates for the pilot year. Phelan replied the $300,000
in capital funding is expected to fund approximately 50 to 75 of the typical home efficiency
improvement projects. Beckstead noted staff’s commitment is to complete this pilot program, and
potentially beyond, without adding any incremental resources to the program.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the objectives and goals of the pilot program. Phelan replied
staff would like to see a substantial increase in the number of projects.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council has received a revised version of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 033, 2012, as revised, on First Reading.
Councilmembers Manvel and Troxell thanked Mr. Kirsch and other citizens for keeping this issue
at the forefront.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012
Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex
located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to
the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice
of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources,
General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of
structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the
preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places
and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially
designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that
is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is
designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within
an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop
the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three
existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register
351
April 17, 2012
Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation, and constructing one multi-family building with 42 units in their place.
On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification
of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E).
After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all
five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of
Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board
for two of these Modifications of Standard requests.
The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because
it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly
interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone
Modifications of Standards requests in question.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on
three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the
boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the
District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fifty years
old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as
intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was
found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing
element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National
Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With
the exception of the two “intrusion” properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of
Remington Street are designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two of these
other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort
Collins Landmarks.
The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty
years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14,
Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.”
In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal
Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark
Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was
not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711
Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711
Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation.
Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make
it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel
School neighborhood context.
As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January
11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of
the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the
Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to
352
April 17, 2012
an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not
identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC
Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans
for the redevelopment of the property.
For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with
all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard
pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code’s applicability
to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for
applicability. The Code states:
“If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation…, [or] (2) is officially
designated as a…state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then
to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall
provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The
development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively
used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the
development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of
any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.”
As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to
the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State
Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by
providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with
the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to
comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken.
Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five Modifications of
Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject
of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions:
1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff,
and voted to deny the requests for modifications of standards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code (5-1).
353
April 17, 2012
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The
Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two
stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use
Code.
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered
Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading.
The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of
eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be
blatantly incorrect...”
The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was
substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at
711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not
meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the
February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, “…references to certain City
policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car
subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the
allegedly eligible property…”; and cite a letter from Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the
Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for
the 711 Remington structure.
• The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711
Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standards requests,
as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of
eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing
Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register
of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was
determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and
during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board.
• The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion
to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was
made in the Board’s discussion of the first of the five modification of standard requests, that
to Standard 4.9(D)(1) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did state in
354
April 17, 2012
reference to the proposed PDOD process that she hoped that it would encourage creativity,
including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15.)
• In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and
Zoning Board did not consider references to “…potentially thousands of possible project
designs that preserve the … property….” The only reference to the number of potential
alternative designs occurs on page 47 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter
states, “I think the other thing that I would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we
were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no
feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and
to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven’t
been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated.”
• In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and
Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants’ attorney,
Mr. Johnson did read out loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the
Transcripts from the Hearing make it clear that the Board did not discuss this information
or consider it in making its motion.
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the
Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not
detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code
zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that
modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The
question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711
Remington Street and maintaining the character of the existing Laurel School National and State
Register Historic District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at
this location.
The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good
because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
• On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board)
grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These
Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows:
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard
If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the
State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local
or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is
located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum
355
April 17, 2012
extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the
preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of
any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development
site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies
under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent
thereto.
Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition
A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of
Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision
maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the
site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the
preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible.
In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E),
the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or
more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with.
LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that:
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such
a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
Some of the City Plan policies listed on page 3 of the Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed
project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, “Relationship to City
Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant
asserts.”
Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, “the granting of two modifications, one to Section
3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the
proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18).
The Planning and Zoning Boards’ discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan
policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial of the two stand
356
April 17, 2012
alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific
findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal.
C. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not
detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of
exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and
apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard.
• The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a
determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012.
Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the
determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with
the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility
for the residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in
that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially
alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially
addresses and benefits important community needs.
• The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing
denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language
referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any
statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2).
SUMMARY
The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as
well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to
be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures
contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel
School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to be individually
eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development
plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As
proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a
modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on
February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings
outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request
for modifications (5-1), including the two that are the subject of this appeal, based on their
determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good.”
Assistant City Attorney Daggett reviewed the appeal procedure and noted this appeal will be heard
under the procedure in place prior to the recent appeal procedure changes. She stated Council can
opt to uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board’s original denials, or remand all
or part of the decisions back to the Board for rehearing or further consideration of specific matters.
357
April 17, 2012
Courtney Levingston, City Planner, discussed the Remington Annex project and the requested
modifications of standard. She stated the property at 711 Remington Street, one of the three homes
proposed to be demolished as part of this project, was determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed the City’s demolition/alteration review
process. She stated this block of Remington Street contains ten other historically designated
properties in addition to 711 Remington Street. She stated the appellant asserts the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence substantially false and
grossly misleading and also asserts that the building at 711 Remington is not eligible for local
landmark designation. McWilliams noted the Board did not consider the eligibility of the building
at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modification requests as that it is not
within the Board’s purview.
Levingston stated the appellant also asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when it denied the two modification
requests. The appellant maintains the two modification requests are not detrimental to the public
good and the project would advance the public good because it substantially addresses adopted plans
and policies. Levingston stated Council must consider whether or not the Planning and Zoning
Board failed to hold a fair hearing and whether or not the Board failed to property interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
Mayor Weitkunat noted several Councilmembers visited the site with staff on April 12.
Councilmember Horak stated at the site visit he asked why the property would be eligible for local
landmark designation, and was given a brief answer by staff.
Appellant Presentation
Jeff Johnson, attorney for the appellants, stated the relocation of the structure at 711 Remington
Street is the crux of the appeal. He stated the appellant would like Council to grant the modification
to allow the relocation of the structure with the condition that the site to which the building will be
relocated is suitable to the City. Relocation of the structure will allow for investment in the block
face to allow for an appropriate transition between the commercial zone district and the NCM zone,
and will substantially address needs outlined in City plans and policies. If the relocation is granted,
the project is not approved, and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 will still apply.
Robin Bachelet, Appellant, discussed the student housing projects she and her husband have built
near CSU and requested Council support relocation of the structure at 711 Remington Street. Ms.
Bachelet stated the conceptual review of the project resulted in a comment from Karen McWilliams
noting the properties at 705 and 715 Remington are not eligible, and the property at 711 Remington
is probably not eligible. She stated the conceptual review comments did not indicate these
properties are located in the Laurel Historic District or are part of a national historic district. Ms.
Bachelet described the conflicting comments received from staff regarding eligibility and whether
or not the Landmark Preservation Commission would be involved. Ms. Bachelet read portions of
a letter from Dr. Koziol, an historic preservation expert, opposing the eligibility of the structure at
711 Remington.
358
April 17, 2012
Ms. Bachelet stated there are twelve intrusion properties surrounding her property on Remington,
and only 18 of the 100 dwellings studied on Remington Street are owner-occupied.
Opponent Presentation
Rick Zier, attorney representing parties-in-interest in opposition to the appeal, discussed the
neighborhood and surrounding historical properties. He outlined the opposition arguments
supporting the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to deny the modifications of standard, stating
the two modifications would be detrimental to the public good as they would weaken the sense of
identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and overall
neighborhood context. Mr. Zier stated a structure’s location makes it historic and relocating it
would change the authenticity of the Historic District.
Marcy Riser, 622 Remington Street, stated relocation would destroy the integrity of the property and
negatively impact the Historic District. She requested Council uphold the denials of the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Appellant Rebuttal
Christian Bachelet, Appellant, stated the properties have been neglected for years and noted they
had plans that included the structure which were not feasible projects. Mr. Bachelet expressed
concern there is no avenue available to refute eligibility and noted there was no disclosure citing
eligibility when they purchased their property.
Mr. Johnson stated the property lacks exterior integrity and significance. The proposed project
encourages the Land Use Code by renewal and innovation, encourages patterns of land use
development through infill, encourages appropriate development within transit corridors, and fosters
a more rational relationship between the commercial properties and the historic district. Mr.
Johnson noted three of the Landmark Preservation Commission members supported relocation of
the structure. He stated the applicant has created six different building plans and has appeared
before the Landmark Preservation Commission twice to attempt to find a solution to the issue.
Opponent Rebuttal
Mr. Zier stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not rely on false or grossly misleading evidence
and did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code and requested the Board’s decision be
upheld.
Council Discussion
Councilmember Troxell asked about the alleged changing determinations made by Ms. McWilliams.
McWilliams replied the comments attributed to her from the Conceptual Review were summary
comments and were corrected at the time the comments were provided to the applicant, six months
prior to the purchase of the property. McWilliams read the summary and corrected comments.
Councilmember Troxell requested input regarding the ability to refute a determination of eligibility.
McWilliams replied the appellants can refute the eligibility determination by providing substantive
new information and requesting a new determination or, by working through the process and
359
April 17, 2012
continuing to the Landmark Preservation Commission final hearing; at which time, any decision of
the Commission is directly appealable to Council.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Troxell stated the applicant is using the mechanism at its disposal and he is unsure
as to why the applicant cannot get a fair hearing of the issue.
Councilmember Horak agreed there are some issues regarding eligibility which need to be addressed
within the City organization; however, this hearing is not the appropriate time to deal with that issue.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern the current processes regarding eligibility are detrimental
to the City.
Councilmember Manvel stated the process has been followed and the Board conducted a fair and
complete hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7(B). Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7(E).
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council was limited by the appeal process in terms of what issues can be
addressed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the schedule to address these process
issues moving forward. Deputy City Manager Jones replied a memo will be delivered to Council
within a week outlining the problem statements, scope of work, public involvement, and schedule
for meeting dates.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed that the historic preservation process needs clarification and stated
historic preservation within the community has been too relaxed.
360
April 17, 2012
Councilmember Troxell agreed and stated efforts should be sharpened with respect to what
properties should be preserved. McWilliams replied a recent assessment resulted in suggestions for
achieving more predictability in the historic preservation process.
Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use
Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved
by City Council on May 18, 2010 by Resolution 2010-029. The Resolution approved an agreement
between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the
Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an
annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and
a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance,
adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012 by a 6-0 vote (Poppaw withdrew) appropriates $241,193
in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000.”
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a conflict
of interest.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 028, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
361
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: John Phelan
Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for On-Bill Utility
Financing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 17, 2012, revises language in Chapter 26 of the City
Code to enable Utilities to provide financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and
renewable energy projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on-bill financing
for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate Program and for customers
who need to repair or replace a water supply line. The primary goal of the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more
efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources, reduce
our environmental footprint, promote local economic health by investing in our built environment and improve the
health, comfort and safety of our homes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 17, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: April 17, 2012
STAFF: John Phelan
Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for On-Bill Utility Financing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance revises language in Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide financing and on-bill
servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot
a new program element for 2012, providing on-bill financing for residential customers participating in the Home
Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line.
The primary goal of the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These
upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources, reduce our environmental footprint, promote local economic
health by investing in our built environment and improve the health, comfort and safety of our homes.
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 for the 2012 budget to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject
to bringing the necessary changes in the City Code and additional details of the pilot program. Funding for subsequent
years will be addressed through the Budgeting for Outcomes process.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Policy Alignment
The proposed pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort Collins, the Climate Action
Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan. The Program will be a valuable addition to Utilities’ efficiency and
renewable energy programs which foster sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local contractors and
investment in the built environment and improved home comfort, health and safety.
Specific Council Policy references:
• Development of On-Bill Financing is a near-term priority action item (#35) within Plan Fort Collins.
• Energy Policy objectives which align with On-bill Financing include:
N Promote sustainable practices in homes and businesses by supporting increased efficiency in existing
buildings.
N Strive to invest climate improvement monies locally in programs that have long-term positive impacts.
History
Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan Program (ZILCH) since the early 1980s. The Program was very
successful for many years. However, in recent years the Program saw relatively little activity. The recent national
mortgage crisis resulted in changes to the requirements for local government entities to be able to originate loans for
home improvements. As a result, the Zero Interest Loan Program was suspended in early 2011. The Program
restarted in fall 2011 under a model where the loans are unsecured. The On-Bill Financing Program will supersede
the energy and water efficiency aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program. The air quality related aspects of the Zero
Interest Loan Program, with funding from the Environmental Services Department, will be continued under a revised
administrative model that is currently being developed.
Home Efficiency Program Description
Utilities began offering the Home Efficiency Program to customers in 2010, with a goal of providing a comprehensive
and best practices approach to improving the performance of existing homes. The Home Efficiency Program elements
guide homeowners with:
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 24
• Low-cost audits which prioritize home improvement measures to address the barrier of “what to
do”
• Participating contractor lists which address the barrier of “who to call”
• Rebates which partially address the “first cost” barrier
• Installation standards and verification which address the barrier of “is it done right”
Since January 2010, the Home Efficiency Program has:
• Completed over 1,100 audits
• Supported efficiency improvement projects in over 375 homes
• Trained over 100 individuals from 40 contracting companies
• Received ratings from customers of over 95% “extremely satisfied” with the audit, contractor and
rebate aspects of the Program
The On-Bill Financing Program will be integrated into the Home Efficiency Program and provide the financing
mechanism for homeowners to implement recommendations from the audit using the established contractors and
installation standards of the Home Efficiency Program.
Pilot Program Summary
The objective of the On-Bill Financing Program element is to increase the number of residential efficiency and
renewable energy projects by addressing the up-front cost barrier via on-bill financing. Key aspects of the Program
include:
• Simple application and approval processes
• Financing 100% of project costs
• Repayment of loans on the utility bill
Specific elements of the Program include:
• Eligible properties are single family homes and townhomes, both owner occupied and rental properties
with the owner as applicant.
• Project types are based on existing definitions within utility programs and include energy efficiency (e.g.,
insulation, furnace, AC, windows), water supply line replacement/repair and renewable energy (e.g., solar
PV and wind)
• Direct Program expenses will be recovered via fees and interest rates
• On-Bill Financing will replace the existing Zero Interest Loan Program.
The proposed Program is based on selecting best practices from on-bill programs in Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina
and Oregon and loan parameters from a successful Fannie Mae and Pennsylvania energy improvement loan program.
Together with the proven components of Fort Collins Home Efficiency Program, an On-Bill Financing Program element
will further support customers who choose to improve the efficiency of their homes.
Pilot Program Details
Description Details
Customer
eligibility
Energy projects – Utilities electric customer
Water projects – Utilities water customer
Project eligibility Home Efficiency Program
• 23 types of projects based on rebate categories
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/energy-efficiency/home-efficiency-
program/rebates
Renewable energy rebate requirements
• http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/renewables/solar-rebates
Water supply line replacement/repair (similar to Zero Interest Loan Program)
Not carried over from Zero Interest Loan Program
• Air quality projects, high efficiency clothes washers
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 24
Description Details
Rental
properties
Owner is applicant and note holder
Owner options for payment mechanism:
• Owner receives separate loan payment bill from Utilities, or
• Tenants may make payments depending on lease type and if utility account is in
tenant’s name (requires notification and acknowledgement by tenant)
Applicant
qualification
Varies with loan amount and credit score (2 tiers)
• Utility bill payment history
• Credit score
• Income
Loan details Amount: $1,000 to $15,000
Term: 3 to 10 years
Interest: prime plus 2-5%
Application fee ($25)
Origination fee ($150)
Risk mitigation
and security
Chapter 26 utility service – permanent lien and disconnect provisions
Recorded lien (provides notification for title search)
Loan qualification track record
Payments and
Payoff
Payments on utility bill
Payoff on loan completion or property sale
Pilot Program Administration
The pilot program will be administered collaboratively by Utilities staff and a third party (to be selected). Due to the
state and federal requirements related to mortgage origination, Utilities will seek a third party to complete several of
the steps in the loan process. The table below represents a simple overview of steps and likely split of responsibilities
between Utilities and the third party.
Loan Process
Responsible Party
Utilities 3rd Party
Efficiency Audit required X
Application: project approval based on preliminary rebate application and
contractor estimate XX
Application: Bill payment history, credit score, income X X
Project verification X
Loan origination X
Contractor payment X
Set up loan within billing system X
Recording of obligation X
Loan payment servicing X
Pilot Program: Next Steps
Utilities has several tasks that need to be completed prior to being able to offer the pilot On-Bill Financing Program
to customers. The goal is to be ready to offer this service to customers by June 1. These steps include:
• Finalize testing of billing system
• Document/finalize internal business processes and 3rd party resources
• Document accounting procedures
• Integrate financing options with existing Home Efficiency Program outreach and marketing plans
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
April 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 24
On-bill financing has great potential to increase efficiency and renewable energy projects in the community. It is the
intent of this 2012 pilot program to prove the concept in Fort Collins with a limited scope of building, project types and
available funds. Future expansion of the Program could include the small commercial sector and additional projects
types (e.g., expanded water conservation measures, both indoor and outdoor).
The structure of the pilot, especially the loan parameters, is based on successful programs with extended track
records. This structure was chosen because it is scalable, both in administrative and financial terms. The long-term
vision is to attract capital to the loan fund so that the funding is not limited to what Fort Collins Utilities can provide,
either through reserves or ratepayer funds.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject to bringing the
necessary changes in City Code and additional details of the pilot program, which are presented here. This funding
for the 2012 pilot is coming from Utilities reserves. Utilities expects to also have available approximately $30,000 in
remaining Zero Interest Loan funds from the 2012 adopted budget which can be utilized by the pilot program. Based
on 2011 efficiency project rebate requests, it is expected that this level of funding will support 50 to 75 efficiency
projects.
The On-Bill Financing Program element will add to the positive economic impact of the Home Efficiency Program.
There are currently 40 participating contractors working with the Program, with over 100 individuals going through
training for best practices installation standards. Retrofit projects in 2011 represented an investment (by homeowners,
supported by rebates) of approximately $1.2 million towards improving existing home efficiency. Utility bill savings from
improved homes also results in additional spending on local goods and services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The On-Bill Financing Program supports the City’s goals for energy use reduction through efficiency, carbon emissions
reduction from improving the efficiency of the built environment and increasing local renewable energy production.
Homes are seeing 5-50% (15% on average) energy reductions as a result of improvements made through the Home
Efficiency Program. The opportunity for on-going participation in the Program is many thousands of homes. The On-
Bill Financing Program is expected to be a very effective approach to reaching these homes in the coming years.
The Home Efficiency Program also directly addresses indoor environmental air quality. The audit, installation
standards and project verification testing specifically address combustion safety of natural gas appliances and educate
homeowners on other aspects of indoor air quality.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented information related to the On-Bill Financing Program and proposed pilot program at the February 27,
2012, meeting of the Council Finance Committee. A summary of the discussion is included as Attachment 2.
At its March 1, 2012 meeting, the Energy Board passed a motion unanimously stating the Energy Board endorses
expanding the role of Utilities as the financing agent for energy reduction projects. A memo from the Energy Board
is included as Attachment 3.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
April 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 24
At its March 15, 2012 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to endorse the proposed pilot program. An excerpt
from the unapproved Water Board meeting minutes is included as Attachment 4.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff met with representatives from the Community for Sustainability, Fort Collins Sustainability Group and other
community stakeholders on March 5, 2012 to receive feedback on utility financing in general and the proposed pilot
program.
Staff has discussed the pilot program with several community members who are rental property owners and property
managers, seeking feedback related to the Program in general and the provisions for accommodating rental properties
in particular.
Notice of the proposed change to City Code to include this type of program was published in the Coloradoan on March
18, 2012, and a mailing was sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2012
2. Water Board minutes, March 15, 2012
3. Energy Board memo, April 5, 2012
4. Powerpoint presentation
ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO ALLOW FOR ON-BILL UTILITY FINANCING
WHEREAS, Utilities has proposed to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on-
bill financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program and the Solar
Rebate Program, and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line (the “On-Bill
Utility Financing Program”); and
WHEREAS, the primary goal of the On-Bill Utility Financing Program pilot is to facilitate
more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector in order to reduce the need for future energy
resources, reduce the community’s environmental footprint, promote local economic health by
investing in the built environment, and improve the health, comfort and safety of homes in the Fort
Collins community; and
WHEREAS, in the fall of 2011, the City Council approved a budget exception for the 2012
budget to provide $300,000 for the On-Bill Utility Financing Program, subject to bringing the
necessary changes in the Code and additional details of the pilot program; and
WHEREAS, funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for
Outcomes process; and
WHEREAS, the proposed pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals
of Plan Fort Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the program will be a valuable addition to Utilities’ efficiency and renewable
energy programs, which foster sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local
contractors and investment in the built environment and improved home comfort, health and safety;
and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan (ZILCH) program since
the early 1980s, but after many years of success, in recent years the program has seen relatively little
activity; and
WHEREAS, in order to update the model for providing this type of support to residential
customers, staff has proposed that the On-Bill Utility Financing Program replace the ZILCH
program for Utilities-funded loans; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is desirable to establish an appropriate range
of interest rates for loans in the On-Bill Utility Financing Program, while providing some flexibility
for administration of specific loans based on administrative procedures and standards to be adopted
by the Financial Officer pursuant to existing authority under Section 26-720 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2012, the Energy Board voted unanimously to recommend
expansion of the role of Utilities as the financing agent for energy reduction projects, and on April
5, 2012, the Energy Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposed Ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend the
adoption of the proposed On-Bill Utility Financing Program; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council is adopting revisions to Chapter
26 of the City Code, as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That, for the reasons stated above, the City Council hereby finds and
determines that the On-Bill Utility Financing Program as described herein will be for the betterment
of the affected Utilities, and will be beneficial to the ratepayers of those Utilities.
Section 2. That Section 26-129 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of new subparagraphs (f) and (g) which read in their entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges.
. . .
(f) The interest rate for water service-related loans shall be no less than the most
current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%)
and no more than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan
origination plus five percent (5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to
be set in accordance with the administrative rules and regulations of the Financial
Officer pursuant to §26-720.
(g) Loan-related fees for water service-related loans shall be as follows:
(1) For loan application: $25.00
(2) For loan origination: 150.00
Section 3. That Section 26-130 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-130. Agreements for special water services.
(a) Special services or complex service arrangements that are beyond those
required for basic water service may be arranged by a written services agreement
which the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and enter into on behalf of the
water utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and conditions for any such
special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by reference the requirements
of this Chapter, as applicable.
-2-
(b) Special services in the form of loans for water service-related improvements,
conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented on forms
determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any such
loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and
risk standards, and interest rate provisions as set forth in this Article and in the
administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to §
26-720. Obligations for repayment of any such loans are subject to the provisions of
Article XII of this Chapter.
(c) 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 § 6 of Article XII of the Charter.
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:
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) Materials and labor provided
by City
Determined on a case-by-case
basis based on direct cost plus
15% indirect costs
(5) Charges for disposal at the
Fort Collins Regional Sanitary Waste
Transfer Station:
a. Septic tanks, vaults, privies,
-3-
portable toilets:
Generated within Larimer
County
$0.071 per gallon
Generated outside Larimer
County
$0.108 per gallon
b. Recreational vehicle sanitary
waste holding tanks:
Residential customers of the
City of Fort Collins
Wastewater Utility
No charge for individual
disposal at Transfer Station
Others $2.35 base fee plus $0.071 per
gallon
(6) Interest rate for wastewater
service-related loans:
No less than the most current
U.S. prime lending rate at the
time of loan origination plus two
percent (2%) and no more than
the most current U.S. prime
lending rate at the time of loan
origination plus five percent
(5%), per annum, with the
interest rate for each loan to be
set in accordance with the
administrative rules and
regulations of the Financial
Officer pursuant to § 26-720.
(7) Loan-related fees for wastewater
service-related loans:
a. For loan application: $25.00
b. For loan origination: $150.00
(8) Miscellaneous fees Determined on a case-by-case
basis based on direct costs plus
15% indirect costs
Section 5. That Section 26-290 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-290. Agreements for special wastewater services.
(a) Special services or complex service arrangements that are beyond those
required for basic wastewater service may be arranged by a written services
-4-
agreement which the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and enter into on
behalf of the wastewater utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and
conditions for any such special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by
reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable.
(b) Special services in the form of loans for wastewater service-related
improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be
documented on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the
Financial Officer. Any such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable
program requirements, credit and risk standards, and interest rate provisions as set
forth in this Article and in the administrative rules and regulations adopted by the
Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-720. Obligations for repayment of any such loans
are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter.
(c) 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 § 6 of Article XII of the Charter.
Section 6. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subsection (p) which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R.
. . .
(p) Loans. Special services in the form of loans for electric service-related
improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented
on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any
such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and
risk standards, and interest rate provisions as set forth in this Article and in the
administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-
720. The interest rate for such loans shall be no less than the most current U.S. prime
lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the
most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent
(5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the
administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer. Obligations for repayment
of any such loans are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter.
Section 7. That Section 26-465 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (r) which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-465. Residential demand service, schedule RD.
. . .
-5-
(r) Loans. Special services in the form of loans for electric service-related
improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented
on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any
such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and
risk standards, and interest rate provisions as set forth in this Article and in the
administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-
720. The interest rate for such loans shall be no less than the most current U.S. prime
lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the
most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent
(5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the
administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer. Obligations for repayment
of any such loans are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter.
Section 8. That Section 26-712(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-712. Utility bill and account charges authorized; procedures.
. . .
(b) The following account and miscellaneous fees and charges shall apply to all
City utility customers receiving service pursuant to the terms of Chapter 26, whether
within or outside of the corporate limits of the City, except as otherwise expressly stated:
Fees and Charges Amount
Service connection fee for account with one or more
metered services (including nonmetered services for
the same account)
$19.65
Customer-initiated rate change (after 90 days of new
service)
19.65
Service connection fee for account with only
nonmetered services (stormwater, wastewater, wind,
flat commercial electric, sprinkler clocks, cable
towers and floodlights)
10.00
Service fee to reinstate an account to the
owner/property manager between tenants
10.00
Meter reading charge, per month, for those customers
who request the option of mechanical electric meter
and/or a mechanical water meter instead of the
standard advanced metering equipment
11.00
per month
Turn-off notice fee 10.00
Reconnect fee per service for water or electric 20.00
-6-
following disconnection for delinquency
Trip charge for special services requested by
customer during normal service hours
19.65
After-hours reconnect or after-hours trip charge for
special service requested by customer - Water (after
5:00 p.m. weekdays or weekend/holiday)
85.35
After-hours reconnect or after-hours trip charge for
special service requested by customer - Electric (after
5:00 p.m. weekdays or weekend/holiday)
85.35
Return item fee (check, electronic fund transfer,
credit card, etc.)
25.00
Owner-requested repair disconnect fee, per trip 20.00
Research/document fee per hour 20.00
Interest rate for utility service-related loans: No less than the most current U.S.
prime lending rate at the time of
loan origination plus two percent
(2%) and no more than the most
current U.S. prime lending rate at
the time of loan origination plus
five percent (5%), per annum,
with the interest rate for each loan
to be set in accordance with the
administrative rules and
regulations of the Financial
Officer pursuant to § 26-720.
Loan-related fees for utility service-related loans:
a. For loan application: $25.00
b. For loan origination: $150.00
Other miscellaneous charges will be based on direct cost plus fifteen percent (15%)
indirect costs.
. . .
Section 9. That Section 26-720 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-720. Administrative rules and regulations.
The Financial Officer shall formulate and promulgate rules and regulations for the
administration of this Article, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Article, with
respect to the billing and collection of utility fees and charges, credit and lending
-7-
standards and rates and administrative practices for utility loan programs, which shall
include, but shall not be limited to, efficiency-related conditions on loans for renewable
energy development, and other matters relating to the administration of customer
accounts. Said rules and regulations may regulate without limitation, the forms and
procedures for giving notice to customers; policies for adjusting billed amounts as
necessary to correct errors or for administrative efficiency or to achieve equity;
procedures for appeals; and procedures for the documentation of liens. Any rules or
regulations promulgated by the Financial Officer hereunder shall be effective upon the
Financial Officer's filing of the same with the City Clerk.
Section 10. That the City Manager is hereby directed to submit a written report to the City
Council on or before July 31, 2013, or within thirty (30) days of disbursement of all available loans funds
for the On-Bill Utility Financing Program, whichever is earlier, describing the implementation of the
provisions of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, the number of applications received by the
City for loans, the amounts disbursed by the City for the loans, the types of improvements for which the
loans have been made, and any recommendations as to changes to the program that might make the
program more effective.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of April,
A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
-8-
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Greg Yeager
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and Projects for the Multi-jurisdictional Northern
Colorado Drug Task Force.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has received three grant awards from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department of Justice
in the amount of $201,579 for the operation of the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF) to help fund the
investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The NCDTF currently includes Fort Collins Police Services, Loveland Police Department, and Colorado Adult Parole.
These grant awards will be used to offset operating expenses for each participating agency. In addition, because of
the significant decrease in federal funds available for drug enforcement, the Drug Task Force is transferring $142,784
from its forfeiture reserve account to its 2012 operating budget to cover unfunded expenses. The majority of the
forfeiture reserve account is made up of assets seized from people engaged in illegal drug activities.
This appropriation is not a request to identify new dollars for the Police Services’ 2012 budget. This action
appropriates the $30,241, $93,411, and $77,927 in new federal grant money and authorizes the transfer of $142,784
from the forfeiture reserve account for unfunded operating expenses for 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City has received three grant awards for the operation of the NCDTF. These grants will be used for task force
operating expenses.
1. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2011-HIDTA) in the amount of $30,241
2. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2012-HIDTA) in the amount of $93,411.
3. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (2011/2012-JAG) in the amount of $77,927.
In addition, $142,784 will be transferred from the NCDTF forfeiture reserve account to the City of Fort Collins General
Fund to establish the 2012 annual operating budget for expenses that are not grant funded. There is no financial
impact to the City of Fort Collins as there are no matching funds required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 035, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND
AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS BETWEEN
ACCOUNTS AND PROJECTS FOR THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL NORTHERN
COLORADO DRUG TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Department of Justice has
awarded Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) three grants of federal money in the amount of
$201,579; and
WHEREAS, there is $142,784 in prior reserve funds in the Northern Colorado Drug Task
Force (the”Task Force”) Reserve in the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, the grants and prior reserve funds will be used by the Task Force to help fund
the investigation of illegal narcotics activities and the 2012 annual operating budget of the Task
Force; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force consists of representatives from FCPS, Loveland Police
Department, and Colorado Adult Parole; and
WHEREAS, the City and FCPS will administer the grant for the Task Force; 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, 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, not withstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has determined that the appropriation of the grant funds as
described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the
current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year;
and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue and prior
reserves in the Task Force Reserve for transfer to the General Fund for appropriation therein for
FCPS for the Task Force.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the
General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE
DOLLARS ($201,579) for expenditure, upon receipt, in the General Fund for Police Services for the
Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from prior year reserves in the Northern
Colorado Drug Task Force Reserve the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY TWO THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR DOLLARS ($142,784) for transfer to the General Fund and
appropriated therein, for Police Services for the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of May,
A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Karen McWilliams
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2012, Appropriating Additional Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund
for the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the Intersection of College and Mountain
Avenues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unexpected costs, including higher bid prices and additional work requested by the owner, have resulted in the Avery
Building restoration and renovation project costing more than originally provided for. The original cost of $430,270
was funded by a State Historic Fund grant for $215,135, matched by an equal amount provided by the property owner,
Avery Building, LLC. The property owner has now provided the City with additional revenue in the amount of $220,000
to cover the additional costs. The award-winning project is nearing completion, and is expected to be finished at the
end of May 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In February 2011, the City of Fort Collins received a State Historic Fund grant for the restoration and reconstruction
of the Avery Building, located at the intersection of College and Mountain Avenues. The project is addressing the
exterior restoration and rehabilitation of the prominent red sandstone building, including brick and stone masonry
restoration, rehabilitation of the original wood windows, and reconstruction of the College Avenue storefronts. The
City agreed to sponsor the grant and manage the funds, with staff time being paid for through the grant. Grant and
matching funds totaling $430,270 were appropriated by Ordinance No. 043, 2011. The property owner, Avery Building,
LLC, has now provided the City with additional revenue in the amount of $220,000 to cover additional costs,
necessitating this appropriation ordinance.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City will only be responsible for administering the grant/cash match funds - not any monetary contribution. Grant
management services have been provided by Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) staff.
The Avery Building exterior preservation and reconstruction has had positive financial effects on the local economy.
The project has generated sales tax revenue from materials and services purchased locally, and due to the property’s
higher assessed value, will increase property taxes. Studies by Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC, show that for
each $1 in grant funds, there is an economic return of $6.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The restoration and rehabilitation of the Avery Block supports the City’s goal of sustainability. As with all historic
preservation projects, this project maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, and reduces waste in
landfills from demolition costs. Historic buildings were traditionally designed to be energy efficient, with many
sustainable features that respond to climate and site. When effectively restored and reused, these features bring about
substantial energy savings. Additionally, the Avery Building exterior preservation and reconstruction project will
preserve an important and interesting aspect of Fort Collins history.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 036, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE
IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE EXTERIOR PRESERVATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE AVERY BUILDING AT THE
INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE AND MOUNTAIN AVENUES
WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $220,000 from the
Colorado Historical Society State Historical Fund program; and
WHEREAS, the grant will fund the Avery Building preservation and reconstruction
project (the “Project”) that includes the exterior restoration and rehabilitation of the original
brick, stone masonry, wood, windows, and storefronts along College Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been an ongoing, high-visibility project that has provided
both direct and indirect economic benefits to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services staff will
be responsible for administering the grant/cash match funds on behalf of the property owner but
there is no financial obligation by the City; 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 State Historical Fund
grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund
to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund
during the fiscal year; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the
General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($220,000) for
expenditure in the General Fund for the exterior preservation and reconstructions of the Avery
Building.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
May, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Helen Matson
Glen Schlueter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent, Non-Exclusive Utility
Easement on City Parks Property to Maple Hill Master Association.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2004, the City of Fort Collins Parks Department acquired Tract I, Maple Hill, located in northeast Fort Collins,
near Turnberry and Country Club Road. The City purchased this tract for a future public neighborhood park as well
as for access, drainage and utility easements. Maple Hill Homeowners Association has requested a utility easement
for an eight-foot wide irrigation easement through the corner of Tract I.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Gillespie Farm Development Company developed a subdivision known as Maple Hill, a Replat of 19th Green Planned
Unit Development – Phase 1. The Maple Hill Plat was approved in 2003. Gillespie Farm Development Company
conveyed all the open space tracts in Maple Hill and the recreation center tract to Maple Hill Master Association, a
Colorado Non-Profit Corporation (Maple Hill). Maple Hill is the Homeowner’s Association for the entire Maple Hill
Subdivision. Part of Maple Hill’s responsibility is to irrigate all open space tracts as well as the recreation center lot.
The City of Fort Collins Parks Department acquired Tract I, Maple Hill in April 2004. The City purchased this tract for
a future public neighborhood park as well as for access, drainage and utility easements. This seven acre tract is
undeveloped and consists of non-irrigated grasses. Parks estimates that this park will be developed around 2016.
Until the park is developed, the tract will remain undeveloped.
Maple Hill has requested a utility easement for an irrigation pipe. The width of the easement varies but is
approximately eight feet wide for most of its length. This irrigation pipe will be along a curve that contains an existing
30 foot utility easement and an ELCO waterline easement. The location of this requested easement will not affect the
future neighborhood park since it is planned to be adjacent to existing easements. Maple Hill plans to bore the
irrigation line and not do an open dig. The easement to Maple Hill will require Maple Hill to restore areas disturbed,
either at installation or for maintenance.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The consideration for this easement is $2,410 which includes the easement processing fee for Real Estate Services.
Maple Hill is responsible for all costs of installation and if there are future maintenance issues that need to be
corrected, Maple Hill will also be responsible to restore the site to a comparable condition when doing any repair work
on the park site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Tract I is an undeveloped tract consisting of non-irrigated grasses. Installation of the irrigation pipe will not impact the
City’s Tract I.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Photo of Area of Impact
ORDINANCE NO. 037, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PERMANENT, NON-EXCLUSIVE
UTILITY EASEMENT ON CITY PARKS PROPERTY TO MAPLE HILL
MASTER ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City owns Tract I, Maple Hill, being a Replat of 19th Green Planned Unit
Development – Phase 1 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property was purchased by the City for a future neighborhood park, and for
access, drainage and utility purposes; and
WHEREAS, Maple Hill Master Association (“HOA”) is the Homeowner’s Association for
the Maple Hill Subdivision and is responsible for irrigation of all open space tracts and the
Recreation Center lot in Maple Hill; and
WHEREAS, the HOA has requested a permanent, non-exclusive easement consisting of
2,472 square feet on the northeasterly portion of the Property for its underground irrigation pipe (the
“Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the location of the proposed Easement is shown and described on Exhibit “A”,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed Easement, and
believes that the Easement would not interfere with the City’s intended use of the Property as a
public neighborhood park; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned by the City,
provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the
best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easement as set forth herein is in the best interests
of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a deed of easement conveying
the Easement on terms consistent with this Ordinance, together with such other terms and conditions
as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or
appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance,
including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Easement, as long
as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easement.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of May,
A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Courtney Levingston
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Wild Plum Farm No. 1 Annexation.
A. Resolution 2012-028 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wild Plum Farm
Annexation No. 1.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wild Plum Farm
Annexation No. 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to annex 0.64 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north
of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA – Farming Zone District in Larimer County. The
surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west and south; and,
Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Middle School) to the east. The zoning ordinance will come forward on May 15, 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 0.64
acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property
is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE
– Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west
and south; and, Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. The zoning ordinance will come
forward on May 15, 2012
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
a common boundary with the Lincoln Junior High School Second Annexation (October, 1998) to the east.
Findings:
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the
City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area.
2. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to
the City of Fort Collins.
3. On March 20, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution 2012-017 that accepted the annexation petition and
determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiated the annexation
process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held
regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area.
4. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this annexation.
May 1, 2012 -2- ITEM 11
In February 2011, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners held a Special Review meeting regarding the
horse boarding facility located on the subject property. The County Board of Commissioners approved the boarding
stable with conditions such as a 25 horse maximum, stable operational conditions and a requirement for the
applicant/property owner to petition for annexation into the City. An ordinance proposing zoning with the conditions
established by the County will come for Council consideration on May 15, 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation. The property is developed at the present time,
containing a single-family residence and a commercial horse boarding facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its April 19, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the annexation and
zoning request and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend that the
property be placed in the Urban Estate Zone District. The motion made note of the conditions that were put in place
at the time the County Commissioners approved the Special Review. The minutes from the April 19, 2012 Planning
and Zoning Board Hearing are attached.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred two weeks prior to the item going before the
Planning and Zoning Board at its scheduled public hearing on April 19, 2012. A letter of notification of the public
hearing was mailed to all affected property owners within 800 feet of the property 14 days prior to the hearing. The
Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for annexation and initial zoning and a meeting was not held
for this annexation and zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, April 19, 2012
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning and Zoning Board
April 19, 2012
DRAFT minutes
___________________________________________________________________
Project: Wild Plum Farm Annexation # 1, ANX110001 and Wild Plum
Farm Annexation # 2, ANX110002
Project Description:Annexation #1 is a request to annex and zone 0.64 acres.
Annexation # 2 is a request to annex and zone 3.82 acres. Both
are located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately
1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed
and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The
surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the
Larimer County to the north, west and south; and, UE – Urban
Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. The
requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
Recommendation: On both Annexations and Zoning, staff recommends approval of
the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in
the UE - Urban Estate Zoning District.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Courtney Levingston said the property is developed and has an existing
single family residence and horse boarding facility. In February 2011 – Becker’s Stable
had a special review before the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The
County Board approved commercial boarding stable with conditions such as 25 horse
maximum, stable operation conditions, and annexation into the city.
The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The Urban Estate Zone
District allows horse boarding facility. The Land Use Code does not limit the number of
large animals boarded and if annexed, the City will uphold the maximum large animal
condition placed on the property by the Board of County Commissioners.
The City’s Neighborhood Services Code Compliance Division will enforce applicable
municipal code provisions including:
Municipal Code Section 4-72 applies to personal use and does not apply to
commercial operations like Wild Plum Farms. Horses may be kept for the use of
occupants of a lot and their guests provided that at least 1/2 acre of pasture area
is available for each horse or pony.
Municipal Code Section 4-116 states that in no event shall any person keep at
his or her premises more pet animals than can be properly maintained in a
healthy condition without presenting a health or safety hazard to the owners,
keeper or others and without constituting a nuisance to the occupants of
neighboring properties.
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be
placed in the UE - Urban Estate Zoning District.
Member Schmidt asked if the applicable Municipal Code provisions address the
conditions placed on this property by the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners. She also wondered if all the provisions had been completed by June 1,
2011. Finally, she wondered if the city recognizes the Larimer County requirements or
do they just become mute once annexed into the city? Levingston said a neighbor with
concerns could call Neighborhood Services Code Compliance relative to violations in
Code Sections 4-72 and 4-116.
Levingston said that Code Section 4-72 applies primarily to personal use; not like this
commercial horse boarding facility. She said Code Section 4-116 would apply. It states
that in no event shall any person keep at his or her premises more pet animals than can
be properly maintained in a healthy condition without presenting a health or safety
hazard to the owners, keeper or others and without constituting a nuisance to the
occupants of neighboring properties. Levingston said the city would also uphold the
maximum number of 25 horses.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett said there are a couple of other sections of the code that
relate to care and treatment of animals in the city – Sections 4-70 and 4-71 address
management of waste and treatment of animals.
Vice Chair Campana asked if the county conditions would apply once they’re annexed
into the city. Daggett said the limitations the County imposed on the use, would limit the
use once it’s annexed. It may be that a recommendation, if there is one, would be
helpful to clarify. If there is no condition placed on the zoning, the existing permitted use
is up to 25 horses on the site. Campana said beyond the limit of 25 horses, there were
16 conditions shown in their January 10th minutes. Conditions had to do with manure,
treatment, facilities for dealing with manure, lighting, etc. Do we need to police that?
Has it already been done?
Member Schmidt asked if the applicant wants to speak to the questions asked by Vice
Chair Campana.
Applicant’s Presentation
Dr. Shane Becker said he does not have a formal presentation but he is available to
answer questions.
He said all the conditions set during the permit process he went through with Larimer
County have been met. He completed them by the due date and they were signed off by
the County before he submitted his application for annexation into the city. They’ve been
operating under those conditions. He noted the site plan used earlier in the presentation
is inaccurate—that’s not the plan that was approved by the County and it doesn’t show
any of the conditions that were required. He said a final plan is probably available
through the County. Campana asked if he was prepared to continue to operate under
the conditions the county requested when annexed into the city. Becker said yes.
Member Schmidt asked Dr. Becker to explain the Resource Stewardship Plan (RSP).
Becker said his basic understanding is that he was not required to complete it. The RSP
is designed to restrict people—to help them manage themselves. His permit/conditions
applied in his situation.
Member Carpenter said she was still a little confused by the conditions placed by the
county. She understands from the applicant that he’s met all of those. She said in some
cases they appear ongoing. She asked what the city has in place to enforce the ongoing
issues. Deputy City Attorney Daggett said if you interpret the conditions on the current
improved use as defining the legal use; theoretically continued compliance with those
conditions could be considered a zoning enforcement matter. This is a legal non-
conforming use to the extent it continues consistent with the legal restrictions on the use.
Carpenter asked if they needed to recommend that these conditions follow. Daggett
said no because they’re driven by the concept of the use as being legal when it comes
in. You are not actually imposing new conditions although you could expressly
recognize that you’re intending for those existing conditions to continue to be enforced.
Public Input
None
Board Discussion
Member Schmidt said she’d like it to be on the record that these conditions be
recognized just so that if something does happen (the neighbors have a problem with
arena dust, etc.); they can call for enforcement. She believes because of the proximity
of the neighbors; the county approved with condition and she believes the city should
recognize them. Member Kirkpatrick agreed.
Member Schmidt moved the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of
the Wild Plum Farm Annexation and Zoning No. 1, # ANX110001 making note of
the conditions that were put in place at the time the County Commissioners
approved the Special Review. Also, the zone should be UE – Urban Estate.
Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0.
Member Schmidt asked if she should just go forward with the motion for No. 2,
#ANX110002. Daggett said you’d like to make the same motion with respect to No. 2.
Schmidt asked if there needed to be public comment. Daggett asked if they intended
the discussion to cover both items because it appeared to be the case. Schmidt and
Campana said yes. The Chair confirmed that there were no requests for public input on
No. 2.
Member Schmidt said she’d like to make the same motion for Annexation &
Zoning No. 2, # ANX110002 as for the No. 1. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the
motion. Motion was approved 6:0.
RESOLUTION 2012-028
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 1
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the City Council for
property to be known as the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1; and
WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law, the City Council has held a hearing
on said annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that there is at least one-sixth (1/6)
contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest
exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will
be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being
integrated with the City.
Section 3. That the City Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act
have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and
conditions to be imposed upon said annexation.
Section 4. That the City Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing
was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act.
Section 5. That the City Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the
Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1 is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of May A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 038, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 1
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2012-017, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation
proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of
the City to annex said area to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the following described property, to wit:
A tract of land being a portion of the tract of land described in the Warranty Deed
recorded November 27, 1996 at Reception No. 96085333; being located in the S 1/2,
N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
6th P.M., which considering the West line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 3 as bearing
due North with all bearings herein relative thereto is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4;
thence along the West line of said SW 1/4 South, 90.60 feet; thence East, 146.75
feet; thence North 44 degrees 01 minutes East, 15.65 feet; thence East, 58.00 feet;
thence North, 81.19 feet more or less to the North line of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2,
NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 768.80 feet
to the Point of Beginning; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East,
329.00 feet to the NE corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence
South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 164.70 feet to the Southeast corner
of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 12
seconds West, 10.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds East,
82.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds West, 319.00 feet; thence
North 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds East, 82.35 feet to the Point of Beginning.
This annexation contains 0.641 acres.
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Wild
Plum Farm Annexation No. 1, which annexation shall become effective upon completion of the
conditions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, submission of all
required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines,
streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as
may be provided by the ordinances of the City.
Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of May,
A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Courtney Levingston
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Wild Plum Farm No. 2 Annexation.
A. Resolution 2012-029 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wild Plum Farm
Annexation No. 2.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wild Plum Farm
Annexation No. 2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to annex 3.32 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north
of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The surrounding
properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west and south; and, Urban Estate
in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. The zoning ordinance will come forward on May 15, 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 3.32
acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property
is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE –
Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west
and south; and, Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. The zoning ordinance will come
forward on May 15, 2012.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
a common boundary with the Lincoln Junior High School Second Annexation (October, 1998) to the east.
Findings:
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the
City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area.
2. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to
the City of Fort Collins.
3. On March 20, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution 2012-018 that accepted the annexation petition and
determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiated the annexation
process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held
regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area.
4. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this annexation
May 1, 2012 -2- ITEM 12
In February 2011, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners held a Special Review meeting regarding the
horse boarding facility located on the subject property. The County Board of Commissioners approved the boarding
stable with conditions such as a 25 horse maximum, stable operational conditions and a requirement for the
applicant/property owner to petition for annexation into the City. An ordinance proposing zoning with the conditions
established by the County will come for Council consideration on May 15, 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation. The property is developed at the present time,
containing a single-family residence and a commercial horse boarding facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its April 19, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the annexation and
zoning request and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend that the
property be placed in the Urban Estate Zone District. The motion made note of the conditions that were put in place
at the time the County Commissioners approved the Special Review. The minutes from the April 19, 2012 Planning
and Zoning Board Hearing are attached.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred two weeks prior to the item going before the
Planning and Zoning Board at their scheduled public hearing on April 19, 2012. A letter of notification of the public
hearing was mailed to all Affected Property Owners within 800 feet of the property 14 days prior to the hearing. The
Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for annexation and initial zoning and a meeting was not held
for this annexation and zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, April 19, 2012
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning and Zoning Board
April 19, 2012
DRAFT minutes
___________________________________________________________________
Project: Wild Plum Farm Annexation # 1, ANX110001 and Wild Plum
Farm Annexation # 2, ANX110002
Project Description:Annexation #1 is a request to annex and zone 0.64 acres.
Annexation # 2 is a request to annex and zone 3.82 acres. Both
are located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately
1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed
and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The
surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the
Larimer County to the north, west and south; and, UE – Urban
Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. The
requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
Recommendation: On both Annexations and Zoning, staff recommends approval of
the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in
the UE - Urban Estate Zoning District.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Courtney Levingston said the property is developed and has an existing
single family residence and horse boarding facility. In February 2011 – Becker’s Stable
had a special review before the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The
County Board approved commercial boarding stable with conditions such as 25 horse
maximum, stable operation conditions, and annexation into the city.
The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The Urban Estate Zone
District allows horse boarding facility. The Land Use Code does not limit the number of
large animals boarded and if annexed, the City will uphold the maximum large animal
condition placed on the property by the Board of County Commissioners.
The City’s Neighborhood Services Code Compliance Division will enforce applicable
municipal code provisions including:
Municipal Code Section 4-72 applies to personal use and does not apply to
commercial operations like Wild Plum Farms. Horses may be kept for the use of
occupants of a lot and their guests provided that at least 1/2 acre of pasture area
is available for each horse or pony.
Municipal Code Section 4-116 states that in no event shall any person keep at
his or her premises more pet animals than can be properly maintained in a
healthy condition without presenting a health or safety hazard to the owners,
keeper or others and without constituting a nuisance to the occupants of
neighboring properties.
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be
placed in the UE - Urban Estate Zoning District.
Member Schmidt asked if the applicable Municipal Code provisions address the
conditions placed on this property by the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners. She also wondered if all the provisions had been completed by June 1,
2011. Finally, she wondered if the city recognizes the Larimer County requirements or
do they just become mute once annexed into the city? Levingston said a neighbor with
concerns could call Neighborhood Services Code Compliance relative to violations in
Code Sections 4-72 and 4-116.
Levingston said that Code Section 4-72 applies primarily to personal use; not like this
commercial horse boarding facility. She said Code Section 4-116 would apply. It states
that in no event shall any person keep at his or her premises more pet animals than can
be properly maintained in a healthy condition without presenting a health or safety
hazard to the owners, keeper or others and without constituting a nuisance to the
occupants of neighboring properties. Levingston said the city would also uphold the
maximum number of 25 horses.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett said there are a couple of other sections of the code that
relate to care and treatment of animals in the city – Sections 4-70 and 4-71 address
management of waste and treatment of animals.
Vice Chair Campana asked if the county conditions would apply once they’re annexed
into the city. Daggett said the limitations the County imposed on the use, would limit the
use once it’s annexed. It may be that a recommendation, if there is one, would be
helpful to clarify. If there is no condition placed on the zoning, the existing permitted use
is up to 25 horses on the site. Campana said beyond the limit of 25 horses, there were
16 conditions shown in their January 10th minutes. Conditions had to do with manure,
treatment, facilities for dealing with manure, lighting, etc. Do we need to police that?
Has it already been done?
Member Schmidt asked if the applicant wants to speak to the questions asked by Vice
Chair Campana.
Applicant’s Presentation
Dr. Shane Becker said he does not have a formal presentation but he is available to
answer questions.
He said all the conditions set during the permit process he went through with Larimer
County have been met. He completed them by the due date and they were signed off by
the County before he submitted his application for annexation into the city. They’ve been
operating under those conditions. He noted the site plan used earlier in the presentation
is inaccurate—that’s not the plan that was approved by the County and it doesn’t show
any of the conditions that were required. He said a final plan is probably available
through the County. Campana asked if he was prepared to continue to operate under
the conditions the county requested when annexed into the city. Becker said yes.
Member Schmidt asked Dr. Becker to explain the Resource Stewardship Plan (RSP).
Becker said his basic understanding is that he was not required to complete it. The RSP
is designed to restrict people—to help them manage themselves. His permit/conditions
applied in his situation.
Member Carpenter said she was still a little confused by the conditions placed by the
county. She understands from the applicant that he’s met all of those. She said in some
cases they appear ongoing. She asked what the city has in place to enforce the ongoing
issues. Deputy City Attorney Daggett said if you interpret the conditions on the current
improved use as defining the legal use; theoretically continued compliance with those
conditions could be considered a zoning enforcement matter. This is a legal non-
conforming use to the extent it continues consistent with the legal restrictions on the use.
Carpenter asked if they needed to recommend that these conditions follow. Daggett
said no because they’re driven by the concept of the use as being legal when it comes
in. You are not actually imposing new conditions although you could expressly
recognize that you’re intending for those existing conditions to continue to be enforced.
Public Input
None
Board Discussion
Member Schmidt said she’d like it to be on the record that these conditions be
recognized just so that if something does happen (the neighbors have a problem with
arena dust, etc.); they can call for enforcement. She believes because of the proximity
of the neighbors; the county approved with condition and she believes the city should
recognize them. Member Kirkpatrick agreed.
Member Schmidt moved the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of
the Wild Plum Farm Annexation and Zoning No. 1, # ANX110001 making note of
the conditions that were put in place at the time the County Commissioners
approved the Special Review. Also, the zone should be UE – Urban Estate.
Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0.
Member Schmidt asked if she should just go forward with the motion for No. 2,
#ANX110002. Daggett said you’d like to make the same motion with respect to No. 2.
Schmidt asked if there needed to be public comment. Daggett asked if they intended
the discussion to cover both items because it appeared to be the case. Schmidt and
Campana said yes. The Chair confirmed that there were no requests for public input on
No. 2.
Member Schmidt said she’d like to make the same motion for Annexation &
Zoning No. 2, # ANX110002 as for the No. 1. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the
motion. Motion was approved 6:0.
RESOLUTION 2012-029
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 2
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the City Council for
property to be known as the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2; and
WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law, the City Council has held a hearing
on said annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that there is at least one-sixth (1/6)
contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest
exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will
be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being
integrated with the City.
Section 3. That the City Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act
have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and
conditions to be imposed upon said annexation.
Section 4. That the City Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing
was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act.
Section 5. That the City Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the
Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2 is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of May A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 040, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 2
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2012-018, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation
proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of
the City to annex said area to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the following described property, to wit:
A tract of land being a portion of the tract of land described in the Warranty Deed
recorded November 27, 1996 at Reception No. 96085333; being located in the S 1/2,
N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
6th P.M., which considering the West line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 3 as bearing
due North with all bearings herein relative thereto is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4;
thence along the West line of said SW 1/4 South, 90.60 feet; thence East, 40.00 feet
to the East Right-of-Way line of North Taft Hill Road and the Point of Beginning;
thence East, 106.75 feet; thence North 44 degrees 01 minutes East, 15.65 feet; thence
East, 58.00 feet; thence North 81.19 feet more or less to the North line of said S 1/2,
N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East,
768.80 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 82.35 feet; thence
North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 319.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees
00 minutes 39 seconds West, 82.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 12
seconds West, 1263.40 feet to the East Right-of-Way line of North Taft Hill Road;
thence North, 73.88 feet to the Point of Beginning.
This annexation contains 3.822 acres.
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Wild
Plum Farm Annexation No. 2, which annexation shall become effective upon completion of the
conditions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, submission of all
required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines,
streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as
may be provided by the ordinances of the City.
Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of May,
A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Lindsay Ex
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-030 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the 912 Wood Street
Annexation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Sidehill Investment LLC., the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation
of 17.34 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The
property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is
UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in the Larimer County to the south and
west, and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act,
determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the
hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances not less than thirty
days of prior notice is required by State law.
This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property owned by Sidehill Investment LLC and that is located within the
Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County
contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to
consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This
property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the McMurry Natural Area
(December, 2010) to the north, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary
be contiguous to the existing city boundary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 17, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation. The
Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of the First Reading of the annexation and zoning
ordinances on June 5, 2012.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements.
The only known issue with this annexation is the previously expressed concern by community members and one
Councilmember with the LOMR-Fill (Letter of Map Revision-Fill) process that occurred while the property is still in
the County. While the floodplain regulations for the Poudre River Basin generally match across the City and the
County, the City conditions its approval of LOMR-Fill applications in a way that the County does not. In this
instance, the LOMR-Fill was approved by the County and portions of the site have been removed from the
floodplain prior to annexation. Remaining portions of the site that are in the floodplain will be required to comply
with the City’s floodplain regulations.
May 1, 2012 -2- ITEM 13
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There was no public outreach for this Initiating Resolution as the Resolution simply accepts the Annexation Petition
and provides a schedule for upcoming Council hearings with a schedule and notification requirements that comply with
State Statutes.
Future Development – 912 Wood Street
A conceptual review for the property at 912 Wood Street was held on January 9, 2012; Sidehill Investment LLC has
indicated the desire to develop single-family residential dwelling units on the property. The City’s Structure Plan Map
and Northwest Subarea Plan provide guidance that the subject 17.34 acres should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E). The
Northwest Subarea Plan further suggests that residential development on the subject property should be clustered
(see the Framework Plan Map on page 12 of the Plan).
Single-family residential units are a permitted use in the U-E Zone. Consistent with the Northwest Subarea Plan, the
applicants are proposing to cluster the residential units, which is a use that is subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board. When clustering residential units in the U-E Zone, a minimum of 50% of open space must be
preserved. A development review outreach meeting for this project has not been scheduled at this time, but is
anticipated as the project moves forward.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Structure Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
912 Wood Street - Vicinity Map
Cac
h
e l
a
Po
u
dr
e
Riv
e
r
Bender Mobile
Home
N SHIELDS ST
LAPORTE AVE
MAPLE ST
WOOD ST
CHERRY ST
LAPORTE AVE
ELM ST
SYCAMORE ST
HICKORY ST
PARK ST
WEST ST
N GRANT AVE
N SHERWOOD ST
HEMLOCK ST
N WHITCOMB ST
W VINE DR
N MASON ST
N MELDRUM ST
N HOWES ST
HANNA ST
BUNGALOW CT
HAWKINS ST
ELM ST
LAPORTE AVE
N SHIELDS ST
W MULBERRY ST
E VINE DR
N COLLEGE AVE
N LEMAY AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
W VINE DR
N TAFT HILL RD
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Wood 912
Street
Annexation Site
VICINITY MAP
0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet
Legend
City Limits
912 Wood Street
PoudreRiver
Streets
Parcels
ATTACHMENT 1
912 Wood Street - Zoning Map
Cac
h
e l
a
Po
u
dr
e
Riv
e
r
Bender Mobile
Home
N SHIELDS ST
LAPORTE AVE
MAPLE ST
WOOD ST
CHERRY ST
LAPORTE AVE
ELM ST
SYCAMORE ST
HICKORY ST
PARK ST
WEST ST
N GRANT AVE
N SHERWOOD ST
HEMLOCK ST
N WHITCOMB ST
W VINE DR
N MASON ST
N MELDRUM ST
N HOWES ST
HANNA ST
BUNGALOW CT
HAWKINS ST
NCM
E
D
POL
CS
POL
POL
NCL D
CL
LMN
RC
NCL
LMN
POL
LMN
LMN
NCB
POL
LMN
LMN
NCB
LMN
CG
LMN
912 Wood Street - Structure Plan
Cac
h
e l
a
Po
u
dr
e
Riv
e
r
Bender Mobile
Home
N SHIELDS ST
LAPORTE AVE
MAPLE ST
WOOD ST
CHERRY ST
LAPORTE AVE
ELM ST
SYCAMORE ST
HICKORY ST
PARK ST
WEST ST
N GRANT AVE
N SHERWOOD ST
HEMLOCK ST
N WHITCOMB ST
W VINE DR
N MASON ST
N MELDRUM ST
N HOWES ST
HANNA ST
BUNGALOW CT
HAWKINS ST
LAPORTE AVE
N SHIELDS ST
W MULBERRY ST
E VINE DR
N COLLEGE AVE
N LEMAY AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
W VINE DR
N TAFT HILL RD
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Wood 912
Street
Annexation Site
VICINITY MAP
0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet
Legend
Structure Plan
Land Use
Downtown District
Community Commercial District
Commercial Corridor District
Neighborhood Commercial District
Employment District
Industrial District
RESOLUTION 2012-030
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND
INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
912 WOOD STREET ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been
filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the 912 Wood
Street Annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with
the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the 912
Wood Street Annexation, more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of
Colorado, to wit:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE
69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER, WHICH IS ASSUMED BEAR S 00°04’30” E. SAID WEST LINE IS MONUMENTED
ON THE NORTH END BY A 2.5” ILLEGIBLE ALUMINUM CAP IN A RANGE BOX AND ON
THE SOUTH END BY A 3.5” BRASS CAP MARKED “BRADFORD” IN A RANGE BOX.
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, FROM
WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION TWO BEARS S 89°58’24” WEST,
A DISTANCE OF 1323.93 FEET AND AGAIN N 00°04’30” W, A DISTANCE OF 1326.78 FEET;
THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 291.09 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE MCMURRY
NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES:
1) THENCE N 88°03'51" E, A DISTANCE OF 170.61 FEET;
2) THENCE S 84°28'21" E, A DISTANCE OF 208.68 FEET;
3) THENCE S 67°34'38" E, A DISTANCE OF 201.58 FEET;
4) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 43.58 FEET;
5) THENCE S 65°58'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET;
6) THENCE N 65°35'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET;
7) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 30.31 FEET;
8) THENCE N 68°32'47" E, A DISTANCE OF 192.35 FEET;
9) THENCE N 84°06'06" E, A DISTANCE OF 164.90 FEET;
10) THENCE S 69°42'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 35.87 FEET;
11) THENCE S 63°52'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 165.62 FEET;
12) THENCE S 53°38'18" E, A DISTANCE OF 13.97 FEET;
13) THENCE S 23°54'48" E, A DISTANCE OF 133.15 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE
EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND THE WEST LINE OF THE
ORIGINAL TOWN OF FORT COLLINS PLAT;
THENCE S 00°03'45" E, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 375.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 ACRES OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER;
THENCE S 89°58'24" W, ON SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1276.16 FEET, TO THE
EASTERLY LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS;
THENCE ON SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES:
1) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 3.20 FEET;
2) THENCE N 89°58'52" W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
3) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 276.00 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS;
THENCE S 89°58'52" E, ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, A DISTANCE OF
1.84 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER;
THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 61.71 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 17.3443 ACRES OR 755,516 SQUARE FEET.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition
for the 912 Wood Street Annexation and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the
Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution,
and establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage
of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is
directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal
Annexation Act.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of May A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
NOTICE
TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a
Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the 912 Wood Street Annexation, said Annexation
being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice.
That, on June 5, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come
on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and
zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be
annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation
and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the
Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may
desire.
The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the
Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District.
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.
Dated this 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Courtney Levingston
Karen McWilliams
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-031 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16, 2012, Planning and Zoning
Board Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex Located at 705, 711 and
715 Remington Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the
Remington Annex, Modification of Standards was filed by Christian and Robin Bachelet of Remington Annex, LLC.
On April 17, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete
the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its
decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegation that:
• The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; and
• The Planning and Zoning Board improperly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
At the April 17, 2012 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the Appellants, and the
Opponents to the Appeal. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Planning and Zoning
Board conducted a fair hearing and properly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code.
City Council determined to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2012-031
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE
FEBRUARY 16, 2012, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DENIALS OF
TWO STAND-ALONE MODIFICATIONS CONCERNING THE
PROPOSED REMINGTON ANNEX
LOCATED AT 705, 711 AND 715 REMINGTON STREET
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) denied a
requested stand-alone modification for 711 Remington Street from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B)
concerning the proposed Remington Annex project to be located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington
Street, and a stand-alone modification for 711 Remington Street from Land Use Code Section
3.4.7(E) concerning the proposed Remington Annex project to be located at 705, 711 and 715
Remington Street (together referred to as the “Modifications”); and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2012, a Notice of Appeal of said decisions of the Board was filed
in the Office of the City Clerk by the applicants for the Modifications, Christian and Robin Bachelet
on behalf of Remington Annex, LLC, alleging that the Board had failed to conduct a fair hearing by
considering evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading, and further alleging that
the Board improperly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code in its denial
of the Modifications; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2012, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3, of the City Code, the City Council considered said appeal, reviewed the record on
appeal, heard presentations by parties in interest to the appeal, and, after discussion, voted to uphold
the decisions of the Board denying the Modifications; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-56(e) provides that no later than the date of its next regular
meeting after the hearing on an appeal, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact
in support of its decisions on the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Notice of Appeal conform to the
requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code;
2. That, in reaching its decisions to deny the Modifications, the Board did not
fail to conduct a fair hearing;
3. That, in reaching its decision to deny the proposed modification from Land
Use Code Section 3.4.7(B), the Board properly interpreted and applied the
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code; and
4. That, in reaching its decision to deny the proposed modification from Land
Use Code Section 3.4.7(E), the Board properly interpreted and applied the
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code; and
5. That, in light of the foregoing, the February 16, 2012, decision of the Board
denying the proposed modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B) is
hereby upheld.
6. That, in light of the foregoing, the February 16, 2012, decision of the Board
denying the proposed modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) is
hereby upheld.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of May A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Wendy Williams
Josh Jones
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-032 Recognizing the Veterans Plaza Time Capsule and Directing a Future City Council to Open the
Time Capsule on Veterans Day 2111.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A time capsule containing donated items was buried at Veterans Plaza in Spring Canyon Community Park in 2011.
This Resolution formalizes its burial and requests that it be opened 100 years from now by a future City Council on
Veterans Day 2111 with the media and community present.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park contains soil from over 100 battlefields, U.S. Military
Cemeteries, and other installations worldwide – places like Omaha Beach and Afghanistan. The Veterans Plaza is a
unique, public venue that honors and pays tribute to all military men and women with ties to Northern Colorado. The
plaza features:
• Paved walking paths, native rock, shade trees, and an amphitheater with performance stage.
• Flags representing America, Colorado, and our country's military prisoners of war, and members killed in
action or missing in action.
• A bronze statue of a soldier holding a young boy on his shoulder, showing him the promise of the future.
• A "Victory Garden".
• Stone walls embedded with large LCD monitors, which scroll the names of veterans and allow visitors to
search for information on specific veterans.
On Veterans Day 2011, a time capsule was placed at Veterans Plaza. The capsule contains donated items that
represent the Fort Collins community and veterans in general, and is buried at on the north side of the pedestal on
which the statue stands. The genesis of this idea stems from former Fort Collins City Councilmember Diggs Brown
who wanted to commemorate the veterans who have served the United States. This Resolution asks that a future Fort
Collins City Council open the time capsule 100 years from now on Veterans Day 2111 with the media and community
present as they were in 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
1
1
Veterans Plaza Time Capsule
May 1, 2012
2
Resolution
• Recognizes the Veterans Plaza Time Capsule at
Spring Canyon Park
• Time Capsule was placed on Veterans Day, 2011
• Resolution direct the future City Council to open
the Time Capsule on Veterans Day 2111
• Plaque with opening date is in place on memorial
ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
Opening Day of the Veterans Plaza
4
Burying the Time Capsule
RESOLUTION 2012-032
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RECOGNIZING THE VETERANS PLAZA TIME CAPSULE AND
DIRECTING A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL TO OPEN THE TIME CAPSULE
ON VETERANS DAY 2111
WHEREAS, the Veterans Plaza of Northern Colorado, located in Spring Canyon Community
Park, pays tribute to all U.S. military men and women, and contains soil from over 100 battlefields,
U.S. Military Cemeteries, and other installations worldwide; and
WHEREAS, the Veterans Plaza includes a time capsule that was buried in 2011 at the foot
of the statue “On Strong Shoulders”; and
WHEREAS, the time capsule contains numerous veteran-related items that have been
donated by members of the community to preserve the memory of the veterans and their service to
this country; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be appropriate and fitting for a future
City Council to unearth the time capsule 100 years from now, on Veterans Day 2111, with the media
and the community present, and to visually share the contents of the time capsule with the members
of the community to commemorate the veterans of our great nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby recognizes the Veterans Plaza Time Capsule.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby asks the City Council of 2111 to unearth the
time capsule on Veteran’s Day 2111, and to share its contents with the community, in honor of the
nation’s veterans.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of May A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
DATE: May 1, 2012
STAFF: Lance Smith
Patty Bigner
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical
Assistance Program for Electric Customers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance for customers who
are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electrical durable medical equipment in their household.
The program is focused on providing a discount to qualifying customers by reducing the cost associated with the
electrical needs of durable medical equipment. The program also provides a discount for those eligible customers with
qualifying medical conditions who use air conditioning during the summer billing months. The pilot program will include
an income limitation of 60% of the Area Median Income. The amount of the discount is consistent with 150 kWh per
month of electric energy usage to those customers with durable medical equipment and consistent with an additional
350 kWh per month of electric energy usage for those with qualifying medical conditions who use air conditioning
during the summer billing months. Staff will prepare a report for the City Council on the first year of the pilot program
before June 2013.
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-1 (Nays: Troxell; Kottwitz absent). On Second Reading,
the Ordinance has been amended in the following ways:
• One of the recital clauses has been amended to reference increased wholesale energy costs as the basis for
the assistance program and another recital clause is deleted.
• The Code language has been re-worded and reformatted to actually establish the discounted rates, rather
than simply stating the maximum amounts of the discounts, and to clarify that the discounts may apply either
to electrical durable medical equipment or air conditioning, or both, depending upon which is medically
necessary for that particular customer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 17, 2012
(w/o attachments)
2. Program Application
3. Powerpoint presentation
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: April 17, 2012
STAFF: Lance Smith
Patty Bigner
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical
Assistance Program for Electric Customers (Option A, B, or C).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance for customers who
are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical equipment in their home. Staff is
presenting three options for consideration by Council. Fort Collins Utilities is seeking direction on the program details
and approval from the City Council to implement this program. Specifically, staff is asking City Council to determine
the scope of the program and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the establishment of the program.
The program is focused on reducing the cost associated with the additional electrical needs of those with life support
equipment in their household. Options for other medical equipment and air conditioning needed to improve the quality
of life for those with immune compromising diagnoses are also being presented for consideration.
• Option A limits coverage to electrical life support and mobility durable medical equipment. The
maximum discount is $12.50 per month.
• Option B extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment. The maximum discount
is $12.50 per month.
• Option C extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment and includes a discount
for customers whose medical needs require air conditioning. The maximum discount during non-
summer months is $12.50 per month. The maximum discount during summer months is $41.73
per month.
The key differences between the three options are shown in the Ordinance in bold-face type.
Fort Collins Utilities is recommending the implementation of Option C with an income limitation as a pilot program to
be implemented by June 1, 2012 when the higher seasonal tiered rates become effective. Based on 2012 participation
and costs of the program for the remainder of the year, the program can be adjusted prior to the 2013 cooling season
for any necessary changes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On December 6, 2011, Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the Residential Class Electric Rates.
The new rates support the conservation values of the City through a tiered rate structure and include a seasonal
variation to reflect the higher cost of energy during the summer. In the discussion leading up to the vote to adopt the
Ordinance, Council requested Fort Collins Utilities to develop a program so as not to impose any additional economic
hardship on those customers who may have sufficient monthly energy usage attributed to medical equipment to be
pushed into the second or third tiers. The Pilot Medical Assistance Program is the result of that request.
The program could include an income limitation to focus the program on those most in need of economic assistance.
It could also include a component with an air conditioning allowance during the cooling season (June – August) for
those with medical conditions adversely affected by hotter summer temperatures.
Research indicated there are a number of discount programs for customers with medical issues around the country.
Comparisons of the programs in the western region of the United States served as a basis for the development of this
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 25
program. Please see Attachment 2 for a table comparing the programs at other utilities. In addition, outreach for this
program has involved review by the Energy Board and meetings with patient advocacy groups and physicians.
In determining a reasonable household income ceiling, the Area Median Income (AMI) used by the Federal Housing
Authority provided an independent source of income information based on the number of people in a household. The
AMI is specifically formulated for Larimer County and factors in local costs of living. Without more detailed information
than the median income, it was necessary to take some portion of this AMI as the program is designed to help those
customers who will see the tiered rate increase as a substantial economic hardship. The income table included in the
draft application shows the income ceiling as 60% of the Larimer County AMI. This level of income is close to 185%
of the federal poverty level and is higher than that used for many other income-based social assistance programs.
A certain level of fraud prevention is recommended for this program. The application requires the customer to sign
an affidavit allowing for Fort Collins Utilities to request documentation to verify income qualifications, if the pilot
program has an income ceiling. The application also requires a signed affidavit from a physician verifying the need
for durable medical equipment which requires electricity or the need for a temperature controlled household for those
customers with certain immune compromising diagnoses. The lawful presence affidavit is required by Colorado state
law because participation in the program is considered a local public benefit.
An appeal process will be included in the program for those customers who are experiencing a financial hardship due
to their medical needs or whose medical condition requires air conditioning, yet fall outside the scope of the program.
The Utilities Executive Director will have the authority to consult a medical professional as a hearing officer for medical
appeals of a decision that any electrical medical equipment does not meet established criteria. The Utilities Executive
Director will have the authority to allow an exception to the established financial criteria.
Staff is providing Council with three options for the program. Attachment 1–Program Options summarizes the options,
including the pros and cons and the associated costs of each option. Based on City Council’s direction and adoption
of the Ordinance on First Reading, staff will return with the specific program for Council to consider adopting on
Second Reading on May 1. If adopted, staff anticipates implementation of the program before June 2012.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is difficult to estimate the anticipated enrollment in this program and the enrollment depends on what is included in
the adopted program. This is because the program may potentially be more comprehensive than other programs
reviewed by staff. In addition, data on the prevalence of certain diseases in Fort Collins is not available. For these
reasons it is recommended that we consider this program to be a pilot program from June 2012 through May 2013.
Once the program has been implemented, enrollment and costs will be better understood so any changes necessary
to continue the program or better meet these customers’ needs can be brought back to City Council by the second
quarter of 2013. The revenue shortfall in 2012 associated with this program will be accommodated within the Light
& Power Reserves for 2012 and 2013.
While it is hard to estimate the economic impacts of a new program, this program is not increasing electric rates for
customers at this time and is providing a reduction for the eligible customers. Thus, it is not expected that this program
will have any substantial economic impact on the community as a whole but it will provide some relief for customers
participating in the program. It is expected that the savings seen by these customers will be spent elsewhere within
the local community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This program has minimal negative environmental impacts. This program in conjunction with the new tiered rate
structure has the potential to help customers be more aware of their personal energy usage and may be an opportunity
in the future to expand on energy efficiency education programs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Option C with an income limitation for the Medical Assistance Program. Option C will
allow for some assistance to be provided to the most customers by allowing any electrical durable medical equipment
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 25
to be covered with a physician’s signature. It will also provide some assistance for those customers with a medical
condition requiring air conditioning in the summer. Option A is the most limited of the three options and does not allow
for quality of life considerations or an accommodation for air conditioning. Option B does allow for equipment
necessary to improve the quality of life of those with medical needs to be covered but still does not cover air
conditioning. By including an income limitation, the program will be targeted to those customers most in need of the
financial relief from the program. While it is difficult for any program to address all of the needs of the community,
Option C with an income limitation covers the most medical conditions of the three options and with the income
limitation attempts to balance the needs of the community with increasing the costs to be passed on to other residential
customers.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Medical Assistance Program was presented to the Energy Board on February 2, 2012 and again on April 5, 2012.
Energy Board members expressed support for the program and indicated support of similar programs that are
structured to assist low-income community members and others in situations of hardship. At the April 5, 2012 meeting,
the Energy Board voted to recommend Option C with an income limitation.
Fort Collins Utilities staff also spoke with a representative from the Senior Advisory Board to explain the intent of the
program.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Fort Collins Utilities has met with the patient advocacy groups, citizens and physicians in the development of this
program including:
• Senior Advisory Board
• Multiple Sclerosis Society
• Disabled Resource Services
• Dr. Bruce Cooper with the Health District of Northern Larimer County.
Communication that has already been distributed regarding the change in rates has included information that Fort
Collins Utilities is considering medical conditions and is working on a program to address the potential impacts. Two
of these communication brochures have already been distributed and staff members are keeping track of interested
customers. A training session will be offered to Customer Service Representatives so that they are able to answer
questions about the new program. Information regarding the Medical Assistance Program and how to apply will be
distributed to the customers that are already a part of our Life Support Notification Program. It will be posted on the
Fort Collins Utilities website and a simple brochure describing the program requirements and eligibility will be created
and distributed at community outreach events.
Notice of the proposed change to the Municipal Code to include this type of program was published in the Coloradoan
on March 18, 2012 and a mailing was sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Program Options
2. Program Comparison Table
3. Draft Program Application Form
4. Letter from Dr. Bruce Cooper
5. Letter from Dr. Gerald McIntosh
6. Fort Collins Energy Board Draft Minutes, April 5, 2012
7 Powerpoint presentation
Application for
Medical Assistance Program – 2012
Background.
Fort Collins Utilities developed this program to provide assistance to customers who may experience
significant economic impact through the increased consumption of electricity in their residence due to the
use of medically necessary equipment. This program is not available to customers on the residential
demand rate. Customers are required to apply for this discount each calendar year.
Customer information. (to be completed by Fort Collins Utilities account holder)
Name on account: ___________________________________ Account number:____________________
Service address: _________________________________ Fort Collins, CO ZIP code: ______________
Patient Name: _________________________________________________________________________
Affidavit of lawful presence in the United States. (to be completed by Utilities account holder)
I, ________________________________________, swear and affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the State of Colorado that:
__ I am a Citizen of the United States
__ I am not a United State citizen but I am lawfully present in the United States pursuant to Federal Law
I understand that this sworn statement is required by law because I have applied for a public benefit. I
understand that State law requires me to provide proof that I am lawfully present in the United States and
to submit a secure and verifiable document when asked.
Acceptable forms of proof are: Colorado driver’s license, Native American tribal document, U.S. military
identification card, Colorado identification card, U.S.C.G. merchant mariner card.
Affidavit of income eligibility. (to be completed by Utilities account holder)
This program is intended to assist customers for whom the costs of running a
medical device results in an economic hardship. The income threshold for this
program has been set at 60% of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as
determined by the Federal Housing Authority). Based on the number of people
within this residence and the income ceiling provided in the table at right, I certify
that the total household income is less than the income ceiling and, thus, this
account is eligible for this program.
I agree, as a condition of my participation in this program, that if asked I will provide copies of my financial
records that establish my income including copies of my IRS tax returns. My signature below certifies all
information on this application is true and accurate, that I am lawfully present in the United States, the total
household income for this residence is less than the household size adjusted income ceiling given in the table
above, and the patient named above lives at this address full time and requires medically necessary
equipment, used at this address, which requires electricity to operate. I further acknowledge that making a
false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this sworn affidavit is punishable under the criminal
law of Colorado as perjury in the second degree under C.R.S. 18-8-503 and it shall constitute a separate
criminal offense each time a public benefit is fraudulently received.
Signature:________________________________________ Date: __________________________
# in
Household
Income Ceiling
(60% AMI)
$32, 220
$36, 840
$41, 460
$46, 020
$49, 740
$53, 400
$57, 120
$60, 780
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8+
Your physician will complete the back of this form.
Physician information. (to be completed by a licensed physician)
Physician’s full name:_____________________________________________________________________
Office Address: ___________________________________ City: _________________ ZIP code: ________
Phone:____________________ Colorado Medical License Number:________________________________
Type of medically necessary equipment used by patient: _________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
HCPCS Code: _______________________________________
Additional need for cooling.
If the patient has a spinal cord injury (quadriplegia and paraplegia), mutiple sclerosis, scleroderma or
other condition associated with Raynaud’s phenomenon requiring air conditioning, please note the specific
condition here:
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
I certify the patient listed above requires, on an on-going basis, medically necessary equipment, utilized at
the patient’s home, which uses electricity to operate.
Physician’s signature:____________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Application does not guarantee uninterrupted electric service nor prevent disconnection for
non-payment.
Medically necessary equipment for this discount rate is defined as any durable medical equipment requiring
electricity to operate that is required on an ongoing basis by a patient within the residence being
serviced by Fort Collins Utilities. This includes, but is not limited to, respirators, dialysis machines, suction
machines, electric nerve stimulators, pressure pads and pumps, intravenous pumps and electric wheelchairs.
Mail to:
Fort Collins Utilities
Customer Service Division
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Drop off:
Fort Collins Utilities
Customer Service Division
117 N. Mason St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Utilities
Return signed form to Fort Collins Utilities.
fcgov.com/utilities • utilities@fcgov.com • (970) 221-6700 • TDD: (970) 224-6003
page 2
1
1
Medical Assistance Program
for Residential Electric Customers
City Council Meeting
May 1, 2012
2
Pilot Program Overview
• Assistance up to 150 kilowatt-hours per month for
electrical durable medical equipment
• Additional assistance up to 350 kilowatt-hours per
month during the summer billing months (June –
August) for air conditioning
• Income limitation – household income not to exceed
60% of Area Median Income
ATTACHMENT 3
2
3
Ordinance No. 034, 2012
• Authorizes the creation of a medical assistance
program for customers on the Residential electric rate
schedule
• Establishes an appeals process
• Requires staff to prepare a report to City Council
before June 2013
4
Community Outreach
• Mailing to customers who have requested
notification
• Outreach to community agencies and health
care providers
• Training for Customer Service Representatives
who will assist with applications
• Documentation of the appeals process
3
5
Discussion and Questions
ORDINANCE NO. 034, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 26-464 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO ESTABLISH A MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011,
increasing the residential energy electric rate effective February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the revised residential energy electric rate included significant rate structure
modification to a tiered seasonal rate in order to better align the rate structure with the energy
conservation values of the City and with purchase power charges assessed to the City by Platte River
Power Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed City staff to develop a medical assistance program
that would reduce the impact that the rate structure modification and rate increase would such rate
increase may have on customers who have below average income and who use electrical medically
necessary equipment at a Fort Collins electric customer address; and
WHEREAS, Section 40-3.5-104(3), Colorado Revised Statutes, allows the governing body
of a municipal utility, for good cause shown, to make changes to its rates or charges without
providing 30 days’ notice to the public of the text of the changes to the rates schedule; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2012, the City Council delayed consideration of this Ordinance
in order to provide staff additional time to add elements to the medical assistance program with input
from medical personnel and to allow for citizen outreach; and
WHEREAS, Utilities staff has since conducted outreach with local physicians, citizen
groups, and other interested citizens; and
WHEREAS, the summer season billing months under the City's tiered rate system begin in
June, 2012, which makes the enactment of this Ordinance time-sensitive; and
WHEREAS, staff has provided 30 days advance written notice to out-of-city customers that
a public hearing regarding a possible amendment to the City Code that would allow for discounted
rates to qualifying customers would be postponed from March 20, 2012 to April 17, 2012; and
WHEREAS, staff has also published notice in the Coloradoan newspaper to the same effect;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has developed a medical assistance program that would reduce the
monthly electric bill of qualifying electric customers.
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 "electrical durable medical equipment" which reads in its entirety
as follows:
Electrical durable medical equipment shall mean that medical equipment that is
powered or charged by electric energy and is used by individuals, primarily and
customarily to serve a medical purpose, in their homes, that can withstand repeated
use, that is generally not useful to individuals in the absence of an illness or injury
and is appropriate for use in the home.
Section 2. That Section 26-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition of “Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System number”
which reads in its entirety as follows:
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System number shall mean that number that
has been assigned to a particular piece of durable medical equipment in accordance
with the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System maintained by the United
States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a standard coding system used
in the medical industry.
Section 3. That Section 26-464(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to add a new subsection (q)(1) which would read in its entirety as follows, with existing
subsections (d) through (o) to be renumbered accordingly:
Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R.
. . .
(qd) Medical assistance program.
(1) The rates described in subsection (c) above shall be discounted for those
electric customers to whom this rate schedule applies, and who apply for
such discount, as long as such customers meet the requirements of paragraph
(2) below.:
a. whosethe applicant’s annual household income falls below 60 (sixty)
percent of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as determined
by the Federal Housing Authority); and
b. whosethe application is submitted on an annual basis on an
administratively determined schedule and accompanied by the
following: a certified, signed statement from a licensed physician
that:a) electrical durable medical equipment used at the residential
premises is medically necessary and that;b) that such medical
equipment has been assigned a Healthcare Common Procedure
Coding System number; and/or
-2-
c)2. a certified, signed statement from a licensed physician that air
conditioning at the residential premises is medically
necessary for a resident thereof who, in the absence of the air
conditioning, may suffer medical deterioration due to a severe
immune compromising medical condition, including but not
limited to, multiple sclerosis, quadriplegia, paraplegia,
scleroderma or hemiplegia; and
23. the application is accompanied by a sworn affidavit from the
applicant verifying that all information contained in the
application including, if applicable, the representation that air
conditioning will be operational at the applicant’s address
during the summer billing months, is true and correct and that
the information provided is true and correct.
(2) Applications for rate discounts under this section must be submitted annually
in accordance with an administratively established schedule.
Section 4. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (q)(2) which reads as follows:
(23) Assistance shall be provided in the form of a discountThe discounted rates
for customers with electrical durable medical equipment only shall be
calculated as follows:
a. Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48).
b. Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and fifty-six
one-hundredths cents ($0.0256)
c. Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months
of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month
determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no
customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the
summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as
follows:
i. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: two and ninety-five one-hundredths cents
($0.0295).
ii. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: six and eighty-nine one-hundredths cents
($0.0689).
-3-
iii. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
ten and five one-hundredths cents ($0.1005).
d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing
months of January through May and September through December:
i. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: two and sixty-one one-hundredths cents
($0.0261).
ii. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: five and twenty one-hundredths cents
($0.0520).
iii. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
six and three one-hundredths ($0.0603).
e. 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.
(4) The discounted rates for customers with medical needs requiring air
conditioning only shall be calculated as follows:
a. Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48).
b. Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and fifty-six
one-hundredths cents ($0.0256)
c. Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months
of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month
determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no
customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the
summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as
follows:
i. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: two and ninety-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0292).
ii. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: three and seventy-seven one-hundredths cents
($0.0377).
iii. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
ten and five one-hundredths ($0.1005).
-4-
d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing
months of January through May and September through December:
i. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: four and eighty-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0482).
ii. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: five and twenty one-hundredths cents
($0.0520).
iii. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
six and three one-hundredths cents ($0.0603).
e. 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.
(5) The discounted rates for customers with electrical durable medical equipment
and medical needs requiring air conditioning shall be calculated as follows:
a. Fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48).
b. Distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and fifty-six
one-hundredths cents ($0.0256)
c. Energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months
of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month
determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no
customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the
summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as
follows:
i. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: one and eighty-nine one-hundredths cents
($0.0189).
ii. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: two and forty-five one-hundredths cents
($0.0245).
iii. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
ten and five one-hundredths cents ($0.1005).
d. Energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing
months of January through May and September through December:
-5-
i. For the first five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: two and sixty-one one-hundredths cents
($0.0261).
ii. For the next five hundred (500) kilowatt hours per month, per
kilowatt hour: five and twenty one-hundredths cents
($0.0520).
iii. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
six and three one-hundredths cents ($0.0603).
e. 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.
(6) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no rate established under this subsection shall
reflect a discount exceeding an amount that is consistent with the average
monthly energy expense associated withthe use of 150 kilowatt hours per
month for the operation of electrical durable medical equipment andor, if
applicable, withan additional amount consistent with the use of 350 kilowatt
hours per month for air conditioning during summer billing months. Such
discount shall not exceed the amount of $12.50 per month during the non-
summer billing months and shall not exceed $41.73 during the summer
billing months, and shall be available under this program only to those
applicants:
Section 4. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (q)(3) which reads as follows:
(37) A decision that an applicant does not qualify to participate in this program
for a medical or financial reason may be appealed to the Utilities Executive
Director, who shall, prior to making his or her decision, and as he or she
deems appropriate, confer with one or more medical or financial experts in
reviewing such appeal.
Section 54. That the amendments to Chapter 26, Section 464 of the City Code contained
herein shall go into effect when this ordinance becomes final and customers will become eligible
to receive a medical discount on bills issued after customers apply and qualify for the medical
discount.That the rate discounts established by this Ordinance shall apply to those electric utility
bills that are issued to a qualifying customer on or after the date that such customer has been
determined to be eligible for the discounts.
Section 65. That the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to Chapter 26,
Section 464 of the City Code contained herein serve a purpose that is beneficial to the ratepayers
of the electric utility.
-6-
Section 76. That the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes
Section 40-3.5-104 (3), good cause exists to establish the medical assistance program without having
published the text of the proposed City Code changes 30 days in advance.
Section 87. That the City Manager is hereby directed to submit a written report to the City
Council on or before May 11, 2013, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of this
Ordinance, including, but not limited to, the number of applications received by the City for
discounted rates under the program established by the Ordinance, the total cost incurred by the
Utilities as a result of such discounts, the types of medical equipment used at the premises to which
the discounted rates apply, and any recommended changes that might make the program more
effective.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
-7-
Utilities
Attachment 2
page 1
Campus District
Urban Estate
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
Rural Lands
Foothills
Community Separator
Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors
Poudre River
Adjacent Planning Areas
Poudre River Corridor
912 Wood Street
PoudreRiver
Streets
Parcels
ATTACHMENT 3
D
LAPORTE AVE
N SHIELDS ST
W MULBERRY ST
E VINE DR
N COLLEGE AVE
N LEMAY AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
W VINE DR
N TAFT HILL RD
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Wood 912
Street
Annexation Site
VICINITY MAP
0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet
Legend
City Limits
912 Wood Street
PoudreRiver
Streets
Parcels
City Zoning
Limited Commercial (CL)
Service Commercial (CS)
Employment (E)
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN)
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL)
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM)
Public Open Lands (POL)
River Conservation (RC)
ATTACHMENT 2