HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/06/2011 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ADATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 11, 2011 Special Meeting and the August 16, 2011 Regular
Meeting.
August 11, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Special Meeting – 5:45 p.m.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Thursday, August 11, 2011,
at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
(**Secretary’s note: Councilmember Troxell arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
Councilmembers absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Mayor Weitkunat stated this Special Meeting has been called for the purpose of considering a
possible Executive Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, that Council go into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with
attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff regarding the manner in which particular
policies, practices, and/or regulations of the City may be affected by existing or proposed provisions
of federal, state, or local law, and to discuss potential litigation. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: Council reconvened at 7:50 p.m.)
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that Council direct
the City Manager and the City Attorney to formally express to Western Area Power Administration,
Platte River Power Authority, and the City’s member-partners in Platte River, the City’s objections
to construction proceeding on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station
Transmission Line Project and, further, that the Council authorize the City Attorney to seek a court
order enjoining construction of Phase III, if necessary, or to take such other appropriate legal action
as may be needed to protect the interests of the City.
City Attorney Roy noted formal action on this item was not listed as part of the agenda. Should
Council believe action is time-sensitive enough that it cannot be delayed, a motion must first be
made to declare inaction would be contrary to the public interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw withdrew the motion.
437
August 11, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that postponing
action on this item would be contrary to the public interest. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that Council direct
the City Manager and the City Attorney to formally express to Western Area Power Administration,
Platte River Power Authority, and the City’s member-partners in Platte River, the City’s objections
to construction proceeding on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station
Transmission Line Project and, further, that the Council authorize the City Attorney to seek a court
order enjoining construction of Phase III, if necessary, or to take such other appropriate legal action
as may be needed to protect the interests of the City.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she is not completely supportive of the possibility of obtaining a court order
enjoining construction and, should that be the ultimate result, further discussion should occur.
Councilmember Troxell stated this motion has to do with protecting the viewshed and environmental
aspects at Pineridge Natural Area.
Councilmember Horak stated communications with PRPA and the City of Loveland have not been
successful. Additionally, no public outreach about this project has occurred since 2006.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Weitkunat introduced the next item as a discussion relating to procedural issues for The
Grove appeal hearings to be held August 16, 2011.
City Attorney Roy stated he recommended this proceeding due to the number of procedural issues
which have been raised by parties in interest on both sides of the appeals. He suggested Council
determine time limits for the upcoming hearings.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for staff’s suggestion regarding time allotment this evening. City
Attorney Roy suggested allowing equal time to be divided amongst the speakers on each side of the
issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted tonight’s issue is solely procedural in nature.
City Attorney Roy noted certain procedural questions will be addressed at the start of next week’s
hearing.
438
August 11, 2011
Dick Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg Drive, asked if citizens present at the hearing will be able to object
to false or opinion statements, or statements of new evidence. City Attorney Roy replied there are
no written rules relating to objections.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, requested 10 minutes to discuss procedural issues
at the hearing and 60 minutes for each presentation with 10 minutes for each rebuttal. Response to
the allegations would be too difficult to complete in the staff recommended 30 minutes.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted appeal presentations are usually limited to 20 minutes with a 10
minute rebuttal period.
Jonathan Feiman, 959 Gilgalad Way, appellant spokesperson, stated the appellant has not requested
extra presentation time. He stated the applicant should be familiar with all of the documents
submitted by the appellants.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Governmental Affairs Director, suggested time restrictions could result in
facts being overlooked.
Sarah Burnett, 713 Gilgalad Way, asked if a vote would be held on each allegation and asked if the
appellants could submit a color PowerPoint presentation rather than an illegible black and white
version.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, Neighbors and Students United, requested his group be
allotted either 10 minutes of the applicant’s time or 10 additional minutes to state its opinion
regarding the project.
Donna Fairbank, 1712 Clearview Court, Avery Park Neighborhood Association and member of
Neighbors and Students United, suggested each group with a prepared presentation should be given
the opportunity to present. City Attorney Roy stated the City Code provides for a single block of
time for parties-in-interest in support of the appeal and a single block of time for parties-in-interest
on the opposing side. The time allocation has historically been worked out internally amongst those
groups.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted time limits aid in managing an appeal hearing. City Attorney Roy
stated some feedback relating to this issue has prompted some proposed Code changes relating to
appeals.
Jerry Potter, 627 Gilgalad Way, asked if the ODP and PDP appeal hearings will be held at the same
meeting and expressed concern about the potential length of that meeting. City Attorney Roy stated
Council has the authority to continue the hearing should the hour get so late as to prohibit a
meaningful discussion.
439
August 11, 2011
Councilmember Manvel noted Council has been charged with reading a great deal of material and
watching the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and will therefore be going into the hearing with
a vast amount of knowledge. Therefore, he recommended the presentation time be less than 60
minutes, though perhaps more than 30 minutes.
City Attorney Roy suggested each side be allotted 10 minutes for procedural issues and 45 minutes
for substantive presentations.
Councilmember Horak noted additional time will allow Council the ability to fully understand each
argument.
Councilmember Manvel noted brevity would be appreciated at the hearing.
Mayor Weitkunat stated each side will be allowed 10 minutes to discuss procedural issues at the start
of the meeting, followed by 45 minutes for each substantive presentation and 10 minutes for each
rebuttal.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
440
August 16, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 16, 2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 25A, Reconsideration of a Motion Adopted by Council at
a Special Meeting Held on Thursday, August 11, 2011, Expressing the City’s Objections to
Construction on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line
Project and Authorizing the City Attorney to Seek a Court Order Enjoining Construction of Phase
III, if Necessary, or To Take Such Other Appropriate Legal Action As May Be Needed to Protect the
Interests of the City, has been added to the agenda. Item No. 21, First Reading of Ordinance No.
109, 2011, Authorizing a Grazing Lease on the Vangbo Property to Allison Person, is recommended
to be withdrawn. City Manager Atteberry recommended moving Item No. 29, First Reading of
Ordinance No. 098, 2011, Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article III of Chapter 2 of the City
Code, Dissolving the Electric Board and Creating and new Energy Board, to follow Item No. 25A
in the agenda.
Citizen Participation
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, discussed the ticketing process for the Lincoln Center, noting
there is no opportunity to purchase tickets without a fee. He suggested names for alleys in the
downtown area and encouraged an open space allocation of property owned by New Belgium next
to Lincoln Avenue.
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Avenue, discussed the non-consent to magistrate form.
Philip Hales, 220 Fishback Avenue, discussed non-profit solicitors in Old Town and suggested they
be placed at tables.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, opposed restricting non-profit solicitors in Old Town.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the status of non-profit solicitors in Old Town. City Attorney Roy
replied City streets are a traditional public forum in which commercial and non-commercial speech
is permissible.
441
August 16, 2011
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and approval of the minutes from the July 5 and July 19, 2011 Regular
Meetings and the July 26 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Items Relating to Amendments to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric
Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities.
A .Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 26 of the City Code Pertaining to the Provision of Net Metering Service and
Certain Definitions Related Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2011, Amending Various Provisions of the
City Code and the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of General Manager.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins
Distribution System.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 5, 2011, make minor
revisions to the definitions section of Article I and to the Electric Article of Chapter 26 of
the City Code and the Land Use Code. These revisions include updating the definition of
General Manager, clarification regarding the provision of net metering service and
clarification regarding authority to execute interconnection or parallel generation agreements
on behalf of the City. Light and Power is also recommending adding clarifying language to
the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements contained in the City’s
Interconnection Standards. These standards govern operational and other requirements for
interconnection generating facilities to the City’s electric distribution system.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year
Reserves for the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2010 for Affordable Housing and the Land Bank
Program. All of the authorized expenditures were not spent in 2010 because the projects for
which the dollars were originally appropriated could not be completed during 2010. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011, reappropriates $295,821
and is necessary for completion of the projects in 2011. These unexpended monies lapsed
into the General Fund balance at the end of 2010 and reflect no change in Council policies.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from
the Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields
Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011, appropriates fund
from three grants received from the federally funded Colorado Off-System Bridge Program
totaling $2,225,932. This funding contract between the City and Colorado Department of
442
August 16, 2011
Transportation is for the replacement of two structurally deficient bridges owned by the City.
The two bridges are Shields Street Bridge over Larimer Canal No. 2, near Rolland Moore
Park, and Laporte Avenue Bridge over the Arthur Ditch, between Shields Street and College
Avenue.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power
Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment Facility
for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power
generation project, with a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a
portion of electrical usage at the plant site. A third party Photovoltaic system developer will
design, construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power project. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 26, 2011, allows for a 20-year
contract between the system developer and the City.
11. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City’s Human Services Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
Ordinance No. 096, 2011, appropriates the City’s FY 2011 CDBG Entitlement Grant from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Ordinance No. 097, 2011,
appropriates the City’s FY 2011 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Both
Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 19, 2011.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Linden Street Streetscape Project to the Cultural Services Fund for
the Art in Public Places Program.
This Ordinance appropriates $17,998 for administration, design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with Fort Collins artist Susan Dailey, to create up to twelve granite
pavers to be integrated into the streetscape of the Linden Street Streetscape Project.
443
August 16, 2011
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services Fund and in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln
Center Renovation Project.
The Lincoln Center Renovation project is funded primarily through the Building on Basics
capital tax approved by voters in 2005. Unanticipated grant and donation revenue will be
used to complete the full scope of the estimated $8.2 million project. Approximately $5.5
million has been appropriated from the Building on Basics tax and $2.6 million from
unanticipated grant revenue and prior year reserves in the Cultural Services and General
Funds.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Cultural Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery
Science Center Project.
The Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, has provided funds, currently held
in the Capital Projects Fund, in the amount of $738,034 in support of the Exhibits for the
new Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center Joint Facility project. Also,
$100,000 from the Fort Collins Museum Donation Reserves are being provided to support
the Exhibits. Additionally, an estate gift in the amount of $150 has been provided.
15. Items Relating to the South Transit Center Park and Ride Project.
A. Resolution 2011-068 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with the
Colorado Department of Transportation for the Construction of the South Transit
Center Park and Ride.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Park
and Ride.
City staff applied to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Senate Bill 1
funding for one project that included the South Transit Center (STC) and an adjacent park
and ride facility. In 2009, CDOT approved funding for the STC, but did not fund the park
and ride. A 2010 CDOT grant subsequently approved the necessary funding to build the
adjacent park and ride facility. Previous Council action approved the contract for
construction of the STC facility; this Resolution executes the contract for the park and ride
only.
The South Transit Center (STC) Park and Ride will serve as Transfort’s first Park and Ride
facility. The STC Park and Ride will serve a wide range of users with 170 public parking
stalls providing access to the Mason Trail and Transfort bus service. The STC Park and Ride
will also serve the regional FLEX service and the Mason Bus Rapid Transit system known
as MAX. These state funds will be used as local match to the Federal Transit Administration
funds for the overall Mason Corridor Project.
444
August 16, 2011
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-2012 Safe Routes to School Program.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Division has received a $99,800 federal
grant through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2011-12 Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) program. This funding will allow the City of Fort Collins’ Safe Routes
to School Program (administered and staffed by the Transportation Planning Division) to
provide pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in
the General Fund for Police Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating
Budget.
A grant in the amount of $45,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for salaries associated with the continued operation
of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting
offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses.
Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by
facilitating a meeting with the offender, the victim/victim representative and members of the
community to determine the harm done by the crime, and how to repair the harm. By
identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, Criminal Justice Officials are
optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and concerns of the
victims and affected community will be addressed. An $8,700 cash match is required and
will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for
Restorative Justice Services. Total required match is 25% so an additional $6,300 in-kind
match was included in the grant application from the Eighth Judicial District Probation
Department. The grant period is from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2011, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City
of Fort Collins, Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater Utility Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2011A, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal of Amount of $8,750,000 in the
Stormwater Utility Fund.
This Ordinance appropriates $8,750,000 to pay off the 2002 Storm Drainage Revenue bonds.
The funding source is the proceeds from the 2011A Storm Drainage refunding bonds.
Market conditions are such that they can be refinanced at lower interest rates, resulting in
an estimated net present value savings of $500,000.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers.
This Ordinance repeals the City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This
section is unnecessary because the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City
Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished through administrative action of the City
Manager.
445
August 16, 2011
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City
Property to the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company.
Arapaho Bend Natural Area is located along the Cache la Poudre River near I-25 and East
Harmony Road. The Lower Poudre Augmentation Company (LPAC) owns property
immediately to the south of the portion of Arapaho Bend that lies east of I-25. A wire fence
separates the two properties. A recent boundary survey revealed the fence separating the
two properties was located slightly north of the described property line. The fence has been
in place for greater than 18 years and has been recognized by the Natural Areas Program
(NAP) and LPAC as the boundary of the Natural Area since the property was purchased in
2000. The strip of property between the fence and the described boundary line contains
0.703 acres. City staff determined that it was necessary to explore options for cleaning up
the boundary issue to ensure clear boundary lines for future access, maintenance and use of
the sites for both the NAP and LPAC. After meeting with LPAC on site and commissioning
a survey of the boundary and fence lines, City staff proposed that this narrow strip of land
described as City property be conveyed to LPAC in exchange for an access easement across
the LPAC property and LPAC agreed. The current access to this portion of Arapaho Bend
is limited and unsafe, with NAP staff accessing the natural area via the I-25 right of way.
The access easement across the LPAC property will provide safe and permanent access for
NAP staff.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2011, Authorizing a Grazing Lease on the Vangbo
Property to Alison Person.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program (NAP) purchased the Vangbo Property in
2005. At the time of purchase, the property was leased by the Person family as pasture for
horses boarded at Mountain View Stables, a local business also owned by the Persons. This
lease is now expired and NAP is requesting authorization to enter into a new lease for a
period not to exceed five years. This lease will generate $9,000 the first year, $12,000 the
second, and $15,000 the third year. Should the lease extend to the fourth and fifth year, the
rent will be adjusted based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U.
22. Resolution 2011-069 Appointing Two Representatives to the Colorado Municipal League
Policy Committee.
Appointments to the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Policy Committee are made each
fall and members serve for a one-year period from September through August. Each
member municipality of the League is entitled to a representative, and all cities over 100,000
are entitled to designate two representatives.
The Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending
to the League Executive Board, positions of support, opposition, no position or amendment
to a wide variety of legislation affecting cities and towns. At each annual conference in June,
the Policy Committee proposes to the membership, revisions to the League’s policies which
guide League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities.
446
August 16, 2011
The Committee meets three or four times a year, before and during legislative sessions as
well as in May prior to the annual conference. CML has asked that representatives be
appointed by the end of July and has been notified that a resolution appointing Fort Collins’
two representatives is scheduled to be considered on August 16. The first CML Policy
Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, October 6.
This Resolution appoints one Councilmember, to be selected at this meeting, and City
Manager Darin Atteberry to represent the City of Fort Collins on the Colorado Municipal
League Policy Committee.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2011, Appropriating General Fund Prior Year
Reserves for the Affordable Housing Fund and Land Bank Program.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from
the Colorado Department of Transportation in the City Bridge Program Fund for the Shields
Street Bridge Replacement and Laporte Avenue Bridge Replacement.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power
Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment Facility
for a Term of Up to 20 Years.
11. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2011 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs, and the City’s Human Services Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the
Home Investment Partnerships Fund.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2011, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Linden Street Streetscape Project to the Cultural Services Fund for
the Art in Public Places Program.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Cultural Services Fund and in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln
Center Renovation Project.
447
August 16, 2011
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Cultural Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery
Science Center Project.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the South Transit Center Park and Ride.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-2012 Safe Routes to School Program.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues in
the General Fund for Police Services and Appropriating Funds from the Police Operating
Budget.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2011, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of City
of Fort Collins, Stormwater Utility Enterprise, Stormwater Utility Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2011A, in the Maximum Aggregate Principal of Amount of $8,750,000 in the
Stormwater Utility Fund.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City
Property to the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company.
Councilmember Troxell pulled Item No. 19, First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing
Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the Compensation of Councilmembers, from the Consent
Calendar.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item Nos. 7 and 10, Items Relating to Amendments
to the Definitions in Article I of Chapter 26, the Electric Article of Chapter 26, and to Standards for
Interconnection of Electric Generation Facilities, and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2011,
Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider
at the Water Treatment Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kottwitz discussed her work with 4H youth at the Larimer County Fair.
Councilmember Poppaw praised Beet Street’s Creative Garden at New West Fest.
Councilmember Horak discussed the City employee picnic.
448
August 16, 2011
Reconsideration of a Motion Adopted by Council at a Special Meeting Held on Thursday,
August 11, 2011, Expressing the City’s Objections to Construction on Phase III of the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line Project and Authorizing
the City Attorney to Seek a Court Order Enjoining Construction of Phase III, if Necessary,
or To Take Such Other Appropriate Legal Action As May Be Needed to Protect the
Interests of the City, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item relates to a power transmission line project planned for construction by Platte River
Power Authority (Platte River) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) in the City’s
Pineridge Natural Area. Although Platte River obtained an easement from the City in 2006 to cross
the City’s Colina Mariposa Natural Area with underground lines in an earlier phase of this project,
detailed information regarding the last phase of the project (Phase III) as it crosses Pineridge
Natural Area has not been presented to or reviewed by the City.
Efforts by the City in recent months to seek a delay in the project to allow time for discussion of
impacts to the City’s Natural Area have not been successful. Areas for further discussion include
alternative routes, potential impacts, access routes, mitigation, possible undergrounding, and other
similar concerns. Issues have been raised regarding whether the 1951 easements obtained by
WAPA for its original transmission line are sufficient for the project proposed, whether temporary
construction easements are needed for the project, and whether the environmental review completed
by WAPA has sufficiently identified and analyzed the impacts of the proposed project.
Platte River representatives have indicated that the final phase of the project will begin in
September, although the work planned to take place on Pineridge Natural Area may not begin until
several weeks later, perhaps as late as November. However, at this time the City has no assurance
that any further consideration of the issues raised by the City will take place before work proceeds
on the City’s property.
At its special meeting on Thursday, August 11, 2011, the City Council adopted a motion by a vote
of 6 to 0, finding that postponing Council action regarding the City’s Objections to Construction
of Phase III of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe Transmission Line Project would be contrary to the
public interest. This finding met the requirement of City Code Section 2-32(d), in order for the
Council to take up an item that was not specifically identified as an action item on the Council’s
agenda.
The City Council then adopted by a vote of 6 to 0 a motion directing the City Manager and City
Attorney to formally express to Western Area Power Administration, Platte River Power Authority
and the City’s member-partners in Platte River, the City’s objections to construction proceeding on
Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line Project, and
authorizing the City Attorney to seek a court order enjoining construction of Phase III, if necessary,
or to take such other appropriate legal action as may be needed to protect the interests of the City.
449
August 16, 2011
Although the requirement for action without advance notice was met, Council leadership has asked
the City Manager to bring this item forward for reconsideration on tonight’s agenda in order to
allow a better opportunity for public input on this matter”.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to reconsider the
following motion that Council adopted on Thursday, August 11th: That the Council direct the City
Manager and City Attorney to express to Western Area Power Administration, Platte River Power
Authority and the City’s member-partners in Platte River, the City’s objections to construction
proceeding on Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station Transmission Line
Project, and further, that the Council authorize the City Attorney to seek a court order enjoining
construction of Phase III, if necessary, or to take such other appropriate legal action as may be
needed to protect the interests of the City. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Council
direct the City Manager and City Attorney as follows: (1) to attempt to negotiate with the Platte
River Power Authority written agreement to postpone the commencement of construction of Phase
III of the Dixon Creek substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line project pending the
completion of a rigorous, in-depth data-based analysis and review of the project and its related
impacts as presently designed, as well as the pros, cons, costs, and benefits of the project and further
pending the review and consideration of that analysis by the Fort Collins City Council and the other
member cities of PRPA; (2) if such an agreement has not been negotiated and signed between PRPA
and the City on or before August 26, 2011, to work with the Mayor to schedule a special meeting
of the City Council to be held no later than August 31, 2011, for the purpose of seeking Council
approval of the commencement of such litigation as may be necessary for the City to seek adjunctive
relief from a court of competent jurisdiction adjoining the construction of the project; and (3) to
prepare such legal documents as may be necessary to file such a court action pending further
direction from the Council.
City Manager Atteberry stated, as early as September 2011, Platte River Power Authority will be
building a major transmission line through Pineridge Natural Area. Citizens have expressed
considerable concern regarding this effort. The Western Area Power Administration’s determination
of “no significant impact” does not reflect staff’s view of a data-driven approach to examining
impacts. Discussions with the PRPA staff to date have not been acceptable or in line with desired
outcomes. Impact and costs analyses have not been produced by either PRPA or WAPA.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, opposed PRPA’s public outreach efforts and the possibility
of placing the power lines through Pineridge.
Steven Schwartz, 2943 Skimmerhorn Street, thanked Council for its sensitivity to the issue and
opposed PRPA’s public outreach efforts.
Ward Whicker, 2954 Skimmerhorn Street, opposed the proposed power line placement.
Erin Grogan, 3034 Clemma Court, opposed the proposed power line placement.
450
August 16, 2011
Trudy Haines, 625 Hinsdale Drive, thanked Council for its motion and opposed PRPA’s public
outreach.
Glenn Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, opposed the proposed power line placement.
William Grogan, 3034 Clemma Court, opposed the proposed power line placement.
Representative Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, supported Council’s original motion and opposed
PRPA’s public outreach.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, opposed the proposed power line placement due to the potential for
decreased property values and possible health risks.
Kirsten Hartman, 2627 Pasquinel Drive, opposed the proposed power line placement due to potential
health risks.
Karen Miller, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed power line placement.
Aaron Potts, 519 North Whitcomb, electric transmission line designer, asked why no concerns were
previously discussed by Council and staff representatives who were on the PRPA Board in 2006.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, opposed the proposed power line placement.
Ardith Loustalet, 2942 Skimmerhorn Street, opposed the proposed power line placement.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated Council failed citizens when it did not previously take
action on this issue.
Bill Miller, Fort Collins resident, opposed the proposed power line placement and supported
Council’s decision to more thoroughly examine the issue.
Dr. Matthew McLaughlin, 2809 Garrett Drive, stated he moved to Fort Collins due to its quality of
life and opposed the proposed power line placement.
Councilmember Horak stated he appreciates the role of PRPA in the community and agreed Council
could have done a better job in 2006 examining the issue. However, now is the time to move
forward and examine alternatives.
Councilmember Troxell thanked the citizens who spoke and stated he would support the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked the citizens who spoke and clarified that he was told by a citizen
about the proposed power lines in June and had no previous knowledge.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the environmental impact of undergrounding the power lines
and stated she would support the motion.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed support for the motion and noted Fort Collins is part of Platte River
451
August 16, 2011
Power Authority. Deliberation about potential litigation would be critical.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwtiz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 098, 2011,
Repealing and Reenacting Division 14, Article III of
Chapter 2 of the City Code, Dissolving the
Electric Board and Creating and new Energy Board, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Decisions Council makes today can have a significant impact on the community’s ability to respond
to changing conditions in the future. Council needs visionary and innovative advice regarding the
community’s energy future as it relates to the Plan Fort Collins goals for a sustainable community.
Council is in need of advice from subject matter experts, not just in the electric engineering field,
but also other experts who are knowledgeable about such things as to how the electrification of
transportation impacts carbon emissions and energy consumption. To this end, an Energy Board
is being created to replace the Electric Board. The purpose of the Energy Board will be to take a
systems approach to the City’s energy future looking out 10 years and beyond and to advise Council
on such matters.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Electric Board was created by Council in 1991 during a period of stability and has served
admirably. However, the electric utility industry is rapidly changing as new technologies become
available. These technologies will empower customers to make better decisions regarding their
energy usage, allow customers to become part of the utility supply chain through distributed
generation and storage, and change market paradigms for the purchase and sale of energy.
Electricity is simply one form of energy. When one looks at the energy system as a whole, we begin
to see the relationships and interconnectedness between transportation, home energy usage, solid
waste, industry, agriculture etc. Decisions Council makes today can have a significant impact on
the community’s ability to respond to changing conditions in the future. Council needs visionary
and innovative advice regarding the community’s energy future as it relates to Council adopted Plan
Fort Collins goals for a sustainable community, the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, Energy
Policy, and Green Building Program. To this end, this Board should be taking a systems approach
to the energy future looking out 10 years and beyond.
Policy related to energy use and generation in the City of Fort Collins is complex and involves
multiple City Service Areas. Energy, and its associated opportunities (economic and non-economic)
and impacts (including carbon emissions), are much broader than electric power generation and
distribution. Citizen involvement and stakeholder expertise provide valuable technical review,
452
August 16, 2011
community perspective and third party oversight to inform City Council’s decisions on energy
related topics.
The Council-adopted Plan Fort Collins (2011), Climate Action Plan (2008), Energy Policy (2009),
and Green Building Code (2011) provide the framework for charting the City’s energy future. The
proposed Board would advise the City Council in an integrated way regarding these policies and
overall energy and carbon matters. Going forward, it is very likely that the City will be operating
in a carbon constrained environment; that is to say, carbon emissions will be limited by law and
regulation. This has important implications for the community since the single largest source of
City-related carbon emissions is electric energy generation. The second largest is transportation.
Interestingly, there is an increasing interdependence between electricity and transportation as Smart
Grid/Fort ZED is implemented and as we transition from petroleum-based to electric vehicles.
The impacts of these changes and trends on the City’s electric system and carbon emissions will
require rigorous analysis and accounting procedures. Additionally, it is critical that we consider
their energy and carbon impacts. Furthermore, carbon regulation will have significant impacts on
the operation and rates of the City’s Electric Utility and our wholesale power supplier.
Thus, the functions of the Energy Board, in replacement of the current Electric Board, will be:
(1) To advise the City Council and staff regarding development and implementation of the City’s
energy policy
(2) To advise the City Council and staff in developing City policies that encourage the
incorporation of energy conservation and efficiency, carbon emissions reduction, and
renewable energy into the development and provision of City utility services, the design and
construction of City transportation projects, and the way in which the City impacts the
overall built environment within the City;
(3) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the alignment of energy programs and
policies with City, ratepayer and community values and service delivery expectations;
(4) To advise the City Council and staff regarding the recommendations for improvements to
City energy systems;
(5) To coordinate with other City boards and commissions regarding energy issues;
(6) To advise the City Council and staff regarding budgetary, rate-making and operational
matters related to the electric utility;
(7) To annually review and provide advice to City Council and staff on the City’s Legislative
Policy Agenda regarding energy and energy-related carbon issues; and
(8) To perform such other duties and functions and have such other powers as may be provided
by ordinance of the City Council.
453
August 16, 2011
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Although staff cannot quantify at this time, the Energy Board will be identifying businesses
opportunities for a variety of existing and new businesses.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Energy Board will be identifying opportunities to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy
balance through getting the most out of the City’s resources.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, asked why the proposal withdraws the ability of the Board
to maintain oversight of utility termination appeals.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern the Electric Board never discussed the
Pineridge power line issue.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for staff to address Mr. Cunniff’s question. Brian Janonis, Utilities
Executive Director, replied staff opted to handle appeals administratively as no appeals have
occurred in the history of the Electric Board, which is not a quasi-judicial board.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 098, 2011, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel noted this new Board will deal with a broader set of issues.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 092, 2011, Authorizing the Execution of a Power Purchase
Agreement Contract with a Photovoltaic Provider at the Water Treatment
Facility for a Term of Up to 20 Years, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Water Treatment Facility receives its electrical power from Xcel Energy. A solar power
generation project, with a fixed electrical rate sold back to the City, allows the offset of a portion
of electrical usage at the plant site. A third party Photovoltaic system developer will design,
construct, operate and maintain for up to 20 years a solar power project. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 26, 2011, allows for a 20-year contract between the
system developer and the City.
454
August 16, 2011
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The ninth Whereas clause of Ordinance No. 92, 2011 was deleted on Second Reading of this
Ordinance because staff has determined that including information about the City’s internal
sustainability goal in relation to this particular project may confuse the more important issue. The
more important aspect of this project is that the City’s Water Treatment Facility will meet a portion
of its electric energy demand with renewable solar energy.
During First Reading, Council requested information on the external and internal sustainability
goals for the City. Attachment 2 provides a list of the key Fort Collins environmental goals.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the City of Fort Collins utilities and renewable
energy.
Councilmember Horak noted the City is an Xcel customer and has therefore been subsidizing
renewable energy programs. This proposal is both economically and environmentally beneficial to
the City.
Councilmember Troxell supported the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 092, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation of
Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations,
and Medical Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City
of Fort Collins Corporate Limits, Adopted Resolution 2011-070 (Option 2)
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance that Would Prohibit the
Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and
Medical Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits. (No Action Needed)
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2011, an Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the Operation
of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical
Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits.
(Option 1)
455
August 16, 2011
OR
Resolution 2011-070 Submitting a Proposed Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the
Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and
Medical Marijuana-infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 1, 2011, In
Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election. (Option 2)
The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on July 19, 2011, which has been determined
to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the registered
electors of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an
initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either (1) adopt the
proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days (Option 1); or (2) submit such proposed
measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city (Option 2). If the Council
chooses to submit the proposed measure to the voters, Resolution 2011-070 would submit the
measure and establish the ballot language for the measure.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition
received on July 19, 2011. Under Article X of the City Charter, 4,214 signatures of registered
electors (at least 15% of the total ballots cast in the last regular City election) are required to place
an initiative on a special election ballot. Upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to
sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance without
alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of
the city. In anticipation of receiving this petition, a special election has been called for November
1, 2011, in conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election.
The purpose of the initiated measure is to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana centers,
optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing
within the City of Fort Collins corporate limits. The text of the proposed ordinance is as follows:
AN INITIATED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA CENTERS, OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATIONS, AND
MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, the voters of the state of Colorado approved Amendment 20, which
added § 14 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution and created a limited exception from
criminal liability under Colorado law (as opposed to Federal law) for seriously ill persons who are
in need of marijuana for specified purposes and who obtain and use medicinal marijuana under the
limited, specified circumstances described in Amendment 20; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 20 contains specific definitions for the terms “Patient”, “Physician” and
“Primary Care-giver” and confers specific protections upon and exemptions from criminal
prosecution to persons who meet the requirements of each such defined term provided that all the
provisions of Amendment 20 are complied with; and
456
August 16, 2011
WHEREAS the citizens of the City of Fort Collins recognize the protection for the medical use of
marijuana by persons diagnosed with debilitating medical conditions afforded by Article XVIII,
Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution, and desire to affirm the ability of such patients and their
primary caregivers to otherwise be afforded the protections of Article XVIII, Section 14 of the
Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. §25-1.5-106, as the same may be amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Legislature during the 2010 legislative session considered House Bill 10-
1284 and adopted legislation which in pertinent part added a new Article 43.3 to Title 12 of the
Colorado Revised Statues, to be known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code clarifies Colorado law regarding the scope and
extent of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution (“Article XVIII, Section 14”), and at the same
time regulates the retail sale, distribution, cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana known as
a “Medical Marijuana Center,” and further authorizes licensing mechanisms known as an “Optional
Premises Cultivation Operation” and a “Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturers’
License,” and furthermore defines the following:
A) Medical Marijuana Center. As used within this Code, a Medical Marijuana Center is given
the identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(8).
B) Optional Premises Cultivation Operation. As used within this Code, an Optional Premises
Cultivation Operation is given the identical meaning as that defined in Colorado Revised
Statute § 12-43.3-104(12).
C) Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturer. As used within this Code, a Medical
Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer is given the identical meaning as that defined in
Colorado Revised Statute § 12-43.3-104(10).
WHEREAS, § 12-43.3-106, C.R.S., provides that the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code shall have
statewide effect unless a municipality, county, city, or city and county, by either a majority of the
registered electors of the municipality, county, city, or city and county voting at a regular election or
special election called in accordance with the "Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965", Article
10 of Title 31, C.R.S., or the “Uniform Election Code of 1992", Articles 1 to 13 of Title 1, C.R.S., as
applicable, or a majority of the members of the governing board for the municipality, county, city, or
city and county, vote to prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises
Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturers' Licenses; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 12-43.3-310 of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code further specifically
authorizes a municipality in part “to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana centers, optional
premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused products manufacturers’ licenses …
based on local government zoning, health, safety, and public welfare laws for the distribution of
medical marijuana that are more restrictive than this article;” and
WHEREAS, there are citizens of the City of Fort Collins, who protest and object to the operation of
Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and Medical Marijuana-
Infused Products Manufacturers’ Licenses within the City of Fort Collin’s Corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, Section 1(9), Article V, of the Constitution of Colorado provide that the initiative powers
are reserved to the registered electors of every city, town, and municipality as to all local, special, and
municipal legislation of every character in and for their respective municipalities; and
WHEREAS, Article 11, Title 31, of the Colorado Revised Statutes sets forth the procedures for
exercising the initiative power reserved for municipal electors; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins that the City Council
of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt this Initiated Ordinance in the form presented herein to
457
August 16, 2011
prohibit the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and
Medical Marijuana-Infused Product Manufacturing within the City of Fort Collins Corporate Limits
or, if the within Initiated Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in the form presented herein,
that the within Initiated Ordinance be referred in the form presented herein to the registered electors
of the municipality at a regular or special election to be scheduled as provided by law.
If any provision or provisions of this initiated ordinance shall be held to be invalid, illegal,
unenforceable or in conflict with the law, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO:
Section 1. Pursuant to Article 43.3 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the City of
Fort Collins hereby prohibits the operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises
Cultivation Operations and Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturing, effective ten (10)
days following publication of the within Ordinance as provided in Section 4.9 (B) of the Home Rule
Charter of the City of Fort Collins. With respect to any such Centers, Operations, facilities or
businesses of any kind in operation upon such effective date, each and every such Center, Operation,
facility and business shall cease operations within ninety (90) days of said date.
Section 2. Should the City Council refer this Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of
the City at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered electors
voted in favor of this Initiated Ordinance at such regular or special election. In such event, each and
every Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations and Medical Marijuana
Infused Products Manufacturing in operation on such effective date shall cease operations within
ninety (90) days of the effective date specified in this Section 2.”
City Clerk Krajicek stated a citizen-initiated petition was circulated and found sufficient to bring
before Council to either adopt the citizen-initiated Ordinance without alteration or adopt a
Resolution to place the citizen-initiated Ordinance on the November ballot.
Citizens who spoke in favor of banning medical marijuana dispensaries by either adoption of
the ordinance or referring the ordinance to the November 1 ballot:
Darcie Votipka, Poudre School District Director of Student Services
Bob Powell, 1709 Globe Court, petitioner
Howard Robinson, 1083 Wild Cherry Lane
Patrick Albright, Poudre School District Board of Education
Wayne Snyder, 319 East Plum
Vicki Rueckert, 1215 Town Center Drive
Justin Smith, Larimer County Sheriff
Dick DeCook, 7232 Woodrow
Ben Patella, 8008 Hillsboro Court
Mary Hesterman, 502 Huntington Hills Drive
Jim Ringenberg, Attorney, 2849 Hearthstone
Carl Maxey, Maxey Companies
Josh Ritter, Assistant District Attorney, petitioner
Scoot Crandall, Team Fort Collins Executive Director, 5044 Westridge
Nancy Patella, 8008 Hillsboro Court
458
August 16, 2011
Kandy Wise, 3220 Hearthfire Drive
Barbara Tilmont, 5703 Pebble Beach Court
Lisa Olsen, 4459 Eagle Lake South
Mark Driscoll, 1906 Pacific Court
Ed Haines, Fort Collins resident
Kevin Thomas, Fort Collins resident
Dr. Nancy Smith, 420 South Loomis, petitioner
Dori Mann, 1801 Creekwood Drive
Cyndy Odenwald, 2824 Redwing Road, petitioner
Emily Elmore, 144 1.2 North College Avenue
Kendall Oberto, 2024 Evergreen
Jim Patella, 3331 Pineridge Place
Dr. Mike Smith, 420 South Loomis
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court
Citizens who spoke against banning medical marijuana dispensaries:
George Bryan, 309 South Sherwood Street
Jan Kok, 2006 Catkins Court
Terri Gomez, Citizens for Safer Neighborhoods Director
Lauren Fortenberry, Fort Collins resident
Steve Ackerman, 346 East Mountain Avenue
Susan Smeltzer, 3503 Galway Drive
Bill Bartlett, Greeley resident
Seth Ramsey, 3149 Eagle Drive
Beth Benscheidt, 518 West Stuart
Kevin Carlin, Fort Collins resident
Heidi Hanford, Colorado Connect
Alfred Reaud, 1104 Columbine Court
Reese Roberts, Budding Health
Alex and Stephanie Foyer, Fort Collins resident
Karen Miller, 4325 Mill Creek
Brett Barney, attorney representing patients and dispensaries
Kirk Scramstead, A Kind Place
Richard LiPuma, attorney representing Herbal Wellness, LLC, Loveland resident, stated there are
no requirements this Ordinance be placed on a special election ballot as the certification states the
petition is sufficient for a regular election.
Matt Cook, Denver resident, discussed the origin of House Bill 1284 and noted medical marijuana
would still exist in the community using the caregiver model, despite any potential vote to ban
dispensaries.
Dan Hartman, Division Director for the Colorado Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division,
discussed the fact that the City will need to comply with state law allowing medical marijuana use.
Damian Farris, 1738 Valley View Lane, supported placing the item on the November ballot but
discouraged voters from banning dispensaries.
459
August 16, 2011
Laura Graves, 510 Park Street, supported placing the item on the November ballot but discouraged
voters from banning dispensaries.
Ken Correia, 327 Brinn Court, supported placing the item on the November ballot but discouraged
voters from banning dispensaries.
Casandra Dennis, Fort Collins resident, noted Councilmember Troxell’s wife was a petitioner and
asked if Councilmember Troxell will vote on the issue.
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, supported placing the item on the November ballot.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported placing the item on a regular election ballot and
supported Fort Collins’ place as a medical marijuana providing community.
Mitch Shinazy, 1221 University Avenue, supported placing the item on the November ballot and
expressed concern about residential electricity demands should the caregiver model become the de
facto option.
City Attorney Roy replied to the petition certification error issue raised by Mr. LiPuma. The petition
had enough signatures for a special election, and it did request one. The recommendation is for
Council to accept a corrected petition certification given that the purpose is to implement the intent
of the City Charter.
Councilmember Manvel thanked the citizens who spoke and stated his inclination would be to place
the item on the November ballot.
Councilmember Troxell asked for input regarding the implications of various communications from
the U. S. Attorney. City Attorney Roy replied the letters from the U. S. Attorney make clear the
intent of federal law enforcement officials to enforce federal law. The intent remains unclear with
regard to state and local officials and employees who implement, authorize, and enforce laws
relating to the licensing of medical marijuana.
Councilmember Troxell asked for an explanation of the State allowing for regulations that were not
intended by voters who approved Amendment 20. City Attorney Roy replied the State law expands
upon what was specifically authorized by Amendment 20 and the City of Fort Collins’ regulations
are specifically authorized by the State law.
Councilmember Troxell asked if he has a conflict of interest in voting on the issue, as was
mentioned by Ms. Dennis. City Attorney Roy replied the Charter rules limit the circumstances
under which a conflict may exist to financial and personal interests. In this case, there would not
be a conflict of interest.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for an explanation of the timeline and procedure which would accompany
the possible adoption of the Ordinance to prohibit dispensaries. City Attorney Roy replied that is
determined by the petition.The initiated measure provides that the ban would go into effect 90 days
after the Ordinance takes effect, which would be 10 days following Second Reading. Should the
460
August 16, 2011
item be placed on the November 1 ballot and adopted by voters, the prohibition would go into effect
90 days after the City Clerk’s certification of the election results.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Ordinance
No. 110, 2011, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he supports Amendment 20 and the caregiver-patient model, but is
concerned about the impact of the retail aspect on the community and being in violation of federal
law.
Councilmember Manvel stated the State Constitution gives certain individuals the right to use
medical marijuana and banning dispensaries will create an unregulated situation. He supported
placing the item on the ballot.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would not support the motion but would support placing the item
on the ballot.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed confidence in voters to make a decision regarding the
dispensaries.
Councilmember Troxell reiterated his opinion that it is Council’s duty to vote to uphold federal law
and noted there is access to licensed caregivers through the Colorado Department of Health.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution
2011-070.
Councilmember Horak stated a community discussion and vote is important and will aid in
providing a more clear direction to move the issue forward.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the citizens who spoke.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
461
August 16, 2011
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA,
Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA,
Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011
Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the
Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan, Postponed
to August 23, 2011
and
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA,
Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA,
Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011
Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve
The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan, Postponed to August 23, 2011
City Attorney Roy stated the City Code establishes a process for the Council to hear appeals from
certain Boards and Commissions and other City decision makers. The appeal can only be filed by
a party-in-interest, and only parties-in-interest can take place in the appeal hearing. No new
evidence should be presented with the exception of evidence submitted in response to Council
questions. Each side of the appeal will have a 10 minute opportunity to discuss procedural issues.
The Council will have the opportunity to uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board, or can opt to remand the matter back to the Board for consideration of particular
issues it may feel did not receive appropriate attention.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson raised the question as to whether or not enough time exists to hear the
appeal during this meeting.
Councilmembers Kottwitz and Poppaw expressed concern regarding the late hour.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for input from the appellants and applicants.
Rick Zier, attorney representing the appellants, stated they would rather not have to stop in the
middle of the process and agreed the hour is late to begin. He asked whether or not the PDP hearing
would need to be held should the ODP be overturned.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicant, stated a delay may have a negative impact on the
applicant, given that delays postpone construction. However, given the late hour, the applicants
would suggest holding the meeting at another time, perhaps earlier in the evening so as to allow both
appeals to be heard.
Council, staff, and the parties-in-interest discussed possible dates for the hearings.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone the appeal
hearings to August 23, 2011, at 5:00 p.m.
462
August 16, 2011
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to extend the
meeting past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weikunat, Ohlson and Manvel. Nays: Poppaw, Horak, Kottwitz
and Troxell.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Troxell made motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 5:00
p.m. on August 23, 2011. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
463