HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 03/20/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
March 20, 2012
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring March 26-31, 2012 as Cesar Chavez Celebration Days.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 19)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 21)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 15. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 21, 2012, Regular Meeting and the
February 27, 2012, Special Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for
the City’s Raw Water for the 2012 Irrigation Season.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, approves rates for the
rental and delivery of the City’s raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these rates to assess
charges for agricultural use, for various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries
to other City departments. The proposed rate for each type of water is based on several factors
including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the
Manner in Which Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service.
The City’s Land Use Code allows carriage houses to be constructed at the rear of lots in certain
zoning districts. The City Code currently requires that such buildings have separate water and sewer
services connecting to City water mains and sanitary sewers. This requirement frequently stops the
carriage house projects due to construction constraints and cost considerations. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, provides an option to connect the water
and sewer services to the primary residence at the front of the lot with certain limitations.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS
Poudre River, LLC.
In 2005, the City constructed the Oxbow Levee on the Cache la Poudre River to reduce flooding risk
and damage to a section of the City north and east of the River. The City has been pursuing inclusion
of the Levee into the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee maintenance program.
As part of its review of the Levee, the USACE has determined that the City should acquire an access
and maintenance easement for the benefit of the Levee from the adjacent property owner, PS Poudre
River, LLC. During discussions regarding the needed easement, PS Poudre River, LLC voiced
concerns regarding granting the maintenance and access easement since this reduces the
developable portion of its property. In an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory solution, the property
owner proposed the City grant a small remnant parcel located adjacent to and east of the Oxbow
Levee in exchange for the needed access and maintenance easement. The Stormwater Master
Planning and Floodplain Administration Division has identified that the proposed remnant parcel is
no longer needed for flood control purposes. The property owner has agreed to a provision that the
City remnant parcel property will be conveyed subject to a deed restriction limiting the property to
natural landscape or trail uses only. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March
6, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of a .224 acre parcel of City-owned land that is adjacent to PS
Poudre River, LLC’s land, and in exchange it will grant the access and maintenance easement to the
City and pay the City $2,500.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B
West Horsetooth Road for Up to Five Years.
The City acquired the property located at 1506 West Horsetooth Road as part of the Affordable
Housing Land Bank Program in 2003. Total acreage of this property is 8.3 acres of development
land. Currently, this site has one single-family residence, one building with an efficiency apartment
and garage, and horse facilities. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March
6, 2012, authorizes a lease for the efficiency apartment at 1506B Horsetooth.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to
Redistricting.
The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon
the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend
Page 4
any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation
between the most populous and least populous District no less than one year after the official
decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins. The
timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has recently received
information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council
districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City
Charter. The City Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time
frame, due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance will amend the redistricting
provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments
may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following
publication of the census data.
12. Items Relating to the Archery Range Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District.
B. Resolution 2012-016 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to Boxelder Sanitation District on the
Archery Range Natural Area to Repair Flood Damage to the Riverbank.
Boxelder Sanitation District is seeking a non-exclusive permanent easement and a revocable permit
to access and install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within
the Archery Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder
Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage.
13. Resolution 2012-017 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the
Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1.
The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting
annexation of 0.64 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet
north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties
are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west and south; and, UE –
Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east.
14. Resolution 2012-018 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the
Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2.
The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting
annexation of 3.82 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet
north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties
are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west and south; and UE – Urban
Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east.
15. Resolution 2012-019 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 pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway
392. Staff for the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor are exploring options to implement actions
required by the intergovernmental agreement but require an extension to continue public outreach,
incorporate any input from the outreach, and to draft necessary documents for consideration by
Council. The staff of both municipalities have recommended that the April 3, 2012 deadline be
extended to August 21, 2012, in order to complete the public outreach, draft necessary documents,
and make their recommendations.
Page 5
END CONSENT
16. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
17. Staff Reports.
18. Councilmember Reports.
19. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
20. Resolution 2012-020 Accepting the Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-1 of the Ethics
Review Board. (staff: Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
On January 13, 2012, Mr. David Bell filed a written complaint with the City questioning the propriety
of Gino Campana’s participation as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board in discussions
pertaining to a proposed Land Use Code change regarding buffer zones along rivers (the “LUC
Amendment”). Mr. Bell alleges that Mr. Campana should have recused himself since he is a land
developer, and was negotiating the purchase of land for a development along the Poudre River.
Section 2-569(d)(1) provides that:
(d) Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to
the following procedures:
(1) Complaints.
a. Any person who believes that a Councilmember or board and
commission member has violated any provision of state law or the
Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint
Page 6
with the Mayor, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the
Review Board. The complaint shall be placed on the agenda for the
next special or regular City Council meeting for review and possible
action by the City Council.
b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the City Council shall decide
by majority vote whether to submit the complaint to the Review
Board for an advisory opinion as to whether the violation alleged in
the complaint has occurred and, if so, the action, if any, that should
be taken with regard to such violation. In the event that such
complaint is not submitted to the Review Board, the City Council
may decide what, if any, other action pertaining to the same is
appropriate.
. . .
Pursuant to this provision, the Council referred the complaint to the Ethics Review Board for an
advisory opinion. The Board met on February 23 and February 27, 2012 and received information
pertaining to this matter from several persons including the complainant, City staff, Mr. Campana and
his attorney, several local engineers, and current and former members of the Planning and Zoning
Board. After receiving that information and conferring with the City Attorney, the Board discussed the
application of the City Charter conflict of interest rules to the information presented at the meetings
and rendered an opinion that Mr. Campana did not violate the conflict of interest rules by participating
in discussions about the proposed Land Use Code amendment. However, the Board has
recommended that additional training be provided to members of the Planning and Zoning Board and
other City boards that handle both quasi-judicial matters and policy recommendations to the Council
to clarify the way in which the ethical and legal requirements related to both kinds of matters should
be interpreted and applied.
Code Section 2-569(e) provides that all opinions and recommendations of the Board be submitted
to the full Council for review and approval. By adoption of Resolution 2012-020, the Council would
adopt the opinion and recommendation of the Board.
21. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
22. Other Business.
23. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Cesar Chavez Days symbolize the ongoing struggle for spirituality, justice, and
nonviolence; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins community will be given the opportunity to celebrate the life
and legacy of Cesar Chavez; and
WHEREAS, the festivities planned for Cesar Chavez Days will provide cultural awareness
and knowledge for the community through music, arts, and educational experience.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim March 26-31, 2012 as
CESAR CHAVEZ CELEBRATION DAYS
in Fort Collins and encourage the citizens of Fort Collins to participate in the festivities planned in
the community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 21, 2012, Regular Meeting and the February 27, 2012,
Special Meeting.
February 21, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 21,
2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item Nos. 10, 11, and 13, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 013, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the
City Attorney, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City
Code and Setting the Salary of the City Manager, and First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012,
Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior
Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins
Great Fund for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane, from the
Consent Calendar.
Citizen Participation
Pretty Sathe, Human Relations Commission member, announced the Human Relations Commission
annual breakfast and awards ceremony.
Myles Crane, Human Relations Commission member, announced a program on elder abuse to be
held in October.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, Energy Board Chairperson, discussed the newly formed
Board and stated its work plan will be voted upon at its meeting on March 1.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, expressed concern regarding the proposed on-campus
stadium at Colorado State University.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, expressed concern regarding the proposed on-campus stadium
at Colorado State University.
Susan Kirkpatrick, 210 West Magnolia, opposed downtown parking meters.
259
February 21, 2012
Margaret Stumpf, 1808 Stover, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at Colorado State
University.
Ray Bergner, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the proposed Jefferson Street
roundabout, to be discussed at the February 28 Work Session.
Carl Patton, 619 Skysail Lane, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium and requested that Council
publicly oppose it as well.
Chris Marshall, 926 West Mountain Avenue, opposed the proposed on-campus stadium at Colorado
State University.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern regarding the RMI2 building financing.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell stated downtown parking meters should be reconsidered. He discussed the
public input process regarding the proposed on-campus stadium.
Councilmember Horak stated Dr. Frank, President of Colorado State University, has requested a
work session with Council regarding the stadium on April 24, 2012. He suggested the City’s
website be linked to CSU’s website to allow citizen comments.
City Manager Atteberry stated the parking meter issue and roundabout will be discussed at the next
work session, on February 28. He confirmed the April 24 date for the work session to discuss the
proposed on-campus stadium.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended the formation of the Energy Board and noted Council has yet
to weigh in regarding the parking meter issue.
Councilmember Horak suggested the City work with employers to provide incentives for employees
to park in farther removed areas.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Items Relating to the Safe Routes to School Program.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-12 Safe Routes to
School Program.
B. Resolution 2012-006 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for Infrastructure
Funding of the Safe Routes to School Program.
260
February 21, 2012
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 7, 2012, appropriates
a $50,176 federal grant received through the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) for the FY 2011–12 Safe Routes to School program. This funding will allow the
City of Fort Collins’ Safe Routes to School Program (administered and staffed by the
Transportation Planning Division) to provide new, higher quality bike racks at public
schools within the City of Fort Collins and roll out a new “Bicycle Parking at Schools”
educational program. The Resolution authorizes the execution of the agreement with CDOT.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2012, Approving a Third Amendment to the Fort
Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation,
Growth Management, and Related Issues, Extending the Deadlines for the City and Town
to Amend Their Growth Management Area Boundaries.
On February 17, 2009, the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath entered into an
intergovernmental agreement regarding annexations, growth management, and related
issues. The agreement resolved certain differences that had arisen between the City and
Town concerning a variety of planning and growth management issues. The agreement set
one-year deadlines for the parties to amend their Growth Management Area boundaries and
for Timnath to exercise an option to purchase the Vangbo property from the City. In early
2010, the parties approved an amendment to this intergovernmental agreement that extended
the deadlines for approval of the Fort Collins GMA and for Timnath to decide whether to
exercise its option. In early 2011, a second amendment was approved by the City and
Timnath that extended the deadline for the parties to amend their Growth Management
boundaries and deleted all references to Timnath’s possible purchase of the Vangbo property
because Timnath decided not to move forward with the purchase. Another extension is
needed, and Ordinance No. 007, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February
7, 2012, extends the period of time within which the parties’ Growth Management Area
boundaries are to be amended to February 12, 2013.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project.
In 2009, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved Small Starts funding to
construct the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project. Previous Council actions appropriated
$54,622,000 of FTA funds, and $17,366,772 of funding designated for local match. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 7, 2012, appropriates the
remaining identified FTA funds of $14,845,076, to achieve the total $86,833,848 project
cost.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance
review of Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 012, 2012, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on February 7, 2012, establishes the 2012 salary of the Municipal Judge
at $95,436.
261
February 21, 2012
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
City Council met in Executive Session on January 17, 2012 to conduct the performance
review of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 013, 2012, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on February 7, 2012, establishes the 2012 salary of the City Attorney at $165,691.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance
review of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 014, 2012, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on February 7, 2012, establishes the salary of the City Manager at
$197,203.
12. Items Relating to the City’s Traffic Signal System Software.
A. Resolution 2012-007 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation to Use Federal
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds for the Purpose of Procuring New Traffic
Signal System Software.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the Acquisition of New Traffic
Signal System Software.
The City’s Traffic Operations Department has been awarded a $248,000 Federal Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to procure and install new traffic signal system
software to replace existing software in the City’s Traffic Operations Center and in traffic
signal controllers at intersections throughout the City. The current software is aging and the
vendor has discontinued support. Updating the system software provides the ability to
utilize new technologies that were not available previously. The installation process will be
done in phases and the old software will be retired, once full conversion is completed.
13. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
A. Resolution 2012-008 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement
with the Colorado Department of Transportation for Funding for the North College
Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great
Fund for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
262
February 21, 2012
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) has awarded the
City of Fort Collins $2,039,000 in federal funds to design improvements, and begin rights-
of-way acquisition along North College Avenue between Conifer Street and Willox Lane.
This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) authorizing the City of Fort Collins to
receive this funding. The Ordinance will appropriate fiscal year 2012 federal funds into the
Capital Project Fund for use on the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to
Willox. Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) funds are intended to be used as the local funds
required for the project as per the intergovernmental agreement with CDOT. This project
is one of the highest ranked roadway projects in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan.
14. Items Relating to the Bryan Bridge Replacement Project.
A. Resolution 2012-009 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation in Support of the
Bryan Avenue Bridge Replacement Project.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the City Bridge Program Project.
The City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $552,000 in federal funds from the
Colorado Off-System Bridge Program. This intergovernmental agreement between the City
and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is for the replacement of the
structurally deficient Bryan Avenue Bridge over the Larimer County Canal No. 2, located
just north of Poudre Fire Authority Fire (PFA) Station 2 by City Park.
15. Resolution 2012-010 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort
Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the
recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds.
16. Resolution 2012-011 Supporting the City’s Application for a Local Parks and Outdoor
Recreation Grant from the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund for the
Environmental Education Sites at the Gardens on Spring Creek and Authorizing the
Execution of a Grant Agreement.
The Gardens on Spring Creek is currently applying for a $350,000 Great Outdoors Colorado
Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation Grant. Staff is preparing an application for construction
of the Environmental Education Sites at The Gardens. These sites include: (1) Foothills
Demonstration Site, (2) Prairie Demonstration Site, (3) Wetland Demonstration Site, and (4)
the Undaunted Garden, a xeriscape demonstration garden.
As part of the application process, Great Outdoors Colorado requires a resolution which
indicates the City’s support for the project, verifies that matching funds must be secured, that
263
February 21, 2012
the project will be maintained in a high quality condition, the land for the project is City-
owned, and designates an official to sign the grant agreement.
17. Resolution 2012-012 Authorizing a Revocable Permit for Lafarge West, Inc. to Access and
Complete Initial Work to Repair a Breach in the Riverbank Within the Archery Range
Natural Area.
Lafarge West, Inc. owns and operates the Port of Entry (POE) Gravel Mine adjacent to
Running Deer and Archery Range Natural Areas. During the spring runoff in 2011, Poudre
River flows overtopped the River bank on the northwest corner of the POE Pit and eroded
the bank back to the River so deeply that the River bank was breached and the River was
completely diverted through the gravel mine and back into the River at the southeast corner
of the pit. The breach is partially located within the Archery Range Natural Area. Lafarge
has developed a plan to repair the breach and return the Poudre River to its former channel
prior to spring 2011 runoff. The revocable permit is needed to allow Lafarge access to the
City property and begin implementation of the plan within the time frame being required by
the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety.
18. Resolution 2012-013 Approving a Two Year Extension of the Second Interim
Intergovernmental Agreement among the City, the Downtown Development Authority, the
Downtown Business Association and Progressive Old Town Square, LLC, Regarding the
Maintenance and Management of Old Town Plaza.
This Resolution authorizes the City to extend the current Old Town Plaza maintenance and
management agreement for two years by amending the existing agreement with the
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the Downtown Business Association (DBA),
and Progressive Old Town Square, LLC (POTS).
19. Routine Easements.
A. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from PJM7, LLC, to
install an electric switch cabinet, located at 1611 South College Avenue
B. Easement for Johnson Investments, to relocate existing electric duct bank, located
on South College Avenue, Lot 1, Choice Center.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the FY 2011-12 Safe Routes to School Program.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2012, Approving a Third Amendment to the Fort
Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation,
264
February 21, 2012
Growth Management, and Related Issues, Extending the Deadlines for the City and Town
to Amend Their Growth Management Area Boundaries.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
24. 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.
25. Items Relating to Medical Marijuana.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2012, Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 15,
Division 1, Article XVI of the City Code Relating to Medical Marijuana.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code to
Delete All References to Medical Marijuana Businesses.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2012 Amending Chapter 15, Article XVII
of the City Code to Add Additional Provisions Regarding Medical Marijuana
Patients and Primary Caregivers (Option A or Option B).
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund for the Acquisition of New Traffic Signal System
Software.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the
Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund for the North
College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund for the City Bridge Program Project.
265
February 21, 2012
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Poppaw was not in the room at the time the vote on the Consent
Calendar was taken.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted Item No. 14, First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2012,
Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the City Bridge
Program Project, will replace some community bridges and confirmed the funds for those
replacements are coming from the Transportation Fund. He requested a follow-up regarding unspent
money for the Fort Fund allocations in Item No. 15, Resolution 2012-010 Adopting the
Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. Jill
Stillwell, Cultural Services Director, replied the January and June sessions are for the second tier
of funding. The April session receives the largest funding allocation. Stillwell stated she would
provide additional information.
Councilmember Horak asked about the broad goals for the Fort Fund program and asked where the
program is headed. Stillwell replied the Cultural Resources Board’s overarching goal is to help
make Fort Collins a destination for arts and cultural events. City Manager Atteberry stated a work
session could be scheduled regarding altering that goal.
Councilmember Horak asked about the problem that cannot be resolved regarding Item No. 18,
Resolution 2012-013 Approving a Two Year Extension of the Second Interim Intergovernmental
Agreement among the City, the Downtown Development Authority, the Downtown Business
Association and Progressive Old Town Square, LLC, Regarding the Maintenance and Management
of Old Town Plaza. City Attorney Roy replied the City has been responsible for maintenance under
the old agreement, and will continue to do so in the absence of a new agreement.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the private downtown partner has not been participating in
negotiations.
Staff Reports
Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering Field Operations Manager, stated the City received an award from
the American Public Works Association for the canal Importation Ponds and Outfall project. He
introduced Owen Randall, Chief Engineer, Matt Fader, Special Project Manager, and Keith Reester,
American Public Works Colorado Chapter Chairperson. Randall gave a brief presentation regarding
the project.
Mr. Reester presented the award to Mayor Weitkunat.
266
February 21, 2012
Jason Licon, Fort Collins Loveland Municipal Airport Executive Director, introduced Larry Mack,
Airport Operations and Maintenance Supervisor, and discussed the recent improvements to the
airport including runway repaving and terminal additions. A grant was recently obtained for the
wingless flight initiative.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Horak discussed the clean energy works project or on-line financing of home
energy improvements in Portland, Oregon, and supported the idea in Fort Collins. He stated Platte
River Power Authority will be meeting next week and encouraged more detailed policies for PRPA
including public participation, reserve funds, and employee compensation.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed the Natural Areas volunteer appreciation dinner hosted by the City and
detailed the volunteer activities and hours donated.
Councilmember Troxell called attention to the proclamation for National Engineers Week.
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, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which is being presented on Second Reading, has been modified in several respects
in response to comments and concerns expressed during the public outreach process that has been
conducted since First Reading. The changes include: shortening the previously proposed period
of time within which the hearing on an appeal must be held; clarifying the form of notice of appeal;
eliminating the provision that would have allowed parties-in-interest to file a written response to
the notice of appeal; and changing to the provisions dealing with the introduction and handling of
new evidence. No changes have been made to two of the amendments that were proposed on First
Reading. The amendments that remain the same are: the amendment that would allow a
Councilmember to participate in hearing an appeal even if he or she had filed the appeal, and
amendments related to the site inspection process.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
When this Ordinance was presented to Council on First Reading, there were two proposed
amendments that the Council modified before voting in favor of the Ordinance. The first Council
modification was to the proposed amendment that would allow parties-in-interest who were opposed
to an appeal to file a written response to the notice of appeal. The Council modified that proposal
by expanding the group of persons who could file a written response to the notice of appeal so as
to include any party-in-interest, rather than just those who were opposed to the appeal. The second
267
February 21, 2012
change that Council made was to reject a proposed amendment that would have allowed members
of the general public to participate in the hearing on an appeal.
Second Reading of the Ordinance was postponed in order to allow time for additional public
outreach. Staff has conducted three different outreach meetings—two with the general public and
one with the Chamber of Commerce--and additional changes to the proposed Ordinance have been
made in response to citizen comments received at these meetings. Summaries of the comments
received at each of those meetings are attached.
Several concerns raised during the meetings have been addressed by additional revisions to the
proposed Ordinance. The concerns expressed and the revisions suggested by staff are as follows:
• That the new period of time that staff had suggested for scheduling the hearing on an appeal
was too long. Under the Code as presently written, an appeal must be heard no less than
30 nor more than 60 calendar days after the date of filing of the notice of appeal. This time
frame has created problems because the City Clerk is sometimes unable to find a date within
60 days that is acceptable to the parties-in-interest and that accommodates the other
business that is scheduled for Council’s consideration during that period of time. On First
Reading, staff had suggested expanding the period to 120 days. Because of concerns that
this expanded time frame would cause undue delay in the processing of a development
application, staff is now recommending that the hearing be set as soon as reasonably
practicable but no more than 75 days after the date of filing of the notice of appeal.
• That the form of the notice of appeal should be clarified. In order to ensure that the notice
of appeal contains all the requisite information and does not introduce new information into
the appeal process, staff is recommending that language be added to Section 2-49,
pertaining to the filing of the notice of appeal, clearly stating that no information other than
that specified in the revised version of that section may be included in or attached to the
notice of appeal or submitted to or received by the City prior to the hearing on the appeal.
In addition, a standardized form has been prepared for the notice of appeal.
• That it would be a mistake to allow parties-in-interest to file a written response to an appeal.
While a written response could help better frame the issues, the primary concern expressed
was that those responses would likely contain new evidence, which would create a need to
either disallow the responses or have them modified. Another concern was that adding an
opportunity for a written response would lengthen and complicate the process. Staff believes
that these concerns have merit; therefore, staff is no longer recommending that parties-in-
interest be allowed to file a written response.
• That Councilmembers who file an appeal should not participate in hearing the appeal. The
concern here is that if a Councilmember feels strongly enough about a decision made by a
board or commission or hearing officer to appeal the decision, he or she may not be able to
be impartial in deciding the appeal. While staff believes that this concern may have merit,
the Council directed that this change be brought forward, so it is still included in the
proposed amendments. From a strictly legal standpoint, there is a strong presumption under
the relevant case law that administrative decision makers will be impartial. Consequently,
268
February 21, 2012
it is unlikely that a decision on appeal would be overturned on the grounds of bias merely
because one or more Councilmembers who participated in the appeal hearing had asked the
Council to review the decision by filing an appeal.
• That the way in which new evidence is handled at appeal hearings is confusing and
unpredictable. The Ordinance addresses this concern in the following ways.
- The opportunity for parties-in-interest to file written materials in advance of the
hearing has been eliminated. At present, Section 2-54(b) states that such materials
may be filed in the office of the City Clerk up until noon on the Wednesday prior to
the hearing as long as any new evidence contained in the materials is limited to that
which responds to an allegation that the original decision maker considered
evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading. This provision has
proven to be confusing to parties-in-interest and has led to the misconception that
written materials other than those permitted under this section can be presented to
the Council prior to the hearing on the appeal.
- Section 2-57(b), which describes the extent to which new evidence may be
considered on appeal, has been amended by the addition of a new subparagraph
stating that any new evidence offered by the appellant at the hearing shall be limited
to the new evidence that is either described in the notice of appeal or offered in
response to Council questions.
- A provision has been added to Section 2-57 stating that any party-in-interest may
object to the introduction of new evidence at the hearing, and the objection will be
ruled on by the Mayor, subject to being overridden by the majority of the Council.
• That the changes being recommended to the section relating to site inspections should not
allow for individual site inspections without staff or parties-in-interest being present. The
changes to the provision relating to site inspections are being recommended in response to
questions and concerns that were raised by a citizen during the appeal of the Planning and
Zoning Board’s decisions regarding The Grove ODP and PDP. The revised language
would, among other things, allow Councilmembers to inspect the site of a proposed
development plan either alone or in the company of staff and any parties-in-interest who
wish to attend the inspection. Concern was expressed that, if Councilmembers inspect the
site without staff present (other than by simply driving by the site), their observations might
somehow compromise the integrity of the process and/or lead to misimpressions about the
development proposal or its impact upon adjacent properties. However, staff continues to
believe that the proposed changes are appropriate, that they will allow for more flexibility
in the site inspection process, and that this flexibility is necessary because it is often difficult
to find a date and time when all Councilmembers who are interested in viewing the site can
attend as a group.
In combination, staff believes that the proposed amendments will improve the appeals process and
are responsive to the concerns that have been raised during the public outreach. Because a
considerable period of time has elapsed since First Reading, the Ordinance shows in blue the
269
February 21, 2012
changes that have been made since First Reading as well as in comparison to the existing language
of the Code.”
City Attorney Roy stated this Ordinance makes several amendments to the appeal process, and was
adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011. At that time, Council directed staff to conduct
outreach regarding the issue. City Attorney Roy detailed the proposed changes to the Ordinance that
have resulted from that outreach.
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, discussed the
overall concerns of the outreach including ensuring fair hearings in a simple and timely fashion.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Ordinance and stated ethics violations have been
committed.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, supported the Ordinance, but stated the item should
have been more thoroughly vetted and the public outreach should have occurred prior to First
Reading.
Nick Haas, 2221 Sandberg, supported staff presence at site inspections.
Councilmember Troxell asked if this Ordinance is the same as the First Reading Ordinance. City
Attorney Roy replied it is a revised version; however, the original purpose of the Ordinance is
unchanged which allows for this Ordinance to be heard on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the provision which allows Councilmembers to file an appeal
and also be allowed to hear the appeal. Councilmember Ohlson stated Councilmembers were
allowed to appeal and participate from at least 1983 until 2005 or so. After that time, it was changed
to disallow participation by a Councilmember filing an appeal.
City Attorney Roy verified the changes to the Code and noted it is not an issue from a legal
standpoint to allow participation in an appeal hearing by a Councilmember filing an appeal.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked what type of input from a Councilmember would justify a legal
conflict. City Attorney Roy replied the Code presently requires all appeals, except those filed by
Councilmembers, to contain grounds for the appeal, including specific allegations of error and a
summary of the facts which support those allegations. Councilmembers are exempt from that
requirement in order to avoid making it too difficult to participate in an unbiased way.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked how an appeal with no grounds should be considered. City Attorney
Roy replied Council could initiate a review of a Planning and Zoning Board decision in two ways:
by requiring a majority of Council to make the decision rather than one member, or by requiring
some kind of statement by the Councilmember filing the appeal which would identify the issues that
member felt needed to be reviewed.
270
February 21, 2012
Councilmember Manvel supported allowing one member to file an appeal. He asked how many
Councilmembers have filed appeals in the last five years. City Attorney Roy replied there were no
appeals by Councilmembers in the last five years.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 131, 2011, on Second Reading.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed concern regarding Councilmembers taking a position which shows bias.
Councilmember Horak stated the duty of final decisions is given to Council in the City Charter.
Mayor Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to amend Section 2-48 to
remove the ability of Councilmembers filing an appeal to participate in the appeal hearing.
Councilmember Manvel opposed the amendment, citing his opinion that Councilmembers should
be able to raise questions.
Councilmember Kottwitz supported the amendment citing public perception of possible bias.
Councilmember Poppaw opposed the amendment, noting Councilmembers should be expected to
withdraw from discussions should they have a conflict.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed the amendment.
Councilmember Troxell supported the amendment.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays:
Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Mayor Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to amend the Ordinance
by removing the provision allowing individual site inspections.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed the amendment as the change would allow Councilmembers to
make site visits if scheduling conflicts arise.
City Attorney Roy recommended reinstating the sentence in Section 2-55(b) which allowed for site
observation by individual Councilmembers from public rights-of-way.
Councilmember Poppaw clarified that Councilmembers are required to make note of any
observations made at the site. City Attorney Roy clarified that would not change should individual
site visits be allowed.
271
February 21, 2012
Councilmember Kottwitz suggested requiring a staff member to be present with a Councilmember
needing an individual site visit. City Attorney Roy recommended against that, unless a stipulation
is included that other parties of interest be notified.
City Attorney Roy clarified the language changes which would result from this amendment. The
words “either alone or with City staff present” would be eliminated and the language would be
clarified to allow only for group inspections and the provision regarding travel on public rights-of-
way would be added back into the language. The intent would be to limit inspections to group
inspections with staff present and notice having been given to parties-in-interest.
Mayor Weitkunat stated her amendment was to eliminate individual inspections.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Manvel, Poppaw and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 2011, on Second Reading, was as follows: Yeas: Ohlson,
Manvel, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items Relating to Medical Marijuana, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2012, Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 15,
Division 1, Article XVI of the City Code Relating to Medical Marijuana.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code to Delete All
References to Medical Marijuana Businesses.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2012 Amending Chapter 15, Article XVII of the City
Code to Add Additional Provisions Regarding Medical Marijuana Patients and Primary
Caregivers (Option A or Option B).
On Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2012, staff is presenting two options for Council to
consider that deal with the cultivation of medical marijuana in dwelling units that are located in
two-family and multi-family dwellings and their accessory structures. Option A would impose the
same twelve-plant limit for such structures that applies to single-family dwellings. Option B would
entirely prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana in such structures. Staff is recommending
Option A pending further review of the issue.
272
February 21, 2012
At Council’s direction, staff is also exploring a possible amendment to Ordinance No. 010, 2012,
which deals with the permitted uses in various zone districts in the City. This Ordinance, if adopted
“as is” on Second Reading, will eliminate all references to medical marijuana businesses in the
Land Use Code, thereby also eliminating any zone districts in which the cultivation medical
marijuana is specifically permitted. The practical effect of this will be to leave only residential
dwelling units as permissible locations for such cultivation. Staff believes that it will be able to
present a recommendation to the Council on this subject within the next four to six months,
following a public outreach process and review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 7, 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
When Council approved these ordinances on First Reading, it gave staff direction to explore two
possible changes on Second Reading. The first had to do with Ordinance No. 011, 2012, which
contains certain regulations pertaining to the cultivation of medical marijuana by primary
caregivers and patients. The Code section that contains these regulations, Section 15-501, limits the
number of plants that can be cultivated or kept within, or on the same legal parcel as, a single-
family dwelling to twelve plants, only six of which may be mature. However, the Code is silent as
to whether cultivation activities may be undertaken in two-family and multi-family dwellings and
their accessory structures.
When staff first presented this Code section to Council for adoption in March of 2011, staff
recommended that the cultivation of medical marijuana in these kinds of structures be prohibited.
However, the Council decided against adopting such a prohibition and instead amended the
ordinance on second reading to delete the proposed prohibition, thus leaving the Code silent with
regard to cultivation in such structures.
On Second Reading staff has presented for Council’s consideration two options for dealing with this
subject. Option A would impose the same twelve-plant limit for dwelling units in two-family and
multi-family dwellings and their accessory structures as exists for single-family dwellings. Option
B would ban cultivation in such structures as recommended in March 2011. Staff recommends
adoption of Option A. The reason for this recommendation is to ensure that, pending further study,
all patients and primary caregivers have the same opportunity to cultivate at their residences.
The second issue that staff has been directed to pursue has to do with the areas of the City in which
medical marijuana may be cultivated by primary caregivers and patients. In response to the voter-
approved ban on medical marijuana businesses that went into effect February 14, 2012, Ordinance
No. 010, 2012, amends the City’s Land Use Code to delete all references to such businesses. The
effect of this amendment to the LUC is that residential dwelling units will now be the only locations
in the City where medical marijuana may be cultivated. At the hearing on First Reading, several
primary caregivers and one of their representatives asked that Council reconsider this situation and
make available additional areas in the City where they and their patients may lawfully cultivate
medical marijuana.
273
February 21, 2012
Because any additional amendment to the LUC dealing with this issue would require review by the
Planning and Zoning Board, and because additional research and outreach will need to be
conducted in order for staff to formulate a recommendation on this subject, no other amendments
to Ordinance No. 010, 2012, are being recommended at this time. Instead, staff intends to return
to Council with a recommendation within the next four to six months. At that point in time, staff will
present a comprehensive recommendation to the Council with regard to a system of regulation for
the cultivation of medical marijuana by primary caregivers and patients.”
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, stated Ordinance No. 009, 2012, repeals the City Code
section addressing the regulation of medical marijuana businesses and replaces it with language
more consistent with the adopted ballot language. Ordinance No. 010, 2012 addresses changes to
the Land Use Code which will limit all cultivation by patients and caregivers to residential dwelling
units. Staff will return at a later date with a recommendation regarding the addition of other zone
districts. Ordinance No. 011, 2012 addresses regulations toward primary caregivers and patients.
Option A would allow cultivation of up to 12 plants in any single-family, two-family, or multi-
family dwelling unit. Option B would not allow cultivation in two-family or multi-family units.
Staff is recommending adoption of Option A.
William Rowley, 3412 Pearstone Place, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Gary Peterson, Fort Collins resident, opposed allowing cultivation in any residential area but
supported the ability of caregivers to grow elsewhere.
Debbie McKee, medical marijuana patient, expressed concern regarding medical marijuana
availability.
Barbara McKee, medical marijuana patient, expressed concern regarding medical marijuana
availability.
Mary Hesterman, Fort Collins resident, supported the ban of medical marijuana dispensaries.
Robert Durr, Fort Collins resident, discussed the benefits of medical marijuana and supported its
availability.
Caroline Montague, Wellington resident, discussed her experience with medical marijuana and
supported its availability.
Rushann Martin, 149 Hillcrest Drive, medical marijuana patient, supported the availability of
medical marijuana.
Wayne Haile, Fort Collins resident, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Kathy Bergo, 845 Southridge Greens, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Charles Overby, Fort Collins resident, medical marijuana patient, supported the availability of
medical marijuana.
274
February 21, 2012
Dan Eversoll, 813 Biscay Lane, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
David Straugh, Fort Collins resident, supported allowing caregivers to grow in commercial areas.
Jim Patella, 3331 Pineridge Place, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Alfred Reaud, 1104 Columbine Court, supported the availability of medical marijuana.
Justin Smith, Larimer County Sheriff, discussed the hazardous materials aspects of medical
marijuana and supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Ken Correia, Fort Collins resident, stated cultivation needs to be allowed in commercial zones.
Sandra Gomez, Fort Collins resident, supported the availability of medical marijuana.
Don Butler, Fort Collins resident, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Dr. Nancy Smith, 420 South Loomis, read a statement from Dr. Debra Archer supporting Option
B of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Deb James, Fort Collins resident, discussed the environmental impact of medical marijuana grows
in residential units and supported allowing cultivation in commercial zones.
Carl Elliott, Timnath resident, urged Council to abide by the election results.
Tina Valenti, Fort Collins resident, cited legal arguments which require the City to allow caregivers
the ability to provide medical marijuana for up to five patients and supported allowing cultivation
in commercial areas.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, urged Council to abide by the election results.
Sheeva Freeland, Fort Collins resident, supported the availability of medical marijuana.
Kurt Scramstead, Fort Collins resident, requested clarification regarding Referendum 300, which
he understood to ban medical marijuana businesses, optional cultivation facilities, and marijuana
infused product businesses, but does not ban the availability of medical marijuana in Fort Collins.
He supported allowing cultivation of medical marijuana in commercial zones.
Jeff Abbott, Loveland resident, medical marijuana patient, supported the safe preparation of medical
marijuana edibles, and therefore cultivation in commercial facilities.
Dr. Mike Smith, 420 South Loomis, read a statement from Dr. Richard Guest supporting Option B
of Ordinance No. 011, 2012.
Eli (no last name given), Fort Collins resident, supported the availability of medical marijuana.
275
February 21, 2012
Kathryn Schofield, medical marijuana patient, supported the availability of medical marijuana.
Mayor Weitkunat thanked the speakers and recognized the challenges in making these decisions.
Councilmember Troxell asked what constitutes multi-family. Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor,
replied a multi-family dwelling is defined as a building that contains one or more dwelling units.
For example, if each unit of a townhome is on its own platted lot, those units are defined as attached
single-family units.
Councilmember Horak asked if it is legal for Fort Collins to pass any of these Ordinances. City
Attorney Roy replied, as a home rule city, Fort Collins has the authority to regulate these subjects.
An express grant of authority from the State is not necessary for a Home Rule city to regulate in
matters of mixed state and local concern.
Councilmember Horak asked for the legal consequences of the passage of Proposition 300. City
Attorney Roy replied it banned medical marijuana businesses but did not speak to cultivation
facilities of caregivers or patients.
Councilmember Horak asked about the consequences of not passing these Ordinances. City
Attorney Roy replied the status quo, with regard to cultivation by caregivers and patients in Fort
Collins, is that cultivation is permitted as an accessory use in residences. In multi-family dwellings,
there is currently no regulation of the quantity that can be cultivated. In single-family dwellings,
there is a 12 plant per unit limit.
Councilmember Manvel asked if any Colorado municipalities have outlawed the growing of medical
marijuana. City Attorney Roy replied he is not aware of any municipalities which have outlawed
growing. There is no constitutional wording which speaks to the way in which patients and
caregivers can lawfully acquire medical marijuana.
Councilmember Manvel stated Council has received a fair amount of input asking that it defer to
the State regulations. He requested legal input on that topic. City Attorney Roy replied those
requesting that change are likely requesting that Council not locally regulate cultivation by
caregivers and patients to a greater extent that does the State.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the staff recommendation of Option A. Police Captain
Schiager replied this issue addresses a gap in the current law which has no regulations regarding
growing medical marijuana in multi-family dwellings.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 009, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 010, 2012, on Second Reading.
276
February 21, 2012
Councilmember Manvel asked for clarification regarding whether or not medical marijuana
businesses which were in operation prior to regulations will be able to continue operations. Barnes
replied, prior to the first Ordinances adopted in March, 2010, there were some dispensaries in
existence and were classified as retail stores. Once those Ordinances were adopted, the dispensaries
and cultivation facilities were defined. Moving forward, a caregiver grow operation would need to
be listed separately and defined.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Option B of
Ordinance No. 011, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel asked what percentage of the building units in Fort Collins are multi-
family. Barnes replied approximately 40% of the units are multi-family.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern regarding the fairness issue of not allowing those
individuals to grow medical marijuana.
Councilmember Horak stated he would rather attempt an extensive public process prior to changing
regulations.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated these regulation changes do not mean Council is not compassionate.
She stated this should be a federal level issue.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz left at this point in the meeting.)
Ordinance No. 013, 2012,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Attorney, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on January 17, 2012 to conduct the performance review of
City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 013, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
February 7, 2012, establishes the 2012 salary of the City Attorney at $165,691.”
277
February 21, 2012
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern about the City’s good faith efforts. He
stated Fort Collins is at fault for the lack of informed consent regarding the power poles at Pineridge
Open Space and opposed Ordinance Nos. 013, 2012 and 014, 2012.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 013, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak commended City Attorney Roy and stated the issues discussed by Mr.
Sutherland are being examined.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended and supported City Attorney Roy and City Manager Atteberry.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 014, 2012,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance review of
City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 014, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading
on February 7, 2012, establishes the salary of the City Manager at $197,203.”
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 014, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak commended City Manager Atteberry and his interaction with Council and
citizens.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
278
February 21, 2012
Items Relating to the North College Improvements
Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2012-008 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Colorado Department of Transportation for Funding for the North College Improvements
Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the
Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund for the North
College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) has awarded the City of
Fort Collins $2,039,000 in federal funds to design improvements, and begin rights-of-way
acquisition along North College Avenue between Conifer Street and Willox Lane. This Resolution
authorizes the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) authorizing the City of Fort Collins to receive this funding. The Ordinance
will appropriate fiscal year 2012 federal funds into the Capital Project Fund for use on the North
College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox. Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) funds are
intended to be used as the local funds required for the project as per the intergovernmental
agreement with CDOT. This project is one of the highest ranked roadway projects in the City’s
Capital Improvements Plan.
North College Avenue, also known as US Highway 287, is a major north-south, four lane arterial
that runs through north Fort Collins, providing both local and regional connectivity. Through
previous planning efforts, City staff identified the need to enhance the northern gateway to the city,
improve multimodal travel while accommodating the large volume of interstate truck traffic, and
to address aging utility infrastructure and drainage issues. There was also a desire to establish a
strong connection between the growing North College corridor and the rest of the community, in
particular, the historic Old Town area as well as the locally and regionally significant Poudre River
bicycle/pedestrian trail.
The portion of North College Avenue north of Conifer Street to Willox Lane is typical of older state
highway corridors; it was constructed over many years in a fragmented approach aimed at
accommodating development, minor roadway improvements, and increased traffic flows. North
College is, within this section, a four-lane highway with a striped center left turn lane, has partially
paved shoulders, sporadic curb and gutter, occasional drainage swales, discontinuous sidewalks,
no on-street bike lanes, and minimal defined accesses. Much of this section of North College lacks
defined business access points, creating a dangerous traveling environment, as well as impacting
vehicular flow for a defined truck route. In addition to high automobile and truck traffic volumes,
many pedestrians and cyclists use North College to access residential, employment, and commercial
destinations.
279
February 21, 2012
Through previous improvement projects, much of the North College Corridor either has been
constructed, or will be constructed, to current City of Fort Collins street standards by the end of
2012. The section of North College from Conifer Street to Willox Lane will be the only remaining
section of North College within the city limits to be constructed to complete the City’s vision for the
corridor. In the summer of 2011, the NFRMPO awarded the City of Fort Collins $2,039,000 in
federal funds to design improvements and begin rights-of-way acquisition along North College
Avenue between Conifer Street and Willox Lane. The funding will be available over a four year
period. Of the total federal funds received for this project, $1,426,000 is currently available for use
by the City. Per the intergovernmental agreement, $326,481 is required from the City in 2012 as
local match and over-match funds.
Goals for the roadway and streetscape improvements along North College Avenue between Conifer
Street and Willox Lane include:
• Creating a safe and effective travel corridor for all users including bicycles, pedestrians,
transit users, passenger vehicles, and heavy vehicles.
• Defining access points as highlighted in the US 287/SH14 Access Management Report.
• Maintaining compatibility with utilities, including stormwater, water, sewer, power, and
communications.
• Supporting the economic viability of the project area.
• Upgrading the image of the North College Corridor while minimizing impacts to existing
infrastructure.
• Maintaining compatibility with the intent of previous local planning efforts.
All of the planned improvements along North College Avenue will be designed in accordance with
previous planning efforts: the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), the CDOT
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, the US 287/SH14 Access Management
Report, and the North College Corridor Plan.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Ordinance No. 016, 2012, will authorize the appropriation of fiscal year 2012 Federal Grant Funds
into the City of Fort Collins Capital Project Fund to begin the design and right-of-way acquisition
phases for the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox. The following is a summary
of the funding appropriation:
Funding Summary (FY 2012)
Total Federal Funds $1,426,000
Local Agency Matching Funds (2011 unspent KFCG Funds) $226,000
Local Agency Match and Overmatch Funds (2012 budgeted KFCG
Funds)
$100,481
Total Budgeted Funds $1,752,481
280
February 21, 2012
The North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox was awarded a total of $2,039,000
from the NFRMPO. The following is an anticipated schedule summary of the federal funding
awarded to the project:
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 TOTAL
Federal Funds $1,426,000 $174,000 $19,000 $420,000 $2,039,000
One of the primary goals of this project is to support the economic viability of the project area by
upgrading the image and safety of the North College Corridor, while minimizing impacts to existing
infrastructure. This is consistent with adopted long-term plans for the area, including the North
College Corridor Plan (2007) and Fort Collins City Plan (2011). The project will address these
goals through the design and construction of multimodal improvements, urban design features, the
consolidation and definition of accesses, and other improvements which target and encourage
redevelopment. The awarded federal funds will enable design development as well as partial right-
of-way acquisition. At this time no funds have been identified for construction. With a completed
design, the project will be in a position to compete for potential construction funding. The
completion of these improvements will provide an economic benefit to the North College area as
well as to the City of Fort Collins as a whole with increased property values and sales tax
collection.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project will have a positive impact on long-term air and storm water quality. The addition of
improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities will increase the number of people walking and biking
along North College Avenue, resulting in a clearly definable air quality improvement. The utility
upgrades in this project include improvements to the stormwater distribution system. Stormwater
will ultimately be piped to water quality ponds where suspended solids and hydrocarbon
contaminants from roadway drainage will be removed prior to discharge into receiving waters.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern about funding sources for this project and
stated the loan for the RMI2 building should not have occurred.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this project deals with a state highway and some of the funds are from the
North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-008. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 016, 2012, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated a united Council is doing its best to complete the work on North
College.
281
February 21, 2012
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Manvel suggested a review of Council’s term limit policy and suggested a
November ballot item increasing the number of terms allowed from two to three.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested a review of the Mayoral term limit as well.
Councilmember Horak suggested placing the item on a work session agenda.
Councilmember Troxell encouraged a broader discussion regarding term limits as well as district
configuration and at-large representation.
Councilmember Manvel disagreed with holding a discussion of at-large representation.
Councilmember Troxell clarified he is simply encouraging a broader discussion.
Mayor Weitkunat commended retiring City Clerk Krajicek on her service to the City.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
282
February 27, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Special Meeting – 5:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Monday, February 27,
2012, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Poppaw, and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz, Ohlson, Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy.
Motion to Waive Attorney-Client Privilege, Adopted
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that Council waive
the attorney-client privilege with regard to advice given by the City Attorney’s Office to current and
past members of the Planning and Zoning Board, to such extent as the Council Ethics Review Board,
in consultation with the City Attorney, determines is necessary and appropriate in order for the
Review Board to be able to render an advisory opinion and recommendation to the Council
regarding the complaint filed by David Bell against Planning and Zoning Boardmember Gino
Campana. Yeas: Horak, Manvel, Poppaw, and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
283
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Susan Smolnik
Beth Molenaar
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City’s Raw
Water for the 2012 Irrigation Season.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, approves rates for the rental and delivery
of the City’s raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various
contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to other City departments. The proposed rate for each
type of water is based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation
companies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 6, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: March 6, 2012
STAFF: Susan Smolnik
Beth Molenaar
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City’s Raw Water
for the 2012 Irrigation Season.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance approves rates for the rental and delivery of the City’s raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these
rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries
to other City departments. The proposed rate for each type of water is based on several factors including market
conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City is a shareholder in several local irrigation companies. Most years there is water in excess of that needed to
meet City uses. To the extent there is surplus raw water, it can be rented to others for their use. Each year prior to
the irrigation season and after the irrigation companies have established their annual assessments for water shares,
the City Council approves rental rates and delivery charges for the use of the City’s raw water. Staff uses these annual
raw water rates and delivery charges for the purpose of charging for various uses of Utilities’ raw water. These uses
include rental to agricultural users, meeting certain raw water delivery obligations, and uses by other City departments.
The attached tables show the assessment rates as set by the irrigation companies and the raw water rates charged
by the City for 2009 through 2011 as well as proposed rates for 2012.
Currently, the snowpack is near average in the Poudre Basin this winter. However, last year’s abundant snowpack
provided steady streamflows that allowed storage reservoirs to fill. In addition, Utilities carried over water from the
2011 water year for use in 2012. To ensure that adequate supplies are maintained, staff will continue to closely
monitor Utilities water supplies when making surplus raw water available for rental. The first priority will be to insure
that adequate supplies will be carried over into 2013. In 2011, Utilities rented approximately 15,500 acre-feet of
surplus water for just under $500,000.
Staff is proposing two categories for raw water rates and delivery charges. The first category includes only those
sources for which an active rental market exists. The second category includes sources delivered under raw water
agreements and used to irrigate greenbelts and City facilities (parks, golf courses, etc.).
Staff is also proposing an option rate for the rental of collateral water by Windy Gap project participants. This rate
allows Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT) water to be held in reserve for a participant in the event that it is needed.
Surplus Water Rental Market
Those systems with active water rental markets include the CBT, North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC), and Water
Supply and Storage Company (WSSC). For these sources the proposed rates are based on expected rental market
conditions.
Fort Collins will likely have some CBT water available for rent this year. Staff recommends that agricultural rentals
of CBT water be made at a price of $30 per acre foot. This is the same price that was charged last year. Staff further
proposes that CBT water rented for municipal or industrial (M&I) purposes also remain at the same price of $49 per
acre foot in 2012. CBT water for municipal or industrial uses is typically rented at a higher rate than for agricultural
purposes reflecting the higher assessments charged to M&I water users.
Utilities also expects to have surplus NPIC water that can be made available for rent. Each share of North Poudre
Irrigation Company has an “agricultural” component and a “multiple use” component. Due to legal constraints, the “ag”
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 10
component can only be used for agricultural purposes on land served by the NPIC system and is rented to
shareholders under the system. The multiple use portion of each NPIC share is available for Utilities' use and is largely
comprised of NPIC-owned CBT water. When users under the NPIC system rent either “ag” or “multiple use” water,
it is run through the North Poudre system in the same way. Therefore, it is proposed that both the “ag” water and
excess "multiple use" water be rented at $30 per acre foot. This is the same price as last year. In some years there
is a special class of NPIC water available for agricultural users for a very limited time early in the irrigation season.
If this “early ag” water is available in 2012, staff proposes a rental rate of $12 per acre foot to reflect its very limited
use.
The decreed use of Utilities-owned Water Supply and Storage Company shares remains agricultural at this time and
is rented to shareholders under that system. This has historically been a very active rental market and the rental price
of WSSC water is expected to be about $3,300 per share this year. In addition, it is anticipated that WSSC’s reusable
return flow rental program will generate revenues of approximately $1,400 per share.
Utilities occasionally has rental demand for reusable sources to satisfy state requirements for substitute supply and
augmentation plans. Utilities’ primary reusable sources are Joe Wright Reservoir water and reusable effluent from
Utilities’ water reclamation facilities. It is proposed that the rental price for these sources be $500 per acre-foot in
2012.
Raw Water Delivery Charges
This category covers sources that are used primarily on City facilities, such as parks and golf courses, or by other
entities that have turned over raw water or otherwise met Utilities’ raw water requirements. These other non-City
entities with raw water agreements are mostly HOAs and the Poudre School District. Sources in this category include
the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company (PV&L) shares and other “Southside Ditches” shares. It is proposed
that the charges be set at a rate that is 10% above the assessments charged by the various irrigation companies. This
is to help offset Utilities’ administrative costs. For example, the assessment rate for PV&L water has been set at $175
per share. Based on this method, the raw water delivery charges would be set at $175 x 1.1 (110%) = $192.50 per
share.
Utilities has delivery obligations for reusable water where Utilities’ raw water requirement has been met. In this
situation it is proposed that a fee of $100 per acre-foot be charged to help offset operation and administrative costs.
Option Rate
This year, staff is proposing an option rate of $3 per acre-foot to hold CBT water in reserve for use by Windy Gap
participants. Windy Gap participants use the CBT system to deliver their Windy Gap water across the continental
divide. Last year, all of the Windy Gap water that was previously pumped into the CBT system spilled due to the
plentiful snow pack and the resulting high flows. This year, the Windy Gap system may not pump any water. In the
event this happens, participants will need to rent CBT water. By paying the option rate, a participant can have Utilities-
owned CBT water held in reserve until it can be determined whether the Windy Gap system will pump sufficient
supplies. If the system does not pump enough Windy Gap water then option-paying participants will have the right
to rent CBT water at the Council-set water rental price. If the Windy Gap system does pump sufficient supplies then
these participants will not need to rent additional CBT water and Utilities can rent this water to other water users.
Natural Areas- Owned Water
The City’s Natural Areas Program owns some shares in the Boxelder irrigation system. Occasionally Natural Areas
desires to rent these shares to other water users in this system. In the event that Natural Areas chooses to rent these
shares in 2012, the rental price proposed is the same as the share assessment due to the very limited market for these
shares. This Ordinance authorizes Utilities Executive Director to carry out the rental of these shares at the request
of Natural Areas at that rate.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The revenue from the City’s rental and delivery of raw water is expected to be approximately $500,000 for 2012. The
revenues generated by the rentals helps to off-set costs incurred by the City.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City’s raw water rental program assists farmers in Northern Colorado and indirectly supports an open space
agricultural landscape.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 16, 2012 meeting, the Water Board discussed the proposed rates and charges and unanimously voted
to recommend adoption of the proposed rates and charges.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed rental rates for 2012
2, Water assessment rates as set by the irrigation companies
3. Raw water rental rates and delivery set by the City from 2009 through 2011 and proposed 2012 rates and
charges
4. Water Board minutes, February 16, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 018, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING RENTAL RATES AND DELIVERY CHARGES FOR THE
CITY'S RAW WATER FOR THE 2012 IRRIGATION SEASON
WHEREAS, each year prior to the irrigation season, the City staff and the Water Board
make a recommendation to the City Council regarding rental rates and delivery charges for the use
of the City’s raw water; and
WHEREAS, the Water Utility uses these rates to assess charges for agricultural rental
water, for various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to and for other
City departments; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Water Board discussed the rental program and the
use of raw water and recommended the following rates for the 2012 irrigation season:
Type of Water Proposed 2012 Rental Rates/Charges*
Surplus Rental Rates
NCWCD Water (CBT) - Ag $ 30.00 /ac-ft
NCWCD Water (CBT) – M&I $ 49.00 /ac-ft
North Poudre Irrigation Co. – Early Ag Use $ 12.00 /ac-ft
North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Ag Use $ 30.00 /ac-ft
North Poudre Irrigation Co. – Multiple Use $ 30.00 /ac-ft
Water Supply and Storage Co. $ 3300.00 /share
Reusable Sources $ 500.00/ ac-ft
Raw Water Delivery Charges
NCWCD Water (CBT) – Ag $ 30.00 /share
Arthur Irrigation Co. $ 27.50 /share
Larimer County Canal No. 2 $ 550.00 /share
New Mercer Ditch Co. $ 990.00 /share
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. $ 192.50 /share
Warren Lake Reservoir Co. $ 330.00 /share
Sherwood Res. Co. $ 8.80 /share
Sherwood Irrigation Co. $ 660.00 /share
Reusable Sources $ 100.00 /ac-ft
Natural Area Program Rental Rates
Boxelder Irrigation Company $ 700.00 /share
Option Rates
Option for Collateral Water $ 3.00 /ac-ft
*Note:
(1) Rental rates may be adjusted to reflect the remaining yield or the prevalent market
price of the water stock being rented.
(2) Charges for those who have satisfied the City’s raw water requirements are set at
approximately 110% of the assessments charged by that company.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the rental rates and charges as set forth above are hereby approved as the City’s raw
water rates for 2012 and the Utilities Executive Director is authorized to rent or deliver such raw
water at said rates.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Jon Haukaas
Roger Buffington
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the Manner in Which
Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s Land Use Code allows carriage houses to be constructed at the rear of lots in certain zoning districts. The
City Code currently requires that such buildings have separate water and sewer services connecting to City water
mains and sanitary sewers. This requirement frequently stops the carriage house projects due to construction
constraints and cost considerations. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012,
provides an option to connect the water and sewer services to the primary residence at the front of the lot with certain
limitations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 6, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: March 6, 2012
STAFF: Jon Haukaas
Roger Buffington
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the Manner in Which
Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s Land Use Code allows carriage houses to be constructed at the rear of lots in certain zoning districts. The
City Code currently requires that such buildings have separate water and sewer services connecting to City water
mains and sanitary sewers. This requirement frequently stops the carriage house projects due to construction
constraints and cost considerations. The proposed change in the City Code would provide an option to connect the
water and sewer services to the primary residence at the front of the lot with certain limitations.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code defines a carriage house as follows:
Carriage house shall mean a single-family detached dwelling, typically without street frontage, that
is located behind a separate, principal dwelling on the same lot, which fronts on the street.
The City Code presently requires that each building have separate water and sewer services; however, the Code does
the allow the Utilities Executive Director to authorize more than one building connect to water and sewer services if
the following three conditions are met:
1. The combined water use of the buildings shall not exceed the capacity of the service line.
2. If the service is for residential use, only one of the buildings may be used as a residential
dwelling.
3. If the buildings are served by one service line, the buildings shall be under single ownership
and no subsequent division of ownership or subdivision of the property, upon which the
buildings are located, shall be permitted until separate service lies have been installed to
each building.
For carriage houses, the second condition has been problematic in that it requires the carriage house to connect to
the City water mains and sanitary sewers typically in the street in front of the principal dwelling. In the older parts of
the city, mature trees and landscaping often make it very difficult, if not impossible, to install service lines around the
principal dwelling. For newer areas of the city, the narrow lot widths make it impossible to place these services
between the houses due to the presence of gas and electric services, window wells, air conditioning units, landscaping
and fences.
In addition to the obstacles encountered in construction, the extension of the services to the public mains in the street
involves cutting the pavement and trenching into the street right-of-way. These trenches affect the integrity of the
street paving and impact future street maintenance costs for the City. Property owners who have considered building
carriage houses find the added costs associated with street cuts often stop the project.
In order to overcome the construction hurdles and address the impacts to streets and related project costs, it is
proposed that Chapter 26 of the City Code be revised to provide the Utilities Executive Director the flexibility to approve
the connection of the carriage house water and sewer services to the principal dwelling under the conditions listed
below and included in the proposed ordinance:
1. The combined water use of the buildings shall not exceed the capacity of the service lines.
2. If the buildings are served by one service line, the buildings shall be under one ownership, and no subsequent
division of ownership or subdivision of the property upon which the buildings are located shall be permitted
until separate service lines have been installed to each building.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 11
3. If the service is for residential use, only one of the buildings shall be used as a residential dwelling unless the
buildings are located on a single platted lot and one of the buildings is a carriage house. The term carriage
house shall have the same meaning as in the Land Use Code.
4. Plant investment fees, raw water requirements and any other applicable charges required in connection with
the additional building to which service is to be provided shall be remitted in accordance with Chapter 26 of
the City Code. For a carriage house, the additional plant investment fees and raw water requirements, as well
as monthly meter rates and any other water-related charges shall be determined based on the addition of a
new dwelling unit on the property.
5. A written covenant or other document signed by the owner of the property to be served and incorporating
these requirements and limitations as a condition of service to said property, in a form provided by the
Executive Director, shall be submitted to the Executive Director as a condition of approval and shall be duly
recorded at the office of the County Clerk and Recorder.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed changes to the City Code would provide an option for water and sewer service for carriage houses that
may make it feasible for a property owner to proceed with a project. The City would collect plant investment fees and
water rights for the additional dwelling unit.
In addition, this option would allow carriage houses to obtain water and sewer service without having to disturb the
street pavement and install utility trenches in the street right-of-way. This would help to maintain the overall condition
of the street pavement in those areas and, thereby, avoid higher street maintenance costs in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This revision to the City Code would help to maintain the longevity of the street improvements in neighborhoods by
reducing pavement repair operations that result from street cuts and trenching in the street right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 16, 2012 meeting, the Water Board recommended approval of the changes to City Code which would
allow the Utilities Executive Director to approve the water and sewer services for carriage houses to connect to the
principal dwelling on the property.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
During the past few years, Water Utilities has collected comments and input from developers, property owners and
contractors through the Current Planning Department’s conceptual review process and through various contacts for
information regarding water and sewer service for carriage house projects. In several instances, property owners were
interested in constructing carriage houses but found the construction difficulties and the additional costs associated
with connecting water and sewer services to the City mains in the street caused the projects to be impractical.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Board minutes, February 16, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 019, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH CARRIAGE HOUSES MAY OBTAIN
WATER AND SEWER SERVICE
WHEREAS, the City Code currently requires separate water and wastewater service lines
for each and every residence served by the City’s Utilities; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote infill development and eliminate barriers to the
development of carriage houses as accessory residences in appropriate zone districts as allowed
under the City’s Land Use Code, staff has proposed a limited exception to the requirement for
separate service lines; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered proposed revisions to Chapter 26 of the City Code
at its February 16, 2012, meeting and recommended approval of the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to enact the proposed changes, as set fort herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-94 of the Code of the city of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-94. Individual service lines for each building required.
(a) Each property shall be served by its own service line, and no connection with
the water utility shall be made by extending the service line from one (1) property
to another property. Each building shall be served by a separate service line;
however, the Utilities Executive Director may require that a building be served by
more than one (1) service line. For purposes of this Section, the term building means
a structure standing alone, excluding fences and covered walkways. A separate
accessory structure is a separate building. To qualify as one (1) building, all portions,
additions or extensions must be connected by an attachment that is an enclosed part
of the building and usable by the occupants.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (a) of this Section, the Utilities
Executive Director may, after review and approval of the related plans and
specifications, authorize the service of more than one (1) building by a single service
line, provided each of the following requirements is met:
(1) The combined water use of the buildings shall not exceed the capacity of the
service line and meter;
(2) If the buildings are served by one (1) service line, the buildings shall be
under single ownership; and no subsequent division of ownership, or
subdivision of the property upon which the buildings are located, shall be
permitted until separate service lines have been installed to each building;
(3) If the service is for residential use, only one (1) of the buildings may be used
as a residential dwelling unless the buildings are located on a single platted
lot and one of the buildings is a carriage house. For purposes of this Section,
the term carriage house shall have the same meaning as in the Land Use
Code;
(4) Plant investment fees, raw water requirements, and any other applicable
charges required in connection with the additional building to which service
is to be provided, shall be remitted as provided in this article. For a carriage
house, additional plant investment fees and raw water requirements, as well
as monthly meter rates and any other water-related charges, shall be
determined based on the addition of a new dwelling unit on the property; and
(5) A written covenant or other document signed by the owner of the property
to be served and incorporating the requirements and limitations of this
Section as a condition of service to said property, in a form provided by the
Executive Director, shall be submitted to the Executive Director as a
condition of approval, and shall be duly recorded at the office of the County
Clerk and Recorder.
If the Utilities Executive Director should determine that the foregoing criteria have
been met, a written permit shall be granted, which permit shall contain a listing of
the foregoing requirements as a condition of continued service hereunder and
specific reference to Subsection (a) of this Section requiring individual service lines
for each building.
Section 2. That Section 26-256 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-256. Individual service lines for each building required.
(a) Each property shall be served by its own service line, and no connection shall
be made by extending the service line from one (1) property to another property.
Each building shall be served by a separate service line; however, the Utilities
Executive Director may require that a building be served by more than one (1)
service line. For purposes of this Section, the term building means a structure
standing alone, excluding fences and covered walkways. A separate accessory
structure is a separate building. To qualify as one (1) building, all portions, additions
or extensions must be connected by an attachment that is an enclosed part of the
building and usable by the occupants.
-2-
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (a) of this Section, the Utilities
Executive Director may, after review and approval of the related plans and
specifications, authorize the service of more than one (1) building by a single service
line, provided each of the following requirements is met:
(1) The combined wastewater flow from the buildings shall not exceed the
capacity of the service line;
(2) If the buildings are served by one (1) service line, the buildings shall be
under single ownership; and no subsequent division of ownership, or
subdivision of the property upon which the buildings are located, shall be
permitted until separate service lines have been installed to each building;
(3) If the service is for residential use, only one (1) of the buildings may be used
as a residential dwelling unless the buildings are located on a single platted
lot and one of the buildings is a carriage house. For purposes of this Section,
the term carriage house shall have the same meaning as in the Land Use
Code;
(4) Plant investment fees, and any other applicable charges required in
connection with the additional building to which service is to be provided,
shall be remitted as provided in this article. For a carriage house, additional
plant investment fees, as well as monthly meter rates and any other
wastewater-related charges, shall be determined based on the addition of a
new dwelling unit on the property; and
(5) A written covenant or other document signed by the owner of the property
to be served and incorporating the requirements and limitations of this
Section as a condition of service to said property, in a form provided by the
Executive Director, shall be submitted to the Executive Director as a
condition of approval, and shall be duly recorded at the office of the County
Clerk and Recorder.
If the Utilities Executive Director should determine that the foregoing criteria have
been met, a written permit shall be granted, which permit shall contain a listing of
the foregoing requirementsas a condition of continued service hereunder and specific
reference to Subsection (a) of this Section requiring individual service lines for each
building, shall be signed by the Utilities Executive Director, and shall be duly
recorded at the office of the County Clerk and Recorder.
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
-4-
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley
Lindsay Kuntz
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS Poudre River, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2005, the City constructed the Oxbow Levee on the Cache la Poudre River to reduce flooding risk and damage to
a section of the City north and east of the River. The City has been pursuing inclusion of the Levee into the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee maintenance program. As part of its review of the Levee, the USACE
has determined that the City should acquire an access and maintenance easement for the benefit of the Levee from
the adjacent property owner, PS Poudre River, LLC. During discussions regarding the needed easement, PS Poudre
River, LLC voiced concerns regarding granting the maintenance and access easement since this reduces the
developable portion of its property. In an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory solution, the property owner proposed
the City grant a small remnant parcel located adjacent to and east of the Oxbow Levee in exchange for the needed
access and maintenance easement. The Stormwater Master Planning and Floodplain Administration Division has
identified that the proposed remnant parcel is no longer needed for flood control purposes. The property owner has
agreed to a provision that the City remnant parcel property will be conveyed subject to a deed restriction limiting the
property to natural landscape or trail uses only. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6,
2012, authorizes the conveyance of a .224 acre parcel of City-owned land that is adjacent to PS Poudre River, LLC’s
land, and in exchange it will grant the access and maintenance easement to the City and pay the City $2,500.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 6, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: March 6, 2012
STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley,
Lindsay Kuntz
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS Poudre River, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2005, the City constructed the Oxbow Levee on the Cache La Poudre River to reduce flooding risk and damages
to a section of the City of Fort Collins located north and east of the river known as the Buckingham neighborhood. The
Oxbow Levee is located between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Master
Planning and Floodplain Administration Division completed (in conjunction with its engineering consultants) and
submitted a levee certification analysis to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA determined
that the levee certification documentation was in order and accredited the levee and associated flood insurance rate
maps that depict the floodplain areas as protected from the base regulatory (100-Year) flood.
The City then pursued inclusion of the levee into the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee
maintenance program. The benefits of inclusion in this program are:
1. the USACE can assist with flood fighting efforts during flood events; and,
2. qualifying damages will be repaired by the federal government at 80 percent federal / 20 percent local cost
share.
The levee has been reviewed by the USACE and it has been determined that additional land in the form of an access
and maintenance easement is needed from the adjacent property owner PS Poudre River, LLC. During discussions
regarding the needed easement, PS Poudre River, LLC voiced concerns regarding granting the maintenance and
access easement since this reduces the developable portion of its property. In an effort to reach a mutually
satisfactory solution, the property owner proposed the City grant a small remnant parcel located adjacent to and east
of the Oxbow Levee in exchange for the needed access and maintenance easement. The Stormwater Master
Planning and Floodplain Administration Division has identified that the proposed remnant parcel is no longer needed
for flood control purposes. The property owner has agreed to a provision that the City remnant parcel property will be
conveyed subject to a deed restriction limiting the property to natural landscape or trail uses only.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
During construction of the levee, excess fill material was placed on the landward side of the levee on adjacent
privately-owned property to provide additional contouring of the slopes. This material extended away from the design
toe of the levee and outside of the City easement. Meeting notes reflect conversations between the City, the City’s
consultants, BHA Design, and the adjacent property owner relating to the placement of the fill. Based on these notes,
the additional fill was considered, at the time, a positive for both parties.
As a result of Hurricane Katrina, both FEMA and the USACE began taking a much closer look at levee design and new
regulations and criteria were established. When the application to the USACE began (and as the Bohemian
Foundation developed design plans for a future development for their property), it was necessary for the City to gain
clear guidance on key issues:
1. what was considered to be part of the levee by both FEMA and the USACE;
2. what additional information was needed in order to be accepted into the USACE levee maintenance
program; and
3. the regulations and review process that would apply to any future development behind the levee on the
Bohemian Foundation property.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 12
The as-built topography included as part of the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) reflects the additional fill material. Unfortunately, the excess fill material is considered
by FEMA to be part of the levee and development is not allowed on the area. As a result, the non-developable area
extends on to the adjacent private property where the additional fill material was placed.
Numerous meetings were held between the City and PS Poudre River, LLC (managed by the Bohemian Foundation)
to develop a joint recommendation on what should be considered part of the levee. Northern Engineering, a consultant
for PS Poudre River, LLC prepared a map to show the recommended “toe of slope” for the levee. On June 29, 2010,
representatives of the City, FEMA and the USACE met at the site, followed by a separate meeting with PS Poudre
River, LLC. The City successfully obtained FEMA and the USACE approval to recognize the visual grade break in
the slope as the toe of the levee instead of the toe of the fill. A 15 foot wide area for maintenance and access was
needed outside of the grade break. In order to provide this area, a maintenance and access easement is needed on
the landward side of the levee from Poudre River, LLC. In order for FEMA to recognize the newly agreed upon toe
of the levee, a new LOMR would be needed. FEMA agreed that this LOMR could be based on only updated
information and waived the $7,150 application fee. The City agreed to fund the necessary engineering documentation
($11,600) in order to submit the updated LOMR to FEMA.
During discussions regarding the needed easement, PS Poudre River, LLC voiced concerns regarding granting the
maintenance and access easement since this reduces the developable portion of its property. In an effort to reach
a mutually satisfactory solution, the property owner proposed the City grant a small remnant parcel located adjacent
to and east of the Oxbow Levee in exchange for the needed access and maintenance easement. The Stormwater
Master Planning and Floodplain Administration Division has identified that the proposed remnant parcel is no longer
needed for flood control purposes. This 0.224 acre parcel was originally purchased in 2004 as part of a larger parcel
to construct the levee. The area is currently vacant land. The property owner has agreed to a provision that the City
remnant parcel property will be conveyed subject to a deed restriction limiting the property to natural landscape or trail
uses only.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Bohemian Foundation has agreed to compensate the City of Fort Collins $2,500 for the remnant parcel of land
subject to a deed restriction limiting its use to natural landscaping and trail use purposes only. Bohemian has also
agreed to convey to the City at no cost the needed access easement along the boundary of its property for the
purposes of accessing and maintaining the Oxbow Levee improvements as required by FEMA and the USACE.
SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Conveyance of the remnant parcel of land will satisfy the FEMA requirements in order for the adjacent levee to be
accepted into the USACE maintenance program. PS Poudre River, LLC plans to maintain the remnant parcel as a
natural landscaped area when the property develops in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
City staff presented the proposal to the Water Board on January 20, 2011. With the exception of three board
members, the Board voted to recommend the authorization to convey the remnant to PS Poudre River, LLC. The three
boardmembers who voted against the recommendation noted concerns regarding the initial conveyance amount of
$1,120. This value was based on data obtained by the Real Estate Services staff for similar property sales. Real
Estate Services staff completed additional research on the valuation of the property and subsequently negotiated a
purchase price of $2,500 with PS Poudre River, LLC.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
March 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 12
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Location Photos
3. Water Board minutes, January 20, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 020, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY PROPERTY
TO PS POUDRE RIVER, LLC
WHEREAS, in 2005 the City constructed the Oxbow Levee (the “Levee”) on the Cache la
Poudre River to reduce flooding risk and damage to a section of the City north and east of the river;
and
WHEREAS, the City has been pursuing inclusion of the Levee into the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee maintenance program; and
WHEREAS, as part of its review of the Levee, the USACE has determined that the City
should acquire an access and maintenance easement for the benefit of the Levee from the adjacent
property owner, PS Poudre River, LLC (PSPR); and
WHEREAS, when approached by City staff about granting the necessary easement to the
City, PSPR was concerned about reducing the developable portion of its property; and
WHEREAS, to address this concern, PSPR has asked the City to convey to it a .224 acre
parcel of City-owned land that is also adjacent to PSPR’s land, and in exchange PSPR would grant
the access and maintenance easement to the City and pay the City $2,500; and
WHEREAS, the land that PSPR would like the City to convey to it is described on Exhibit
“A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property in 2004 as part of a larger parcel used to
construct the Levee; and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently vacant land and is no longer needed for flood control
purposes; and
WHEREAS, PSPR has agreed that it would take title to the Property subject to a deed
restriction limiting the use of the Property to natural landscape or trail uses only; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 20, 2011, the City’s Water Board voted to
recommend that the City Council authorize the conveyance of the Property to PSPR; and
WHEREAS, under Section 23-111 of the City Code, 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 interest of the City and, with respect to real property which is a part of the City’s water or 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 City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Property as
provided herein is in the best interest of the City, will not materially impair the viability of the City’s
stormwater system as a whole, and will be 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 Property to PSPR on terms consistent with this Ordinance, together with
such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney,
determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes
of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the
property to be conveyed, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the
character of the property.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
Page 1 of 2
“A” Page 2 of 2
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Kayla Ballard
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B West
Horsetooth Road for Up to Five Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City acquired the property located at 1506 West Horsetooth Road as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank
Program in 2003. Total acreage of this property is 8.3 acres of development land. Currently, this site has one single-
family residence, one building with an efficiency apartment and garage, and horse facilities. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, authorizes a lease for the efficiency apartment at 1506B
Horsetooth.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 6, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: March 6, 2012
STAFF: Kayla Ballard
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B West Horsetooth
Road for Up to Five Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City acquired the property located at 1506 West Horsetooth Road as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank
Program in 2003. Total acreage of this property is 8.3 acres of development land. Currently, this site has one single-
family residence, one building with an efficiency apartment and garage, and horse facilities. The lease for 1506B West
Horsetooth Road will be for the efficiency apartment.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City’s Affordable Housing Land Bank Program owns property located at 1506 West Horsetooth Road. The
property consists of 8.3 acres of horse property that includes a single-family residence, an efficiency apartment and
garage, horse barns, grazing areas and a small horse arena. One of the goals of the Land Bank Program is to hold
land for a minimum of ten years. The Land Bank Program desires to continue leasing the efficiency apartment until
the Land Bank Program determines that the property will be available for future low-income family development.
The City has leased this property since it was purchased in 2003 and desires to continue leasing the property.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Rent collected from the lease of the efficiency apartment will result in an annual rate of at least $4,200 in unanticipated
revenue to the Advance Planning Affordable Housing Program. The tenant will pay all utilities, phone and cable
charges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
ORDINANCE NO. 021, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT
1506B WEST HORSETOOTH ROAD FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 048, 2001,
amending Chapter 23 of the City Code by the addition of a new Article XI entitled “Land Banking”;
and
WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 048, 2001 the City Council determined that the acquisition
of real property in order to ensure the property will be available for future development to provide
housing for extremely low and very low income families is in the best interests of the citizens of the
City; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 048, 2001 further states that banking real property for the
purpose of assisting housing providers in providing housing for extremely low and very low income
families will not negatively impact the local real estate market, due to the anticipated volume of
property purchases the program would entail; and
WHEREAS, in February, 2003, the City acquired the property at 1506B West Horsetooth
Road, in Fort Collins (the “Property”) as part of the land banking program established pursuant to
Ordinance No. 048, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council first authorized the lease of the Property in 2003 and the
Property had been continuously leased since then; and
WHEREAS, most recently, on May 4, 2010, the City Council passed Resolution 2010-26,
which authorized the lease of the Property for up to two years; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to continue leasing the Property for a period of up to five years
at an annual rate of at least $4,200; and
WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, 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 interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the lease of the Property as provided
herein is in the best interest of the City.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement for
the Property consistent with the terms of this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and
conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be appropriate
to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Steve Roy
Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon the number of
people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes
necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous
District no less than one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the
population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has
recently received information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council
districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City
Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame, due to these revisions to
county precincts. This Ordinance will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process
to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within
eighteen months following publication of the census data.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the April 5, 2011 regular City election, voters approved an amendment to the City Charter changing the method for
adjusting City Council district boundaries so that the size and configuration of Council districts is based upon the
number of people residing in each district rather than the number of registered electors. The Charter amendment
required the Council to establish by ordinance the process for adjusting district boundaries.
On June 7, 2011, the Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 063, 2011, which provides, in part, as follows:
“Not less than one (1) year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census
concerning the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City
Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible,
there is no more than a ten (10) percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous
District.”
According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, small area census population data was released to individual states
February 3, 2011 through March 24, 2011. As such, the City Clerk, under the language above, would be required to
make a recommendation to Council for any necessary boundary changes no later than March 24, 2012.
Staff began calculating updating current population estimates early in 2012, and had formed a draft recommendation
for one minor adjustment to achieve a deviation of less than 10 percent. However, staff just recently received from
Larimer County information regarding changes made to County precincts – a result of reapportionment of House and
Senate districts and changes to County Commissioner districts required prior to reapportionment. County precincts
are established taking into consideration (1) natural and artificial boundaries that meet the requirements of the U.S.
Census Bureau; (2) district boundaries of each representative and senatorial district (precinct boundaries cannot cross
over representative and senatorial district boundaries); and (3) the number of active eligible electors within each
proposed precinct. In addition, potential growth is taken into consideration.
The reconfiguration of County precincts has resulted in some precincts being divided by Council district boundaries,
in direct conflict with the Charter requirement that districts consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts.
As such, City precinct boundaries need to be redrawn to match County precinct boundaries, and District boundary lines
must be adjusted to maintain whole County precincts. Once staff has completed those adjustments, population
estimates need to recalculated to determine the deviation between the most populous district and the least populous
district from the “ideal” district size.
March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 11
The language in Ordinance No. 063, 2012, which seemed reasonable at the time staff proposed it, has proven
problematic when the reapportionment process and the redrawing of County precinct boundaries are factored in. This
will likely be the case following every census. Therefore, staff is proposing an amendment to the redistricting
provisions to require the City Clerk make a recommendation to Council within 18 months, rather than one year,
following publication of the census data. As already provided in the redistricting provisions, any changes to district
boundaries must occur no less than 120 days prior to a regular municipal election. This amendment should provide
staff with adequate time to obtain precinct boundary changes from the County and investigate possible scenarios for
District boundary changes (if necessary) before a recommendation must be made to Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 023, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO REDISTRICTING
WHEREAS, by the approval of the voters at the regular City election held April 5, 2011,
Article II, Section 1 of the City Charter was amended to change the method for adjusting City
Council district boundaries so that the size and configuration of Council districts is now based upon
the number of people residing in each district rather than the number of registered electors; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No.
63, 2011, which, in relevant part, requires the City Clerk to make a recommendation to the City
Council, within one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census
concerning the population of the City, as to whether any district boundary changes are necessary to
ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than ten (10) percent deviation
between the most populous and the least populous district; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Census Bureau small area population data was released to individual
states between February 3, 2011 and March 24, 2011; and
WHEREAS, in response to that census data, City staff had begun to formulate a
recommendation to Council to make a minor adjustment to the City Council districts; and
WHEREAS, City staff then received information from Larimer County indicating that
significant revisions had been made to County voting precincts and that, as a result, some City
Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required
by Section 1, Subsection (c), Article II of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, because of this new information, the City Clerk’s office and other City staff
have found it difficult to meet the one-year time frame currently required by Section 7-87 (b) of the
City Code; and
WHEREAS, City staff has therefore recommended that the period of time specified in City
Code Section 7-87(b) be changed from one year to 18 months to allow more time for the City Clerk
to formulate a recommendation to the City Council with regard to any district boundary changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 7-87 of Article III of Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-87. Redistricting; notice.
(a) The City Council shall, by ordinance, amend the boundaries of the foregoing
districts as necessary to comply with the provisions of Article II, Section 1(c) of the
Charter. The City Clerk shall cause to be published twice, in a local newspaper of
general circulation in the City, notice of the date, time and place of the City Council's
consideration of any such redistricting ordinance. The first such notice shall be
published no less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of first hearing of the
redistricting ordinance, and the second notice shall be published no less than ten (10)
days prior to the date of the first reading of the same.
(b) Not less than one (1) yeareighteen (18) months after the official decennial
publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City of Fort
Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary
changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more
than a ten percent (10%) deviation between the most populous and the least populous
district.
(c) Not less than once every five (5) years after making the determination
required under Subsection (b) above, the City Clerk shall again review the district
boundaries to determine whether the maximum deviation between the most populous
and the least populous district meets the standard described in Subsection (b) above.
If the standard in Subsection (b) above is not met, the City Clerk shall recommend
to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that the
districts conform to such standard.
(d) Any changes to district boundaries shall be established by ordinance no less
than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular municipal election.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: John Stokes
Daylan Figgs
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Archery Range Natural Area.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement on
Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District.
B. Resolution 2012-016 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to Boxelder Sanitation District on the Archery Range
Natural Area to Repair Flood Damage to the Riverbank.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Boxelder Sanitation District is seeking a non-exclusive permanent easement and a revocable permit to access and
install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery Range Natural Area.
The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood
damage.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In August 1999, City Council approved two ordinances that granted temporary and permanent non-exclusive
easements for flood control structures to be constructed by the Boxelder Sanitation District (Boxelder) on the Archery
Range Natural Area. The purpose of the structures was to reduce the risk of flood damage to the wastewater
treatment facility. The flood control structures were not constructed.
During the spring runoff event in 2011, the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River eroded back towards Boxelder’s
treatment facility. In response, Boxelder installed rip rap armoring in the general area of the 1999 easements on the
Archery Range Natural Area. Boxelder completed the roughly 100 feet by 25 feet armoring project in the fall of 2011.
Natural Areas Department staff was contacted by Boxelder after the completion of the project to discuss site
restoration. At that time it was determined the project, completed in 2011, was constructed, at least in part, outside
of the easements authorized in 1999. Additionally, Boxelder had not acquired all necessary floodplain permits and
project design approvals from the City. To meet the floodplain requirements and gain project design approval from
the City, Boxelder will remove the majority of the rip rap placed in 2011 and reconstruct the project following a newly
approved design. Based on the location of the 2011 work relative to the 1999 easements and the need to remove
much of the work performed in 2011, staff determined to pursue a new non-exclusive easement for the project.
Boxelder has worked to secure all permits and gain approval on the redesign for the project to comply with City
floodplain requirements. Further, Boxelder has agreed to complete mitigation and restoration as outlined in the 2012
Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Easement Policy.
City Council recently authorized a revocable permit for Lafarge West, Inc. to access and conduct the work necessary
to repair a breach in the river bank within the Archery Range Natural Area (Resolution 2012-012). The Lafarge project
occurs along the south bank of the Poudre River, just upstream of the Boxelder project. Repair of the river breach will
redirect the river flow back into river channel where Boxelder will be working. To help reduce the overall cost of the
project, Boxelder requested a revocable permit to complete the redesigned rip rap project before the river flow is
restored to the channel. The Lafarge project is currently scheduled to be completed on approximately April 1, 2012.
The Resolution authorizing a revocable permit is to allow Boxelder access to complete the rip rap project in March
2012, prior to the April completion of the Lafarge riverbank breach repair, and while approval and execution of the
proposed permanent easement is pending.
The Boxelder project area is approximately 100 feet by 25 feet. Construction will consist of excavating a portion of
the riverbank, placing erosion fabric and rock rip rap onto the bank, and covering the rock riprap with topsoil. The site
will be seeded with a native grass mix approved by Natural Areas staff. In addition, coyote willows will be planted on
four foot centers within the lower sections (wetter soils) of the project area.
March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 12
Mitigation for the project will occur on site. Coyote willow will be established immediately upstream and downstream
of the project area. This will help protect the bank from further erosion as well as provide additional wildlife habitat
along this portion of the Poudre River. A second phase of the mitigation project will occur at the confluence of
Boxelder Creek and the Cache la Poudre River, just downstream of the project area. Treated water from the Boxelder
facility is released into Boxelder Creek and enters the Poudre River at this confluence. Banks along Boxelder Creek
lack a strong shrub and willow community and are exposed to water erosion. Native willows will be established along
both banks of Boxelder Creek above the confluence. Mitigation efforts will increase wildlife habitat values and help
protect stream banks from erosion along Boxelder Creek and the Cache la Poudre River. The area included in the
revocable permit would be larger than the area of the permanent easement in order to allow for this mitigation work.
The project will be subject to the Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Easement Policy and all of its requirements,
including the Natural Areas Department General Resource Protection Standards, mitigation requirements, and public
outreach.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The administration fee was paid to the City under the previous easement policy. As such, an administration fee of
$500 has been paid and the cost to administer the easement is being tracked; Boxelder will reimburse the City for all
costs in excess of $500.
The value for the easement will be calculated as outlined in the 2012 Easement Policy. The value of the non-exclusive
easement will be provided by Real Estate Services based on standard appraisal techniques. The value of the
ecological goods and services has been calculated to be $355, as established by methods outlined in the Easement
Policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project will be restored as outlined by the Easement Policy. Natural Areas will be compensated for the loss of
ecological goods and services by habitat mitigation that will occur in close proximity to the project. Mitigation will
consist of native willow establishment along the riverbanks of Cache la Poudre River and along the banks of Boxelder
Creek. The location of this work is shown in Attachment 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its March 14, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the
easement conveyance and the revocable permit. Draft minutes will be provided to Council in its read before packet
on March 20, 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Boxelder Sanitation District held a public meeting regarding the project on March 8, 2012. No one from the public
attended.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Easement and Mitigation Map
RUNNING DEER NATURAL AREA
ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA
RIVERBEND PONDS NATURAL AREA
VANGBO PROPERTY
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER
KINGFISHER POINT NATURAL AREA
CATTAIL CHORUS NATURAL AREA
COTTONWOOD HOLLOW NATURAL AREA
ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA
EAGLE VIEW NATURAL AREA
PROSPECT PONDS NATURAL AREA
THE COTERIE
TIMBERLINE
HARMONY
ZIEGLER
PROSPECT
DRAKE
HORSETOOTH
HORSETOOTH
MAIN
4TH
KECHTER
COUNTY ROAD 5
BUSS GROVE
PROSPECT
LINCOLN
COUNTY ROAD 7
COUNTY ROAD 9
COUNTY ROAD 36
PRIVATE DRIVE
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ROAD 5
HIGHWAY 14
MULBERRY
MULBERRY
INTERSTATE 25
INTERSTATE 25
Archery Range Natural Area Location Map
Natural Areas General
City Natural Areas
City Open Lands
Other Agency Natural Areas
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2012
Water Bodies ¹
City Natural Areas
City Open Lands
Other Agency Natural Areas
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA
ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA
¹
Box Elder Sanitation Easement Location and Mitigation Areas
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2012
Project Area
Larimer County
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
Lafarge 2012Extent CITYLocation Box OF Project FORT Elder COLLINS Sanitation NATURAL Easement AREA
MItigation MItigationAreas Areas
Lafarge Project
ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT
ON PORTIONS OF ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA
TO BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of that certain parcel of real property located west of
Interstate 25 and north of Horsetooth Road known as the Archery Range Natural Area (the “Natural
Area”); and
WHEREAS, Boxelder Sanitation District (“Boxelder”) owns and operates a wastewater
treatment facility on land north of and adjacent to the Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 113, 1999 and Ordinance No. 186, 1999,
the City granted to Boxelder several easements for flood control structures on the Natural Area (the
“1999 Easements”) for the purpose of reducing the risk of flood damage to the wastewater treatment
facility; and
WHEREAS, the flood control structures authorized under the 1999 Easements were never
constructed; and
WHEREAS, during spring runoff in 2011, the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River,
located within the Natural Area, eroded back towards Boxelder’s facilities and, in response to the
erosion, Boxelder armored the north bank of the river with rip rap in the approximate area of the
1999 Easements (the “2011 Project”); and
WHEREAS, because the 2011 Project design was not approved by the City, the work was
not within the scope of the 1999 Easements, and the work was done without the necessary floodplain
permits, Boxelder is proposing to redo the 2011 Project following a new design and with proper
approvals and permits (the “2012 Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution 2012-012,
authorizing a revocable permit to Lafarge West, Inc. (“Lafarge”), to repair a breach in the riverbank
within the Natural Area upstream from the Boxelder facility; and
WHEREAS, when Lafarge completes its work, the river flow will be directed back into the
channel where Boxelder is proposing to do the 2012 Project; and
WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, the City Council is considering authorizing a revocable
permit to Boxelder to do the 2012 Project, including access to and reconstruction of the riverbank
and mitigation of project impacts on habitat along the riverbank, so that Boxelder can begin work
as quickly as possible; and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the City also enter into a permanent, non-
exclusive easement with Boxelder (the “Easement”) that would permit and require Boxelder’s long
term maintenance and repair of the 2012 Project; and
WHEREAS, the area of the proposed Easement is described on Exhibit “A”, attached and
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Boxelder has paid $500 to cover City administrative costs associated with
processing the requested revocable permit and Easement, and will reimburse the City for costs in
excess of $500; and
WHEREAS, Boxelder will also pay the City the value of the Easement, to be calculated as
described in the 2012 Natural Areas Easement Policy, and will provide habitat mitigation worth
$355 by planting willows in the general area of the 2012 Project, to help stabilize the banks of the
river and Boxelder Creek; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s interest that Boxelder maintain its improvements within the
river on the Natural Area over time; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on March 14, 2012, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the revocable permit and Easement conveyance;
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easement to Boxelder, as described herein, is in
the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easement to Boxelder 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 and appropriate to protect the interests of the City
or to effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including any necessary corrections to the legal
description of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change
in character of the Easement.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
-3-
EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION 2012-016
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING A REVOCABLE PERMIT TO BOXELDER
SANITATION DISTRICT ON THE ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL
AREA TO REPAIR FLOOD DAMAGE TO THE RIVERBANK
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of that certain parcel of real property located west of
Interstate 25 and north of Horsetooth Road known as the Archery Range Natural Area (the “Natural
Area”); and
WHEREAS, Boxelder Sanitation District (“Boxelder”) owns and operates a wastewater
treatment facility on land north of and adjacent to the Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 113, 1999 and Ordinance No. 186, 1999,
the City granted to Boxelder several easements for flood control structures on the Natural Area (the
“1999 Easements”) for the purpose of reducing the risk of flood damage to the wastewater treatment
facility; and
WHEREAS, the flood control structures authorized under the 1999 Easements were never
constructed; and
WHEREAS, during spring runoff in 2011, the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River,
located within the Natural Area, eroded back towards Boxelder’s facilities and, in response to the
erosion, Boxelder armored the north bank of the river with rip rap in the approximate area of the
1999 Easements (the “2011 Project”); and
WHEREAS, because the 2011 Project design was not approved by the City, the work was
not within the scope of the 1999 Easements, and the work was done without the necessary floodplain
permits, Boxelder is proposing to redo the 2011 Project following a new design and with proper
approvals and permits (the “2012 Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution 2012-012,
authorizing a revocable permit to Lafarge West, Inc. (“Lafarge”), to repair a breach in the riverbank
within the Natural Area upstream from the Boxelder facility; and
WHEREAS, when Lafarge completes its work, the river flow will be directed back into the
channel where Boxelder is proposing to do the 2012 Project; Boxelder is therefore asking that the
City grant it a revocable permit to do the 2012 Project, including access to and reconstruction of the
riverbank and mitigation of project impacts on habitat along the riverbank, so that it can begin work
on the 2012 Project as quickly as possible; and
WHEREAS, the area of the proposed revocable permit would include the real property
described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference, as well as the areas labeled
as “Mitigation Areas” on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (together, the
“Permit Area”) ; and
WHEREAS, Boxelder will be required as a condition of the proposed revocable permit to
enter into a permanent easement agreement with the City in order to carry out future maintenance
and repair obligations within the Permit Area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering the granting of such a permanent easement by
separate Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the revocable permit would remain in place, unless revoked by the City, until
a permanent easement could be executed; and
WHEREAS, Boxelder has paid $500 to cover City administrative costs associated with
processing the requested revocable permit and easement, and will reimburse the City for costs in
excess of $500; and
WHEREAS, Boxelder will also provide habitat mitigation worth $355 by planting willows
in the general area of the 2012 Project, to help stabilize the banks of the river and Boxelder Creek;
and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s interest for the riverbank to be repaired prior to high flows in
spring 2012, and the granting of a revocable permit as described herein will enable that work to
proceed; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on March 14, 2012, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the revocable permit and easement conveyance;
and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to permit
the use of occupation of any street, alley, or public place, provided that such permit shall be
revocable by the City Council at its pleasure, whether or not such right to revoke is expressly
reserved in such permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the granting of a
revocable permit, as described herein, is in the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to grant a revocable permit to Boxelder on terms and conditions consistent with this
Resolution, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation
with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City
or to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, including any necessary corrections to the legal
description of the Permit Area, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change
the character of the Permit Area.
-2-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of March A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
-3-
EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 2
ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA
¹
Box Elder Sanitation Easement Location and Mitigation Areas
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2012
Project Area
Larimer County
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
Lafarge 2012Extent CITYLocation Box OF Project FORT Elder COLLINS Sanitation NATURAL Easement AREA
MItigation MItigationAreas Areas
Lafarge Project
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-017 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Wild Plum Farm
Annexation No. 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 0.64
acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property
is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE –
Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west
and south; and, UE – Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act,
determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the
hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than
thirty days of prior notice is required by State law.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
a common boundary with the Lincoln Junior High School Second Annexation (October, 1998) to the east.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its meeting on
April 19, 2012, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the
City Council in time for First Reading of the Annexation and Zoning Ordinances on May 1, 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The property is developed and contains a single-family residence and horse boarding facility, both of which have been
on the property for a number of years. Larimer County recently determined the horse boarding facility to be an illegal
use on the property and, as such, required the property owner to initiate a Special Review process in the County to
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.
March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 13
legalize the facility. Public outreach and notification took place during the County’s process, which culminated in the
Board of County Commissioners approving the Beckers Stable Special Review on March 22, 2011. The Board’s
approval contained a condition stating:
“The owner(s) of the property shall submit required petition to be annexed into the city within 30 days
of the date of this Findings and Resolution. This is the reason for a six-month transition period.
Applicant/operator will be required to comply with City of Fort Collins requirements as well as the
County conditions within the same time period.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Structure Plan Map
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2012-017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND
INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 1
WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been
filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Wild Plum
Farm Annexation No. 1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with
the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Wild
Plum Farm Annexation No. 1, more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State
of Colorado, to wit:
A tract of land being a portion of the tract of land described in the Warranty Deed
recorded November 27, 1996 at Reception No. 96085333; being located in the S 1/2,
N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
6th P.M., which considering the West line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 3 as bearing
due North with all bearings herein relative thereto is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4;
thence along the West line of said SW 1/4 South, 90.60 feet; thence East, 146.75
feet; thence North 44 degrees 01 minutes East, 15.65 feet; thence East, 58.00 feet;
thence North, 81.19 feet more or less to the North line of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2,
NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 768.80 feet
to the Point of Beginning; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East,
329.00 feet to the NE corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence
South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 164.70 feet to the Southeast corner
of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 12
seconds West, 10.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds East,
82.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds West, 319.00 feet; thence
North 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds East, 82.35 feet to the Point of Beginning.
This annexation contains 0.641 acres.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition
for the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1 and accompanying map are in substantial compliance
with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution.
Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the
passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City
Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal
Annexation Act.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of March A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
NOTICE
TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a
Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1, said
Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this
Notice.
That, on May 1, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come
on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and
zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be
annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation
and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the
Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may
desire.
The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the
Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Dated this 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-018 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Wild Plum Farm
Annexation No. 2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 3.82
acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property
is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE
– Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west
and south; and UE – Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act,
determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the
hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than
thirty days of prior notice is required by State law.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
a common boundary with the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1 (under review) to the east.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its meeting on
April 19, 2012, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the
City Council in time for First Reading of the Annexation and Zoning Ordinances on May 1, 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The property is developed and contains a single-family residence and horse boarding facility, both of which have been
on the property for a number of years. Larimer County recently determined the horse boarding facility to be an illegal
use on the property and, as such, required the property owner to initiate a Special Review process in the County to
legalize the facility. Public outreach and notification took place during the County’s process, which culminated in the
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
March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 14
Board of County Commissioners approving the Beckers Stable Special Review on March 22, 2011. The Board’s
approval contained a condition stating:
“The owner(s) of the property shall submit required petition to be annexed into the city within 30 days
of the date of this Findings and Resolution. This is the reason for a six-month transition period.
Applicant/operator will be required to comply with City of Fort Collins requirements as well as the
County conditions within the same time period.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Structure Plan Map
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2012-018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND
INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 2
WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been
filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Wild Plum
Farm Annexation No. 2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with
the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Wild
Plum Farm Annexation No. 2, more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State
of Colorado, to wit:
A tract of land being a portion of the tract of land described in the Warranty Deed
recorded November 27, 1996 at Reception No. 96085333; being located in the S 1/2,
N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
6th P.M., which considering the West line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 3 as bearing
due North with all bearings herein relative thereto is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4;
thence along the West line of said SW 1/4 South, 90.60 feet; thence East, 40.00 feet
to the East Right-of-Way line of North Taft Hill Road and the Point of Beginning;
thence East, 106.75 feet; thence North 44 degrees 01 minutes East, 15.65 feet; thence
East, 58.00 feet; thence North 81.19 feet more or less to the North line of said S 1/2,
N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East,
768.80 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 82.35 feet; thence
North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 319.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees
00 minutes 39 seconds West, 82.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 12
seconds West, 1263.40 feet to the East Right-of-Way line of North Taft Hill Road;
thence North, 73.88 feet to the Point of Beginning.
This annexation contains 3.822 acres.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition
for the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2 and accompanying map are in substantial compliance
with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution.
Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the
passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City
Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal
Annexation Act.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of March A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
NOTICE
TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a
Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2, said
Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this
Notice.
That, on May 1, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come
on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and
zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be
annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation
and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the
Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may
desire.
The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the
Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Dated this 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_______________________________
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-019 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
pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392. Staff for the City of
Fort Collins and Town of Windsor are exploring options to implement actions required by the intergovernmental
agreement but require an extension to continue public outreach, incorporate any input from the outreach, and to draft
necessary documents for consideration by Council. The staff of both municipalities have recommended that the April
3, 2012 deadline be extended to August 21, 2012, in order to complete the public outreach, draft necessary
documents, and make their recommendations.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council and the Windsor Town Board have 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 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Transportation Commission on
January 21, 2009. This approval, along with a signed intergovernmental agreement (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 Town
of 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 Town of 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 two kinds of fees will be imposed to reimburse the City of Fort Collins and Town
of 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. The first fee is a development impact fee that will be paid
by the property owners within the CAC. The proceeds from that fee will reimburse the City of Fort Collins and Town
of Windsor for their share of the cost of constructing the interchange ($2.5 million each). The second is a Public
March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 15
Improvement Fee (“PIF”) to be imposed by retailers within the CAC. The PIF revenues will be used primarily to pay
for the maintenance of the “enhanced improvements” to the interchange that CDOT will not be maintaining. In addition,
the PIF revenues will be used to fund a list of improvements and services that the parties are in the process of
identifying, with the input of affected property owners, and that will primarily benefit the properties 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
Town of Windsor shall each adopt acceptable design standards for the CAC. Those standards, explained by Ordinance
No. 036, 2011, were adopted by the Council on the second reading on March 22, 2011.
The IGA originally set a deadline of March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, by adopting 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. 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. On November 15, 2011, City Council adopted
Resolution 2011-102, further extending the deadline to April 3, 2012; and staff of both municipalities has recommended
an extension of the deadline within which these actions are to be taken in order to allow additional time to complete
the study and public outreach and make recommendations. This Resolution will approve that extension.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Fort Collins - Windsor IGA
3. Resolution 2011-102
[_
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 OF FORT INFORMATION COLLINS SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only,
and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or
warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying
dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE
UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL
FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless
from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having
made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of
these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or
liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof
by any person or entity. Printed: November 17, 2010
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2012-019
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 2010-071; 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, the City Council has also adopted Resolutions 2011-041, 2011-089, and 2011-
102 extending the deadlines within which the staff of both municipalities are to complete their
studies and public outreach, consider input from the public outreach, and draft the necessary
documents for consideration by the City Council and the Town Board; and
WHEREAS, staff for the City and Windsor have completed the work required by the IGA
as amended but are requesting a further extension of time to attempt to negotiate an agreement with
affected property owners regarding the imposition of the CAC development fee, and to draft
necessary documents for consideration by the City Council and Town Board; and
WHEREAS, staff has recommended that the April 3, 2012, deadline be extended until
August 21, 2012.
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 April 3, 2012,
is hereby extended to August 21, 2012.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of March A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
DATE: March 20, 2012
STAFF: Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-020 Accepting the Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-1 of the Ethics Review Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 13, 2012, Mr. David Bell filed a written complaint with the City questioning the propriety of Gino Campana’s
participation as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board in discussions pertaining to a proposed Land Use Code
change regarding buffer zones along rivers (the “LUC Amendment”). Mr. Bell alleges that Mr. Campana should have
recused himself since he is a land developer, and was negotiating the purchase of land for a development along the
Poudre River.
Section 2-569(d)(1) provides that:
(d) Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following
procedures:
(1) Complaints.
a. Any person who believes that a Councilmember or board and commission member has
violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct
may file a complaint with the Mayor, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the
Review Board. The complaint shall be placed on the agenda for the next special or
regular City Council meeting for review and possible action by the City Council.
b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the City Council shall decide by majority vote
whether to submit the complaint to the Review Board for an advisory opinion as to
whether the violation alleged in the complaint has occurred and, if so, the action, if any,
that should be taken with regard to such violation. In the event that such complaint is
not submitted to the Review Board, the City Council may decide what, if any, other
action pertaining to the same is appropriate.
. . .
Pursuant to this provision, the Council referred the complaint to the Ethics Review Board for an advisory opinion. The
Board met on February 23 and February 27, 2012 and received information pertaining to this matter from several
persons including the complainant, City staff, Mr. Campana and his attorney, several local engineers, and current and
former members of the Planning and Zoning Board. After receiving that information and conferring with the City
Attorney, the Board discussed the application of the City Charter conflict of interest rules to the information presented
at the meetings and rendered an opinion that Mr. Campana did not violate the conflict of interest rules by participating
in discussions about the proposed Land Use Code amendment. However, the Board has recommended that additional
training be provided to members of the Planning and Zoning Board and other City boards that handle both quasi-
judicial matters and policy recommendations to the Council to clarify the way in which the ethical and legal
requirements related to both kinds of matters should be interpreted and applied.
Code Section 2-569(e) provides that all opinions and recommendations of the Board be submitted to the full Council
for review and approval. By adoption of Resolution 2012-020, the Council would adopt the opinion and
recommendation of the Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Complaint
2. City Code Section 2-569 describing the duties and responsibilities of the Ethics Review Board
3. City Charter conflict of interest rules
4. Minutes of the Board meetings on February 23 and 27, 2012
Charter — General Provisions Art. IV § 7
C-9
Supp. No. 77
Section 9. Conflicts of interest.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of construction of this
Section 9, the following words and phrases shall have
the following meanings:
Business means a corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association,
organization, self-employed individual, holding
company, joint stock company, receivership, trust,
activity or entity.
Financial interest means any interest equated with
money or its equivalent. Financial interest shall not
include:
(1) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as an employee of a business, or as a holder
of an ownership interest in such business, in a
decision of any public body, when the decision
financially benefits or otherwise affects such
business but entails no foreseeable, measurable
financial benefit to the officer, employee or
relative;
(2) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as a nonsalaried officer or member of a
nonprofit corporation or association or of an
educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or
civic organization in the holdings of such
corporation, association or organization;
(3) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as a recipient of public services when such
services are generally provided by the city on the
same terms and conditions to all similarly
situated citizens, regardless of whether such
recipient is an officer, employee or relative;
(4) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as a recipient of a commercially reasonable
loan made in the ordinary course of business by a
lending institution, in such lending institution;
(5) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as a shareholder in a mutual or common
investment fund in the holdings of such fund
unless the shareholder actively participates in the
management of such fund;
(6) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as a policyholder in an insurance company, a
depositor in a duly established savings
association or bank, or a similar interest-holder,
unless the discretionary act of such person, as an
officer or employee, could immediately,
definitely and measurably affect the value of
such policy, deposit or similar interest;
(7) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as an owner of government-issued securities
unless the discretionary act of such owner, as an
officer or employee, could immediately,
definitely and measurably affect the value of
such securities; or
(8) the interest that an officer or employee has in the
compensation received from the city for personal
Charter — General Provisions Art. IV § 7
C-10
Supp. No. 77
Personal interest means any interest (other than a
financial interest) by reason of which an officer or
employee, or a relative of such officer or employee,
would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person,
realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit
or detriment different in kind from that experienced by
the general public. Personal interest shall not include:.
(1) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has as a member of a board, commission,
committee, or authority of another governmental
entity or of a nonprofit corporation or association
or of an educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization;
(2) the interest that an officer, employee or relative
has in the receipt of public services when such
services are generally provided by the city on the
same terms and conditions to all similarly
situated citizens; or
(3) the interest that an officer or employee has in the
compensation, benefits, or terms and conditions
of his or her employment with the city.
Public body means the Council or any authority,
board, committee, commission, service area, department
or office of the city.
Relative means the spouse or minor child of the
officer or employee, any person claimed by the officer
or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or
any person residing in and sharing with the officer or
employee the expenses of the household.
(b) Rules of conduct concerning conflicts of interest.
(1) Sales to the city. No officer or employee, or
relative of such officer or employee, shall have a
financial interest in the sale to the city of any real
or personal property, equipment, material,
supplies or services, except personal services
provided to the city as an officer or employee, if:
a. such officer or employee is a member of the
Council;
b. such officer or employee exercises, directly or
indirectly, any decision-making authority
concerning such sale; or
c. in the case of services, such officer or
employee exercises any supervisory authority
over the services to be rendered to the city.
(2) Purchases from the city. No officer, employee or
relative shall, directly or indirectly, purchase any
real or personal property from the city, except
such property as is offered for sale at an
established price, and not by bid or auction, on
the same terms and conditions as to all members
of the general public.
(3) Interests in other decisions. Any officer or
employee who has, or whose relative has, a
financial or personal interest in any decision of
any public body of which he or she is a member
or to which he or she makes recommendations,
shall, upon discovery thereof, disclose such
Charter — General Provisions Art. IV § 7
C-11
Supp. No. 77
portion of the monies received by such individual
from the city by reason of said contract, together
with interest at the lawful maximum rate for
interest on judgments.
(Res. No. 71-12, 2-11-71, approved, election 4-6-
71; Ord. No. 155, 1988, 12-20-88, approved,
election 3-7-89; Ord. No. 10, 1997, § 1, 2-4-97,
approved, election 4-8-97; Ord. No. 22, 2001, § 2,
2-20-01, approved, election 4-3-01)
RESOLUTION 2012-020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ACCEPTING THE ADVISORY OPINION AND
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2012-1 OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD
WHEREAS, the City Council has established an Ethics Review Board (the “Board”)
consisting of three members of City Council; and
WHEREAS, among the responsibilities of the Board is the duty to review and investigate
complaints of unethical conduct filed against Councilmembers or board and commission members;
and
WHEREAS, a complaint was filed with the City on January 13, 2012 against Gino Campana,
a member of the Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has referred the complaint to the Board under Section 2-
569(d)(1)(b) of the City Code for an advisory opinion as to whether the violation alleged in the
complaint has occurred and, if so, the action, if any, that should be taken with regard to such
violation; and
WHEREAS, at meetings held on February 23 and 27, 2012, the Board has reviewed and
investigated the complaint and has concluded that Mr. Campana did not violate the conflict of
interest provisions of the City Charter as alleged in the complaint; and
WHEREAS, under Code Section 2-569(e), after investigation, the Board is to forthwith issue
an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall be available for public
inspection, and which are to be place on the agenda for the next special or regular City Council
meeting, at which time the City Council is to determine whether to adopt the same; and
WHEREAS, the Board has issued an advisory opinion and recommendation with regard to
the complaint, attached hereto as “Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said opinion and recommendation and wishes
to adopt the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Opinion No. 2012-1 of the Ethics Review Board, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A,” has been submitted to and reviewed by the
City Council, and the Council hereby adopts the opinion and recommendation contained therein.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 20th day of March,
2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
12-1
OPINION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
February 27, 2012
Background.
On January, 13, 2012, a complaint was filed with the City Clerk’s Office by David Bell (“Bell”).
A copy of the complaint is attached. The complaint alleges that Gino Campana (“Campana”), a
member of the City’s Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”), violated the conflict of interest
rules contained in the City Charter by improperly participating in discussions of the Board
regarding a proposed change in a particular Land Use Code (“LUC”) provision (the “LUC
Amendment”). The provision in question is LUC Section 3.4.1(E), the purpose of which is to
establish a buffer zone the developed portions of property adjacent to the Poudre River (the
“River”) and other waterways and the edge of the areas to be protected. Staff recommended the
LUC Amendment to clarify the point from which the buffer zone is measured. The complaint is
based on the fact that, at the time of such discussions, Campana was negotiating for the purchase
of a parcel of real property (the “Bender Property” or the “Property”) that could be affected by
the LUC Amendment
Under Section 2-569 of the City Code, the complaint was referred to us by the City Council (the
“Council”) for an opinion and recommendation as to whether the violation alleged in the
complaint occurred and, if so, what action, if any, should be taken by the Council with regard to
the violation.
Summary of Opinion and Recommendation.
The information presented to us indicates that the Bender Property was among a relatively small
group of properties in the City that could be directly affected by the LUC Amendment. Based on
that information, however, it does not appear that at the time Campana participated in the
Board’s discussions regarding the LUC Amendment he would have, in the judgment of a
reasonably prudent person, experienced any direct and substantial benefit or detriment as a result
of that amendment. Therefore, it is our opinion that Campana did not violate the conflict of
interest provisions of the Charter.
On a related note, the information presented to us suggests that there is some confusion among
Board members about the application of the Charter’s conflict of interest rules to
recommendations made by the Board about legislative matters such as the LUC Amendment, as
opposed to Board decisions about quasi-judicial matters. To address this concern, we
recommend that the City Attorneys’ Office provide additional training on that subject to the
members of the Planning and Zoning Board and to other City boards that perform both
legislative and quasi-judicial functions.
EXHIBIT A
Opinion of the Ethics Review Board
Opinion 12-1
February 27, 2012
Page 2 of 5
The Information Presented to the Review Board.
Information was presented to us with regard to the complaint at our meetings on February 23 and
27, 2012. Draft minutes of those meetings are attached, together with: (1) a written summary of
facts presented to us and to Campana by the City Attorney prior to our meetings; and (2) copies
of the written materials presented during the course of the meetings. At the meetings, additional
information was presented by and on behalf of Campana, the members of the Board, and City
staff. After reviewing that information, we have reached the following conclusions about the
facts related to this matter:
There is a divergence of opinion among professional engineers as to whether the LUC
Amendment has helped clarify the way in which the buffer zone between proposed
development and waterways in the City should be established.
The LUC Amendment, as applied to the Bender Property, may or may not result in a
change in the size or location of the buffer that will be required of the developer of the
Property. It does appear that the adoption of the LUC Amendment will result in a change
in the location of the initial 300-foot buffer, as prescribed by the table contained in LUC
Section 3.4.1(E). The western end of that buffer will be moved approximately 45 feet
further from the River. However, the final size and location of the buffer will be
negotiated between City staff and the property owner using certain “performance
standards” contained in the LUC.
The Bender Property is presently located in unincorporated Larimer County but, under an
intergovernmental agreement between the City and the County, will need to be annexed
to the City before it can be developed.
In July, 2011, Campana actively participated in discussions of the Board regarding the
LUC Amendment, both at a work session held on July 15, 2011, and at a subsequent
formal meeting of the Board held on July 21, 2011. He was instrumental in defeating the
amendment at the Board meeting. He argued that the revision should be postponed until
something more concrete and definable was developed and that the proposed definition
would make buffers more restrictive for the land owner, which he considered unfair.
However, the LUC Amendment was reconsidered by the Board in October, 2011, at
staff’s request and was adopted unanimously without his participation.
Campana is an active developer of properties in Northern Colorado and is regularly
involved in the possible acquisition and development of a large number of properties. On
June 9, 2011, Campana entered into a contract to exchange a number of condominiums
that he owns for the Bender Property. The contract gave both property owners broad
latitude to inspect and evaluate the properties being exchanged and to terminate the
contract “if issues were discovered.” As of July 6, 2012, Campana had decided not to
pursue the property exchange on the terms and conditions contained in the contract.
However, in August, 2011, active negotiations resumed between Campana and the owner
Opinion of the Ethics Review Board
Opinion 12-1
February 27, 2012
Page 3 of 5
of the Bender Property when the owner reduced his asking price for the Property in
response to a counteroffer Campana had made. Campana purchased the Property in
September, 2011, and has since submitted a conceptual plan to the City for
redevelopment of the Property.
Campana did not participate in any discussions of the Board regarding the LUC
Amendment after the July work session and July meeting of the Board.
Campana first learned of the 45-foot difference in the basic buffer requirement for the
Property during the course of our meeting on February 23, 2012.
Analysis of the Issue Presented.
The conflict of interest provisions of the City Charter are attached. The question of whether
Campana had a conflict of interest that required him to recuse himself from the Board’s
consideration of the LUC Amendment and file a conflict of interest disclosure statement with the
City Clerk hinges upon whether Campana had either a financial or personal interest in the
approval or rejection of the LUC Amendment.
We do not believe that Campana had a financial interest in the matter because there is no
indication that the Council’s decision about the LUC standard would have resulted in any
immediate financial return to Campana. Whether he had a personal interest in the decision is a
closer question. The definition to be applied in making that determination reads as follows:
“Personal interest means any interest…by reason of which an officer or
employee…would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or
experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from
that experienced by the general public.”
Because there are several components to this definition, we have considered each one separately.
First, in determining how the “reasonably prudent person” would judge the situation, we have
applied that standard to the facts as they were known to Campana at the time of the July work
session and Board meeting. Campana knew at that time that he was engaged in negotiations to
acquire the Bender Property, and that the Property was differently situated in relation to the
application of the LUC provision in question than the vast majority of properties in the City. The
LUC Amendment applied only to properties that are located next to waterways, as is the Bender
Property. As previous Ethics Review Boards have noted in earlier opinions, the size of the
affected group of which an officer or employee is a member determines whether that person’s
interest is different in kind from that of the general public. We believe that Campana’s interest
in the LUC Amendment was different in kind (and not merely in degree) from that shared by the
general public.
Opinion of the Ethics Review Board
Opinion 12-1
February 27, 2012
Page 4 of 5
Next, we looked at whether a reasonably prudent person would believe that Campana would
experience a direct and substantial benefit or detriment as a result of the adoption or rejection of
the LUC Amendment. It is our opinion that a reasonably prudent person knowing all the
relevant facts would not believe that to be true.
With regard to how directly the decision on the LUC Amendment might affect Campana, we
consider it significant that, at the time of his participation in the Board’s discussions of the
amendment, it appeared unlikely that he would be successful in acquiring the Bender Property.
Moreover, the effect on the Bender Property was uncertain because the Property was—and still
is—located in the County. As such, it is not immediately subject to the proposed new buffer
standard. We recognize that, under the City’s intergovernmental agreement with the County, the
owner of the Bender Property will need to petition for annexation to the City before developing
the Property. However, the timing and that annexation petition is uncertain and the outcome is
not guaranteed since all annexation decisions are discretionary with the Council. In addition, it
was unclear and remains unclear whether the LUC Amendment will actually have any effect on
the size and location of buffer on the Bender Property. At the time of the July work session and
Board meeting, no measurements had been done to see what effect the new definitions would
have on the location of the 300-foot buffer and, perhaps more importantly, the buffer standards
are often not applied in a rigid way because, under LUC Section 3.4.1(E), the buffer must be
increased or decreased to meet certain performance standards in order to ensure that it serves its
intended purpose. For these reasons, it is the Board’s opinion that a reasonably prudent person
would not consider the link between the LUC Amendment and Campana’s financial interests to
be a direct one. A number of variables would have to fall into place in order for that direct
connection to exist.
The next question is whether the effect of the LUC Amendment on the Bender Property—and on
Campana’s overall financial interests—would be “substantial.” We believe that this standard
should be applied objectively. In other words, whether a City decision will make a “substantial”
difference to an officer or employee should be judged in terms of the potential effect of the
decision on the average person, rather than on the particular officer or employee. Otherwise, a
very wealthy officer or employee would be free to participate in decisions that an officer or
employee of more modest means could not. Such a result would very likely undermine the
public’s confidence in the integrity of the government.
Applying the “substantiality” standard objectively, we believe it is unclear whether the LUC
Amendment will have a substantial effect on the way in which the Bender Property can be
developed or on the overall profitability of the development. That is because, as mentioned
above, the buffer zone for the Property may not change as a result of the Council’s adoption of
the LUC Amendment. The standard 300-foot buffer will be subject to the same possibility of
modification under the LUC Amendment as it was under the previous LUC standard. Therefore,
at the time that Campana participated in the Board’s consideration of the LUC Amendment, we
do not believe that a reasonably prudent person knowing all the relevant facts would have
thought he had anything substantial to gain or lose as a result of Council’s decision on the
amendment.
Opinion of the Ethics Review Board
Opinion 12-1
February 27, 2012
Page 5 of 5
Board Members’ Uncertainty about the Applicability of the Conflict of Interest Rules.
It is clear from the information provided to us that there is some confusion among Planning and
Zoning Board members as to the extent to which the Charter’s conflict of interest rules apply to
recommendations made by the Board to the City Council with regard to policy matters such as
the LUC Amendment. In carrying out its duties under the City Code, the Board deals with two
kinds of matters: decisions regarding specific development proposals, and recommendations to
the Council regarding proposed LUC changes or other policy matters. Information provided to
us by several current and past members of the Board suggests that, while they are very cognizant
of the impartiality rules that apply to decisions they make about specific development proposals
when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, they are less certain about the way in which the
Charter’s conflict of interest rules should be interpreted and applied to recommendations they are
called upon to make with regard to policy matters.
Opinion and Recommendation.
For the reasons stated above, it is our opinion that Campana did not have a conflict of interest
that prevented him from participating in the Board’s discussions and recommendations regarding
the LUC Amendment. Nonetheless, we believe that it was entirely appropriate for this matter to
have been brought to the attention of the City by Mr. Bell, since the many factors reducing the
probability of this decision having a direct and substantial financial impact on Mr. Campana
become clear only after careful examination of the situation. It is critical that the officers and
employees of the City remain vigilant in trying to ensure that their participation in the City’s
decision making processes is motivated solely by an interest in the public good and not by an
interest in personal gain.
Because of the input we received from members of the Board, we recommend that, to the extent
reasonably possible, the City Attorney’s Office and City staff supplement the training that is
currently provided to City board and commission members to further clarify the application of
the conflicts of interest requirements to both quasi-judicial and legislative matters. It is
important that all board and commission members understand the conflict of interest rules that
are applicable to their service with the City and recognize when those rules might require their
recusal. In particular, we further recommend that a representative of the City Attorney’s Office
meet with the members of the Planning and Zoning Board in the near future to review the ethical
rules applicable to Board members’ participation in both quasi-judicial decisions and in the
recommendations that the Board makes to the Council regarding policy matters. We also
recommend that the City Attorney’s Office provide similar clarification to other City boards that
perform both quasi-judicial and legislative functions.
interest in the official records of the city in the
manner prescribed in subsection (4) hereof, and
shall refrain from voting on, attempting to
influence, or otherwise participating in such
decision in any manner as an officer or
employee.
(4) Disclosure procedure. If any officer or employee
has any financial or personal interest requiring
disclosure under subsection (3) of this section,
such person shall immediately upon discovery
thereof declare such interest by delivering a
written statement to the City Clerk, with copies
to the City Manager and, if applicable, to the
chairperson of the public body of which such
person is a member, which statement shall
contain the name of the officer or employee, the
office or position held with the city by such
person, and the nature of the interest. If said
officer or employee shall discover such financial
or personal interest during the course of a
meeting or in such other circumstance as to
render it practically impossible to deliver such
written statement prior to action upon the matter
in question, said officer or employee shall
immediately declare such interest by giving oral
notice to all present, including a description of
the nature of the interest.
(5) Violations. Any contract made in violation of
this Section shall be voidable by the city. If
voided within one (1) year of the date of
execution thereof, the party obtaining payment
by reason of such contract shall, if required by
the city, forthwith return to the city all or any
designated
services provided to the city as an officer or
employee.
Officer or employee means any person holding a
position by election, appointment or employment in the
service of the city, whether part-time or full-time,
including a member of any authority, board, committee
or commission of the city, other than an authority that
is:
(1) established under the provisions of the Colorado
Revised Statutes;
(2) governed by state statutory rules of ethical
conduct; and
(3) expressly exempted from the provisions of this
Article by ordinance of the Council.
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 1