HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/15/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
November 15, 2011
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring November 25, 2011 as “Plaid Friday - Shop Local for the Holidays”.
B. Proclamation Declaring November as Native American Month.
C. Proclamation Declaring November as National Alzheimer’s Awareness Month.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
Flag Ceremony presented by Den 7 Cub Scouts from Pack 12
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
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 24. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar
and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Item No. 33, Pulled Consent Items. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 18 and November 1, 2011, Regular
Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for
the Carnegie Building.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, appropriates
unanticipated grant revenue of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town”
grant program in the Cultural Services Fund. The Cultural Services Department and the non-profit
Beet Street collaborated on the grant as required by the NEA. The grant provides funding for the
design and planning of a proposed art incubator to be housed in the Carnegie Building in late 2012.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital
Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Rapid Transit Bus.
The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to the west of
College Avenue. The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations with pedestrian and
bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side stops, a transit center at the southern and northern termini, and
off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance facility to provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive
BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet in order to provide MAX BRT
services. All six buses will be new bus purchases, and will replace older buses beyond their useful
life. The six BRT buses will be purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant
Agreement (PCGA) has been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will
be purchased at the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded
through CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER), while the other three are funded through the federal Small
Starts grant. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011,
appropriates the grant funds received from CDOT.
Ordinance No. 146, 2011, has been amended on Second Reading. The provision of the local match
for the FASTER project contract (Resolution 2011-096) is being met from existing appropriations in
the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor project accounts. As a result, Transfort does not require
the appropriation of $350,000 in local match from the Transit Capital Reserve Fund, as originally
outlined in the First Reading Agenda Item Summary.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Amendment and Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course
for up to Five Additional Years.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, authorizes the
extension of the existing Agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf Professional, Dale
Smigelsky, PGA, which expires on December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was
entered into on January 1, 2006, with Jim Greer, and was assumed by Dale Smigelsky on January
1, 2009. From 2001 through 2008, Mr. Smigelsky was the Golf Professional at SouthRidge Golf
Course. Mr. Smigelsky assumed Jim Greer’s contract as the Head Professional at Collindale on
January 1, 2009. The performance of Mr. Smigelsky has been very satisfactory during the term, and
staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Extension of the Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to
Five Additional Years.
The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar concessionaire, the
Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, extends the Agreement.
The performance of the concessionaire, Mr. Rob Dahl, has been very satisfactory during the term,
and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement for the year 2012 with
annual renewal options for the years 2013 through 2016, or a potential total term of ten years.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New
Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services.
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to implement
some changes to the City’s internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service
areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the City Code. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, establishes Sustainability Services as
a Service Area.
On Second Reading, the functional responsibilities of the new service area have been amended to
add “social sustainability”.
Page 4
12. Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 151, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, annexes
3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3
of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane.
Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation
boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation.
The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152,
2011, will place this annexation in UE – Urban Estate Zoning District.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential
Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential
uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs
because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an
established residential area.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility
Easement on City Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s Creek known
as Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd
Filing (the Property). The Property was dedicated on the McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for
landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage
Basin and is owned and maintained by City’s Stormwater Utility. McClelland’s Creek conveys
stormwater flows to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to service the
proposed residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will extend east from
Xcel’s existing service line off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned by the City, as well as
property owned by Poudre School District. The line will run adjacent and parallel to an existing
sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 1, 2011, grants Xcel a 10-foot wide utility easement across the City’s property
for the installation and maintenance of the new gas line improvements.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General
Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget.
This Ordinance appropriates $11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and
Environment. It also transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and
combine these funds in a Radon Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk-reduction
activities identified in the current City Budget.
Page 5
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General
Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget.
A grant in the amount of $30,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
(DCJ) Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants 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 caused 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.
A $3,333 cash match is required for the $30,000 grant and will be met by appropriating funds from
the police operating budget designated for restorative justice.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund
for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses.
Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs
associated with the tree and branch cleanup. This appropriation request will be used for the
incremental costs (direct costs) associated with the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating
budget. This includes personnel overtime and planned "work for other departments" costs that cannot
be recouped, as well as other incremental costs associated with contractors, equipment rental, fuel,
etc. that are uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs
of Services.
The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement expansion fees
and the neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also, to account for rising
construction costs, the City adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect changes posted in the
Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 3.8% and the ENR has increased 7.55%.
18. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges.
This Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for
customers who request utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip
charge of $19.65 for special requests during normal business hours.
The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt
out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the
Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of
Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams.
This Ordinance will amend the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone
should begin regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the
current requirement that this point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term
“top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement.
Page 6
20. Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Standard Development Specifications.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Standard Development Construction
Specifications for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Standard Development Construction
Specifications for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities.
Fort Collins Utilities maintains standard construction specifications adopted by City Council for
stormwater, water and wastewater improvements installed within new residential and commercial
developments within the respective City service areas. These specifications require the use of
specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems and to standardize
various components. Water Utilities is combining these specifications into a unified document that
is more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached
Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are initiating this request for Fort Collins
Landmark designation for the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, at 424 West Olive
Street. The MacDonald/Cooke House and Garage are significant under Designation Standard (2) for
their association with Stewart L. MacDonald; and under Designation Standard (3), as a notable and
unaltered example of the American Foursquare architectural style, with historic matching detached
garage. This property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity:
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling.
22. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-101 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive
Funds from the Federal Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and the City’s Affordable
Housing Fund.
The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating $813,577 of City
financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects.
23. Resolution 2011-102 Further Extending the Deadline for the City of Fort Collins and the Town of
Windsor to Take Certain Actions Required by the Parties’ Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining
to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Town
of Windsor (the “IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of
State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”). Staff for the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor has
completed the work required by the Amended IGA but requires an extension to continue public
outreach, to incorporate any input from the outreach, and to draft necessary documents for
consideration by Council. The staff of both municipalities have recommended that the December 6,
2011, deadline be extended in order to complete the public outreach, draft necessary documents, and
make their recommendations. The deadline for all actions to be taken under the Amended IGA by
December 6, 2011, should be extended to April 3, 2012.
24. Resolution 2011-103 Adopting the City’s 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the
analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by Council
members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference for our
state legislators and congressional delegation.
END CONSENT
Page 7
25. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
26. Staff Reports.
27. Councilmember Reports.
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.
28. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and
Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime
Night Shelter for the Homeless. (staff: Tess Heffernan; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight
shelter at area homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The
Mission; however, delays have pushed the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This
Ordinance, adopted 4-0 (Manvel absent, Poppaw withdrawn, Troxell absent at time of vote) on First
Reading on November 1, 2011, will temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for an 8-week
period at the Knights of Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter people
on those winter evenings when other homeless shelters are full.
29. Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning. (staff: Ted Shepard; 5 minute staff
presentation; 15 minute discussion)
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 153, 2011, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Ohlson) annexes the
Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road.
The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer
Page 8
County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal
boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which is shared with the Westchase P.U.D.
The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as a residential land use, the
owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to implement
its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years.
Ordinance No. 154, 2011, will place the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in
conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
30. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to
the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year
Beginning January 1, 2012, and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year
2012. (staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, amends the adopted
2012 Budget and sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012. Including
the 2012 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban
Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City appropriations amount to $456,189,759.
City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended
2012 2012 Change
Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1
Debt Service 23.2 23.2 -
Capital 19.1 22.6 3.5
Total City Operated Appropriations * $447.6 $456.2 $8.6
Less Urban Renewal Authority (URA) (1.5) (1.5) 0.0
Less General Improvement District (GID) (0.3) (0.3) 0.0
Total City of Fort Collins Appropriation $445.8 $454.4 $8.6
* This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
31. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. (Option A or Option B) (staff: Brian Janonis, Patty
Bigner, Bill Switzer; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
Staff has prepared two Residential Energy Rate Options for Council consideration. This electric rate
is used to bill about 55,000 residential customers. Option A is a seasonal rate form, Option B is a
three-tiered seasonal rate. Both options increase the residential energy rate by an average of 6%
over the current 2011 rate, however, the increase varies by season and customer usage. Both options
are proposed to be effective for billings with meter reading dates on or after February 1, 2012.
In three City Council work sessions, staff presented electric rate design principles, four residential rate
options, a change to the residential demand rate and a pilot Time of Use rate for electric vehicles.
At the September 13 Work Session, City Council also discussed a change to the General Service
(GS) or commercial rate proposed by staff that will result in two rate classes, a GS (up to 25 kW) and
GS 25 (25 – 50 kW). With the exception of proposed changes to the residential electric rate structure,
these changes were adopted by Council on Second Reading November 1, 2011, along with proposed
rate increases.
At the October 11, 2011 Work Session, Council further reviewed four residential electric rate options
and answers provided by staff. Based on feedback from this work session, two rate ordinances have
been drafted for Council consideration and public notification has been completed.
Page 9
32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code
to Allow Electrical Assisted Bicycles on the City’s Paved Trails for a One Year Trial Period. (staff:
Marty Heffernan; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
Council has expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow electric assisted bicycles (ebikes)
on City paved trails. In response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate
the relevant issues; gain input from associated boards and commissions; conduct a public opinion
survey; and find out how other cities are managing ebikes. City staff presented this information to the
Council at the June 28, 2011 Work Session.
After reviewing the information provided at the work session, the City Manager’s recommendation,
and other input received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code
to implement a one year trial period to allow electrical assisted bicycles on the City’s paved trail
system. Council requested that staff prepare an ordinance to make the needed changes to the City
Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a regular meeting for a determination on
whether or not the trial period should be implemented.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on City
paved trails from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013.
33. Pulled Consent Items.
34. Other Business.
35. 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, purchasing holiday gifts and shopping year-round with locally-owned
businesses supports the economic health and resilience of the community; and
WHEREAS, shopping locally supports our neighbors, friends and family members
employed by local businesses; and
WHEREAS, residents of Fort Collins are fortunate to have diverse shopping options
including many unique local shops; and
WHEREAS, Be Local Northern Colorado works diligently to support, promote and educate
the community about the value and importance of a locally-based economy throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins citizens enjoy a high quality of life, including the opportunity to
attend holiday events that contribute to our community spirit and add to the experience of living in
one of the best places in America; and
WHEREAS, Plaid Friday is a new, local, and fun alternative to Black Friday; and
WHEREAS, black is so dull.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim November 25, 2011 as
PLAID FRIDAY,
SHOP LOCAL FOR THE HOLIDAYS
and I urge all citizens to shop with locally owned businesses during the holiday season and all year
round.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the history and culture of our great nation have been significantly influenced
by American Indians and indigenous peoples: and
WHEREAS, the contributions of American Indians have enhanced the freedom, prosperity,
and greatness of America today, and
WHEREAS, their customs and traditions are respected and celebrated as part of a rich
legacy throughout the United States, and
WHEREAS, a Native American presence has been established in the Northern Colorado
area for over 12,000 years; and
WHEREAS, Native American Awareness Week began in 1976 and recognition was
expanded by Congress and approved by President George Bush in August 1990, designating the
month of November as National American Indian Heritage Month; and
WHEREAS, in honor of National American Indian Heritage Month, community celebrations
as well as numerous cultural, artistic, educational and historical activities have been planned; and
WHEREAS, local resources such as the Native American Cultural Center and Colorado
State University play a vital role in assisting and providing the Fort Collins community with diverse
programming.
NOW, THEREFORE I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of November 2011 as
NATIVE AMERICAN AWARENESS MONTH
in the city of Fort Collins and urge all residents to participate in scheduled events.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, more than 5 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease, a
figure that is expected to grow to as many as 16 million by mid-century if something is not done;
and
WHEREAS, Alzheimer’s is an incurable and fatal brain disease that causes memory loss,
disorientation, decreased judgment, and difficulty speaking; and
WHEREAS, there are currently 72,000 people in Colorado living with Alzheimer’s disease
and 222,000 care partners who provide unpaid at-home care, valued at upwards of $3 billion; and
WHEREAS, with early detection and diagnosis, individuals and families can gain access
to treatments, enroll in critical research trials, fully participate in planning for the future, and receive
help; and
WHEREAS, more research is needed in order to better understand Alzheimer’s and develop
new ways to accurately diagnose and treat Alzheimer’s.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of November 2011 as
NATIONAL ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AWARENESS MONTH
and I encourage all citizens to be a part of raising awareness and understanding of the challenges
individuals and families face as well as the importance of early detection.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 18 and November 1, 2011, Regular Meetings.
October 18, 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, October 18, 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, Daggett.
Citizen Participation
Debra Goodson, 912 Wood Street, discussed the necessary moving of the mobile homes at the
Bender Mobile Home Park. She requested financial assistance from the City and developer for
relocation costs.
Wiley McCallum, 912 Wood Street, opposed the effect of the purchase of the Bender Mobile Home
Park by Sidehill Investments on its residents.
Arnie Combs, 912 Wood Street, requested support for the Bender Mobile Home Park residents.
Michael Chalona, Parks and Recreation Board Chairperson, requested Council support of Item No.
12, First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining
to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
Rob Cagan, Parks and Recreation Board Vice-Chairperson, thanked staff and requested Council
support of Item No. 12, First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the
City Code Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
Dawn Thies, Parks and Recreation Board, thanked staff and requested Council support of Item No.
12.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, opposed restrictions on public comment regarding potential quasi-
judicial matters.
Joann Ginal, 316 East Magnolia, Human Relations Commission, thanked Council for its
contributions to the community and announced the Make It Stop anti-bullying summit on
Wednesday, November 9th at the Atzlan Center.
83
October 18, 2011
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, expressed concern about the use of power wheel chairs
in bicycle lanes.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the Human Resources Commission for announcing the anti-
bullying event. She noted Council will be participating in annual reviews on November 9 and will
be unable to attend.
Councilmember Horak requested an update on the Bender Mobile Home Park issue. He supported
Council consideration of allotting a budget line item to housing relocation costs. He discussed the
reintroduction of the sidewalk committee to address safety issues. He suggested changes be made
to development review proposal notification signs and stated he may propose funding for citizen
assistance regarding development review.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested an update on the Bender Mobile Home Park. Karen Cumbo,
Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, replied the City’s Neighborhood
Services staff has continued to work with residents and Neighbor-to-Neighbor. A community
meeting will be held tomorrow. The County has offered to help with coordination; however,
funding is yet undetermined. The developer’s role is also yet undefined.
Councilmember Horak noted the property cannot be annexed until that action is requested by the
landowner.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 20, 2011 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing
community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication
of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately
three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, will appropriate funding in the
amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related
to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
Right-of-way acquisition continues for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, pertains to the
final acquisition phase of the BRT Project and is comprised of 15 separate properties ready
84
October 18, 2011
for the acquisition stage. The City Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins
the first step of the City’s acquisition process for the property interests within this phase.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to
Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to
Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City
Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive registered
electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors.
In addition, the Code will be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted
ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
This Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to add language clarifying that ballots
will be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed
to vote”, but who voted in the last presidential election.
10. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals
Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the
Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council to December 20, 2011.
This item is being postponed to December 20, 2011 to allow time for public outreach.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement
with Pinnacle Public Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of
the items to be lease-purchased is $1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not
exceed $ 317,787 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the
2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City
will be to raise the total City debt by 2.9%. A competitive process was used to select
Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the
City's best interest.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in
Section 2-338 of the City Code to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s
functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and appreciation of the value of parks and
recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of Fort Collins.
85
October 18, 2011
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code
to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of
City facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names are selected when
a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g.,
foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility
naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to
this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the
naming of facilities in other circumstances.
14. Resolution 2011-093 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Award and
Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation for a Grant Pertaining to the Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the United
States Department of Transportation. The grant is in the amount of $221,500. The grant will
be used to fund the Airport’s efforts to address the air service needs of the community through
completion of an air service development, communications and marketing plan for the Airport
and development of a plan for the wingless flight program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year
Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of
Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the
2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for
the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and
the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will
be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and
some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate
Airport business development.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
86
October 18, 2011
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related
to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to
Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to
Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code
to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the
Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for
Fiscal Year 2012.
20. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Water Rates and Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
87
October 18, 2011
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
Councilmember Troxell pulled Item No. 9, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending
Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive
Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail.
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.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry discussed the Alliance for Innovation Big Ideas Conference, hosted by the
City. The Conference provided the opportunity to showcase Fort Collins and discuss the future of
City Managers, cities and their relationships with City Councils.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Poppaw attended the Homelessness Prevention Initiative fundraiser and thanked
members for their work in the community.
Councilmember Manvel discussed his visit the Valmont Bicycle Park in Boulder. He stated the
Poudre Heritage Alliance will be meeting on October 26th to discuss the potential National Heritage
designation for the Poudre River.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed the Urban Planning Design awards and congratulated the eleven
winners.
Ordinance No. 137, 2011,
Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal
Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority is presented for
First Reading. Ordinance No. 137, 2011, sets the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget
amount of $814,380 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations
88
October 18, 2011
budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year
2012; and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority at five
(5) mills, unchanged since 2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown Development
Authority’s financial plan for 2012.
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond
proceeds. Examples of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday
light display, facade improvements, the enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and
participation in the river district improvement projects, etc.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) was created in 1981 with the purpose,
according to State statue, of planning and implementing projects and programs within the
boundaries of the DDA. By state statue the purpose of the ad valorem tax levied on all real and
personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five (5) mills, shall be for the
budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development that
specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes
of the State statue and the Plan of Development the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various
tax increment bonds, which require debt servicing.
The DDA staff and Budget Committee are very cognizant of the changed revenue environment of
the organization and economic conditions, and have made a strong effort to budget conservatively
to reflect this climate.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is requesting approval of the DDA Operations
and Maintenance budget, for fiscal year 2012, in the amount of $814,380. It is also requesting
approval of the DDA debt payment commitments in the amount of $1,652,346 for 2012 obligations.
Uses:
Personnel Services: $452,768
Contractual Professional Services: 318,114
Purchased Supplies and Commodities: 23,635
Other: 19,863
Total $814,380
The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service
payments for 2012.
Uses:
Debt Payment: 2012 $1,652,346”
89
October 18, 2011
Matt Robenalt, Downtown Development Authority Executive Director, stated this Ordinance sets
the DDA mill levy and appropriates its operations and maintenance budget.
Councilmember Horak asked if the DDA bonds currently being paid off went through the City of
Fort Collins. Mr. Robenalt replied they were authorized by the City last year.
Councilmember Horak asked why the City cannot continue authorizing DDA bonds. Kathy
Cardona, Downtown Development Authority Financial Coordinator, replied negotiations with the
City regarding the 2010 bond issuance resulted in concern about the City’s level of debt reserve.
The City’s Finance Director suggested seeking outside placement. However, negotiations with the
City’s finance department will occur again this week. Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer,
stated the City is open to entertaining the idea of supporting DDA’s financing requirements. The
General Fund reserve was not sufficient to support the $12.5 million bond placement. The current
bond placement request of $4.5 million seems more possible.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance
No. 137, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Water Rates and Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Water Plant Investment Fees.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Development Fees and Charges.
90
October 18, 2011
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012.
% Increase
Water 6.0%
Wastewater 8.0%
Electric 8.3%
The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no
change in the monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to
study proposed changes to the electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as
“RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15, 2011, to recommend changes to the RESR.
All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced above. The electric rate
increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed changes will
impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages.
With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single
family customer’s monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions
to the RESR are approved by Council at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see
an additional increase in costs. The later change will depend on the rate form option preferred by
City Council.
Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also
go into effect if the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment
fees (PIFs) and a 1.2% increase in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater
PIFs is recommended. On average, electric development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for
residential and decrease less than 1% for commercial.
Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances
above.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Monthly Utility Rates
The recommended 2012 rate increases differ from the rates that were proposed in the original 2011-
2012 Budget. The changes are summarized in Attachment 1 and further explained by the staff
memos included as Attachments 2 and 3. All proposed rates would be effective for meter readings
on or after January 1, 2012.
A. Monthly Water Rates (Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Water Rates and Charges.)
91
October 18, 2011
Staff proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate
classes. With the proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer’s monthly bill will
increase 6% as shown in the following table:
Single Family
Typical Use
2011 Monthly
Water Bill
Proposed 2012
Monthly Water
Bill
$ Increase % Increase
January
5000 gallons $24.13 $25.58 $1.45 6%
July
21,000 gallons $65.11 $69.04 $3.93 6%
Monthly Average* $35.87 $38.05 $2.18 6%
*Average based on seasonal use of 117,131 gallons per year
Although water rates were increased 3% in 2007, 2010 and in 2011, total Water Fund revenues
decreased 23% between 2006 and 2010. The reduction in use is thought to be a combination of
conservation, weather and economic factors. While water use is down, the vast majority of the costs
of operating the water system are fixed and do not vary based on customer use. The proposed 2012
rate increase is required to fund operations, capital improvements and maintain debt service
coverage. Staff has increased projections for Water Fund capital projects needs between 2013 and
2020 by $33 million. Most of this increase is for distribution system replacement ($22 million). The
distribution system project increase is a result of the preliminary data from the asset management
program. The increase is not related to Halligan Reservoir which is to be funded from the Water
Rights Reserve. The Water Rights Reserve is funded by developers’ cash-in-lieu-of water rights
payments and is restricted to the purchase of water rights and water storage only. See Attachment
2 for additional detailed explanation of the water rate increase.
In addition, staff is proposing to eliminate unmetered construction water for customers with planned
water services with meters greater than 1-inch. Staff is also recommending a monthly charge for
3/4-inch and 1-inch construction water service. Construction water will remain unmetered for 3/4-
inch and 1-inch services but instead of a flat one time fee on the building permit (equivalent to 1.5
times the base charge for the future account), a monthly account will be established and billed a flat
charge based on estimated construction use of 7000 gallons per month. Monthly billing will
continue until the permanent meter is set. These changes are proposed to eliminate, or at least
reduce, the extended over use of the unmetered construction service and will better reflect the cost
of the water provided.
Construction Water
Frequency of Billing 3/4-inch Meter 1-inch Meter
Current 2011 One time charge $ 20.40 $ 50.93
Proposed 2012 Monthly charge $ 25.46 $ 48.55
Includes PILOTs
92
October 18, 2011
B. Monthly Wastewater Rates (Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Staff proposes an 8% wastewater rate increase for 2012. The increase is across the board and
applies to all rate classes. With the proposed increase, a typical residential customer’s bill will
increase from $28.59 to $30.88 or $2.29 per month. The typical customer is based on 4,800 gallons
of winter quarter water use.
Council previously approved a series of annual wastewater rate increases starting in 2008. The
prior rate increases, as well as the proposed 2012 increase, are necessary to fund wastewater
operations and meet the increase in long term debt service obligations for the now completed capital
project which replaced the trickling filter, made odor control improvements and prepared for future
regulatory requirements at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility.
C. Monthly Electric Rates (Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Based on Council response at the September 13, 2011 Work Session, the electric rate ordinance
does not contain any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential
customers. The changes to the RESR will be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15,
2011 and will contain several rate form alternatives. The ordinance for consideration at this
meeting pertains only to the Residential Demand, Commercial (General Service, General Service
25, General Service 50), Industrial (General Service 750) and Traffic rates.
Fort Collins’ wholesale and retail electric rates are among the lowest in the region and nation. This
will continue to be true following the 8.3% electric rate increase proposed for 2012. The 8.3%
increase is the system average and will not be equally applied to all customer rate classes. Based
on a cost-of-service study, the proposed rates vary by rate class as follows:
Proposed Rate Class Increases for 2012
Individual customers will vary from the class average.
Summer increases (June, July and August) will be greater than average.
RESR – Not included in Ordinance No. 142, 2011 6.0%
Residential Demand Rate 15.9%
1. General Service (small commercial less than 25 kW) 3.9%
1. General Service 25 (small commercial between 25-49 kW) 15.5%
General Service 50 (medium commercial between 50-749 kW) 8.7%
General Service 750 (large com/industrial greater than 749kW) 11.0%
Traffic Signals 11.3%
Floodlights 0.0%
Average System Increase 8.3%
1. New rate classes proposed for 2012
93
October 18, 2011
4.8% of the 8.3% system-wide increase is due to a 6.4% increase in Platte River Power Authority’s
purchase power rates. In addition, Platte River’s wholesale rate will be seasonal, with higher rates
in June, July and August. Platte River’s 2012 purchase power rate increase is due to several key
factors:
• Reduced surplus sales
• Increased operating and maintenance costs
• Increased financing and depreciation costs as new projects are placed into service
• Reduced interest income – due to low interest rates and lower cash reserves
The remaining 3.5% of the 8.3% is required to reduce the use of Light and Power’s reserves to
cover the cost of system improvements and replacements. While the reduction of reserves has been
intentional, expenditures in the Light and Power Fund have exceeded revenues each year since
2007. Even following the proposed 3.5% increase, expenditures are projected to exceed revenues
for 2012.
The larger commercial classes are experiencing a greater than average increase due to the shift of
purchase power costs from demand charges to energy charges in Platte River’s new rate form.
Those customers with larger load factors, typically larger commercial and industrial customers and
also the traffic signal system, will have larger than average increases in the purchase power
components of their rates. (Load factor measures the consistency of power use over time.)
Although the last cost-of-service study showed that the residential demand (“RD”) rate was 18%
under cost-of-service, all rate classes were limited to a 10% increase in 2011. The 2012 increase
brings the RD rate class up to full cost-of- service. The rate has traditionally been selected by high-
use customers such as those who exclusively heat their homes with electricity. The increase to this
rate will make the RESR more economical for many of the existing RD customers in 2012. Staff is
also recommending that the RD rate be available only to those customers providing documentation
that their home is heated entirely with electric energy. These changes will begin a phase-out of the
RD rate.
Electric Rate Form Changes
Changes in the electric rate forms are necessary to align rates in support of the City’s Energy Policy
and Climate Action Plan goals. By adopting rate forms to incentivize customers to conserve and
use energy more efficiently and by providing energy conservation assistance and programs to our
customers, the City will more likely be able to achieve its policy goals. In addition, successful
implementation of these tools will delay or defer the expense of constructing additional generation
resources. Rate form changes are also needed to pass through the seasonal cost differentials that
will be charged by Platte River Power Authority beginning in 2012. All rates will have higher costs
in the summer (June, July and August) than during the remaining nine “non-summer” months.
Consistent with Platte River, the recommended rates also shift a greater proportion of the rate from
the demand charges to energy charges.
94
October 18, 2011
Rate form options were presented to the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and to the
full Council at work sessions on September 13, 2011 and October 11, 2011. Based on Council’s
responses to the questions posed at the work sessions, there is a delay in the ordinance making
changes to the RESR until November 15, 2011. Several options for the RESR ordinance will be
presented at that time. The changes recommended for the RD and Commercial/Industrial rates
seemed to have wide-spread support at the September 13 Work Session. The following summarizes
changes to the electric rate forms that are included in the proposed electric rate ordinance.
• Residential Demand: The residential demand rate will be increased to the cost-of-service
and energy charges will reflect the seasonal differential. The rate will be available only to
customers who heat their residences exclusively with electricity.
• Small /Medium Commercial: The General Service rate is currently one rate class serving
all commercial customers with average monthly demands of less than 50 kW. Staff is
proposing that it be split into two rate classes beginning in 2012.
N General Service - energy-only seasonal rate for customers with average monthly
demands of less than 25 kW
N General Service 25 - energy/demand seasonal rate for customers with average
monthly demands of between 25 and 49kW
• Large Commercial / Industrial: The recommended rate form changes for the GS50 and
GS750 rate classes are due to Platte River’s seasonal wholesale rate.
N General Service 50 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for
customers with average demands of between 50-749 kW
N General Service 750 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for
customers with average demands of 750 kW and greater
Additional Amendments to Electric Article and Rates
• Wholesale Transactions: Staff is recommending the addition of a Code section and
definition to clarify terms of wholesale transactions and to specify that the retail rates,
requirements and electric development fees do not apply to wholesale purchases.
• Clarification of Net Metering Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate schedule specify
that credits for net excess generation due to net metering will be based on the summer
season retail energy charge as reflected in the new rate structure.
• Clarification of Parallel Generation Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate tariff
schedule specify that credits for parallel generation delivered to the utility will be based on
Platte River Power Authority’s avoided cost rate.
• Clarification of Distribution Facilities Demand: The proposed change more fully defines
distribution facilities demand for the large commercial and industrial rate classes and
95
October 18, 2011
permits the Utilities Executive Director to use an alternative method to recover a customer’s
cost-of-service share of distribution demand if the costs associated with serving a customer
are not fully recovered by the standard rate.
Monthly Rate Increase Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family
residential customer:
Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill
Current
2011
Estimated
2012
$
Increase
%
Increase
Electric
700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * *
Wastewater
4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0%
Stormwater
8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0%
Water
117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0%
Total Estimated Average Monthly
Utility Bill
$138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2%
* The 2012 electric RESR will not be considered by Council until a later Council meeting and
therefore will not be effective as of January 1, 2012. A change, averaging 6% is expected to be
effective February 1, 2012.
The following charts compare Fort Collins Utilities’ monthly rates to others along the Front Range.
The electric rate shown for Fort Collins for 2012 is the current 2011 rate. A change to the RESR
is expected to be effective in February. The average change to the residential energy rate class is
projected to be 6%.
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Development Fees
City Code requires staff to present water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees to
Council for approval no less than every other year. These fees were last changed in 2009 effective
on January 1, 2010. Staff is recommending changes to each of the wet utility PIFs. Water and
Stormwater PIFs are increasing 4.7% and 1.2% respectively. Wastewater PIFs are recommended
to decrease 3%.
Electric development fees are also required to be approved by City Council no less than every
second year, although historically staff has recommended annual changes. The current electric
development fees were approved by Council in 2010 and were effective January 1, 2011.
96
October 18, 2011
Staff is recommending the following changes to be effective on January 1, 2012.
A. Water Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.)
The water plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and
the current value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes
calculating net water system equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per unit.
The Water PIFs are calculated to increase an average of 4.7% for 2012.
There are two major factors influencing the increase. First, projected capital improvements related
to regulatory requirements have been allocated to the PIF for that portion of the improvements that
will serve new growth. Other revisions have been made to the long range capital improvement plan
which also impacted the Water PIF calculations. Together, these capital changes have increased
the PIF requirement.
The second factor offsets the increase. In 2009, detailed information was not available to classify
the construction work in progress. The decision was made to treat it all as backbone related capital
additions. This overstated the 2010 PIF requirement. Since that time, additional reporting is
available to clearly classify the work in progress. This resulted in a reduction in equity of the
backbone system.
Water PIF charges for a typical single family lot (8600 sq ft) would increase from $3,826 to $4,084
or $258. The following table shows the proposed increases for water PIFs.
Water Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential:
Domestic Interior Use - Flat Charge $ 730 $ 730 0.0%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.36 $ 0.39 8.3%
Duplex and Multi Family:
Domestic Interior Use - Charge per Unit $ 490 $ 510 4.1%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.27 $ 0.27 0.0%
Non-Residential by Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,530 $ 7,880 4.6%
1" $ 21,730 $ 22,750 4.7%
1-1/2" $ 45,300 $ 47,410 4.7%
2" $ 69,070 $ 72,290 4.7%
3" $ 157,920 $ 165,290 4.7%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
B. Wastewater/Sewer Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter
26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.)
97
October 18, 2011
The wastewater plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment
and the current value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes
calculating net wastewater system equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per
unit. The Wastewater PIFs are calculated to decrease 3% for 2012. Like the Water PIF, this
reduction is in part due to a change in the basis for calculating construction work in progress.
Other recent revisions to the long range capital improvement plan have reduced the Wastewater PIF
calculations.
Wastewater PIF charges for a single family lot would decrease from $3,550 to $3,440, a reduction
of $110. The following table shows the proposed changes.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential $ 3,550 $ 3,440 -3%
Duplex and Multi Family, per unit $ 2,490 $ 2,410 -3%
Non-Residential by Water Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,100 $ 6,880 -3%
1" $ 17,880 $ 17,300 -3%
1-1/2" $ 31,490 $ 30,480 -3%
2" $ 55,290 $ 53,520 -3%
3" $ 150,130 $ 145,310 -3%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
C. Electric Development Fees (Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.)
Electric development fees recover both actual on-site costs (building site charges) and allocated off-
site costs (electric capacity charges) to serve commercial or residential development. These fees
are typically adjusted annually to reflect changes in costs. Proposed 2012 fees will increase slightly
for some developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly for others. The table below shows the
changes for a typical single family lot and a model commercial development.
Typical Single Family Lot
8600 square feet, 70 foot of street frontage, 150 amp service, 4/0 secondary service
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$3,139 $3,233 $94 3.0%
Model Commercial Development
82,000 sq ft, 1900 ft street frontage, 250 ft primary srv, 600 amps, 208Volt, 3-phase, 1-
transformer
98
October 18, 2011
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$31,076 $30,981 -$95 -0.3%
D. Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of
the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees)
The Stormwater PIFs are recommended to increase 1.2% in 2012. The increase represents a $7.3
million increase in capital facilities added since the last study. However, annexation has caused
an increase in total developed and developable acres which results in an increased divisor in the
calculation. The two changes result in a modest increase of 1.2%. The PIF will increase from
$6,313 per acre to $6,390 per acre.
Stormwater PIF charges for a typical single family lot would increase from $1,069 to $1,082, an
increase of $13.
PIF Change Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed PIF and development fee changes on
a typical residential lot:
PIF Changes for Typical Single Family
Current
2011
Proposed
2012
Change
%
Change
$
Water1
Raw Water2
Wastewater
Stormwater3
Electric1
Total
$3,826
$5,203
$3,550
$1,069
$3,139
787
$4,084
$5,203
$3,440
$1,082
$3,233
$17,042
6.7%
0.0%
-3.1%
1.2%
3.0%
1.5%
$258
$0
(-$110)
$13
$94
$255
1Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70-foot street frontage
2 No increase for Raw Water
3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way; .5 run
off coefficient
Next Steps:
November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting
October 18, 2011
• First Reading of Service Charges Ordinance with increases for after-hours service charges
and a monthly fee for manual meter reading for customers who opt out of the Advanced
Meter Fort Collins project.
December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda
• Second Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance
• Second Reading of Service Charges Ordinance
January 1, 2012
• Effective date of the seven Ordinances included in this agenda item summary and for
changes in service charges. (Monthly rate ordinances are effective for billings with meter
readings on or after this date.)
February 1, 2012
• Proposed effective date of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance. (Effective for billings
with meter readings on or after this date.)
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rates are projected to increase 2012 annual operating revenues of the Water Fund by 6%, the
Wastewater Fund by 8% and the Light and Power Fund by 8.3%. (The short delay in adopting the
RESR increase will slightly reduce the increase for Light and Power.) The projected revenue from
the rate increases is included in the revised 2012 budget projections. The increases are necessary
to fund purchase power, operations and system additions and replacements and to meet debt service
requirements.
The proposed water and wastewater rate ordinances will increase costs for a typical residential
customer by $4.47 per month if such customer’s water use remains unchanged. An additional
change to the RESR at a later date will change the total increase. That amount will depend on the
rate form option selected by Council at the November 15, 2011 Council meeting. Utility programs
can help customers to reduce their water and electric use and to lessen the financial impact of the
rate increases.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Funding from the proposed electric rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue programs and
services aimed at meeting the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan.
Accurate seasonal price signals may delay/ avoid the need for additional peak electric generation.
Water and wastewater rates provide funding for conservation programs and environmental
regulatory compliance. “
100
October 18, 2011
Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial Operations Manager, discussed the Ordinances, including the
proposed increases in monthly utility rates: 6% for water, 8% for wastewater, and 8.3% for
electricity, which will vary by rate class. Bills can be reduced by reductions in consumption.
Despite the rate increases, revenues will continue to be less than expenses in 2012. Operations and
maintenance expenses, however, have decreased.
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, requested real world solutions for sustainability.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern regarding using electric rate increases to
pay for operations and maintenance expenses.
Councilmember Manvel asked about Switzer’s statement that operations and maintenance costs have
decreased. Switzer clarified that the City’s operations and maintenance costs are down.
Councilmember Kottwtiz asked if the idea to borrow from the water reserves to fund the Discovery
Museum had previously been discussed. Switzer replied it is the same fund that made the loan to
the Discovery Musem; however the loan is still viewed as an asset in the reserves and has no effect
on the rate increase.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for clarification regarding rate increases which will occur as a result
of water conservation. Bill Switzer, Utility Rate Analyst, replied the water rates are tiered which
may result in a higher rate but lower overall bills.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested additional information regarding the extra charge for residential
customers to opt out of the AMI program.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested a rough estimate of the increase in fees for construction water
consumption changing from a flat fee to a monthly fee. Ms. Switzer replied the current charge is
just over $20 for unlimited water, until the meter is set. The proposal would increase the fee to just
over $25 per month, for an estimated use of 7,000 gallons per month.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many water taps in Fort Collins belong to the City Utility. Ms.
Switzer replied there are approximately 35,000 accounts as part of the City Utility.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the other water districts within City limits are requesting 6% rate
increases. Ms. Switzer replied she was unsure.
Councilmember Troxell asked what measures have been taken to decrease systems costs. Brian
Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, detailed various cost reduction measures.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the City’s policy regarding electric heat in multi-family
dwellings. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied plant investment fees are
intended to be a cost recovery element and do take into account the added infrastructure required
to support an all-electric development.
101
October 18, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for input regarding means by which consumers can be encouraged
to conserve. Catanach replied the City’s Customer Information Program discussed the benefits of
conservation, which is required by the State. Additionally, bills are reduced by conservation efforts,
despite a customer’s rate potentially increasing.
Councilmember Horak asked if PRPA has been consulted regarding references to increased
wholesale rates. Assistant City Attorney Carrie Daggett, replied PRPA has been contacted;
however, the references are more related to the City system.
Councilmember Horak asked about the consequences of not approving the rate increases. Janonis
replied some capital improvement projects and operations and maintenance expenses would need
to be taken out of the budget.
Councilmember Horak requested input on acquiring additional revenue in order to reduce future rate
increases. Catanach replied efficiency in use of resources will help to control long-term costs.
Mayor Weitkunat requested a concise explanation of the wastewater and water increase. Catanach
replied part of the reason relates to the cost of rebuilding the failed Mulberry plant. Ms. Switzer
replied the water increase is due to a decline in revenues and demand.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 138, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 139, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 140, 2011, on First Reading. 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, to adopt Ordinance
No. 141, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
102
October 18, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 142, 2011, on First Reading.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern about the commercial rates
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 143, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 144, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, 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.)
Resolution 2011-094
Directing Certain Actions Be Taken to Improve Coordination and Consultation Between
the City and Platte River Power Authority in Connection with the Dixon Creek Substation
to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project and for Future Projects, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution directs the City Manager and City Attorney to take certain follow up actions in light
of recent discussions and analysis related to the Platte River Power Authority Dixon Creek
Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line Project. The City Council discussed this
issue at its adjourned meeting on October 11, 2011, and the Resolution calls for follow up work to:
(1) address impacts from the proposed Project; (2) develop a set of policies and procedures for
planning and consultation related to future Platte River projects; and (3) improve the City’s level
of involvement in future infrastructure and specific project planning by Platte River. The Resolution
also directs the City Manager to provide a copy of the Resolution to Platte River and the other
Platte River member cities.
103
October 18, 2011
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its October 11, 2011 meeting Council directed City staff to develop a resolution expressing the
intent of the City Council that the City Manager and City Attorney work closely with Platte River
staff, and that the City’s representatives on the Platte River Board of Directors work closely with
their counterparts on the Platte River Board, in order to establish procedures and policies that will
improve the level of coordination and communication regarding Platte River infrastructure and
project planning.
This direction grew out of a review of a proposed transmission line that crosses Pineridge Natural
Area. The review was conducted by a consulting firm (SAIC) on behalf of PRPA and the City.
Based on that review, Council concluded that the proposed alternatives to the existing project were
not worthy of support at this time. However, Council desires improved communication and
influence with respect to PRPA project infrastructure planning and implementation and directed
staff to create a resolution that specifically referenced a number of areas for improved
communication and collaboration, including:
1. formal notice to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the proposed
project;
2. formal notice to City representatives, including the Mayor and City Manager;
3. written description and analysis of alternative means to accomplish the project, alternative
routes, configurations and designs, and analysis of related impacts, costs and benefits;
4. detailed analysis of natural resource, aesthetic and other impacts and evaluation of means
by which such impacts may be avoided, minimized, or offset; and
5. a process for soliciting and considering input by City boards and commissions and the City
Council.
Included in the Resolution is direction to staff to develop a written plan to avoid, minimize, and
offset impacts associated with the Pineridge crossing.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the City’s communication with PRPA should be
improved.
Joel Bladow, 6107 Ashton Court, Tri-State employee, commended Fort Collins utilities and
supported the Resolution.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-094.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern regarding references to City property and noted
Council’s intention is to include City-owned property, as well as all property, public or private,
located in the City’s growth management area. City Manager Atteberry confirmed that intent and
stated the City and PRPA have a strong relationship.
104
October 18, 2011
Joe Wilson, PRPA General Counsel, stated that PRPA has agreed to work closely with the City to
develop plans and procedures for future consultation and review of PRPA projects on or impacting
City property.
Assistant City Attorney Daggett suggested wording including “City-owned property and properties
within the growth management area” and discussed the two sections of the Resolution which should
include the phrase.
Councilmember Manvel made a friendly amendment to change the wording in both referenced
sections. Councilmember Troxell accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmembers and staff held a lengthy discussion regarding a systems approach versus a project-
by-project approach.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested follow-up regarding a suggestion he had made to work with
PRPA to include viewsheds and wildlife habitat among its list of stated values.
The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 2011-094, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011,
Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered
Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to
Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail, Postponed to November 1, 2011
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City Code
to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive registered electors who
voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition, the
Code will be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail.
Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
This Ordinance has been amended on Second Reading to add language clarifying that ballots will
be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”, but
who voted in the last presidential election.”
Councilmember Troxell noted including postage-paid return envelopes for City elections could
cause some confusion as County elections would not include postage. Additionally, he requested
information regarding the “inactive failed to vote”(IFTV) status and the process by which the
County amends voter lists. Deputy City Clerk Harris replied the National Change of Address
105
October 18, 2011
Database is used by the County to check its voter registration addresses. Following each November
election, the County sends a mailing to all inactive voters in an effort to update voter registration
and change their status to possibly active, cancelled, or inactive undeliverable.
Councilmember Troxell asked which list the City is using when it expands its mailing to include the
IFTV voters. Harris replied the City’s current IFTV count is approximately 11,400 in Fort Collins.
The City would be mailing to a subset of those voters who did vote in the 2008 presidential election.
No inactive voters will receive ballots in 2013 as voters who did not vote in the 2012 presidential
election would not receive ballots.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern about unintentional voter fraud and increased cost and
suggested making the changes for one election before making permanent changes.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the ability to track returned ballots. Harris replied the City’s voter
database will be used to segregate out the IFTV ballots for the number returned voted, undeliverable,
and those unreturned.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would have preferred the criteria for not receiving a ballot to be
not having voted in two general, or even-year, elections in a row.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No.
130, 2011, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel made a friendly amendment to change the language to reference mailing
to inactive failed to vote electors who voted in at least one of the last two elections.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the possibility of voters receiving ballots from the City but
not the County. Harris replied there is a possibility that up to 20,000 voters could receive a ballot
from the City but not the County if the County were conducting a normal mail ballot election.
Councilmember Kottwtiz suggested instituting a pilot program.
Councilmember Horak suggested postponing the item until November 1, 2011 and including a
Resolution outlining the process.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to postpone the item
to November 1, 2011. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
106
October 18, 2011
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
107
November 1, 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, November 1,
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, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Manvel
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Daggett.
Agenda Review
(City Manager Atteberry withdrew from Consent Calendar consideration due to a conflict of interest
relating to Item #20.)
Deputy City Manager Jones withdrew Item C from Item #20 and 21, Items Relating to the Courtney
Annexation and Zoning, and Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
Citizen Participation
Steve Yurash, 4821 Yellowstone Circle, discussed the attrition rate among City utility workers and
encouraged gradually instituting a tiered residential energy rate structure.
Debra Goodson, 912 Wood Street, encouraged the City, County and developer to provide relocation
assistance and services for Bender Mobile Home Park residents.
James Sack, 2945 Bassick Street, Food and Water Watch volunteer, thanked the Mayor and Council
for a letter written to Senator Bennett regarding the Fair Farm Bill.
Carolyn Hoagland, 2900 Querida Street, spoke in support of the Occupy Fort Collins protestors and
peaceful relations with Police Services.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the petition for annexation for the Courtney
Annexation.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, requested postponement of Item No. 21, Items Relating
to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
108
November 1, 2011
Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek, thanked the City and Police Services for restraint used in handling
the Occupy Fort Collins protests.
Rich Crisler, Occupy Fort Collins protestor, stated the trailer on the site of the Occupy protest is
used for medical reasons, cooking, and warmth. He requested that protestors be allowed to sleep
on site.
Wade Turner, Senior Advisory Board Chairperson, announced the program “Growing Older in Fort
Collins,” to be held at the Lincoln Center on November 10th.
Myles Crane, Preety Sathe, Elaine Boni, and JoAnn Ginal, Human Relations Commission members,
announced the “Make It Stop” anti-bullying summit to be held at the Northside Atzlan Center on
November 9th.
Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, provided an update regarding relocation
efforts for residents of the Bender Mobile Home Park and requested relocation assistance on behalf
of residents.
Benjamin David Gilmore, Occupy Fort Collins protestor, requested permission for the protestors
to be allowed to stay at their current location.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the Occupy protest has occurred on private property and it has been
mentioned that the property owner no longer wants that to continue. Deputy City Manager Jones
stated staff members have been working with protest representatives regarding a protest location and
confirmed that the property owner has not given permission for the protest to occur on the property.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the Human Relations Commission members for announcing the
anti-bullying summit.
Councilmember Kottwitz defended City Manager Atteberry and his integrity.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2011 Regular Meeting and the
October 11, 2011 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Items Relating to Municipal Mail Ballot Elections.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
to Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail
Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by
Mail.
109
November 1, 2011
B. Resolution 2011-095 Directing the City Manager to Provide a Written Report to the
City Council Following the April 2, 2013 Regular Municipal Election Regarding the
Costs Associated With, and Turnout Achieved By, Mailing Ballots to Certain
Inactive Voters as Required by Section 7-186 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City
Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to certain inactive
electors in addition to all active registered electors. In addition, the Code will be amended
to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments
are anticipated to increase voter participation.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011 was originally considered on Second Reading on October 18,
2011. It was postponed to this date to allow staff to amend the Ordinance to further define
those inactive-failed to vote electors who will receive a mail ballot package, and to prepare
a Resolution directing the City Manager to provide an analysis of the April 2013 election.
This Ordinance was amended prior to Second Reading on October 18 to add language
clarifying that ballots will be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation
of “inactive-failed to vote”. On October 18, Council directed that the Ordinance be revised
to provide that any inactive-failed to vote elector who voted in at least one of the past two
General Elections immediately preceding any City election conducted by mail ballot, will
receive a mail ballot package.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance for
the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased
is $1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787 in 2012.
Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the
debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt
by 0.8%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease.
Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, modifies the
duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code to
broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the Board to
promote awareness and appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource
contributing to the quality of Fort Collins.
110
November 1, 2011
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City
Code to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, establishes a
process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties.
The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for
a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This
Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City
Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an
Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in
other circumstances.
In response to a Council comment that the proposed ordinance included some confusing
language, staff has streamlined subsection 23-141(d) to clarify the process to be used. This
simplified language is included in the Ordinance on Second Reading.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of
Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the
2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500
for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland;
and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,217,000,
will be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron
rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering
to accommodate Airport business development. Ordinance No. 135, 2011, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the
Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for
Fiscal Year 2012.
Ordinance No. 137, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, sets
the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346
for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the 2012 Mill
Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged
since 2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s
financial plan for 2012.
111
November 1, 2011
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with
bond proceeds. Examples of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include
annual holiday light display, facade improvements, the enhanced alley annual maintenance
costs, ice rink, and participation in the river district improvement projects, etc.
13. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
Ordinance No. 138, 2011, proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the
board and applies to all rate classes. Ordinance No. 139, 2011, will increase water plant
investment fees an average of 4.7% for 2012. Ordinance No. 140, 2011, will increase
wastewater rate by 8% for 2012. Ordinance No. 141, 2011, will decrease the wastewater
plant investment fees by 3% for 2012. Ordinance No. 144, 2011, will increase the
Stormwater plant investment fees by 1.2% in 2012. These Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator
Proposed for the Carnegie Building.
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated grant revenue of $100,000 from the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town” grant program in the Cultural Services Fund.
The Cultural Services Department and the non-profit Beet Street collaborated on the grant
as required by the NEA. The grant is funding the design and planning for a proposed art
incubator to be housed in the Carnegie Building in late 2012.
15. Items Relating to the Purchase of a Rapid Transit Bus.
A. Resolution 2011-096 Authorizing the Execution of a Contract Between the City of
Fort Collins and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the
Purchase of One Bus Rapid Transit Bus.
112
November 1, 2011
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Transit Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the
Purchase of One Bus Rapid Transit Bus.
The Colorado Department of Transportation has awarded FASTER (Funding Advancements
for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery) funding to purchase one of the six Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) buses needed for MAX operations. The Colorado Department of
Transportation approved funds that will be applied toward the BRT bus purchase. This
request appropriates funds and executes the contract with CDOT.
The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to
the west of College Avenue. The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations
with pedestrian and bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side stops, a transit center at the southern
and northern termini, and off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance facility to
provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the
existing City bus fleet in order to provide MAX BRT services. All six buses will be new bus
purchases, and will replace older buses beyond their useful life. The six BRT buses will be
purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) has
been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will be purchased at
the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded through
CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER), while the other three are funded through the federal Small
Starts grant.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Amendment and Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale
Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
This Ordinance will authorize the extension of the existing agreement with Collindale Golf
Course contractual Golf Professional Dale Smigelsky.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Extension of the Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course
for up to Five Additional Years.
The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar
concessionaire, the Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on
December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was entered into on December 11,
2006. As stated in the Agreement, “This Agreement may be extended beyond the original
five (5) year term if performance is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and
negotiation of a mutually acceptable extension Agreement.” The performance of Mr. Dahl
has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable
extension to the Agreement.
113
November 1, 2011
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a
New Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability
Services.
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has
decided to implement some changes to the City’s internal organizational structure. These
changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the
City Code. This Ordinance establishes Sustainability Services as a Service Area.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and
Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow
Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless.
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking
overnight shelter at area homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter
capacity at The Mission; however, delays have pushed the completion date back to February
1, 2012. This request is to temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for an 8-week
period at the Knights of Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to
shelter people on those winter evenings when other homeless shelters are full.
20. Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-097 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Courtney Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known
as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This is a request to annex and zone 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East
Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite
Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite
Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District.
The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating
signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be
particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and
character. The subject property is in an established residential area.
114
November 1, 2011
21. Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-098 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Leistikow Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known
as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This is a request to annex and zone the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located
east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the
Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and
addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road.
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern
boundary which is shared with the Westchase P.U.D. The recommended zoning is U-E,
Urban Estate in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan. The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops
as a residential land use, the owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer
County would then be able to implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The
effective term of this condition is ten years.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Utility Easement on City Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s
Creek known as Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s
Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing (the Property). The Property was dedicated on the
McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The
Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned and maintained by
City’s Stormwater Utility. McClelland’s Creek conveys stormwater flows to the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to
service the proposed residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will
extend east from Xcel’s existing service line off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned
by the City, as well as, property owned by Poudre School District. The line will run adjacent
and parallel to an existing sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. Xcel has
requested the City grant a 10-foot wide utility easement across the City’s property for the
installation and maintenance of the new gas line improvements.
23. Resolution 2011-099 Authorizing an Agricultural Lease on Prairie Ridge Natural Area to
Harry Sauer.
The Natural Areas Program partnered with the City of Loveland ( as a minority owner) to
purchase the 785 acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area in 2000 from Harry Sauer. The City
115
November 1, 2011
entered into an IGA with the City of Loveland, who manages the property. Loveland leased
the property back to Mr. Sauer for farming and the property has been in dryland wheat
production since the time of purchase. The renewal of the existing agricultural lease on the
property for one additional growing season will allow time for the City of Fort Collins, the
City of Loveland and Larimer County to pursue a collective competitive Request For
Proposal process to select a farming tenant for an agriculture lease on this property and two
other contiguous properties located in the Fort Collins/Loveland community separator.
24. Resolution 2011-100 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the
Purchase of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate from General Chemical.
The Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility is requesting to purchase liquid aluminum sulfate
from General Chemical as an Exception to the Competitive Process. Liquid aluminum
sulfate (Alum) is used as the primary coagulant.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to
Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to
Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City
Code to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the
Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for
Fiscal Year 2012.
13. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges.
116
November 1, 2011
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
29. Items Relating to Electric Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transit
Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Bus
Rapid Transit Bus.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Amendment and Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale
Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Extension of the Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course
for up to Five Additional Years.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a
New Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability
Services.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and
Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow
Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless.
20. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the
Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
117
November 1, 2011
21. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the
Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Utility Easement on City Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for
the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2012, and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the
Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
Catherine Woods, 116 ½ North Meldrum Street, pulled Item No. 19, First Reading of Ordinance
No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and
Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item Nos. 7, 18, and 20, Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered Electors
Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots
Returned by Mail, First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code
to Add a New Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability
Services, and Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning.
Councilmember Troxell pulled Item No. 7, Items Relating to Municipal Mail Ballot Elections.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson pulled Item No. 21, Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he will request follow-up regarding Item Nos. 16 First Reading of
Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Amendment and
Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course for up to Five
Additional Years. On Item No. 23, Resolution 2011-099 Authorizing an Agricultural Lease on
Prairie Ridge Natural Area to Harry Sauer, he would like to see a restoration plan be developed for
those properties as promised when they were purchased.
Staff Reports
Mark Jackson, Planning, Development, and Transportation Budget, Policy and Communication
Manager, provided an update regarding the City’s clean-up efforts as a result of the recent snow
118
November 1, 2011
storm. He stated Utilities employees assisted other communities in restoring power. The total
clean-up cost is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million.
Councilmember Horak and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the additional cost to the City of
the clean-up program. City Manager Atteberry stated that information will be provided in detailed
written report as the information becomes available.
City Manager Atteberry discussed the evolution of the clean-up plan and commended Council and
staff for their efforts.
Councilmember Troxell suggested allowing tax-free shopping at nurseries in the spring to allow
citizens to replace damaged landscaping.
City Manager Atteberry reported on the household hazardous waste collection event in September,
hosted by Utilities and Natural Resources.
City Manager Atteberry discussed the spirit of public service between the Penny Flats fire and the
storm clean-up efforts.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Troxell discussed the Futures Committee trip to Austin, Texas to explore economic
health. City Manager Atteberry echoed Councilmember Troxell’s positive comments.
Councilmember Kottwitz discussed her meeting with Wade Turner and others from the Senior
Advisory Board and promoted the “Growing Older in Fort Collins” event. She acknowledged Sarah
Kane and Rick Richter for their work.
Councilmember Poppaw stated there are three finalists for the Poudre Fire Authority chief position,
which should be announced shortly after the November 18th interviews.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested a brief written history of the history of undergrounding City
utilities.
Ordinance No. 156, 2011,
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations
for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning
January 1, 2012, and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy
for Fiscal Year 2012, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
119
November 1, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends the adopted 2012 Budget and sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2012. Including the 2012 adopted budgets for the General Improvement
District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City
appropriations amount to $456,189,759. The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers
between City funds, is $361,424,510 for 2012. The Net City Budget, as amended, is allocated to:
Net City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended
2012 2012 Change
Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1
Debt Service 23.2 23.2 -
Capital* 19.1 22.6 3.5
Total City Appropriations ** $447.6 $456.2 $8.6
Less Internal Service Funds (57.0) (57.8) (0.8)
Less Transfers to Other Funds (37.1) (37.0) 0.1
Net City Budget $353.5 $361.4 $7.9
* Capital dollars reflect non-lapsing capital project budgets.
** This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council adopted the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget and appropriated monies for expenditure in
fiscal year 2011. State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover
expenses for the ensuing year (2012) based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading must be
done before the last day of November and is currently scheduled for November 15, 2011.
2012 Revenue Update
The revenue forecast model was updated in July of 2011 with data from the first six months of the
year. Sales tax revenue is projected to increase 1.95% in 2012 over 2011 collections based on the
model, including cautious optimism of the economy.
General Fund Revenue (2.25%):
Adopted 2012 Amended 2012
Sales Tax $50,402,000 $52,805,000
Use Tax 8,000,000 7.800,000
$58,402,000 $60,605,000
120
November 1, 2011
Recommended 2012 Budget Additions
After reviewing the 2012 budget revision requests and obtaining guidance from Council, the City
Manager is recommending the following adjustments to the 2012 budget which was presented to the
Finance Committee on October 10, and discussed in Council Work Sessions on October 11 and 18.
The following list includes all changes since the City Manager's recommended 2012 budget
revisions first were initially presented to the Council Finance Committee.
• Eliminated Below Market Pay Adjustment request of $812k
• Eliminated Federal Legislation Analysis and Action request of $79k
• Reduced CMO Policy & Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE to $15k
• Reduced Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal to $10k
• Reduced Downtown Holiday Lighting to $30k
• Changed funding sources to no longer request use of additional KFCG funds
• Added Regional Planning Assistance request for $50k
• Added Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) request for $75k
• Added Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance request for $50k
• Added Sidewalks, Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements request for $300k from Building
on Basics (BOB)
• Added Sidewalk Improvements requests (such as gaps in sidewalk connections) for $260k
from Keep Fort Collins Great-Other Transportation funding
General Fund recommended adjustments total $1,787,016 and recommended adjustments to Other
Funds total $6,837,675.
General Fund:
Ongoing One-time
Assistant to the City Manager and CPIO (1 FTE) $176,320
Police Services Ticket Surcharge Officer (1 FTE) 118,709
Affordable Housing/Human Services 54,499
Restore Conservation Trust Funds for Trail Construction 546,571
Development Review Succession Planning (1.25 Cont. FTE) 75,341
Development Review - Customer Service Demand (1 FTE) 65,000
PFA Non-Discretionary & Total Compensation Increase 228,926
CMO Policy and Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE 15,000
Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services $150,000
Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services (Parking Study) 50,000
Reorganization Office of Sustainability 91,650
Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal 10,000
Downtown Holiday Lighting 30,000
Regional Planning Assistance 50,000
Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) 75,000
Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance 50,000
Total General Fund Adjustments: $1,412,016 $375,000
121
November 1, 2011
Other Funds:
Ongoing One-time
Reorganization Office of Sustainability $30,550
Pedestrian Access and ADA Improvements 300,000
Sidewalk improvements 260,000
Light & Power Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase 121,969
Purchase Power Increase 1,724,505
Energy Efficiency Financing Program (.5 FTE) 300,000
Water Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase 88,054
Water Meter Replacement and Rehabilitation 580,000
Household Hazardous Waste Community Event 22,000
Remove Structures from Poudre River Floodway 1,000,000
Master Plan Flood Mitigation Project Property 1,600,000
MIS Email, Blackberry & Smart Phone Services 28,000 80,000
MIS Network Services Resource Support 62,400
MIS Technology Customer Software Compliance Support 59,488
MIS Technology Customer Support Restructure 30,709
Microsoft Office 2010 Software Upgrade 550,000
Total Other Fund Adjustments $2,045,787 $4,791,888
Miscellaneous
In addition to the recommended adjustments, a couple of miscellaneous adjustments must be made
to correct the 2012 appropriations for recent changes. The additional revenue projected to be
received from Sales & Use Tax must be appropriated for transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and
Capital Projects Fund. Also, the following "clean-up" items are included in the Amended 2012
appropriations.
• Art in Public Places (APP) Adjustment: $2,400
N The original 2012 APP offer was based on projects known at that time. This
adjustment is based on the final 2012 budgeted parks and trails projects
• Additional Flex Service: $526,811
N This adjustment is comprised of a 2012-13 CMAQ Grant of $458,794 and partner
contributions of $68,017 for the operation of the FLEX regional route from June 1,
2012 to December 31, 2012. The City of Fort Collins local match was previously
included in the 2011-12 budget. As such, there is no incremental cost to the City.
• Correct Police Debt Payment Budget: ($750,000)
N A portion of the Police Building debt ($750,000) is funded from the Capital Projects
Fund, the Police Facility - COPs Debt project. In the 2012 proposed budget the
122
November 1, 2011
payment of $750,000 was added to this project budget, funded by additional interest
earnings. However, no additional interest earnings are projected to be received in
future years so the 2012 debt payment should be made using existing appropriations
and revenue. Therefore, the 2012 proposed budget for the Capital Projects Fund
needs to be decreased by $750,000 with the same reduction in Capital Projects Fund
revenue.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance amends the City Budget for fiscal year 2012 and represents the annual
appropriation for fiscal year 2012 in the amount of $454,382,997. The Ordinance also sets the City
mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.”
City Manager Atteberry stated this item is the result of a mid-budget revision process.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, discussed the City budget cycle and detailed the revisions
which are part of this Ordinance.
City Manager Atteberry stated the Keep Fort Collins Great community report will occur February
28th during a work session with Council.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the PRPA bonds and supported on-bill financing.
(**Secretary’s note: Councilmember Troxell left the meeting at 7:35 p.m.)
Councilmember Horak supported investigating on-bill financing and asked for a brief status report.
City Manager Atteberry replied further Council policy conversations will be needed and are set to
occur in late winter or early spring.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the addition of pedestrian and sidewalk improvements to the budget.
Beckstead replied there are two parts to the improvement program, some funds from Building on
Basics and some from Keep Fort Collins Great. Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development,
and Transportation Services, detailed the Building on Basics pedestrian projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance
No. 156, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Electric Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
123
November 1, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
Ordinance No. 142, 2011, will increase the electric rate by 8.3% for 2012. This Ordinance does
not contain any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers.
The changes to the RESR will be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011.
Ordinance No. 143, 2011, 2012 will increase some electric development fees slightly for some
developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly for others. Ordinance Nos. 142 and 143, 2011, were
adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kottwitz).
City staff has worked with Platte River Power Authority staff to address comments received
regarding language found in Sections 1 and 3 of Ordinance No. 142, 2011.”
Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial Operations Manager, discussed the proposed rate increases and
noted the rates include some clarifications for wholesale transactions which have been modified
since First Reading.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested increasing the residential multi-family all electric
impact fee to an amount that would allow growth to pay its own way.
Councilmember Horak asked about the feasibility of an all electric impact fee for multi-family
dwellings. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied plant investment fees
cover extension costs investment and capacity, and therefore increase with an all electric project due
to the infrastructure needed for such a project.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 142, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 143, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 149, 2011,
Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New Section 2-506 Establishing
a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
124
November 1, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to
implement some changes to the City’s internal organizational structure. These changes impact
existing service areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the City Code. This
Ordinance establishes Sustainability Services as a Service Area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under the City’s current organizational structure, the City Manager has eight direct reports with
six Service Directors managing major functions in the organization. These are:
1. Deputy City Manager—Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
2. Assistant City Manager—Community and Operations Services
3. Chief Financial Officer—Financial Services
4. Assistant to the City Manager—Employee and Communications Services
5. Utilities Executive Director—Utility Services
6. Chief of Police—Police Services
Additional direct reports currently include an Assistant to the City Manager (Bruce Hendee) and
an Executive Assistant to the City Manager (Tauny Gilmore).
This Ordinance establishes as a new service area, Sustainability Services, to be headed by Bruce
Hendee. The Service Area Director is to be the Chief Sustainability Officer. The purpose of the
Office is to ensure that the organization pursues the Triple-Bottom-Line concept of sustainability,
addressing Economic Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability and Social Sustainability.
The Chief Sustainability Officer will be responsible for the management of each of the three focus
areas plus developing and implementing a program and system dedicated to organizational
innovation. Several existing staff groups will be consolidated within the Service Area, including:
• Environmental Services
• Utilities Environmental Planning—one staff member;
• Economic Health and Urban Renewal Authority
Under this revised structure, the City Manager will have a total of eight direct reports - seven
Service Area Directors, and an Executive Assistant to the City Manager (Tauny Gilmore). The
Service Directors and related functions that report directly to the City Manager will be as follows:
1. Deputy City Manager, Diane Jones – Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
2. Assistant City Manager, Wendy Williams – Community and Operations Services
3. Chief Financial Officer, Mike Beckstead – Financial Services
4. Assistant to the City Manager, Kelly DiMartino – Employee and Communications Services
5. Utilities Executive Director, Brian Janonis – Utility Services
125
November 1, 2011
6. Chief of Police, Interim Chief Jerry Schiager, – Police Services
7. Chief Sustainability Officer, Bruce Hendee – Sustainability Services
Code Revisions
Under Article II, Section 5 of the City Charter, the City Council has the power to establish, change,
consolidate or abolish administrative offices, service areas or agencies of the City by ordinance,
upon report and recommendation of the City Manager, so long as the administrative functions and
public services established by the Charter are not abolished in any such reorganization. The
proposed reorganization would not abolish any of those essential functions and services.
The organizational structure of the City is contained in Chapter 2, Article V of the City Code. The
service areas are established in Division 3 of Article V. This Ordinance would amend Division 3
to codify the organizational changes described above.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The financial impact for this change will total $122,000 for the addition of the sustainability
department head position. Funding for the new position will be as follows: 0.75 FTE to be funded
through the General Fund and 0.25 FTE through Utilities resources. In the 2012 Budget Exceptions
Process, a line item for “Reorganization Office of Sustainability” was included with a total cost of
$122,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This change provides a positive contribution to the environment through improving City commitment
by fostering inter-departmental integration and cooperation as well as innovation in sustainable
practices.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, encouraged the creation of programs to allow creative
citizens to develop sustainability ideas.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 149, 2011, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak noted the use of the word “sustainability” is not accurate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
126
November 1, 2011
Ordinance No. 150, 2011,
Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the
Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary
Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight
shelter at area homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The
Mission; however, delays have pushed the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This request
is to temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for an 8-week period at the Knights of
Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter people on those winter
evenings when other homeless shelters are full.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The current economic climate has led to an increase in the number of people in our community who
are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Murphy Center, Food Bank, and other agencies
providing “basic needs” services have seen a marked increase in clients and overall community
need.
There are two homeless shelters in Fort Collins that shelter people overnight: The Mission at 460
Linden Center Drive and the Open Door Mission at 316 Jefferson Street. It is estimated that last
winter 5 – 30 people were turned away on several nights due to lack of space, some of them families
with children. The Mission has been working to fund and construct an expansion at their site to
meet this need and construction was originally scheduled to be complete by this fall. However, due
to delays the expanded space will not be completed until February 1, 2012.
United Way of Larimer County is proposing that temporary overflow shelters be opened, when
needed, operating 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. from December 1, 2011 – February 1, 2012. Two sites
would be used for this purpose:
- Sunday night through Thursday night: Knights of Columbus building, 121 North Meldrum
Street.
- Friday and Saturday night: Saint Joseph School, 127 North Howes Street.
The Knights of Columbus building is located in the NCB (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) zone,
wherein overnight homeless shelters are not an allowed use. United Way is asking the City to
temporarily suspend enforcement of the Land Use Code and zoning Map in order to open an
overflow shelter when needed on Sunday through Thursday nights.
The Saint Joseph School facility does not require a zoning exemption because an Overnight Shelter
is a permitted use in the Downtown zoning district. Under the Land Use Code, a minor
127
November 1, 2011
administrative amendment for a change of use would be required, and staff is pursuing that
amendment with the Current Planning Department.
United Way estimates between 5 and 30 individuals will access the shelter each night. The shelter
will be staffed by two Catholic Charities employees and at least one volunteer per night. No food
will be served.
United Way Director Gordan Thibedeau has emphasized that this is a temporary need and only
applies to the limited hours and timeframe requested. During the day, The Mission (operated by
Catholic Charities) and The Murphy Center together provide day shelter services. Clients are
served in the morning hours at The Murphy Center, with the Mission serving clients for lunch and
afternoon hours. This arrangement has worked well for the past two years, replacing the former
temporary cold weather day shelter that was operated out of a City facility on North Howes Street.
The expansion at The Mission will provide 30 additional bed spaces. For the long term, United Way
and the community at large are working with Homeward 2020 to help chronically homeless people
move into supportive housing. The City has supported these efforts by providing one-time financial
support for the expansion at the Mission and funding for the start-up and operation of the
Homeward 2020 initiative.
As noted below, property owners in the vicinity of the two facilities will be notified of this request
and a neighborhood meeting will be held, however, feedback is not yet available. Staff will attend
the neighborhood meeting and report back prior to first reading of the ordinance with comments
and concerns from neighborhood residents and businesses.”
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily
Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a
Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless due to a conflict of interest.
Catherine Woods, 116 ½ North Meldrum Street renter, stated her concern regarding parking was
resolved by staff. She asked about the background of selecting the Knights of Columbus facility and
about the means by which a renter can be informed of proposals affecting her neighborhood.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked about the possibility of constructing a homelessness
prevention facility.
Rich Crisler, Occupy Fort Collins protestor, stated the protestors have been consistently providing
food and shelter for homeless individuals on a nightly basis. He asked if they would be able to
provide the same services at an alternate location.
Monte Barry, 415 South Howes, Occupy Fort Collins protestor, asked how the protestors will be
able to continue their homeless aid efforts.
128
November 1, 2011
Tess Heffernan, Policy and Project Mananger, stated public outreach was limited due to the short
timeframe prior to cold weather. A perimeter mailing to property owners occurred and information
was published as much as possible, given the time constraints.
Glen Good, Catholic Charities Regional Director, discussed the need for additional winter shelter
space and the receptiveness of the Knights of Columbus to using this facility.
Councilmember Horak asked about the notification process. Steve Dush, Community Development
and Neighborhood Services Director, replied development review outreach efforts have been
improved in 2011, including a subscription listserve. Additionally, a map of development review
proposals is on the Current Planning web page.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about notices to renters as well as owners. Dush replied the current
system involves mailing solely to property owners as rental lists are not available. Mayor Pro Tem
Ohlson suggested broadening the notification to renters.
Councilmember Horak asked about simply mailing to “occupant.” Dush replied that may have
budget implications but is possible. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted developers should be funding
notifications.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 150, 2011, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak stated he would appreciate follow-up with neighbors throughout the process.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2011-097 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Courtney Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the
Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This is a request to annex and zone 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East
Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court,
129
November 1, 2011
which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie
Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property
is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this
annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential
Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential
uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs
because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an
established residential area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The applicants, C. Scott and Nancy E. Courtney, being the property owners, have submitted a
written petition requesting annexation of 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road at the east end of
Charlie Lane and south of East Horsetooth Road. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and
Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is developed and is in the FA1
- Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban
Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 – Farming in the Larimer County to
the north, east and south; and, UE – Urban Estate in the City to the west. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation.
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
common boundaries with the Strobel Annexation (April, 1992) and the Wild West Annexation
(August, 1994) to the west.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1 in Larimer County; existing residential
E: FA-1 in Larimer County; undeveloped
S: FA-1 in Larimer County; existing residential
W: UE in the City of Fort Collins; existing residential, church
The requested zoning for this annexation is the UE – Urban Estate District. There are numerous
uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and
Zoning Board. The adopted City Structure Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan),
identifies that Urban Estate is appropriate in this location. The request is in conformance with the
State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations and the City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code.
130
November 1, 2011
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 September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 2011-088 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 requested UE – Urban Estate Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
5. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation and zoning. The property is
developed at the present time, containing a single-family residence.”
City Manager Atteberry stated he had filed a public conflict of interest disclosure statement on
August 11, 2011 and asked Deputy City Manager Jones to take over for this item.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern regarding City Manager Atteberry’s
conflict of interest statement not being included in Planning and Zoning Board and Council meeting
packets and discussed an error in public notification.
Steve Dush, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated the annexation
process was completed per state statute and there was no error with the notification process for the
annexation. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the annexation unanimously
in October. The zoning aspect of the annexation is set to be postponed and the state statute allows
postponement of zoning for up to 90 days after the annexation.
(**Councilmember Troxell returned to the meeting at 9:00 p.m.)
Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated the conflict of interest disclosure statement was completed on
August 11, 2011 by City Manager Atteberry and there is no question as to whether the requirement
was met. As a result of the conflict of interest, City Manager Atteberry has refrained from
discussions relating to the item.
131
November 1, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-097.
Councilmember Poppaw asked that baseless personal attacks on City staff not be included in further
discussions.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested that future agenda items include accurate financial and economic
impact statements regardless of the small size of those impacts.
Councilmember Horak requested additional information regarding gravel roads taken over by City
maintenance. Dush replied he would provide the information prior to Second Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 151, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“ÉXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2011-098 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Leistikow Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the
Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This is a request to annex and zone the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of
Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended
Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline
Road.
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which
is shared with the Westchase P.U.D. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate in
conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The
Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as a residential land use, the
132
November 1, 2011
owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to
implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years.
This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, City of Fort Collins
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Code and the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of
Fort Collins and Larimer County. There are no known controversies associated with this
annexation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area.
Of the total property perimeter, 25% is contiguous to the existing City boundary thus satisfying the
requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous.
According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, the
City will agree to consider annexation of property in the Growth Management Area when the
property is eligible for annexation under state law.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: L-M-N;Westchase P.U.D.
N: U-E;Westchase P.U.D.
E: FA-1;(Larimer County) Leflar M.R.D.
S: FA-1;(Larimer County) Leistikow Amended M.R.D.
W: FA-1;(Larimer County) Paragon Estates P.U.D.
Leistikow Minor Residential Division was approved in 1992, consisted of 37.5 acres and allowed
the creation of four lots, all of which exceeded the required minimum of 2.29 acres per Larimer
County zoning of FA-1, Farming. This M.R.D. was amended in September of 2011 and reduced the
number of lots from four to three. The subject annexation, consisting of 18.04 acres, is equivalent
to Lot Two of the Leistikow Amended M.R.D.
Urban Estate Zone District
The requested zoning is Urban Estate, Urban Estate. The Land Use Code describes this zone
district as follows:
“Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a predominance
of low-density and large-lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to
acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed
in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional
locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more
intense urban development and rural or open lands.”
There are a variety of non-residential land uses allowed in the U-E including the following:
133
November 1, 2011
• Minor public facilities
• Parks, recreation and other open lands
• Cemeteries
• Public and private schools
• Places of worship or assembly
• Golf courses
• Wildlife rescue and education centers
• Child care centers
• Bed and breakfast establishments
• Plant nurseries and greenhouses
• Animal boarding
• Adult day/respite centers
• Small scale reception centers
• Resource extraction
• Composting facilities.
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
The parcel is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, jointly adopted by the City of
Fort Collins and Larimer County in 1998. According to the Land Use Framework Plan, the subject
parcel should be placed into the Urban Estate zone district. The proposed zoning of Urban Estate
complies with the applicable sub area plan.
Place of Worship or Assembly
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued a press release indicating its desire to
construct a temple on the property described by this annexation. As noted, the City’s Structure Plan
Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan both provide guidance that the subject 18.04 acres
should be zoned Urban Estate. A Place of Worship is a permitted use in the U-E zone, subject to
review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
A development review outreach neighborhood meeting was held on September 14, 2011, to discuss
the development review process for a future potential submittal of a Project Development Plan for
a temple for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter day-Saints. At this meeting, staff responded to
inquiries regarding the annexation and zoning procedure, conformance with State Statues, the IGA.
with Larimer County, the City’s Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the Land Use Code. Staff
continues to emphasize to all interested parties that the annexation and development of land are two
distinct processes, each governed by their own set of standards and regulations. For example,
concerns about traffic on adjacent streets are a land development issue best addressed at the Project
Development Plan stage, not at the annexation and zoning stage. There will be opportunities for
citizen input on land development issues at the future neighborhood information meetings that will
be scheduled prior to a submittal for a Project Development Plan.
The Larimer County Planning Department is aware that the annexation of land zoned residential
within the Fossil Creek Area Reservoir Plan, and contemplated for a non-residential land use (Place
134
November 1, 2011
of Worship), would conform to both existing County (FA-1) and proposed City (U-E) zoning.
Larimer County supports the annexation and the proposed Place of Worship. But, Larimer County
would be concerned if, after annexation, the subject parcel were to instead develop as a residential
subdivision. If such were the case, then the County would be prevented from implementing its
Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program, a key element of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan,
jointly adopted by both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
Voluntary Condition of Annexation – Larimer County Transfer of Density Units
The applicant and the LDS Church have offered to the City a voluntary condition of annexation in
the event that the property should develop as a residential subdivision. The purpose of such a
condition would be to ensure the implementation of the County’s TDU Program.
The recommended condition of annexation would obligate the developer of a residential subdivision
to request disconnection from the City. Upon passage of a disconnection ordinance, the parcel
would then revert to the County’s jurisdiction thus enabling implementation of the TDU Program.
Under this condition of annexation, the practical effect of the overall intent of the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan is met. The County’s TDU Program is calibrated such that the residential
density would not exceed the maximum allowable density prescribed in the Urban Estate zone. After
the County’s TDU Program is implemented by the approval of a County Subdivision, the Subdivision
is then annexed into the City prior to land development in accordance with the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area Plan. The condition reads as follows:
This annexation into the City of Fort Collins is conditioned upon the subject property
developing as a non-residential land use. If the property is to be developed as a
residential use, then the owner, successors or assigns shall request disconnection of
the subject property from the City of Fort Collins so that Larimer County would have
subdivision and zoning jurisdiction and allow for the implementation of the Transfer
of Density Units Program. This condition shall be in effect for a period of ten (10)
years following the effective date of this ordinance.
Findings
1. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a
voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
2. 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.
3. The requested U-E, Urban Estate Zoning District, is in conformance with the policies of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
4. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
135
November 1, 2011
5. On September 20, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-087 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.
6. The recommended condition of annexation whereby the owner would request disconnection
in the event of residential development has been voluntarily offered by the applicant with the
full knowledge and consent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The ten year
time frame has been reviewed and approved by Larimer County.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As with any annexation, specific financial impacts are difficult to determine. The Compact Urban
Growth Standards exempt parcels within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area from needing to comply
with requirements for being contiguous to urban development defined as having an overall density
of at least one unit per acre. Despite this exemption, the subject parcel is, in fact, contiguous to
existing urban development (Westchase P.U.D. and Trilby Road). Development of this parcel will,
therefore, be a sequential extension of utilities and services. Adequate public facilities are extended
to the north property line with greater than 16.66% contiguity thus ensuring compliance with the
City’s adequate public facilities management system.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The site is not within 500 feet of a known natural habitat or feature. As with any development, any
significant trees are to be preserved but if preservation is not feasible, then mitigation per Land Use
Code Section 3.2.1(F) would be invoked.”
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern regarding the County process relating to this property.
He stated he would not support the item.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the item.
Ken Merritt, Landmark Planners, supported the item on behalf of the applicant and stated the item
is statutorily eligible for annexation.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-098. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 153, 2011. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
136
November 1, 2011
Items Relating to Municipal Mail Ballot Elections, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to
Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to
Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail.
B. Resolution 2011-095 Directing the City Manager to Provide a Written Report to the City
Council Following the April 2, 2013 Regular Municipal Election Regarding the Costs
Associated With, and Turnout Achieved By, Mailing Ballots to Certain Inactive Voters as
Required by Section 7-186 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City Code
to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to certain inactive electors in addition
to all active registered electors. In addition, the Code will be amended to require that the City pay
postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter
participation.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011 was originally considered on Second Reading on October 18, 2011. It
was postponed to this date to allow staff to amend the Ordinance to further define those inactive-
failed to vote electors who will receive a mail ballot package, and to prepare a Resolution directing
the City Manager to provide an analysis of the April 2013 election.
This Ordinance was amended prior to Second Reading on October 18 to add language clarifying
that ballots will be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-
failed to vote”. On October 18, Council directed that the Ordinance be revised to provide that any
inactive-failed to vote elector who voted in at least one of the past two General Elections
immediately preceding any City election conducted by mail ballot, will receive a mail ballot
package.”
Councilmember Troxell noted eight of the last 25 election dates were City-only elections. Deputy
City Clerk Harris confirmed that information.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern regarding public confusion relating to postage-paid
ballots and requested an explanation of the County’s process regarding “inactive failed to vote”
voters following elections. Harris described the mailing sent out by the County to attempt to garner
information from registered voters who failed to vote.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated there is room for improvement in this process and
suggested the formation of a Citizens Board to aid in assisting voters.
137
November 1, 2011
Councilmember Troxell asked about changes to the item since the last meeting. Harris replied
Council had requested language be changed to allow a voter who voted in either of the past two
general elections to receive a ballot in a City mail ballot election.
Councilmember Troxell requested an estimate of the approximate additional cost for ballots to be
mailed to “inactive failed to vote” electors. Harris replied the estimate is approximately $19,000.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 130, 2011, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the item as paid postage on City elections could
create confusion among electors.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2011-095. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Motion to Adjourn
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adjourn to after
the completion this evening of the Skyview South General Improvement District and General
Improvement District No. 1 meetings to consider a possible Executive Session. Yeas: Weitkunat,
Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council reconvened at 9:45 p.m.)
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to go into Executive
Session pursuant to City Code Sections 2-31(a)(1)(d) and 2-31(2) to consider and discuss strategy
matters relating to negotiations with employee groups including unions and to consult with the City
Attorney regarding related legal issues. Yeas: Weitkunat, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays:
Kottwitz and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: Council went into executive session at 9:50 and reconvened at 10:45 p.m.)
138
November 1, 2011
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m., on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, to consider a possible Executive Session to conduct the
annual evaluations of the City Manager and the Municipal Judge.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
139
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Jill Stilwell
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services
and Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for the Carnegie Building.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, appropriates unanticipated grant
revenue of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town” grant program in the Cultural
Services Fund. The Cultural Services Department and the non-profit Beet Street collaborated on the grant as required
by the NEA. The grant provides funding for the design and planning of a proposed art incubator to be housed in the
Carnegie Building in late 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jill Stilwell
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and
Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for the Carnegie Building.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated grant revenue of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
“Our Town” grant program in the Cultural Services Fund. The Cultural Services Department and the non-profit Beet
Street collaborated on the grant as required by the NEA. The grant is funding the design and planning for a proposed
art incubator to be housed in the Carnegie Building in late 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the April 27, 2010, City Council Work Session, Council expressed support for the repurposing of the Carnegie
Building as a community cultural center in 2012, after the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery relocates to its new facility.
Based on recommendations in the Cultural Plan, staff did extensive outreach to gather input from the community,
including an online survey, an open house, and connecting with several potential partner organizations. The outreach
results showed that most people wanted this historic treasure to remain open and accessible and were supportive of
the community cultural center concept. The concept includes an art incubator run and managed by Beet Street as a
primary function of the building; community exhibition space and black box theater; distance learning
classroom/meeting space; workshop spaces, and the opportunity to host FCPAN as another tenant. In all, the building
would remain open to the public and serve as a resource to the community.
In pursuing the art incubator concept, the Cultural Services Department and Beet Street collaborated on and were
awarded a $100,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town” grant program, one of only
51 grants awarded nationwide. The grant required a government entity partner with a non-profit in order to pursue this
grant opportunity. The funding will support the planning and design phase of an art incubator program to be housed
in the Carnegie Building, subject to the Council’s approval of any proposed leases or other rights to use the Carnegie
Building.
“Our Town” is the NEA’s new leadership initiative focused on creative placemaking projects. In creative placemaking,
partners from both public and private sectors come together to strategically shape the physical and social character
of a neighborhood, town, city, or region around arts and cultural activities.
The art incubator will encourage the education growth and professional development of students, professionals and
the creative industry by offering:
• innovative courses on the business of art, music and entertainment
• internship programs focused on real-world career paths
• continuing education for professionals and arts organizations
• support spaces including a gallery, black-box theater, classrooms and workshop/event spaces that will serve
the community and the incubator programs.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance will appropriate $100,000 into the Cultural Services Fund. The grant requires a one-to-one match
which is being met through Cultural Services in the form of in-kind staff salaries and through Beet Street with cash and
in-kind contributions to the project.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE
CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE PLANNING AND
DESIGN OF AN ART INCUBATOR PROPOSED FOR THE CARNEGIE BUILDING
WHEREAS, City Council supports using the Carnegie Building as a community cultural
center, after the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery relocates to its new facility in 2012; and
WHEREAS, staff has done extensive outreach to gather information from the community
including an online survey, an open house, and connecting with several potential partner
organizations; and
WHEREAS, the outreach results show that most people want the historic Carnegie Building
to remain open and accessible to the public and the public was supportive of the concept of a
community-based cultural center operating in the building; and
WHEREAS, the City and the non-profit organization Beet Street were awarded a grant in
the amount of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” grant program (the
“Grant”) and
WHEREAS, the Grant funds will be paid to and managed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Grant requires a one-to-one match which will be provided by in-kind staff
salaries from Cultural Services and cash and in-kind contributions from Beet Street; and
WHEREAS, the Grant will be used to fund the planning and design phase of an art incubator
program proposed to be housed in the Carnegie Building; and
WHEREAS, the art incubator would encourage the education, growth and professional
development, of students, professionals and the creative industry; and
WHEREAS, on completion of the planning phase, the City Council would be asked to
approve any proposed leases or other rights of non-City groups to use the Carnegie Building as part
of the incubator program; 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 have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any
fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000) for the planning and design of an art incubator proposed to be housed in the Carnegie
Building.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Marlys Sittner
Kurt Ravenschlag
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund,
Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Rapid Transit Bus.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to the west of College Avenue.
The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations with pedestrian and bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side
stops, a transit center at the southern and northern termini, and off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance
facility to provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet
in order to provide MAX BRT services. All six buses will be new bus purchases, and will replace older buses beyond
their useful life. The six BRT buses will be purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant
Agreement (PCGA) has been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will be purchased at
the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded through CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER),
while the other three are funded through the federal Small Starts grant. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on November 1, 2011, appropriates the grant funds received from CDOT.
Ordinance No. 146, 2011, has been amended on Second Reading. The provision of the local match for the FASTER
project contract (Resolution 2011-096) is being met from existing appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason
Corridor project accounts. As a result, Transfort does not require the appropriation of $350,000 in local match from
the Transit Capital Reserve Fund, as originally outlined in the First Reading Agenda Item Summary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Marlys Sittner
Kurt Ravenschlag
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Purchase of a Rapid Transit Bus.
A. Resolution 2011-096 Authorizing the Execution of a Contract Between the City of Fort Collins and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the Purchase of One Bus Rapid Transit Bus.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transit Services Fund
for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects
Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Bus Rapid Transit Bus.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Department of Transportation has awarded FASTER (Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation
and Economic Recovery) funding to purchase one of the six Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses needed for MAX
operations. The Colorado Department of Transportation approved funds that will be applied toward the BRT bus
purchase. This request appropriates funds and executes the contract with CDOT.
The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to the west of College Avenue.
The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations with pedestrian and bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side
stops, a transit center at the southern and northern termini, and off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance
facility to provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet
in order to provide MAX BRT services. All six buses will be new bus purchases, and will replace older buses beyond
their useful life. The six BRT buses will be purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant
Agreement (PCGA) has been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will be purchased at
the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded through CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER),
while the other three are funded through the federal Small Starts grant.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The implementation of the MAX BRT is an essential step to achieving the Transfort transit system vision. Removing
bus traffic from the highly congested College Avenue corridor and creating an exclusive guideway will provide the
backbone for the future transit system. The MAX BRT will provide the essential infrastructure to redesign the transit
system to improve effectiveness.
Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet in order to provide MAX BRT
services. The CDOT FASTER funding contract for the purchase of one BRT bus will be leveraged as local match
towards the federal funding of the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project. The State contribution approved for
purchase of one BRT bus is $500,000.
Project Schedule
Finalize Bus Specifications: December 2011
Order Bus: March 2012
The order and purchase of one BRT bus will be coordinated with the order and purchase of the five remaining BRT
buses needed for the operation of the MAX BRT. It is important to order the buses early as there is an eighteen month
production schedule from the time of order. Ordering the MAX BRT buses in March 2012 ensures they are ready by
mid-2013.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 15
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This funding contract between the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City of Fort Collins is for
the purchase of one BRT bus, which is a component of the Mason Corridor/MAX BRT Project. CDOT's FASTER
funding program is an 80/20 grant program with the State providing 80% of the total cost. Although the City requested
$680,000 for 80% of the cost to fund one BRT bus, CDOT awarded $500,000 of State FASTER funding, and the City
of Fort Collins will overmatch with a contribution of $350,000 from the Transfort Capital Reserve.
Capital
State of Colorado FASTER (58.8%): $500,000
Local Match (41.2%): City of Fort Collins
(Transfort Capital Reserve) $350,000
Total Capital Project Cost (One BRT bus): $850,000
The State Transportation Commission approved a total amount of $500,000 for the purchase of one BRT bus. The
approved FASTER funds are part of the City's overall local matching funds for the Federal Transit Administration
federal funding for the overall Mason Corridor BRT Project.
The BRT buses will be delivered in 2013 and will replace six older Transfort buses. The new BRT buses will be
operational in the first quarter of 2014. The new buses will reduce Transfort’s annual maintenance expenses by
$12,800 per bus, due to the lower maintenance costs for new buses. The following maintenance expenses for one
new BRT bus will be submitted as an offer in the 2013 and 2014 Budgeting for Outcomes process.
2013 Maintenance Costs for One BRT Bus
BRT Bus Maintenance per Year $ 16,000
Total Maintenance expense for one BRT Bus: $ 16,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The BRT buses were included in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment for the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. On September 9, 2008, the Federal Transit Administration declared a
Finding of No Significant Impact would result from the construction and on-going operation of the MAX BRT system.
The Environmental Assessment analyzed Impacts on the following categories:
Land Use and Zoning
Social Conditions
Economic Conditions
Environmental Justice
Right-of-way
Air Quality
Noise and Vibration
Water Resources and Water Quality
Wetlands
Flooding and Floodplain Management
Vegetation
Noxious Weeds
Wildlife/Ecological
Threatened and Endangered Species
Visual Quality
Cultural Resources
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 15
Hazardous Materials
Parks and Recreation Resources
Farmland
Public Safety and Security
Construction
Transportation
Cumulative Impacts
For more detailed information concerning the environmental impacts and mitigation measures please refer to the
Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment located at www.fcgov.com/mason/environment.php.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On September 20, 2000, the Transportation Board unanimously voted to approve the Mason Street Corridor Master
Plan, which included plans for the purchase of BRT buses. Since 2000, staff has regularly updated the Transportation
Board regarding the progress of the Mason Corridor, most recently on May 18, 2011. Minutes from the Transportation
Board can be seen in Attachment 3.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Significant public outreach has been conducted since 1998 with 48 public meetings held for the Mason Corridor
project. The most recent public outreach event was an Open House held June 2, 2010. Information and renderings
of the project and buses were included.
ATTACHMENTS
1 Photo of BRT bus
2 Intergovernmental Agreement between Colorado Department of Transportation and City of Fort Collins for the
purchase of one BRT bus
3 Transportation Board Minutes, May 18, 2011, July 21, 2010, and September 20, 2000
ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSIT SERVICES FUND FOR
TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND APPROPRIATING
UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, MASON CORRIDOR
PROJECT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE RAPID TRANSIT BUS
WHEREAS, the MAX transit system project (“MAX”) is a five-mile, north-south byway
extending from Cherry Street to just south of Harmony Road; and
WHEREAS, MAX includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight stations with pedestrian and bicycle
access, eight curb-side stops, and two transit centers; and
WHEREAS, six new buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet to
provide the MAX service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution 2011-096 authorizing the City to enter
into an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”)
for the purchase of one of the Max buses; and
WHEREAS, CDOT’s FASTER (Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery) funding will provide $500,000, and the local match in the amount of $350,000
will be provided from prior year reserves in the Transit Services Fund existing appropriations in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project; 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 my be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes 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 have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended
remains unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Transit Services Fund the amount of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($350,000) to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project and appropriated
therein for the purchase of one rapid transit bus.
Section 2. Tthat there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue from CDOT
grant funds in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000) for expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the purchase
of one rapid transit bus.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Amendment and
Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, authorizes the extension of the existing
Agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf Professional, Dale Smigelsky, PGA, which expires on
December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was entered into on January 1, 2006, with Jim Greer, and was
assumed by Dale Smigelsky on January 1, 2009. From 2001 through 2008, Mr. Smigelsky was the Golf Professional
at SouthRidge Golf Course. Mr. Smigelsky assumed Jim Greer’s contract as the Head Professional at Collindale on
January 1, 2009. The performance of Mr. Smigelsky has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has
negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Amendment and
Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will authorize the extension of the existing agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf
Professional Dale Smigelsky.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The existing Agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf Professional Dale Smigelsky, PGA, expires on
December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was entered into on January 1, 2006, with Jim Greer, and was
assumed by Dale Smigelsky on January 1, 2009. From 2001 through 2008, Mr. Smigelsky was the Golf Professional
at SouthRidge Golf Course. Mr. Smigelsky assumed Jim Greer’s contract as the Head Professional at Collindale on
January 1, 2009.
As stated in the Agreement,"This Agreement may be extended beyond the original five (5) year term if performance
is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and negotiation of a mutually acceptable extension Agreement".
The performance of Mr. Smigelsky has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually
acceptable extension to the Agreement.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As payment for performance of Golf Services, the City shall pay to Contractor the sum of $46,155 for the year 2012.
The fee will be adjusted on an annual basis by the Denver Boulder Greeley CPIU published by the Colorado State
Planning and Budget Office. In addition, in January of each year, commencing in 2013, the City will pay the Contractor
a lump sum bonus amount not to exceed 3%, based on the year to year increases in Golf Course revenue, minus any
increase due to fee increases. The new base for comparison to the next year will be the prior year’s gross amount
including any fee increases. All fees and other income received through the operation of the pro shop, the sale of
merchandise, locker/storage rentals, golf lessons/instructions, tournament service fees, golf club repair, the rental of
equipment owned by the Contractor, and shall be retained by Contractor. All fees and other revenue derived annually
from the use or operation of the driving range shall be dived as follows: 15% of gross revenue to the City and 85%
to the Contractor. This payment will be made on a monthly basis to the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 21, 2011, meeting, the Golf Board discussed the renewal of the contract with Dale Smigelsky as the
Collindale Golf Professional.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
The Golf Board took public input/comments on the proposed extension at its October 19, 2011 meeting and received
no public opposition and only positive and supportive comments to extend the Agreement. The Golf Board then voted
unanimously to recommend that City Council extend the Agreement with Dale Smigelsky for up to five (5) additional
one-year renewal periods through December 31, 2016. The City Code requires contracts over five years in length to
be approved by Council.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A public meeting was held at City Park Nine Golf Course on October 19, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Golf Board minutes, September 21 and October 19, 2011.
ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT
AND EXTENSION OF THE GOLF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
COLLINDALE GOLF COURSE FOR UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL YEARS
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that Dale W. Smigelsky, PGA, the current
contractor providing golf professional services at Collindale Golf Course, has performed those
services well and to the satisfaction of the City and the general public under the existing Golf
Professional Services Agreement (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has further determined that in order to continue with the
delivery of high quality golf professional services to the public at Collindale Golf Course, the
extension of the Agreement for up to five additional one-year terms, without a new competitive
process for such services, is advisable and would maintain the continuity and provide golf
professional stability in the delivery of those services; and
WHEREAS, the original competitive process for the golf professional services at Collindale
Golf Course and the Agreement contemplated possible extension of the Agreement for up to five
additional years beyond the original one-year term plus four one-year renewals, based on the
expectation that a longer term arrangement for those services would enable proposers to offer more
desirable services to the City at a more advantageous rate than without such longer term potential;
and
WHEREAS, Section 8-186(a) of the City Code requires that any contract for services with
a potential total term over five years in length be authorized by City Council by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in addition to extending the term, the Agreement will also be amended to
include a provision that provides for a 3% bonus to the contractor based on year-over-year increases
in fee revenue generated by increases in the number of paying users of the golf facility; and
WHEREAS, the Golf Board reviewed the proposed extension described herein at its
September 21, 2011 regular meeting, and after receiving only positive and supportive public
comments, voted unanimously to recommend and encourage City Council to authorize such an
extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby authorizes, pursuant to City Code Section 8-186(a), the
extension of the Agreement between the City and Dale W. Smigelsky, PGA, for Golf Professional
Services at Collindale Golf Course for the year 2012, amended as described above, with annual
renewal options through 2016.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Extension of the
Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar concessionaire, the Sandtrap, Inc.,
dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on November 1, 2011, extends the Agreement. The performance of the concessionaire, Mr. Rob
Dahl, has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the
Agreement for the year 2012 with annual renewal options for the years 2013 through 2016, or a potential total term
of ten years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Extension of the
Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar concessionaire, the Sandtrap, Inc.,
dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was
entered into on December 11, 2006. As stated in the Agreement, “This Agreement may be extended beyond the
original five (5) year term if performance is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and negotiation of a
mutually acceptable extension Agreement.” The performance of Mr. Dahl has been very satisfactory during the term,
and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. The existing five-year
Agreement was entered into on December 11, 2006. As stated in the Agreement, “This Agreement may be extended
beyond the original five (5) year term if performance is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and negotiation
of a mutually acceptable extension Agreement.” The performance of Mr. Dahl has been very satisfactory during the
term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
For the privilege of conducting the concession operations hereunder, and the exclusive use of the Concession Space,
the Concessionaire shall pay to the City a concession fee based on 2,000 square feet of operable space and may be
tendered in cash or in-kind services as determined by the City.
2012-2013 = $10.50/sq.ft.
2014-2015 = $11.00/sq.ft.
2016 = $11.50/sq.ft.
The City shall pay all charges for water, storm water, sewer, trash collection, recycling, basic clubhouse security
system, basic bunker house security system, and electric services to the Concession Space. The Concessionaire will
be responsible for 50% of the cost of gas from April thru September. The Concessionaire will be responsible for 15%
of the clubhouse electric bill for April-September, the Cart Barn being excluded from these charges. The City will
provide the fuel for the Concessionaires beverage cart.
The City shall maintain and repair the Clubhouse building, Concession Space and City equipment and fixtures (defined
in Article 8). The Concessionaire will be responsible for 50% of the cost for repair/maintenance/ replacement of City
owned equipment (defined in Article 8), unless negligence is determined and then the concessionaire shall have total
financial responsibility. Concessionaire shall submit all requests for repairs or maintenance to the City Representative.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the City shall not in any way be liable to the Concessionaire
for failure to make repairs as herein specifically required of it unless the Concessionaire has previously notified the
City in writing of a need for such repairs, and the City has failed to commence and complete said repairs within a
reasonable period of time following receipt of the Concessionaire's written notification.
ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN EXTENSION OF THE
RESTAURANT/SNACK BAR CONCESSION AGREEMENT AT SOUTHRIDGE GOLF
COURSE FOR UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL YEARS
WHEREAS, Section 8-186(a) of the City Code requires that City Council approve by
ordinance any contract for services having a potential term that is longer than five years; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that the Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's
Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, the current contractor providing restaurant/snack bar concession services
at SouthRidge Golf Course, has performed those services well and to the satisfaction of the City and
the general public over the course of the existing Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement (the
"Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has further determined that in order to continue with the
delivery of high quality food and beverage concession services to the public at SouthRidge Golf
Course, the extension of the Agreement for up to an additional five one-year terms, without a new
competitive process for such services, is advisable and would maintain continuity and provide
concessionaire stability in the delivery of those services; and
WHEREAS, the original 2006 competitive process for the restaurant/snack bar concession
services at SouthRidge Golf Course and the Agreement contemplated possible extension of the
Agreement beyond the original one year plus four one-year renewals, based on the expectation that
a longer term arrangement for those services would enable proposers to offer more desirable services
to the City at a more advantageous quality and rate than without such a longer term potential; and
WHEREAS, the Golf Board reviewed the proposed extension described herein at its
September 21, 2011 regular meeting; and, after receiving only positive public input and comments,
the Golf Board unanimously agreed to encourage the City Council to authorize such an extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Council hereby authorizes, pursuant to City Code Section 8-186(a), the extension
for the year 2012 of the Agreement between the City and the Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie’s Pub
& Grill at SouthRidge, for restaurant/snack bar concession services at SouthRidge Golf Course,
dated December 11, 2006, with annual renewal options for the years 2013 through 2016, or a
potential total term of ten years.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 17
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 21, 2011 meeting, the Golf Board voted unanimously to renew the contract with Rob Dahl as the
SouthRidge Restaurant/Snack Bar Concessionaire.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A public meeting was held at City Park Nine Golf Course on October 19, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Golf Board minutes, September 21 and October 19, 2011
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New Section 2-506
Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to implement some changes to the City’s
internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related
provisions of the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, establishes
Sustainability Services as a Service Area.
On Second Reading, the functional responsibilities of the new service area have been amended to add “social
sustainability”.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New Section 2-506
Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to implement some changes to the City’s
internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related
provisions of the City Code. This Ordinance establishes Sustainability Services as a Service Area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under the City’s current organizational structure, the City Manager has eight direct reports with six Service Directors
managing major functions in the organization. These are:
1. Deputy City Manager—Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
2. Assistant City Manager—Community and Operations Services
3. Chief Financial Officer—Financial Services
4. Assistant to the City Manager—Employee and Communications Services
5. Utilities Executive Director—Utility Services
6. Chief of Police—Police Services
Additional direct reports currently include an Assistant to the City Manager (Bruce Hendee) and an Executive Assistant
to the City Manager (Tauny Gilmore).
This Ordinance establishes as a new service area, Sustainability Services, to be headed by Bruce Hendee. The
Service Area Director is to be the Chief Sustainability Officer. The purpose of the Office is to ensure that the
organization pursues the Triple-Bottom-Line concept of sustainability, addressing Economic Sustainability,
Environmental Sustainability and Social Sustainability.
The Chief Sustainability Officer will be responsible for the management of each of the three focus areas plus
developing and implementing a program and system dedicated to organizational innovation. Several existing staff
groups will be consolidated within the Service Area, including:
• Environmental Services
• Utilities Environmental Planning—one staff member;
• Economic Health and Urban Renewal Authority
Under this revised structure, the City Manager will have a total of eight direct reports - seven Service Area Directors,
and an Executive Assistant to the City Manager (Tauny Gilmore). The Service Directors and related functions that
report directly to the City Manager will be as follows:
1. Deputy City Manager, Diane Jones – Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
2. Assistant City Manager, Wendy Williams – Community and Operations Services
3. Chief Financial Officer, Mike Beckstead – Financial Services
4. Assistant to the City Manager, Kelly DiMartino – Employee and Communications Services
5. Utilities Executive Director, Brian Janonis – Utility Services
6. Chief of Police, Interim Chief Jerry Schiager, – Police Services
7. Chief Sustainability Officer, Bruce Hendee – Sustainability Services
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 18
Code Revisions
Under Article II, Section 5 of the City Charter, the City Council has the power to establish, change, consolidate or
abolish administrative offices, service areas or agencies of the City by ordinance, upon report and recommendation
of the City Manager, so long as the administrative functions and public services established by the Charter are not
abolished in any such reorganization. The proposed reorganization would not abolish any of those essential functions
and services.
The organizational structure of the City is contained in Chapter 2, Article V of the City Code. The service areas are
established in Division 3 of Article V. This Ordinance would amend Division 3 to codify the organizational changes
described above.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The financial impact for this change will total $122,000 for the addition of the sustainability department head position.
Funding for the new position will be as follows: 0.75 FTE to be funded through the General Fund and 0.25 FTE through
Utilities resources. In the 2012 Budget Exceptions Process, a line item for “Reorganization Office of Sustainability”
was included with a total cost of $122,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This change provides a positive contribution to the environment through improving City commitment by fostering inter-
departmental integration and cooperation as well as innovation in sustainable practices.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Organization Chart
ORDINANCE NO. 149, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE
TO ADD A NEW SECTION 2-506 ESTABLISHING A NEW SERVICE
AREA TO BE KNOWN AS SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council and City Manager have established as a high priority for the
City organization the incorporation of the Triple-Bottom-Line concept of sustainability, addressing
economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and social sustainability, into organizational
decision-making, policies, and practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and his executive leadership team continue to examine and
consider ways to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization; and
WHEREAS, in order to better embody these priorities and objectives into the structure of
the City organization, the City Manager has proposed that a new service area, to be known as
Sustainability Services, be created; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Article V, Division 3, of the City Code sets out and specifies the
service areas within the administrative organization of the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to formalize the establishment of Sustainability Services as a new
service area of the City, the City Council desires to add a new City Code Section 2-506, as set forth
below, and to make corresponding changes to other affected City Code sections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-502 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2-502. Community and Operations Services.
Community and Operations Services is hereby created. Community and
Operations Services shall be in the charge of a Director who shall be directly
responsible to the City Manager for the functions and duties necessary to provide
cultural, parks, natural areas, and recreation services, management information
services (information technology and network systems); operations services; and
legislative services, and who shall have control and supervision over such agencies,
service units, departments, offices or persons as may be deemed appropriate by the
City Manager.
Section 2. That Chapter 2, Article V of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of a new Section 2-506 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 2-506. Sustainability Services.
Sustainability Services is hereby created. Sustainability Services shall be in the
charge of a Director, who shall be directly responsible to the City Manager for the
functions and duties necessary to provide environmental services, and economic
health and urban renewal services, and social sustainability for the City organization,
and who shall have control and supervision over such agencies, service units,
departments, offices or persons as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney Annexation to the
City of Fort Collins.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 151, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, annexes 3.13 acres located
east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed
as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie
Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation.
The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152, 2011, will place
this annexation in UE – Urban Estate Zoning District.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment
will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was
established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which
may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject
property is in an established residential area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On November 1, 2011, Council asked what the cost associated with the Courtney Annexation would be to the City.
The City’s Streets Superintendent has indicated that the potential cost of maintaining the gravel portions of Charlie
Lane and Nite Court would be approximately $400 per year for once a year grading, based on the following criteria
in the Municipal Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards:
Section 24-97. Annexed Streets of the Municipal Code …
Streets annexed into the City that were not designed and constructed to comply with City standards
shall be maintained and upgraded in accordance with the "Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards" as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution.
G.02.01.02 STREET Section G.02.01.02. Streets Not Built To City Standards of the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards …
All other streets and roads that have been annexed into the City and not constructed to County Urban
Standard nor to City standards, shall be handled in the following way:
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.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 12
(a) The City shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from
becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling
potholes in asphalt surfaces. In addition the City will maintain all culverts and storm drainage pipes
that pass under an annexed street.
(b) The property owners adjacent to annexed county streets will be responsible for maintenance of
curb and gutter and/or borrow ditches and culverts that cross under driveways.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, on Second Reading and Ordinance No. 152, 2011, on First
Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On November 3, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Courtney Annexation
be placed in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Vicinity Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Structure Plan Map
5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011 and November 3, 2011
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
The requested zoning for this annexation is the UE – Urban Estate District. There are numerous uses permitted in this
District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The adopted City Structure
Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), identifies that Urban Estate is appropriate in this location. The
request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations and the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
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 September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 2011-088 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 requested UE – Urban Estate Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation and zoning. The property is developed at the present
time, containing a single-family residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading. Staff recommends that this
property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this
property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of
regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected
by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an established
residential area.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Following the Planning and Zoning Board’s regular meeting on October 20, 2011, at which the Board held a hearing
on this annexation and zoning, it was discovered that, through no fault of the applicant, notice of the hearing was not
mailed to affected property owners as required by the Land Use Code. Therefore, a special Planning and Zoning
Board meeting has been scheduled for November 3, 2011 for the Board to rehear this item. In order to avoid delay
of this annexation, the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation addressing the issues of the annexation, the
placing of the property into the U-E, Urban Estate zone district and inclusion into the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District will be forwarded to City Council prior to the Council’s public hearing on Second Reading on November 15,
2011.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 20
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public notification of a Planning and Zoning Board special meeting on November 3, 2011, for the purpose of holding
a hearing on the zoning request, has been given via a letter of notification of the public hearing (containing date, time,
and place for the hearing and a description of the request) mailed to all affected property owners within 800 feet of the
property 14 days prior to the hearing. A neighborhood meeting is not required for annexation of property and no
meeting was held for this annexation and zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. City Zoning Map (partial)
3. City Structure Plan (partial)
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO. 151, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
COURTNEY ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2011-088, 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:
Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court,
situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87 as
bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is
contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot
3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the
Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3,
N89°33'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet,
and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a
distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which
bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve
concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00",
the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of
a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose
central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet;
thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N02°00'16"W 38.73 feet
to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00
foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central
angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and
again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance
of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears
N31°12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the
existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South
right-of--way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South
right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of-
way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along
the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet,
whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92
feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right-
of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a
distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107°15'00", the long chord of which
bears N36°49'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and
again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of
218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears
N55°15'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said
North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295
acres, more or less.
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Courtney Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions
contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, 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
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE COURTNEY ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the
Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning
of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should
be zoned as hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section
1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including
the property known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban
Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described to wit:
Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court,
situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87 as
bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is
contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot
3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the
Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3,
N89°33'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet,
and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a
distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which
bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve
concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00",
the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of
a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose
central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet;
thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N02°00'16"W 38.73 feet
to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00
foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central
angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and
again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance
of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears
N31°12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the
existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South
right-of--way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South
right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of-
way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along
the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet,
whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92
feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right-
of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a
distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107°15'00", the long chord of which
bears N36°49'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and
again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of
218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears
N55°15'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said
North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295
acres, more or less.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above-
described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said
Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Ken Sampley
Lindsay Kuntz
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City
Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s Creek known as Outlot D of
McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing (the Property). The Property
was dedicated on the McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The
Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned and maintained by City’s Stormwater Utility.
McClelland’s Creek conveys stormwater flows to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to service the proposed
residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will extend east from Xcel’s existing service line
off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned by the City, as well as property owned by Poudre School District. The
line will run adjacent and parallel to an existing sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, grants Xcel a 10-foot wide utility easement across the
City’s property for the installation and maintenance of the new gas line improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Ken Sampley
Lindsay Kuntz
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City
Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s Creek known as Outlot D of
McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing (the Property). The Property
was dedicated on the McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The
Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned and maintained by City’s Stormwater Utility.
McClelland’s Creek conveys stormwater flows to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to service the proposed
residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will extend east from Xcel’s existing service line
off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned by the City, as well as, property owned by Poudre School District. The
line will run adjacent and parallel to an existing sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. Xcel has requested
the City grant a 10-foot wide utility easement across the City’s property for the installation and maintenance of the new
gas line improvements.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The residential development to the east of the City property, known as McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing was
platted in 2008, but has not yet been constructed. Xcel plans to install the new gas line to service this development
from their existing line located in the existing development to the west. The new gas line will be bored underground
from the existing line location adjacent to Rock Dove Drive. The alignment of the bored gas line will be located
approximately 30 inches below the low flow line of the creek located on the City’s Property and run parallel and
adjacent to an existing 30-foot sanitary sewer line. The boring work is not anticipated to cause any surface disturbance
within City’s property. Xcel plans to start the project in 2012. City Utilities staff has reviewed and approved the
proposed gas line alignment and proposed work on the City’s property.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Real Estate Services utilized past acquisition costs for similar stormwater properties, as well as, comparable sales data
to estimate the value of the easement area. The City property has limitations on its use as it is located almost entirely
in floodway and is also entirely dedicated as a landscape, utility, and drainage easement on the McClelland’s Creek
PD & PLD plats, which affect the value of the property. Xcel has agreed to compensate the City $1,150 for the value
of the easement and for City staff time to process the easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 22
BOARDS / COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
At its October 20, 2011 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the easement
conveyance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Xcel Easement Location Maps
2. Xcel Easement Project Detail
3. Water Board Meeting Minutes – October 20, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 155, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
A NON-EXCLUSIVE UTILITY EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY
TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property located in Fort Collins, Colorado,
known as Tract D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Tract D of McClelland’s Creek PD &
PLD 2nd Filing (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned
and maintained by the City’s Stormwater Utility; and
WHEREAS, Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) is requesting a ten foot wide
utility easement across the Property for the installation and maintenance of new gas line
improvements that will serve a proposed residential development east of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement is in two sections described and shown on Exhibit
“A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and
WHEREAS, Xcel has agreed to pay the City $1,150 as compensation for the Easement
and for City staff’s time to process this request; and
WHEREAS, City Utilities staff has reviewed and approved the proposed Easement and
related work on the City’s Property; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Easement conveyance at its regular meeting on October 20, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code states that the City Council is authorized to
sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of
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 and, with respect to real property that is part of the
City’s utility systems, that the disposition will not materially impair the viability of the particular
utility system as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens 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 on the Property to Xcel as provided
herein is in the best interests of the City, will not materially impair the viability of the
Stormwater utility system, and is for the benefit of the citizens of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easement to Xcel on terms and conditions consistent with this
Ordinance, together with such additional 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, 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
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Brian Woodruff
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the
Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural
Resources Operating Budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It
also transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and combine these funds in a Radon
Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk-reduction activities identified in the current City Budget.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Colorado Department of Health and Environment has granted $11,725 to the City for a program to encourage radon
testing and mitigation through media advertising, and low-cost test kit sales, and to develop and test outreach
messages designed to encourage homeowners with high radon to install radon-reduction systems. The grant directly
supports radon activities identified in two City budget offers, Air Quality Improvement and the Radon Mitigation
Behavioral Study. The grant requires a local match of $11,725. Matching funds would be transferred from the existing
2011 General Fund. Matching funds would come from two sources within in the Natural Resources operating budget:
$1,725 from Air Quality Improvement and $10,000 from Radon Mitigation Behavior Study. Grant and matching funds
would be combined a Radon Project account.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
City resources would be increased by $11,725. Required matching funds have already been appropriated in the 2011
General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
These funds would be used to lower the lung-cancer risk of Fort Collins residents that have elevated home radon
levels.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 157, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL
FUND FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES RADON PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE
NATURAL RESOURCES OPERATING BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Natural Resources Radon Program (the “Program”) is part
of the City’s indoor air quality program, which is guided by the Air Quality Plan with a policy
goal to educate and encourage residents to reduce their exposure to indoor air pollution; and
WHEREAS, the Program includes aggressive education, a voluntary radon testing
program, mandatory radon mitigation in new construction, and an ordinance requiring the
distribution of radon information to all residential home buyers; and
WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Health
and Environment (“CDHE”) in the amount of $11,725; and
WHEREAS, the CDHE grant funds are to be used to encourage radon testing and
mitigation through media advertising and offering affordable test kits, and to develop and test
outreach messages designed to encourage homeowners with high radon to install radon-
reduction systems; and
WHEREAS, the grant requires $11,725 of matching funds, which have been included in
the 2011 Natural Resources budget and are available for transfer to the CDHE project for the
Program; 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 CDHE 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, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one
project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be
expended remains unchanged.
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 ELEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE
DOLLARS ($11,725) for expenditure in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon
Program.
Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($11,725) is authorized for transfer from the
Natural Resources operating budget in the General Fund to the CDHE grant project for the
Natural Resources Radon Program and appropriated herein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Perrie McMillen
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police
Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services
Project Budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A grant in the amount of $30,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grants 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 caused 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. A $3,333 cash match is required for the $30,000
grant and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for restorative justice.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Restorative Justice Services and its two programs; RESTORE for shoplifting offenses, and RJCP (Restorative Justice
Conferencing Program) for all other offenses, has been grant funded since its inception in 2000. City Council yearly
accepts grant funds from Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and other grant funding agencies to support Restorative
Justice Services. The RJS programs are supported by three grants and some money from the City. Since it began,
Restorative Justice Services has provided a restorative justice alternative to more than 2,000 young people, their
families and the victims/victim representatives of their crimes.
The objective of the RJS programs is to educate young people who have committed chargeable offenses in the City
of Fort Collins about how others are impacted by their actions, words and behaviors. The intention is that young
people, who understand how they, their families, friends and community are harmed by their actions, will make better
future decisions and not commit the same or similar crime again. In RJCP, the victim’s needs and concerns are central
to the process. Reducing future criminal behavior, addressing the needs and concerns of crime victims and keeping
young people out of the justice system, all contribute positively to a safer and healthier community.
Without grant funding and the support of the City, Restorative Justice Services would not be a service available to
young people and their families, the victims of their crimes, the courts, law enforcement and our community.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The additional grant money in the amount of $30,000 from Division of Criminal Justice, Juvenile Diversion Grants,
provides funding for the continuation of Restorative Justice Services. The match requirement of $3,333 (10%) will be
met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for restorative justice.
Diverting youth and young adults from the justice system relieves pressure on Fort Collins Municipal Court and the
8th Judicial District Court and saves courts personnel time and money. Reducing future shoplifting, theft and other
criminal behavior by young people who have participated in the RJS programs will have a long-term positive impact
on the economic health of our community by keeping young people out of the justice system, thereby improving their
future employment options and encouraging young people to not participate in criminal behavior that harms
themselves, their families and our community.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There is no known or measurable impact on the environment. In RESTORE, education about the impact of shoplifting
on the environment (excess packaging to prevent theft that ends up in our landfill) is part of the program, so there may
be some future positive impact on the environment if fewer youth continue to shoplift. Occasionally there may be a
positive impact on the environment when young people are educated about when and how their actions have an
environmental impact. The programs have no known negative impact on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. RESTORE Program Information Sheet
2. RJCP Program Information Sheet
A Restorative Justice Program for Merchants, Community and Young Shoplifters
WHAT IS IT?
The RESTORE Program provides a voluntary opportunity for youth who have shoplifted to deal with
their charge in a way that is meaningful to themselves and the community.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
The Fort Collins Municipal Court or Larimer County District Attorney’s Office have referred you to our
program. You will attend an arraignment and meet with our staff and/or volunteers, who will explain the
RESTORE program to you and your parent/guardian. If you decide to participate in the program, you
will complete a RESTORE intake form and sign up for Session #1. You will also be asked to take a
survey, which is anonymous and used for grant funding purposes. Your parent/guardian must attend the
sessions with you.
RESTORE Session #1 has three parts and will take approximately 3.5 hours.
Part 1- You and your parent/guardian will listen to speakers discuss the impact of shoplifting on the
merchant community, law enforcement, the court system, families, and the larger community. You will
also hear other youth speak about how shoplifting has affected them, their peers, and their families.
Part 2 – You and your parent/guardian then will meet with a small group to talk about the shoplifting
incident you were involved in and how you have been affected by this incident. This group will also
include other juvenile shoplifters, their parents, a community member, a peer representative, and a
merchant representative, and will be facilitated by RESTORE volunteers.
Part 3 - When the small group is complete, you and your parent/guardian will review a contract and select
from a list ways you can repair the harm to the victim, the community, your family and yourself. The
contract includes eight hours community service. You will also sign up for a time to return to Session #2.
RESTORE Session #2 will take approximately one hour.
About one month after Session #1, you will return to the RESTORE program with all of your completed
contract items. You will meet with a small group of volunteers who will review your contract and
verification of items completed. You will also complete the survey taken in the original meeting.
Not guilty: If you believe you are not guilty, you do not belong in the RJ program. To participate, you must admit your part in
the incident.
Young adults: You are not required to bring a parent. However, we recommend you bring a person who cares about you and
will support you through the process.
BY PARTICIPATING IN THE RESTORE PROGRAM, YOU CAN:
learn more about shoplifting and how it affects merchants and the community
repair the harm done by the incident in a meaningful way
make choices about the consequences of your actions
have your theft charge dismissed upon successful completion of the program
FEE: Cost is $50 (cash or money order made out to City of Fort Collins-RJ). A reduced fee is available
for families who qualify. A $25 administrative fee is added for rescheduling a session.
ATTENDANCE AT BOTH SESSIONS IS MANDATORY. IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND YOUR
SCHEDULED SESSIONS, YOU WILL BE EXPELLED FROM THE PROGRAM AND
REFERRED BACK TO COURT.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about the RESTORE Program, contact:
Bernadette Martinez (Probation Department) 970-498-5844x1
Perrie McMillen (Restorative Justice Program) 970-566-8160
201 LaPorte Ave. Suite # 110 * c/o Probation Department * Fort Collins, CO 80521-2764
ATTACHMENT 1
Repairing the harm of crime for victims, young offenders and community
WHAT IS IT?
The Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) provides a voluntary opportunity for young people
(age 10-20) who have committed misdemeanor offenses to deal with their charge in a way that is
meaningful to them and the community.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
The Fort Collins Municipal Court or Larimer County District Attorney’s Office has referred you. You
will attend a court arraignment and meet with RJCP staff, who will explain the RJCP program. If you
decide to participate, you will complete preliminary forms and sign up for the program. You will also be
asked to take a survey, which is confidential and used for grant purposes. If you are under 18 years of age,
your parent/guardian must attend the arraignment and the RJCP meetings with you.
Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP)
RJCP consists of three meetings, totaling 4-6 hours, and contract obligations to fulfill in between.
Meeting #1 – (1-1.5 hours) You and your parent/guardian will meet with RJCP facilitators for a
preconference meeting. At this meeting you will learn more about the RJCP process and will prepare for
the upcoming RJ circle. You will discuss the incident and explore your thoughts and feelings about the
incident and who has been impacted by it. Your parent will also discuss how the incident has impacted the
family. You will have homework to develop ideas on how to repair the harm caused by the incident.
Meeting #2 – (2-3 hours) You and your parent/guardian will meet with the victim/victim representative,
other offenders (if there are any), community representatives and the RJCP facilitators in a face-to-face
meeting. The discussion will focus on who has been harmed by the incident, how they have been harmed,
and what can be done to repair the harm. The circle will develop a contract to address repairing the harm
caused by the incident. The contract will include a minimum of 20 restorative hours for you to fulfill.
Meeting #3 – (1 hour) You and your parent/guardian will return for a follow-up interview with RJCP staff
and/or volunteers when your contract obligations are complete (usually about a month). You must bring
written verification of all contract items to this interview. You will review your understanding of the harm
done by the incident, and any experiences you have had or things you have learned through the process.
Other participants from the circle will be invited to attend the interview, and may or may not be present.
You will also complete the survey taken at the court arraignment. If all contract items are complete and
verified, you will have completed the program.
BY PARTICIPATING IN THE RJCP PROGRAM, YOU CAN:
learn more about your offense and how it affected the victim, community, your family, yourself
repair the harm done by the incident in a meaningful way
make choices about the consequences of your actions
have your charge dismissed upon successful completion of the program
FEE: Cost is $50 (cash or money order to: City of Fort Collins – RJ). We do NOT accept checks. A
reduced fee is available for families who qualify.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about the RJCP Program, contact:
Mary-Claire Geiss or Perrie McMillen (970) 416-2290
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 158, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE
GENERAL FUND FOR POLICE SERVICES’ RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
PROGRAM AND FOR THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE POLICE SERVICES PROJECT BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice has awarded the City of Fort Collins
Police Services (“Police Services”) a grant in the amount of $30,000 (the “Grant”) for salaries
associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice Program (the “Program”); and
WHEREAS, the Program is an alternative method to the traditional criminal justice system,
providing services to more than 2,000 young people; and
WHEREAS, the Program facilitates a meeting with the young offender, the victim, and
community members to discuss the harm caused by the young offender and to find meaningful ways
for the young person to repair that harm; and
WHEREAS, the grant requires a cash match of $3,333, which will be met by transferring
funds previously appropriated in Police Services’s operating budget and allocated for restorative
justice; 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 Grant 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, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to
another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains
unchanged.
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 revenue in the General
Fund the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000) for expenditure in the General Fund
for continuation of the Restorative Justice Program.
Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of THREE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED THIRTY THREE DOLLARS ($3,333) is authorized for transfer from the Fort Collins
Police Services’s operating budget in the General Fund to the Police Services grant project for the
Restorative Justice Program and appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to
Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs associated with the tree
and branch cleanup. This appropriation request will be used for the incremental costs (direct costs) associated with
the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating budget. This includes personnel overtime and planned "work for
other departments" costs that cannot be recouped, as well as other incremental costs associated with contractors,
equipment rental, fuel, etc. that are uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The snowstorm began Tuesday evening, October 25, 2011 and lasted until Wednesday afternoon, October 26, 2011.
Over that time period, 6 inches to 9 inches of heavy wet snow fell across the City. Warm pavement conditions made
snow removal easier, but heavy snow damaged trees throughout northern Colorado. Additionally, 15 minor power
outages were reported and resolved.
There was extensive damage to trees throughout Fort Collins that impacted rights of way, residential areas, City trees,
City parks, cemeteries, golf courses and downtown Fort Collins. The organization quickly transitioned from snow
removal to debris cleanup mode to restore power, clear roads of debris and address critical safety hazards.
The Utilities Light and Power crews also provided regional assistance to other northern Colorado cities in need. Over
300 work hours were provided to help restore power across the region.
The City has offered to pick up residents’ downed limbs within the City limits or residents can drop branches off at the
City’s Hoffman Mill Crushing Facility. This multi-week effort began on October 31, 2011 and will continue through the
end of the year. Tree pruning activities will extend well into 2012.
The table below displays preliminary cost estimates for the tree and branch cleanup. The total appropriation requested
from General Fund reserves is a maximum of $1.3 million. Approximately $100,000 of the incremental cost, as
indicated in the table below, is associated with Utilities Fund expenses. Those specific amounts are still being
determined and will reduce the requested appropriation from General Fund reserves. These amounts will be finalized
and incorporated in the second reading.
Department/Division Redeployed Cost Incremental
Cost
Total Cost
Streets & Utilities $52 $1,026 $1,078
Traffic $20 20 40
Forestry 342 228 570
Parks 61 19 80
Golf 37 6 43
Cemeteries 17 2 20
$529 $1,301 $1,830
$ in thousands
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
The amount of the appropriation will not all be expensed in 2011. Any appropriation not carried forward into 2012 via
a valid contractual purchase order with a vendor and for which there is a valid expense associated with the cleanup
effort, will likely be requested in the 2012 Reappropriation Ordinance. Because these are estimates, staff will provide
a final expenditure report at the close of the tree branch pickup operation (we are targeting the end of the first quarter
in 2012).
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Approval of this appropriation will reduce prior year General Fund reserves by a maximum of $1.3 million depending
on the final amounts for Utility expenses.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
All materials collected at the City’s Hoffman Mill Crushing Facility will be mulched or composted and will be used in
a “Free Mulch Giveaway” this spring. Materials collected by the City will be recycled. No branches will go to Larimer
County Landfill.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Streets Department Storm Cleanup costs
2. Parks Department Storm Cleanup costs
1
Attachment 1
Streets Department Storm Cleanup Costs
Following is a breakdown of incremental and redeployed costs for the storm cleanup. These
figures include Streets, Traffic, and Utilities personnel and equipment:
Incremental Cost
Leased trucks (contracted) 250,000
Contractors 220,000
Rental for 3 skidsteer loaders 5,985
Rental for 4 skidsteer grapple forks 2,880
Purchase of chain saws 1,534
Truck Fuel - 16 Trucks @ 120 gallons a week 35,136
Fleet CPU mileage for 16 trucks 35,424
6 Loaders fuel - 40 gallons a day each 26,352
Fleet CPU 6 loaders 60 hours a week 15,966
Fuel for 4 skidsteer loaders - 20 gallons a day 7,027
Fleet CPU for bobcat 2,186
Overtime 160,000
Regular time for “Work For Others” crews 81,485
Hageman dump fee 162,500
Cost to grind branches delivered to crusher 40,000
$1,046,475
Redeployed Cost
Street Maintenance Program Patching:
- Miramont 27,420
- Brown Farm 20,153
Pothole Permanent Patching: 4,800
- Delayed until the cleanup operation is done.
- Will continue to fill potholes as they are
called in.
Traffic 20,000
$72,373
Operations Clean Sweep Program - This annual program was suspended due to the storms.
Sweepers are being used in the cleanup effort. Sweeping operations may be resumed in
December, weather permitting. The entire city will need to be reswept.
2
The “Work for Others Projects” program is work done by the Streets Department for other City
departments. Following are projects that have been delayed due to the storm cleanup effort:
Work For Others Projects:
- Lincoln Temporary Sidewalk Project for Transportation Planning.
- Permanent Patching for Union Pacific Rail Road Crossing on Drake, west of
Timberline, for Engineering.
- Rawhide Flats road reconstruction for Natural Areas
- Magnolia and Whitcomb intersection paving, Floodplain compliance for
Engineering.
- 301 E. Olive, Library parking lot repairs.
- Maple St. Parking, adding 5 parking bumpers for Parking Services. Benefits
281 parking.
- 30+ Utility patches for water main breaks, and storm water repairs.
- Light and Power under grounding in southwest annexation, Skyway area.
Summary:
Total Redeployed Costs: $72,373
Total Unfunded Incremental Costs: 1,046,475
Total Cost: $1,118,848
Attachment 2
Parks Department Storm Cleanup Costs
Forestry Division:
Total cost of storm cleanup $570,000
Redeployed costs $342,000 includes salaries, equipment and fuel, traffic control, tree
replacement, and wood grinding.
Additional unfunded incremental costs $228,000 for two contract tree crews for 17 weeks
Parks Division:
Total cost of storm cleanup $80,000
Redeployed employee and equipment costs for branch cleanup and chipping in parks,
medians, city facilities, trails and downtown $61,000. (This work is separate from work
done by Forestry Division)
Additional unfunded incremental costs $19,000. This is to rent two chipping machines
for 3 months to chip branches for all Parks Department areas.
Golf Division:
Total cost of storm cleanup at the golf courses $42,500
Redeployed employee and equipment costs for branch cleanup and chipping at the golf
courses $37,000
Additional unfunded incremental costs $5,500. With seasonal staff funding spent for the
year, this is a request for funding to hire hourly staff to help with the branch cleanup and
chipping for 4 weeks.
Cemeteries Division:
Total cost of storm cleanup at the cemeteries $19,500
Redeployed employee and equipment costs for branch cleanup and chipping at the
cemeteries, and redeploying a fulltime staff person to assist Forestry for 14 weeks
$17,100
Additional unfunded incremental costs $2,400. This funding will pay for an additional
hourly for 40 hours and cover overtime costs associated with redeploying a fulltime staff
person to Forestry of 14 weeks.
Summary of Total Estimated Costs for the Parks Department
Total Redeployed Costs $457,100
Total Unfunded Incremental Costs $254,900
Total Cost $712,000
NOTE: All of the above unfunded, incremental costs are included in this appropriation request.
ORDINANCE NO. 159, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL
FUND FOR TRANSFER TO VARIOUS CITY FUNDS
FOR TREE AND BRANCH CLEANUP EXPENSES
WHEREAS, heavy wet snow fell across Fort Collins on October 25 and 26, 2011 damaging
trees and breaking branches throughout the city; and
WHEREAS, the extensive tree damage throughout the city impacted rights of way,
residential areas, City trees, City Parks, cemeteries, and downtown Fort Collins, and caused a
reported 15 power outages; and
WHEREAS, City staff and crews of various departments quickly changed priorities to clear
roads of debris, restore power, and address critical safety hazards; and
WHEREAS, City management also determined that in order to protect public health, safety
and welfare, the City would pick up downed branches gathered from city residential properties; and
WHEREAS, all tree and branch debris collected by the City will be mulched or composted
and will be available in a “Free Mulch Giveaway” in the spring; and
WHEREAS, the City’s tree and branch cleanup efforts are expected to result in unanticipated
costs in the amount of $1,301,000, which cannot be covered within the existing 2011 budget; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance appropriates $1,301,000 from General Fund prior year reserves
for transfer to the following funds for tree and branch cleanup costs:
Cemeteries Fund $ 2,000
General Fund 247,000
Golf Fund 6,000
Transportation Services Fund 1,046,000
Total $1,301,000
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the prior year reserves as
described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the City Funds to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended
remains unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the
General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($247,000)
for tree and branch cleanup costs in the Parks and Forestry departments.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the
General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,054,000) for
transfer to the following funds:
Cemeteries Fund $ 2,000
Golf Fund 6,000
Transportation Services Fund 1,046,000
Total $1,054,000
and appropriated therein for tree and branch cleanup costs in each fund.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
John Voss
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement expansion fees and the
neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also, to account for rising construction costs, the City
adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has
increased 3.8% and the ENR has increased 7.55%.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In May 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, which established capital improvement expansion fees for
Community Parkland, Police, Fire, and General Government services. The purpose of the fees is to have new
development pay a proportionate share of the capital improvements and equipment that will be necessary to provide
services to the development. The Code provisions approved by the Ordinance provide for the annual adjustment of
the fees to keep up with inflation, using the Denver-Boulder (now Denver-Boulder-Greeley) Consumer Price Index.
The City has imposed a Parkland fee for neighborhood parks since 1968. In August 1996, Council adopted Ordinance
No. 105, 1996, which aligned the Neighborhood Parkland fee to the housing size differentials in the Capital
Improvement Expansion fee ordinance, and updated the fee schedule to reflect pre-1996 inflation. The Neighborhood
Parkland fees were adjusted for inflation in 1997-2007, along with the Capital Improvement Expansion fees. Based
on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, the inflation level since the last annual
adjustment is an increase of 3.8% for 2012. This Ordinance adjusts the fee schedules in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code
to account for inflation. In the Ordinance, all amounts for the capital improvement expansion fees have been rounded
to the nearest dollar.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The 2012 revenue budget in the table below reflects changes in both the rates and volume of building activity.
Summary information:
Revenue
2009 2010 2011 2012 *
Fee Type Actual Actual Forecast Comparison
Capital Expansion Fees $ 467,263 $ 777,353 $ 1,374,000 $ 1,426,000
Neighborhood Parkland Fees 221,736 346,749 906,000 940,000
Street Oversizing Fees 641,491 2,121,165 1,531,000 1,647,000
* The 2012 comparison applies the proposed fee increase to the 2011 forecast. The estimated
revenue is really $1,650,000 for Capital Expansion Fund, $519,000 for Neighborhood Parkland Fund,
and $2,038,000 for Street Oversizing Fund.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 17
Rate Change
2009 2010 2011 2012
Fee Type Authorized Authorized Authorized Proposed
Capital Expansion Fees 3.70% 0.00% 1.10% 3.80%
Neighborhood Parkland Fees 3.70% 0.00% 1.10% 3.80%
Street Oversizing Fees 6.30% 0.00% 5.48% 7.55%
At year-end of 2011, staff estimates that the total available balance in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund will
be approximately $14.4 million, the Neighborhood Parkland Fund about $6.0 million, and the Street Oversizing Fund
nearly $6.6 million.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 160, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7.5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO INCREASE THE AMOUNTS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
EXPANSION FEES SO AS TO REFLECT INFLATION IN ASSOCIATED
COSTS OF SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality having the full right of self-government
in local and municipal matters under the provisions of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, among the home rule powers of the City is the power to regulate, as a matter
of purely local concern, the development of real property within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows that the rate of future growth and
development in Fort Collins will require a substantial expansion in library, community park, police,
fire, and general government facilities, and related capital equipment, if its level of service standards
for such facilities are to be maintained; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should contribute its
proportionate share of providing such capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has broad legislative discretion in determining the appropriate
funding mechanisms for financing the construction of public facilities in the City; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996,
establishing certain capital improvement expansion fees; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 7.5-18 provides for annual fee increases in the capital
improvement expansion fees corresponding to the increases in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers; and
WHEREAS, in September 1968, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 038, 1968, which
established the original Neighborhood Parkland Fee to fund the acquisition and development of
parkland, which ordinance has since been amended on several occasions to adjust the fee and to
refine related procedures and requirements; and
WHEREAS, with the adoption in August 1993, of Ordinance No. 082, 1993, the City
Council directed the City Manager to annually review the Neighborhood Parkland Fee and submit
to the Council proposed inflation-related increases based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer
Price Index; and
WHEREAS, the City Code calls for the annual adjustment of all Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees, including the Neighborhood Parkland Fee, for inflation; and
WHEREAS, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent Denver-Boulder-Greeley
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, staff anticipates that the Index will reflect an
inflation increase of 3.8 percent since the last annual adjustment of the fees in 2011, effective
January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically used the Engineering News Record as a reference to
determine whether the street oversizing capital improvement expansion fee should be increased to
account for rising construction costs; and
WHEREAS, based on the Engineering News Record, the cost of constructing street
improvements has increased 7.55 percent since the last adjustment of the Street Oversizing Capital
Improvement Expansion fee; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is necessary,
in the interests of the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, that the Capital
Improvement Expansion Fees, including the Neighborhood Parkland Fee and the Street Oversizing
Fee, be increased as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-28(a) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, establishing the Community Parkland Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft and under $ 986.001,023.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,398.001,451.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,642.001,704.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,889.001,961.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 2,298.002,385.00
Section 2. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-29(a) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, establishing the Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
700 sq. ft and under $ 72.0074.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 103.00107.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 122.00127.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 140.00145.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 171.00177.00
Commercial buildings
(per 1,000 square feet) 151.00157.00
-2-
Industrial buildings
(per 1,000 square feet) 41.0043.00
Section 3. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-30(a) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, establishing the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
700 sq. ft and under $ 106.00110.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 151.00157.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 176.00183.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 203.00211.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 248.00257.00
Commercial buildings
(per 1,000 square feet) 217.00225.00
Industrial buildings
(per 1,000 square feet) 60.0062.00
Section 4. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-31(a) of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, establishing the General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
700 sq. ft and under $ 134.00139.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 190.00197.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 223.00231.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 257.00267.00
2,201 sq. ft. and over 312.00324.00
Commercial buildings
(per 1,000 square feet) 243.00252.00
Industrial buildings
(per 1,000 square feet) 67.0070.00
Section 5. That Section 7.5-71(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, regarding the
Neighborhood Parkland Fee is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7.5-71. Collection of neighborhood parkland fee.
(b) The amount of the fee established in this Section shall be determined for each
dwelling unit as follows:
700 sq. ft. and under $ 886.00920.00
701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,254.001,302.00
1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,475.001,531.00
1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,695.001,759.00
-3-
2,201 sq. ft. and over 2,064.002,142.00
Section 6. That Section 7.5-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, regarding the
Street Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion Fee is hereby amended to read as follows:
STREET OVERSIZING CAPITAL
EXPANSION FEE SCHEDULE
Average Weekday
Vehicle Trips
Transportation
Impact Fee Rate
Residential (per housing unit)
SF Detached 9.55 2,8423,056 per D.U
MF and Other Housing 6.59 1,9612,109 per D.U
Hotel/Motel 8.70 2,5892,784
per
room
Apartment 6.12 1,8211,959 per D.U
Retirement Community 3.30 9821,056 per D.U
Assisted Living 4.52 1,3451,447 per D.U
Congregate Care Facility 2.15 640688 per D.U
Residential Condominium 5.86 1,7441,875 per D.U
Duplex 7.18 2,1372,298 per D.U
Townhome 5.86 1,7441,875 per D.U
Mobile Home 4.92 1,4641,575 per D.U
Non Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Comm/Shopping Center
1000K GLA 32.09 5.565.98 /sq. ft.
500K GLA 38.65 6.707.20 /sq. ft.
200K GLA 54.50 9.4410.16 /sq. ft.
50K GLA 91.65 10.9211.74 /sq. ft.
Movie Theater 77.79 13.4814.50 /sq. ft.
Fitness/Racquet Club 17.14 3.193.44 /sq. ft.
Day Care 79.26 5.776.21 /sq. ft.
Government Office 68.93 12.8413.81 /sq. ft.
Post Office 86.78 16.1717.39 /sq. ft.
Building Materials/Lumber 39.71 6.887.40 /sq. ft.
Specialty Retail 40.68 7.057.58 /sq. ft.
Discount Club 41.80 7.247.79 /sq. ft.
Nursery(Garden Center) 36.08 6.727.23 /sq. ft.
Sit Down Restaurant 130.34 15.5316.70 /sq. ft.
Fast Food w/ Driveup 496.12 36.1138.84 /sq. ft.
Car Sales 37.50 6.997.52 /sq. ft.
Service Station 168.56 /pump
12,269.6713,196.03 /pump
Wholesale Tire Store 20.36 3.794.08 /sq. ft.
Self Service Car Wash 5.79 /stall 421.46453.28 /stall
Supermarket 111.51 13.2914.29 /sq. ft.
Convenience Market 737.99 53.7257.77 /sq. ft.
Furniture Store 5.06 1.471.58 /sq. ft.
Bank 189.95 12.8613.83 /sq. ft.
-4-
Drive-In Bank 265.21 19.3020.76 /sq. ft.
Insurance Building 11.45 2.132.29 /sq. ft.
Manufacturing 3.85 1.121.21 /sq. ft.
Warehousing 4.96 1.441.55 /sq. ft.
Light Industrial 6.97 2.032.18 /sq. ft.
Mini-Warehouse 2.50 0.730.78 /sq. ft.
Business Park 14.37 4.184.50 /sq. ft.
General Office
200K GFA 11.54 3.363.61 /sq. ft.
50K GFA 16.31 4.755.11 /sq. ft.
10K GFA 24.39 7.107.64 /sq. ft.
Recreational 3.64 /ac 1,059.841,139.86 /acre
City Park 3.66 /ac 1,065.661,146.12 /acre
Golf Course 5.04 /ac 1,467.471,578.26 /acre
Elementary School 1.02 /student 296.99319.41 /student
Church/Synagogue 9.11 2.652.85 /sq. ft.
Library 54.00 15.7216.91 /sq. ft.
Hospital 16.78 4.895.25 /sq. ft.
Nursing Home 2.60 /bed 756.15813.24 /bed
Medical Clinic 31.45 9.169.85 /sq. ft.
* Notes:
1. Rate calculation for each item based on the product of Number of Weekday Trips, Trip
Adjustment Factor, and Cost Per Unit of Trip.
2. Italicized building types indicate that high pass-by trip adjustment factor is used when
calculating SOS Rate.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To
Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request
utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for special requests during
normal business hours.
The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt out of the
Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter
reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request
utility connection on weekends or holidays and after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The proposed change reflects the
Utilities’ costs to connect the utilities after normal working hours. The Ordinance also establishes a trip charge for
special requests for service during working hours. (Example: temporary disconnect requested by an electrician or
plumber working on a customer premise.) The fee would not apply for service requests related to system outage or
repairs.
A monthly fee for manual meter reading is also established by the ordinance. This will be a fee to recover the cost
of manual meter readings for customers who choose to opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program for electric
and/or water meters. The manual meter reading charge is proposed to be $11.00 per month for one or both metered
services. The fee is calculated to cover the cost of labor and equipment required to make a manual read of the
meter(s) each month. All customers are eligible and encouraged to participate in Advanced Meter Fort Collins. Those
customers who allow the installation of an advanced meter will not require a manual reading and will not incur this fee.
The fee will not become effective until after advanced metering infrastructure is installed in the non-participating
customer’s vicinity. The fee is not intended to be a penalty for opting out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins but is an
equitable means to recover the costs of reading the optional mechanical meters.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed fees cover the Utilities’ expense of providing the service connections and manual meter reads from
those customers who cause Utilities to incur the expense. Customers who opt out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins will
not have granular utility usage data available to aid them in making well-informed water and electric purchasing
decisions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Monthly manual meter reading will require vehicle miles that are normally avoided through the advanced metering
infrastructure. In addition, customers who opt out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins will not have granular metering data
available to aid in electricity and water conservation and efficiency.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 18
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Water Board recommended approval of the after-hours service fees and special trip charge as part of their
water/wastewater rate recommendation at its September 15, 2011 meeting. The manual meter reading charge was
not discussed.
At its October 5, 2011 meeting, the Electric Board recommended approval of the after-hours service fees and special
trip charge as part of its electric rate recommendations. The specific manual meter reading charge was discussed,
but the amount was unknown at the time and was estimated at $10 to $20 per month.
The after-hours service fees were presented to the Council Finance Committee on October 17, 2011, as part of the
overall utility rate discussion.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in Coloradoan on October 30, 2011 and a mailing was sent
to city electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with PUC requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Board Minutes, September 15, 2011
2. Electric Board Minutes, October 5, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 161, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO UTILITY CONNECTION FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the
City Charter to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection
of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues
sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of such utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Utility bill account and miscellaneous charges apply to all City utility customers
receiving any utility service pursuant to the terms of Chapter 26; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased costs associated with after-hour service connection or trip
charges; and
WHEREAS, there are increased costs associated with manually reading meters of those
customers who opt not to allow installation of an advanced meter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That paragraph (b) of Section 26-712 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:
Service connection fee for account with one or more metered services
(including non metered 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 non-metered 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 following disconnection
for delinquency
$20.00
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)
$46.00
$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)
$55.45
$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
Other miscellaneous charges will be based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs.
. . .
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go
into effect on January 1, 2012.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Lindsay Ex
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of Measurement for
the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will amend the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone should begin
regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the current requirement that this
point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term “top of bank” is recommended as the most
appropriate term for this point of measurement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular
basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The
proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall
quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code.
The bulk of the items were taken to the July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. One item (Item 888) was
deleted from consideration for further study. Item 888 regards Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code, which identifies
where the buffer zone should begin in relation to rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. Conflicting language appears
in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code.
Section 3.4.1(D), subsection (e) requires data for the Ecological Characterization Study be collected on the following:
“the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site.”
However, in Section 3.4.1(E), footnote 3(c) requires the following:
“stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the level
of bankfull discharge toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land.”
During the annual Land Use Code change process, staff presented the Planning and Zoning Board with a
recommendation to change the point of measurement for streams (where the buffer zone begins) from “bankfull
discharge” to “top of bank.”
During the July 21, 2011 meeting, the Board expressed concerns that this particular item would benefit from further
analysis. The Board requested specific examples and pictures from the field that would help illustrate the concept
being proposed. The overall intent of clarifying the standard is supported but questions about stream character and
hydrology remain and should be addressed. Other concerns included the following:
1. Top of bank is not a clearly defined term that is widely accepted as an industry standard;
2. The term is arbitrary and requires you hire an expert, go out in the field with City staff, and argue your case
as to where top of bank is;
3. It varies over time where streams may braid;
4. The term does not solve the problem; it may not be consistently applied;
5. Would like to see a term more consistent with floodplain mapping;
6. Top of bank is a more restrictive term than bankfull discharge; and
7. Buffer standards are a minimum, if top of bank were adopted, this would increase the overall area of the buffer
requirements.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
To address these concerns, staff conducted research on the literature surrounding the best terms to use for this point
of measurement, researched what other communities use, and conducted a focus group with various experts from the
fields of engineering, hydrology, ecology, floodplain management, and planning to discuss what is the most appropriate
term. Experts invited to the focus group included representatives from the private sector, public sector, nonprofit
sector, CSU professors, and City staff.
Based on this research, meetings with experts, and reviews of other municipal, state, and federal codes and
recommendations, staff recommends the adoption of the term “top of bank” as an alternative to “bankfull discharge”,
because it is the most readily identifiable and consistently applied term in the field. In addition, based on discussion
with numerous experts, it is the most widely used term across the country for determining where buffers should begin
on these types of waterbodies. Finally, based on the waterbodies within the municipality, all experts agreed this was
the most appropriate term for Fort Collins’ streams, rivers, and irrigation ditches.
At the October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, each of these concerns was addressed in detail during
a staff presentation, and a written response is including within the summary report for Item 888 (Attachment 1). Based
on staff’s research and revised recommendation, this proposed change received unanimous approval from the
Planning and Zoning Board. This revision also received general support from Council during the June 14, 2011 work
session, where all of the proposed updates to the Land Use Code were presented.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A Land Use Code that is systemically updated is able to respond to changing trends and conditions. This continuous
improvement provides for an adaptable regulatory environment yet remains predictable for all users and decision-
makers. While there may be no direct financial and economic impacts in the typical fiscal sense, a dynamic Land Use
Code creates a valid and credible legal framework that serves a vibrant local economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Proposed revision Item 888 would more holistically protect the stream and other moving waterbody resources within
the community. “Top of bank” encompasses the entire stream resource, where bankfull discharge may not(as noted
in the Planning and Zoning Board discussion).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 21, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code. The
Board separately discussed Item 888. While general agreement was reached that top of bank was more clear than
bankfull discharge, the Board was concerned that the City was moving from good to better, but maybe not from good
to best. The Board expressed concerns that this particular item would benefit from further analysis.
Staff prepared this analysis for the October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. During the October 20, 2011
Meeting, the Board voted 4 – 0 to recommend approval of this item.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff conducted a focus group with various experts from the fields of engineering, hydrology, ecology, floodplain
management, and planning to discuss what the most appropriate term is. Experts invited to the focus group included
representatives from the private sector, public sector, CSU professors, and City staff. An additional, follow-up meeting
with representatives from the Poudre Waterkeeper was also held to obtain their feedback (see Attachment 4). Public
outreach also included the general notice that accompanies both of the Planning and Zoning Board public hearings.
November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 19
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary report of Item 888
2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, July 21, 2011
3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011
4. Poudre Waterkeeper Letter of Support
Item 888 – Amend 3.4.1 (D) – Ecological Characterization Study and
Establishment of Buffer Zones – to clarify the point of measurements for
streams
Problem Statement
Conflicting language appears in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. In Section
3.4.1(D), subsection (e) requires data for the Ecological Characterization Study be
collected on “the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body
of water on the site.” However, in Section 3.4.1(E), footnote 3(c) requires that “stream
corridors, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the
level of bankfull discharge toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land.”
Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code provides guidance for resolving internal conflicts in
the code. As bank (or top of bank) is both the more specific and more stringent of the
two terms, top of bank is a more appropriate term for use in determining the point of
measurement from which to begin the establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
In addition, the use of the term bankfull discharge is inappropriate for irrigation ditches,
as they are unlikely to have bankfull, or channel-forming, discharge. Finally, the term
“top of bank” is more consistently applied in the field than “bankfull discharge” and has
been identified in Plan Fort Collins as the way to measure the buffer along the Poudre
River (see Policy ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers, which states “the
buffer should be a minimum of three hundred (300) feet wide, beginning at the outer
limits of the river bank or areas of riparian vegetation”).
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to remove the term “bankfull discharge” from Section 3.4.1(E)
of the Land Use Code and instead use the term “top of bank.” In section 3.4.1(D) the
term “bank” will be expanded for consistency to also say “top of bank.” Finally, a
definition for “top of bank” will be added to Article 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code.
During the annual Land Use Code change process, staff presented the Planning and
Zoning Board with a recommendation to change the point of measurement for streams
(where the buffer zone begins) from “bankfull discharge” to “top of bank.” While general
agreement was reached that top of bank was more clear than bankfull discharge, the
Board was concerned that we were moving from good to better, but maybe not from
good to best. Other concerns included the following:
1. Top of bank is not a clearly defined term that is widely accepted as an industry
standard;
2. The term is arbitrary and requires you hire an expert, go out in the field with City
staff, and argue your case as to where top of bank is;
3. It varies over time where streams may braid;
4. The term does not solve the problem; it may not be consistently applied;
5. Would like to see a term more consistent with floodplain mapping;
6. Top of bank is a more restrictive term than bankfull discharge; and
7. Buffer standards are a minimum, if top of bank were adopted, this would increase
the overall area of the buffer requirements.
ATTACHMENT 1
To address these concerns, staff has reviewed the literature surrounding the best terms
to use for this point of measurement, researched what other communities use, and
conducted a focus group with various experts from the fields of engineering, hydrology,
ecology, floodplain management, and planning to discuss what the most appropriate
term is. Experts invited to the focus group included representatives from the private
sector, public sector, CSU professors, and City Staff. An additional, follow-up meeting
with representatives from the Poudre Waterkeeper was also held to obtain their
feedback.
Specific responses to the Board’s concern are as follows:
Concern 1. Top of bank is not a clearly defined term that is widely accepted as an
industry standard.
Response: Staff conducted a review of what term other municipalities use for
their point of measurement. Only the City of Boulder used the term “bankfull
discharge” for the beginning of their buffers; Boulder hired a consultant to map
bankfull discharge along every length of their streams throughout the City so that
a consistent measurement would be applied. Conversely, based on staff’s
research and expert feedback, it appears “top of bank” is the most universally
applied term for this point of measurement. Experts cited communities in
Colorado (e.g., Colorado Springs and El Paso County), Texas, North Carolina,
Vermont, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico,
California, and Georgia, and in the model buffer language developed by the US
EPA and the model buffer language developed the Stormwater Manager’s
Resource Center.
Staff did find several communities that used the term “ordinary high water mark,”
e.g., Salt Lake City, Tillamook County in Oregon, and Overland Park in Kansas.
However, the term “ordinary high water mark” is typically less restrictive than “top
of bank” or “bankfull discharge” and would thus, dilute the intent of the Code. In
addition, Larimer County uses measures their buffer from the “centerline of the
waterbody,” which would also dilute the intent of the Code.
Thus, after careful review and discussion with experts, staff finds that “top of
bank” is a widely accepted term. In addition, there was consensus amongst the
experts that “top of bank” is the best standard because it is the most readily
identifiable and consistently applied term in the field.
Concern 2. The term is arbitrary and requires you hire an expert, go out in the field
with City staff, and argue your case as to where top of bank is.
Response: If a project is within 500’ of a natural habitat or feature, an Ecological
Characterization Study is required to be prepared “by a professional qualified in
the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline.” The same
ecological characterization is also a Federal prerequisite for submitting a flood
hazard map revision known as a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).
Thus, if a project is in the proximity of a natural habitat or feature, a professional
is required to be hired by the Land Use Code, regardless of which term is
applied. While a developer is not required by the Code to go out in the field with
City staff, many experts do ask City staff to walk the site so all of the natural
habitat and features issues on a site can be discussed from a holistic perspective
so that when the buffer standards are applied (whether the standard metrics or
performance standard are applied on a site), they are viewed within the context
of the ecological value of the entire site.
Concern 3. It varies over time where streams may braid.
Response: Both terms, “bankfull discharge” and “top of bank,” can vary over
time. The top of bank definition recognizes the fact that streams are dynamic
systems, and that these features can relocate naturally over time. If a stream
were to braid, “bankfull discharge” and “top of bank” would both encompass the
entire stream system.
Concern 4. The term does not solve the problem; it may not be consistently
applied.
Response: The experts universally agreed that “top of bank” is the most readily
identifiable feature in the field and the most consistently applied term. This
consensus is reinforced by the extensive application of this term in the Land Use
Codes to waterways of communities across the country.
Concern 5. Would like to see a term more consistent with floodplain mapping.
Response: The intent of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code is as follows:
“The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when property is developed
consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed
physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on
the site will protect the natural habitats and features both on the site and
in the vicinity of the site.”
Thus, it is staff’s opinion that the term selected for the point of measurement, for
the purposes of compliance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, should
emphasis ecological and natural habitat protection and not floodplain protection.
Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code is designed to protect life safety and property
from severe flood hazards. While these areas often coincide, each standard has
a different intent.
In addition, if top of bank cannot be found, applicants can use the “outer limits of
riparian vegetation” to demarcate the line between the river resource and the
buffer area. This term is consistent with our City’s Comprehensive Plan, Plan
Fort Collins, Policy ENV 24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers, which
states “the buffer should be a minimum of three hundred (300) feet wide,
beginning at the outer limits of the river bank or areas of riparian vegetation” and
is consistent with the ecological intent of this section of the Land Use Code.
Concern 6. Top of bank is a more restrictive term than bankfull discharge
Response: In a natural stream system that has not been modified, “top of bank”
and “bankfull discharge” are synonymous terms. Where “bankfull discharge”
occurs, banks form. However, in our urban systems, where the majority of our
streams are frequently incised, “top of bank” would define a wider area for
buffering and would therefore be more restrictive than bankfull discharge. This is
consistent with Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code, which provides guidance for
resolving internal conflicts in the code. As bank (or top of bank) is both the more
specific, because of the increased consistency of application, and more stringent,
because of the wider area encompassed by the term, “top of bank” is a more
appropriate term for use in determining the point of measurement from which to
begin the establishment of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
It should be noted, though, that in an incised stream, the horizontal distance
between where “bankfull discharge” and “top of bank” would occur is often
minimal. Incision is a process of downcutting and thus, the stream would drop in
elevation without typically widening at the same time. Staff will present local
examples of this concern during the Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
Concern 7. Buffer standards are a minimum; if top of bank were adopted, this
would increase the overall area of the buffer requirements
Response: The Land Use Code pertaining to this issue is as follows:
“The decision maker shall determine the buffer zones for each natural
habitat or feature contained in the project site. The buffer zones may be
multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance is
established according to the buffer zone table below, but the decision
maker shall reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone
distance, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance standards
set forth below are achieved. The buffer zone performance standards are
as follows…”
Thus, the buffer zone table provides a consistent starting point for determining
the width of the buffer zone, but does not serve as a minimum width.
Based on expert opinion, staff research, and field examples which will be provided at the
meeting, staff finds that these simple changes to the Land Use Code have the effect of
providing a more easily identifiable, more accurate point of measurement for the
protection of our stream and riparian resources and in no way dilutes the intent of the
original code language.
Code Change
Section 3.4.1(D):
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature
Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature
shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only
approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project
development shall be proposed by the applicant and established by the
Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based
on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in
conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site
contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or
feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or
from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife,
plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection,
then the developer shall provide to the city an ecological
characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the
areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. The
Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this
requirement if the city already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set
forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development
("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological
characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the
following:
(a) O.K.
(b) O.K.
(c) O.K.
(d) O.K.
(e) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any
perennial stream or body of water on the site;
(f) O.K.
(g) O.K.
(h) O.K.
(i) O.K.
(j) O.K.
(k) O.K.
Section 3.4.1(E):
BUFFER ZONE TABLE FOR
FORT COLLINS NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES1, 2
1 O.K.
2 O.K.
3 Buffer zone table distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to
topography. Measurements will be made from the outer edge of the natural habitat or
feature to the boundary of the lot, tract or parcel of land that defines and describes the
development.
(a) Isolated area buffer zones such as woodlots, farm windbreaks and forests will
be measured from the outer edge of the drip line toward the boundary of such lot,
tract or parcel of land.
(b) Wetlands, grasslands and shrubland buffer zones will be measured from the
outside edge of the habitat toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of
land.
(c) Stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be
measured from the top of bank level of bankfull discharge toward the boundary of
such lot, tract or parcel of land.
(d) Special habitat features/resources of special concern will be measured as a
radius starting from the outer edge of the habitat toward the boundary of such lot,
tract or parcel of land.
(e) Locations of geological or paleontological sites of special interest will be
measured from the outer edge of the feature toward the boundary of such lot,
tract or parcel of land.
Article 5 - Definitions
Top of bank shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and
the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits
of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 21, 2011
Page 8
manner knowing there are examples that are perfectly acceptable--they were approved at the time. They
are fine additions to our community. They provide a valuable housing type but can we make them
better? Can we make them a little less complex like? Can we make them more town-like? Can we
make them so that the buildings front on streets and not parking lot access drives? Can the buildings
have addresses instead of letters? Shepard said you would create more of a town like pattern that looks
like it evolved organically instead of formula like building that has been dropped in. The objective is to
create a distinctive, unique community.
Shepard said we know we have some pretty good looking projects but they’re identical to one that’s just
been built in Lafayette or Broomfield or Aurora. Not that that’s a bad thing but we’re trying to take it to
the next level knowing this is one particular housing type in a zone district that just didn’t have these
standards. When they started to analyze the code, they thought how surprising that we have such
rigorous standards in the LMN but nothing in the MMN so they are just trying to close the gap. Member
Campana said for reference—Shepard is correct, the same Sidehill building was built in Longmont and
Littleton.
Member Lingle said when he looks at the buildings at Sidehill he thinks they have enough articulation
and interest in roof line variation. We can make the distinction that is not necessarily a bad development
in terms of not being in compliance with this but he can think of some are not up to speed in terms of
where we want to go as a community. This amendment would help elevate some of those things.
Member Campana said his compromise suggestion would be that we apply standards in everything
except in the variation of models. Member Schmidt said that’s addressed in Section B of the code.
Member Schmidt said her point is right now if you have certain acreage, the code requires two housing
types. This would also help us get around all the buildings but one (the clubhouse) being one housing
type. This might give us something a little closer to making it look like there are several housing types
there.
Member Lingle asked if this was a modifiable standard—if someone wanted to try to argue that uniformity
in their particular product should be acceptable. Shepard said yes.
Item 888
Item 888 amends 3.4.1(E) (1) – establishment of buffer zones to clarify the point of measurement for
streams as top of bank of active channel. Member Campana said he had comments in line with what he
was discussing at the work session on July 15. The top of bank is not a clearly defined term that is
widely accepted by any industry standard. It’s very arbitrary and requires you hire an expert, go out in
the field with City staff, and argue your case as to where top of bank is. It varies over time in “braided”
situations. He thinks we’re trying to solve a problem by using a new term and we’re not solving the
problem. He would like to see a little more time spent on to come up with a better defining delineation
point from where the buffer would start.
Shepard said staff did add the clause “top of bank of active channel” as was suggested at the work
session. He said that would occur twice—once in the body of the standard and once in the footnotes.
Anytime you see top of bank, we would add “of active channel”. He said that would address the braiding
effect.
Campana asked for the definition of active channel. Shepard said they do not have a specific term.
What they have done is have conversations with Stormwater Utilities experts in hydrology and
hydraulics. They are the people who have given him the scientific basis and terminology. Stormwater
Utilities staff has informed him that previous language was vaguer, less defined, and not accepted in the
field. Shepard said that no matter what the standard, there will always be an ecological characterization
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning & Zoning Board
July 21, 2011
Page 9
consultant out in the field and they probably will always be accompanied by a staff member. Staff’s belief
is that previous language is not as scientifically supported as the language being proposed.
Member Campana said he was glad to see the change but not having it is a defined term makes difficult
for me to make the recommendation. Member Schmidt asked about the term “braided”. Campana said
when you look at a river during peak flow it might branch off from the main channel and flow around
trees; creating islands. As written currently, that buffer measurement would move to where ever that
water line is. Campana said it seems pretty arbitrary. He said there are not a lot of braided channels in
our city but there are some. Schmidt asked if that happened every spring or just for major flood events.
Campana said it varies and depends on what improvements are done up and down stream of that point.
Member Carpenter said she doesn’t pretend to know anything about this but it sounds like it’s because
it’s a natural system and there is no way to get an exact term that everyone is going to agree. She said
no matter what language we use, we’re going to have to use the process of having different experts look
at it. She tends to want to go with the experts at the City. Carpenter said if they say this is better than
what we have and it’s more accepted in the field; then it makes sense to change to it.
Member Campana said that if we’re going to change it, he’d rather we come up with something that’s a
little more concrete and definable. He suggests we postpone the change until we can do that.
Carpenter said she understands there’s not a more exact term. Campana said he believes there are.
This change would make the buffer more restrictive to the land owner. He agrees experts are probably
going to have to debate what that point is but if you have a clearly defined term it makes it much easier.
Carpenter asked what the clearly defined term would be. Campana said in the case he’s considering—
the Poudre River. It’s been modeled and you could use flood events at defined locations to use when
considering flood plain and flood way. He said there are FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
Agency) maps. He’d like to have “more on it”.
Member Schmidt said when you have experts look at it (the top of bank of an active channel) they would
be able to decide pretty clearly where that is.
Member Campana asked if the active channel than replaces the riparian edge. Shepard said the new
term top of bank of active channel replaces level of bankful discharge. We’re going from one
measurement to another.
Member Lingle said he’s a little more where Member Campana is on this. He understands and
acknowledges that we have in-house experts in these areas but he also knows from practical experience
that there are a lot of other experts in private practice that don’t’ agree with them every day of the week.
It makes it a little difficult to expand potentially the definition of things when we really don’t know what
we’re talking about when we’re working with these terms and their practical application.
Member Campana said his understanding of the buffer table is that’s a minimum buffer and depending
on what’s found in the ecological characterization study it could be increased beyond that. His point is
we already have a minimum amount; now we’re saying that the floor is potentially being raised by
changing this term. That’s his concern.
Shepard said the intent of the change wasn’t to ratchet down a standard. He said we’re just trying to
figure out what is the best, defensible, scientific methodology from which to start our point of
measurement. The intent was to be more scientifically supported and accurate in an ecological analysis
in the field. There are different ecological characteristics and the intent of the standard is to protect the
streams, the rivers, and the riparian areas. Shepard said we’re going to protect the streams and rivers in
a variety of ways--quantitatively and qualitatively. The buffer table is what we call qualitative
performance standards. Shepard said what we’re trying to do is establish where we start the
Planning & Zoning Board
July 21, 2011
Page 10
measurement. Now we’re hearing from the scientists that top of bank of active channel is better.
Shepard said he doesn’t know if it’s more restrictive in the field.
Campana said he understands that and he doesn’t think this means of measurement is “it”. He’s
suggesting we take our time and come up with something that works—better addresses the issues.
Director Dush said from staff’s perspective what we’ve done, working with Natural Resources and
Environmental Planners, is identify a more consistent term that provides certainty for an applicant. He
recognizes and understands Member Campana’s concerns of what the impact may or may not be. He
said this is a better definition and it gives the professionals in the field a common understanding.
Member Schmidt said it might not be the end all solution but maybe it’s one step right now. Before the
next annual review, we could continue to work on what the Board thinks might be a better solution. In
the meantime, we’d have something that’s less ambiguous.
Member Carpenter suggested we pull it and vote separately on it.
Items 893 and 894
These items were from consideration by staff. Stockover said he thinks we should not pull Item 894.
He’s always felt that it’s something that should be in place as a protective measure for a lot of the smaller
lots in old town. A lot of good work has gone into that and it should stay and the Board should forward a
recommendation to City Council.
Member Schmidt said she feels the same way as Chair Stockover does about the amendment itself. She
said when we look at how Land Use Code changes are publicized—it’s just “the Planning & Zoning
Board is going to review Land Use Code changes”. They are not listed in an itemized fashion unless
someone is interested enough to ask. Those that wish to talk to the Board on the Eastside/Westside
Design Standards have no way of knowing that we’re discussing this tonight. Because that whole topic
was such a hot item, she doesn’t know if it would be fair to go ahead and vote on something when those
who would have liked to speak had not been notified.
Member Carpenter said especially after it was repealed by petition, she thinks it would be much better if
we put this in the “reset” of the Eastside/Westside Design Standards. Whether she agrees with either of
these is immaterial at this point. She thinks it’s really important we have public input on both of these
items. She’s happy to see it removed from consideration.
Chair Stockover said he thinks this Board is tasked with doing what’s right. He thinks this is right.
Member Carpenter said maybe we need to pull it and vote on it separately because some of the Board
members disagree. Director Dush recommends that those items are deleted from consideration.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett suggested they proceed with an initial motion that includes all of the items
the person making the motion wants to get on the table. You can do that in any way that is
understandable. Another thing you can consider is after you have that first motion on the table; you can
have motions to amend that to the extent you want to tweak some of the items.
Member Smith moved to recommend to City Council the following amendments to the Land Use
Code: 822, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 876, 877, 878, 880, 881, 882, 883 with a change to 10
calendar days (as opposed to 5), 884, 885, 887, 889, 890, 891, 892 and 895. Member Schmidt
seconded the motion.
Chair Stockover said we’d then discuss items 888, 893 and 894 as a line item.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 21, 2011
Page 11
Member Carpenter had a question about items 893 and 894. If staff has recommended that we delete
them, are they really bringing them to the Board to recommend? Director Dush said at the worksession
we discussed deleting them from the agenda. Perhaps what we should have done is not included them
in this package and provided a modified list. The memo was just to clarify that change.
Member Carpenter said then maybe we should omit them rather than voting yes or no on them. Director
Dush agreed. He thought they should vote on the question before the Board then leaving Items 893 and
894 out. Member Carpenter said so when this goes to City Council, 893 and 894 will not be included.
Dush said that’s correct. Daggett said the minutes will reflect that you talked about them and were
concerned about moving forward with them given the issues that were discussed. It will accurately
reflect what the Board considered.
Member Smith and Chair Stockover said they understand the Board can make recommendations to City
Council for Land Use Code changes. The Chair’s impression is that can be done by vote or when 3
members make the request. Deputy City Attorney Daggett said the three-person policy is a Council
policy; she was not sure what the options were for the Planning & Zoning Board. Director Dush asked if
he was referring to request for zoning changes or code modifications. The Board can make those
requests. He said with relation to Items 893 and 894 for the reasons stated by Members Carpenter and
Schmidt, as well as City Council at their work session, those issues will come forward with the Reset of
the Eastside/Westside Design Standards. He said if you want to have that considered at a later date on
an accelerated pace, that is something as a Board you can make a recommendation to do,
Member Schmidt said what Chair Stockover was referring to was a while back (she’s not sure they every
formalized it in their bylaws), the Board decided that it would take at least 3 people to make requests,
Director Dush said he remembers that discussion at their annual retreat.
Member Hatfield said that Member Smith made a good motion excluding Items 893 and 894.
The motion passed 7:0.
Item 888
Member Schmidt made a motion to recommend to City Council they approve Land Use Code
change Item 888 which would read: “to top of bank of active channel”. Member Carpenter
seconded the motion.
Member Smith said the Land Use Code needs to be very transparent and predictable to serve all
stakeholders well. He knows the attempt is there to add predictability. He thinks there are major
implications there and additional research needs to be done with more understanding by the Board.
He’s not ready to support it.
Chair Stockover said he too is having trouble with this amendment.
The motion failed 3:4 with Members Campana, Lingle, Smith and Chair Stockover dissenting.
Chair Stockover said the Board did not recommend adoption of Item 888.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 20, 2011
Page 2
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes for the August 18, 2011 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing
2. Courtney Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110004
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda which consists of the minutes
of the August 18, 2011 Hearing and the Courtney Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110004. Member
Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4:0.
Member Schmidt commented for the benefit of the audience the Board normally reviews agenda topics
at Work Session the previous Friday. If something is on the consent agenda, it does not mean they
have not previously discussed it in more detail than might appear this evening.
Discussion Agenda:
2. 2011 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code – Section 3.4.1(E) –
Point of Measurement for Buffers
3. Leistikow Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110003
_______
Project: 2011 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code –
Section 3.4.1 (E) – Point of Measurement of Buffers
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual
update to the Land Use Code, specifically Section 3.4.1(E) that identifies where
the buffer zone should begin in regards to rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches.
There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the sections of the
Code that requires this point of measurement to be from “bankful discharge.”
Instead, the term “top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for
this point of measurement.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chair Stockover said the Board’s spent a lot of time on this topic. It was considered at a previous
hearing and it was sent back to City staff for another look. It was almost considered for the Consent
Agenda because of the time already spent but for the benefit of the public, the Board decided to have a
quick presentation to bring everyone one else up to speed.
Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said the previous concerns surrounding the term “bankful discharge”
included that it is inappropriate for our community because it is difficult to define. In addition, many
experts argue that you cannot consistently apply it in the field, especially in systems dominated by
incised channels (which are the majority of the streams in our City).
Ex said based on research, meetings with experts, and reviews of other municipal, state, and federal
codes and recommendations, staff is recommending the adoption of the term “top of bank” as an
alternative to “bankful discharge” because it is the most readily identifiable and consistently applied term
in the field. In addition, based on discussion with numerous experts, it is the most widely used term
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning & Zoning Board
October 20, 2011
Page 3
across the Country for determining where buffers should begin on these types of water bodies. Finally,
based on the water bodies within our municipality, all experts agreed this was the most appropriate term
for our streams, rivers, and irrigation ditches.
Ex said conflicting language appears in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. In Section 3.4.1(D),
subsection (e) requires data for the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is collected on “the bank,
shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site.” However, in
Section 3.4.1(E), footnote 3(c) requires that “stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation ditches
buffer zones will be measured from the level of bankful discharge toward the boundary of such lot, tract
or parcel of land.”
Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code provides guidance for resolving internal conflicts in the code. As
bank (or top of bank) is both the more specific and more stringent of the two terms, top of bank is a more
appropriate term for use in determining the point of measurement from which to begin the establishment
of the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. In addition, the use of the term bankful discharge is inappropriate for
irrigation ditches, as they are unlikely to have bankful, or channel-forming, discharge. Finally, the term
“top of bank” is more consistently applied in the field than “bankful discharge” and has been identified in
Plan Fort Collins as the way to measure the buffer along the Poudre River (see Policy ENV 24.3 –
Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers, which states “the buffer should be a minimum of three hundred
(300) feet wide, beginning at the outer limits of the river bank or areas of riparian vegetation”).
The proposed solution is to remove the term “bankful discharge” from Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use
Code and instead use the term “top of bank.” In section 3.4.1(D) the term “bank” will be expanded for
consistency to also say “top of bank.” Finally, a definition for “top of bank” will be added to Article 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code. Top of bank shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and the
surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall
demark the top of bank.
Ex said during the annual Land Use Code change process, staff presented the Planning and Zoning
Board with a recommendation to change the point of measurement for streams (where the buffer zone
begins) from “bankful discharge” to “top of bank.” While general agreement was reached that top of bank
was more clear than bankful discharge, the Board was concerned that we were moving from good to
better, but maybe not from good to best.
As appropriate she briefly reviewed her responses to the questions raised by the Board at their meeting
in July. She reviewed slides that were examples of a variety of situations. Ex said we should really be
talking about where the riparian and where the stream resource really end and focus on making sure that
we’re protecting the stream resource --beginning the buffer appropriately after we’ve protected the
stream. Ex said both she and Floodplain Engineering staff member Brian Varrella are available for any
questions. Varrella said he’s a Hydraulic Engineer by trade. He’s spent the first 8 years of his career as
a consultant. He’s worked in 19 states during his consulting career. All in all he’s found that the
standards that Ms. Ex has asked them to explore and generally apply in the field were generally easy to
apply and recognize.
Member Schmidt asked for an explanation of the difference between a high floodplain terrace and top of
bank. Varrella said high floodplain terrace is created by the storms you see only once in a great while –
the ones for which property and livestock may need to be moved. The top of bank is created naturally by
features that occur every year.
Member Schmidt asked if a new terrace is created (high plain terrace event) is a new top of bank created
given the activity that occurs over time. Varrella said when you get an extreme event the top of bank can
move so the channel could relocate to one side or the other. The terraces that are formed are not
Planning & Zoning Board
October 20, 2011
Page 4
formed with one storm. They are formed in a series of storms over tens of thousands of years of
geologic time.
Member Schmidt asked when someone purchases a property can they ask for those to be defined at that
point in time or is it just when a development proposal is submitted that they do an ECS? Director Dush
said normally ECS are done when development applications are submitted. If they were interested at the
time of purchase, they could engage the services of a private consultant.
Member Schmidt asked what information would be reported with an ECS. Ex said with the adoption of
the new Code amendments, the requirement is an ECS be submitted 10 days prior to a PDP (Project
Development Plan) application. At that time, we would require they document the top of bank and the
different points of location. The ECS is a point of reference for staff to useas information.
Member Lingle said as described in work session, the Environmental Planner would go to the field with
the applicant and their consultant and jointly come to some agreement as to where top of bank is. In the
event there is a disagreement, how is that resolved?
Director Dush said there are a number of steps before it comes to a decision maker. He said there are a
number of options given the nature of the disagreement. Dush said in the Code we’re directed to protect
the resource and the buffer can vary given what’s intended. He said as discussed in work session, if a
buffer distance is 200 feet but it needs to be greater then we would identify the need for a great buffer.
Conversely, depending on the way the hydrology works (and the buffer point of measurement); we could
apply a performance standard which may result in a lesser distance. Dush said if there was a
disagreement after we’d been through some iterations, staff would provide a recommendation based on
their findings indicating why the buffer needs to be at a certain distance. Staff would rely on the intent of
the standard which is to protect the ecological character of that area.
Member Lingle referred to a chart and noted the average was a 4-5 foot difference. But there was the
anomaly of the Wood Street property and he would guess there may be some properties that would have
10, 20 or more feet that form part of the average. Lingle anticipates there are going to be situations
where there is a disagreement. He asked if it was such a disagreement where the developer thought he
was adversely impacted to the point where he was willing to come forward to the decision maker and say
he just doesn’t agree with staff’s recommendation; he would hope there is a mechanism to avoid getting
to that point.
Director Dush said what’s important to recognize is that this Code change wasn’t intended to remedy the
situation described by Lingle. If we left the Code the same, that situation would still be there. In the
Code, if we have a specific standard and there’s a more stringent standard; we apply the more stringent
standard. Dush said if we are unable to reconcile the specific metric in the field, we would take a look at
the purpose and intent of that standard and make sure in our recommendations to protect the ecological
character.
Chair Stockover asked if we’ve had any discussions on how this would apply to banks that are covered
with rip/wrap and someone wanted to restore the bank to its natural state. Ex said that’s really where the
qualitative versus quantitative standards come into play. If an applicant wants to come in to talk about
restoration, our main focus in that section of the Code is getting ecological integrity in our stream
systems. We’re not so much concerned with a certain metric—we’re concerned with ecological integrity.
Varrella said he would default to the ecological characterization in a case like that described by Ms. Ex.
It is not necessarily engineering or hydraulic parameters; it is more going back to the resource itself.
Public Input
None
Planning & Zoning Board
October 20, 2011
Page 5
Board Discussion
Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the
proposed update to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(E). Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Chair Stockover said this has been a great discussion and what seemed pretty straight forward up front
was in fact made more clear. He said it’s amazing to see how staff rallied around this and upped the
Board’s education level tremendously. Thank you.
Member Schmidt said she is really thankful for the interpretation about the protection of the resource.
She thinks that is a really good goal to have. It’s encouraged her to go back and read the LUC section
more carefully to see if that comes out pretty clearly so when it comes up in the future we’ll understand
the intent of the Code.
The motion was approved 4:0.
_______
Project: Leistikow Annexation and Zoning, # ANX110003
Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road
and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Minor
Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South
Timberline Road. The entire abutting segment of street right-of-way for Timberline
Road is included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation. The property is partially developed with one house and currently
zoned FA-1, Farming in Larimer County. In accordance with the City Plan’s
Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the requested
zoning for this annexation is U-E, Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are
currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and U-E to the
north (Westchase P.U.D.) and FA-1, Farming in the Larimer County to the east
and south.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property
be placed in the U-E, Urban Estate Zoning District.
Staff recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood
Sign District.
Staff also recommends a condition of annexation that if the property develops as
a residential land use, the owner shall disconnect from City so that Larimer County
would then be able to implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The
effective term of this condition is recommended for ten years. That timeframe has
been in agreement with Larimer County.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said this is a request to annex and zone Urban Estate 18.04 acres located
east of South Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The site is within the boundary of the Fossil
October 10, 2011
To: City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
From: Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
RE: Item #3, P&Z Board meeting, 10-20-2011, Point of Measurement for Buffers on the Poudre River
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
It has come to our attention that you will be considering a term to describe the measurement of the
buffer along the Poudre River at your 10-20-2011 Board meeting. We have reviewed the agenda item
for that meeting provided by staff. We appreciate the effort staff has put in to research this issue and
consult with scientific advisors. We also appreciate that staff has allowed Save the Poudre: Poudre
Waterkeeper to provide information to this board. In that regard, we support the term “Top of Bank”
as the proper term to identify the point of measurement for the buffer. We believe “Top of Bank” is
consistent with the best available science as well as with other regulating governments and agencies.
Thank you for your consideration of our input.
Respectfully,
--
Gary Wockner, PhD, Director
gary.wockner@savethepoudre.org
Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
Fort Collins, CO http://savethepoudre.org
970-218-8310
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO. 162, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE
RELATED TO THE POINT OF MEASUREMENT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF BUFFER ZONES FOR STREAMS
WHEREAS, Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code contains, among other things,
provisions regarding the establishment of the boundaries of natural habitats or features and of
buffer zones for natural habitats or features; and
WHEREAS, in its provisions relating to the establishment of these boundaries, Section
3.4.1 contains conflicting language regarding stream banks by, in one location, referring to “the
bank” while in another location referring to “the level of bankfull discharge” as the point of
measurement; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to correct conflicting language, City staff has proposed that the
term “top of bank” be used in both instances; and
WHEREAS, after extensive public outreach and presentation to the Planning and Zoning
Board, the staff has proposed and the Board has recommended that the term “top of bank” be
defined in Article 5 of the Land Use Code and used uniformly in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use
Code for the purpose of describing a point of measurement in order to establish buffer zones
adjacent to streams; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the term “top of bank” is readily
identifiable and consistently applied among experts in establishing protective riparian areas, and
is the most widely used term for determining where buffers should begin adjacent to streams;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City
that the term “top of bank” be included in the Land Use Code in replacement of the term “the
bank” and “the level of bankfull discharge” as a suitable means to clarify previously conflicting
language.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 3.4.1(D)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary
Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural
Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary
of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the
applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and
reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the
natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is
within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the
site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural
characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to
the city an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional
qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant
discipline. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements
of this requirement if the city already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in
subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth
in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization study shall
describe, without limitation, the following:
. . .
(e) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial
stream or body of water on the site;
. . .
Section 2. That the footnotes contained in the Buffer Zone Table for Fort Collins
Natural Habitats and Features in Section 3.4.1(E) are hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
3
Buffer zone table distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to topography. Measurements will be
made from the outer edge of the natural habitat or feature to the boundary of the lot, tract or parcel of land that defines
and describes the development.
. . .
(c)
Stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the level of
bankfull dischargetop of bank toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Top of bank” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Top of bank shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and the
surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian
vegetation shall demark the top of bank.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Jon Haukaas
Roger Buffington
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Development Construction Standards.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish and Provide
for Technical Revision of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and
Stormwater Utilities.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for
the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fort Collins Utilities maintains construction standards adopted by City Council for stormwater, water and wastewater
improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within the respective City service areas.
These standards require the use of specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems
and to standardize various components. Water Utilities is combining these standards into a unified document that is
more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The current construction standards for development exist in three separate documents that were prepared at different
times:
Stormwater – Last update adopted in 1997
Water - Last update adopted in 1987
Wastewater – Last update adopted in 1990
The stormwater standard was developed prior to stormwater becoming a part of the Utilities department. As a result,
the format of the stormwater standard is different from that of the water and wastewater standards. Since the three
standards were prepared and adopted at different times, there are duplications within the three documents. For
example, all three contain sections that pertain to trenching and backfilling for the installation of pipelines. The
requirements are generally the same; however, the formats are different.
The current update to the standards consolidates the three documents into one to eliminate the duplication and
overlap. The construction methods/requirements covered by the standards will be essentially the same. The approved
manufacturers, products and model numbers will be updated to reflect the currently available products. In addition,
the project converts the standards to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format that is widely recognized
among engineers and contractors.
This update to development construction standards is primarily a consolidation and re-formatting of the standards
rather than a change of requirements. The construction methods included in the combined document are unchanged
from the basic requirements of the three separate documents.
The update of the standards will also incorporate a process for future updates of the document. The revision process
would follow the amendment procedure outlined in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS).
Revisions would be grouped as policy revisions or technical revisions as follows:
• Policy revisions, which include major changes that may cause significant increased costs or may be
controversial, would require approval and adoption by City Council. Policy revisions would require a public
hearing process for the adoption.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
• Technical revisions, which include minor additions, revisions or corrections that are necessary to better
conform to good engineering and/or construction standards and practices. The Utilities Executive Director
would have the authority to approve the technical revisions that: (1) are consistent with all existing policies
relevant to the revision, (2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by the revision,
and (3) are consistent with existing law.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The primary purpose of the construction standards is to insure that public improvements included in new developments
are constructed in a manner that the overall reliability of the systems will be maintained and that the future
maintenance costs related to these systems is minimized. The document reflects current construction standards that
are widely accepted throughout the construction industry. There should be no significant impact to the cost of
improvements. This update has provided an opportunity to review the pipeline materials and products used in new
developments. In the past few years, the cost of ductile iron pipe and copper service line pipe has increased more
rapidly than some alternate materials. In order to provide options to offset these increases, another type of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe was added to the water main material list and high density polyethylene (HDPE) was added as
an alternative material for water service lines. These materials are also used the Utilities Field Operations crews.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The requirements of the development construction standards are in place to promote and maintain the high standards
in the areas of water distribution, wastewater collection and stormwater control. The City’s erosion control
requirements are referenced in the standards to minimize the effects of any site runoff during construction. The
selection of approved materials for construction considers environmental impacts. The second type of PVC water main
material which has been added has a thinner wall which results in less plastic and correspondingly less petroleum
required in manufacturing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its October 20, 2011 meeting, the Water Board recommended adoption of the Water Utilities Development
Construction Standards including the process outlined for future updates.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A primary driver of this update has been communication with engineers, designers, and the development community.
Water Utilities has collected many comments and much input from developers and contractors regarding the
requirements for improvements in new developments focusing on the need to update the format and include new
material technologies. In addition, many requests have been received to post the development standards on the City’s
website.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Board Meeting Minutes – October 20, 2011
1
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, October 20, 2011
Construction Specifications Update
(Attachments available upon request).
Vice Chairperson Balderson stated the item was presented to the Engineering Committee on
October 10, 2011. The committee did not formally vote on a recommendation for the item, but
did recommend that staff should present the item to the board for their review.
Water Utilities Development Review Manager Roger Buffington introduced the item and stated
the City maintains standard development construction specifications for water, wastewater, and
stormwater improvements built within new residential and commercial structures. The current
development specifications exist in three separate documents that were prepared at different
times. The objective for the current update is to consolidate the current specifications into one set
of specifications. The specifications will be converted to the Construction Specifications Institute
(CSI) format. This format is widely used by engineers and contractors. Once the documents are
completed, they will be uploaded to the City’s website.
Don Silar with Stantec, the company contracted to assist with the update of the specifications,
stated he has worked with the specifications through the development process and the capital
project process. The City has hired Stantec to bring the three separate documents into an industry
standard. No information has been changed other than updating the standards. The Utilities
Capital Group has used the CSI format for the last 30 years. Stantec used the Triple Bottom Line
analysis to update the specifications.
Mr. Buffington stated a procedure for future specification updates has also been included. This
has been tailored after the process contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.
These standards were developed by Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, and the City of
Loveland. Policy revisions would be referred to City Council. Technical revisions would allow
for updates of products, manufacturers, and minor additions/corrections to be made by the
Utilities Executive Director. Staff is requesting Water Board support for this item.
Board discussion:
How do the standards overlap with the Stormwater Criteria Manual? Stormwater Quality
Engineer Basil Hamden stated the design criteria are similar to design concepts. The construction
specifications relate to how a development is built.
Do the specifications include water and sewer service lines and water meter pits? Is there a
specification for gray water? No, there is no current specification for gray water. The
specifications would have to be updated because the piping used for gray water is colored
differently.
Are the specifications included in the building code? Mr. Buffington stated these specifications
refer to public improvements maintained by the City which are generally in street right-of-ways
or public easements whereas building code refers to construction of private buildings. Mr. Silar
reminded the board that the standards pertaining to developments are more generic. Capital
standards are more project specific.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
The City is moving forward with goals of re-development. Are there allowances for re-
development? Mr. Buffington stated these specifications do not include those differences and
that those are considered on a case by case basis. These specifications cover the basic
construction of a water, sewer, and stormwater facilities.
Board Member Brown stated the Engineering Committee reviewed the information and looked at
a tracking table created by staff that describes what items were modified.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommend approval and adoption of
the Standard Development Specifications for Stormwater, Water, and Wastewater
Construction including the process outlined for future updates. Board Member Eccleston
seconded the motion.
ORDINANCE NO. 163, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL REVISION OF
WATER UTILITIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES
WHEREAS, the City’s Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities maintain and apply
standard construction specifications for related improvements installed within new residential and
commercial developments within their respective service territories; and
WHEREAS, historically, each of these Utilities has developed individual standards
documents that were presented for City Council review and approval independent of each other; and
WHEREAS, in order to eliminate duplication and simplify the use and application of these
standards, Utilities staff has prepared a consolidated version of these standards using the
Construction Specifications Institute format that is widely recognized among engineers and
contractors; and
WHEREAS, to document and provide a clear reference to the adopted standards, the City
Council desires to update and clarify the City Code so as to identify the newly adopted standards
as the technical requirements applicable to new water, wastewater and stormwater construction
projects; and
WHEREAS, in addition, in order to allow for the incorporation of updated technical and
good engineering techniques, equipment and industry practices, City Council desires to authorize
the administrative adoption of limited technical revisions to the adopted standards, as set forth in
the amended City Code language below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the
definitions applicable in Chapter 26, is hereby amended to add the following definition:
Sec. 26-1. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
. . .
Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall mean the Water
Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted by Ordinance No. 164, 2011,
and applicable to construction of water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure,
together with any technical revisions thereto, as more specifically described in § 26-
29.
. . .
Section 2. That Article II of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, is hereby
amended to add a new Section 26-29, to read as follows:
Sec. 26-29. Water Utilities Development Construction Standards.
(a) The Utilities Executive Director shall promulgate Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards, which shall constitute standard specifications
governing the depth, size, slope, alignment, materials, or construction of water,
wastewater and stormwater fixtures, lines, and other improvements, as well as the
methods to be used in the excavation, placement, joining, testing, trenching and
backfilling, and such other technical specifications as may apply to construction of
water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Said specifications shall be
effective upon approval by the City Council by ordinance, and will have the same
force and effect as provisions of this Chapter, and shall be enforceable pursuant to
the terms of this Chapter and as provided in § 1-15. Except for the administrative
adoption of technical revisions as authorized in Subsection (b), revisions to the
Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall be subject to approval by
the City Council by ordinance.
(b) The Utilities Executive Director may adopt minor additions, revisions,
and corrections to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards as may,
in the judgment of the Utilities Executive Director, be necessary to better conform
to good engineering and/or construction standards and practice. The Utilities
Executive Director shall approve only those proposed technical revisions that:
(1) are consistent with all existing policies relevant to the revisions,
(2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by
the revision, and
(3) do not materially alter the standard or level of service to be
accomplished through the specified infrastructure.
Upon adoption of any technical revisions pursuant to the authority of this
Subsection (b), the Utilities Executive Director shall provide to the City Clerk
documentation of such technical revisions specifying the date upon which they shall
become effective, and shall maintain said documentation on file in the permanent
records of Utility Services and available for public inspection.
Section 3. That Section 26-52 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
-2-
Sec. 26-52. Rules and regulations.
The Utilities Executive Director may promulgate such rules, regulations,
policies and procedures consistent with the provisions of this Article as the Utilities
Executive Director may deem necessary for the proper administration of the water
utility and the requirements of this Article, including the establishment of standard
specifications for construction of service lines and other technical specifications as
provided in § 26-29. Such rules and regulations are effective upon the approval by
the City Council by ordinance and will have the same force and effect as provisions
of this Chapter, and shall be enforceable pursuant to the terms of this Chapter and as
provided in § 1-15. A user's failure to abide by all effective rules, regulations,
policies and procedures promulgated by the Utilities Executive Director is the same
as a violation of this Article.
Section 4. That Section 26-97 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-97. Water service lines; general regulations.
(a) Specifications, design and construction. The design, number, location, depth
and size of all service lines shall be subject to the approval of the Utilities Executive
Director. The size, depth, alignment and materials of construction of a service line
and the methods to be used in excavating, placing of the pipe, jointing and testing
and backfilling the trench and all other work shall conform to the Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29 and the
requirements of the building and plumbing codes or other applicable codes, laws,
rules and regulations of federal, state and local entities. In the event of a conflict, the
Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall control. All work
concerning the installation or repair of service lines and their appurtenances is
subject to inspection by the City.
(b) Connection specifications. The connection of the service line to the public
water system shall conform to the specifications and regulations of the City,
including but not limited to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards
adopted pursuant to § 26-29, and shall only be made by or under the supervision of
the Utilities Executive Director. All such connections shall be made watertight.
(ac) Materials. The public portion of all service lines shall be of copper, ductile
iron or other suitable material as determined by the Utilities Executive Director. In
the case of an external meter near the curb stop, that portion of the service line from
the curb stop and within and through the meter pit shall also be of the same material.
The private service line shall be constructed of materials approved in the City's
plumbing code. In the case where the service line between the water main and the
premises has been deemed a private main because it is made of materials other than
ductile iron or copper, it shall be replaced by copper or ductile iron lines at the
expense of the user when in the opinion of the Utilities Executive Director such line
-3-
has become so disintegrated as to be unfit for further use. Once such a line has been
replaced with the required materials, it becomes part of the water utility and the
utility will assume the maintenance of the service line between the water main and
the curb stop the same as for any public service line.
(b) Size. The entire length of the water service line, whether public or private,
shall be of sufficient size to furnish an adequate flow of water to meet the
requirements of the building at peak demand, and in no case shall be less than three-
fourths (¾) inch in diameter. The size of corporation stops, meter settings, curb stops
and service lines shall be as specified by the Utilities Executive Director based on
the rules for sizing water systems in the City's plumbing code.
(c) Depth of service lines. All service lines shall be laid at least fifty-four (54)
inches below the established grade of the street. When the main is of greater or lesser
depth, the service line shall be brought to the required depth as soon as possible after
leaving the tap.
(d) Trenches. All excavation and backfilling for installing or repairing service
lines shall be made in conformity with this Code and any other regulations of the
City.
(e) Meter settings. A meter set shall be installed in the service line for all
connections made to the water utility. The meter set shall be installed in accordance
with the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of the utility, and be readily
accessible to utility personnel.
Section 5. That Subsection (b) of Section 26-213 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-213. Supervision of the wastewater utility.
. . .
(b) The Utilities Executive Director may formulate and promulgate rules
and regulations consistent with the provisions of this Article for the administration
of the wastewater utility and the implementation of this Article, to become effective
upon approval by the City Council by ordinance. The Utilities Executive Director
shall have the authority to regulate the volume and flow rate of discharge to the
wastewater system, to establish permissible limits of concentration for various
specific substances, materials, waters or wastes that can be accepted into the
wastewater system, to establish pretreatment requirements, to specify those
substances, materials, waters or wastes that are prohibited from entering the
wastewater system, to specify standards for installation of wastewater lines and
services as provided in § 26-29, and to enforce local compliance with federal
standards promulgated pursuant to the act.
-4-
Section 6. That Section 26-258 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby
amended to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-258. Wastewater service lines; general regulations.
(a) Specifications, design and construction. The design, number, location,
grade and size of all service lines shall be subject to the approval of the Utilities
Executive Director. The size, slope, alignment and materials of construction of a
service line and the methods to be used in excavating, placing of the pipe, jointing
and testing and backfilling the trench and all other work shall conform to the Water
Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29
specifications of the utility and the requirements of the building and plumbing codes
or other applicable codes, laws, rules and regulations of federal, state and local
entities. In the event of a conflict, the Water Utilities Development Construction
Standards rules and regulations promulgated by the Utilities Executive Director shall
control. All work concerning the installation or repair of service lines and their
appurtenances is subject to inspection by the City.
(b) Connection specifications. The connection of the service line to the
public sewer shall conform to the specifications and regulations of the City,
including but not limited to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards
adopted pursuant to § 26-29, and shall only be made by or under the supervision of
the Utilities Executive Director. All such connections shall be made gastight and
watertight.
(c) Service line elevation. For all structures where the elevation is too low to
permit gravity flow of wastewater through the service line to the public sewer, the
owner of the property shall install, maintain and operate a lift facility for the
discharge of sanitary wastewater from the premises to the public sewer at an
approved flow rate. The lift facility shall not be used for the discharge of combined
wastewater.
(d) Reuse of service lines. Service lines that have not been capped and abandoned
may be reused in connection with new buildings or uses only when they are found
to pass a pressure test and meet all requirements of this Article and solely at the risk
of the user. However, the utility may require the modification or replacement of
existing service lines to make them suitable for the proposed use in conformance
with utility standards.
(ec) Runoff drain connections prohibited. Except as authorized pursuant to
Subsection 26-336(a) of the Code, it is unlawful for any person to connect roof
downspouts, exterior foundation drains, areaway drains, sump pumps or other
sources of surface runoff or groundwater to a service line or building drain which in
turn is connected directly or indirectly to a sanitary sewer.
-5-
Section 7. That Section 26-367 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-367. Rules and regulations.
The Utilities Executive Director may promulgate rules and regulations
consistent with the provisions of this Article for the administration of water and
wastewater system extensions and oversizing and the implementation of this Article,
including the establishment of standard specifications for construction of water and
wastewater improvements and other technical specifications as provided in § 26-29.
establishing standard specifications governing the depth, size, slope, alignment,
materials or construction of water and sewer lines and pumping and lift stations and
methods to be used in the excavating, placing of the pipe, jointing, testing and
backfilling the trench and such other technical specifications as may apply to the
water and wastewater utilities. Such rules and regulations are effective upon approval
of City Council by ordinance resolution and will have the same force and effect as
provisions of this Chapter, and shall be enforceable pursuant to the terms of this
Chapter and as provided in § 1-15. Violations of this Chapter are punishable upon
conviction as provided in § 1-15.
Section 8. That Section 26-544 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-544. Stormwater facilities required for subdivisions.
Prior to the final approval of the plat of any subdivision, or prior to
commencement of construction upon any lot or parcel of land for which a drainage
report and construction plan for the installation of stormwater facilities has not been
prepared and approved by the City, the owners of the property being subdivided or
upon which construction is being commenced shall, at such owners' cost, prepare a
detailed drainage report and construction plans for the installation of all stormwater
facilities required for such subdivision or lot, including any off-site facilities required
to convey stormwater to existing drains, channels, streams, detention ponds or other
points, all in conformity with the master plan of the stormwater basins, and the
Design Criteria and Construction Standards adopted by the City Council, and the
Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29 .
The Utilities Executive Director shall review such reports, plans and costs estimates;
and after approval of the same, the plat of the subdivision or the building permit, if
applicable, may be approved subject to the City's being furnished with acceptable
assurance that such facilities will be constructed and installed as indicated and
approved.
-6-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-7-
ORDINANCE NO. 164, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING WATER UTILITIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES
WHEREAS, the City’s Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities maintain and apply
standard construction specifications for related improvements installed within new residential and
commercial developments within their respective service territories; and
WHEREAS, historically, each of these Utilities has developed individual standards
documents that were presented for City Council review and approval independent of each other; and
WHEREAS, in order to eliminate duplication and simplify the use and application of these
standards, Utilities staff has prepared a consolidated version of these standards using the
Construction Specifications Institute format that is widely recognized among engineers and
contractors; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering of even date herewith Ordinance No. 163, 2011,
which will standardize references to the proposed standards in the City Code and provide for
administrative revisions to update technical aspects of the standards; and
WHEREAS, a copy of said consolidated standards, entitled Water Utilities Development
Construction Standards and dated December 16, 2011 (the “2011 Water Utilities Development
Construction Standards”), is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to adopt and approve the 2011 Water Utilities
Development Construction Standards, for use by the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities
in applying, implementing and enforcing the related provisions of Chapter 26 of the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the 2011 Water Utilities Development Construction Standards are hereby adopted
and approved as set forth herein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Karen McWilliams
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West
Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark
designation for the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, at 424 West Olive Street. The MacDonald/Cooke
House and Garage are significant under Designation Standard (2) for their association with Stewart L. MacDonald;
and under Designation Standard (3), as a notable and unaltered example of the American Foursquare architectural
style, with historic matching detached garage. This property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven
aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling.
BACKGROUND
Stewart L. MacDonald was a professor of mathematics at Colorado Agricultural College. He was very active in many
of Fort Collins’ civic, fraternal and benevolent organizations, as a church elder, a member of the Knights of Pythias,
an Odd Fellow, a founder and board member of the Fort Collins YMCA, and a Republican who ran for office several
times. His wife, Virginia Ish MacDonald, came from a pioneer Fort Collins family. Her father, Captain John Ish, a
Confederate officer, was a prominent stockman, farmer, surveyor, and miner. Both the Ish and MacDonald families
have had a significant historical impact on the Fort Collins community.
The MacDonald/Cooke house is an intact American Foursquare, notable both for its architectural characteristics, as
well as for its excellent integrity. It is a two story building, resting on a sandstone foundation. It has a wood frame with
narrow lapped board siding; a hipped roof with wide overhanging boxed eaves; open front porch featuring Doric
columns; sash and transom windows with diamond light pattern transoms, and a south facade oculus window. The
historic detached garage is nicely compatible with the main house. Constructed of wood frame with a hipped roof, it
matches the architectural style and characteristics of the home. It features pairs of original garage doors, with five-light
uppers. Both the house and garage are in excellent condition and are an important example of American Foursquare
residential architecture in Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Landmark Preservation Commission recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. At a public hearing
held on November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend designation
of this property under Designation Standard (2), for its historical association with Stewart L. MacDonald and
Designation Standard (3), for its architecture.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report
2. Resolution 4, 2011, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation for the
McDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive.
3. Photos of house
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
November 9, 2011
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached
Garage, 424 West Olive Street
STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
APPLICANTS: Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, Owners
BACKGROUND: The MacDonald/Cooke House and Garage, at 424 West Olive Street, are
significant for Landmark recognition under Designation Standard (2) for their association with
Stewart L. MacDonald; and under Designation Standard (3), as a notable and unaltered example
of the American Foursquare architectural style, with historic matching detached garage. This
property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling.
Stewart L. MacDonald, also known as S. L. MacDonald and “Prof Mac,” arrived in Fort
Collins in 1899, and quickly established himself as a prominent member of the Fort Collins
community. A native of Ohio, MacDonald received his education from the Indiana State Normal
School and at the University of Chicago. He came here from Indiana, and shortly thereafter
accepted a position as English teacher at the Remington School in 1900. In 1902, he became an
assistant professor of mathematics at Colorado State Agricultural College, now Colorado State
University, quickly rising to the position of full professor. S. L. MacDonald and Virginia Ish
were married at the Ish family home, 223 South Sherwood Street, on February 11, 1903, with Dr.
B. O. Aylesworth, president of the State Agricultural College officiating. Stewart MacDonald is
reputed to have started the school's astronomy program and the CSU campus observatory, which
is called the Madison MacDonald Observatory, was named after MacDonald.
The Ish family was very well-known in Fort Collins. After being released from the
Confederate Army, and following a long Union imprisonment, Captain John C. Ish entered the
cattle business. In 1866, he blazed the Ish Trail, from southern Texas to Independence Kansas.
Three years later, Captain Ish came to Larimer County, driving 150 selected heifers that formed
the nucleus of his large cattle herd. He settled in Fort Collins in 1889. Here, he was active as a
stockman, farmer, miner, and surveyor. Virginia B. Ish was John and Mary Ish’s youngest
daughter.
Following the 1903 marriage of S. L. MacDonald and Virginia Ish, the MacDonalds
contracted for a home to be constructed at 424 West Olive Street, next door to the Ish home.
Edson M. Cole served as both architect and contractor. The MacDonald/Cooke house is an
intact American Foursquare, notable both for its architectural characteristics as well as for its
excellent integrity. It is a two story building, resting on a sandstone foundation. It has a wood
frame with narrow lapped board siding; a hipped roof with wide overhanging boxed eaves; open
front porch featuring Doric columns; sash and transom windows with diamond light pattern
ATTACHMENT 1
transoms, and a south facade oculus window. The historic detached garage is nicely compatible
with the main house. Constructed of wood frame with a hipped roof, it matches the architectural
style and characteristics of the home. It features pairs of original garage doors, with five-light
uppers. Both the house and garage are in excellent condition and are an important example of
American Foursquare residential architecture in Fort Collins.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the MacDonald/
Cooke House and Garage, at 424 West Olive Street, meets both Standards 2 and 3 of Section 14-
5 of the Municipal Code, and approve a resolution of the Landmark Preservation Commission
recommending to City Council the designation of the MacDonald/Cooke House and Garage, as a
Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO. 165, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DESIGNATING THE MACDONALD/COOKE HOUSE AND DETACHED
GARAGE, 424 WEST OLIVE STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a
public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks within the
City; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 4, 2011, dated November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation
Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached
Garage has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard (2), for its historical
association with Stewart L. MacDonald; and Designation Standard (3), for its architecture (3), as
an excellent example of American Foursquare residential architecture, with a high level of physical
integrity; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of
a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and
has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a
landmark; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the property have requested such landmark designation; and
WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the
community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and
desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the property known as the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached
Garage, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resources are located in the City of Fort
Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit:
Commencing at a point sixty-two feet East of the Southwest corner of Block Eighty-
Two, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, thence East sixty-eight feet, thence North
one hundred feet, thence West sixty-eight feet, thence South One Hundred (100) feet,
to point of beginning; being a portion of Lots Eleven and Twelve in said Block
Eighty-Two
be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins.
Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code will serve as the
standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located
upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Ken Waido
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-101 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the
Federal Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating $813,577 of City financial resources
to affordable housing programs/projects.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Resolution 2011-101 establishes which programs and projects will receive funding for the FY 2011 Program year,
which started on October 1, 2011, including the use of Federal HOME grant funds and program income from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and funds from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. The CDBG
Commission presents a list of recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT SOURCE
$449,446 FY 2011 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant
89,888 FY 2011 HOME CHDO Set-aside
39,107 FY 2011 HOME Program Income
325,024 2011 Affordable Housing Fund
$903,465 Total Funding Available
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) funds are HOME grant funds required to be specifically
earmarked for use by CHDOs in the city. City CHDOs include CARE Housing, Neighbor-to-Neighbor, and the Villages
(formerly the Fort Collins Housing Corporation). However, none of the eligible CHDOs applied for funding during the
fall cycle of the competitive process, therefore, the $89,888 will be carried-over to the 2012 spring cycle. The total
amount of funding thus available for allocation is $813,577.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program provides federal funds from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to affordable housing related programs
and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City’s General Fund Budget to address such needs. The City’s
General Fund contributes $325,024 from the Affordable Housing Fund for allocation during the competitive process.
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force can reside within the community. This
means there is an available labor pool within the city, which is a positive benefit to economic sustainability.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing programs help provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable housing options for lower
income people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the community instead of being forced to live outside the
community and commute into the city for work. This helps reduce traffic congestion and, thus, improves air quality.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 22
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green building practices.
Green building practices are being used in both new construction projects and major rehabilitation of existing units
projects. These practices include geo-thermal applications and other energy saving techniques.
All affordable housing projects utilizing federal funds are required to pass a HUD environmental review which covers
such items as noise impacts, floodplains, hazardous materials, etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission recommendations
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations as to which programs and projects should receive funding from
the available funding sources presented above.
The following table presents the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City Council:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Applicant
Project/Program
Funding
Request
Commission’s
Recommendation
Unfunded
Balance
Percentage of
Request Funded
HO-1City of Fort Collins
– Analysis of
Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice
$25,000
(Grant)
$25,000
(Grant)
$0 100%
HO-2FC Caribou II –
Caribou Apartments
Phase II
$500,000 Proposal withdrawn
by the applicant
HO-3Fort Collins Habitat
for Humanity – Rigden
Cottages East, Land
Acquisition
$82,500 $82,500 $0 100%
HO-4Fort Collins
Housing Authority –
Supportive Housing
Development
$600,000 $586,077 $13,923 97.7%
HO-5 Housing
Authority of Loveland –
Larimer Home
Improvement Program
$120,000
(Grant)
$120,000
(Grant)
$0 100%
Totals $827,500 $813,577 $13,923 98.3%
Except for the grants noted above, funding recommendations in the Affordable Housing category are
in the form of a “Due on Sale Loan + 5% Simple Interest Loan.”
November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 22
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$813,577 90.0% Affordable Housing Programs and Projects
89,888 10.0% Unallocated
$903,465 100.0% Total Funds Available
The $89,888 of unallocated funding will be carried over to the 2012 spring cycle of the competitive process. This
$89,888 is the amount the City is required to reserve for CHDOs and there were no CHDO proposals submitted for
funding during the fall cycle of the competitive process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The CDBG Commission holds at least two public hearings during a program year to solicit public comments regarding
the use of federal funds by the City. One hearing is conducted in January where the public is asked to comment on
the priorities for the use of federal funds in the city. The second hearing is conducted in September where the
Commission reports back to the community and covers the previous year’s utilization of federal funds and previews
the upcoming year’s proposed use of federal funds.
Prior to its meeting on October 13, 2011, when the CDBG Commission formulated its funding recommendations to
the City Council, the Commission received two memorandums, one from the City’s Economic Health staff and the other
from the staff of the Fort Collins Housing Authority. Copies of these memoranda are included in Attachment 7. The
Commission’s position regarding the points and counter-points of these memorandums is that their role is to make
funding recommendations on affordable housing and community development proposals; they are not charged with
making “land use” decisions.
HUD regulations also require a 30-day public comment period on the proposed allocation of HOME funds as
recommended by the CDBG Commission. Staff placed an ad in the Coloradoan newspaper presenting the list of
recommended funding for programs/projects and indicated the public comment period would start on October 14, 2011,
and end on November 14, 2011. No comments were received.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Background and Summary of the CDBG Commission’s Recommendations for Funding
2. Background Information on the Competitive Process
3. Affordable Housing Board’s List of Priority Projects
4. Background Information on the HOME Federal Program
5. Minutes of the CDBG Commission’s October 13, 2011 Meeting
6. Formulation of Funding Recommendations Session
1
ATTACHMENT 1
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF CDBG COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING
At the November 15, 2011, regular City Council meeting, the Council will be conducting a
public hearing and consider the adoption of a resolution establishing which programs and
projects will receive funding from the Federal Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund for the FY 2011 Program year.
The resolution establishing which programs and projects will receive funds represents the
culmination of the fall cycle of the 2011 Competitive Process approved in January 2000 by the
Council for the allocation of the City’s financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities. Additional background material about
the Competitive Process is included in Attachment 2.
Since early January of this year, the CDBG Commission and members of the City staff’s
Affordable Housing and Human Services Work Group have conducted public hearings to assess
community development and housing needs in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance
training workshops for applicants, and solicited applications for funding. The City’s Affordable
Housing Board reviewed the written applications for affordable housing projects and forwarded a
priority ranking of proposals, as well as comments and questions, to the CDBG Commission.
See Attachment 3 for a copy of the Board’s materials sent to the CDBG Commission. The
CDBG Commission, in addition to reviewing the written applications, personally interviewed
each applicant, analyzed the applications, and formulated a list of recommendations to the City
Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
The HOME Program is an ongoing grant administration program funded by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received HOME
Program funds since 1994. The City is a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds,
meaning the City is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is
dependent on the total amount of funds allocated to the program by Congress and on a formula
developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of
population, income levels, housing stock conditions, etc. Additional background information on
the City's HOME Program is presented in Attachment 4.
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process for the City's FY 2011 Competitive Process began in January when the
CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on community development and
affordable housing needs. The City’s Advance Planning Department placed legal advertisements
in local newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for housing and community development
projects for FY 2011. The application deadline was Thursday August 18, 2011. At the close of
the deadline the City received five (5) applications requesting a total of approximately
$1,327,500. One proposal, a funding request for Caribou Apartments Phase II was subsequently
withdrawn by the applicant reducing the total amount of funding being requested to $827,500
2
Copies of the housing applications were distributed to the Affordable Housing Board and to the
CDBG Commission in early September..
On Monday September 19, 2011, the Affordable Housing Board conducted a special meeting to
review the housing proposals and prepared a priority listing of applications to the CDBG
Commission (see Attachment 3). On Thursday September 25, the Commission met to hear
presentations and ask clarification questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on
Thursday October 13 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to
which programs and projects should be funded for the FY 2011 program year. At this meeting,
the Commission reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation, the
information provided during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance of
agencies who received funding in other previous years. The Commission then worked on the
formulation of their list of recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects which best fit
the City's needs, had to insure funding allocations were kept within HUD regulations, and
followed the priorities contained in the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's
funding recommendations.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATIONS
HO-1 City of Fort Collins – Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Amount of request: $25,000 (Grant) Affordable Housing Funds
Funding Recommendation: $25,000 (Grant) Affordable Housing Funds
The Advance Planning Department is requesting $25,000 in Affordable Housing Fund dollars, to
hire a consultant to update the City of Fort Collins’ Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice (AI). This project will satisfy Certifications in the Consolidated Plan that the City will
affirmatively further fair housing, including that it will conduct a study to identify the
impediments to fair housing choice within Fort Collins, and list appropriate actions to overcome
the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis. Funding for this project must
come from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund as there are no federal funds available.
HO-2 FC Caribou II – Caribou Apartments Phase II
Amount of request: $500,000
This proposal was withdrawn by the applicant.
Caribou Apartments II is a 96 unit apartment complex, the second phase of an existing affordable
housing development called Caribou Apartments, located on the west side of Timberline Road
between Harmony Road and Horsetooth Road. The first phase was completed in 2008. Phase II
will be 100% affordable with units at multiple income levels ranging from 30% to 60% AMI.
3
HO-3 Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity – Rigden Cottages East, Land Acquisition
Amount of request: $82,500
Funding Recommendation: $82,500 Affordable Housing Funds
Habitat for Humanity is requesting $82,500 to purchase lot M-6 in Rigden Farm to construct
three owner-occupied units.
HO-4 Fort Collins Housing Authority – Supportive Housing Development
Amount of request: $600,000
Funding Recommendation: $586,077total, including $449,446 FY 2011 HOME Grant,
$39,107FY 2011 HOME Program Income, and $97,524
from the Affordable Housing Fund
This request is to provide funding for one of four 2011 strategic initiatives of Homeward 2020’s
Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. The FCHA, Larimer Center for Mental Health, and other
partners request funding for land acquisition to develop Northern Colorado’s first Permanent
Supportive Housing Program of 40 units using nationwide best practice models and technical
assistance. Supportive housing combines affordable housing with services that help people who
face the most complex challenges live with stability, autonomy, and dignity.
HO-5 Housing Authority of Loveland – Larimer Home Improvement Program
Amount of request: $120,000 (Grant)
Funding Recommendation: $120,000 (Grant) Affordable Housing Fund
This a request from the Loveland Housing Authority to provide funding for the Larimer Home
Improvement Program (LHIP) which provides low to no interest loans for home owners in
Larimer County, including the city limits of Fort Collins, to address health, safety, and energy
efficient repairs to their homes. The program is available to families earning no more than 80%
of the AMI, but the average participant is closer to 50% AMI. The Emergency Funds Program
provides one time only grants of up to $1,000 to very low income families (50% or below of
AMI) who have emergency repair needs.
The CDBG Commission has recommended that $813,577 (100.0%) of the available funding be
allocated to Affordable Housing programs and projects. The remaining $89,888 of required
CHDO set-aside funding will be carried over for use in the 2012 spring cycle of the competitive
process, there were no CHDO proposals submits for funding during the fall cycle of the
competitive process. The following table summarizes the utilization of funds from all sources.
Recommended Funding % of Total Category
$813,577 90.0% Affordable Housing Programs and Projects
89,888 10.0% Unallocated
$903,465 100.0% Total Funds Available
Attachment 5 contains information on how the Commission’s session where they formulate their
funding recommendations was conducted.
1
ATTACHMENT 2
Background Information on the Competitive Process for the
Allocation of City Financial Resources to
Affordable Housing Programs/Projects and
Other Community Development Activities
In February of 1999, the City Council approved the initial Priority Affordable Housing Needs
and Strategies report, which contained the following strategy:
Change from an administrative funding mechanism...to a competitive application process
for the Affordable Housing Fund.
Between September and November of 1999, a subcommittee consisting of members from the
Affordable Housing Board and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission
met with staff to review issues and develop options for establishment of a Competitive Process.
In addition, the staff solicited ideas from existing affordable housing providers. The
subcommittee established the following Mission Statement for their work:
Develop a competitive application process and establish a set of shared criteria for the
allocation of the City’s financial assistance resources to affordable housing
projects/programs that address the City’s priority affordable housing needs.
Competitive Process
Five options for a Competitive Process were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee. The
subcommittee reached a general consensus to support a Competitive Process that involved both
the Affordable Housing Board and the CDBG Commission. The option selected would have the
Affordable Housing Board providing recommendations to the City Council in regards to
affordable housing policy. In addition, the option would have the Affordable Housing Board
reviewing all affordable housing applications for CDBG, HOME, and Affordable Housing funds.
The Board would then provide a priority listing of proposals to the CDBG Commission. The
CDBG Commission would then make the final recommendations to the City Council for
funding.
Funding Cycles
The subcommittee also agreed that there should be two funding cycles per year, one in the spring
and the other in the fall. CDBG Program funds would be allocated in the spring to affordable
housing programs/projects and other community development activities (public services, public
facilities, etc.). HOME Program and Affordable Housing funds would be allocated in the fall
primarily to affordable housing programs/projects.
The staff and subcommittee agreed that overlaying the new process and cycles would be
heightened staff technical assistance to applicants. Both the subcommittee and staff recognize
that a semi-annual process will require additional meetings by both the CDBG Commission and
2
Affordable Housing Board, and will require more time from current City staff, and increase the
City Council’s involvement.
Schedule
The subcommittee also discussed two alternative schedules for the funding cycles. The option
selected incorporates a spring cycle that starts in January and ends in May, and a fall cycle that
starts in July and ends in November.
Review Criteria
The Competitive Process established review criteria to determine the differences between
proposals received by the City. The review criteria are designed to address major issues the City
needs to consider when making funding decisions. The five major review categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide rewards to proposals that target lower income groups. The
Need/Priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and priorities. The
Feasibility criteria rewards projects for timelines and documented additional funding. The
Leveraging Resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City (loans) and
for their ability to leverage other resources; and, the Capacity and History criteria help gage an
applicant’s ability to do the project and reward applicants who have completed successful
projects in the past (have good track records).
On July 20, 2010, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and the HUD
required Consolidated Plan and established goals and strategies for the City of Fort Collins’
affordable housing programs for the five-year period of 2010-2014. Based on the most
significant affordable housing needs, four goals have been identified and prioritized as follows:
1. Increase the inventory of affordable rental housing units
2. Preserve existing affordable housing units
3. Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs
4. Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan. These guidelines include:
HOME funds should generally be allocated as follows: 90% for Housing projects
and 10% for Program Administration. HUD HOME Program regulations also
require the City to set aside 15% for Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO
3
operations;
CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65% for Housing projects
and Public Facilities; 15% for Public Services, and 20% for Program
Administration.
Application Forms
Three application forms have also been developed. One form for Housing proposals, one for
Public Facility proposals, and one for Public Service proposals.
City Council Adoption
On January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-13, formally adopting the
Competitive Process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs/projects and community development activities and the component parts discussed
above.
ATTACHMENT 3
Affordable Housing Board’s List of Priority Projects
On Thursday September 16, 2010, the Affordable Housing Board (AHB) conducted a special
meeting to prepare a listing of priority affordable housing proposals seeking funding from the
City competitive process. After careful review and discussion of the housing applications, the
Board established a list of priorities as a means of assisting the CDBG Commission as they
prepare for applicant interviews and recommended funding allocations.
The following table presents the Board’s listing of priority projects, the applicant’s initial
funding request, and the CDBG Commission’s funding recommendation.
AHB’s
Ranking of
Priority
Projects
Project
Applicant’s
Initial
Funding
Request
CDBG
Commission’s
Recommendation
Unfunded
Balance
Percentage
of Request
Funded
1 HO-1 City of
Fort Collins –
Analysis of
Impediments to
Fair Housing
Choice
$25,000 $25,000 $0 100%
2 HO-5 Housing
Authority of
Loveland –
Larimer Home
Improvement
Program
$120,000 $120,000 $0 100%
3 HO-4 Fort
Collins
Housing
Authority –
Supportive
Housing
Development
$600,000 $586,077 $143,923 97.7%
4 HO-3 Fort
Collins Habitat
for Humanity –
Rigden
Cottages East,
Land
Acquisition
$82,500 $82,500 $0 100%
1
ATTACHMENT 4
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
on the
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM GUIDELINES
(Adopted by the Fort Collins City Council, July 18, 1995)
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program is to increase the supply of
decent, safe, and affordable housing in the City of Fort Collins for an extended period of time.
All of the HOME funds must benefit low and very low income households which are defined by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development as having a total household income not
exceeding 80% of the median household income for the Fort Collins area.
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS: HOME funds must be used in the following ways:
1. DIRECT HOUSING ASSISTANCE:
Down payment assistance: To help low-income individuals to purchase housing for their
principal residence. Applicants must meet income guidelines of no more than 80% of the
current median household income for the Fort Collins area and will be required to attend
a homebuyer workshop. Assistance is in the form of zero percent deferred loan up to a
maximum of $10,000 to help cover downpayment and closing cost expenses. The
funding is repaid with a 5% simple interest charge when the property is sold or
transferred out of the buyer’s name. Restrictions will apply which will assure the
property remains affordable. This is accomplished by the “recapturing” of the HOME
investment.
Tenant based rental assistance: To help low-income households avoid eviction and
homelessness, TBRA provides up to two years of housing subsidy and case management
services to stabilize households and put them on the road to self-sufficiency.
2. NEW CONSTRUCTION of units for homeownership as well as rental occupancy
targeted for low-income individuals and families which are developed, sponsored, or
owned by community housing development organizations (CHDOs), non-profit agencies,
and for-profit developers.
3. ACQUISITION of undeveloped, or developed, land resulting in the development or
purchase of units for homeownership as well as rental occupancy. All regulations
regarding income guidelines, purchase price limitations, resale limitations, rental rates,
etc., will apply to acquisition projects.
2
ELIGIBLE PROPERTY TYPES:
Eligible property types for purchase include both existing property or newly constructed homes.
Eligible property includes a single-family property, a condominium unit, a manufactured home
(including mobile homes on a permanent foundation), or a cooperative unit. For purposes of the
HOME program, homeownership means:
(1) ownership in fee simple title, or
(2) a 99 year leasehold interest, or
(3) ownership or membership in a cooperative, or
(4) an equivalent form of ownership which has been approved by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
The value and purchase price of the HOME assisted property to be acquired must not exceed
95% of the area median purchase price for that type of housing as established by HUD.
RECAPTURE RESTRICTIONS WILL APPLY. (The value must be verified by a qualified
appraiser or current tax assessment.) Initial purchase price limit established by HUD is currently
$212,015.
HOME PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan identifies the following priorities for housing related needs:
1. Stimulate housing production for very low, low and moderate income households.
2. Increase home ownership opportunities for very low, low and moderate income
households.
3. Increase the supply of public housing for families and those with special needs.
Implementation and funding of activities to address these priorities will come, in part, from the
City of Fort Collins HOME Investment Partnership Program.
1
ATTACHMENT 5
2011 FALL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Meeting held Thursday, October 13, 2011
6:00 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
218 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION
Meeting Notes
October 13, 2011
CDBG Commission Members Attending:
Kay Rios, Chair
Jeff Taylor, Vice Chair
Robert Browning
Emily Sander
Catherine Costlow
Kristin Stephens
Jennifer Wagner
CDBG Commission Members Absent:
Gordon Coombes
Jamaal Curry
Staff Attending:
Ken Waido
Heidi Phelps
Gail Neben
Sharon Thomas
Citizen/Guests Attending:
Julie Brewen, Fort Collins Housing Authority
Chadrick Martinez, Fort Collins Housing Authority
Bryce Hach, Homeward 2020
2
Call to Order:
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.
Citizen Comments:
No comments.
Deliberations:
Rios: A couple of things I want to run over especially for new members: As you make
recommendations, so we can get all of that on tape. Make sure to give reasons that are factual
and based on the information we have and if the second has the same thing to say, just say
“ditto.” Let’s make sure we are putting all that information out there and, as a reminder, we are
basing that on a Consolidated Plan and on the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. That is where
we look at what the priorities are.
Phelps: Kay said everything in terms of the parameters. We want to let applicants know, the City
works hard to have an open process. This is kind of like walking into Act II, Scene III of a play.
There are many other components. This is not a board that makes an actual decision, and there is
no formal appeal process. This is a recommending body only. If you have some concerns about
the decisions or recommendations the board has made tonight, your option is to go to Ken
Waido, who is the board liaison, and it will work up the chain of command. If you have concerns
about what staff has said or done this evening, the path would be to take it to Joe Frank. If there
are any issues, we ask that you submit them by Monday at 5:00, or let us know if you need more
time. Any Questions? (No questions.)
Thank you.
Wagner: As I understand it, out of the CHODO funds, $89,888 will be available in the spring?
Waido: Yes that is correct.
Rios: Let’s get started. Does anyone want to jump in?
Taylor: I move for full funding for HO1, the City of Fort Collins Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choices.
Wagner: Second.
Taylor: This is a required analysis that needs to be done to be eligible to retain the CDBG and
HOME programs. While difficult and time consuming, I think it is a good use of the money.
Wagner: Ditto.
3
Discussion:
Browning: I understood from what was said at the last session that the product is only used to
satisfy HUD. You said you had bids at $19,435 and about $39,000. Why are we not going to the
lowest bid?
Waido: In the Review Committee’s opinion, which is five of us, the quality of the lowest bid
was not commensurate with the money. You got what you paid for and it was not up to snuff in
terms of what we believe is required for this project.
Phelps: I would add to that. It was not some sort of back door regulatory check-off list. If that
were the case, we would be less concerned. We are always concerned about quality, but in
particular because fair housing issues have come to the forefront and we in fact have several
cases in the City of Fort Collins right now where there are some challenges to fair housing. So,
there are some legal issues.
Taylor: Let me just inject a question. Since staff is the applicants, they probably should not be
offering additional information. We are not just asking for clarification. We were asking for
information, and I don't think that is correct.
Phelps: Good point.
Rios: I should have caught that, but it was appropriate for Bob to ask.
Rios: We have a motion and a second for full funding for HO1. Is there any additional
discussion? All in favor raise your hand. Six for, one opposed. Motion passes.
HO1 City of Fort Collins – Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Final Funding Recommendation: $25,000 Affordable Housing Funds
Rios: Is there another motion?
Wagner: I make a motion for HO3 - Habitat for Humanity: Rigden Cottages East Land
Acquisition for $82,500 for full funding.
Rios: Is there a second?
Costlow: I second.
Wagner: I believe this agency has a proven track record of success. I believe where the project
is at and continuing through that development makes sense for them to continue to build further
out.
Costlow: Just to add to that, I think the land acquisition price seems reasonable and then I would
ditto what Jennifer said. .
4
Discussion:
Taylor: I’m going to be in support of this, but I have some concerns as far as direction in general
as far as the cost. As an outgoing board member, I would just say that we should make sure we
are putting the pencil to the math, as far as the amount of subsidy. And, going forward there are
questions to ask them as far as the qualifying piece for the homeowners themselves. I am a little
concerned about how they are coming up with those. It is workable, but I think it is not a great
sustainable model. We might find our money going elsewhere for affordable housing than just
trying to promote the home ownership subsidies. .
Browning: I am concerned we are in the third and fourth positions on the loans. If they’re
relying on us for money, I would rather see us in first or second place. I am not convinced it is
appropriate for us to be loaning more than $1000 for down payment assistance. I would like to
see us move up in position on the loans.
Wagner: I think you have a good points Bob and Jeff. To the ongoing board members maybe
discussions early next year with Habitat as to where the model is going. I think funding them
today is the responsible thing to do with the dollars we have available and the project they have
at hand, and letting them know some of the concerns prior to being at a funding decision so they
can position appropriately in the future.
Taylor: If I remember correctly from the email I sent out is that their position is they are not
opposed to the change in the position ultimately. Should maybe this should be directed to on-
going contracts.
Browning: Why doesn't this affect them now?
Taylor: I don't think it does.
Costlow: So you wouldn't want to change it to say that we were a second instead of a third?
Browning: As far as the number three and four positions, my thought would be to specify the
land portion is number one and the down payment is number two. They said they have not had a
foreclosure. I know a couple of the houses have sold.
Wagner: I would be more in favor of that for a next time agreement. I know they said it is not an
issue with that, but, are they fully on board? I think we are on questionable ground if we make
that a condition today.
Taylor: As a mortgage person, I would opt for a compromise position for the down payment
portion. Historically, the down payment goes at the tail end. It is the last dollars in, so the
position is last, but the subsidy on the land should go toward the project. That is typically how
the lending side goes.
Browning: Is the motion amended?
5
Taylor: At this point it’s not. . I make a friendly amendment. Bob, what would you feel about
the language?
Browning: I would be happy if the land loan goes to one and down payment assistance to the
fourth as long as we address it with them.
Taylor: Amended with the subsidy on the land acquisition go to first position and the down
payment assistance applied for by the homeowner, not the applicant, to go into the traditional
fourth position and that staff have an ongoing discussion with the applicant.
Wagner: Amendment accepted with a comment that I would add the discussions to also include
the increasing level of income.
Costlow: Second accepts the amendment.
Rios: Other comments? All in favor of full funding for HO3 with all of the other verbiage that
went with it raise your hands. Motion passes unanimously.
HO3 - Habitat for Humanity: Rigden Cottages East, Land Acquisition
Final Funding Recommendation: $82,500 Affordable Housing Funds including a
stipulation that the land loan goes to first position.
Wagner: I make a motion to fund HO4, Fort Collins Housing Authority in support of housing
development, out of the HOME fiscal year 2011, in the amount of $449,446 and out of the
Affordable Housing Fund fiscal year 2011, in the amount of $97,524.
Rios: Does that come up to $600,000?
Wagner: No, that comes up to $53,030 short.
Thomas: The total is $546,970.
Rios: I’ll second?
Wagner: To address how I came up with these numbers, we are short funding this cycle
completely. However, there will be funds available in the HOME CHDO fund set-aside in the
spring. I feel that this request should be supported. There is something we have not seen before
and there is definitely a need. The Housing Authority has the ability, the expertise, and the track
record to administer it successfully. I think they could work with this request being $53,000 short
as their seed money and come back for additional funds out of CHDO funds in the spring. I
would also add that the late information we received from City staff (the URA) is not a decision
to be made by this Commission. I don't think it is relevant to our Commission's recommendation
to City Council based on the criteria that we were given for making a decision.
Thomas: To clarify, in order to use the CHDO funds, they had to come in as a CHDO and they
did not this year.
6
Wagner: But that is something they could do, correct?
Waido: They would have to come in as have the Villages as a CHDO. It’s a different entity.
Thomas: It used to be the Housing Corporation but it’s now the Villages
Wagner: By being $53,000 short, this gives them all but the 8.3% of the requested funding
which is the seed money and I feel it’s reasonable to work with that. . That is something which I
feel would be reasonable to work with. And, it is something that I think we do want to fund.
Rios: And, I would say ditto to that and add that I like the structure, and that it can be permanent
housing.
Discussion:
Waido: What did you just say? What did you mean, permanent housing?
Rios: That is part of my notes that is can be permanent housing because they are using project
based vouchers.
Costlow: People do not have to move out. They can stay there once they’re in...
Rios: Other comments? We have a motion on the floor to fund $449,446 from the HOME funds,
and $97,524 from Affordable Housing. All those in favor raise your hands. Motion passed
unanimously.
HO4 – Fort Collins Housing Authority: Supportive Housing Development
Funding Recommendation: $546,970; including $449,446 FY11 HOME and $97,524
Affordable Housing funds
Taylor: I move for full funding for HO5, the Loveland Housing Authority Home Improvement
Program for $120,000.
Browning: I second the motion.
Taylor: This was ranked consistently as second and third priority from the Affordable Housing
Board. The application says the money will be used to leverage additional funds from the state. I
love the way the program works, where it allows for assistance for emergency repairs, and, helps
with rehabilitation of properties and lets people stay in their homes. It also helps with equipment
failures such as furnaces. .
Browning: Ditto.
7
Discussion:
Rios: Other comments? All in favor for full funding for HO5 raise your hands. Motion passed
unanimously.
HO5 - Loveland HA: Larimer Home Improvement Program
Final Funding Recommendation: $120,000
Wagner: I move to fund HO4, Fort Collins Housing Authority, for the remaining balance
available of $39,107.
Rios: I second that. I have a question. Would that still leave a shortage for HO4?
Waido: That leaves the application $13,923 short.
Stephens: Because we had saved money for the rehabilitation project.
Wagner: Same comments.
Rios: Ditto. Other discussion? All in favor to fund HO4 an additional $39,107 raise your hands
Motion passed unanimously.
HO4 – Fort Collins Housing Authority: Supportive Housing Development
Final Funding Recommendation: $586,077; including $449,446 FY11 HOME,
$97,524 Affordable Housing funds, and $39,107 FY11 HOME Program Income
Waido: We have discussed all the proposals and have allocated all the funds, unless someone
wants to change something.
Rios: I ask for a motion to approve the entire package.
Wagner and Taylor made a joint motion.
Stephens: I second.
Rios: Are there any concerns? All in favor to send the recommendations to Council raise your
hands. Motion passed unanimously.
Rios: Do we have anything else we need to discuss tonight?
Waido: I just want to let you know that we have received a couple of Section 108 applications,
but really only one live one. The Loan Review Committee is looking at them and is still in the
process, but it is not ready to bring to this Commission.
Rios: I make a motion to adjourn.
8
Taylor: I second.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:34 PM.
On November 4, 2011, the CDBG Commission conducted discussions via email and the majority
of the Commission agreed to rescind the condition that the City should be in the first lien
position, on their recommendation to allocate $82,500 to Habitat for Humanity’s land acquisition
proposal (Habitat had an issue with the City being in first position), and instead, the City should
be in the second lien position (with which Habitat has no problem).
1
ATTACHMENT 6
City of Fort Collins Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission
Formulation of Funding Recommendations Session
The CDBG Commission has prepared this hand-out to help you to understand how the
Commission’s meeting for the purpose of formulating funding recommendations to the City
Council is conducted. It is the Commission’s wish that our methodology be understandable to
even the most casual observers. As you might imagine, the entire process is complex and time-
consuming, especially given that grant requests greatly exceed the amount of available funding.
City Staff will prepare an electronic matrix showing each application, the funding requested, and
the total funds available. The Commission will discuss the pros and cons of every application.
The order which applications are discussed is not important and there is no danger of ‘running
out’ of funds before all applications are fully discussed. There will be preliminary funding
motions made, seconded, and approved throughout the process and these recommendations will
be added into the matrix. It must be emphasized that the matrix is a working document, and any
figures used, whether they be for full, partial, or zero funding, are for discussion purposes only. It
is also possible that the total funds listed in the matrix might exceed the total of funds available at
any point in the process.
After each application has been discussed, the Commission will start to adjust the matrix to start
producing its recommendation for funding to Council. Funding contained on the matrix may be
drastically changed in either a positive or negative manner during this part of the process. When
the Commission agrees on the matrix as indicated by a motion to accept it, a second to the
motion, and a positive majority vote, the process is over and the recommendation will be
forwarded to the Council.
While the Commission’s main purpose is to provide Council with the best funding alternative, the
Commission is also sensitive that the funds being recommended for expenditure are taxpayer-
provided. For this reason, it is entirely possible that not all funds will be recommended for
expenditure, even if there are some applicants recommended for zero, or reduced, funding.
The last point to be made is while this meeting is open to the public, to be fair to applicants who
are not present at the meeting, no public comments will be taken.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRIORITIES FOR
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
2010 - 2014
HOUSING
1. Increase the inventory of affordable rental units through the production of new rental
units, or the acquisition and rehabilitation of former market rate units, converting them to
affordable housing.
2
2. Preserve affordable housing units by monitoring the status of existing affordable units
to maintain or add to the inventory.
3. Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs.
4. Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers.
HOMELESSNESS
Provide support and assistance to agencies and organizations that provide permanent
supportive housing.
NON-HOUSING
Public Services: The City will support and enhance public services which focus on
providing basic services to low-income citizens and families.
Public Facilities: The City will acquire, support and enhance public facilities which focus
on providing basic services to low-income citizens and families.
Economic Development:
a. Support, promote or expand development of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (URA).
b. Remove severely blighted properties, especially to promote infill
redevelopment.
c. Continue to expand the use of tools for development such as the Section 108
Loan Program, Brownfields, and Economic Development Initiatives.
d. Use CDBG funds to leverage public and private funds.
e. Support, establish or expand programs that provide job training or career
development for low- and moderate-income persons.
f. Implement revitalization efforts in neighborhoods to improve housing and/or
economic development opportunities.
g. Promote or support sustainable energy resources.
Non-Homeless Special Needs: The City will provide funding to projects that address
housing and supportive service needs for the elderly, persons with disabilities, at-risk/endangered
teens and young adults, victims of domestic violence, and persons with mental illness and/or
substance abuse issues, and persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.
3
Special Needs: The City will support and enhance Housing and Public Service projects
that directly address the needs of special needs populations, including the elderly/frail elderly,
persons with disabilities, at-risk/endangered teens and young adults, victims of domestic violence,
persons with mental illness and/or substance abuse issues, and persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families.
RESOLUTION 2011-101
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS THAT WILL RECEIVE
FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME)
PROGRAM, AND THE CITY’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
WHEREAS, the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program is an ongoing grant
administration program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and
WHEREAS, the City has received HOME Program funds since 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has budgeted General Fund dollars into an Affordable Housing
Fund for use in assisting affordable housing programs and projects; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-013, formally
adopting a competitive process for the allocation of City financial resources to affordable housing
programs and projects and community development activities; and
WHEREAS, since January 2011, the CDBG Commission has held two public hearings to
obtain citizen input on community development and affordable housing needs, and has heard
presentations and asked clarification questions from each applicant that submitted a proposal to the
City requesting funding; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2011, the CDBG Commission met in a special meeting for the
purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects
should be funded with FY 2011 HOME funds, 2011 HOME Program Income, and funds from the
City’s Affordable Housing Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommendation of the CDBG
Commission is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the administration is authorized to submit an application to HUD as follows:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FY 11 HOME Grant
$449,446 FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY – SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
FY 11 HOME Program Income
$39,107 FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY – SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
2011 Affordable Housing Fund
$25,000 CITY OF FORT COLLINS – ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR
HOUSING CHOICE
$82,500 FORT COLLINS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY – RIGDEN COTTAGES
EAST, LAND ACQUISITION
$97,524 FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY – SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
$120,000 LOVELAND HOUSING AUTHORITY – LARIMER HOME
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Rick Richter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-102 Further Extending the Deadline for the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor to Take
Certain Actions Required by the Parties’ Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate
25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Windsor (the
“IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392 (the
“Interchange”). Staff for the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor has completed the work required by the
Amended IGA but requires an extension to continue public outreach, to incorporate any input from the outreach, and
to draft necessary documents for consideration by Council. The staff of both municipalities have recommended that
the December 6, 2011, deadline be extended in order to complete the public outreach, draft necessary documents,
and make their recommendations. The deadline for all actions to be taken under the Amended IGA by December 6,
2011, should be extended to April 3, 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council and the Windsor Town Board held five joint work sessions to discuss the I-25 and State Highway 392
Interchange Improvements, System Level Study (1601 Process), and design. The System Level Study for this
interchange was approved by the CDOT Transportation Commission on January 21, 2009. This approval, along with
a signed IGA, has allowed the Project to move into the final design phase. The accelerated design process for this
Project was completed in January 2010. The accelerated design process made this Project “shovel ready,” thereby
enhancing the possibility of obtaining funding for construction.
The design followed the intent of the guiding principles adopted by the City Council and the Town Board in August
2008, specifically the community character guiding principle that states: “The I-25/392 Interchange is an important
‘gateway” feature for both Fort Collins and Windsor. It is viewed as Fort Collins’ southern gateway and the main
gateway into the Town of Windsor. The design of the Interchange, sensitivity to view sheds and associated land
development, shall enhance the gateway concept.”
The total construction and right of way cost for the Project is estimated at $27.5 million. On May 20, 2010, the Colorado
Transportation Commission authorized the allocation of $20 million for the construction of the Interchange. CDOT had
previously identified $2.5 million of state FASTER funds to be used for right of way acquisition. The funding gap of $5
million has been met by the local communities.
On December 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-077 authorizing the Mayor to execute the IGA. The
primary purposes of the IGA are to set forth the respective financial contributions of the City of Fort Collins and
Windsor related to the reconstruction of the Interchange, to provide for orderly land use and development within the
area immediately surrounding the Interchange, to ensure that the property owners most directly benefitted by the
Interchange improvements proportionally share in the cost of the improvements, and to provide for a revenue sharing
formula between the City of Fort Collins and Windsor.
The IGA establishes a Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) around the Interchange, within which certain land uses have
been agreed upon by the parties and fees will be imposed to reimburse the City of Fort Collins and Windsor for their
financial contributions to the construction of the Interchange and to help fund the construction and maintenance of
improvements and services within the CAC.
Section 3.2 of the IGA requires that, on or before March 31, 2011, the governing bodies of the City of Fort Collins and
Windsor shall each adopt acceptable design standards for the CAC. Those standards, explained by Ordinance No.
036, 2011, were adopted by the Council on March 22, 2011.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 23
The IGA originally set a deadline of March 31, 2011 to adopt the method of applying the development impact fee,
addressing the public improvement fee and redefining the Corridor Activity Center bounders. This date was extended
by three separate Council resolutions: On March 15, 2011 (Resolution 2011-026) Council extended the deadline for
all actions to be taken under Section 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.3.8 of the IGA to June 7, 2011; May 17, 2011(Resolution 2011-
041) extended the deadline for staff of both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach until
September 20, 2011; and finally, September 20, 2011(Resolution 2011-089) extended the deadline for staff to
complete their studies and public outreach until December 6, 2011. Staff continues to meet with the project
stakeholders and work towards making a recommendation on the fee. Staff of both municipalities has recommended
an additional extension of the deadline. This Resolution will approve that extension to April 3, 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff of both municipalities held several stakeholder meetings in 2011; most recently on April 21, August 10, and
October 27, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Fort Collins - Windsor IGA
3. Resolution 2011-089
[_
I-25 & 392
Interchange
COUNTY ROAD 5
KECHTER
4TH
MAIN
MASON
COUNTY ROAD 7
COUNTY ROAD 3
COUNTY ROAD 30
BOARDWALK
BOYD LAKE
71ST
66TH
COUNTY ROAD 36
COUNTY ROAD 9
COUNTY ROAD 13
FAIRGROUNDS
COUNTY ROAD 11
COUNTY ROAD 11C
TROUTMAN
PRIVATE DRIVE
COUNTY ROAD 34E
65TH
TIMBERLINE
COUNTY ROAD 30
COUNTY ROAD 3
COUNTY ROAD 30
S SHIELDS ST
INTERSTATE 25
S COLLEGE AVE
E TRILBY RD
S COUNTY ROAD 5
E COUNTY ROAD 30
S LEMAY AVE
S TIMBERLINE RD
E HARMONY RD
CARPENTER RD
E COUNTY ROAD 32
KECHTER RD
ZIEGLER RD
W TRILBY RD
E COUNTY ROAD 38
STATE HIGHWAY 392
W HARMONY RD
MAIN ST
STRAUSS CABIN RD
S COUNTY ROAD 3F
S COUNTY ROAD 7
S US HIGHWAY 287
S L
EMAY AVE
E COUNTY ROAD 32
ZIEGLER RD
INTERSTATE 25
S TIMBERLINE RD
Legend
Fort Collins City Limits
Growth Management Area E
ATTACHMENT 2
S
tate Highway 392
E County Road 3
2
Interstate 25
Intersta
te 25
E County Road 30
E County Road 30
S County Road 5
F
o
s s i l C
r
e
e k R
e
s e r v
o
i r
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
1:21,327
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Kilometers
I25 Corridor - State Activity HWY Center 392 Interchange (Exhibit A)
Scale
LandUse
Commercial
Employment
Boundary
CAC
Fort Collins GMA
Windsor GMA
Parcels
CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use of
PRODUCTS the by the public. City of The Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only,
warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon.
labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT
COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE
UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them
to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL
from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should
in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of
these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any
map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or
by any person or entity. Printed: November 17, 2010
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2011-102
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FURTHER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND THE TOWN OF WINDSOR TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS REQUIRED BY
THE PARTIES’ INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-077
authorizing the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement (the “IGA”) with the Town of
Windsor (“Windsor”) related to the reconstruction of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392
Interchange (the “Interchange”); and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2010, the IGA was also approved by the Windsor Town Board
through the adoption of Resolution 2010-71; and
WHEREAS, the IGA was finalized and fully executed and dated as of January 3, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011–026 extending
the deadlines imposed by the IGA to June 7, 2011, to allow additional time for staff to finalize their
recommendations regarding the boundaries of the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) around the
Interchange, and to develop a list of improvements and services to funded by retailers within the
CAC through a public improvement fee that will be charged upon the sale of goods or services; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041 extending the
deadline for staff of both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach until
September 20, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-089
extending the deadline for staff of both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach
until December 6, 2011; and
WHEREAS, staff for the City and Windsor have completed the work required by the IGA
as amended but require an extension to continue public outreach and to address affected property
owner concerns, to consider input from the public outreach and affected property owners, and to
draft necessary documents for consideration by the City Council and Town Board; and
WHEREAS, the staffs of both municipalities have recommended that the December 6, 2011,
deadline be extended in order to allow additional time to fully discuss options with affected property
owners and the public, draft necessary documents, and make their recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the deadline for all actions to be taken under the IGA as amended by December 6,
2011, is hereby extended to April 3, 2012.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Tess Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-103 Adopting the City’s 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the analysis of pending
legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by Council members and staff to determine positions
on pending legislation and as a general reference for our state legislators and congressional delegation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Legislative Policy Agenda includes policies on issues that affect the quality of life and governance of our
community. It is used as a guide by Council and staff to determine positions on pending legislation, and as a general
reference for our state legislators and congressional delegation.
The 2012 Agenda was developed with input from City staff and review by the Legislative Review Committee. It
contains policy statements on a wide variety of topics that cover the following areas:
% Affordable Housing
• Air Quality
• Climate and Environmental Protection
• Cultural Services
• Finance, Investments and Privatization
• Fire Protection
• Hazardous Materials Management
• Home Rule
• Human Resources
• Natural Areas and Open Lands
• Parks and Recreation
• Planning and Land Use
• Public Safety
• Recycling and Solid Waste
• Risk Management
• Sovereign and Governmental Immunity
• Telecommunications
• Transportation
• Utility Services: Energy, Water Supply and Quality
The proposed 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Legislative Policy Agenda contains a number of policies that speak to economic impacts. The Finance section
(page 6) contains several statements that address the need to protect the City’s revenue base. It also calls for support
for legislation “that promotes sustainable economic development.” Other policies that support sound fiscal practices
are imbedded throughout the document.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 24
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Several sections of the Legislative Policy Agenda directly address environmental impacts and support for legislation
that will help the City forward its environmental goals. These include statements under the headings of Air Quality
(page 4), Climate and Environmental Protection (page 5), Natural Areas and Open Lands (page 10), Recycling and
Solid Waste (page 12), Energy (page 16) and Water Supply and Quality (page 17).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Legislative Review Committee has reviewed and approved the draft 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda. Staff
recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-103
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE CITY’S 2012 LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGENDA
WHEREAS, state and federal legislation may impact the citizens of Fort Collins,
affecting their quality of life; and
WHEREAS, such state and federal legislation may also influence the operations of
municipal governments, including the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in providing input on proposed legislation; and
WHEREAS, Councilmembers and staff are asked to state the City’s policy position on
legislation; and
WHEREAS, members of the Legislative Review Committee desire to be more effective
in their reaction to state and federal legislation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the policy statements contained in the attached 2012 Legislative
Policy Agenda accurately reflect the City's policies on these issues.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
15th day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGENDA
2012
Adopted November 15, 2011
EXHIBIT A
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE
INTRODUCTION 3
FORT COLLINS LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE 3
LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS 4
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4
AIR QUALITY 4
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5
CULTURAL SERVICES 6
FINANCE 6
INVESTMENTS 7
PRIVATIZATION 7
FIRE PROTECTION 8
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 8
HOME RULE 9
HUMAN RESOURCES 9
NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN LANDS 10
PARKS AND RECREATION 10
PLANNING AND LAND USE 11
PUBLIC SAFETY 11
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE 12
RISK MANAGEMENT 13
SOVEREIGN AND GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY 14
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 14
TRANSPORTATION 15
UTILITY SERVICES 16
ENERGY 16
WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY 17
CITY LEGISLATIVE STAFF 18
3
INTRODUCTION
Fort Collins is a community of 145,000 residents located at the foot of the Rocky
Mountains along Colorado’s Front Range. Incorporated in 1873, the City has grown to
become the commercial, educational and cultural hub of northern Colorado. The City
adopted a home rule charter in 1954 and operates under a Council-Manager form of
government.
The 2012 City of Fort Collins Legislative Policy Agenda identifies issues of importance
to the City of Fort Collins. The Agenda expresses policies and positions on issues that
affect the quality of life and the governance of our community. We offer this Agenda to
our Legislators as a guideline when considering legislation that impacts Fort Collins.
We encourage Legislators to contact Fort Collins City Council Members and our
Legislative Policy Manager should they have any questions regarding our policy
positions.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) is a representative group of Council members
that reviews and reacts to proposed legislation on behalf of City Council and the City. In
taking a position on particular bills, the LRC interprets and applies the various policies
that are included in the Legislative Policy Agenda. If a bill is governed by two or more
competing policies, then the LRC may decide how to balance those policies in taking a
position. If a bill falls outside of the Legislative Policy Agenda, the LRC refers the bill to
the full Council for consideration before a position is taken on behalf of the City.
Council Members presently serving on the Legislative Review Committee are:
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw
Councilmember Wade Troxell
Staff liaisons support the LRC by contributing expertise in various areas of municipal
service. The City works closely with the Colorado Municipal League on many legislative
items.
4
LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City of Fort Collins supports policy and funding mechanisms that help the City
develop and maintain affordable housing for our community’s lowest income families.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that maintains or enhances current levels of funding for
affordable housing throughout Colorado.
2. Oppose legislation that limits local ability to regulate, manage or generate
alternative sources of funding for affordable housing, including public-private
partnerships.
3. Support legislation that protects the rights of low-income and/or disabled
residents in tenant-landlord disputes, especially as it relates to safety issues.
AIR QUALITY
The City’s Air Quality Plan establishes a strong overall goal to “continually improve Fort
Collins air quality.”
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation and regulations adopting programs and policies that improve
public health and air quality.
2. Support legislation that maintains or increases the stringency of air quality
standards.
3. Oppose legislation that restricts local government authority to improve air quality
beyond minimum State or Federal requirements.
4. Support legislation that promotes regional improvement of air quality,
recognizing that air pollution does not follow jurisdictional boundaries.
5. Support legislation to assure that Federal, State and County agencies have
adequate authority and resources (funding and personnel) to enforce air quality
regulations.
6. Support legislation that removes barriers and promotes voluntary actions to
reduce air pollution.
5
7. Support legislation and regulations that reduce vehicle emissions by:
- Using the price mechanisms of the free market to shift citizen and business
travel behavior toward actions that reduce vehicle emissions and vehicle miles
of travel, including removing hidden cost subsidies to motor vehicle users
- Employing economic incentives and disincentives and other market
approaches
- Encouraging behavior changes, such as limiting unnecessary idling of vehicles
- Implementing State motor vehicle emissions testing programs consistent with
City air quality goals
8. Support legislation and regulations that provide authority for local governments to
implement vehicle emissions reductions programs.
9. Support legislation and regulations that make tailpipe emissions and fuel economy
standards more stringent for all vehicles.
10. Support programs and policies that promote advanced low emission vehicle
technology; and encourage or promote alternative fuels such as biodiesel,
cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen and compressed natural gas.
11. Support legislation and regulations that reduce residential wood smoke emissions
in order to achieve compliance with air quality standards.
12. Support legislation that helps to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation and building sector.
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The City of Fort Collins encourages local, state and national efforts to protect and
enhance our environment. Additionally, the City has a policy goal to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.
Therefore the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation and regulation that reduce Fort Collins’ vulnerability to
climate change impacts.
2. Support legislation that establishes reduction targets for greenhouse gas
emissions.
3. Support legislation that establishes market-based mechanisms to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, including providing incentives to business and citizens
to reduce emissions and for green building and sustainable design.
6
4. Support legislation and regulations to promote pollution prevention.
5. Support the Colorado self-audit law.
CULTURAL SERVICES
The City recognizes that art and culture are vitally important to the quality of life in our
community and is committed to providing the citizens of Fort Collins with excellent
cultural services.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support funding for cultural services for the education, entertainment and
enrichment of the community.
2. Support legislation that facilitates the creation, performance and presentation of
the arts.
3. Support legislation that protects and preserves our cultural heritage.
FINANCE
As a municipality, the City of Fort Collins faces many complex financial issues. Strong
fiscal planning, prudent debt management and preservation of the City’s revenue base are
vital in maintaining and improving the City’s financial health.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that maintains or expands municipal authority to establish
alternative funding mechanisms, including financing tools such as public
improvement fees (PIF) and certificates of participation (COP).
2. Support tax increment financing as a tool to support Downtown Development
Authorities and Urban Renewal Authorities, taking into consideration the land use
impacts of such legislation (e.g., sprawl) and the compelling interests and
concerns of other taxing entities.
3. Support legislation that promotes sustainable economic development.
4. Support increased funding and budgetary autonomy for Colorado State University
and Front Range Community College.
5. Support legislation promoting the equitable treatment of sales and use taxes to
residents and corporations residing or doing business in Colorado. The City
7
strongly recommends that taxes be as broad-based as possible and that
exemptions be limited.
6. Support federal legislation that recognizes the importance of sales and use tax to
local, self-collecting municipalities and equitably distributes sales tax collections
on e-commerce transactions.
7. Oppose legislation that reduces the City’s revenue base (sales, use and property
tax).
INVESTMENTS
The Fort Collins City Council has adopted investment polices to be used by the City.
The policies are reviewed and update periodically to ensure the safety and quality of the
portfolio to maintain liquidity and to maximize portfolio earnings.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation designed to protect, without unnecessarily restricting, the
investments of government entities.
2. Support legislation that provides for adequate transparency of the City’s
investment activity.
3. Oppose any legislation that would require municipalities to participate in
investments that do not meet the objectives set forth in the City’s policies.
4. Oppose restrictions on the City’s ability to adopt its own investment policies.
PRIVATIZATION
The City of Fort Collins utilizes outside contracts for procurement of many goods and
services. This practice of privatization provides citizens with a balance of quality and
cost efficiency.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation enabling provision of services through private enterprise in a
manner that fosters cost effective, sustainable, quality services.
2. Support local control of the awarding of contracts and the accountability of local
officials for those actions.
3. Oppose mandates that increase the complexity and cost of services without
improving those services.
8
FIRE PROTECTION
The Fort Collins City Council recognizes the critical importance of maintaining a safe
environment and protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Fort Collins from
fire.
Therefore the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation adopting a State fire code, the code of choice being the 2009
International Building and Fire Code, and allow municipalities to impose more
restrictive standards.
2. Oppose legislation that limits local enforcement of the International Fire Code as
adopted with local amendments, or imposes inspection requirements or prevents
collection of permit or inspection fees as required by the local jurisdiction.
3. Support legislation that requires the installation of fire protection systems in
structures to enhance life safety and property protection when appropriate.
4. Support legislation that strengthens the City’s ability to prohibit the use and sale
of fireworks and that allows counties and fire districts to prohibit and otherwise
control fireworks.
5. Support legislation that promotes fire safety, education and prevention with the
goal of reducing injury, loss of life and property damage.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
It is an important concern of the City to safeguard Fort Collins’ health and environmental
safety by reducing risks from the unauthorized release of hazardous materials or
hazardous waste.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that allows the City to continue controlling risks from
hazardous materials use, storage and transportation through the Uniform Building
and Fire Code and related local amendments.
2. Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to adopt local regulations for
hazardous materials, including review and approval of the location of facilities
that use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
3. Support legislation that strengthens the enforcement of hazardous materials
regulations.
4. Support legislation strengthening the diversion of hazardous waste from landfills.
9
HOME RULE
The City of Fort Collins is a home rule municipality under Article XX of the Colorado
Constitution, which grants home rule municipalities “full right of self-government in
local and municipal matters.” Home rule authority affords the citizens of Fort Collins
greater access to government and increased opportunity for participation and contribution
to the decision making process.
Home rule is of utmost importance to the City of Fort Collins. The City recognizes,
however, that there are particular areas in which insistence on local control may be
untimely or unwise. Therefore, proposed legislation must be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to determine when it is in the City's best interest to assert home rule authority and
when the City should support statewide intervention. For example, the City must be free
to regulate local activities that primarily impact the area within the City's boundaries,
such as the speed of local traffic or the effects of particular land use developments. On
the other hand, the cumulative effect of these and other activities has substantial
statewide ramifications which may call for statewide regulation, so that, for example,
state regulation may be needed to effectively manage overall growth and development in
the state, traffic congestion in major transportation corridors and environmental quality.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislative efforts to strengthen home rule authority of municipal
governments.
2. Oppose legislation that requires State or Federal intervention in matters of local
concern and which unnecessarily or adversely affect the City’s ability to manage
pursuant to its home rule authority.
HUMAN RESOURCES
The City of Fort Collins is committed to the safety and well-being of its employees. The
City works diligently to be an efficient and responsible steward of tax dollars while
ensuring that employees receive fair and competitive compensation and benefits. The
City believes that its citizens, through their elected representatives on City Council, are in
the best position to determine appropriate City employee compensation, benefits, and
policies.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Oppose legislation that creates unnecessary burdens on or limits the City’s ability
to decide employment issues, including collective bargaining, arbitration,
compensation, benefits and leaves.
10
2. Support legislation that expands the City’s ability to offer health, welfare and
wellness services for employees.
3. Oppose legislation that reduces current state funding for police officer death and
disability benefits.
4. Oppose legislation that would permit employees with defined contribution plans
to return to defined benefit plans if there is a cost to local government.
NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN LANDS
The City has a vigorous program to protect natural areas and other important open lands
within Fort Collins, within our Community Growth Management Area, and regionally.
The City works in partnership with other communities, Larimer County, private land
trusts, Great Outdoors Colorado, community groups, and state and federal agencies to
achieve community and regional conservation goals.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that maintains or enhances tax incentives for voluntary land
conservation by private landowners.
2. Oppose legislation that reduces the effectiveness of existing protection for
wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other sensitive natural areas.
3. Support additional funding for land conservation programs.
4. Support legislation protecting the Cache la Poudre River.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The City is committed to providing the community with excellent parks and recreation
services and facilities. Our citizens enjoy a better quality of life, improved health, less
crime and a greater sense of community because of our quality parks and recreation
programs.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that maintains or enhances funding for parks, trails, forestry,
horticulture and recreation services and facilities.
2. Support use of Great Outdoors Colorado and other sources for full funding of
municipal government projects, with maximum local discretion regarding local
needs and priorities.
11
3. Support legislation that enhances the City’s ability to provide quality parks and
recreation services and facilities for its citizens.
PLANNING AND LAND USE
Effective local land use planning and land development regulation contributes to the
quality of life enjoyed primarily by Fort Collins residents, yet shared regionally within
Larimer County. State legislation can influence local governments’ ability to develop
and implement land use plans for their communities.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that requires regional cooperation in land use and
transportation planning, and legislation that fosters sustainable development,
without unduly constraining the City’s home rule powers.
2. Support legislation that prohibits the annexation of land that is located within the
boundaries of a Growth Management Area that was legally established by an
intergovernmental agreement between a municipality and a county by any
municipality not a party to the agreement.
3. Oppose legislation that would extend the definition of a compensable taking
and/or the definition of vested property rights beyond the provisions of existing
law.
4. Oppose legislation that would limit local government authority to impose
development impact fees.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The Fort Collins City Council recognizes the critical importance of maintaining public order,
providing a safe environment, and protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Fort
Collins.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that has the potential to reduce incidents of violence in the
community, especially through the development of treatment and intervention
programs for youth.
2. Support legislation and funding that provides greater protection to victims of
crime.
12
3. Support legislation that maintains or enhances the City’s right to use camera
enforcement of traffic laws, reduces operational restrictions on the use of camera
enforcement, and increases the fines associated with violations.
4. Support legislation establishing protocols and funding for shared, statewide
emergency response communications.
5. Support legislation that regulates medical marijuana manufacture, distribution and
dispensaries.
6. Oppose programs that have the potential to compromise officer safety.
7. Support legislation that formally legitimizes the field of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) by establishing minimum training criteria and professional
mediator certification.
8. Support legislation that regulates the use of cell phones by a motorist while
operating a vehicle.
9. Oppose legislation that decreases funding for treatment of mental illness and
substance abuse disorders.
10. Support legislation that maintains or enhances a statewide database of concealed
weapons permits.
11. Support legislation to reduce community flood risks.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE
The City of Fort Collins endorses a multi-pronged approach to waste minimization that
includes recycling, re-use, composting and source reduction. Additionally, the City has
adopted a goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste stream from landfill disposal.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that clarifies and broadens the regulatory authority of local
government to ensure the efficient management of recyclable material and solid
waste.
2. Support legislation that encourages integrated waste management planning and
implementation, including but not limited to creation of a State waste diversion
goal.
13
3. Support legislation that provides incentives and funding for programs that
promote waste reduction, reuse and recycling and development of related
infrastructure.
4. Support legislation that enables “buy recycled” or “environmentally preferable
purchasing” policies for government agency procurement.
5. Support legislation that continues or increases funding for programs to collect and
monitor data on trash volumes, rates of diversion from landfill disposal and
economic impacts of recycling.
6. Support legislation to require greater producer responsibility, such as “take back”
regulations that assist consumers to appropriately recycle electronic equipment (e-
waste.)
7. Support legislation that establishes a deposit fee on beverage containers and that
would be used to pay for recycling programs.
RISK MANAGEMENT
The City of Fort Collins recognizes the dual purpose of the workers’ compensation
system – providing benefits promptly to injured employees in a cost-effective manner and
minimizing costly litigation. Council also recognizes that the City’s self-insurance
program is a cost efficient method to insure workers’ compensation and that government
intervention or taxation can negatively impact the City.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that improves administrative efficiency of the Division of
Workers’ Compensation.
2. Oppose legislation that increases insurance premium costs to employers.
3. Oppose legislation that would add administrative burdens or taxes to self-
insurance programs.
4. Oppose legislation that would promote claim litigation.
5. Oppose legislation that restricts the City’s ability to manage workers’
compensation claims, such as removing existing off-sets to workers’
compensation benefits or limiting the City’s ability to designate treating
physicians.
6. Oppose legislation that presumptively expands workers compensation coverage to
illnesses or injuries that are not work related.
14
SOVEREIGN AND GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
The Fort Collins City Council recognizes that the complexity and diversity of City
operations and services required to meet the needs of the citizens of Fort Collins may
expose the City and its officers and employees to liability for damage and injury. The
Council further recognizes that City officers and employees must be confident that they
have the City’s support in the lawful and proper performance of their assigned duties and
responsibilities.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
1. Support legislation that protects the interests of municipalities and their officers
and employees in the lawful and proper performance of their duties and
responsibilities.
2. Support legislation that discourages baseless and frivolous claims and demands
made against municipalities, their officers and employees.
3. Oppose legislation that expands or increases municipal liability, or, conversely,
further limits municipal immunity.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The City of Fort Collins encourages a competitive, open market for cable and
telecommunications services in order to ensure the public has access to a variety of
programming and services at the lowest cost possible.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statement:
1. Support legislation that maintains and enhances local franchising authority. This
helps ensure local governments’ ability to negotiate, in the public interest, for
cable channel space, institutional networks and public education and government
programming.
2. Support legislation that re-establishes the rights of municipalities to provide low
cost, accessible telecommunications services and related infrastructure.
15
TRANSPORTATION
The City actively promotes the safety and ease of traveling to, from and throughout the
community using a variety of modes of transportation. Additionally, the City’s policy is
to encourage the use of alternative transportation whenever appropriate.
Therefore, the City supports the following policies:
1. Support legislation that facilitates cooperative programs among government
agencies in order to help the City meet its basic transportation needs, including
transit, street, highway, road and bridge construction and maintenance, and safe
corridors for bicyclists and pedestrians.
2. Maintain and increase elected representatives’ support for funding for the balance
of the Mason Corridor Small Starts project in 2012.
3. Oppose legislation that seeks to reduce the present allocation formula of 60% state,
22% counties, and 18% municipalities for Highway User Tax Fund (HUTF) or any
appropriations from the State using the same formula.
4. Support exploration and analysis of alternative methods of funding transportation
infrastructure needs.
5. Support reauthorization of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) by Congress.
6. Support legislation to fund analysis and implementation of inter- and intra-regional
transit linkages, including future commuter rail connectivity.
7. Support legislation that facilitates regional planning for various modes of
transportation with the goal of providing practical solutions to reduce reliance on
single occupant vehicles.
8. Support efforts to encourage flexibility in federal funding and regulations in order
to better meet the needs of small to medium size communities.
9. Support preservation of the federal guaranteed levels of funding for transportation,
and allocation of all federal motor fuel taxes and other federal transportation trust
funds for their intended transportation purposes.
10. Support legislation broadening the definition of the gasoline tax to a “fuel tax” that
encompasses other fuel options as they become more prevalent.
11. Support legislation that limits the ability of railroad trains to block street and
highway grade crossings for unreasonable periods.
16
12. Support legislation that facilitates the implementation of railroad quiet zones in
municipalities and that reduces current train horn decibel and duration
requirements.
13. Oppose legislation intended to divest key highway roads in urban areas from the
State and make them the sole responsibility of local jurisdictions.
UTILITY SERVICES
It is critical that the City operate its electric distribution, drinking water, stormwater and
wastewater services in a financially sound, reliable, safe and environmentally acceptable
manner. Like other municipal utilities across the country, Fort Collins is faced with
many new and evolving challenges associated with changes in the industry, the age and
security of its infrastructure and the necessity of managing a changing workforce.
Therefore, the City supports the following policy statements:
ENERGY
1. Support legislation that recognizes the importance of infrastructure security while
minimizing restriction to the Utility’s ability to manage security as an integral part of
the system.
2. Support programs that provide assistance to local government, and that encourage and
allow for local design and implementation of greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
3. Support legislation that establishes uniform standards for the reduction of carbon
emissions.
4. Support legislation that removes barriers to financing for energy efficiency, and
encourages and funds energy efficiency and conservation while allowing local design
and implementation of the programs.
5. Support legislation that reduces community energy use and net energy use of existing
buildings.
6. Support legislation and regulations that provide incentives to encourage renewable
energy production, including wind power, and provide for “State Implementation
Plan” credits for renewable energy (excluding residential wood burning and corn-
based ethanol) and energy efficiency.
7. Oppose legislation that attempts to prevent or inhibit provision of municipal electric
service in newly annexed areas.
8. Support legislation that encourages grid modernization and smart grid technologies
17
WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY
1. Support legislation that maintains or expands the authority delegated to the State to
administer federally mandated water, stormwater and wastewater environmental
regulatory programs (primacy).
2. Support water quality legislation that results in reasonable water quality control
regulations that are cost effective and can show identifiable benefits.
3. Support legislation that enables local development of watershed protection.
4. Support legislation that provides the City the flexibility to enhance in-stream flows to
preserve or improve the natural environment of the stream while protecting the
integrity of Colorado’s appropriation doctrine and City water supply.
5. Support legislation that recognizes the importance of infrastructure security while
minimizing restriction to the Utility’s ability to manage security as an integral part of
the system.
6. Support adequate funding of mandated programs.
7. Support legislation that removes barriers to financing for water conservation projects.
18
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LEGISLATIVE STAFF
Legislative Review Committee
Name District/Title Email
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson District 5 kohlson@fcgov.com
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw District 2 lpoppaw@fcgov.com
Councilmember Wade Troxell District 4 wtroxell@fcgov.com
Darin Atteberry City Manager datteberry@fcgov.com
Wendy Williams Assistant City Manager wwilliams@fcgov.com
Steve Roy City Attorney sroy@fcgov.com
Tess Heffernan Legislative Policy Manager theffernan@fcgov.com
Legislative Staff Liaison Members
Topic Area Name Email
Affordable Housing Julie Brewen jbrewen@fcgov.com
Air Quality Lucinda Smith lsmith@fcgov.com
Cable Television Franchise Carson Hamlin chamlin@fcgov.com
Climate and Environmental Protection
Natural Areas and Open Lands
John Stokes jstokes@fcgov.com
City Clerk Rita Harris rharris@fcgov.com
Cultural Services
Parks and Recreation
J.R. Schnelzer jrschnelzer@fcgov.com
Energy
Water Supply and Quality
Patty Bigner pbigner@fcgov.com
Finance John Voss jvoss@fcgov.com
Economic Health Josh Birks jbirks@fcgov.com
Fire Protection
Hazardous Materials Management
Kevin Wilson kwilson@pfafireprevention.org
Human Resources Janet Miller jmiller@fcgov.com
Legal Carrie Daggett cdaggett@fcgov.com
Neighborhood and Building Services Mike Gebo mgebo@fcgov.com
Planning and Land Use Timothy Wilder twilder@fcgov.com
Public Safety Rita Davis rdavis@fcgov.com
Recycling and Solid Waste Susie Gordon sgordon@fcgov.com
Risk Management Lance Murray lmurray@fcgov.com
Transportation Mark Jackson mjackson@fcgov.com
19
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Tess Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land
Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight shelter at area
homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The Mission; however, delays have pushed
the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This Ordinance, adopted 4-0 (Manvel absent, Poppaw withdrawn,
Troxell absent at time of vote) on First Reading on November 1, 2011, will temporarily suspend Land Use Code
restrictions for an 8-week period at the Knights of Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter
people on those winter evenings when other homeless shelters are full.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Tess Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use
Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight shelter at area
homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The Mission; however, delays have pushed
the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This request is to temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for
an 8-week period at the Knights of Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter people on
those winter evenings when other homeless shelters are full.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The current economic climate has led to an increase in the number of people in our community who are homeless or
at risk of becoming homeless. The Murphy Center, Food Bank, and other agencies providing “basic needs” services
have seen a marked increase in clients and overall community need.
There are two homeless shelters in Fort Collins that shelter people overnight: The Mission at 460 Linden Center Drive
and the Open Door Mission at 316 Jefferson Street. It is estimated that last winter 5 – 30 people were turned away
on several nights due to lack of space, some of them families with children. The Mission has been working to fund
and construct an expansion at their site to meet this need and construction was originally scheduled to be complete
by this fall. However, due to delays the expanded space will not be completed until February 1, 2012.
United Way of Larimer County is proposing that temporary overflow shelters be opened, when needed, operating 10:00
p.m. – 7:00 a.m. from December 1, 2011 – February 1, 2012. Two sites would be used for this purpose:
- Sunday night through Thursday night: Knights of Columbus building, 121 North Meldrum Street.
- Friday and Saturday night: Saint Joseph School, 127 North Howes Street.
The Knights of Columbus building is located in the NCB (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) zone, wherein overnight
homeless shelters are not an allowed use. United Way is asking the City to temporarily suspend enforcement of the
Land Use Code and zoning Map in order to open an overflow shelter when needed on Sunday through Thursday
nights.
The Saint Joseph School facility does not require a zoning exemption because an Overnight Shelter is a permitted use
in the Downtown zoning district. Under the Land Use Code, a minor administrative amendment for a change of use
would be required, and staff is pursuing that amendment with the Current Planning Department.
United Way estimates between 5 and 30 individuals will access the shelter each night. The shelter will be staffed by
two Catholic Charities employees and at least one volunteer per night. No food will be served.
United Way Director Gordan Thibedeau has emphasized that this is a temporary need and only applies to the limited
hours and timeframe requested. During the day, The Mission (operated by Catholic Charities) and The Murphy Center
together provide day shelter services. Clients are served in the morning hours at The Murphy Center, with the Mission
serving clients for lunch and afternoon hours. This arrangement has worked well for the past two years, replacing the
former temporary cold weather day shelter that was operated out of a City facility on North Howes Street.
The expansion at The Mission will provide 30 additional bed spaces. For the long term, United Way and the
community at large are working with Homeward 2020 to help chronically homeless people move into supportive
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
housing. The City has supported these efforts by providing one-time financial support for the expansion at the Mission
and funding for the start-up and operation of the Homeward 2020 initiative.
As noted below, property owners in the vicinity of the two facilities will be notified of this request and a neighborhood
meeting will be held, however, feedback is not yet available. Staff will attend the neighborhood meeting and report
back prior to first reading of the ordinance with comments and concerns from neighborhood residents and businesses.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial or economic impacts on City resources.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Letters were sent to 137 property owners in the area explaining the request, providing a contact at United Way who
could answer questions, and inviting recipients to attend a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, October 27. The
meeting is sponsored by United Way. Because of the short time span leading up to this request the meeting was
unable to be held before these materials were published. City staff will attend the meeting and report neighborhood
feedback to City Council prior to first reading of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 150, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING THE OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE LAND USE CODE AND ZONING MAP TO ALLOW FOR A
TEMPORARY OVERFLOW WINTERTIME NIGHT SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS
WHEREAS, in recent years the City has experienced an increase in the number of families
and individuals seeking overnight shelter at area homeless shelters; and
WHEREAS, the Mission and the Open Door Mission both provide homeless shelter for
overnight occupancy, but it is estimated that during the past winter season, between five and thirty
people were turned away on several nights due to lack of space, sometimes involving families with
children; and
WHEREAS, construction is underway to expend the shelter capacity at the Mission but
delays have caused the completion date to be delayed until approximately February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City has been requested to temporarily suspend the operation and
enforcement of the Land Use Code and zoning map in order to allow for the temporary provision
of overflow wintertime night shelters for the homeless at the Knights of Columbus building located
at 121 North Meldrum Street upon the condition that the above-described property be utilized for
shelter purposes only between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am from December 1, 2011 to
February 1, 2012 and with the further understanding that the building will be so utilized only from
Sunday night through Thursday.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the application and enforcement of the Land Use Code shall be
suspended as it relates to the Knights of Columbus building located at 121 North Meldrum Street
from December 1, 2011 through February 1, 2012 between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am; and
subject further to the condition that such suspension shall apply to the building only from Sunday
night through Thursday night.
Section 2. That the suspension of the application and enforcement of the Land Use Code
pursuant to this Ordinance shall apply only to the operation of temporary overflow wintertime night
shelters for the homeless at the aforesaid locations and only when the existing overnight homeless
shelters in the City known as “The Mission” and the “Open Door Mission” are unable to
accommodate additional persons.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow Annexation to the
City of Fort Collins.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 153, 2011, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Ohlson) annexes the Leistikow parcel.
The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the
Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South
Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which
is shared with the Westchase P.U.D. The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as a
residential land use, the owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to
implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years.
Ordinance No. 154, 2011, will place the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in conformance with the City’s
Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 153, 2011 on Second Reading and Ordinance No. 154, 2011 on First
Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On November 3, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Leistikow Annexation
be placed in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Vicinity Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Structure Plan Map
5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011 and November 3, 2011
6. Graphic provided by Applicant at November 1, 2011 Council meeting
7. Powerpoint presentation
This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, City of Fort Collins Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Code and the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
There are no known controversies associated with this annexation.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
W I T H D R A W N
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-098 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Leistikow Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to annex and zone the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road
and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved
in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road.
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which is shared with the
Westchase P.U.D. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map
and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as
a residential land use, the owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to
implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. Of the total property
perimeter, 25% is contiguous to the existing City boundary thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth
of the perimeter boundary be contiguous.
According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, the City will agree to
consider annexation of property in the Growth Management Area when the property is eligible for annexation under
state law.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: L-M-N; Westchase P.U.D.
N: U-E; Westchase P.U.D.
E: FA-1; (Larimer County) Leflar M.R.D.
S: FA-1; (Larimer County) Leistikow Amended M.R.D.
W: FA-1; (Larimer County) Paragon Estates P.U.D.
This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, City of Fort Collins Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Code and the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
There are no known controversies associated with this annexation.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
The requested zoning for this annexation is the UE – Urban Estate District. There are numerous uses permitted in this
District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The adopted City Structure
Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), identifies that Urban Estate is appropriate in this location. The
request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations and the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
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 September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 2011-088 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 requested UE – Urban Estate Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation and zoning. The property is developed at the present
time, containing a single-family residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading. Staff recommends that this
property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this
property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of
regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected
by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an established
residential area.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Following the Planning and Zoning Board’s regular meeting on October 20, 2011, at which the Board held a hearing
on this annexation and zoning, it was discovered that, through no fault of the applicant, notice of the hearing was not
mailed to affected property owners as required by the Land Use Code. Therefore, a special Planning and Zoning
Board meeting has been scheduled for November 3, 2011 for the Board to rehear this item. In order to avoid delay
of this annexation, the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation addressing the issues of the annexation, the
placing of the property into the U-E, Urban Estate zone district and inclusion into the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District will be forwarded to City Council prior to the Council’s public hearing on Second Reading on November 15,
2011.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 20
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public notification of a Planning and Zoning Board special meeting on November 3, 2011, for the purpose of holding
a hearing on the zoning request, has been given via a letter of notification of the public hearing (containing date, time,
and place for the hearing and a description of the request) mailed to all affected property owners within 800 feet of the
property 14 days prior to the hearing. A neighborhood meeting is not required for annexation of property and no
meeting was held for this annexation and zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. City Structure Map (partial)
3. City Zoning Plan (partial)
Leistikow Leistikow AAnnnneexxaattiioonn
Site Vicinity & Context Map
FOSSIL CREEK
RESERVOIR
Leistikow
Annexation
18.03 ACRES
Zoned UE
FOSSIL CREEK
RESERVOIR
Rock Castle Lane
S. Timberline Road
Current
City of Fort Collins
City Limits
Trilby Road
Larimer County
Zoned FA-1
Rural Residential
Larimer County
Zoned FA-1
Larimer County
Zoned FA-1
Residential
Larimer County
Zoned FA-1/PUD Rural Residential
Larimer County
Zoned FA-1
Residential
Zoned LMN/UE
(City)
Existing Church,
Day Care & Fire
Station
Residential
Zoned LMN
(City)
Leistikow
MRD-County
Zoned FA-1
ATTACHMENT 6
1
1
2
ATTACHMENT 7
2
3
ORDINANCE NO. 153, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2011-087, 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:
Legal description of a parcel of land being Lot 2, of the Amended Leistikow MRD
and a portion of the existing right-of-way of Timberline Road situate in Sections 17
and 18, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17, and considering the North line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17 as bearing
South 89<56’00” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence
along said North line, South 89<56’00” East 785.96 feet to the True Point of
Beginning, said point being a point on the South line of Westchase Annexation No.
2 to the City of Fort Collins according to the plat on file in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder said County; thence along said South line, South 89<56’00” East 140.27
feet; thence departing said South line, South 00<04’00” West 91.40 feet; thence
South 75<01’11” West 126.44 feet; thence South 14<58’49” East 95.52 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of
98<02’18” and a radius of 528.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said
curve 903.46 feet; thence departing said curve, South 07<22’24” East 175.33 feet;
thence South 89<54’32” West 467.79 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of
said Timberline Road; thence along said West right-of-way line the following
courses and distances, North 00<09’18” East 55.71 feet; thence South 89<54’44”
East 10.00 feet; thence North 00<09’18” East 959.03 feet to a point on the South line
of said Westchase Annexation No. 2; thence along said South line South 89<56’00”
East 273.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having
a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 512.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along
the arc of said curve 21.95 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said
curve North 87<36’45” East 95.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
to the Southeast having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 487.50 feet;
thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 20.88 feet to the end of said curve;
thence tangent from said curve, South 89<56’00” East 207.42 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 17<15’28” and
a radius of 733.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 220.78 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 18.035 acres more or less
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Leistikow Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions
contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, 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.
Section 4. That this annexation into the City of Fort Collins is conditioned upon the
subject property developing as a non-residential land use. If the property is to be developed as a
residential use, then the owner, successors or assigns shall request disconnection of the subject
property from the City of Fort Collins so that Larimer County would have subdivision and zoning
jurisdiction and allow for the implementation of the Transfer of Density Units Program. This
condition shall be in effect for a period of ten (10) years following the effective date of this
ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 154, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the
Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning
of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should
be zoned as hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section
1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including
the property known as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban
Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as:
Legal description of a parcel of land being Lot 2, of the Amended Leistikow MRD
and a portion of the existing right-of-way of Timberline Road situate in Sections 17
and 18, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17, and considering the North line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17 as bearing
South 89<56’00” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence
along said North line, South 89<56’00” East 785.96 feet to the True Point of
Beginning, said point being a point on the South line of Westchase Annexation No.
2 to the City of Fort Collins according to the plat on file in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder said County; thence along said South line, South 89<56’00” East 140.27
feet; thence departing said South line, South 00<04’00” West 91.40 feet; thence
South 75<01’11” West 126.44 feet; thence South 14<58’49” East 95.52 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of
98<02’18” and a radius of 528.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said
curve 903.46 feet; thence departing said curve, South 07<22’24” East 175.33 feet;
thence South 89<54’32” West 467.79 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of
said Timberline Road; thence along said West right-of-way line the following
courses and distances, North 00<09’18” East 55.71 feet; thence South 89<54’44”
East 10.00 feet; thence North 00<09’18” East 959.03 feet to a point on the South line
of said Westchase Annexation No. 2; thence along said South line South 89<56’00”
East 273.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having
a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 512.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along
the arc of said curve 21.95 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said
curve North 87<36’45” East 95.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
to the Southeast having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 487.50 feet;
thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 20.88 feet to the end of said curve;
thence tangent from said curve, South 89<56’00” East 207.42 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 17<15’28” and
a radius of 733.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 220.78 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 18.035 acres more or less.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above-
described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said
Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 30
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2012, and
Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, amends the adopted 2012 Budget and
sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012. Including the 2012 adopted budgets for the
General Improvement District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City
appropriations amount to $456,189,759.
City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended
2012 2012 Change
Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1
Debt Service 23.2 23.2 -
Capital 19.1 22.6 3.5
Total City Operated Appropriations * $447.6 $456.2 $8.6
Less Urban Renewal Authority (URA) (1.5) (1.5) 0.0
Less General Improvement District (GID) (0.3) (0.3) 0.0
Total City of Fort Collins Appropriation $445.8 $454.4 $8.6
* This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2012, and
Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends the adopted 2012 Budget and sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2012. Including the 2012 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban
Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City appropriations amount to $456,189,759. The Net City Budget, which
excludes internal transfers between City funds, is $361,424,510 for 2012. The Net City Budget, as amended, is
allocated to:
Net City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended
2012 2012 Change
Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1
Debt Service 23.2 23.2 -
Capital * 19.1 22.6 3.5
Total City Appropriations ** $447.6 $456.2 $8.6
Less Internal Service Funds (57.0) (57.8) (0.8)
Less Transfers to Other Funds (37.1) (37.0) 0.1
Net City Budget $353.5 $361.4 $7.9
* Capital dollars reflect non-lapsing capital project budgets.
** This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council adopted the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget and appropriated monies for expenditure in fiscal year 2011.
State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover expenses for the ensuing year (2012)
based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading must be done before the last day of November and is currently
scheduled for November 15, 2011.
2012 Revenue Update
The revenue forecast model was updated in July of 2011 with data from the first six months of the year. Sales tax
revenue is projected to increase 1.95% in 2012 over 2011 collections based on the model, including cautious optimism
of the economy.
General Fund Revenue (2.25%):
Adopted 2012 Amended 2012
Sales Tax $50,402,000 $52,805,000
Use Tax 8,000,000 7.800,000
$58,402,000 $60,605,000
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 28
Recommended 2012 Budget Additions
After reviewing the 2012 budget revision requests and obtaining guidance from Council, the City Manager is
recommending the following adjustments to the 2012 budget which was presented to the Finance Committee on
October 10, and discussed in Council Work Sessions on October 11 and 18. The following list includes all changes
since the City Manager's recommended 2012 budget revisions first were initially presented to the Council Finance
Committee.
• Eliminated Below Market Pay Adjustment request of $812k
• Eliminated Federal Legislation Analysis and Action request of $79k
• Reduced CMO Policy & Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE to $15k
• Reduced Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal to $10k
• Reduced Downtown Holiday Lighting to $30k
• Changed funding sources to no longer request use of additional KFCG funds
• Added Regional Planning Assistance request for $50k
• Added Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) request for $75k
• Added Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance request for $50k
• Added Sidewalks, Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements request for $300k from Building on Basics (BOB)
• Added Sidewalk Improvements requests (such as gaps in sidewalk connections) for $260k from Keep Fort
Collins Great-Other Transportation funding
General Fund recommended adjustments total $1,787,016 and recommended adjustments to Other Funds total
$6,837,675.
General Fund:
Ongoing One-time
Assistant to the City Manager and CPIO (1 FTE) $176,320
Police Services Ticket Surcharge Officer (1 FTE) 118,709
Affordable Housing/Human Services 54,499
Restore Conservation Trust Funds for Trail Construction 546,571
Development Review Succession Planning (1.25 Cont. FTE) 75,341
Development Review - Customer Service Demand (1 FTE) 65,000
PFA Non-Discretionary & Total Compensation Increase 228,926
CMO Policy and Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE 15,000
Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services $150,000
Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services (Parking Study) 50,000
Reorganization Office of Sustainability 91,650
Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal 10,000
Downtown Holiday Lighting 30,000
Regional Planning Assistance 50,000
Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) 75,000
Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance 50,000
Total General Fund Adjustments: $1,412,016 $375,000
Other Funds:
Ongoing One-time
Reorganization Office of Sustainability $30,550
Pedestrian Access and ADA Improvements 300,000
Sidewalk improvements 260,000
Light & Power Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase 121,969
Purchase Power Increas 1,724,505
Energy Efficiency Financing Program (.5 FTE) 300,000
Water Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase 88,054
Water Meter Replacement and Rehabilitation 580,000
Household Hazardous Waste Community Event 22,000
Remove Structures from Poudre River Floodway 1,000,000
Master Plan Flood Mitigation Project Property 1,600,000
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 28
MIS Email, Blackberry & Smart Phone Services 28,000 80,000
MIS Network Services Resource Support 62,400
MIS Technology Customer Software Compliance Support 59,488
MIS Technology Customer Support Restructure 30,709
Microsoft Office 2010 Software Upgrade 550,000
Total Other Fund Adjustments $2,045,787 $4,791,888
Miscellaneous
In addition to the recommended adjustments, a couple of miscellaneous adjustments must be made to correct the 2012
appropriations for recent changes. The additional revenue projected to be received from Sales & Use Tax must be
appropriated for transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and Capital Projects Fund. Also, the following "clean-up" items are
included in the Amended 2012 appropriations.
• Art in Public Places (APP) Adjustment: $2,400
N The original 2012 APP offer was based on projects known at that time. This adjustment is based on the
final 2012 budgeted parks and trails projects
• Additional Flex Service: $526,811
N This adjustment is comprised of a 2012-13 CMAQ Grant of $458,794 and partner contributions of $68,017
for the operation of the FLEX regional route from June 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. The City of Fort
Collins local match was previously included in the 2011-12 budget. As such, there is no incremental cost
to the City.
• Correct Police Debt Payment Budget: ($750,000)
N A portion of the Police Building debt ($750,000) is funded from the Capital Projects Fund, the Police Facility
- COPs Debt project. In the 2012 proposed budget the payment of $750,000 was added to this project
budget, funded by additional interest earnings. However, no additional interest earnings are projected to
be received in future years so the 2012 debt payment should be made using existing appropriations and
revenue. Therefore, the 2012 proposed budget for the Capital Projects Fund needs to be decreased by
$750,000 with the same reduction in Capital Projects Fund revenue.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance amends the City Budget for fiscal year 2012 and represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2012
in the amount of $454,382,997. The Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 156, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012; AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2012, AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2012; AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2010, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance
No. 134, 2010, approving an amended biennial budget for the years beginning on January 1, 2011,
and January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to
the 2012 budget adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 134, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 4, of the City Charter requires that, before the last day of
November of each fiscal year, the City Council shall appropriate on a fund basis and by individual
project for capital projects and federal or state grant projects, such sums of money as it deems
necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during the ensuing fiscal year based upon the budget
as approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 5, of the City Charter provides that the annual appropriation
ordinance shall also fix the tax levy upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property
within the City, such levy representing the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide
for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred
by the City, including interest and principal of general obligation bonds; and
WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter permits the City Council to fix,
establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for water and
electricity, and for other utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient
to pay into the General Fund in lieu of taxes on account of the City-owned utilities such amount as
may be established by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the
transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were
initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in
which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in
the appropriation ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council has reviewed the City Manager's recommended changes
to the “2012 Proposed Appropriations” section of the Fort Collins 2011 and 2012 Biennial Budget
(the “Biennial Budget”), as shown on pages 38 through 40 thereof, a copy of which Biennial Budget
is on file with the office of the City Clerk, and hereby amends the Biennial Budget so as to reflect
the following changes:
2012 Proposed Appropriations
Amount of
Existing Adjustments As Amended
GENERAL FUND $103,002,311 $1,200,445 $104,202,756
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Golf $ 3,000,567 $ 3,000,567
Light & Power Operating 109,881,317 2,146,474 112,027,791
Capital:
Electric Substations 725,000 725,000
Capital Total 725,000 725,000
Total Light & Power 110,606,317 2,146,474 112,752,791
Stormwater Operating 10,709,394 22,000 10,731,394
Capital:
Asset Management 88,333 88,333
Boxelder Stormwater Authority 370,000 370,000
Cache La Poudre Drainage 0 1,000,000 1,000,000
Drainage & Detention System 370,000 370,000
Stormwater Developer Repays 95,000 95,000
Stormwater Master Planning 95,000 95,000
West Vine Basin 0 1,600,000 1,600,000
Capital Total 1,018,333 2,600,000 3,618,333
Total Stormwater 11,727,727 2,622,000 14,349,727
Wastewater Operating 18,277,139 18,277,139
Capital:
Asset Management 88,334 88,334
Collection System Replacement 1,270,000 1,270,000
Collection System Study 50,000 50,000
Flow Monitoring Stations 75,000 75,000
Sludge Disposal Program 200,000 200,000
Water Reclamation Replacement Program 1,275,000 1,275,000
Capital Total 2,958,334 2,958,334
Total Wastewater 21,235,473 21,235,473
-2-
Water Operating 26,202,294 88,054 26,290,348
Capital:
Asset Management 88,333 88,333
Cathodic Protection 115,000 115,000
Distribution System Replacement 1,015,000 1,015,000
Engineering Distribution System Replacement 1,425,000 1,425,000
Halligan Reservoir Expansion 190,000 190,000
Water Meter Replacement & Rehabilitation 920,000 580,000 1,500,000
Water Production Replacement Program 1,340,000 1,340,000
Water Supply Development 100,000 100,000
Capital Total 5,193,333 580,000 5,773,333
Total Water 31,395,627 668,054 32,063,681
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $177,965,711 $5,436,528 $183,402,239
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Benefits $22,949,435 $22,949,435
Data & Communications 7,346,213 $810,597 8,156,810
Equipment 9,927,360 9,927,360
Self Insurance 3,259,300 3,259,300
Utility Customer Service & Administration 15,232,183 15,232,183
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $58,714,491 $810,597 $59,525,088
SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Capital Improvement Expansion $ 634,353 $ 634,353
Capital Leasing Corporation 5,299,731 5,299,731
Cemeteries 535,939 535,939
Cultural Services & Facilities 4,570,259 $2,400 4,572,659
Debt Service 355,300 355,300
General Employees' Retirement 3,076,450 3,076,450
Keeping Fort Collins Great Operating 17,738,693 17,738,693
Capital:
City Bridge Program 564,931 564,931
Laporte-Whitcomb Bridge Replacement 670,000 670,000
Pedestrian Access 0 260,000 260,000
Trail Acquisition/Development 158,000 158,000
Capital Total 1,392,931 260,000 1,652,931
Total Keeping Fort Collins Great 19,131,624 260,000 19,391,624
Natural Areas 8,682,942 213,050 8,895,992
Perpetual Care 45,407 45,407
Recreation 6,416,093 6,416,093
Sales & Use Tax 11,428,000 365,000 11,793,000
Street Oversizing 3,046,663 3,046,663
-3-
Timberline/Prospect SID 102,926 102,926
Transit Services 11,019,384 526,811 11,546,195
Transportation Services 22,711,173 182,500 22,893,673
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT
SERVICE FUNDS $97,056,244 $ 1,549,761 $98,606,005
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
General City Capital
City Bridge Program $300,000 $300,000
Police Facility 750,000 (750,000) 0
Railroad Crossing Replacement 100,000 100,000
Total General City Capital $1,150,000 (750,000) $400,000
1/4 Cent Building on Basics
Administration $35,961 $35,961
Bicycle Program Plan Implementation 125,000 125,000
Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals 3,500,000 3,500,000
Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements 0 300,000 300,000
Senior Center Expansion 430,239 430,239
Total 1/4 Cent Building on Basics $ 4,091,200 300,000 $4,391,200
Conservation Trust Fund
Administration $ 267,905 $ 267,905
Fossil Creek Trail 50,000 546,571 596,571
Open Space Acquisition 10,000 10,000
Trail Acquisition/Development 350,000 350,000
Transfer to General Fund-Parks Maintenance 1,276,717 (546,571) 730,146
Tri-City Trails 30,000 30,000
Total Conservation Trust Fund $1,984,622 0 $1,984,622
Neighborhood Parkland Fund
Administration $ 406,087 $ 406,087
Equipment Replacement 15,000 15,000
New Park Site Acquisition 400,000 400,000
New Park Site Development 150,000 150,000
Richards Lake Park 200,000 200,000
Staley Neighborhood Park 400,000 400,000
Trailhead Park 300,000 300,000
-4-
Total Neighborhood Parkland Fund $1,871,087 $1,871,087
TOTAL CITY FUNDS $445,835,666 $8,547,331 $454,382,997
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated out of the revenues of the City, for the fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012, the sum of FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY-FOUR MILLION THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
NINETY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($454,382,997) to be raised by taxation and otherwise, which sum is
deemed by the City Council to be necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during said budget
year, to be divided and appropriated for the purposes shown in Section 1 above.
Section 3. Mill Levy.
a. That the 2012 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation
of all the taxable property within the city of Fort Collins as of December 31, 2011, shall be 9.797
mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide for payment
during the aforementioned budget year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the
City, including interest and principal of general obligation bonds.
b. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 9.797 mills to the County Assessor and the
Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, in accordance with the applicable provisions
of law, as required by Article V, Section 5, of the City Charter.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Patty Bigner, Bill Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 31
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. (Option A or Option B)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has prepared two Residential Energy Rate Options for Council consideration. This electric rate is used to bill
about 55,000 residential customers. Option A is a seasonal rate form, Option B is a three-tiered seasonal rate. Both
options increase the residential energy rate by an average of 6% over the current 2011 rate, however, the increase
varies by season and customer usage. Both options are proposed to be effective for billings with meter reading dates
on or after February 1, 2012.
In three City Council work sessions, staff presented electric rate design principles, four residential rate options, a
change to the residential demand rate and a pilot Time of Use rate for electric vehicles. At the September 13 Work
Session, City Council also discussed a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate proposed by staff that
will result in two rate classes, a GS (up to 25 kW) and GS 25 (25 – 50 kW). With the exception of proposed changes
to the residential electric rate structure, these changes were adopted by Council on Second Reading November 1,
2011, along with proposed rate increases.
At the October 11, 2011 Work Session, Council further reviewed four residential electric rate options and answers
provided by staff. Based on feedback from this work session, two rate ordinances have been drafted for Council
consideration and public notification has been completed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Approximately 55,020 residential customers comprise this rate class. These customers include single-family dwellings,
individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate class also includes a small group (220) of multi-
family customers with a single meter. Seventeen of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units.
As noted above, City Council has discussed options for changes to the electric rate structure at three previous work
sessions. Previous presentations and discussions have included information about national trends related to utility
rate structures, comparisons of City of Fort Collins rates compared to other utilities within Colorado and nationally,
customer rate impacts on various levels of use, potential for impacts on low-income customers, expected customer
response (price elasticity) and impacts on the distribution system.
Based on City Council discussion, staff and consultants from SAIC have prepared background information on the two
options.
The current electric rate (single tier) has three components: (1) a fixed charge, the monthly charge that recovers the
cost of metering, billing, collecting and providing customer service, and all other customer-related costs; (2) a
distribution facilities charge that recovers the cost of distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and
transformers required to deliver power to customers, applied on a $/Kilowatt Hour (kWH or unit of electricity) basis;
and (3) an energy charge that recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs associated with
the production of electricity. The energy charge includes both energy and demand components of purchase power.
This energy charge currently does not vary based on the season or the amount of electricity used by the customer.
Through the end of 2011, the fixed charge is $3.91/bill (month); the distribution/facilities charge is $0.0220 per kWh;
and the energy charge is $0.0532 per kWh. Based on the current tier structure, the 6% rate increases adopted
November 1, 2011 and effective January 1, 2012, these charges would be: fixed charge, $4.48/bill;
distribution/facilities charge, $0.0252/kWh; and energy charge, $0.0540/kWH. These charges are shown for
comparison only and are not among the proposed options.
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 31
Option A, Seasonal Rate
Option A, the Seasonal Rate structure, changes the current single tier or flat structure to a rate structure that results
in a higher rate per kWH in the summer months of June, July and August. This structure mirrors the rate structure
adopted by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), the City’s wholesale electric provider, and passes through the price
charged by PRPA to residential customers.
If adopted, Option A will have a fixed charge of $4.48/bill; and a distribution/facilities charge of 0.0256/kWh. During
the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge will be $0.0640/ kWh. During the non-
summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge will be
$0.0506/kWH. As provided in the Ordinance(Option A), the meter reading date will generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates.
Option A, the Seasonal Rate, is consistent with the current practice of directly passing through PRPA costs to
customers. Seasonal rates also are a simple time of use rate. A potential advantage of seasonal rates, in addition
to recovering costs, may be a reduction in overall electricity demand during the summer months due to reduced use
of air conditioning (in response to higher priced electricity during that period). A simple time of use rate may also serve
as a step toward a more standard or traditional time of use rate that will be available by 2014, once the City’s
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program is completed and residential customers have an advanced meter.
Data from AMI meters could then be used to determine an appropriate time-of-use residential rate. A disadvantage
of the Seasonal Rate is that it is a more limited price signal during the non-summer months, resulting in a weak
conservation signal to customers. Although it is not as complex as Option B, the Seasonal Rate is a shift from the
current single tier rate structure and robust customer communication is planned for early 2012 with additional outreach
prior to the summer months.
Option A is planned to increase revenue from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%, which is consistent with the
projected increased revenue requirement for this customer class. The average increase will be 16.8% in the three
summer months and 2% in the non-summer months.
Option B, Seasonal, Three-tier Rate
Option B, the Seasonal Three-tier rate combines the rate recovery aspect of the Seasonal Rate with an inclining block
or tiered rate structure. If adopted, Option B will have the same fixed charge of $4.48/bill; and distribution/facilities
charge of 0.0256/kWh as Option A, the Seasonal Rate. The inclining blocks or tiers will differ in the summer months
of June, July and August from the remaining months of the year.
1. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge per kWH will be tiered
with the following charges:
a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0531.
b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0689.
c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.1005.
As with the proposed Seasonal Rate, the meter reading date will generally determine the summer season
billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates.
2. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December,
the energy charge per kWH will be tiered with the following charges:
a. For the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0482.
b. For the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0520.
c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0603.
Option B, the Seasonal Three-tiered rate, retains the cost recovery benefits of the Seasonal rate, passing through
costs from PRPA to the customer. It also sends a strong signal to large users of electricity to incentivize conservation,
and with the seasonal component, serve as a step toward further implementation of a time-of-use rate, once the City’s
AMI project has been completed. The rate is more complex and significantly different from the current single tier rate
structure. As a result, communication to all customers will be important throughout the year, with emphasis on the
summer months.
November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 31
Option B also is planned to increase revenue from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%, similar to Option A above. The
average increase will be 16.8% in the three summer months and 2% in the nine non-summer months. With this option,
customer that use more than 700kWh monthly will see larger percentage increases than most customers who use less
than average.
Future Time-of-Use Rates
With the implementation of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project underway, the amount of information available from
the new meters will improve the ability of the City’s electric customers to understand when and how much electricity
is being used in significantly greater detail, opening the door for a more efficient pricing signal. Installation of the
advanced water and electric meters is expected to be completed by mid-2013. Once completed and supporting time-
of-day data has been gathered and analyzed, progression to time-of-day pricing (with or without tiers) can be
implemented utilizing the new information. As discussed at the October 13 Work Session, staff is planning to develop
and recommend a pilot time-of-use rate specifically targeted to plug-in electric vehicle owners in 2012.
Conclusion
As discussed in previous meetings, the City’s utility rates are designed to generate the revenue needed for operations,
capital requirements, and the purchase of electricity from PRPA. As a municipal utility, rates are not designed to
recover revenue above current requirements. This is sometimes referred to as a zero-sum strategy. Regardless of
the structure of the rate, the utility does not design a rate to generate a profit.
The proposed rate changes are designed to assist in achieving City Council goals and support customer choice in
behavior related to their use of energy . These changes remain true to the City’s long-held values of fairness,
equitability and financial responsibility. As mentioned above, staff anticipates the need for a robust communications
to support the implementation of the new residential rate forms, beyond the annual rate increase communication. Final
planning will be developed once the rate option is chosen.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Both options are designed to increase revenues from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%. When combined with the
Residential Demand and commercial rate increases approved by Council on November 1, 2011 total Light and Power
operating revenues are planned to increase 8.3%.
Residential Energy customers will experience an average increase of 6%, however, the impact of Option B will be
much higher for larger users and will be higher in the three summer months. The Utilities provides many programs
to assist our customers to reduce their energy usage and thereby reduce their monthly electric bill.
Proposed changes to the Residential Energy Rate are designed to be revenue neutral. Since the change to rate
structure is likely to have a customer response, over or under collection of revenue will be evaluated each year and
incorporated into any needed rate changes on an annual basis. The option adopted by City Council will determine
individual customer impacts. Because there is a new Seasonal component to the rate structure, financial impacts on
customers will be greatest in the three summer months. If the Seasonal Three-tier rate is adopted, financial impacts
will be greatest on large electricity users, especially in the summer months.
In some cases, customers generally use less electricity and do not have air conditioned homes or use their air
conditioner in the summer. This group of low users may experience minimal impact to their monthly bills from a
changed rate structure. Customers may choose to conserve electricity by changing their use of electricity (adjusting
the thermostat up or down, turning off lights, etc) or by implementing efficiency measures such as insulation, high
efficiency appliances. The City offers a variety of conservation and efficiency programs to help customers reduce their
electricity use and may help lower bills.
Financial impacts on low income customers are also a consideration. Existing programs that assist this group of
customers will be expanded in 2012, including an expanded efficiency financing program.
November 15, 2011 -4- ITEM 31
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Overall reduction in electricity use, whether from conservation of energy efficiency measures result in reduced
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel generation. As noted previously, tiered rate structures are used
designed to help lower overall electricity use, especially among large users. A seasonal rate may result in less
electricity use in the summer months, but does not provide a strong conservation message during the rest of the year.
Customer response to the new rate structure will determine the impact of reducing electricity use and overall
environmental impacts from generation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Option B of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The City’s Electric Board provided a letter outlining their conclusions related to electric rate options (Attachment 5).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has completed required public notification. Public Outreach includes a Coloradoan notice to out-of-city electric
customers, published on Sunday, October 30, 2011. Postcard notification to out-of-city electric customers was mailed
the week of October 30, 2011.
Typically, more information about rate increases is included in the Utilities end of year letter to customers. Since the
letter will be published prior to adoption of the residential energy rate ordinance, customer communication to residential
customers will be delayed to the end of the year. Communication will continue throughout 2012 as needed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. May 10, 2011 Work Session Summary
2. September 13, 2011 Work Session Summary
3. October 11, 2011 Work Session Summary
4. Electric Board Memo on Electric Rate Options
5. Powerpoint presentation
Utilities
electric · stormwater · wastewater · water
700 Wood Street
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6700
970.221.6619 – fax
970.224.6003 – TDD
utilities@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
Memorandum
Date: May 13, 2011
To: City Council
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
From: Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager
Re Work Session Summary – May 10, 2011 re: Rate Design Philosophy
All City Council members were present except Aislinn Kottwitz. Utilities Executive Director Brian
Janonis provided introductions and background on the need for financial strategy and the
development of the Financial Strategy and Rate Design Philosophy. Staff answering questions
included Steve Catanach and Patty Bigner. SAIC Consultant Joe Mancinelli provided a brief
presentation on industry trends, emerging technology and its impact on rate design. In addition, SAIC
consultant Scott Burnham previously taped a more comprehensive presentation on the details of the
philosophy.
City Council generally supported the approach proposed by staff and offered some suggested edits to
the document. Council wanted to see how the principles and objectives would be applied to rate
forms before considering adoption of the Rate Design Philosophy.
Other requests for follow-up include:
1. Maps that show boundaries for the four City utilities (this item needs to be compiled - follow-
up in separate memo)
2. Comparison of Fort Collins rates to the rest of the state and country to provide context (this
item needs to be compiled - follow-up in separate memo)
3. Application of the rate design philosophy to current rate structures (same as number 1 & 2 –
follow-up in separate memo)
4. Describe staff’s vision of what the electric utility of the future might look like (this item will
be covered at the Advanced Meter Infrastructure City Council Work Session on June14,
2011.)
ATTACHMENT 1
Utilities
City
of
electric. stormwater. wastewater water
700 Wood Street
Fort
CoLLins
970 224 6003 TDD
utilities @fcgov.com
fcgov.com/utilities
Memorandum
Date: September 15, 2011
To: City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
From: Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager
Re Work Session Summary (Partial) — September 13, 2011 Electric Rate Options
All City Councilmembers were present. Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis provided
introductions and noted that the consideration of a change to the electric rate form is unprecedented
in the history of the Light and Power Utility. Presentations were provided by Patty Bigner and SAIC
consLiltant Joe Mancinelli. Staff answering questions included Bill Switzer, Steve Catanachm and
Patty Bigner. SAIC consultant Joe Mancinelli provided a brief presentation on industry trends and
response to those trends by utilities across the country, with specific information on electric rates,
customer assistance, time of use rates, and special programs for electric vehicles.
The residential energy rate options proposed for Council discussion included:
• Single Tier (current rate structure)
• Seasonal (Platte River Power Authority IPRPA] pass-through)
• Three Tier
• Five Tier
Staff also proposed phasing out the Residential Demand Rate and suggested limiting the rate to
residential customers who could provide documentation of total electric residence (no natural
gas).
One change to the rate form is proposed for the commercial rate classes. As noted in the Agenda
Item Summary, the proposed change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate class would
more accurately reflect electric use of this diverse group of customers. This change would create
a fourth commercial rate class to include the lower end of the mid-sized commercial customers
by splitting the GS customer class into two customer classes, GS and GS 25.
ATTACHMENT 2
Fort City of CoLLins
Examples of customers in the proposed GS customer class include housing services for condos
and apartments (lights, laundry, etc.); small retail; professional offices; non-profit agencies: and
small churches. The proposed GS 25 customer class includes fast loud restaurants, medium-
sized churches, restaurants, larger retail, fraternity and sorority houses, convenience stores, copy
centers and banks.
The remaining large commercial industrial rates will remain in the coincident peak form hut with
a seasonal adjustment.
Questions for City Council included:
Residential Rate Options
I. Of the four proposed rate options for the residential energy rate, which specific option is
preferred’?
2. Does City Council support the proposed change to the residential demand rate’?
Commercial Rate Options
1. Does City Council support the proposed change that would create an additional rate class
from the existing General Service rate class?
Questions from Councilmembers primarily focused on aspects of the residential energy rate, its
merits in addressing carbon reduction and energy efficiency goals, and its impacts on customers
as well as the perceived value or lack of value to the system (generation, transmission and
distribution). Other questions focused on the impacts to customers related to size of households
and square footage of homes, number and type of appliances, and electricity use associated with
lifestyle (home office or other differences).
City Council requested additional information:
1. Assumptions related to elasticity (in plain English) — what kind of impact can he
expected’? What is the corresponding carbon reduction’?
2. Are the options designed to he revenue neutral? If demand and energy are reduced, the
purchase power requirements will also be reduced lowering overall revenue
requirements.
3. Provide more context on system impacts. How might the tiered rates affect shifts in
demand which may have a negative impact on the overall load’?
4. Provide more data on the monthly variation in bill impacts, including the typical variation
in monthly use.
5. Provide sample (8 to 10) scenarios of year-round use and the price impacts of the options.
Examples: Large users with no air conditioning (AC), large users with AC, small users
with AC, small users without AC, etc.
Changes to the Residential Demand Rate and the Commercial General Service Rate were
discussed and generally seemed acceptable. Councilmembers had a number of unresolved
questions regarding the Residential Energy Rate and requested a follow-up Work Session, now
scheduled for Oct. II, 2011. Councilmembers recognized that the schedule for implementation
City of
Fort
Collins
of
the
rate,
if
it is
changed,
will
be
delayed
beyond January
1,2012.
Typically,
rate
changes
occur
with
the
first
meter
reading
of
the
new
year.
Staff
plans
to
move
forward
with rate
changes
with
the
exception
of
the
Residential
Energy
Rate.
Rate
ordinances
for
the
Residential Demand,
GS,
GS
25,
GS
50
and
GS
750
rate
classes
will
be
discussed
Memorandum
Date: October 14, 2011
To: City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
From: Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager
Re: Work Session— October 11, 2011 Electric Rate Options, Energy Efficiency and
Conservation
All City Councilmembers were present. Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis provided
introductions and a short presentation on the background of the Electric Residential Energy Rate
Options being discussed by City Council and an overview of the responses to questions from
Councilmembers at the September 13, 2011 Work Session. Energy Services Manager John
Phelan provided an overview of the history, programs and results of the City’s Energy Efficiency
and Conservation programs, including Water Conservation. Staff answering questions included
Brian Janonis, John Phelan, Patty Bigner and SAIC consultant Joe Mancinelli.
The residential energy rate options proposed for Council discussion included:
• Single Tier (current rate structure)
• Seasonal (Platte River Power Authority [PRPA] pass-through)
• Three-Tier
• Five-Tier
Questions for City Council included:
1. Has sufficient information been provided to support City Council’s decision to adopt
a residential energy rate ordinance with one of the four options?
2. Which of the four options proposed for consideration does City Council prefer for
implementation?
Councilmembers requested that two residential energy rate ordinances be prepared for
consideration at the November 15, 2011, one for the seasonal electric rate option and a second
for the seasonal 3-tier electric rate. If adopted by Council, the new residential energy rate will be
effective February 1, 2012. No further questions were asked of staff.
ATTACHMENT 3
Next Steps
At the September 13, 2011, staff also proposed phasing out the Residential Demand Rate and
suggested limiting the rate toresidential customers who could provide documentation of total
electric residence (no naturalgas). An additional commercial rate class is recommended. This
change to the General Service (GS) or small commercial rate class wouldmore accurately reflect
electric use of this diverse group of small business customers. This change would create afourth
commercial rate class to include the lower end of the mid-sized commercial customers
bysplitting the GS customer class into two customer classes, GS (energy only) and GS 25
(energy-demand). A seasonal rate structure is recommended for all rate classes. Electric rates
would increase 8.3% on average. These changes (exclusive of the Residential Energy rate
options) will be considered by City Council at the October 18, 2011 regular meeting.
1. Staff plans to move forward with the above rate changes with the exception of the
Residential Energy Rate. Rate ordinances for the Residential Demand, GS, GS 25, GS 50
and GS 750 rate classes and proposed changes to water and wastewater rates will be
discussed at the City Council Finance Committee on October 17, 2011.
2. Public notification for the rate ordinances above began October 1, 2011 per Public Utility
(PUC) requirements.
3. These ordinances will be considered by City Council at first reading
October 18, 2011. Second reading is scheduled for November 1, 2011. (without changes
to the Residential Energy Rate)
4. Public notification for consideration of the Residential Energy Rate options begins
November 1, 2011 per PUC requirements.
5. City Council considers two options for Residential Energy Rate on November 15 and
December 6, 2011.
6. 2012 rates become effective January 1, 2012 for all rates other than the Residential
Energy Rate.
7. Residential Energy Rate will be effective February 1, 2012.
Utilities —Electric Board
City of 700 Wood St.
Fort CoLLins P0 Fort Box Collins, 580 CO 80522
974i6208 fax
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2011
TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers
FROM: Steve Wolley, Chairperson on behalf of the Fort Collins Electric Board
SUBJECT: Proposed Electric Utility Rate Structures
EC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
Patty Bigner, Customer and Employee Relations Manager
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager
Electric Board
At the August 3 Electric Board meeting, Utilities staff and representatives from their consulting
team, SAIC (an R.W. Beck company) met with the Electric Board for more than three hours to
review findings related to proposed electric service rate structures for commercial and residential
customers. Board members engaged Utilities staff in a deep and broad-ranging discussion,
testing whether the analyses and conclusions presented to the Board:
1) Met the original intent of the study;
2) Covered all known risks and impacts; and
3) Would result in a rate structure that favorably drives the City’s Energy Policy and
financial requirements.
In the end, the Electric Board found the findings to be complete and the Utilities leadership has
prepared well for the challenges it will face over the course of the next several years, starting in
2012 and continuing past the rollout of Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) in mid-to-late
2013.
The Electric Board commends the Utilities leadership and SAIC teams on the thoroughness and
the quality of the study.
The Electric Board makes the following additional observations and recommendations:
1. The data and analyses are complex. Decision-makers should set aside ample time to
review the rate structure analysis.
Utilities leadership and their consultants have a very thorough understanding of several rate
structures and their impacts on both the Utility’s economic viability and impact to the broad
spectrum of their customers. Rate structure data was presented in several tables and graphs.
ATTACHMENT 4
Ft0oLLins
It may take multiple hours for decision-makers to review and comprehend the analysis.
2. Decision makers should evaluate the impact of rate structure options on related City
goals.
The Electric Board also viewed information regarding how each rate type will perform
against stated City values and goals. The Electric Board recommends that decision-makers
use this information when discussing rate structLlres.
3. The new AMI infrastructure will be a valuable tool for shaping second or third-
generation rate changes, especially rate structures that employ a Time-of-Use (TOU)
model.
AMI will provide extensive insight into Fort Collins’ customer usage patterns and demand
elasticity, enabling an entire new level of understanding of grid and customer behavior.
When the data becomes available, thoughtful analysis of this new data set will provide
invaluable insight into the effectiveness of second or third-generation rate structures. The
Electric Board believes that future TOU rate strLlctures should be shaped by analysis of this
data when it becomes available.
4. Exercise considerable caution when finalizing the planned rollout of the phased rate
changes.
Utilities staff and SAIC understand the potential unfavorable impact of implementing
sequential i-ate changes over a period of years. To manage this risk and impact, Utilities
plans call for applying the concept of “gradualism”. The Electric Board fully supports the
use of gradualism. It is worth noting that board members are united in their concern that
successive and complex i-ate changes may still generate elevated and counterproductive
levels of concern in the community. Evidence from the industry provides examples of rate
structure changes that have met their goals and others that have been received badly by
customers.
Fort Collins Light and Power is well positioned to move ahead. Should you have any questions
regarding this topic, please feel free to contact us for further clarification.
1
1
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC RATE
OPTIONS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 15, 2011
2
Development of Electric Rate Options
• Staff drafted Financial Strategy and Rate Design Principles
to serve as foundation for future rate design – May 10, 2011
Work Session
• Electric Rate Alternatives discussed with Electric Board and
City Council Finance Committee
• September 13th Work Session on four electric rate options;
change to residential electric demand rate; change to
current commercial (General Service) rate
• October 11th Work Session to provide additional background
and answer questions on residential electric rate options;
presentation on conservation and efficiency
ATTACHMENT 5
2
3
Development of Electric Rate Options
• Outcome of October 11, 2011 Work Session:
Prepare two ordinances for City Council
consideration
– Option A – Seasonal Rate
– Option B – Seasonal Three–Tiered rate
4
Rationale for changes to Existing Rate
Structure
• Align Rates with Policy
• Energy Policy
• Climate Action Plan
• Reduce Consumption
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Avoid Future Capital Costs
• Pass through Platte River Power Authority Seasonal
Rate in 2012
• Meet increased revenue requirements
• Allocate costs equitably
• Options are revenue neutral – not designed to generate excess
revenue
3
5
Proposed Electric Rate Alternatives
• Two Options
– Option A, Seasonal Rate (PRPA Pass
Through)
– Option B, Seasonal Three-Tier Rate
• Rate structure options incorporate rate increases
adopted November 1, 2011
• New Residential Rate Option effective February 1,
2012
6
Option A, Seasonal Rate
• Charge per Kilowatt Hour (kWh) higher in summer
months of June, July, August
• Passes through seasonal charge from Platte
River Power Authority
• Generates needed revenue to meet Utilities costs
• Simple time of use rate
• Weaker conservation message during the winter
months
4
7
Option A, Seasonal Rate
23,877
46,131
67,267
76,559 74,925
68,003
58,309
47,721
37,865
29,993
42,169
26,392
9,253 7,293
10,533
6,936 6,301
3,549 2,454 3,469
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Annual Number of Bills
Percentage Change from Current Bill
Monthly Energy Per Bill (kWh)
Number of Bills
Current Rate
Summer % Change
Non Summer %
Change
Annual % Change
8
Option B, Seasonal Three-Tier Rate
• Energy Charge per kilowatt hour (kWh) increases
in three blocks of energy use
– 0 – 500 kWh
– 501 – 1000 kWh
– Above 1000 kWh
• Charge per kWh higher in summer months of
June, July, August
• Average use in non-summer months is 656 kWh
• Average use in summer months is 710 kWh
5
9
Option B, Three-Tier Rate
23,877
46,131
67,267
76,559 74,925
68,003
58,309
47,721
37,865
29,993
42,169
26,392
9,253 7,293
10,533
6,936 6,301
3,549 2,454 3,469
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Annual Number of Bills
Percentage Change from Current Bill
Monthly Energy Per Bill (kWh)
Number of Bills
Current Rate
Summer % Change
Non Summer % Change
Annual % Change
10
Option B, Seasonal Three-Tier Rate
• Passes through seasonal charge from Platte
River Power Authority
• Generates needed revenue to meet Utilities costs
• Incorporates a simple time-of-use rate (seasonal)
• Provides a strong conservation message to large
users of electricity, increased in the summer
months
6
11
Comparison of the Two Rate Options
Option A Option B
Seasonal Three-Tier
Rate Rate
Fixed Charge ($/Bill) $4.48 $4.48
Distribution Facilities Charge ($/kWh) $0.0256 $0.0256
Total Energy Charge (energy and demand)
Summer* ($/kWh) – June, July & Aug
Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0640 $0.0531
Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0689
Tier 3 [1001kWh and higher] $0.1005
Non-Summer ($/kWh)
Tier 1 [1-500 kWh] $0.0506 $0.0482
Tier 2 [501-1000 kWh] $0.0520
Tier 3 [1001kWh and higher] $0.0603
12
Comparison of the Two Rate Options –
Selected Customers
Selected
House
Square
Feet
# of
Occupants A/C
Annual
Average
(kWh)
Highest
Winter
Usage
(kWh)
Highest
Summer
Usage
(kWh)
A 4,242 2 Yes 633 851 726
B 3,306 4 Yes 1,692 3,026 1,762
C 3,000 3 Yes 928 1,075 1,485
D 2,980 7 No 641 915 594
E 2,850 2 Yes 567 876 650
F 2,700 4 Yes 654 566 1,112
G 2,621 2 Yes 482 615 644
H 2,600 2 Yes 803 1,057 1,137
I 2,500 4 Yes 362 508 406
J 2,275 2 No 507 524 625
K 2,000 2 No 606 1,391 474
7
13
Comparison of the Two Rate Options –
Selected Customers
2011 Option A - Seasonal Option B - 3-Tier
Selected
House
Average
Monthly
Bill % Difference
Monthly
Increase % Difference
Monthly
Increase
A $ 51.17 5.88% $ 3.01 1.92% $ 0.98
B $ 126.41 5.29% $ 6.69 11.98% $ 15.14
C $ 85.00 5.51% $ 4.68 6.79% $ 5.77
D $ 50.67 5.09% $ 2.58 1.05% $ 0.53
E $ 45.58 6.13% $ 2.79 1.51% $ 0.69
F $ 51.67 7.83% $ 4.05 4.86% $ 2.51
G $ 44.25 5.63% $ 2.49 0.97% $ 0.43
H $ 70.58 5.72% $ 4.04 4.46% $ 3.15
I $ 30.83 6.22% $ 1.92 0.79% $ 0.24
J $ 42.25 6.22% $ 2.63 1.01% $ 0.43
K $ 47.83 4.78% $ 2.29 1.28% $ 0.61
14
Thank you.
OPTION A
SEASONAL RATE
ORDINANCE NO. 166, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority costs are increasing due to reduced surplus sales,
increased operating costs for aging plants and environmental mitigation, increased natural gas
expenses for peaking plants, increased financing costs, and continuing capital investment; and
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority will increase the City’s wholesale cost of power
approximately 6.4% in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the revenues in the Light and Power Fund have not been sufficient to fund
capital projects and system replacements and reserves have been utilized to make up for the
shortfall; and
WHEREAS, the reduction in reserves was accelerated due to reductions in interest revenue
and development fee revenue; and
WHEREAS, without additional rate increases, reserves are projected to fall below minimum
policy levels as early as 2013; and
WHEREAS, a 6% rate increase to the residential energy service rate will adequately fund
additional purchase power and the necessary capital improvements and system replacements and
stem the decline in reserves; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to enact rate structures to encourage additional energy
conservation measures in order to meet Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rate structure will change the current flat rate structure into a
seasonal rate structure that results in a higher rate per kilowatt hour in the summer months; and
WHEREAS, the proposed increases are to be effective on all billings issued with meter
readings on or after February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise the residential energy rate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Sections 26-464(c), (j) and (o) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) Ffixed charge, per account: Three dollars and ninety-one four dollars
and forty-eight cents ($3.914.48).
(2) Demand charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and eighty-four one-
hundredths cents ($0.0284).
(32)Ddistribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two two and twenty
one-fifty-six hundredths cents ($0.02200.0256).
(43)Eenergy and demand charge, per kilowatt-hour: 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 as summer season billing. The energy and demand charge shall
be: Two and forty-eight one-hundredths cents ($0.0248). six and forty
one-hundreds cents ($0.0640) per kilowatt hour.
(4) energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing
months of January through May and September through December: five
and six one-hundredths cents ($0.0506) per kilowatt hour.
(5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths
(6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this
Section.
. . .
(j) Parallel generation. Operation or connection of any electric generator in
parallel with the utility system is not permitted under this schedule unless authorized by
the General Manager. See appropriate alternate schedules for this service. The credit for
the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at
applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving
-2-
net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering
service terms and conditions described in Subsection (o) below.
. . .
(o) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall
be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying
facility has produced more electricity than the customer-generator has
consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for
such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the
customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation
accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt
hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision
shall be provided at the summer season energy charge as specified in
Subsection (c).
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go
into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after February 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
OPTION B
TIERED RATE
ORDINANCE NO. 166, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or
charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the
costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority costs are increasing due to reduced surplus
sales, increased operating costs for aging plants and environmental mitigation, increased natural
gas expenses for peaking plants, increased financing costs, and continuing capital investment;
and
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority will increase the City’s wholesale cost of
power approximately 6.4% in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the revenues in the Light and Power Fund have not been sufficient to fund
capital projects and system replacements and reserves have been utilized to make up for the
shortfall; and
WHEREAS, the reduction in reserves was accelerated due to reductions in interest
revenue and development fee revenue; and
WHEREAS, without additional rate increases, reserves are projected to fall below
minimum policy levels as early as 2013; and
WHEREAS, a 6% rate increase to the residential energy service rate will adequately fund
additional purchase power and the necessary capital improvements and system replacements and
stem the decline in reserves; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to enact rate structures to encourage additional energy
conservation measures in order to meet Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rate structure will change the current flat rate structure into a
seasonal, three-tier rate structure that results in a higher rate per kilowatt hour in the summer
months combined with a tiered rate structure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed increases are to be effective on all billings issued with meter
readings on or after February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise the residential energy rate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Sections 26-464(c), (j) and (o) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) Ffixed charge, per account: Three dollars and ninety-one four dollars
and forty-eight cents ($3.914.48).
(2) Demand charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two and eighty-four one-
hundredths cents ($0.0284).
(32)Ddistribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: Two two and
twenty one-fifty-six hundredths cents ($0.02200.0256).
(43)Eenergy and demand charge, per kilowatt-hour: 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:Two and forty-eight one-hundredths cents
($0.0248).
a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
five and thirty-one one-hundredths cents ($0.0531).
b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
six and eighty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0689).
c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
ten and five one-hundredths cents ($0.1005).
(4) energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing
months of January through May and September through December:
a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
four and eighty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0482).
-2-
b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
five and twenty one-hundredths cents ($0.0520).
c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour:
six and three one-hundredths cents ($0.0603).
(5) Iin lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(j) Parallel generation. Operation or connection of any electric generator in
parallel with the utility system is not permitted under this schedule unless authorized
by the General Manager. See appropriate alternate schedules for this service. The
credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be
provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. If a
customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be
governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection
(o) below.
. . .
(o) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after February 1, 2012.
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
DATE: November 15, 2011
STAFF: Marty Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 32
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code to Allow Electrical
Assisted Bicycles on the City’s Paved Trails for a One Year Trial Period.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow electric assisted bicycles (ebikes) on City paved
trails. In response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate the relevant issues; gain input
from associated boards and commissions; conduct a public opinion survey; and find out how other cities are managing
ebikes. City staff presented this information to the Council at the June 28, 2011 Work Session.
After reviewing the information provided at the work session, the City Manager’s recommendation, and other input
received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code to implement a one year trial
period to allow electrical assisted bicycles on the City’s paved trail system. Council requested that staff prepare an
ordinance to make the needed changes to the City Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a regular
meeting for a determination on whether or not the trial period should be implemented.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on City paved trails from April
1, 2012 through March 31, 2013.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
Council expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow ebikes on City paved trails. In response, the City
Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate the relevant issues; gain input from associated boards and
commissions; conduct a public opinion survey; and find out how other cities are managing ebikes on their trails. City
staff presented this information to the Council at its June 28, 2011 Work Session. (Attachment 2).
After reviewing the information provided at the Work Session, the City Manager’s recommendation, and other input
received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code to implement a one year trial
period to allow electrical assisted bicycles (ebikes) on the City’s paved trail system. Council requested staff prepare
an ordinance to make the needed changes to the City Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a
regular meeting for a determination on whether or not the trial period should be implemented.
Council requested that the trial period expire after one year unless renewed, be limited to paved trails, and encompass
an uninterrupted warm weather season. Council also indicated the trial period should be limited only to ebikes, which
should be defined to exclude other electric vehicles or devices like mopeds, motorcycles, skateboards and scooters.
Council also requested that staff prepare a plan to educate the community about the rights of people with mobility
impairments to use ebikes on the trails and also help educate the community about trail etiquette, warnings, safety
and the recreational purpose of the trail system. Additionally, Council asked staff to develop a plan to gather
information and assess the impacts of ebike use during the trial period. Issues regarding safety, conflicts with other
trail users, impacts to wildlife, public opinion and related issues were to be addressed.
CODE CHANGES
Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on the City’s paved trails and
clarifies that people with mobility disabilities can use ebikes and other power-driven mobility devices on the trails (as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) by making the following changes to Chapter 23 of the City Code:
November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 32
1. Defines a “bicycle” by adopting the definition used in the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
2. Defines an “Electrical Assisted Bicycle:
Electrical assisted bicycle shall mean a vehicle having two (2) tandem wheels, or two (2) parallel
wheels and one (1) forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an electric motor not exceeding seven
hundred fifty (750) watts of power and a top motor-powered speed of twenty (20) miles per hour,
which also has a tire size of not more than three (3) inches in width, a wheel diameter of not less than
fourteen (14) inches, and a weight of not more than seventy-five (75) pounds. A bicycle with an
electric-powered bike trailer that meets the power and speed limitations listed above is also
considered an electrical assisted bicycle. The electric-powered bike trailer need not meet the above
wheel and tire requirements.
3. Defines “Mobility Disability” and “Other Power-Driven Mobility Device” by adopting the definitions in the ADA.
4. Modifies the prohibition against operating a motor vehicle or other motorized means of conveyance in or on
a natural area, park, or trail by allowing ebikes to be ridden on paved trails from April 1, 2012 through March
31, 2013.
5. Clarifies that a person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability is allowed to use a motorized
wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device in City natural areas, parks and trails, in accordance with City
regulations.
OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
City staff has launched the education campaign to inform citizens that people with mobility disabilities are allowed to
use ebikes and other power-driven mobility devices on City trails. Articles in City News, Fort Shorts and Neighborhood
News are being published and the information is also posted on the City’s web page and social media outlets.
In the spring of 2012, staff will launch an outreach campaign on trail etiquette to remind citizens to share the trail, give
audible warnings, stay to the right, ride at controlled speed, stay alert! and similar messages. The campaign will
include: press releases, videos on Cable 14 and on-line; posters; partnerships with bike shops; FC Bikes materials,
the Recreator, Natural Areas Tracks and Trails publication, and social media. If Council approves the ebike trial
period, the trail etiquette campaign will be expanded to publicize the trial period, including the on-line feedback form
to gather citizen input. In mid-summer staff will engage in additional outreach to promote the on-line ebike feedback
form and reinforce the trail etiquette message, with additional reminders deployed in the fall.
Finally, staff will be improving the signage along the trail system. Signage will be standardized and will include stop
signs, warnings about sharp curves or steep grades, trail etiquette reminders, wayfinding and distances and directions
to parks, natural areas and public facilities.
SURVEYS
Staff has been conducting trail use surveys to gather information on how the trails are being used. The surveys record
the number of users in a 30 minute time frame, what they are doing (walking, running, biking, rollerblading,
skateboarding etc.) and related information. Trail maintenance staff and rangers also have good information on trail
use from the time they spend on the trails. This information provides a general baseline of trail use information that
can be compared against information gathered during the ebike trial period, if it is implemented. Staff will conduct trail
use surveys (using volunteers and paid hourly workers) during the trial period and will include information on ebike
use, user conflicts, safety issues and impacts on wildlife. Trail maintenance staff and rangers will also be asked to
report on ebike use they observe on the trails. The public will also be encouraged to report their observations and
experiences with ebikes on the trails through the City’s on-line feedback form.
FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION
If the ebike trial period is implemented, and prior to the expiration of the trial period, staff will provide Council with all
the information gathered during the trial period. Council can then determine if the trial period should be extended,
made permanent, or be allowed to expire.
November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 32
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Minimal funding may be needed to pay hourly staff to conduct trail use surveys. The cost is estimated at less than
$5,000 and is currently budgeted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental impacts from ebikes on the trails is unknown but will be assessed during the trial period.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Board and Commission recommendations were summarized and included in the June 28th Work Session materials
(Attachment 2).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff conducted a citizen survey on the topic of allowing ebikes on City paved trails. Over 200 responses were
received with 49% opposed and 47% in favor of allowing ebikes on the trails. The results of the outreach effort were
included in the June 28 Work Session materials (Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, June 28, 2011
2. Agenda Item Summary (and attachments) from the June 28, 2011 Work Session
3. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 2
DATE: June 28, 2011
STAFF: Marty Heffernan
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Electric Assisted Bicycles (Ebikes) on the City Trails.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Code currently prohibits electric assisted bikes (ebikes) on City trails. Members of Council
have expressed interest in considering allowing ebikes on City paved trails. Staff conducted an
extensive outreach process with six City boards/commissions, conducted a survey of citizen
opinions, and gathered information from a number of other cities. Recently, staff was asked to
include unpaved trails in the discussion as well as Segways, longboards and similar electric devices.
Boards and commissions have carefully reviewed the issues, some at multiple meetings. Their
recommendations are varied, with some not supporting ebikes on trails at this time, some
recommending a trial period and one board supporting ebikes on paved trails. The citizen input (202
responses) was equally varied with 49% opposed to ebikes on paved trails and 47% in favor.
Comments from those who do not favor ebikes on paved trails noted concerns regarding safety,
speed, compatibility with other trail users and a desire to keep trail use non-motorized. Comments
from respondents who favor ebikes on paved trails noted ebikes are not significantly different from
non-motorized bikes, are useful for commuting, and do not create safety problems if used
responsibly.
The results of the survey of other cities were also mixed. Twelve out of the twenty communities
surveyed do not allow ebikes on their trails and the prohibition has generally not been controversial.
However, some platinum bike cities (Davis, Portland, Seattle) do allow ebikes on their trails.
Information is provided on other types of electric vehicles. If Council wishes to allow ebikes on
trails, but exclude other types of electric vehicles and devices, the current definition of “electrical
assisted bicycle” in the City Code would need to be amended to add a weight limit and/or a size
limit on the width of the frame. Additionally, the City’s ability to enforce regulations on the use of
City trails is quite limited.
Allowing ebikes on unpaved trails presents unique issues, primarily concerning use on narrow,
single-track trails and related safety and trail user conflicts, trail damage and erosion, and impacts
on wildlife and the environment.
The City Manager is recommending Council consideration of a trial period to allow ebikes on City
paved trails for up to three years. During that time, staff will gather information on safety issues,
user conflicts, public opinion and related issues. Information will be gathered by Rangers through
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 28, 2011 Page 2
their observations and contact with trail users, through citizen reporting and by follow-up surveys.
Council would assess the situation at the end of the trial period and decide the best course of action.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council wish to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow ebikes on the City’s
paved trail system?
2. Does Council wish to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow ebikes on the City’s
unpaved trails?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Introduction
Councilmembers have expressed interest in considering allowing ebikes on City paved trails. In
response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to investigate the relevant issues, gain
input from associated boards and commissions, conduct a public opinion survey, and find out how
other cities are managing ebikes on their trails. More recently, Councilmembers asked to include
non-paved trails and other electric devices, like Segways, in the discussion. The Ebike Team is
comprised of representatives from Transportation, Police Services, Natural Areas, the Bicycle
Coordinator, Park Planning, Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment (CPRE), Communications
and Public Involvement, and the City Attorney’s Office.
Current Regulations
The City Code, at § 23-203 (a) (1) and § 23-193 (d) (18), prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle
or other motorized means of conveyance on City trails. Electrical assisted bicycles are a “motorized
means of conveyance” and consequently are prohibited on City paved and unpaved trails. The Code
allows people with mobility impairments to use a motorized wheelchair or similar assistive device
on trails.
Recent changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) allow individuals with mobility
disabilities to use ebikes (and other power-driven mobility devices) on City trails and in other public
places. The ADA regulations supersede the City Code. Consequently, ebikes are allowed on City
trails when operated by people with mobility disabilities. The City is entitled to regulate the use of
these mobility devices to protect public safety and prevent damage to public property and the
environment. City administrative regulations of mobility devices to protect public safety, property
and the environment have been adopted.
The City Traffic Code (§ 2002 (11)) defines an “electrical assisted bicycle” as a vehicle having two
tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, with an electric
motor not exceeding 750 watts of power and a top speed of 20 mph. The Traffic Code (§ 1412 (15))
states that a rider of an electrical assisted bicycle shall not use the electrical motor on a bike or
pedestrian path.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 28, 2011 Page 3
State law also defines electrical assisted bicycles (C.R.S. § 42-1-102 (28.5)), using the same
definition as the City Code. State law (C.R.S. § 42-4-1412 (14)) prohibits the rider of an electrical
assisted bicycle from using the electrical motor while on a bike or pedestrian path unless allowed
by the local jurisdiction.
Federal law (23 U.S.C. § 217 (h)) prohibits motorized vehicles on non-motorized trails and
pedestrian walkways constructed with Federal transportation funds but authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to permit electric bicycles where appropriate. The Federal Consumer Products
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 2051) also defines and regulates electric bicycles but only in the context of
product safety; it does not regulate their operation.
Board and Commission Outreach
City staff presented the question of allowing ebikes on paved trails to the following boards and
commissions:
Air Quality Board
Commission on Disability
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Board
Senior Advisory Board
Transportation Board (including the Bicycle Advisory Subcommittee)
The boards discussed the question in depth and were asked to provide their recommendations for
Council consideration. Memos or minutes containing the board recommendations are included
(Attachment 1). Board members were provided an opportunity to test ride ebikes at City Park on
March 26 and at the May Land Conservation and Stewardship Board meeting. The following is a
summary of the recommendations:
Air Quality Advisory Board: Given the uncertainty and concerns on how e-bikes will/will not
work on trails, the AQAB recommends allowing e-bikes on the Spring Creek and Mason Corridor
trails for a 1-year trial period following the establishment of a comprehensive operational plan, at
which time Council should re-consider the matter.
Commission on Disability: Discussed the issue at its meeting on May 26th and June 23rd, and will
provide its recommendation prior to the Council work session.
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board: Does not support allowing ebikes on paved trails
at this time. The Board would like more information on how the public views the issue and a
comprehensive analysis of the impacts. The Board noted people with mobility disabilities are
already allowed to use ebikes on the trails and ebikes are also allowed in street bike lanes.
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Recommends allowing ebikes on paved trails for a trial
period of up to 3 years. The Board suggests staff monitor conflicts, safety issues, and impacts to
natural areas and wildlife.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 28, 2011 Page 4
Parks and Recreation Board: Recommends allowing ebikes on paved trails for a 3 year trial
period. The Board suggests staff determine if ebikes should be limited to certain trail segments or
allowed on the entire paved trail system during the trial period and suggests staff monitor conflicts,
safety issues, and public opinion during the trial period.
Senior Advisory Board: Does not support allowing ebikes on paved trails. The Board did not see
any compelling reason to allow ebikes on trails and expressed concern about safety and conflicts
with other trail users.
Transportation Board: In November 2010, the Bicycle Advisory Committee (a subcommittee of
the Transportation Board) recommended that ebikes be allowed on City multi-use trails. The
Transportation Board adopted the recommendation of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, noting
ebikes are an alternative method of transportation.
Citizen Survey
Staff developed a survey to find out what interested citizens thought about allowing ebikes on paved
trails. The survey (Attachment 2) explained that ebikes are currently not allowed on City paved
trails (except for people with mobility disabilities), noted a few prominent issues and asked if ebikes
should be allowed on paved trails.
The survey was posted on the City’s web page (Your Voice) and on the City’s Facebook page.
There were 202 total comments (Attachment 3) including 3 letters to the Coloradoan and 8 emails
to City staff. 49% were not in favor of allowing ebikes on paved trails and 47% were in favor of
allowing them. The remaining 4% did not take a position.
Comments from respondents who do not favor ebikes on paved trails noted concerns regarding
safety, speed, compatibility with other trail users and a desire to keep trail use non-motorized.
Comments from respondents who favor ebikes on paved trails noted ebikes are not significantly
different from non-motorized bikes, are useful for commuting, and do not create safety problems
if used responsibly.
Survey of Other Cities
Staff contacted several other communities to find out if they allow or prohibit ebikes on their trails
and to discover problems or issues they have experienced and how they have tried to address them.
Staff focused on other Front Range communities, other bike friendly cities and communities where
staff had contacts. A summary of survey results is included (Attachment 4). Unfortunately, the
community representatives contacted were largely unaware of their ebike regulations as they pertain
to use on trails. It was generally not an issue with which they were dealing.
As seen from the survey summary, 12 out of the 20 communities surveyed do not allow ebikes on
their trails and the prohibition has generally not been controversial. However, some platinum bike
cities (Davis, Portland, Seattle) do allow ebikes on their trails. The situation is further complicated
by state laws. Like Colorado, some states (Arizona, California, Massachusetts) prohibit ebikes from
recreational trails unless allowed by the local jurisdiction. Other states (Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Washington) allow ebikes on recreational trails unless prohibited by the local jurisdiction.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 28, 2011 Page 5
Other Types of Electric Vehicles
There are many types of electric vehicles, including Segways, longboards, mopeds, motorcycles and
scooters. There are also ebikes that are capable of going 50 miles per hour (Attachment 5). The
outreach staff conducted with citizens and City boards was limited to electric assisted bicycles with
operable pedals and an electric motor not exceeding 750 watts and a top speed of 20 mph.
Other types of electric vehicles could be allowed on trails but they may present unique safety issues
or additional conflicts with other trail users. Segways, mopeds, motorcycles and scooters are
generally larger, wider and heavier than ebikes. Ebikes typically weigh in the 50 to 60 pound range.
Segways weigh in the 100 to 120 pound range with mopeds ranging from 100 pounds to over 300
pounds. Segways generally have a top speed of less than 20 mph but mopeds and electric
motorcycles can have top speeds of well over 50 mph. Some electric skateboards, or longboards can
go from 0 to 20 mph in 4 seconds. A large skateboard traveling at 20 mph or more on City trails
presents unique safety issues.
Current Definition of E-bikes
The City Traffic Code (§ 2002 (11)) defines an “electrical assisted bicycle” as a vehicle having two
tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, with an electric
motor not exceeding 750 watts of power and a top speed of 20 mph. This definition may not be
adequate to limit ebikes to bicycles with electric motors. There are mopeds that fall within this
definition.
If Council wishes to consider allowing ebikes on paved trails, but does not wish to allow mopeds,
the definition of electrical assisted bicycle would need to be amended. Adding a weight limit of 75
pounds would exclude most mopeds. Limiting the width of the frame to 4 inches or less would also
create an effective exclusion.
Enforcement
The City’s current ability to enforce regulations on the use of City trails is quite limited. There are
7 Natural Area rangers who patrol over 33,000 acres and 103 miles of unpaved trails, from dawn
to dusk 7 days a week. The rangers also patrol the 30 mile paved trail system. Police Services does
not have the resources to patrol the trail system given the demand for higher priority calls.
Consequently, the City’s current ability to effectively enforce any regulations that may be adopted
regarding type, speed, or operation of ebikes or other electric vehicles is very modest.
Unpaved Trails
The City has 103 miles of unpaved trails in City natural areas. The City Code prohibits ebikes on
these trails. Allowing ebikes on unpaved trails that are open to bicycles would implicate a unique
set of issues. The unpaved trails are frequently narrow singletrack. The weight of ebikes (50 to 60
pounds) coupled with their ability to accelerate rapidly could exacerbate trail erosion problems. The
speed of ebikes on narrow, unpaved trails could also create safety issues with other trail users,
especially equestrians. Ebikes may also have unique impacts on the natural environment and
wildlife. Finally, ebikes would introduce a motorized vehicle into natural areas that are provided,
in part, to provide citizens with places to find respite from the mechanized world.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 28, 2011 Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager is recommending Council consideration of a trial period to allow ebikes on City
paved trails for up to three years. During that time staff will gather information on safety issues,
user conflicts, public opinion and related issues. Information will be gathered by Rangers through
their observations and contact with trail users, through citizen reporting and by follow-up surveys.
Council would assess the situation at the end of the trial period and decide the best course of action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Board and Commission recommendations
2. Citizen Survey
3. Comments from Survey
4. Survey of other Cities
5. Other types of electric vehicles
6. Powerpoint presentation
Electric Assist Bicycle Board and Committee
Discussion and Recommendation Summary Index
Bicycle Advisory Committee
November 8, 2010 minutes attached on pages 1 through 7
Commission motion on page 6-7
Commission memo to Transportation Board on page 8
Transportation Board
November 17, 2010 minutes attached on pages 9 and 10
June15, 2011 Board minutes (draft) attached on pages 11 through 15
Board recommendation on page 14
Parks and Recreation Board
May 25, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 16 through 19
Board recommendation on page 19
Senior Advisory Board
May 11, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 20 and 21
Board recommendation on page 21
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
February 9, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 22 through 25
May 11, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 26 through 30
Board recommendation on page 30
Board memo to Council on pages 31 through 33
Natural Resources Advisory Board
March 16, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 34 through 37
June 15, 2011 Board minutes not available
Board draft recommendation on page 38
Air Quality Advisory Board
March 21, 2011 meeting minutes attached on pages 39 through 41
Recommendation to be made at their June 20th meeting
Commission on Disability
May, 26, 2011 Board minutes not available
Recommendation to be made at their June 23rd meeting
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1 to the
June 28 Work Session AIS
1
FINAL MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 8, 2010
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970-310-5238
Vice Chair: Cathy Mathis 970-217-9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970-224-6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970-416-2411
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
UniverCity Connections: Rick Reider
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Fort Collins Bicycle Co-Op: Doug Cutter
Parks and Recreation Board: Dawn Theis
Air Quality Board: Greg McMaster
Poudre School District: John Holcombe
Bike Fort Collins: Jeff Morrell
AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
At Large: Kim Sharpe
ABSENT
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Colorado State University: David Hansen
At Large: Cathy Mathis
Land Conservation & Steward Board: Paul Mills
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Clint Skutchan
Senior Advisory Board: Vacant
Transportation Board: Vacant
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Citizen: Michael Craft
Citizen: Michael Eade
Citizen: Elana Hurwitz
Citizen: Josh Kerson
Citizen: Tommy Klender
Citizen: Leroy Cynkar
Citizen: Sylvia Cranmer
Citizen: Chad Moyer
2
City of Fort Collins: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director
City of Fort Collins: Gail Neben, Transportation Planning Administrative Assistant
City of Fort Collins: Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner
Call to order
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM.
Agenda review:
Chair Rick Price reviewed the agenda. Members and guests viewed a video on the
prepared for the Oregon Legislature on the “Idaho Stop Law” for bicyclists: Bicycles,
Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop by Spencer Boomhower (http://vimeo.com/4140910)
Approval of minutes:
Morrell: One visitor was not listed on last minutes.
Motion to approve the October 2010 Meeting Minutes as amended was made by
Kim Sharpe.
Motion was seconded by Dan Gould.
Minutes were approved.
Public Comments:
Michael Craft, New Belgium Tour de Fat Coordinator: I will have more of a recap
next month. Right now we are collecting short films. We raised about $300,000 this year.
I will also present the recap to the brewery. The next Tour de Fat is scheduled on Labor
Day weekend for Fort Collins in 2011. I am happy to share this information as it gets
closer.
Josh Kerson: I am speaking from the electric bicycle industry. I have been in the electric
assist bike industry 10 years. Our opinion is that the majority of electric assist bike users
are the crowd that is about to retire. They are using this assistive technology to climb hills
and go a little further faster. I am asking the City to please reflect the Federal and the
State point of view in that the DOT has determined these to be bicycles, not motorized
vehicles. They have put restrictions on speed and strength and allow them on trails. It is
up to local government to make decisions on whether to allow these on paths. We’re
looking for access to the multi-use paths with assisted bicycles.
Reider: Did you say that these bikes are excluded from the non-motorized rulings on
Federally funded rail trails and multiuse paths.
Kerson: Yes sir, they are not included if the path says “no motorized vehicles” on the
path. They should be permitted. It is a bicycle, not a motorized vehicle.
Morrell: What are the requirements?
Kerson: They are 750 watt and 1 hp that propels with a 170 pound rider up to 20 mph. If
it passes that it is governed by national safety products bike law not the DOT.
Action items:
Electric Bike Use (part 2) Update - David Kemp
4
Kerson: Yes.
Price: Can a ranger on the trail distinguish between these? Is this an enforceable rule?
Kerson: All manufacturers are running on these guidelines. We don’t see any companies
putting them out. Some tinkerers will have them.
Theis: They can be ridden on the bike lanes?
Kerson: Yes
Theis: As for the people, who supported it, is it a use for transport, or for enjoyment?
Cynkar: I use it every day and I ride to work. My wife rides a lot. We are using bike
lanes and bike paths occasionally for recreation at a lower speed. A lot are using them for
commuting on bike paths. A lot are for recreation. There are many who use it as more
than an assist. It is green transportation. In other parts of world there are many electric
assist bikes used. They have only recently started in the U.S. It is a great form of
transportation.
McMaster: Most clients are not impaired?
Kerson: About 80% are getting into them as low level exercise and recreation. In about
three to four weeks it becomes a mode of transportation.
Price: The outcome tonight I hope is a recommendation to the Transportation Board.
Eade: I would like to point out that a key point to emphasize is the law already classifies
these machines as bikes. We need to get through the perception problem. Then set the
city ordinance.
Kemp: Currently the local and state codes refer to electric assist bikes as motorized
vehicles. The City would not be passing a law to say they are not allowed. The Federal
code is a description only. States have individual rulings.
Price: I believe the statute uses the Federal definition in the state.
Kemp: (read the state statute 1412 )
Kerson: The first sentence is “Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle
upon a roadway where a bicycle or electrical shall be granted all of the rights and shall be
subject to all the duties and penalties applicable except for those provisions of this traffic
code that by their very nature . . . .”
Price: I think that is the case. Question, do we want electric assist vehicles on our trails?
Gould: The basic question is what kind of a conflict would there be. There would be
conflict if they don’t follow the rules. The electric assist bike is equal to a regular bike as
far as rules? I don’t see a difference between a regular bike and an electric assisted bike.
Speed is the problem with irresponsible riders.
Theis: Are there any ideas on how many we are talking about?
Kerson: I have 50 signatures to join the electric bike club.
Sharpe: There are just as many irresponsible bikers that don’t have electric assist and
they are a hazard. The more responsible riders will be riding these.
Morrell: Is there any reason we would not recommend this?
Price: I will support electric bikes on the trail because I see a picture of the future in
Europe where people who were going to market on bikes before are now going to them in
large numbers using electric bikes. E-bike users on the trails will all have lights – in some
cases day and night.
Kerson: Electric bike companies are offering a tail light to be seen when you hit the
brakes.
Price: How much do they weigh?
5
Kerson: 35-55 lbs.
Moyer: I think trails are made of concrete and they have the same wear and tear with a
regular bike and electric assist bikes. It is an efficient use of transportation.
Price: I need a motion.
Theis: Is there a noise factor?
Kerson: No more than any others.
Price: Motion?
Cutter: The comment that staff response is “it is a safety issue”. If we support and don’t
address safety there is no validity to our recommendation.
Kemp: It is about safety for everyone. This is a risk management approach that City staff
is taking.
Price: We are not making a final decision. Council will make the final decision.
Gould: There are parameters for a definition. There needs to be recognition of what
defines a legal vehicle.
Cynkar: I have a suggestion: You can get a 1000 and 1500 Watt bike. Is there some way
to have a license or sticker to say it passes as 750 Watt or below?
Holcombe: Speed is the issue on the trails. Is there something to have a speed limit on
the trails?
Kemp: Transportation Planning staff is the liaison between the BAC and other City
departments. At this point Parks feels bike trails do not need speed limits because they
are used for recreation. They are not designed for speeds.
Bracke: It is helpful to have this dialog. It is an issue that is coming forward with public
meetings on Plan Fort Collins/Transportation Master Plan. There are a lot of questions.
We have made a recommendation that is would be an important topic to explore. Our
current trail designs are primarily suited for recreation, but more riders are using them for
transportation. We are looking at the bigger picture. There could be helpful
recommendations from the BAC. Some suggestions we might be able to do in the near
future, and others that are more complex might need to be done later in the future.
Price: This might not be the only time we address this.
McMaster: I appreciate that the trails are not designed for high speeds. I take
considerable issue with the philosophy that they are recreation only. They are both for
recreation and transportation.
Price: I agree 100% with Greg. We also haven’t banked our roads for higher speeds. I
would not expect that on the trails. More and more people use the trails for
transportation. We should convey this to the Parks Dept. so they don’t think that they are
making trails just for recreation.
McMaster: Reality is that if they are going fast I don’t like it whether it is electric assist
or regular bikes. I worry about an electric assist bike zipping by at 20-25 MPH. That is
my big concern, especially for pedestrians, children and dogs. That is a big concern
about assisted bicycles on trails.
Holcombe: We can allow them to increase in numbers but as they grow, if there is abuse
maybe we should look at speed limits and signage down the road.
Price: Shall we say “we encourage electric assist bikes, but we foresee more abuse and
conflicts as they grow.”
Sharpe: Please use electric assisted trailers.
6
Holcombe: We encourage use on trails and bike paths with the understanding of the
Federal standards but we need to watch for conflicts and speed.
Reider: We need to be specific and approve the use of electric assist bikes on trails and
paths and an understanding of what constitutes an E-way.
We should use the definition of electric assist bikes.
Theis: Please include something about safety and speed.
Reider: I make a motion to approve the use of electric assist bikes as defined by state law
on trails and paths.
Motion seconded by Doug Cutter.
Discussion:
The motion was amended by Jeff Morrell to include safety.
McMaster: Speed and safety is a big concern and I would say we should address this.
Reider: How would we word it?
McMaster: In pursuing this we recognize there could be future concerns with speed and
safety that may need to be addressed in the future.
Price: Mr. Reider, would you like to propose a friendly amendment or would you accept
a friendly amendment?
Reider: We all agree that safety is a concern. How can we address this to council?
McMaster: We should make reference to issues of speed and safety for all trail users
“that may need to be addressed.”
Sharpe: Can we be sure to include electric assist trailers?
Price: Can we adopt the amendment by consent?
Discussion: Yes, amendment was adopted by consent.
Gould: Let’s include language that indicates that we don’t see any inherent conflict with
e-bikes except that conflicts may increase as general use increases.
McMaster: I think 20 mph e-bikes could be a problem.
Theis: Some people will be concerned with more users capable of going 20 mph. The
Parks and Rec board will have some concerns on this.
Cynkar: I can go 20 mph if I wish but it drains my battery. I’m not going to do that
often.
Price: Kim, you are testing an electric assisted trailer, correct?
Sharpe: Yes, and I find that I’m often passed on the trail. I don’t use the assist on the
trails but I use it in crossing intersections, or up hills. But I have 40 lbs. I’m pulling.
Price: Do you foresee issues with this on the trail?
Sharpe: No.
Neben: Read the following motion as amended:
“The Bicycle Advisory Committee recommends to the Transportation
Board that City Council approve the use of electric bicycles and bicycles
using electric assists, including electric assists on trailers, for use on multi-
use trails in Fort Collins. The BAC further suggests the definition of a bicycle
and /or an e-bicycle conform to the definitions and standards adopted
by the State of Colorado and federal governments. Users of such bicycles
7
or e-bicycles should be asked to conform to current trail rules, safety
norms and etiquette set forth for all bicyclists. The Bicycle Advisory
Committee recognizes there might be future concerns with speed and
safety that might need to be addressed in the future.”
Motion Passed unanimously.
MPO Call for Projects Update – Kathleen Bracke
I sent a short cover letter and a copy of the list of projects that the City has submitted for
the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) current call for
projects for year 2012- 2015. The list you have includes all of the transportation projects.
There is a max limit of projects (up to $16,000,000) that each community can submit. If
you would like to see the individual applications for the full list of projects, let me know
and I can provide them. The project includes applications for FC Bikes 2012-15 as well
as several bicycle related projects.
Wempe: There is a Grade Separated Crossing project at Horsetooth and Mason trail
north/south underpass under Horsetooth. It is consistent with the Mason Corridor plan.
The Poudre River Trail Extension project is a partnership with the City’s Transportation
and Parks departments, and Timnath. This is an important link in the regional trail
system. The other project is the first phase of implementation for the Jefferson Street
Project and it is still in the analysis stage. We had to submit it now to be in the queue for
2012-15 funding cycle. The call for projects is a four year call which is different from the
usual two year call. The first round submittals were due November 5, and then they will
be reviewed by MPO staff sent back to us for revisions. We will submit the final
applications on December 10. All the communities in Front Range are submitting
projects as well.
Price: I want to talk about infrastructure separately.
McMaster: I am confused on the $16,000,000 per community.
Bracke: All of our requests together cannot exceed $16,000,000.
Price: If we want to recommend or suggest we can, or we can go ahead on the agenda.
Cutter: It seems Drake would be a higher priority.
Wempe: Drake Road is planned to be a vehicle grade-separated underpass. The trail,
BNSF railroad tracks, and Mason Bus Rapid Transit would continue at grade. There is
no funding for Drake just now. Horsetooth is part of the Mason project and an underpass
is do-able because of safety. The concern has been heard.
Bracke: For clarification, the at-grade bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Prospect is funded
as part of the Mason Bus Rapid Transit and trail project, and it is currently going through
the approval process with the railroad.
Cutter: One of the stats is 3000 bike per day. I question that number at that location.
Where was it collected?
Wempe: The Mason Corridor plan determined the projected 20 year forecast daily use a
few years ago. It is based on traffic projections.
Theis: I have a question on the Poudre River trails extension. Would it connect to
Timnath? Are they also requesting funding?
Wempe: Yes, the trail will connect to Timnath. No, Timnath is not requesting additional
funding. The Timnath portion of the trail is funded by sales tax revenue.
MEETING MINUTES
of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
November 17, 2010
6:30 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Gary Thomas 482.7125
Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224.4864
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Gary Thomas Karen Cumbo, Interim PDT Director, 221.6287
Shane Miller Mark Jackson, PDT Budget, Policy & Communications Manager,
Scott VanTatenhove Board Liaison, 416.2029
Ed Robert Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Olga Duvall Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Manager, 221.6140
Sara Frazier Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner, 416.2040
Sid Simonson Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, 221.6340
Garry Steen
Council Member Ben Manvel
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
John Lund Pat Jordan, Citizen, 226.1887
Aaron Fodge, NFRMPO
Josh Kerson, Citizen, 970.416.6803
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Thomas called the meeting to order with a quorum at 6:03pm.
2. AGENDA REVIEW
The Agenda was approved as written.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Pat Jordan: Volunteers of America depend upon Dial-A-Ride Service for their Foster Grandparents.
Also, Dial-A-Ride didn’t pick me up until 9:45pm last month. They claim I wasn’t out there at 8:30pm.
The driver was parked in the Justice Center lot.
Josh Kerson: Representing the electric bike industry as a builder of electric bikes. He wants the Board to
consider bringing electric bikes to the agenda to change the ordinance to allow electric bikes on bike
paths. By definition, electric bikes are not to exceed 750 watts, 20 mph on motor alone. All electric bikes
today follow those guidelines. Wants them considered to be bicycles, not motor vehicles and have the
City be in line with Federal and State rulings allowing them on multi-use trails. Most users are in the
retired age range and it is considered an assistive technology. Our current code allows them if the user has
a temporary or permanent impairment, which could be an invisible disability such as a heart condition,
breathing problem, etc.
Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
November 17, 2010
Miller: Have you done research on safety issues with electric bikes?
Kerson: We haven’t found any statistics that say they cause a challenge on rail/trails.
Simonson: These are allowed on trails at a State and Federal level?
Kerson: Yes. Ordinances are in the handout he presented.
4. MINUTES REVIEW
Robert moved that the October 6 minutes be approved as written. Seconded by VanTatenhove. The
minutes were approved unanimously.
Frazier moved that the October 20 minutes be approved as written. Seconded by Steen. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT – Council Member Manvel. Another alley opening tonight! Kathleen
and I were at the I-25 EIS last month and they are on track for the next 6 months. Spending a lot of time
talking to the MPO about emissions. I’m here tonight to hear what you think about Transportation
funding the City. The budget discussion last night was non-confrontational as we are having additional
meetings in December for the ROF money.
Robert: Can we make a recommendation on the North I-25 EIS?
Bracke: We can come give an update.
6. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BAC) – Rick Price was unable to attend.
We need to appoint a new liaison to the BAC. VanTatenhove will be primary. Miller will be the alternate.
The BAC supports the e-bike issue. We’ve requested information on the issue. Transportation Planning
will aim to provide that at the January meeting. Price submitted a letter to Council for the Board to send
forward.
Miller: What lead time will we have for preparing a recommendation and going to Council?
Thomas: Once we get a presentation we can move forward quickly.
Jackson: If there is alignment, we could bring it forward to Council in February.
Manvel: We also have other vehicles (long boards, wheelchairs) to consider.
Steen: Is there a requirement for electric bicycle accident reporting? Is there data available?
Jackson: It has historically been very difficult to document bicycle accidents. The Traffic Operations
Department and Police Department are doing a better job of recording data.
Wempe: DK also has a “close call” record.
Miller: I’d like to point out that when you record “West Nile Virus” you don’t record every mosquito
bite. Perhaps we only record injury accidents. It is the injury we are concerned about.
Thomas: I think it is the collision aspect we need to look at.
7. ACTION ITEMS
A. North Front Range MPO – Aaron Fodge
Fodge: Thank you for volunteering as Board Members. I appreciate what you do. I did an in-
depth presentation in August. Tonight I will do a brief update and ask for a letter of support. We
share the region-wide goal of reducing congestion. We do not have the resources to build us out
of congestion. With limited resources, how do we best reduce congestion and maximize
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
June 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTE EXCERPT
6. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Shane Miller, Dan Gould
Gould: Action item to consider/reconsider the e-bike issue. No quorum for the item. A unanimous
recommendation was submitted to the Transportation in November 16, 2010 recommending that the City
Council approve the use of electric-assist bicycles on trails. The discussion covered the same issues and
reconsidered the user base of the trail system and included a caveat to consider whether e-bikes pose a
speed concern.
Robert: Did you discuss how to patrol/enforce their use?
Gould: It was discussed that it is a matter of etiquette, and all trail users can be subject to lapses in
etiquette.
Skutchan: Were there any new issues raised since the November discussion?
Gould: One person brought up the concern that it could be a slippery slope toward use of other motorized
vehicles on the trails.
Miller: The Committee also entertained the Downtown Parking Plan and the Jefferson Street Project as
Discussion Items.
Skutchan: Was there discussion about the addition of a bike lane?
Miller: Semi-trucks turning onto College don’t like to stop, so it might actually be a traffic calming issue.
7. ACTION ITEMS
A. Electric Bike Use on Trails – Craig Foreman
Electric bikes offer an alternative mode of transportation for Fort Collins citizens. ADA regulations
for “other mobility devices” would allow an e-bike to be used by a person whose disability meets the
ADA definition of someone who needs mobility assistance. This came out of Plan Fort Collins. Study
focus was electric bike use on the City’s paved recreation trail system. Does not include motorized
scooters, long boards, etc. The State of Colorado adopted federally mandated classifications and
allows e-bikes to be used along bike lanes and multi-use paths. The State regulations do not trump the
City Code (Ordinance 097-2009 and Natural Areas Code Sec 23-193).
Process:
Data gathering
Public input
Test ride
Boards & Commissions
Parks & Rec Board recommends a 3-year trial test period
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board – No (split vote 5/2)
Natural Resource Advisory Board – 3-year trial test period
Bicycle Advisory Committee - yes
Transportation Board – Tonight
Air Quality Board – June 20
Senior Advisory Board – No (split vote 5/3)
Comission on Disability – Sending recommendation to Council, no vote.
Council on June 28
Other Communities:
Locally – Aspen, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Greeley, Larimer County, Longmont,
Loveland, Windsor do not allow e-bikes on trails.
-DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
June 15, 2011
Fayetteville, Arkansas has allowed them since 2008 with no problems
Very little information out there.
Skutchan: What is the allowable speed of an e-bike?
Foreman: 20 mph maximum
Public outreach results:
162 responses through fcgov.com/yourvoice
5 responses via email
26 responses from Facebook
171 people took a position: 86 yes, 85 no
Concerns:
Increase risk of accidents
E-bikes that are not legal or are ridden irresponsibility would be difficult to endorse
Will degrade the quality of natural areas, parks, trails as a place of respite from motorized devices
Could encourage more people to enjoy trails
Concerns about changing technology of these/similar devices
Miller: In the course of getting the data on bikes, were there tests on stopping distance and
minimum/maximum weights, speeds, etc. Is there a comparison of function compared to a regular
bike?
Foreman: 20 mph/750 watt, 100 pounds or less. Most are 55/65 pounds. They have great brakes and
stop quickly. They run around $2,000. The battery lasts about 4 hours at 20 mph.
Steen: Are the groups suggesting the 3-year trial period suggesting data collection?
Foreman: Yes. We’ll collect/create the data we are missing right now.
Bracke: DK is working with Natural Resources/Parks to develop some Trail Etiquette guidelines.
Skutchan moved that we support and endorse the recommendation of the Bicycle Advisory
Committee. Miller seconded the motion.
Miller: Does the verbiage allow an e-bike to go anywhere a bicycle can go?
Bracke: There was no discussion about use on non-paved trails.
Miller: If we accept an e-bike as a bicycle, would that allow them to go anywhere a bicycle can go?
Jackson: The ordinance would be drafted to specify paved trails only and e-bike specifications. A
change to City Code requires Council action.
The Board voted 6 in favor, 1 against. Robert expressed concern about enforcement.
Foreman explained that there are six rangers patrolling the trail system, mostly concentrating on
natural areas. Risk Management said there were 3 accidents on the trail system. Two were bicycles
hitting maintenance trucks.
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 1 of 18
BE A GOOD STEWARD: Protect & Respect your Parks, Trails & Recreation Facilities
Call Meeting to Order: Michael Chalona called the meeting to order 5:34pm
Agenda Review & Items of Note:
Agenda Review: None
Items of Note: Rob Cagen - Rugby representative sent a proposal to me, which I will forward to Carol for the
Board to review. They are here tonight to speak during citizen participation about their proposal.
Citizen Participation
Mitch Bower, coaches high school Rugby.
Mitch - Fort Collins Youth Rugby, Fort Collins Men’s Rugby and the Mathews Hammerdorfer Foundation has
a proposal (attached) asking the City to establish a permanent facility for Rugby. Greg Chvatal has coached
Rugby for 20 years and has played Rugby for 25 years and has helped to develop many rugby players who have
gone on to play in college and win championships. Rugby is a growing sport and we would like to work with
the City to identify a space that could accommodate at least two pitches.
Discussion:
Staff – Currently, we do not have the ability to offer exclusive use.
Mitch – We understand, but would like first use.
Board – The Soccer Club has their own facility with quite a bit of unused land; have your spoken to them about
the possibility of using a part of their facility?
Mitch – No, we’re in the early stages of our proposal and wanted to visit the idea with the City first.
Board – Have you talked with Poudre Schools to see if they would help you?
Mitch – Schools do not want us since we’re a club sport.
Board – Do you have a league?
Greg – Yes, there are 22 high school teams and two divisions.
Board – Are you associated with CHASA?
Greg – No, but we’ve been trying to get the girls teams into CHASA so they have better opportunities.
Board – Where were you playing before Timnath?
Greg – At Greenbriar Park in Fort Collins.
Board – Will Centera continue to let you play at their facility?
Greg – We’re hoping to be at Greenbriar this fall.
Board – You want to have a place, but have the City own and maintain it?
Mitch – I think we could have a working relationship with volunteers to help with maintenance. We should be
able to raise money to build.
Board – What’s a facility? Is it like a football field?
Mitch – Kind of like a football field, but wider.
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
5:30 p.m.
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: J.R. Schnelzer, 221-6301
Craig Foreman, 221-6618
President: Michael Chalona
Phone: 970-490-2335 (home) / 970-472-8954 x1 (work)
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 2 of 18
Board – So it’s like a level field with goal posts? Is this what you want as a facility?
Mitch – For future use, we would need exclusive use with three pitches; one for the league and two for the
town.
Board – Where does CSU play?
Mitch – At the CSU recreation center.
Board – Are there opportunities with CSU?
Mitch – No, they are concerned with liability of high school teams using their fields. It’s important to us to
have our own fields for team territory to give the teams a since of ownership.
Board – Where do the Denver teams play?
Mitch – Mostly in parks, some at high schools.
Board – Is there any room left at Spring Canyon to support Rugby?
Staff – Not for a rugby complex as proposed, and the turf areas need to be left multi-purpose. We monitor the
field usage and move the various sports around so that the turf doesn’t get overused.
Approval of Minutes: Rob Cagen made the Motion to approve the Parks & Recreation Board minutes of April
27, 2011, seconded by Brian Carroll – Minutes approved 8:0
AGENDA ITEMS:
Tour of the Farm at Lee Martinez
Bridget Brownell gave the Board a tour of The Farm. The Farm tries hard to represent how a farm operates.
They have 3 full-time employees who run the farm, caring for ponies, goats, pigs, chickens, horses and cows.
They have a museum that offers an historical look at farming equipment and a facility available to rent out for
birthday parties. Throughout the year they offer pony rides, hay rides, and place for kids of all ages to come
and explore.
Electric Bike Discussion & Recommendation
Craig Foreman presented information on the issue of allowing electronic bicycles (e-bikes) on the paved
recreation trails (attached PowerPoint). This issue should not be confused with the ADA regulation allowing
mobility devices on the trails.
The Department of Transportation has defined e-bikes as bicycles not motorized vehicles. Restricted to no
more than 1 hp, 20 mph for a 170 lb rider on flat ground. The State of Colorado has adopted these federally
mandated classifications. Currently, the City of Fort Collins does not allow the use of the e-bikes on the trails
Ordinance 097-2009 – The rider of an electrical assisted bicycle shall not use the electric motor on a bike or
pedestrian path. The City is now in the process of data gathering on this issue. We are looking for information
from other communities, public input, test rides for staff and Boards & Commissions and recommendations
from Boards & Commissions. Locally; Aspen, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Greeley, Larimer County,
Longmont, Loveland and Windsor do not allow e-bikes on trails; due to existing code language preventing any
motorized vehicles in parks and trails; same as the current code in Fort Collins. Communities allowing e-bikes
are Fayetteville AK, Foothills P&R, Lincoln NE and Norman OK, but there was very little data to collect from
these communities. Most of the communities didn’t have any data on enforcement or information on how the e-
bikes are working on their trails, other than no complaints filed. After conducting a public outreach on this
issue, of the 171 people that responded 86 were yes, 85 for no. General concerns were speed, safety and
compatibility. General support was encouraging alternative transportation and accessibility/fairness among
users. The staff has heard that with the heavily used trails, there may be an increased risk for accidents due to
speed and enforcement would be difficult. There are also concerns that the noise produced by e-bikes would
degrade the quality of trails as a place of respite. However, they could encourage more people to enjoy the
trails.
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 3 of 18
Discussion
Board – I see us as being on the front-line of this issue, and although I understand the concerns, I think that just
because of the possibilities of what could happen saying no without any real knowledge is not appropriate.
Board – What about a test period?
Board – I would feel better about this issue if it was not being proposed by a person who would profit by selling
the bikes. I feel that saying no is a way of saying we are keeping out trails safe.
Board – We can’t make constraints that only senior citizens would be using e-bikes, if they were in need of
assistance they could always fall into the ADA category. You have to assume that e-bikes may be used by
anyone from 13 years old to 80 years old.
Board – I think the trails are overused now; I’m concerned that this could open the door for other electrical
vehicles.
Board – I would like to see a test period. After test riding the bike, I can understand how it could help; but I
still think safety is an issue.
Board – If there were a way to license these bikes, so the City would know who the owner was, I would
consider giving them a chance.
Board – Anyone can sell an e-bike, I could see a place like Jax selling them for $400.00 so I don’t think we can
say that there would be limited number of e-bikes on the trail because of their expense.
Board – Regular bikes can go fast too. What’s the difference between the bikes, if a regular bike hits you it’s
going to hurt. I think we need to be talking about bike safety overall. Perhaps all people should be encouraged
to use proper speed and audible warnings.
Board – I think we become so fearful of litigation that we make decisions on what might happen. Why not
allow them? There are always safety concerns, but most of the trail system is good. There are portions on the
Spring Creek Trail that would be of a bigger concern, but I hate to say absolutely not. Again, perhaps a test.
Board – Things could be done to lesson the safety concerns, I would like to see us try with a trial period of 1
year with an evaluation done at the end of that period, and include an education program for trail users.
Board – I agree, I would like to make a decision with data.
Board – I don’t want to see scooters on the trails.
Board – I would want to see a sunset on the trial period to reevaluate and licensing is a good idea.
Board – Licensing sounds appropriate, but there’s an expense to the City, so I’m not sure it would be good to
have e-bikes licensed. I think they could also be on the streets.
Board – For the other communities that didn’t allow, did they offer any reasons?
Staff – No, they just referred to their code.
Board – Staff should work out the details, but I don’t think 1 year is enough time to gather good data. Perhaps 3
years with annual evaluations; whatever it takes to get good data.
Motion
A motion was made by Bruce Henderson: Approve e-bikes on trails on a three year trial basis with annual
reviews for both the use of e-bikes on trails with mandatory education as part of the e-bike license.
Motion seconded by Dana Ortiz
Amendments Proposed and approved by Bruce Henderson:
Amend – limiting trials to certain portions of the trail.
Amend – required license of e-bike operator.
Discussion
Board – What kind of data is there on regular bike accidents on the trails?
Staff – Only three accidents were reported.
Board – What about doing a speed analysis with recorders.
Staff – We did this about 10 years ago, it’s hard to capture, but perhaps an intern could do this.
Board – Do we have a consensus of the Board?
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 4 of 18
Board – I’m against for a variety of reasons, but as a runner I am always fending off speeding bikes. But, I like
the concept of getting data. I think it will be hard to gather, but I would vote in agreement with the amendments
of just certain portions of trail.
Board - I’m in the middle, I think if someone has mobility issues then ADA would cover. I would like an
amendment that if the trial doesn’t work out, that access on trails would be denied with a warning to the
consumer that this could sunset.
Board – Licensing is staff time which could be hard to manage. Education could be hard for staff also.
Board – Bike group will get some information out.
Board – Is there a definition of an e-bike?
Staff – We have to create, but there will be a weight and speed limit per Federal, and the frame of the bike will
not be allowed to be wider than say six inches which will keep scooters from being allowed.
Board – Education is good, but we can’t just limit it to e-bike rides.
Board – Do we just want to say we want a trial period and leave the rest out?
Board – Yes, let’s read a final motion.
Final Motion
Final Motion made by Greg Miller:
The Parks & Recreation Board approves the use of e-bikes on trails on a three year trial basis with
annual reviews, with the use of e-bikes on limited portions of the trails to be defined by staff with
analysis.
Seconded by Rob Cagen.
Vote: All in Favor 8:0
P&R Board Review Questionnaire for Final Approval
After review of the draft, the Board made some wording changes to number one, and eliminated a redundant
comment on number seven.
Carol will make adjustments and send the final draft out to Michael Chalona and Rob Cagen for their final
okay before submitting the document to the City Clerk’s office by June 17.
Staff Updates
Park Updates
Five of the six community parks, Spring Canyon, Rolland Moore, City Park, Fossil Creek and Edora are
all Audubon sanctioned. Lee Martinez will be Audubon sanctioned within a few months, which will
make Fort Collins the first community in the United States to have all of its community parks Audubon
sanctioned.
Recreation Updates
There were 240 applications submitted for the Recreation Director position. Staff is hoping to have
initial interviews set for June 21.
Park Planning Updates
The construction on the new trail underpass at 38E has slowed with weather, but 38E is now open again
for 2-way traffic.
We tentatively have a GoCo grant for the disc golf course at Hughes Stadium.
Board Members Present: Staff Present:
Jean Davis Peggy Bowers
Rusty Fletcher (in Barbara Schoenberger’s absence)
Rebecca Lindsey
Linda Gabel
Kathy Schuster
Cherrie Thornton Guests:
Diane Smith Elaine Boni
Wade Turner Craig Foreman
Al Van Nice
Excused absence: Unexcused absence:
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Wade Turner at 1:32 p.m.
II. Attendance
Attendance sheet was passed around for signatures.
III. Public Participation
None.
IV. Introduction of new Board Member
New member Diane Smith was introduced and welcomed to the Board.
V. Volunteer to recommend Key Topics of Meeting – Palmer Withrow
VI. Speaker
Craig Foreman, Park Planning Manager about Electric Assisted Bicycles on the City’s Paved Trails
The Issue: Electric bikes offer an alternative mode of transportation for Fort Collins citizens. Present
code restricts parks, natural areas, trails and recreation areas to “non-motorized” forms of transportation.
People who purchase electric bikes are interested in using them on the City’s paved trail system.
Currently under the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations allow disabled people to use e-bikes on
trails. Under action items from Plan Fort Collins, the city is looking at innovative transportation modes,
including e-bikes.
E-bikes are defined as bicycles, not motorized vehicles and are restricted to no more than 1hp, 20 mph
on motor alone. The State of Colorado has adopted these federally mandated classifications and allows
e-bikes to be used along bike paths and multi-use paths. Fort Collins can decide whether or not to go
along with this.
Senior Advisory Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2011
1:30 p.m.
1200 Raintree Drive
Craig is presenting this proposal to Boards and Commissions this month to solicit input. The City
Council will discuss this at their June 28th meeting. A team will identify stakeholders, gather data from
public outreach meetings, take test rides, develop a matrix of solutions and present options.
The SAB discussed pros and cons for e-bikes on paved trails as it would impact seniors. The Board's
primary concerns were over speed, safety and compatibility with others using the trails. People who may
not hear well, move slowly and may be unsteady might have difficulty encountering a faster moving
bike. How might this evolve in the future as technology changes? It was pointed out that people who
might not be able to use the trails could by using an e-bike. The Board was polled for yea or nay to
“support e-assist bikes to be used on paved City trails.”
Nays were 7, yeas 3.
VII. Approval of Minutes
Al Van Nice moved to accept the minutes of the April 13th SAB meeting as corrected. Linda Gabel
seconded the motion. Motion passed.
VIII. Correspondence
A. Wade Turner sent thank you notes to Sarah Kane, the Mayor and the three City Council
members who attended the Senior Center art Show Opening.
B. Diane Smith suggested that a thank you note be sent to the Senior Center staff for providing
the food and facility for the SAB to meet with City Council members at the Art Show.
C. Kathy Schuster sent information to two City engineers and the Chair of Art in Public Places
about the Troutman family, with a proposal that this history be included in the Mason Street
Corridor displays.
IX. Old Business
A. Communication committee report
Palmer Withrow’s designer at Columbine developed a quality pamphlet and posters to be
used at the April 20th Wellness Expo. 200 were printed with the Columbine logo. The Board
needs to make a decision about the funding and the logo for future printings.
B. Senior Center Expansion committee and project report
Diane Smith volunteered to be the new liaison to the Senior Center Expansion Committee,
which meets the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month from 4:30-6:00.
C. Liaison reports—highlights only (please turn in written reports)
1. Palmer Withrow reported he is still waiting to hear more about the PVH <-> MCR
transportation plan. Cherrie Thornton will email Kevin Unger to check-in about this.
2. Rusty Fletcher reported that the Human Relation Awards breakfast went well. Although
our nominee did not win, she was acknowledged for her contributions to the City.
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD
Regular Meeting
February 9, 2011
DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N Mason Street, Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
For Reference: Linsey DeBell - 217-7436
Aislinn Kottwitz - 692-9915
Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096
Board Members Present
K-Lynn Cameron, Linsey DeBell, Julie Germany, S. Kathryn Grimes, Michelle Grooms,
Trudy Haines, Linda Knowlton, Paul Mills, Linda Stanley
Board Members Excused
Council Liaison
Aislinn Kottwitz
Staff Present
Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Daylan Figgs, Chris Metz, Mark Sears,
John Stokes
Guests
Craig Foreman, City of Fort Collins, Director of Park Planning & Development
Josh Kerson, owner of “Run About Cycles”
Public Comments
• Josh Kerson: I’ve been hand building for the last ten years and in the bicycle
industry for the last twenty years. I am working towards trying to get the City Fort
Collins to be in line with the Federal rulings and with some of the State statutes
and possibly to enable the largest growing segment of our community, the about
to retire folks, to be able to continue to use bicycles on the bike path with an
electrical assist.
Kerson showed the Board pictures of sample electric bicycles. He went on to explain
the Federal rulings for electric bicycle and that the Department of Transportation has
deemed the electric bicycles to be regulated by the Safety Consumer Protection
Group. Kerson also mentioned that the Ice Tea Act (Intermodal Surface
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Transportation Efficiency Act) allows electric bikes on all bike paths across the
United States.
• Kerson: I’m asking different groups to consider voting yes when City Council
asks, will the City of Fort Collins adopt the state statute 42-4-111, which is in
place and allows each City to allow electric bikes to be used on bike paths.
Agenda Review
• Sears: There is one additional easement item, which can be inserted with
Colorado Division of Transportation (CDOT’s) action item; however it is an FYI
and not part of the action item.
Review and Approval of Minutes
City Plan Letter of Recommendation
• DeBell: The City Plan Letter of Recommendation needs a motion for approval.
CDOT’s – I-25, Hwy 392 Interchange Easement Request
• Figgs: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has requested a
permanent easement on a portion of the Fossil Creek Regional Open Space as part
of the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange project. The requested easement consists of
3,558 square feet located within the wetland north of HWY 392 (Carpenter Road)
CDOT has designed a small stormwater feature within the easement area to help
protect the wetland from erosion during storm events.
The existing wetland topsoil will be saved during the excavation process and
placed back onto the surface as part of the wetland restoration plan. The disturbed
areas will be seeded with a wetland seed mix and the restoration managed by
CDOT according to a weed management plan approved by the Natural Areas
Program and Larimer County Open Lands.
CDOT will also be required to follow the Natural Area’s Resource Protection
Standards throughout the duration of this project. The restoration progress will be
monitored by Natural Areas staff and the Corps of Engineers.
• Stanley: How will they restore the wetlands?
• Figgs: In this case easily. With wetland restoration, as long as the hydrology
doesn’t change a lot, they are much easier to restore.
• Cameron: If a catastrophic flood occurs, will they make the restorations?
• Figgs: Yes, it will be their responsibility to make all restorations.
• Cameron: If the City and the County didn’t want to do it would CDOT have the
ability to condemn it?
Knowlton moved to approve the December 8, 2010 and January 12, 2011 minutes as
written. Germany second. It was unanimously approved.
Germany moved to approve the City Plan Letter of Recommendation. Grimes second.
It was unanimously approved.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Page 3 of 4
• Figgs: I’m sure they could.
Addition to Agenda - Easement to another City Government Agency
• Figgs: Between the County and the City road departments there are turn lanes
being added at the intersection of Trilby and Shields. Hazaleus and Colina
Mariposa are the two City Natural Areas in that area. This would be an agreement
between we and them and they would file a change of right-of-way.
Figgs showed the Board a map of the extent of the construction area, which included the
existing right-of-way currently in place.
Electric Bikes
Foreman showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation, which included the following:
o Electric Assist – Bikes on Trails (E-Bikes) - The Issue
o Plan Fort Collins Item – The Plan will be adopted in March, 2011
o Immediate Action: Concurrent with Plan adoption
o Electric Bikes
o Federal/State Information
o Fort Collins Codes
o Process
o The Team
o Next Steps
• Grooms: Are there electric bikes over 1 horse power?
• Kerson: Currently there are over 300 electric bike companies that are making
them as legal electric bikes, with the caveat that we have seen some that are being
made in Europe that are higher power for off trail use.
• Cameron: How does this compare with Segway?
• Foreman: We have not received input from the public regarding putting Segways
on the trail system.
• Knowlton: My comment on this is that it is a terrible idea to have electric bikes
on trails. They would be hard to police because you could hardly catch them if
the Ranger is on foot patrol. As a trail user I find this a scary proposition.
• Stanley: How fast does an electric bike go?
• Kerson: If passing someone speed could be around 24 miles per hour (mph), but
normal peddling would be between 18 and 20 mph.
• Stanley: It would be good to do a field trip and watch these bikes in action,
because I feel uncomfortable when I know a bike is coming up behind me.
• Cameron: There will always be people riding bikes faster than they should on
trails, and in reality, anything we can do to help the older population to get out
and enjoy the outdoors and in this case exercise is a good thing. I’m concerned
about the sound of the electric bike, so it would be interesting to be out in the field
Knowlton moved to recommend that City Council approve an ordinance authorizing a
non-exclusive easement on Fossil Creek Regional Open Space to the Colorado
Department of Transportation. Haines second. It was unanimously approved.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Page 4 of 4
to hear how these bikes sound. I think it’s great that you are going through this
long process to get feedback and I would also not feel good if we were to have
more and more motorized vehicles on the trails.
• Grimes: You mentioned that there is data on communities who do and do not use
electric bikes on trails, could we be privy to this information?
• Foreman: We will bring you updates at another presentation. I think it would be a
good idea to have a bike ride on a trail to show you how the electric bikes operate.
• Grimes: Will the kid carrier be allowed on the back of an electric bike?
• Kerson: As far as I know, yes.
• Mills: There’s a danger on Spring Creek trail because, the trail is not wide
enough, it was designed long ago.
• Germany: At this point I’m supportive, but I’m glad that you are collecting
feedback on this.
• Grooms: If you are making a recommendation for electric bikes to be on paved
trail, what about un-paved trails? What if someone is riding in a natural area on
an un-paved trail?
• Sears: I think the recommendation that came from the bike advisory committee
was strictly related to paved trails, and currently we are responding to that
recommendation.
• Haines: I’m all for getting cars off the road and having retirees on bikes and
exercising, but I don’t think these will be used only by retirees commuters will
also use them. However, most of the trails go through natural areas and my
concern is that people use these trails as a natural experience; these trails are not
for commuting. I want the natural areas trails to be used for recreation as a
peaceful experience. The clearer and simpler you can make the laws the less
violation issues we will have. Handicapped folks should have a sticker on their
bikes for law enforcement. When the Mason corridor is built it could include a
scooter lane, which would include electric bikes.
• Knowlton: I hope when you are collecting input from citizens, that you talk to
those who are using the bike trail now, and how they use them.
• Foreman: This is an area that we need to have a good process on, and ask the
correct detailed questions.
• Debell: In my opinion if they perform similar to a bicycle I can’t see how they
are different than a bicycle in terms of speed.
• Mills: I would make sure that regulations for electric bikes are made very clear
because there may be a lot of misconceptions.
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD
Regular Meeting
May 11, 2011
DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N Mason Street, Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
For Reference: Trudy Haines - 225-2760
Aislinn Kottwitz - 692-9915
Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096
Board Members Present
K-Lynn Cameron, Linsey DeBell, Juli Germany, S. Kathryn Grimes, Michelle Grooms,
Trudy Haines, Linda Knowlton, John Mitchell, Linda Stanley
Board Members Excused
Council Liaison
Aislinn Kottwitz
Staff Present
Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Daylan Figgs, Mark Sears, John Stokes
Zoe Whyman
Guests
Craig Foreman, City of Fort Collins Director of Park Planning and Development
David Kemp, City of Fort Collins Bicycle Coordinator
Josh Kerson, Owner of Run about Cycles
Rob Van Uffelen, Civil Engineer for Larimer County with Nolte Vertical Five &
Associates
Public Comments
Agenda Review
• Sears: We would like to add an action item regarding an easement request, after
the bike presentation.
• Stanley: I would like Mark to update us on the Land Conservation Plan.
• Haines: I’d like that addition to be discussed before the updates. Also, I have three
thoughts about future agenda items that I would like to get feedback on.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Review and Approval of Minutes
E-Bikes Presentation – Recommendation to Council
• Haines: I have a proposal for this discussion, which is for you to give us an
overview of the process, and I would like to propose that during your presentation
that we can ask questions and have a discussion, and I would like to get an
opinion from your staff and the natural areas staff.. I would also like to
recommend a list of pros and cons written on the white board, which can then
help us with a recommendation for Council. Also, I would like to hear any
process suggestions.
• Foreman: There is the ability to have your recommendation switched to June if
necessary; recommendations are due to Council by June 28th.
Foreman gave a brief history of the use of the Electronic Personal Assistance Mobility
Devices Policy adopted on March 15, 2011, for the new Board members. Foreman also
showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation that included the following:
o The issue
o Plan Fort Collins Item (The Plan was Adopted in March, 2011) Policy
T7.1
o Immediate Actions: Concurrent with Plan Adoption
o Electric Bikes
o Federal/State Information
o Fort Collins Codes
o Process
o Boards/Commission Schedule
o Other Communities
o Questions where E-bikes are allowed?
o Is enforcement a problem?
o How has it worked out
o How do other trail users like the bikes?
o Questions where e-bikes are not allowed?
o E-Bike Web Questions
o Board/Commission Discussion and Recommendation
The Board had a discussion regarding E-Bike Web Questions and how they were not very
specific. They mentioned that getting feed-back through a web site is biased to the senior
population.
• Haines: These are all ready allowed on the bike lane on the street, correct?
• Foreman: yes
• Grooms: Are they allowed on sidewalks?
• Foreman: yes in the downtown area.
• Grimes: Will it be stated that they are not allowed on dirt paths?
• Foreman: We would have to change the code to state this.
Knowlton moved to approve the April 13, 2011meeting minutes as written. Grooms
second. It was unanimously approved.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 3 of 5
• Knowlton: Right now you are saying Fort Collins does not define these bikes the
way the Federal or State government does, is that correct?
• Kemp: We do define it in a lot of our traffic codes, however the one ordinance
that we do have right now is related to allowing E-Bikes on trails.
• Knowlton: If we say that this is the definition of an E-Bike, will they say they can
be on our trails?
• Kemp: Our definition does not go along with the Federal definition.
• Haines: The whole state of Massachusetts does not allow E-bikes on their bike
paths so you can add that to your list.
• Haines: Have you talked to other cities regarding their policy?
• Kemp: I talked with the City of Boulder years ago who had a similar situation to
ours where they dealt with the issue, and now it’s coming back up and they are
getting ready to discuss the issue again.
• Germany: What does accessibility mean, is it from a disability standpoint?
• Foreman: It pertains to those people who require more options because of their
symptoms, but are not in the ADA category.
• Knowlton: I believe we need to keep in mind, that of all the other Boards that
have been mentioned, this Board’s responsibility is the Natural Resources
Department. The Rangers who patrol these areas are employees of the Natural
Resources Department, so we have a special reason to care about this
enforcement. These Rangers patrol 35,000 acres of natural areas and trails and
there are only seven Rangers. The safety, speed and enforcement issue should be
a special concern to this Board.
• Stokes: Federal supersedes local law, so if the Federal standard is a 100 pound
weight we can not make those standards any less. One of our Rangers did some
research on e-bikes, on the web, and found one place in Australia that had an
electric bike (similar to a mountain bike) that weights 116 pounds and goes 50
miles per hour. This is one of our concerns, that we’ll have a profusion of e-bikes
that will be hard to properly indentify. Trying to define the machine will become
very complicated beyond what the Federal Government has established.
• Mitchell: What is the weight of a typical e-bike?
• Kemp: One is 35 pounds and the other is 50 pounds.
• Stanley: Now that we have seen the e-bike and demo and seen the staff report I
would think that most of us have an idea of where we stand on this. I’m
wondering if we should get a straw pole to see where we all are on this issue.
• Cameron: I’m not sure I have a vote yet. I would be interested in hearing what
staff has to say, because this is a difficult decision. We have an aging population
that we would like to see supporting our Natural Areas program and we want
them out there and the e-bike would give them a mechanism that would help them
to be mobile.
• Grooms: I’m concerned about changes in technology and I’m also concerned in
the enforcement issue.
• Kemp: There are some trails that lend themselves well to this type of
transportation and then you have other portions of the trail that are twisty and
turning and are a concern.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 4 of 5
• Haines: I would like to hear from both staff on this and what their
recommendations are.
• Stokes: We do not have staff opinions, and we do not have a recommendation,
and one of the reasons is that we are struggling, like yourselves, because we have
different interests as an organization generally and we perceive the same issues
that you perceive, so we have not developed a recommendation and we were
hoping that this Board’s discussion would help us in developing a staff
recommendation.
Electric bikes do enhance multimodal transportation and over time as energy gets
more expensive the ability to use an e-bike for primary transportation will become
attractive. Safety is a major issue for us. We are concerned about congestion on
the trails and e-bikes are fast and we do not want to be in the business of
controlling speed on the trails. There is also an esthetic consideration because the
natural areas are respite from the mechanized world so this would be a very
important change to that philosophy. Our trail system is not exclusive to the
natural areas system; it crosses between park plan and natural areas and inter-
connects with streets so that’s an important consideration.
• Sears: The e-bikes may encourage more folks to get out on our trails but are they
getting out from a commuter or recreational standpoint or are they getting out
playing with a toy. I could see rental companies in Fort Collins renting to
visitors so they could have the novelty of riding an e-bike on our trail system.
• Knowlton: Regarding the public input to this process, how many people have
come to anyone in the city and said they would like to ride any bike on the trail
that is not affiliated with a bike shop.
• Kemp: The catalyst to this topic was that there were a few people who did have
health issues and were stopped by a Ranger and were told that they can not be on
a trail with an e-bike. So the discussion we came to is, can people with mobility
disabilities use the e-bikes on trails, and we found out that it was possible.
• Grimes: When did the shift from mobility disabilities to anyone being able to use
e-bikes on trails come about?
• Kemp: There were some folks who were contacted by the Natural Areas Rangers
for riding their e-bike on trail, the article was in the news paper and it all came
together at once.
• Haines: Craig do you have your staff’s opinions that you would like to share with
the Board?
Foreman and Kemp both agreed that there are some benefits and there are concerns and
they understand the issues also. They feel that discussions with the Board will help with
clarifying the above.
• Germany: When looking at the survey I saw that fifty percent are for e-bikes and
fifty percent are against and any time you have something that is down the middle
like this you exercise caution and wait. However, I feel that those who truly have
a mobility disability will check into it and get a license and will be riding an e-
bike on trails, and that solves the problem as far as I’m concerned.
• Haines: I would like to review the pros and cons because I think it would provide
what John, Mark and Craig are asking for, data.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 5 of 5
• Stanley: Once the Mason Street corridor is completed it will be much easier for
commuters to move north and south because there will be bike lanes.
The Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the pros and cons of e-bike transportation
on City trails.
• Knowlton: I would like to make a motion, and once this motion is made and
second I would be open to comments.
The Board had a discussion regarding the verbiage of the recommendation to City
Council.
Knowlton moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board cannot at
this time recommend that e-bikes be allowed on paved city trails because 1) not
enough is known about how the public views this issue, 2) we have not seen a
comprehensive analysis of the impacts, and 3) we note that people with mobility
disabilities already are authorized to ride these bikes on our paved trails. We list
below the pros and cons of e-bikes, as we understand them, compiled by the Board
at its May 11, 2011, meeting. Stanley second. It was unanimously approve.
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 16, 2011
DATE: Wednesday, March 16, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason - Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00 pm
For Reference: Liz Pruessner, NRAB Chair - 484-4371
David Roy, Council Liaison - 217-5506
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison - 221-6265
In Attendance: Harry Edwards, Andrew Newman, Joe Piesman, Steve Ambrose, Phil Friedman, Glen
Colton, Liz Pruessner
Absent: John Bartholow, Ethan Billingsly
Staff present: Susie Gordon, Alexis Hmielak, Keith Elmund, Craig Foreman, Carrie Daggett
Call meeting to order
Liz Pruessner called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.
Introduction of Guests - none
Public Comments - none
Agenda Review – none
Steve Ambrose suggested a social at his house in May
Approval of February 16, 2011, Minutes
Glen Colton pointed out he was not listed as absent at the February meeting.
Benthic Species and Fishery Report
George (“Keith”) Elmund, City Utilities Environmental Services Manager, gave two informational
updates on the biotic health of the Poudre River. The first presentation explained the type of
monitoring programs that are currently underway on the Cache la Poudre River so the NRAB would
have a better understanding where resources are being spent and what data is available from this
program. The second presentation was about the health of the Poudre as reflected in the
macroinvertebrate and fish populations.
Background on the health of the Cache la Poudre River in Fort Collins.
• There are four key monitoring sites through Fort Collins that detect flow and water quality: Lincoln
Street Gage, Prospect Street, Nature Center and Boxelder Gage.
• The flow and water quality data is being used for:
Joe Piesman moved and Harry Edwards seconded a motion to approve the February 16, 2011,
minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously.
2
o Temperature, depth, sediment
o In steam cover/vegetation, riparian vegetation
o Floodplain habitat
o Migration paths for fish
o Water quality
Keith Elmund then discussed the health of the Poudre as reflected in the macroinvertebrate & fish
populations, based on two publications by James Karr.
• The basis of multi metric macroinvertibrate index is:
o Water quality - temperature, DO, chemical contaminants
o Habitat Structure - substrate type, depth, speed, spatial and temporal complexity of physical
habitat
o Flow Regime effects - volume and timing that affect the survival of fish and other aquatic
organisms at various phases in their life cycle
o Available Food - type, amount, size, seasonal pattern of energy availability
o Biotic Interactions - competition, predation, disease
• Impaired listing for Segment 11 was discovery of selenium in 2010 and warmer water
temperature
• Collecting and classifying macro invertebrates is very tedious
• Some key concerns:
o Degraded water quality
o Maintain fisheries (trout and native)
o Maintain flood conveyance
o Maintain recreation and aesthetic appeal
o Maintain valued biota
o Develop a vision to what you want to see – ways to protect Poudre
Discussion
• Harry Edwards asked what controls the City has to maintain water quality and diversity along the
river. Keith Elmund stated the City is working with the Northern Colorado Conservancy District
to determine if we can supplement from Horsetooth Reservoir when habitat is limited. Fort
Collins is also taking a proactive approach to designing a water treatment facility to protect
habitat and water quality downstream.
• Carrie Daggett from the City Attorney’s office noted that the City’s Stormwater program is
aimed at controlling and managing water quality impacts from storm drainage in the city, and
also noted that some elements of the recently adopted updates to City Plan relate to low impact
development techniques intended to reduce stormwater quality impacts which ultimately affect
the river.
• Keith will send his presentation files to everyone.
Electric Bikes on City Trails
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development, gave an informational presentation on the
current debate about whether it is appropriate to allow electric bikes to be ridden on paved trails in City
parks and natural areas
• Craig Forman stated he was presenting to different boards about this issue .Currently, City Code
restricts parks, natural areas, trails and recreation areas to “non-motorized” forms of transportation.
3
• The Federal Department of Transportation has defined electrical assisted bicycles to be no more than
1 hp, 20 mph on motor alone for a 170 lb rider on flat ground. They are also classified as bicycles;
not motorized vehicles.
o The State of Colorado has adopted these federally mandated classifications, and allows e-
bikes to be used along bike lanes and multi-use paths.
o If passed in City Plan, electric assist bicycles (not scooters) would only be allowed on paved
trails and would only go through a natural area if it is part of the paved trail system. The
“non-paved” trails/paths would remain “non-motorized.” Craig Foreman pointed out that if
approved, City Code would have to be changed to reflect the approval.
• A City team (Planning & Zoning, Natural Areas, Enforcement, Bike Coordinator) has been gathered
to explore options for addressing new vehicle types and fuel sources concurrent with City Plan’s
adoption.
• Next steps:
o Council adoption of Plan Fort Collins in March, 2011
o Formulation of core City staff team
o Develop schedule
o Identify stakeholders and outreach plan
o Data gathering including public outreach, pier community info, test rides, etc.
o Develop matrix of solutions
o Present staff recommended solution
o Craig stated they would like to get finalization in May, 2011, so he will probably return to
the NRAB in April with any updates.
Discussion:
• To answer Steve Ambrose, Craig Foreman stated part of the City’s outreach will be to place a survey
on the City’s webpage and perhaps do on-trail trail surveys.
• To answer Harry Edwards, Carrie Daggett stated the personal liability of people riding e–bikes on
trails is the same as liability generally for injuries they might cause.In response to further question
about whether people would normally have insurance to cover this type of liability, Carrie stated that
many bikers may not have insurance that would cover this type of liability. Some could have
insurance through an umbrella liability policy but would not likely be covered through their auto
insurance. Craig Foreman pointed out electric assist bicycles are expensive (approximately $2000)
and there are currently about 100 in the City of Fort Collins.
• Joe Piesman asked how many instances do paved trails go through natural areas. As an example,
Craig Foreman stated the Poudre Trail, starting at Lyons Park, weaves in and out of natural areas
along the Poudre.
• Craig Foreman pointed out electric bikes could also be a commuter aid.
• Craig Foreman pointed out the Bike Advisory Board had recommended electric bikes be allowed on
hard surface trails in the City. Other communities not sure about them.
• Liz Pruessner thought the noise factor would be a big deal in natural areas where people are enjoying
peace and quiet. She felt allowing e-bikes in natural areas would also open the door to other
motorized vehicles.
• Steve Ambrose was concerned the number of e-bikes would increase to the point they would be
crowding the trails. He suggested one option would be permitting the use of e-bikes on trails to
only those who actually need them – i.e. older or handicapped people. Craig stated another option
could be permitting them for only one year.
• Harry Edwards suggested opening a small area on a trial basis.
4
• Phil Friedman was concerned that e-bikes going 20 mph on a busy trail would be a danger to a
mixture of people, dogs, rollerbladers and bicycles that can’t maintain 20 mpg. He anticipates not
all riders will operate the e-bikes responsibly.
• Liz Pruessner stated allowing e-bikes on trails and then taking that privilege away would cause a
problem. Also, people who commute on e-bikes can already commute in bike lanes.
• To answer Joe Piesman, Craig Foreman stated an e-bike can go approximately 40 miles on a charge.
• Craig Foreman stated it would be interesting to see where people who own e-bikes live and if they
are close to trails. He is not sure who they are. Also, on the regulatory side, some people jazz them
up and the City needs to be sure it we can enforce this.
• Craig Foreman will give Susie Gordon an update on this review process and will return to the NRAB
in April. He invited the NRAB to attend the demonstration at City Park on March 26, from 10 – 12
am.
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
March 21, 2011
DATE: Monday, March 21, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 5:30 – 8:00 PM
Dinner served starting at 5:15 pm
For Reference: Greg McMaster, Acting Chair- 484-3348
David Roy, Council Liaison - 407-7393
Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison - 224-6085
In Attendance: Michael Lynn, Nancy York, John Schroeer, Greg McMaster, Hugh Mackay,
Rich Fisher, Dennis Georg, Dave Dietrich
Absent:
Staff Present: Alexis Hmielak, Lucinda Smith, Craig Foreman, Ana Arias
Guests – Jonathan Fiske, graduate student from CSU
Public comment - none
Call meeting to order
Vice Chair Greg McMaster called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm
Welcome New Board Member and Introductions
Greg McMaster introduced new AQAB board member Michael Lynn and the board members
introduced themselves.
Review and Approval of February 28, 2011 minutes
Electric Bicycles
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development, presented a summary of the issues
surrounding whether electrical assisted bicycles should be allowed on City paved trails. This
issue will come back to AQAB in May before going to City Council.
• Craig stated the Bike Advisory Committee passed a recommendation to Council to allow
electric assist bikes on the City’s hard surface trail system. He was presenting to different
boards about this issue.
Nancy York moved and Hugh Mackay seconded a motion to approve the February 28, 2011,
minutes as presented.
Motion approved unanimously
• Currently City Code restricts parks, natural areas, trails and recreation areas to “non-
motorized” forms of transportation. The issue right now is how can the electric assist bikes
be introduced to the trail system.
• The Federal Department of Transportation has defined electric-assisted bicycles to be no
more than 1 hp, 20 mph on motor alone for a 170 lb rider on flat ground. They are also
classified as bicycles, not motorized vehicles, and are allowed to be used along bike lanes
and multi-use paths.
• An interdepartmental team was convened to address this issue.
• If passed by City Council, electric assisted bicycles (not scooters) would only be allowed on
paved trails and would only go through a natural area if it is part of the paved trail system.
The “non-paved” trails/paths would remain “non-motorized.” Craig Foreman pointed out
that, if approved, three code areas would have to be changed to reflect the approval.
• Craig Foreman announced there will be an electric assist bicycle demonstration at City Park
on March 26, from 10 am to noon.
• Chronology:
o Council adoption of Plan Fort Collins in February 2011
o Formulation of core City staff team
o Develop schedule
o Identify stakeholders and outreach plan
o Data gathering including public outreach, peer community info, test rides, etc.
o Develop matrix of solutions
o Present staff recommendation(s)
o Craig stated they would like to get finalization in May, 2011, and he will probably
return to the AQAB with any updates.
Discussion
• To answer Rich Fisher who asked why motorized vehicles are currently prohibited in parks
and natural areas, Craig Foreman stated City parks were considered a quiet place to be and
should be separated from the urban environment.
• Craig Foreman also pointed out some people commute on the City’s trail system and the
electric assist bikes would help them do this. However, if someone “soups” up an electric
bike, enforcement could be an issue.
• Craig stated Parks and Recreation were concerned about noise and the Natural Resources
board was concerned about protecting wildlife.
• To answer Dennis Georg, Craig stated he does not know of any age restrictions for electric
assist bicycles in the state of Colorado.
• Hugh Mackay stated he did not want the electric bikes on the trails because trails are valued
by people to get away from motorized vehicles and for recreational exercise.
• Greg McMaster pointed out some trails are also commuter routes and suggested giving the
electric bikes a try and see what happens. Hugh Mackay stated designing trails for electric
bike use removes the recreational aspect of them.
• Nancy York stated if the electric assist bikes would assist senior citizens, staff should get
input from the Commission on Disabilities. If approved, there should be a trial period. Hugh
Mackay stated the trial period should only be in a limited area; not all trails.
• Dennis George suggested surveying the larger community for a broader perspective.
• Nancy York stated noise is an issue for her along with law enforcement. She suggested
electric assist bicycles need a permit and a license plate.
• To answer Dave Dietrich Craig Foreman stated there is no speed limit on trails. He also
knows two disabled people with electric assist bicycles. Dave suggested the Spring Creek
trail be designated as a trial period trail.
• Rich Fisher suggested making the trails 15 feet wide if they are going to have commuters.
Craig Foreman stated he didn’t think there would be enough traffic volume to warrant adding
an extra five feet of concrete to the trails.
• Michael Lynn asked if there was any data on accidents of electric bikes. If not, he suggested
getting data from other cities. Speed enforcement would be difficult without a radar gun.
• Dave Dietrich and Dennis George have ridden electric assist bicycles and stated they have
extremely fast acceleration that could be a safety issue on the trails.
• Craig Foreman stated staff will do a survey, gather data and will bring back results back to
the AQAB.
Air Quality/Solid Waste Survey and Air Quality Outreach
Lucinda Smith, and Ana Arias from the City’s Environmental Services Division, reviewed the
2007 Air Quality survey results in preparation for the 2011 survey. They also sought Board
comments on other air quality outreach plans and web page. Lucinda stated the City does this
survey every four to five years.
• Greg McMaster pointed out that in preparation for the 2011 survey they might look at
previous trends to see how to address new and upcoming issues.
• Lucinda stated the general objectives of the survey are to identify citizen beliefs, social
norms and actions people are taking, to assess current programs and to plan for future actions
about air quality.
• As background, Lucinda stated the last air quality survey was in 2007, and was sent to 1500
random citizens with a 38% response.
o 2007 results highlights of air quality programs the public had heard of:
Lawnmower rebate 32%
Anti-idling campaign 31%
Wood smoke complaint line 23%
Climate wise 15%
o Citizens perceived air quality was a priority
80% said something should be done to maintain or improve air quality in Fort
Collins
90% said the City should do more to control outdoor air pollution
60% rated air quality in Fort Collins as good
20% had experienced unacceptable air quality in Fort Collins.
o Citizens stated air pollution affected them because:
Causes brown cloud
Obscures mountain views
Triggers respiratory problems and causes long term respiratory problems.
o Citizens’ beliefs about global warming
82% agree the earth climate is warming.
ATTACHMENT 2
to the June 28, 2011 Work Session AIS
ELECTRIC BICYCLE SURVEY
We want to hear from you: Should electric assisted bicycles (e-bikes) be allowed on the City's paved
trails?
BACKGROUND
Currently City Code prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle or other “motorized means of
conveyance” on City trails; this includes e-bikes. Recently, a group of local citizens have been
advocating for a change to the City Code to allow e-bikes on paved trails. The current number of e-bikes
in Fort Collins is estimated at 50 bikes with the potential for rapid growth.
DETAILS
E-bikes
E-bikes are more like bicycles than they are like other motorized vehicles (mopeds,
motorcycles).
E-bikes can travel up to 20 mph and can accelerate more quickly than bikes without motors.
Compatibility with City Trails
Some of the City’s paved trails have tight turns and segments with limited visibility.
Paved City trails are heavily used and can become congested.
User’s Experience
Allowing e-bikes on the paved trails allows a motorized vehicle into many of our parks and
natural areas, as the paved trails frequently run through them.
Introducing e-bikes may fundamentally alter the experience of visitors who utilize natural areas
and parks as places that are free from power-assisted machines.
Transportation
Allowing e-bikes on paved trails may encourage alternative commuting options.
People with Disabilities
People with mobility disabilities are allowed to use e-bikes on City paved trails.
So, considering all of that: should electric assisted bicycles (e-bikes) be allowed on the City's paved
trails?
- 1 -
ATTACHMENT 3
To the June 28, 2011 Work Session AIS
E-bikes Public Feedback
202 total comments
Comments from Facebook: 26 (18 in favor, 8 not in favor, 3 neutral)
Letters to the Coloradoan – 3 (2 in favor, 1 not in favor)
Emails to City Staff – 8 (3 in favor, 4 not in favor, 1 neutral)
Comments from fcgov.com/YourVoice – 162 (72 in favor, 86 not in favor, 4 neutral)
Overall
47% in favor of allowing e-bikes on paved trails
49% not in favor of allowing e-bikes on paved trails
IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING E-BIKES ON PAVED TRAILS
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments on Facebook – 18 comments
David Monahan via Facebook
I see little reason why they shouldn't as long as they are speed limited (and in fact might provide
me a drafting opportunity). I would liken restricting this to limiting the level of bicyclists on the
trails, where you don't allow Cat 1's or 2's because they might be going too fast relative to
everyone else? There are no pollutants, neither noise or air, to impact anyone else.
Walking some of the bike trails in the morning the speed disparity is only an issue when
bicyclists aren't kind enough to make me aware of their presence. But I don't see how the
presence of e-bikes makes this worse. Worst case would be it brings more people onto the trails,
which really isn't a bad thing is it?
Aaron Propst via Facebook
How about don't ask don't tell?
If I can't tell you're on an e-bike because it looks and acts like a regular bike, and you are riding
like any other courteous cyclist... I don't care how you do it.
In other words, sure, legalize it. But find ways to enforce and better publicize the general rules
that apply to everybody already.
Christina Southwick via Facebook
I would like to see e-bikes allowed on bike trails! I don't think that college kids will go crazy (the
average bike costs around $2000). If regular bikes are allowed on the trails, then why not e-
bikes? As it has been mentioned, many of regular bike riders can go faster then 20 mph. If all
riders are courteous and obey the rules, then there should be no problem.
I do have a problem riding in bike lanes along regular city traffic, especially as long as car
drivers are allowed to use their cell phones while driving! It's dangerous for bikers on the roads!
Anytime I could use a safer alternative like a bike trail would be great! If the city is serious about
getting cars off the road and getting people to switch over to bikes, then e-bikes should be
- 2 -
allowed everywhere where regular bikes are allowed. It is tough to ride when the wind kicks up
or when I got groceries to carry. A little extra power helps a lot!
Tom Conley via Facebook
I am fine with e-bikes sharing the trail. A little education on trail etiquette is needed by some of
the trails present users. Remember to be aware of your environment, it is ultimately your
responsibility to keep yourself safe.
Vicki J. Peterson via Facebook
Sure, why not? It's fewer bikes for me to contend with on the streets.
Michelle Pinner Patello via Facebook
It is my belief that the e-bikes would not be a threat to anyone using the trails. I'm a member of
the Commission on Disability for the City of Fort Collins. I feel that is it important to consider
the mobility for the disabled as well. Thank you for putting this out for discussion.
Bob Duvall via Facebook
Yes just like electric wheel chairs some people need that assist to get going!!
Charles Radman via Facebook
Yes up to a certain speed limit. Look at cities like Amsterdam and how they manage this.
Christopher Peartree via Facebook
Absolutely.
Matt Fischer via Facebook
Yes, but can we still make fun of segways?
Irene Romsa via Facebook
yes!
Sarah Wade Potter via Facebook
As long as they are used responsibly I don't see a problem. They need to obey the same
courtesies that other bikers give each other. I've had people on standard bikes almost run me
over, so it depends on the user. I would love to have one simply because I have a child in a seat
behind me and 2 in a trailer....an extra 100 plus lbs. The motor would allow me to get out and
enjoy more trails and outdoor activities with my 5 children. That's the whole point of the trails,
isn't it?!!!
John Dodenhoff via Facebook
Ditto John Landis. Well said.
John Landis via Facebook
Luddites is spelled with two d's, and is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized, unless you
mean to use it in a derogatory way. :)
So if speed is not the problem, it must be that some people do not let you know that they are
coming up behind you, and about to pass, because I will not know by your silence that you were
- 3 -
there. I have seen many people startled by inconsiderate bikers who do not announce their
intention to pass or their presence.
If the argument for e-bikes on trails is to keep us Luddites in our place, then will motorized razor
scooters, electric 4 wheelers, and all other modes of electric vehicles be allowed as well?
I guess the Ranger's who patrol the trails would also need e-bikes, in order to enforce the rules of
the trails, as an e-bikes electric motor, would most likely out pace their endurance.
Future posts should refrain from derogatory language or "uppity" insinuations. Just my humble
opinion on a civil discussion board.
Bjorn Swenson via Facebook
I have no problems with allowing E-Bikes on City Trails. As long as they keep their speed below
20mph and slow down at the corners like the regular bikes already do then it is fine.
Another thing is that there are two types of trails, recreational based and travel based. The Spring
Creek and Poudre trails are recreational based and the Mason and Power trails are travel based.
How are E-Bikes expected to get from the south side to the north side of Fort Collins without the
Trails? College Ave is off limits for bikes for obvious reasons.
Belford Watkins Group LLC via Facebook
We use the trail for walking and biking. We are on the upper end of spring creek. I do not see
any problem with the E-Bikes being on the trails. The biggest problem will be the speed, and the
conflicts that arise between families walking their dogs, and small children at a more casual rate
then the bikes. However, we see this already with the road bikes that travel the trail. It might be
wise to have signs up, that let the bikes know that if a pedestrian and bike collision occurs, it will
naturally be assumed the bike is at fault due to the speeds they can travel. It makes our hearts
sing to see the amount of people who use the trail daily and the families that use the trail on the
weekend...we certainly do not want to not make it safe for them.
Derek Schutt via Facebook
I don't mind e-bikes. Biggest problem I run into as a daily bike path and bike lane commuter
(often at night), is bicyclists that don't obey traffic laws.
Jeff Turley via Facebook
E-Bikes should definitely be allowed on trails. John Landis presented the point that e-bikes are
already considered to be a consumer product and not a motor vehicle by the Feds. They are
mandated to be governed at 20mph, which is already attainable by unassisted riders (Personally,
I'm ~16mph average). Regarding OP's "Compatibility..." section, swift riders are perfectly
capable of slowing down when necessary; external power changes nothing. Even the electric
hum is no worse than some riders' squeaky drivetrain, and will likely leave you in peace more
quickly.
Edit: Considering also that people with disabilities are already permitted to use electric vehicles
on trails, is this perhaps a case of discrimination against able-bodied individuals? (For those
incensed, yes, this is intended to be hyperbole.)
- 4 -
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Letters to the Coloradoan – 2 letters
Allow e-bikes if there is enforcement
Letter in Coloradoan, May. 12, 2011
In a May 8 letter to the editor, Corky Walters says that banning e-bikes from trails would be like
banning Ferraris or Hummers from roads because they "might" speed or hog the road. That is a
disingenuous argument, one that seems to pop up in discussions on this issue.
Please note that Ferraris and Hummers must operate on streets and roads where radar and police
enforcement, for the most part, keep them under wraps and make life safer for the rest of us.
There isn't any enforcement or radar on the trails - it's pretty much a no-man's land out there.
And that situation allows the speeders and the rude riders to use the trails as their own personal
speedways.
My concern is that adding e-bikes to the mix, with their top speed of 20 mph, will make it more
dangerous for strollers and pedestrians who do not have a top speed of 20 mph.
If we can have robust enforcement and radar on the trails, then by all means, allow e-bikes on the
trails and institute a speed limit.
Walters might take note of the excellent Fort Collins bike map, which shows many viable
alternatives to riding on College Ave. (which by the way is illegal south of Laurel and north of
Harmony) and on Harmony Road. Swallow Road, Stover St. and Constitution Ave. are a few.
Dottie Spivak,
Fort Collins
Find better ways to keep trails safe
Letter in the Coloradoan, May. 8, 2011|
Should e-bikes be banned from bike trails? For years, I've enjoyed the trails both via regular bike
and an electric-assisted bike, and I applaud Fort Collins for creating this wonderful resource.
The city should promote trail safety by prohibiting those inconsiderate of others. I have
witnessed such bad behavior: uncontrolled dogs, bikes (of all kinds) going breakneck speed and
rollerbladers forcing others off the path. The city should prohibit bad behaviors, whatever the
transport mechanism - not just arbitrarily banish one particular bike style. Banning e-bikes from
trails would be like banning Ferraris or Hummers from roads because they "might" speed or hog
the road. Perhaps a speed limit on trails would be a practical solution.
I purchased an e-bike because I like biking to work and a long hill enroute meant arriving an
unacceptable sweaty mess. Street riding is uncomfortable as the unavoidable route is College
Avenue and Harmony Road. Despite nice bike lanes and careful riding, I do not feel safe riding
those streets.
My e-bike engine is mostly off, both to save battery and promote exercise by riding it as a
regular bike except for the steepest slopes. I am older than 60 and ride sedately and safely to
continue this mildly assisted exercise as long as possible.
- 5 -
Barring e-bikes also would hurt the green vehicle business opened here recently. Should a
"green" community that encourages new business and healthy living ruin this business with silly
regulations?
I encourage our city to find fairer ways to keep the trails safe.
Corky Walters,
Fort Collins
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes E-mails to City Staff – 2 e-mails
From: Rapp, Steve [mailto:Steve.Rapp@ARS.USDA.GOV]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:11 PM
To: David Kemp
Subject: electric bikes
Dave,
Hi, my name is Steve R. and I am just giving my input supporting electric bikes approval to use
on Ft. Collins bike trails.
I have owned an e-bike for 6-months or so and have rode it regularly over the winter.
It weighs about 50 lbs. and goes 15-17 mph. Sometimes I ride it on the bike trail and all I can say
is that there are plenty of regular non electric bikes that fly past me. I ride around people on the
trail the same as if I was on a non electric bike. I don’t think most people even realize that I am
on an electric bike. It makes no noticeable noise, creates no emissions and seems to be more
stable on snow and ice than my non electric bikes. It has a little bit longer wheel base and a bit
more weight in the back wheel that increases traction. It is sort of like putting sand bags in the
back of a truck for added traction. Full speed is similar to a brisk pedaling. You have to use
common sense while riding it just like anything else.
There are over 1,000 emergency room admittances annually from people walking while texting I
heard the other day. Which has nothing to do with this.
If people exercise basic common sense I don’t see why electric bikes are any more dangerous
than regular non-electric bikes on the bike trail.
Worse case they could approve them and reverse the decision if it becomes an issue.
Thanks, Steve R
Email to Dave Kemp
I have reservations but, yes, I support e-bikes on our paved trails, as above all I want to
encourage transportation alternatives to the car.
My concerns are first and foremost, speed, coupled with riders not always giving notice of
passing, which will be worse for those approaching from behind quickly. I am concerned I will
- 6 -
feel like I am riding on a road (i.e., stressed). Can there be a speed limit imposed? Now would
be the time to require a cap on speed, right from the start.
Secondly, to be honest, I am concerned that as the number of users goes up, my enjoyment level
will go down. But perhaps then we can lobby for wider trails. And more people using and thus
supporting the trails, as well as bikes, should be a very good thing.
For the record, I am a cyclist who uses the trails extensively for commuting/errands/short trips as
well as recreation/long rides. The bike is my first choice for transport and the paved trails are
my first choice for my route.
Lastly, there are a lot of novices out there and this will most likely add more and/or seniors to the
mix. We really need education for the users (e.g., signage to educate, more police/cycling
advocates on bikes/trails, or more classes.) Perhaps instructional info could be received when
registering a bike, etc. The weekends especially can be a bit crazy. The City bike maps have
been very good in this regard.
What are other communities choosing to do, especially in Europe? Thanks for asking.
From: Ray Frush [mailto:phred@frii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Kim Newcomer
Subject: Re: Comments on Web Site
Properly engineered electric assist bikes are designed to stop assisting the rider above speeds of
20 miles an hour.
This is slower than a strong cyclist on a normal" bicycle on level terrain. E-bikes do climb hills
faster, but do not go down hills faster, and depending on design, may even be slower (Direct
drive systems have extra drag at speeds >20MPH). In Fort Collins a key "benefit" of the e-bike
is riding into the wind, where the e-bike can help the rider maintain a consistent speed. For a
commuter, being able to maintain a consistent speed despite wind conditions makes it far easier
to time their ride to meet appointments.
Since the top speed of properly manufactured e-bikes is limited, I don't see that the concern
about excessive speed on the trails is supported. Risking self incrimination, I'll admit that I have
ridden some of the trails with my e-bike (Trek Ride+), and during the "morning/evening"
commute, I rarely pass other commuters (vs. recreational riders) and I frequently maintain a
speed of 18-20mph, and do occasionally get passed by riders who are clearly very strong, avid
cyclists. I've also noted that recreational riders tend not to be very common during "commute
times" on the trails I use. All cyclists, regardless if they are using an e-bike or a conventional
bike are moving faster than other users of
the trails, and must behave courteously when passing walkers, joggers, and other slower modes
that share the trails.
I use an e-bike to make it palatable to commute by bike nearly year round instead of driving, and
I average 2-3 day a week in the winter, and 4-5 days a week in the summer. Late winter/early
spring is particularly challenging to bike commuters in Fort Collins with our prevailing winds.
- 7 -
I believe that petal assist bikes, that require the rider to work before the bikes will provide
assistance should be allowed on all Fort Collins bike trails. Bikes with a throttle should be
restricted to people with documented mobility disabilities as they are today.
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments Through fcgov.com/YourVoice – 72 comments
Comments:
yes. E-bikes do not accelerate faster than a competant cyclists on a multi-geared bicycle. They
only accelerate faster than casual riders.
Most blind corners are already signed. Perhaps tight turns & blind corners should be posted with
a speed limit (this same risk exists regardless of e-bike or standard bike).
Name: mark laken
Email: m_laken@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes
Name: Chris
Email: cb_banister@msn.com
Comments:
Yes, if they remain at a safe speed for all trail users.
Name: Steve Wilkin
Email: smwilkin@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes! People can easily go over 20mph on pedal bikes and be unsafe. Unclear what the
difference is safety wise and re "the fundamental experience." I don't own one, but would like
to. More people would commute using them if trails were not off limits, as riding on the road
can be quite scary.
Name: Craig
Email:
Comments:
The E-Bikes should be allowed on the trail system, as a City we are committed to being green
and with the ever rising cost of fuel more people will be forced to utilize bikes for transportation.
More people who are physically challenged and members of the "grey work force" will need to
use E-Bikes for their daily trips to work.
Name: Greg C. Smith
Email: gsmith5454@gmail.com
Comments:
as long as it does not impede the regular foot traffic then why not?
Name: jprid
Email: jpride.p@gmail.com
Comments:
I see problems in enforcing this and I don't seem any harm in them. Lets err on increasing
freedom when rather neutral about its effects! I'm glad this is being discussed.
- 8 -
Name: Andrew Stover
Email: awstover@rams.colostate.edu
-bikes are quiet and can not easily be made to go faster than 20 mph even with pedaling assist.
The speed of the bike is completely manageable by the rider, so the control of the e-bike, like the
control of any bike, is in the hands and mind of the rider. As a person who commutes *because*
of the electric assist, I would like the opportunity to use city paved trails. My bicycle commuting
is 1) keeping our air clean, 2) easing congestion and wear and tear on our roads, and 3) keeping
me healthy and in good spirits. OK, it saves a significant amount of money, too. Courtesy on
the trails by all users (pedestrians, dog-walkers, stroller pushers, bicyclists, in-line skaters,
wheelchair-ers - all with or without motors) is what will make the multi-use trails successful in
Fort Collins. I have used the paved trails for walking, running, dog-walking, biking, and in-line
skating. In every case, communication between slower and faster speed users is what has made
the use peaceful and effective.
Name: Dee Wanger
Email: dee.wanger@gmail.com
Comments:
Cyclists traveling at 20mph is not something unique to e-bikes. Any decent road cyclist is easily
capable of traveling that fast without the boost of an electric motor, so I don't see that as a
legitimate argument against allowing e-bikes. Cyclists need to travel at a safe enough speed to
negotiate the trails, whether leg-powered or electric powered. I say, yes, allow the e-bikes.
It must be done in a way that doesn't open the flood gates for other motorized means of
transportation, though. The, "no motorized transportation," limit is easily defined and identified.
An equally easily definable and identifiable limit would need to replace it.
Name: Gregg D. Stonecipher
Email: greggstonecipher@gmail.com
Comments:
I think that they should be allowed to encourage more biking and transportation alternatives but I
am also concerned about potential for abuse and safety of speeding e-bikes. E-bikes can ride on
roads if they want to so I think there should be a speed limit on the trails. One avenue for self-
regulation might be to require e-bikes to register and get some kind of license plate that
observers could use to report abusers and unsafe riders.
Name: John Butler
Email: jd.butler1222@gmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely they should be allowed. They are quiet and non-polluting and an excellent
alternative for those who want to work slowly back into getting out and exercising since you can
pedal to assist the motor on most of them and extend your range. I have a friend with one who
has a pacemaker and leg problems. He is trying to lose weight and start getting back some
mobility, but he can't pedal for long without the assist of the electric motor. As it is he has to
stick to city streets to be legal which is much more dangerous.
Name: Ron Perkins
Email: aperkins@perkinsls.com
- 9 -
Comments:
Yes, I am for allowing e-bikes on the trails. Many regular bicycles already pass me at a high rate
of speed as I walk on the trails. E-bikes are generally not used by speed demons. And since the e-
bikes are quiet they will not disturb the peaceful ambience on the trails. Thanks for the
opportunity to respond.
Name: Robin MacDonald
Email: rmacdonald@fcgov.com
Comments:
Sure, they are bikes just with a motor on the back of it. Plus it doesn't pollute or anything, it is
fully electric and I think it would be just fine to allow them on the trails. To not would not be
right at all.
Name: Neal moody
Email: nealm323@hotmail.com
Comments:
Yes - If high penalties for SPEEDING are in place and enforced. Sames with bicycles. I'm a
walker. Thanks
Name: william nies
Email: bluespot68@gmail.com
Comments:
Banning a tool is rarely a good solution when the problem is the user. I don’t think E-bikes pose
any greater threats to safety and tranquility than the currently allowed forms of transportation.
We should embrace new technologies that help sustain our environment and focus more on the
social issues that will allow all parties to share our common resources in a peaceful and civil
manner.
Name: Billy Linn
Email: blinn@fcgov.com
Comments:
Yes - they should be allowed. I'd have no safety concerns sharing the bike paths with the
demographic that owns electric bikes.
Name: Jim Francis
Email: jmfumass@yahoo.com
Comments:
E-bikes should be REQUIRED to use paved city trails or sidewalks.
They do not belong on city streets (and neither do other bicycles) because of the safety hazard
they incur to both themselves and motorized traffic.
Name: Willis Whatley
Email: whatley@frii.com
Comments:
Absolutely! These electric assisted bicycles travel no faster that a person powered bike and this
will open the bike trails and bicycling to many who would not otherwise ride. Allowing e-bikes
will promote bicycle use in instances where distances are too long for a regular bike.
Name: Bill DeMarco
Email: william.demarco@gmail.com
- 10 -
Comments:
Yes, they should. Even though their respective speeds can be high the same can be said for road
and mountain bikes careening the same trails at excessive speeds.
I think encouragement instead of trepidation is what is appropriate for the e-bikes.
Name: Steve Nelson
Email: skisteveski@yahoo.com
Comments:
I think it is important for people with mobility disabilities to use e-bikes on paved trails. A
friend of mine has a serious heart condition and must use an e-bike to enjoy the paved trails with
his family. Despite the law allowing people with disabilities to use e-bikes, he was stopped by
police on the trail -- ruining an otherwise rare day of fun with his family. Law enforcement
needs to educated on this issue. Thank you.
Name: Bridget Newman
Email: bridget.newman@gmail.com
Comments:
Yes. It's no different than allowing racing bikes on the trails -- similar speeds, similar control, no
problem. They're more of a hazard on the streets.
Name: Bob Schaffer
Email: bobschaffer@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes. Regular bikes already can go faster than some of the tight turns allow for, so e-bikes would
not be unique in that regard. Encouraging more alternative commuting is a compelling reason to
allow this.
Name: Ron Pichel
Email: rpichel@ieee.org
Comments:
E-bikes (and trailers) absolutely should be allowed on our trails. They go no faster than 20mph
and don't pose any more of a threat to other users of trails than fast non-motorized cyclists. And
the target market for e-bikes are older citizens and/or families who may be encouraged to get out
and exercise more, plus help the environment by not driving a vehicle, if they could have a little
assistance from an electric motor. I don't see this population terrorizing the trails by whizzing by
other users.
I was a test pilot for the RideKick (locally manufactured e-bike trailer) and while I didn't engage
the motor when I rode on trails, I found it a very useful tool on windy days and for getting
through busy intersections (e.g., Lemay and Riverside).
Please revise the City's rec dept. ordinance to allow for these modes of transportation.
Thank you.
Name: Kim Sharpe
Email: krs4@pvhs.org
- 11 -
Comments:
I think we should allow ebikes on trails. They are indeed more like bicycles than mopeds or
motorcycles. We may want to consider posting a speed limit though.
Name: bill bethurum
Email: billbethurum@yahoo.com
Comments:
If "people with disabilities" are allowed to use e-bikes on the trails, it would only require a small
nudge of the rules to allow senior citizens, as I have heard that is the most requested allowance.
Most seniors I know require the "boost" of the electric motor to navigate some of the steeper
portions on the paths and I fully support seniors getting out on the paths from a safety standpoint
if no other. Besides seniors and people with disabilities, I see NO reason to allow any motorized
vehicles on the paths just as the current rules state.
Name: Scott Groen
Email: scottgroen@fixit1s.com
Comments:
Yes. Also, I would like to see regulations rewritten to define safe use rather than to restrict or
allow specific classes of ultralight electric vehicles. These vehicles are still in their infancy as
battery technology continues to improve, and the availability of different configurations (bikes,
trikes, etc.) makes them a viable nonpolluting alternative for getting around town while reducing
traffic congestion.
Name: Peter Ulrich
Email: peteru6@msn.com
Comments:
Segments of the trail system are ideal for daily commuting. Allowing an ebike to use the trails
would provide a safe, car free way to get to work and shopping.
As I remember, power-assisted vehicles were banned from natural areas because of noise
pollution and off-trail abuse, not speed.
The City should issue licenses to all bicycles and ebikes to promote responsible use.
Name: Mark
Email: office@mosaicmills.com
Comments:
seniors and those with disabilities should be allowed to use ebikes on the city's paved trails.
Name: Ann O'Toole
Email: aeotoole@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, I think they should be allowed. They are quiet and as long as they are riding at a similar
speed as a bike there should be no more of a conflict than with a standard bike.
Name: Mike Wilkinson
Email: m_wilkinson67@msn.com
Comments:
Yes. They are quiet and not extremely powerful. With electric bikes filling a speed gap between
regular bikes and motor bikes, some other criterion needs to be established to determine what
qualifies on the trail than whether it has a motor.
- 12 -
Name: Jim Gano
Email: jgano@mywdo.com
Comments:
Yes, I have no problems with e-bikes on the city trails.
Name: Jason Timian
Email:
Comments:
As a owner of an "e-bike" I definately think they should be allowed. The motor assist is there a
backup, not as main propellant. Thanks.
Name: B.J. Stoner
Email: bjstoner@fcgov.com
Comments:
Absolutely! They are not loud, polluting, or obvious to the other trail users. The bikes must still
be peddled to use the motors. They would most likely go completely undetected. I want an
ebike so I can ditch my car for short errands around town, but because of my chronic conditions I
don't have the strength or energy to haul bags of groceries. An ebike would make that possible
for me.
Name: Margo Ervin
Email: margo.b.ervin@gmail.com
Comments:
(My full letter was flagged as "spam" by the "Your Voice" submission page, this short version is
submitted as a test)
I believe that petal assist bikes, that require the rider to work before the bikes will provide
assistance should be allowed on all Fort Collins bike trails. Bikes with a throttle should be
restricted to people with documented mobility disabilities as they are today.
Name: Ray Frush
Email: ray.frush@gmail.com
Comments:
I am a regular user of the bike trails, walking and cycling, and occasionally roller blading. Over
the years I've pushed my kids in strollers too, sometimes on roller blades, and towed them in bike
trailers. I've noticed e-bikes on the streets, though I didn't know that's what they are called until
reading todays article in the Coloradoan. I'm also aware of the local company that's developing
an electric powered bike trailer (Dee and Mark Wanger's RideKick) though I haven't tried one.
My first reaction to this issue, in talking to Dee Wanger about the RideKick, was to oppose
allowing motorized bikes on the trails, except by people for whom they are medically necessary.
But on further reflection I think they should be allowed. For me the critical issue is their speed,
and whether their presence is safe for other trail users. There are already often crowded
conditions, and safety should be the first concern. If their top speed is 20 miles per hour, then
they are comparable to road bikes. Cyclists on road bikes must use caution on the trails, and
riders of e-bikes would have to do the same.
- 13 -
I'm really glad that we have the trails we have, and hope we'll continue to expand them.
Allowing the use of e-bikes sounds like something that can be done safely, and will generate
continued support for our bike trail system. I support allowing e-bikes on the city bike trails.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Name: Laura L. Davis
Email: davpete@frii.com
Comments:
I'm not sure there's an issue to debate here. Though I disagree with the contention that there's no
difference between an e-bike and a road bike, I seriously doubt there will be any difference in the
rate of accidents along the trails. Has anyone looked at other places where e-bikes are allowed
on trails to see if there's an uptick in accident rates or complaints? I suppose that data probably
doesn't exist.
If it's determined that it is a problem, has anyone considered allowing e-bikes on some trails and
not others? There are some trails that are more oriented towards commuting and some more
oriented towards recreation. It seems to me that the Mason Street trail and Power Trail are
obvious places to allow e-bikes, but maybe spring creek trail, for example, is more recreation
oriented.
The most important issue is that bikes of all types, whether powered or not, use the trails
curteously. Speed limits should probably already be posted (maybe 15 mph?), though
enforcement would obviously be absent. Perhaps a sign stating that the trails are intended for
multiple uses, not just commuting and not just for recreation, would be appropriate as well to
help with the attitude amongst some that the trail is 'for' their user group.
Name: Andrew Beavers
Email: beavers_andrew@hotmail.com
Comments:
As a long time (20+ years) bike rider in the city of Fort Collins, I have ridden thousands of miles
on our wonderful trails and bike routes. It is no surprise that Fort Collins is designated a "Bike
Friendly" city by those who bestow such labels. As I have grown older, as we all do, I find that I
ride more infrequently. I have often thought that having an e-bike would solve this problem, but
the deal breaker has always been the ban on e-bikes from the bike trails.
If the ban was lifted, I would seriously consider buying an e-bike. It would be great for me, but
more importantly for the City of Fort Collins it would mean one less @%#&# on the street for
you to have to deal with.
Put me down as being FOR e-bikes on the trails.
Name: Clarke Wright
Email: clarkewright@hotmail.com
Comments:
Yes E-bikes should be allowed. The trail system is a shared resource used by many different
user groups.
I feel the intent of the current code was aimed at larger motors as used in scooters and
motorcycles.
Name: Matt Dworak
Email: mattdworak42@msn.com
- 14 -
Comments:
Yes. Emphasis should be on safety and speed. There should be a speed limit on the trails as in
other cities.
Name: Isabel
Email: isabelpoppit@gmail.com
Comments:
I have tried an e-bike and admit it can accelerate faster then any other bike that "I" am on.
However, the two I rode also had significantly better brakes then most standard bikes. I also
know that even at 20 mph I could not keep up with some of the folks riding their road bikes on
the trail system. These e-bikes are not racing bikes! They do not pollute. They encourage
environmentally clean transportation and should be allowed on the trail system. I will not buy
one if I can't use it on the trail system due to the heavy, not so bike friendly, auto traffic in Ft.
Collins. The trail system allows me to avoid most of that danger and gets me across town safely
and quickly. Guess I will have spend the $2,000 on fuel instead
Name: Mike Brouwer
Email: mdbrealtor@juno.com
Comments:
Absolutely yes. I currently use the trails to walk while pushing my husband in his wheelchair.
Regular bikes are ridden fast and cannot be heard approaching from behind. Fortunately, bike
riders are mostly a considerate group and most announce their passing on the left. I doubt it
would be any different with e-bikes. This would open our wonderful trails to seniors (who are
more likely to use them during the week - off times) for something other than walking. This
would be another wonderful thing about living in Fort Collins as a Senior.
Name: Blanche McMillen
Email: jimandblanche@msn.com
Comments:
They could be allowed, but only if the operator's understand and abide by the rules of the trail. I
was almost run over by an ebike user on the Power trail when I stopped for the stop sign but he
did not. This might be an excellent educational opportunity.
Name: Marc Brown
Email: marcgbrown@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, allow electric bikes on the trails. As a frequent walker on the trails, I can attest to the fact
that most cyclists currently ride pretty fast and unfortunately some don't even give a warning
when approaching me. I think ebikes would mostly be used by elders who are not generally
going to ride that fast or disobey safety rules.
They just need some pedaling assistance.
Name: Carol Hotto
Email: carolhotto@comcast.net
Comments:
I ride the city bike paths extensivley and I see no reason to exclude electric bicycles on these
paths. I am of the age where I will some day be limited to the amount of peddling I will be able
to endure. The electric bike will be a way I can still be able to enjoy the outdoors and our
wounderful biking system.
- 15 -
Name: Chuck Helzer
Email: cghelzer@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, I think so. I use my e-bike as an alternative form of transport to o grocery and other
shopping in my local area. Allowing my e-bake on the trail ill no other impact that lowering my
gasoline consumption and improving my safety as I go to and from my short-range errands.
Name: Jack Raymond Jones
Email: JRJONES@SPEMAIL.ORG
Comments:
Yes! I am 48 years old and have a lung disease that is destroying my lungs. I have only 40% of
my function, but still like to bike. Riding with my oxygen concentrator is difficult because it is
so heavy. With an e-bike, I could continue to ride and not need the oxygen, as I really only need
it on hills and the e-bike would take care of that. I don't have a "mobility disability" and don't
look forward to being hassled on the bike trail because I look healthy (other than not being able
to breathe, I am!).
Name: Barb Powers
Email: barb@powersalpacas.com
Comments:
I think e-bikes should be allowed on paved trails.
Name: Patrick Mahoney
Email: pfmahoney@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes, legalize Elec Bikes! I run and walk city's trails every day with my children and dogs and
pass by those bike all the time. Elec bikes pose ""no more problems then regular bikes"". There
quite and its a grt form of transportation for every one who uses them. I even rode one once and I
enjoyed it.
Name: David woodruff
Email: positiveenergy1969@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes. We are over 60 and use our bikes on the roads to run errands instead of taking the car.
There are some places where there is no bike lane (i.e., Prospect east of Shields) and we have to
go out of our way to avoid using the bike paths. The bike paths are already crowded and need to
be upgraded, especially Spring Creek Trail south of the university, but allowing electric bikes
won't make the problems better. Improvements to the trail system are needed no matter what.
Name: Nora Jones
Email: norajones@yahoo.com
Comments:
E-bikes should be allowed on paved trails! As it was mentioned, conventional bikes pass up e-
bikes so speed should not be an issue. My husband and I made the decision to purchase e-bikes a
couple of months ago instead of getting a second car. We have been riding them to work and
shopping whenever weather permits to do so safely. This took two cars off the road. If the city
is serious about reducing the amount of cars on the roads, e-bikes should be allowed on bike
trails/paved trails. Fort Collins can't possibly be behind its time compared to other cities. Please
do not discriminate against e-bikes!
- 16 -
We would feel much safer if we were allowed to use the paved trails. As long as car drivers are
allowed to use their cell phones while driving we do not feel very safe on most roads.
Name: Christina Southwick
Email: c.southwick@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should absolutely be allowed on the City's paved trails. I have used the trails for several
years both for recreational riding and to commute to work. Some riders on these trails are
capable of going 20 miles per hour, especially on the down hill sections of the Power Trail.
Cycling on the trails has a lot to do with courteous behavior, like giving people an audible
warning before you pass. This is especially true on the Spring Creek trail, which is somewhat
narrow and has tight corners. Whether someone has an E-bike or is just a strong rider, they need
to be aware of others on the trail and this is behavior that shouldn't be legislated, so much as
constantly taught and modeled.
If E-bikes encourage more people to ride to work and for sport, I'm all for it!
Name: Bob Hager
Email: bobhager01@msn.com
Comments:
YES, e-bike should be allowed on all bike trails. 3 out of 4 bikes are mnt bikes and they pose
more of a problem to our natural areas and parks. Mnt bikes are made for aggressive trail riding
of every kind, and people take advantage of this on our city paved trails. Where as E-bikes are
made for a leisurely- transportation ride and generally people who own these bikes are older and
more mature then the younger mnt bike rider.. Allow e-bikes, and be fair to every one.
Name: Sandy Bollaert
Email: riverranch1969@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes, I think they should be allowed. Regular bikes can certainly go faster than the ebike at 20
MPH, and are also quiet-so I don't see that they are any more dangerous and people still have to
follow the rules no matter what they are on. I would really like to get one of these, as I would
like to ride to work (15 miles) and sometimes cannot make the ride home,so this would be an
ecological way to save gas even if I am not as fit as some of the bike riders in the area. Most of
the people who would buy these, I think, are in a similar situation and are more likely to be older,
more responsible adults, anyway who are likely to follow the bike path rules.
Name: Marta Dean
Email: mdeandvm@aol.com
Comments:
Perhaps, the e-bikes can be on the trail as long as their motor is not engaged. Most e-bikes have
the capability of disengaging the motor, don't they?
My main concern would be the people who would go 20 mph, even if it was not safe to do so,
just because they can. So, could there be speed restrictions? That would be true for everybody,
regardless of the type of bicycle.
- 17 -
Name: Beth Dickson
Email: gilgaladbeth@msn.com
Comments:
Yes, ebikes should be allowed on the paved trails! I own a 250W ebike. The bike goes no faster
than any other bike on the trails. In many cases, I'm being passed by non-ebikes. There is
absolutely no safety risk that exists above and beyond a non-ebike. My ebike's motor is only on
when I'm heading up a steep hill or riding against a head wind. I ride 10 miles to/from work
every day (including winter). It would be much safer for me if I could ride on the trails and keep
myself off the main city streets. It would also reduce about a mile off my daily trip. The city
needs to encourage/promote this type of transportation and get more people on bikes and out of
their cars. I wouldn’t be on a bike everyday if I didn’t have my ebike and the alternative is to
drive my 13mpg F-150 on the Fort Collins congested road system. BTW, there is no congestion
on bike trails like Shawn Brook suggested in the Coloradoan. The congestion (and danger) for
bikers exist on the city streets. Let the ebikes ride the paved trails and encourage a safest
possible place to ride for all bikers alike.
Name: David Greer
Email: itsdgreer@yahoo.com
Comments:
Electric assisted bicycle (e-bikes) should be allowed on City paved trails.
They are no more dangerous than regular bicycles. Legal e-bikes are limited by law to 20mph -
regular bikes are not. Neither bikes nor legal e-bikes are "motorized vehicles" according to the
US NHTSA, thus bikes and legal e-bikes in our parks and natural areas do not violate the "no
motorized vehicle" designation. E-bikes are best viewed as electric assisted vehicles, not
motorized vehicles. Generally (due to the expense) e-bikes are ridden by adults who are
concerned about their own safety and those around them. They are simple to use and in some
cases for adults (crossing traffic for example) safer and easier than regular bikes. E-bikes make
wonderful replacements for car commuting around town for those with heavy loads to carry over
some distance - especially in the summer. One can arrive at work without need of shower and
deodorant. I have put about 4,000 miles per year on my e-bike since 2002 without a single
accident/incident. I commute every nice day with a 16 mile round trip by e-bike - with laptop and
other business paraphernalia my pack is often 10 to 12 pounds or more. My wife and I have
often cruised on the trails and downtown on weekends without incident. The only times we've
been stopped are by other riders wanting to know about our bikes.
How does one enforce a "no e-bike" rule? May I ride my e-bike on city trails if I do not use the
motor? What about if the battery is dead? Is it the e-bike itself that is the problem? Is it the use
of the electric motor? Is it the rider? If I have retrofitted a bike with a gasoline engine and do not
use it, is it OK then on city trails? If so, why not electric motors not being used?
The bike trails are certainly congested. People with multiple dogs on long leashes dashing across
the trail. Children romping. Walkers 4 and 5 abreast spanning the entire trail. Families on
bikes. Mother pushing strollers. Joggers. A family on one single bike (mom, dad, young kid on
3rd seat and young one in trailer). Walkers with iPods in their ears oblivious to surroundings.
JHS, HS and CSU students going to and from school. Elementary school bike parades. Young
men and women in full race wear with lightweight racing bikes. Kids walking along with fishing
poles waving in the rhythm of the walk. Horses and riders. A Segway (once that I saw - pretty
- 18 -
interesting). Grandma and Grandpa on small electric bikes. All these and more have I seen in
my use of the Spring Creek Trail from the moment it opened (and long before bridges crossed
the creek). All of these and more define the residents of Fort Collins. This is the wonderful
diversity that defines who we are as a city, a community, a group of neighborhoods, a group of
citizens sharing our amazing resources. Preventing trail use by those with loud ungainly internal
combustion engines of all forms - the true motorized vehicles - seems appropriate. Preventing
those using city resources in responsible, reasonable ways for personal enjoyment without harm
or problem to others seems, in my opinion, surprisingly restrictive for the Choice City.
Name: Patrick Fitzhorn
Email: patrick@engr.colostate.edu
Comments:
YES!!! I don't have an e-bike but may get one someday. E-bikes, motorized scooters, etc could
all benefit by using the paths. It would be safer for them, and would not impact the walkers and
bikers.
I have ridden bikes in Palm Springs, CA. They allow e-bikes, scooters, and even golf carts on
the bike paths. The have a yellow line down the middle and their system works. Please allow e-
bikes and other small motored modes of transportation on the bike paths. Allowing other modes
of transportation on the paths will cut down on people driving their cars and that is good for
everyone and the planet. Thank you!!!
Name: Connie Clefe
Email: gumee@comcast.net
Comments:
I bought an electric bike in the 1990s. Love it, but can not ride it here because of the threat of a
ticket. I am in my 60's and would love to ride with my grandchildren, but am not allowed to go
with them. How sad. They should certainly be approved along with electric golf carts on the
local roads. Great gas savers and less pollution.
Name: Billie Pawlikowski
Email: wmpawlikowski@msn.com
Comments:
Absolutely,
Some of the concerns are related to the e-bike being new. That is understandable. It should be
understood that they are generally quiet. Although they accelerate faster, their maximum speeds
are about the same as a conventional bike. Riders do need to learn the new parameters. They
also need be courteous, but everyone does. So I do not feel their introduction will fundamentally
alter the experience of visitors to parks and natural areas. The bikes are quieter than most people
talk.
Congestion is a good thing to consider. But I'd rather it was considered in the broader context.
More people using paved trails means fewer people using -cars on roadways. In the long run
perhaps the paved trail system will need to be enhanced. I think that would probably be cheaper
than roadway improvements. The paved trails are where we want people to be traveling not the
roadways. Obviously there are limits. I have an e-bike and a conventional bike. Between the
two I use the car about 10 miles a week often less or not at all. I get exercise and fresh air. I see
what this city has to offer. I have fun.
Even so, the e-bike on the roadway can be unsafe. There are usually bike paths to use but taking
left turns is a hazard as is car drivers who only look for other cars.It would be nice if I could use
- 19 -
the paved trails with my e-bike. It is a great way to commute, relax, and see Fort Collins and its
surroundings. Thanks,
Name: Craig Southwick
Email: craigles@gmail.com
Comments:
Yes, they should be allowed: I can't picture the young speeders using them. Only those of us
who can't pedal as much as we would like to. They are quiet and they can't go as fast as those
youngsters anyway. I will be wanting one in the not too distant future so I would like to be able
to use it on the trails.
Name: Judy Castro
Email: jcastro919@comcast.net
Comments:
I don't own an e-bike, but I think they should be allowed on the City's paved trails. Any rider,
whether on a human or electric powered bike needs to take responsibility and be cautious on
tight turns, limited visibility and congested trail segments, etc. While e-bikes are "motorized",
they are very quiet and should also be allowed on paved trails in parks and open areas. I feel the
benefit of encouraging this alternate commuting option far outweighs any small costs. Don't over
burden the city code with new e-bike riding regulations either, simply require they follow the
same rules as regular bike riders.
Name: Matt Oberle
Email: mattoberle@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes. they are different than mopeds. Top speed is 20 mph. I have had many a regular bike pass
me at faster speeds than that. THis is a great "green" option for FC to support.
Name: Peggy Mihelich
Email: gupster3@yahoo.com
Comments:
I have been using alternate modes of transportation for my day to day business travel within the
city since fall of 2007. My primary mode of travel is an electric assist bike, followed by non-
powered bike and walking. Since that time I have logged 10,011 miles of travel within the city.
The calculated energy cost for this travel is $10.80, with a carbon impact savings 12511 lbs. The
calculated fuel and maintenance cost is estaimated at $4,729.00.
As the cost of fossil fuel is now rising again I expect others to begin looking at alternate modes
of travel within our city. An electric assit bike is a wonderful option. This mode of travel
provides an efficient, clean, quiet and enjoyable experience. I have found that for trips 3 miles or
less travel by E-bike is often times faster than by car. I arrive refreshed, sweat free and ready to
meet.
My hope is that the city code will be changed to allow electric assist bikes to access and use the
paved trail system.
Name: Mike Haddorff
Email: mikehadd@collins-control.com
- 20 -
Comments:
E-bikes should be allowed to use the bike trails as long as they keep their speed below 20 mph.
E-bikes should be required to have some type of bell or horn to warn other users because E-bikes
are too quiet and others can't hear them coming.
Name: Scott Mason
Email: scmason511@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes are fundamentally like regular non- assisted bikes. They are the same form factor, have
the same footprint, and travel at the same speeds. Yes they should have the right to use the paths,
just as walkers, runners, skateboarders, skaters, dog-walkers, etc. They are an assist, not a
motorcycle or moped. They are silent.
I believe that they are SAFER than non assisted bikes, in that they accelerate easier, thus making
it much more likely that the rider will come to a stop at stop signs and intersections, unlike many
(if not most) regular bikers who fail to stop at stop signs and intersections and endanger others.
Ebikes are part of a cleaner, greener future, and should be encouraged. The paths are owned and
paid for by all. Share and be safe and courteous.
Name: Leroy Cynkar
Email: lcynkar1@comcast.net
Comments:
Either outlaw all bikes, or allow e-bikes. Be sure that a Segue is considered an eBike. They give
access to the trails to the elderly and handicapped. I would stick with no combustion motors,
tho.
Name: Dave Hejde
Email: FortC05-csu@yahoo.com
Comments:
Should E-bikes be banned from bike trails? For years I’ve enjoyed the trails both via regular
bike and an electric assisted bike, and I applaud Fort Collins for creating this wonderful
resource.
The city should promote trail safety by prohibiting those inconsiderate of others. I have
witnessed such bad behavior: uncontrolled dogs, bikes (of ALL kinds) going breakneck speed,
and rollerbladers forcing others off the path. The city should prohibit bad behaviors, whatever
the transport mechanism, not just arbitrarily banish one particular bike style. Banning E-bikes
from trails would be like banning Ferraris or Hummers from roads because they might speed or
hog the road. Perhaps a speed limit on trails would be a practical solution.
I purchased an e-bike because I like biking to work and a long hill enroute meant arriving an
unacceptable sweaty mess. Street riding is uncomfortable as the unavoidable route is College
and Harmony. Despite nice bike lanes and careful riding I do not feel safe riding those streets.
My e-bike engine is mostly off , both to save battery and promote exercise by riding it as a
regular bike except for the steepest slopes. I am over 60 and ride sedately and safely to
continue this mildly assisted exercise as long as possible.
- 21 -
Barring E-bikes would also hurt the green vehicle business opened here recently. Should a
“green” community that encourages new business and healthy living ruin this business with silly
regulations?
I encourage our city to find fairer ways to keep the trails safe.
Name: Corky Walters
Email: corkywal@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, e-bikes should be allowed on the paved trails. My retired husband isn't able to physically
ride a regular pedal bike and uses an e-trike to get around. He would be so much safer on the
trails then he is on the streets with the fast moving traffic.
Name: Barbara Gonzales
Email: bjgonzales3@gmail.com
Comments:
Hello: I have had an e-bike going on 3 years now and have been using it on the bike trail all of
that time. I did not know it was illegal until last summer. I use my bike to commute to work
during the spring, summer, and fall and enjoy riding the City trail in the evenings and weekends.
I frequently ride downtown for dinner and use the trail to get home safely. Ft. Collins has a
wonderful bike route system and I use all routes for safety.
I tore my ACL 4 years ago and had to stop riding my bike to work and I thought my days of
outdoor enjoyment had come to an end. I am now 59 years old and with the assistance of my e-
bikes (I have two. One pedal assist and one throttle with a 500 watt motor.) I am now able to
conserve gas and do my part for the environment and help my general health.
My experience of riding on the City trail has been nothing but positive. People generally are
very conscious of courtesy on the trail. When it is busy, there are many people walking,
rollerblading, skateboarding, horse riding, and bike riding and I have never seen anyone being
abusive. No one wants to injure someone and people use care when around one another. E-bikes
are just as safe as any other bike. They all have brakes and when you let go of the throttle they
are just like any other bike. They slow down quickly because of their weight and you can stop
just like any other bike. The bikes as well as any other type of device used for getting around is
as safe as the user. The majority of people use care.
Allowing e-bikes on the trails will put Fort Collins in the forefront as a city embracing a new
technology that is going to be the wave of the future.
Name: Sheila Cynkar
Email: sheilaops@comcast.net
Comments:
I have no issue with the use of e-bikes on *any* trail, so long as they utilize no fossil fuels
(future fuel-cell designs should be allowed, if ever mass produced). They could allow more
seniors to enjoy these trails.
- 22 -
My only concern is adherence to any speed limitations and I would put limitations on the vehicle
weight to limit wear on trails. Restriction criteria should be forward-looking with and eye
towards public safety and trail impact, not focused on too much on the specific technology.
Name: Michael Feinberg
Email: mfeinberg01@msn.com
Comments:
Yes, absolutely. While there may be issues, we should do everything to encourage alternate
uses. And, I am a heavy bicycle user of the paths.
Name: David Bernoudy
Email: sbernoudy@openapproach.com
Comments:
I feel that any wheeled vehicle, whether electric, gas powered, or human powered, with a top
speed similar to that of a standard bicycle (approximately 5mph) and proper safety equipment
such as brakes and reflectors, should be allowed on public trails as long as they don't cause
damage to the trails (i.e. dripping oil, leaving a cloud of smoke, creating excessive noise, etc.).
Frankly, I feel the restriction against e-bikes on trails is ridiculous. I know several people who
would use electric bicycles to get to and from work, but the requirement to only ride on the
streets is too much of a danger and hassle for them. Additionally, I would also like to say that if
the restrictions were lifted and other vehicles such as small (50cc) gas-powered scooters were
allowed on trails it would allow some people to use alternate methods of conveyance around the
city. This could possibly reduce congestion on city streets as well as reduce the city's overall
fuel consumption since most small scooters can achieve better fuel economy levels than typical
vehicles.
Name: Keith Harral
Email: harralk@hotmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely. They still are very much a bicycle, and it's the responsibility of the rider, not the
bike, to maintain control and a safe speed. In addition, ebikes are very quiet and totally emissions
free.
Name: Shaun Salyards
Email: shaun.salyards@gmail.com
- 23 -
NOT IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING E-BIKES ON PAVED TRAILS
Not in Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments on Facebook – 5 comments
Stephanie Mullins via Facebook
Keep the e-bikes off the paved bike/ped trails. I use these trails to escape the motorized vehicles
(i know e-bikes are different); the well defined bike lanes on FoCo roads are perfectly fine for e-
bike commuters.
RedLion York via Facebook
I feel the trails should remain E-bike free. There is already enough disparity in speed between
pedestrians and Bicyclists that E-bikes don't need to be added to the mix.
Jeremy Deutch via Facebook
Well, what if some people don't have the endurance to use a regular bike? Should they be
excluded from the trails? Maybe an entirely electric bike could be banned, but the ones that just
assist your pedaling should still be allowed. If it's safety we're worried about, it's too late. There's
already slight danger from the speed differences in regular bikes and pedestrians, but we get
along fine. How much faster could these bikes possibly be?
In summary, no.
John Landis via Facebook
My feeling is that the paved trails should be limited to regular bikes, and pedestrians. The streets
and bike lanes, should already offer enough access for those wishing to use e-bikes to commute.
I have been an avid biker for years and I think everyone knows that they can often times be
difficult enough to maneuver through a congested trail.
I wholly support e-bikes as a commuting alternative, but think the trails should remain as
"natural" as possible.
John Riott via Facebook
Absolutely not. The extra mass means collisions will be much more severe. It's easy to modify
an electric bike to go much faster than the do stock.
The trail system is for NON-MOTORIZED, let's keep it that way
Not In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Letters to the Coloradoan – 1 letter
Marketing of e-bikes is phony
Letter, May. 2, 2011|
E-assist bicycles on city bike trails?
Definitely not. Putting these bikes on the trails will add to already hazardous conditions. I've
ridden one, and the assist enables the rider to get up to 15 mph or more very quickly. That kind
of speed belongs on the street, not on the trails, mixing with strollers and little kids and
pedestrians and dogs. Josh Kerson, manager of Small Planet E-Vehicles, is quoted in the article
saying that road bikes pass e-bikes all the time. Regular bikes going that fast belong on the street
- 24 -
also, not on the trails. Finally, the marketing ploy that the bikes are "geared more toward safety-
conscious retirees" is laughable.
Pinning the marketing of these assisted bikes on us old people is as phony and transparent as the
campaign to legalize marijuana based on medical considerations. No, they are geared toward
people too lazy to peddle who also want to get there faster. Make them ride on the street and
require them to take a vehicular cycling class through D.K. Kemp at the city of Fort Collins
cycling department so they actually learn how to ride a bike in traffic.
Dottie Spivak,
Fort Collins
Not In Favor of Allowing E-bikes E-mails to City Staff – 4 e-mails
From: Ray Jenkins [mailto:rjenk@peakpeak.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:01 AM
To: City Leaders
Subject: electric assist bicycles
Dear City Manger and Council Members,
I would like to comment in regard to allowing electric assisted bicycles on the city recreational
paths.
I am 74 years old and have enjoyed riding the city paths for several years. I see a problem with
having motorized equipment using the same path as regular bikers, walkers and other
recreational users. Since the electric bikes can reach speeds of up to 20 mph, they would
constitute a real danger coming up from behind someone going at a slower pace.
There is a problem that exists now in that the courtesy of warning and passing on the left is not
as common as it once was on the paths. This problem would just increase with faster speeds.
Please keep all motorized equipment on the public streets and not recreational paths.
Thank you,
Ray E. Jenkins 950 Southridge Greens Blvd, Unit 19, Fort Collins 80525
From: hawkins [mailto:thehawks5408@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:30 AM
To: Kim Newcomer
Subject: E- bikes
Dottie,
In response to your letter to the editor in today's Coloradoan I would like to point out a use of E-
bikes that you and I have not considered up till now. At our guys coffee last Tuesday I brought
up the subject of E-bikes and wanted to know how other people felt about their use on the bike
paths. As I recall no one expressed an opinion that they should be restricted from the bike trails.
At the time I did not even know how I felt about these bikes. My opinion solidified last night
when my daughter called wanting me to check out these bikes for her. My daughter, Barbara,
- 25 -
has a horrible lung disease (LAM) which restricts her ability to exercise. She also has a nine
year old daughter that she would like to ride bikes with on the bike trails. Unfortunately with
37% lung capacity this is not an option for Barb without some form of mechanical assistance. I
assure you that if Barb does get one of these bikes she will not become a terror on the bike paths.
If you see her and her daughter on the paths in the future I think you will be hard pressed to
distinguish her from other cyclists other than she will probably be using a cannula to deliver
supplemental oxygen and along with her daughter will be observing proper trail etiquette.
Gene
From: winn.richard.hr@gmail.com
Hello Dave,
We met about 4 months ago at your office.
Saw this article calling for input:
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20110426/NEWS01/104260326/Fort-Collins-officials-
seeking-input-e-bikes?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
My opinion is this:
E bikes should definitely not be permitted on trails. In terms of safety, the needs of the least
capable of rapid movement (i.e. little children, the handicapped, pregnant, or frail) must be
considered first. When my wife and I have hiked near the Horsetooth Reservoir, for example,
and she is carrying our 9 month old in the baby carrier, it's very difficult for her to move out of
the way of the numerous mountain bikes that go by at 5 to 12 miles per hour. I have seen similar
situations with the elderly, pregnant women, and handicapped folks. Though most mountain
bikers are polite and careful, many are agressive and foolish in their actions and risk the safety of
others to get their thrills. If an E-bike is capable of 20 miles per hour on the trail, that is a clear
safety hazard which compounds an already difficult situation with speed increases by a factor of
two or three.
E bikes could use bike lanes on the roadways, but should be licensed with mandatory safety
requirements for operation, if they are allowed at all, and should be restricted to auto traffic lanes
instead of bike lanes. Again, the average bicycle speed is 5 to 12 MPH and 20 MPH creates
trouble in a whole variety of ways.
Fundamentally, they are not bicycles but mopeds with an alternative power source, and should be
viewed through the lens of traffic safety as mopeds.
Thanks
Richard Winn
winn.richard.hr@gmail.com
512-563-3281
From: Dottie Spivak [mailto:moseslake_61@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:52 AM
To: City Leaders
Subject: Council SAR #16114 / Dottie Spivak re: E-assist bikes on bike trails
- 26 -
These bikes do not belong on the trails. Putting these bikes on the trails will add to already
hazardous conditions. I've ridden one, and the assist enables the rider to get up to 15 mph or
more very quickly. That kind of speed belongs on the street, not on the trails, mixing with
strollers and little kids and pedestrians and dogs. Kerson is quoted in the article saying that road
bikes pass e-bikes all the time. Regular bikes going that fast belong on the street also, not on the
trails.
Finally, the marketing ploy that the bikes are "geared more toward safety-conscious retirees" is
laughable. No, they are geared toward people too lazy to peddle who want to get there faster.
Make them ride on the street, and require them to take a vehicular cycling class through DK
Kemp at the Fort Collins cycling department.
Dottie Spivak
Not In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments through fcgov.com/YourVoice – 99 comments
Comments:
no i was nearly run over by a speeding bicycle this morning on a city park sidewalk. these people
are out of control
Name: Ken Miller
Email: ktmiller111@msn.com
Comments:
no, not at all- then more & more request & appeal will show up. if you want to use the trail either
walk or manual bike-final!!!!
Name: tashi
Email: tsekunta@yahoo.com
Comments:
NO, If you allow electric then you might as well allow gas and other powered vehicles
Name: Tracy Turner
Email: turner.tracy@q.com
Comments:
NO - just because it's electric, it's still motorized.
Name:
Email: mhjbhp@comcast.net
Comments:
No, e-bikes should not be allowed on trails. If people would like to use their e-bikes to
commute, there is a very good system of bike lanes with other motorized vehicles.
To me, the trails throughout the city are an opportunity to enjoy our natural resources and get
away from motorized vehicles that are otherwise everywhere else. I personally have utilized the
trails as both a cyclist and a pedestrian, and it's already challenging enough to do so safely when
there are a lot of folks out. Adding vehicles that quickly reach 20mph and maintain it just
doesn't seem like a safe idea.
Name: Michael MacMillan
- 27 -
Email: michael.macmillan@gmail.com
Comments:
No, I don't think e-bikes should be allowed on paved trails in the city. Trail users have come to
expect a certain limit of speed on the trail, and any person that travels above this threshold
creates a safety risk by startling other trail users. Please limit e-bikes to bike lanes on the public
roadways, and keep them off the paved trails.
Name: Mark Peterson
Email: mark@markspeterson.com
Comments:
NO!
Name: Judy Billica
Email: billica@aol.com
Comments:
I am a regular user of the trails and I say "No" for two reasons. First, e-bikes allow novices to
travel at speeds that they would not otherwise be able to reach. Chances are they haven't yet
learned to anticipate the movement of others on the trails (i.e. dogs, kids), and they haven't
developed the reflexes to act quickly in an emergency. Second, e-bikes weight more than twice
that of a normal bike, perhaps 100lbs vs. 35. In an accident this will cause more severe injuries
than a normal bike. Coupled with higher speeds, the injuries will be much more serious.
Name: Rob Haas
Email: wrobhaas@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, this is a bad idea. People of Fort Collins use the paved trails for recreational purposes and to
get outside and enjoy nature while working out. Allowing e-bikes will take away a lot of the
nature, quiet peace ambiance. Also for safety reasons, if the e-biker is not persistent about
pronouncing themselves when passing, pedestrians accidents could increase.
Name: Megan
Email: meg.robben@gmail.com
Comments:
No way.
Name: Olga Shabalin
Email: olgashab@aol.om
Comments:
No, definitely NOT!
Name: Edward Saia
Email: rawsteady@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, if people with disabilities are already allowed to use them on the trails then that is enough. If
a dog can't go into a natural area on a leash then additional motor noise should not be allowed
either as it is also disturbing to wildlife.
Name: christina moehring
Email: coaggie@hotmail.com
- 28 -
Comments:
In general no. Maybe in limited areas and with clear restrictions.
Name: John Voss
Email: vossjs@msn.com
Comments:
No e-bikes on City's paved trails. I would also like to see a speed limit for riders on regular
bikes that endanger other trail users with excessive speed and don't give warnings to others of
their rapid approach.
Name: John Pedas
Email: jpedas@fcgov.com
Comments:
absolutely not
Name: cam elvheim
Email: elvcam@comcast.net
Comments:
Absolutely not.
Once an Ordinance or Code becomes a good one, why can't we just leave it alone?
Name: eric
Email: eric@nastything.com
Comments:
Personally, I would have a problem with the noise since I walk and run my 3 dogs frequently on
the bike paths. I also foresee an issue with speed.
Name: Mary Roberts
Email: maryr@verinet.com
Comments:
These bikes can go 20 mph now. How fast will they be 10 years from now? It's important to
think of the future when making these decisions. I do feel that this could alter the experience of
the paved trails and I'd like to keep the regulations as they are.
Name: Jack Newton
Email: bmf032@gmail.com
Comments:
Trails are for recreation, exercise and quiet time. Electric bikes are powered transportation and
should not be permitted in our trail system. Exceptions should be made for people with physical
handicaps.We need to be careful with this because once allowed, it will be difficult to later
prohibit electric bikes. As a grandparent who sometimes walks on our trail system with my grand
children, I aalso worry about safety issues.Electric bikes belong on our roadway bike lanes and
are an excellent way to reduce emissions, just like other bikes. I applaud their use, ut they do not
belong on our recreational trail system.
Name: Hugh Mackay
Email: hughmmackay@gmail.com
- 29 -
Comments:
I see a few issues:
1) Do the power assist mechanisms make a noise? If so, there should be a very low dB threshold
to make sure they don't exacerbate the already oppressive noise levels along many trail segments.
A possible limit would be the same noise level as bike tires on pavement.
2) Safety is an issue. Although it is certainly possible for a bicyclist to zone out and not pay
attention to other users and/or potential hazards, the need to keep pedaling in order to keep
moving generally requires at least a minimum level of attention. If power assisted bikes don't
have that requirement, it is much easier for their riders to forget to pay attention and
consequently put pedestrians, small children, etc. in danger. One way around this might be to
require a speed governor that would allow a maximum speed of (for instance) 5 mph if the bike
is not pedaled for longer than 30 sec.
3) I usually don't put much stock in slippery-slope arguments (if we let these in, then next year
we'll have 4-wheelers), BUT the definition of an e-bike is so nebulous that nobody really knows
what will or won't be permitted. Therefore, it's essential that any decision to allow e-bikes on the
trails include specific standards such as those mentioned earlier (i.e. maximum noise level,
maximum speed without pedaling, maximum speed with pedaling, etc.) Otherwise, someone
will come up with a vehicle that will find a loophole in a vague definition.
Name: Jim Wurz
Email: jimwurz@cnr.colostate.edu
Comments:
no, I do not think they should be allowed, we must protect our pedestrian areas! already
downtown the pedestrian is endagered! bikes are wonderful , but many people using bikes seem
to feel entitled to ruin areas designated as PEDESTRIAN! we have to push back on this issue,
places where people are on foot DO NOT mix well with people on bikes.
Name: Claire Marshel
Email: cwbear@comcast.net
Comments:
I say no, the reason is speed. A lot of people travel too fast as it is.
Name: Charlie Sturgill
Email: sturgill@frii.com
Comments:
No.
Name: Greg Speer
Email: gcspeer@comcast.net
Comments:
No, I am not a fan of this idea. I like riding or walking on the trails to slow down and get out of
the rush. Allowing bikes that can zoom by at 20mph would significantly take away from the
experience of relaxing and enjoying a slower pace of life.
Name: Holly Reynerson
Email: holasmith@hotmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should not be allowed on the city's paved trails. It dangerous enough with bicyclists on
the trails. The majority of them never announce themselves when passing pedestrians.
- 30 -
I've been hit twice by bicyclists and my wife has been hit once while walking on Spring Creek
trail. I hate to think about being hit by an e-bike moving at 20 mph!
Don't allow e-bikes on the city's paved trails!
Name: Bill Flynn
Email: fcgov@itrweb.net
Comments:
It's already a challenge for people on foot to share the trails with regular bicycles. While it is
understandable that those with mobility disabilities need to use e-bikes, it would be detrimental
to allow their use on trails for the general public. The trails were not meant as alternative
commuting routes. They are meant for the enjoyment, recreation and health of the community.
Name: Star Seastone
Email: sseastone@fcmdsc.org
Comments:
NO. I got hit by a young bicyclist going way too fast on a blind curve. The damage to my face
was significant. I commute from LaPorte on the bike trail and have enough trouble with
negotiating dogs and long leashes, take up the whole trail strollers and speeding bikes that think
they are the only ones using the trail, horses and their piles of poop and just the other day, an off
road motorcycle. Keep e-bikes off the trails!! Handicapped people can use wheelchairs. If
people cannot be responsible bikers on regular bikes imagine the danger from a few wild e-
bikers. It is getting so it safer to ride to and from LaPorte on the roads rather than the bike trail.
Also, those people strolling or walking dogs already have bikes wizzing by and lots of them
yelling "on your left" or ringing a bell or just passing with no warning why add another speeding
demon to the mess. I just don't believe they all will be courteous and this, on a busy trail system,
could be a disaster.
Name: Christine Bebow
Email: lucybenon@yahoo.som
Comments:
No, the trails should be for non motorized vehicles only with respect to both animals and people.
Name: Lotta Vollmer
Email: lotta.vollmer@edwardjones.com
Comments:
If you allow electric bikes then do electric skateboards also qualify? How about those mini-
electric scooters with 6" wheels? How about Segways...they are electric too?
Personally I'd like to see our citizens getting the exercise. Allowing for people with disabilities
is the appropriate compromise.
Name: Marty Shipley
Email: shipworks@msn.com
Comments:
NO e-bikes! Motorized wheel chairs, yes.
Name: Jon Z.
Email: zzim60@gmail.com
- 31 -
Comments:
Absolutely NOT!!! The city would be allowing another class of vehicles on paved trails, when
many bicyclists already cause fear and apprehension among pedestrian users due to their
inconsiderate behaviour and higher speeds. Vehicles that are capable of 20+mph would only
create additional hazards. I would personally be far less inclined to use the paved pathways, if e-
bikes were allowed, for safety considerations.
Name: M. J. Syzek
Email: mjsyzek2383@comcast.net
Comments:
Keep our trails unmotorized!!!
Name:
Email:
Comments:
NO, thank you. The meaning of, what you pack in with you on a day of hiking ... comes out with
by leaving no trace of your being there, some how feels quite different when you add the
industrialized age into the picture. Getting out to adventure in nature is NOT about the use of a
"motorized vehicle". The purchaser of an e-bike should use it where allowed knowing full well
of this at time of e-bike purchase. Not to mention the increased rate of paved trails in need of
repair as a result of said e-bikes over time. And/or unforeseen impact to native plant and wildlife
species.
Yeah, I am going to have to go with ... NO.
"... allows a motorized vehicle into many of our parks and natural areas ..."
"... alter the experience of visitors ..."
Name: Michelle
Email: mmaymisc@gmail.com
Comments:
No. I think e-bikes would endanger the many young children who currently use the trails.
Name: Elise Harkey
Email: elharkey@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should only be permitted for people who cannot walk and/or ride a bicycle due to
disability or other mobility issues.
anyone who is physically capable should stick to a regular bike on the trails to reduce noise,
excessive speed, nuisance, and laziness!
E-bikes, while helpful to those who can't pedal a bike for whatever reason, are definitely not to
be categorized alongside the bicycle. They can almost be seen as a motorcycle substitute,
appealing to those who would love to go fast on a bike without any physical effort, but can't
afford a real motorcycle. And they are very loud. You can hear those things from blocks away.
Something to be considered are the many natural areas that the bike and walking trails cut
through. These natural areas are key spaces for wildlife and places for people to go to when they
- 32 -
want a respite from the noise and traffic of the streets. Bringing the noise from e-bikes onto the
trails would surely scare away birds and other animals, and create an unfavorable trail experience
for all the other users.
Name: claire mechtly
Email: clairemechtly@gmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely not. My experience has been that most people with e-bikes will ride as fast as they
can. Very few bicyclists do that. I have already seen e-bikes on bike trails (illegally) and it hasn't
been a pleasant experience. They do not announce their presence and you can't year them.
Name: Anne Berry
Email: aberry1973@gmail.com
Comments:
I believe E-bikes don't belong on bicycle trails, they do have a motor, and therefore are more like
a E-MOTORcycle except slower, even then, traveling on these trails with a cycle computer one
can easily realize the average speed of path users is around 8 -12 mph. some E-bikes are quite
noisy, not fair for the many users who enjoy the paths due to their lack of road rage, roadkill
and... noise. peeps actually PEDALING E-bikes are rarely seen, except for when the bike runs
out of juice, in which case they'll get along fine with normal bicycles on the paths since they'll be
just as quiet, paced and... human powered. Not only that but they may even be a bit of a hazard
to be pedaled on city streets when out of battery power since they'd be way slower due to their
weight and last, given that many E-bike users don't seem very fit to begin with. ( Sorry, :0) )
Thanks for the opportunity for input.
Name: Rafael Millan
Email: bikeagainst@gmail.com
Comments:
No, I think the bike paths are a tremendous community ammenity that offer a respite from urban
noise, traffic and smells. People of all ages enjoy the trails and fast, noisy bikes could endanger
other users and reduce the quality of their experience. I think that while a cyclist can go fast,
there usually is an awareness and respect by cyclists about pedestrians and children. I think e-
bike users do not necessarily have this same respect for other users and may "zone out" like a
someone drivign a car. As a regular commuter and someone who brings my family to the bike
path on a regular basis, I would be very disappointed to see e-bikes permitted on these fantastic
community trails. trails.
Name: Jen Shanahan
Email: jenshanahan73@yahoo.com
Comments:
There are two types of e-bikes, those that are essentially motorized vehicles, and those that are
electric assist. For my e-bike to provide any power assist, I must be actively pedaling. Also, the
assist cuts out at 16 mph (a required feature on assist bikes). Without the assist I would not have
been able to resume bike riding after dual knee replacement. However, a vehicle that is
electrically powered and does not require rider active pedaling is not appropriate for the bike
trails. An easy distinction is, if a bike has a throttle that will propel the bike, it is not suitable for
the bike trails.
Name: Tom Graff
Email: tomjgraff@gmail.com
- 33 -
Comments:
Please do not allow these type of bikes on the city bike trails. We already have enough Lance
Armstrong wannabes flying down the paths at high speed under their own power. I avoid some
of the popular trails during peak times b/c of the speed demon road bikers...we do not need to
add more speed to the situation.
Thank you.
Name: John Elson
Email: elson_john@yahoo.com
Comments:
I do not think that e-bikes should be allowed on paved or unpaved bike trails in Ft. Collins. The
bike trails are currently used by runners, walkers, non-motorized bikers, rollerbladers and small
children on bikes. I think that e-bikes move too quickly to safely be integrated onto current bike
paths.
Name: Joann Clark
Email: jlclark40@gmail.com
Comments:
No, I do not favor allowing ebikes on city trails. This is why: 1) They are not compatible with
walkers, 2) Our trails are flat enough that power assistance is not needed for people who do not
have disabilities, 3) It creates confusion for citizens and law enforcement about what types of
motors are allowed on trails.
Name: Carol Block
Email: blockcl@larimer.org
Comments:
Definitely not. Putting these bikes on the trails will add to already hazardous conditions. I've
ridden one, and the assist enables the rider to get up to 15 mph or more very quickly. That kind
of speed belongs on the street, not on the trails, mixing with strollers and little kids and
pedestrians and dogs. Kerson is quoted in the article saying that road bikes pass e-bikes all the
time. Regular bikes going that fast belong on the street also, not on the trails. Finally, the
marketing ploy that the bikes are "geared more toward safety-conscious retirees" is laughable.
No, they are geared toward people too lazy to peddle who want to get there faster. Make them
ride on the street, and require them to take a vehicular cycling class through DK Kemp at the
Fort Collins cycling department.
Name: Dottie Spivak
Email: moseslake_61@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, do not allow e-bikes on city trails.
I am seriously concerned about courtesy and speeds on the trails, and believe the addition of e-
bikes will degrade an already precarious situation. Furthermore, I do not believe they should be
allowed in the natural areas.
- 34 -
I've already run into those little small-wheeled motorbikes on the trails, and they are loud and
dangerous, and (yes) illegal. I'd be concerned that allowing e-bikes will lead people into
thinking any motors are okay.
Name: Susan
Email: shore.susan@gmail.com
Comments:
The simple answer is no. I have already encountered an electric assisted bike on a paved trail in
Fort Collins and it is not compatible with the trails as constructed. The speed, acceleration, and
use model is just not compatible with a pedestrian and self propelled bicycle trail. The
availability of marked bicycle lanes on the streets should be available as they are for scooters. I
am concerned about the compatibility as a primary issue. The secondary issues for me relate to
licensing users, age of the potential users, enforceability of any usage, and city liability. The city
might be wise to take a more holistic look at the future of personal vehicles and build capacities
for these vehicles in a comprehensive way. Note, I have rented and ridden an electric bicycle.
Name: Dennis D. Georg
Email: georgs@comcast.net
Comments:
No! No!, No!
I'm old (84 years), ride a bike arround town and desire neither broken bones nor an early death!
The only thing that really scares me is people my age at the wheel of an automobile. They often
look but do not see! Their reflexes seem to range from not-that-great to very bad.
I would be frightened of persons with limited physical resources riding a 20-mph vehicle on a
narrow bike trail -- especially if they are taking aim at me or sneaking up from behind because e-
bikes are reported to be very quiet.
Name: Jo Boyd
Email: josephineboyd@gmail.coom
Comments:
No they should not. After reading the article again, the madder I got. Pinning the marketing of
these assisted bikes on "safety-conscious retires" is as phony and transparent as the campaign to
legalize marijuana based on medical considerations. Just legalize pot, for heaven's sake. And as
an old retiree who rides with other old people, we all know better than to ride on the trails. They
are dangerous and congested. We know we are much safer on the street. These e-assist bikes are
simply for people who don't want to sweat and who want a cheap alternative to a car. They
belong on the street, not on the trails.
Name: Dottie Spivak
Email: moseslake_61@yahoo.com
Comments:
What would be next? If e-bikes are allowed,could you deny motorized skateboards? I have seen
some behaviors by folks on both that would be disruptive and dangerous on trails. Most of us do
not ride our bikes that fast, and let's don't forget runners and walkers (some of whom are seniors)
and moms pushing strollers. I would be very sad to see the character of our trails change.
Name: Beverly Gregory
Email: bvg57@comcast.net
- 35 -
Comments:
No, they shouldn't be allowed on the city's paved trails at this time. The city's paved trails
already become overly congested during the warmer months with just the amount of non-
motorized traffic that is on it now. So why would you okay more traffic on the trail without first
assessing the abiliity of the current trail system to: a)actually handle increased traffic and b)
available funding to actually enforce trail laws for once and increase enforcement personnel that
are present on the trails. I hope this latter point is taken into serious consideration as I have used
the Fort Collins paved trail system extensively as a runner, bicyclist, and dog walker and if the
implications of increased traffic congestion without adequate enforcement of trail rules (and also
educating trail users about trail courtesy) are not addressed, I feel that allowing e-bikes to hit the
trails and increase trail congestion will lead to more contentious and violent interactions amongst
users of the trail system.
Name: Aimee Stephanchick
Email: amstep75@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should not be allowed on the trails. When the door is opened to motorized travel on trails
it is going to be very difficult to delineate which motors are OK and which are not. The non
motorized vehicle is a very clear standard. There are clearly different users of bike lanes versus
the trails. The trails attract more recreational use including walkers, dog walkers, runners, skaters
and casual cyclist.
Name: Dwight Hall
Email: dwighthall@yahoo.com
Comments:
Only for senior citizens and those disabled!
Name: Chuck Eichman
Email: cmeichman@aol.com
Comments:
I have lived in The Fort since Jan.,1984. I have used the trails regularly since they were built. At
first very few people used them. They are very busy now, especially after the previous gas hike.
I enjoy walking the trails to view wildlife, the blue herons and kingfishers along Spring Creek. I
am a responsible bicycle rider. Last Thurs. I had to stop quickly as two little boys crashed into
each other and came onto my side of the trail. They were not injured and the adult male that
followed them was there to take care of the situation. I have had dogs run into my path and
when announcing my passing some walkers have stepped into my path. A quote in the paper
said " IF people obey the rules, there should be no problem." I am a defensive biker on the trails.
Weighing the pros and cons, I have to vote NO for allowing e-bikes on the trails.
Name: Robbie Fisher
Email:
Comments:
I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to having any type of motorized vehicles on the trail system. It
will ruin the recreational experience and make it unsafe for young children to ride their bikes
there. The added noise and speed would be very unpleasant.
Name: Judith Friend
Email: friend.j@comcast.net
- 36 -
Comments:
Absolutely not!!!
Motorized bikes are not allowed. There is no difference in gas or electric.
Name: Doug
Email: dougmetcalfbldg@msn.com
Comments:
No, I do not believe so. If the is a license or certificate for people with a mobility disability to
allow those people to use them, I see no reason for the "general population" to be permitted.
No motorized vehicles means NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES>
Name: Charles Watt
Email: charleshenry109@q.com
Comments:
No, of course not ... more speed, more accidents, more injuries, less fun. The trail system is a
source of good exercise and recreation for many. Whether we're riding horses, bikes, pushing
strollers, jogging, walking or handicapped individuals in motorized conveyance, we're all
enjoying the day away from busy roads.
With the exception of handicapped, let's keep motorized travel off our trails.
Name: Jack Hicks
Email: fordchapel@gmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely not. This shouldn’t even be discussed. The trails are for non-motorized use. Adding
an electric motor to a bicycle makes it motorized.
Name: Michelle Haefele
Email: michhaef@frii.com
Comments:
Absolutely no. Motorized vehicles belong on streets. If approved, the definition of the ebike
will change (ie., faster speed, larger engine) just as fashion does...it will change to sell more
ebikes. eBIKES, KEEP OFF THE TRAILS!
Name: John Hughes
Email: not2tiredtoride@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, e-bikes should not be allowed on the City's paved trails. E-bikes are motorized and the main
reason I use the trails daily is to get away from motorized vehicles. It defeats the purpose of
having dedicated, non-motorized areas if we allow e-bikes on the trails. Lets not ruin what we've
worked so hard to build.
Name: Steve Lawless
Email: steve.lawless@aecom.com
Comments:
Bicyclists have a tendency to move quite quickly on the paved trails and I have seen many near
accidents with bicycles moving too quickly and surprising walkers or joggers. Add in the tight
- 37 -
turns that many speeding bicyclists take "wide" into the oncoming lanes, I think adding a quicker
type bicycle is only adding fuel to a smoldering fire. So, my vote is NO!
Name: Kathy Weiler
Email: Weilerhaus@comcast.net
Comments:
I think you have to draw a line for acceptable use and that line should err on the side of
preserving safe use for families with children, pets, strollers, inexperienced young cyclists. The
most intuitive and reasonable place to draw that line is at human vs motor powered. Please
don’t allow motorized vehicles on our off street trails. theres extensive bike lane and route
infrastructure in fort collins that is perfectly appropriate for e-bike/motor assisted bike travel.
Name: chris j johnson
Email: chris@luttet.net
Comments:
No, E-bikes should not be allowed on our paved trails. Those trails need to be a safe place where
children and other vulnerable users can practice biking, skating or walking without being
threatened by E-bikes.
E-bikes are a threat because they allow inexperienced or clumsy riders to speed much faster than
they could on a standard bike. Children, elderly riders and intoxicated riders cannot ride fast on
standard bikes, so they are not much of a threat to themselves or others. If they instead rode on
fast E-bikes, they could be dangerous.
E-bikes are a good option for commuting, but there is no need to commute on our paved bike
trails. Our city's bike lanes are excellent for commuting, and are the most natural place for E-
bikes. I commute in our bike lanes every day on a standard bicycle. Bike lanes have broad turns
and good sight lines, and are mostly used by experienced bicyclists.
Name: Michael McGrath
Email: msmcgrath@comcast.net
Comments:
No, e-bikes should not be allow on the trials. Our streets have bike lanes and these are sufficient
for exercise and commuting by e-bike. I walk an average of 25 miles a week on our trail systems
and know that it is a rare cyclist who uses an audible signal BEFORE passing. Twice I have
been passed by an e-bike, the experiences were disconcerting because of the speed and the air
that was pushed by the weight of the e-bike. Once, I assisted a dazed young woman I found
sitting just off the trail. Another cyclist had collided with her bike and left her at this blind spot.
With an e-bike weighing more than twice that of a regular bike, such a collision would be like an
SUV hitting a compact. I do not think e-bikes should be on the trails for ANY reasons. Stop and
think, if you allow e-bike that can go 20 mph on the trails than why not Segways that go 6-10
mph? The main person the paper had promoting e-bikes on our trails was the manager pushing
his business plan to grow his company at our expense. Seniors who are uncomfortable using our
bike lanes can practice and exercise with their bikes in their neighborhoods. The reason e-bikes
are rated as they are by the federal and state governments is to ban them from highways. I
believe the use of e-bikes will be detrimental to the quality and vitality of our trail system.
Name: Anne Butler
Email: road4two@aol.com
- 38 -
Comments:
No, electric assisted bicycles should not be allowed on paved trails. These trails should be
reserved for human powered uses only. How would one distinguish between the various type of
motor assisted vehicles available? How would the city control speed when the vehicle is not
limited by the riders human limitations? We have a very good system of bicycle lanes on city
streets available for motor assisted forms of transportation. Please keep the paved trails friendly
to walkers and other human powered forms of transportation.
Name: Paul Weber
Email: paul.weber@comcast.net
Comments:
No. Having motorized vehicles on the city paved trails would 1) increase accidents 2) destroy the
serenity of the environment and 3) increase wear & tear of the trails. The trails are designed for
enjoyment not commuting. There are plenty of direct roads and bike lanes for individuals who
are actually commuting. Why would you take a slow, winding bike trail if you solely want to
reach a destination. If the city allows motorized vehicles on the bike trails, you won't see me or
my child on there anymore. Too risky.
Name: Tara Schulze
Email: nectarinekitten@msn.com
Comments:
No, only those people who are disabled should be allowed to use e-bikes on City paved trails!!!
As it is, our trail system is busy and there are some cyclists even now that are very disrespectful
of joggers and walkers with kids and pets. I feel there are safety issues involved with allowing e-
bikes, (issues of speed already exist with regular bikes!!) It is also a matter of who is regulating
our trails to ensure that cyclists now are going at a safe rate of speed and using "passing"
ettiquette when going around walker, joggers. I can't imagine that anyone will enforce safe speed
limits with e-bikes as it doesn't seem that any speed limits are enforced with normal bikes.
Besides that, can't e-bikes use the bike lanes on the streets, isn't that what a bike lane is supposed
to be used for??? Leave the trails the way they are..... it is difficult enough to maneuver around
the horse droppings and watch out for speeding cyclists as it is, so don't make it any worse to use
the trails by allowing motorized bikes!! By the way, why do us dog owners need to pick up after
our dogs and horse owners get to leave their HUGE horse piles??? Really is disgusting to have to
step or jump around the horse excrement on many trails!! Horse riders need to be held
accountable as well, so how about fines for them....sounds fair to me!!
Name: Cathy Cribari
Email: moonstonecribari@msn.com
Comments:
e-bikes should not be allowed and city trails should retain their "non-motorized" status.
If one is to use an e-bike as an alternate mode of transportation, they have a multitude of safe
options to operate within the existing transportation scheme of the city. As a bike commuter, I
know from experience that the city streets are generally just as convenient if not more convenient
for commuting.
It the intention is to enjoy nature and take a relaxing ride, a viable alternative is a 3-wheeled
cycle with low gearing enabling an easier time pedaling on the trails. There are very few
locations that have any grade to them, and the spots that do could easily be walked if the riding is
too strenuous.
- 39 -
David Fetter
800 Grouse Circle
80524
Name: David Fetter
Email: fetterdavid@homail.com
Comments:
No, no, no. This would open the door to all kinds of requests from people with other kinds of
motorized vehicles. They would go to fast. It would be difficult to enforce speed and weight
limitations. They would seriously interfere with other trail users, especially walkers and people
with small children. Surely it isn't too much to require people to peddle a bike, especially since
people with handicaps or mobility issues already have the right to use motorized vehicles.
Name: Linda Knowlton
Email: llknowlton@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should not be allowed on the City's paved trails. They should be treated like mopeds,
scooters, and other motorized vehicles and share traffic lanes on public roads, not bike paths.
Name: Ashley Waddell
Email: ashley.trailrunner@gmail.com
Comments:
No. The only reason to allow them is for people with disability, and since they're already
allowed, we don't need to open them to those with no disability.
Name: Mike Knowles
Email: selwonk@frii.com
Comments:
No, they are too fast for paved trails. Let them ride in the bike lanes on the street instead.
Name: Hilary Sebastian
Email: hilsberry3@yahoo.com
Comments:
As an almost daily user of the bike trails along the river (bike and jogging), I would prefer *not*
having motorized bikes of any sort on the trails. The exception I agree with is the current one for
disability assistance.
Issues:
* Compatibility with congestion on the weekends.
* Rapid and quiet acceleration is conflicts with pedestrian environment.
* Top speed will increase as technology matures, increasing pedestrian risks.
Name: Tom Hilinski
Email: tom.hilinski@comcast.net
Comments:
Hello,
I am greatly alarmed at the prospect of e-bikes on the City paved trails, and hope the Council
will quickly defeat this proposal.
- 40 -
Something moving at 20 MPH on a trail is a major hazard and is guaranteed to cause accidents.
There are a lot of walkers on the trails. Many of these walkers are elderly or young children and
that kind of speed is simply not compatible with pedestrians (of any age).
City trails are traditionally designed for human powered usage, with the obvious exception of
motorized chairs for people with disabilities. Let's keep them that way, safe and enjoyable.
Thanks,
Nelson Chenkin
Fort Collins
Name: Nelson Chenkin
Email: nchenkin@comcast.net
Comments:
At this point I think it's better left to non-motorized vehicles. Pretty congested as it in on
weekends on sections of Poudre and Spring Creek -- the two trails most likely to receive
additional e-bike traffic. Keep the focus on health and well-being.
Name: Devin Hirning
Email: news@hirning.us
Comments:
People with mobility disabilities OR the elderly (and I mean over 65!) should both be allowed to
use ebikes on city trails. Otherwise, no, I don't want ebikes on the trails. There are too many
kids/people/dogs using the trails for the mix to work and some of those ebike riders (ones i've
seen by campus) go really fast.
Name: Teresa Kahle
Email: teresa@kahle.org
Comments:
No, they are already clogged with traffic and would be competing with with 0 emission peddle
bicycles. -they have to get the electricity from somewhere, and that most likely would be from
coal. Also, I would put them in the category of a motorized vehicle. I can deal with them in bike
lanes, but NOT on a trail.
Name: Shawn Monk
Email: smm413@gmail.com
Comments:
I feel that electric assisted bicycles should NOT be allowed on city's paved trails. They go too
fast, and bicyclists often do not call out to pedestrians when they come up behind them.
There are bike lanes on city streets, and it's easier to commute using city streets than bike paths.
It's fine for people with mobility disabilities to use e-bikes on the trails, because it allows access
to those who might not be able to use the trails otherwise, but it should NOT be opened up to
other motorized vehicles.
- 41 -
I walk on the section of Spring Creek trail near Centre, and this is often congested with bicycles
going to and from C.S.U. E-bikes would make this a hazardous situation.
Please don't allow e-bikes on the trails.
Name: Elaine Boni
Email: elaineboni@juno.com
Comments:
No.
Name:
Email:
Comments:
No e-bikes. First it will be e-bikes, then mopeds, then motorcycles. Each group will clamor for
access to an already crowded trail system full of gaggles of gabbing women all with dogs on
leashes stretched across pathways, small kids teetering on small bikes with no sense of rights-of-
way, people riding defecating horses, joggers fast and slow, other moms with kids in strollers
entangled with more dogs on leashes. Turn loose a geriatric or 12-year-old on a 20mph vehicle,
and accidents will happen. There are already sections of the trail system with e-bikes and mopeds
being ridden. Even an occasional car. I ride the bike trails to get away from the motor-powered
(gas and electric) insanity contemporary "civilization" is obsessed with. Do us all a favor and
keep things human-powered (get rid of the horses, too, while you're at it). No e-bikes. Thanks for
the opportunity to allow the rant.
Name: Ken Walters
Email: kwalters@frii.com
Comments:
I don't think we need ebikes on the trails unless for a disabled person in which they are already
allowed...
Name:
Email:
Comments:
No.
I view city trails as having two purposes, provide a safe corridor for non-motorized transortation
and designated exercise area to keep auto and non-auto contact to a minimum. Allowing
motorized bicycles on the paths defeats both purposes.
I don't understand why time and effort is being expended on this issue if only 50 e-bikes are in
the city at this time.
Name: Mike Brown
Email: mikeabrown@q.com
Comments:
One of the nice things about the bike trails is there is not much noise. If you add e-bikes that
peacefulness would not be there and people will stop using the trail and all you would have is a
road with just e-bikes.
Name: Leo Braun
- 42 -
Email: lbman22000@yahoo.com
Comments:
Dear City Officials,
I am strongly opposed to allowing e-bikes on the trails in Fort Collins. Like many residents, I
cherish our trails and bike and walk on them several times each week. I believe that allowing
electric bikes on the trails would fundamentally change the experience of trail users for the
worse.
Before expanding on my concerns, I want to say that I am sympathetic to the needs of disabled
members of our community who want to use the trails. However, these needs already have been
addressed through the new rules permitting the use of "EPAMDs" by those who have a proven
mobiity disability.
My specific concerns about allowing e-bikes:
1. Opens the door to other authorized and unauthorized motorized vehicles:
Allowing e-bikes almost certainly will lead to an increase in various kinds of motorized vehicles
on our trails. Permitting e-bikes will create a lack of clarity about which vehicles are allowed
and will create an atmosphere in which more riders/drivers will violate trail regulations.
Currently, the rules are very clear: no motorized vehicles on the trails (other than for the proven
disability exception). For instance, is difficult for teenagers on motorized scooters, or for college
students on a mopeds, to claim they don't know that their vehicle isn't allowed on the trail.
Consequently, as a regular rider, I've seen only a few instances in the last 10 years of motorized
vehicles on the trails. (These have been scary.) I doubt that the numbers will be so low if some
motorized vehicles come to be allowed.
If e-bikes are permitted, it seems likely that users, and retailers, of other motorized vehicles will
ask why their vehicles aren't allowed. Why not electric- or gas-powered scooters--whether
ridden by children, teenagers, or commuters? Moreover, while those who favor e-bikes claim
that they go only 20 mph (pretty fast, actually), once the door is open to e-bikes on the trails,
what is to stop the next version of e-bikes, which may go faster, from appearing on the trails?
2. Lack of Rules Enforcement on Trails:
I have never seen a city employee enforcing any regulations on the bike trails. It is only the
culture of zero tolerance for motorized vehicles that keeps most abusers--or others who might be
confused about regulations--off of the trails.
3. Appropriate Alternatives for E-Bike Riders:
Advocates have argued that allowing assisted bikes will open the trails to riders who want to
enjoy the outdoors or to commute, but who may not be able to make it up a hill on a regular bike.
However, the city has already allowed those with proven disabilities to ride motorized vehicles
on the trails, under specific guidelines. If riders are not disabled, then they can always ride on
flatter portions of trails or can gradually increase their fitness. In the case of those who are
physically impaired enough that they cannot ride a non-assisted bike, there is a real concern that
their riding a fast-moving e-bike on a curvy, hilly, bumpy trail with many other users could cause
injury to themselves or to others.
- 43 -
In addition, as others have pointed out, Fort Collins is blessed with bike lanes on many of our
streets. These seem a more appropriate place for motorized vehicles. We do not need the safety
risks and fundamental change in the character of our trails that could very well come with the
addition of e-bikes. We certainly don't need to open the door to even more intrusive and unsafe
motorized vehicles on the trails by making the rules fuzzier--especially when there currently
seem to be neither staff nor procedures for enforcing rules on the trails.
I hope the city will not risk the safety and wonderful experiences of the large number of citizens
who walk and ride on the trails under current regulations. Thank you for considering my
comments.
Name: Jenny Goodman
Email: cycler15@me.com
Comments:
Paved and walking trails are not designed for e-bikes and they should not be added to the mix of
bicycles, skateboards, roller blades and walkers.
Name: Doug Moench
Email: effrider@frii.com
Comments:
No.
--Will there be liability issues for the city if it allows e-bikes and has certain rules like speed
limits, without any meaningful enforcement?
--If riders of e-bikes, which are motorized vehicles, don’t feel that the bike lanes on city streets
are satisfactory for them, the city could consider building some new trails/paths specifically for
various kinds of motorized vehicles.
--I had wanted to give more of a sense for risks currently on the trails, and how alert riders need
to be—and how they need to ride at controlled speeds: people pulling babies in trailers, dogs
with their leashes across the path, people on cell phones or watching birds—they can lose track
momentarily of their toddler or pet.
--Even if e-bikes stick to 20 miles per hour, their speed is not naturally controlled by going uphill
on a curve, for example. There are aspects of the trail that help to keep regular bike riders alert.
Name: Gene Jones
Email: gjones7@me.com
Comments:
My concern is the speed of which some motorized assisted bicycles (electric or gas operated)are
able to travel. I work near Vine and Linden and see some of these bicycles traveling 15 mph or
more on Liden. You may then have an issue of monitoring and or ticketing those who abuse the
trail system. They may then be a hazzard to pedestrian with small children. Visibility and sight
distance issues may arise due to the curves and vegitation on the trail.
I see it on city streets. These vehicles use the bike lane until it is convenient for them to use the
traffic lanes and have personally seen several near misses.
Name: JR Burrous
Email: jrburrous@fcgov.com
- 44 -
NEUTRAL/GENERAL COMMENTS
Neutral Comments on Facebook – 3 comments
Benjamin Kohn via Facebook
Other than appearance, how does an e-bike differ from a regular bike in keeping trails 'natural'?
Neither mode of transportation is "natural", one works by 'knee' grease the other uses electric
current, both make very little noise when in operation, and courtesy speed on the trails is already
understood to be 15 mph. All road bikes are capable of speeds in excess of 20 mph with rapid
acceleration. All bikes with >20" tires are capable of reaching the 20 mph mark.
Is it the concept of a motorized vehicle or the noise produced by most motorized vehicles that is
objectionable in the natural areas? I think you mean to limit the noise in natural areas, not
necessarily the vehicle types present. If all motor vehicles made zero noise would this be an
issue?
Please provide a more clear definition of a motor vehicle. An internal combustion engine and an
electric power pack are fundamentally different means of energy acquisition and utilization.
Those of us that embrace new technology shouldn't be held back by the ludites in the crowd.
When I pass you on the trail, riding my e-bike, will you even know I was there? Or will I pass
you as a human on wheels passes a human on foot.
Lynn Temple via Facebook
Nice, but will the college kids hog them or tear them up???
John Landis via Facebook
Apparently, this whole discussion has been an effort in futility, unless, the City is thinking of
allowing e-bikes with a larger engine than 1 HP, and exceed 20 MPH. The Federal Government
has already weighed in on this, in 2001. E-bikes have the same rights, as long as they have
pedals, as all other bikes, as long as they meet the criteria provided by Federal law, which
supersedes State law and I would also imagine, City Ordinances, codes or laws.
Available under Library of Congress, Consumer Product Safety Commission, HR 727
The U.S. NHTSA Code of Motor Vehicle Safety simply defines low-speed electric bicycles as
consumer products and not Motor Vehicles for safety standards. In doing so they vest authority
over commercial safety standards to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC) stipulates that commercially manufactured
low-speed electric bicycles, or tricycles, must have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of
less than 750W of power and a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour (32
km/h) with a rider weighing 150 pounds. An electric bike remaining within these specifications
will be regarded simply as a bicycle for purposes of safety standards. This supersedes any state
law that is more stringent, but only regarding safety equipment required on electric bicycles and
the standard of manufacture they must meet. The legislation enacting this amendment to the
CPSC is also known as HR 727.
- 45 -
Neutral Comments E-mails to City Staff – 1 e-mail
Email to Dave Kemp
Hi DK,
I hope this isn’t a problem to send you my comments directly. I was unable to send them via the
City’s website. I tried several times and received a message saying my input was detected as
Spam and would not be sent. Nothing profound here but wanted to send my thoughts.
A sincere thanks for all your efforts on behalf of cycling in Fort Collins. It has been amazing to
witness all the improvements since moving here 10 years ago. The positive changes seem to be
increasing in frequency and effect. Just read about Kansas’ state-wide new Bill 2192 with the
“dead red” provision, where cyclists can stop and proceed with caution through a red light, for
when signal lights are not activated by cyclists.
It’s a great time to be a cyclist.
Cyd
Neutral Comments Through fcgov.com/YourVoice – 4 comments
Comments:
Motorized bikes would have to share trails with both pedestrians (of all ages - including very
small children), leashed dogs,and bicycles who are all traveling at a MUCH slower rate of speed.
The higher rate of speed of e-bikes presents a danger to the slower travelers. On a paved road,
slower bicycles are given a path separate from cars traveling at higher speeds. This adds a
measure of safety to the bicyclist. For this reason, I believe e-bikes should only be allowed on
paved trails IF a separate portion of the trail is paved and marked only for motorized bikes.
Pedestrians and bicyclists enjoying the BICYCLE PATHS should not have their enjoyment of
nature interrupted or their physical safety endangered with fast moving motorized bikes.
Name: Charyl Rocco
Email: sipchaitea@yahoo.com
Comments:
Not a very good question to be asking.
How ya gonna keep the e-bikes off? In other words, riders will always allow themselves to use
the public convenience of the trails.
On several occasions, I have seen recreational motorcycle use on the Poudre trail. Obviously,
that is not "allowed".
Regulation requires 1) enforcement 2) penalties 3) education. Your question - and this is so very
typical of the city - is so absurdly oversimplified as to render any responses that faithfully speak
to the resolution completely useless.
Name: Lester Electric
Email: youd@wannaknow.org
- 46 -
Comments:
I have been using my electrically assisted TRICYCLE for FOUR YEARS on the trails. I am a
retired school teacher and a 70-year-old grandma. The trike is used when ascending inclines, as I
have balance issues and osteoporosis. If mobility disabilities are allowed, how will this be
addressed; a sign, a license, or just the rider's good word?
Name: Susan McGill
Email: beauguss@comcast.net
Comments:
Pass a law preventing the police from enforcing the current no-e-bike law for one year for a
study. After a year of data, we re-consider legal, illegal, or extend for another year of data. If its
becoming a problem, repeal the temporary law.
Would I be allowed to use my "bionic" assist legs to pedal my regular bike on city trails?
More outreach. Let the public try them.
Do we have current laws that require e-bikes, and non-e-bikes, to be responsible? A regular bike
with a professional rider can blow away any e-bike.
I'd like to see e-bikes for those with health issues, commuting, recreation, but not show-off speed
races and the like. I'd hope our current law would prevent these negative issues for any bike, e-
bike or otherwise.
Let's try to make the law such we don't need special laws for e-bikes, but rather define what
types of bikes are allowed, then all laws apply to all. For example, the law should prohibit
droppings and droppings should be defined as horse excrement, e-bike battery fluids.
Name: Michael Pruznick
Email: mikepruz@comcast.net
Longmont, Colorado (Bronze Bike City): Municipal Code prohibits motorized vehicles
on City trail system. No
Loveland, Colorado (Honorable Mention Bike City): Municipal Code prohibits
motorized vehicles on City trails. No
Norman, Oklahoma (Bronze Bike City): Allow ebikes on City trails. Yes
Palo Alto, California (Gold Bike City): Municipal Code states that no person shall
operate any motor vehicle on park or open space land. Includes all motorized bicycles,
carts, scooters and electric personal assistive mobility devices except those devices used
by handicapped persons. No
Portland, Oregon (Platinum Bike City): Allowed under state law unless prohibited by
local jurisdiction. Municipal Code does not prohibit ebikes on City trails. Yes
Seattle, Washington (Gold Bike City): Allowed under state law unless prohibited by local
jurisdiction. Municipal Code does not prohibit ebikes on City trails. Yes
Toronto, Canada: Large three year study leading to e-bikes being allowed on the City
street bike lane system. No information about a similar study or regulation allowing for
their use on trails. No.
Windsor, Colorado: Municipal Code makes it unlawful for any person to operate any
motorized vehicle on any trail within the Town. No
1
1
TRIAL PERIOD TO ALLOW ELECTRIC
ASSISTED BICYCLES ON CITY TRAILS
2
Introduction
• Members of City Council expressed interest in
considering allowing ebikes on City paved trails
• The City Manager formed a staff team to
investigate the issues and gather community input
ATTACHMENT 3
2
3
Introduction
• The Ebike Team discussed the issues with a
variety of City Boards, gathered public input and
contacted several other communities to discover
how they regulate ebikes on trails
• Staff presented this information to the Council at
the June 28th Work Session
4
Work Session Direction
• After review and discussion, Council supported
consideration of a one year trial period to allow
ebikes on City paved trails
• Council requested staff prepare an ordinance to
make the needed City Code changes to
implement the trial period and return to Council for
a determination on whether or not the trial period
should be implemented
3
5
Work Session Direction
• Council requested that the trial period:
– expire after one year unless renewed
– be limited to paved trails
– encompass an uninterrupted warm weather season
• Council indicated the trial period should apply only to
ebikes, which should be defined to exclude other electric
vehicles or devices like mopeds, skateboards and scooters
6
Work Session Direction
• Council asked staff to inform the community about
the right of people with mobility disabilities to use
ebikes on the trails
• Council also asked for a public awareness
campaign about trail etiquette and safety
4
7
City Code Changes
• The City Code currently prohibits ebikes on trails
• Adoption of the ordinance changes the Code to
allow ebikes on paved trails from April 1, 2012 to
March 31, 2013.
8
City Code Changes
• The Ordinance defines ebikes to include
traditional bicycles with electric assist motors or
an electric powered bike trailer
• The Ordinance limits the:
– size of the electric motor to 750 watts
– top speed to 20 mph
– tire size to 3 inches in width
– weight to 75 pounds
– wheel diameter to 14 inches or larger
5
9
City Code Changes
• The Ordinance also clarifies that a person with a
temporary or permanent mobility disability is
allowed to use a motorized wheelchair or other
power-driven mobility device (which includes
ebikes) in City natural areas, parks and trails, in
accordance with City regulations
10
Outreach
• Staff launched campaign to inform citizens that people with
mobility disabilities are allowed to use ebikes on City trails
• This spring, a trail safety and etiquette campaign will be
implemented
• If Council approves the ebike trial period, the etiquette
campaign will be expanded to let everyone know about the
trial period and to promote the on-line ebike feedback form
6
11
Trail Use Survey
• Staff has been conducting trail use surveys to
gather information on how the trails are currently
being used
• Staff will conduct additional trail use surveys
during the ebike trial period, including information
on ebike use, user conflicts, safety issues, and
impacts on wildlife
12
Future Council Action
• Prior to expiration of the trial period, staff will
provide Council will all the information gathered
from the surveys and citizen feedback forms
• Council can then determine if the ebike trial period
should be extended, made permanent, or be
allowed to expire
ORDINANCE NO. 167, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLES IX AND X OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ALLOW ELECTRICAL ASSISTED BICYCLES
ON THE CITY’S PAVED TRAILS FOR A ONE YEAR TRIAL PERIOD
WHEREAS, Article IX of Chapter 23 of the City Code regulates behavior on City natural
areas properties, and Article X of Chapter 23 of the City Code regulates behavior in City recreation
areas, which includes parks and trails; and
WHEREAS, both the natural areas and parks Code provisions currently prohibit the use of
motorized vehicles or other motorized means of conveyance in natural areas and recreation areas,
except that motorized wheelchairs or similar assistive devices may be used by a person with a
mobility impairment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed an interest in allowing a one year trial period
during which electrical assisted bicycles (“ebikes”) would be permitted on paved City trails in parks
and natural areas; and
WHEREAS, the proposed trial period would begin on April 1, 2012 and expire on March
31, 2013 unless further action is taken by the City Council to permit long-term use of ebikes on
trails; and
WHEREAS, during the trial period City staff would gather information and assess the
impacts of the use of ebikes on the City’s trail system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend various provisions of Chapter 23, Articles
IX and X in order to allow ebikes on City trails during the trial period, and to update the language
regarding the use of motorized devices by people with disabilities in order to be consistent with
recent federal regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 23-192 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of four new definitions, which read in their entirety as follows:
Sec. 23-192. Definitions.
...
Bicycle shall have the same meaning as defined in the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
...
Electrical assisted bicycle shall mean a vehicle having two (2) tandem wheels,
or two (2) parallel wheels and one (1) forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an
electric motor not exceeding seven hundred fifty (750) watts of power and a top
motor-powered speed of twenty (20) miles per hour, which also has a tire size of not
more than three (3) inches in width, a wheel diameter of not less than fourteen (14)
inches, and a weight of not more than seventy-five (75) pounds. A bicycle with an
electric-powered bike trailer that meets the power and speed limitations listed above
is also considered an electrical assisted bicycle. The electric-powered bike trailer
need not meet the above wheel and tire requirements.
...
Mobility disability shall mean a disability, as defined in Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, that limits an individual’s mobility within a natural area.
...
Other power-driven mobility device shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Section 2. That Section 23-193(d)(18) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 23-193. Prohibited acts; permits.
. . .
(d) Except as authorized by a permit obtained for such use from the Service
Area, it shall be unlawful to:
. . .
(18) Operate or park a motor vehicle or other motorized means of
conveyance anywhere in a natural area other than on established
roadways and in designated parking areas; provided, however, that a
motorized wheelchair or similar assistive device may be used by any
person with a temporary or permanent mobility impairment disability,
anywhere in a natural area that public access is allowed., and an other
power-driven mobility device may be used in a natural area by any
person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability, in accordance
with City regulations regarding such use of other power-driven mobility
devices. In addition, from April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013,
electrical assisted bicycles, as defined in this Article, may be ridden on
paved designated trails within natural areas.
-2-
Section 3. That Section 23-202 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of four new definitions, which shall read as follows:
Sec. 23-202. Definitions.
. . .
Bicycle shall have the same meaning as defined in the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
. . .
Electrical assisted bicycle shall mean a vehicle having two (2) tandem wheels,
or two (2) parallel wheels and one (1) forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an
electric motor not exceeding seven hundred fifty (750) watts of power and a top
motor-powered speed of twenty (20) miles per hour, which also has a tire size of not
more than three (3) inches in width, a wheel diameter of not less than fourteen (14)
inches, and a weight of not more than seventy-five (75) pounds. A bicycle with an
electric-powered bike trailer that meets the power and speed limitations listed above
is also considered an electrical assisted bicycle. The electric-powered bike trailer
need not meet the above wheel and tire requirements.
. . .
Mobility disability shall mean a disability, as defined in Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, that limits an individual’s mobility within a recreation area.
. . .
Other power-driven mobility device shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 23-203(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 23-203. Prohibited acts; permits.
(a) It shall be unlawful to:
(1) Operate or park a motor vehicle or other motorized means of conveyance
anywhere in a recreation area other than on established roadways and in
designated parking areas; provided, however, that a motorized wheelchair
or similar assistive device may be used by any person with a temporary
or permanent mobility impairment disability, anywhere in a recreation
area that public access is allowed., and an other power-driven mobility
-3-
device may be used in a recreation area by any person with a temporary
or permanent mobility disability, in accordance with City regulations
regarding such use of other power-driven mobility devices. In addition,
from April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, electrical assisted bicycles,
as defined in this Article, may be ridden on paved designated trails within
recreation areas.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
at
the
City
Council
Finance
Committee
on
Sept.
26,
2011.
Public
notification
will
begin
October
2
and
Electric
Rate
Ordinances
will
be
considered
by
City
Council
at
first
reading
Oct.
18,
2011.
Second
reading
is
Nov.
1,
2011.
Next
Steps
September
26
-
Council Finance
Committee
related
to
all
utilities
rates
and
fees
October
11 -
Work session
on
Residential Energy
Rate
October
18 - I
‘
reading
of
Electric
Rates
(without
changes
to
Residential
Energy
Rate);
also
I
‘
reading
of
ordinances
for
water
and
wastewater
rates
and
PIFs/development
fees
October
25 -
Work session
on
Energy
Conservation
Programs
November
1 -
2’
reading
of
Rates
and
Fees
Jan.
1,
2012
- all
rates
effective
except
for
Residential
Energy
Rate
Late
2011
or
early
2012
- I SI
reading
of
ordinance
changing
Residential
Energy
Rate
to
be
effective
shortly thereafter.
ATTACHMENT 1
The initial amount of funding requests received by the City was $1,327,500. However, a $500,000 proposal for the
second phase of Caribou Apartments was withdrawn by the applicant making the final total of funding requests
$827,500. The Commission has recommended $813,577 be allocated. The following table summarizes the utilization
of funds from all sources.
•Second Reading of these seven Ordinances
November 15, 2011 City Council Meeting
• First Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance with seasonal and seasonal-
tiered options
99