HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/01/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
November 1, 2011
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring November 2, 2011 as the Northern Colorado AIDS Project 25th Anniversary.
B. Proclamation Declaring November 2011 as American Music Month.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
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 23. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar
and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Item No. 30, Pulled Consent Items. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2011 Regular Meeting and the October
11, 2011 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Items Relating to Municipal Mail Ballot Elections.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to
Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to
Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail.
B. Resolution 2011-095 Directing the City Manager to Provide a Written Report to the City
Council Following the April 2, 2013 Regular Municipal Election Regarding the Costs
Associated With, and Turnout Achieved By, Mailing Ballots to Certain Inactive Voters as
Required by Section 7-186 of the City Code.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City Code
to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to certain inactive electors in addition to
all active registered electors. In addition, the Code will be amended to require that the City pay
postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter
participation.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011 was originally considered on Second Reading on October 18, 2011. It was
postponed to this date to allow staff to amend the Ordinance to further define those inactive-failed to
vote electors who will receive a mail ballot package, and to prepare a Resolution directing the City
Manager to provide an analysis of the April 2013 election.
This Ordinance was amended prior to Second Reading on October 18 to add language clarifying that
ballots will be mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed
to vote”. On October 18, Council directed that the Ordinance be revised to provide that any inactive-
failed to vote elector who voted in at least one of the past two General Elections immediately
preceding any City election conducted by mail ballot, will receive a mail ballot package.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the
Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance for the
lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is
$1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787 in 2012. Money for
2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the
purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.8%. A competitive
process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this
lease rate is in the City's best interest.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining
to the Duties and Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, modifies the duties of
the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code to broaden the scope
of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and
appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of Fort
Collins.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to
Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, establishes a process
for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties. The process defines
how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or
for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in
such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition
to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of
facilities in other circumstances.
In response to a Council comment that the proposed ordinance included some confusing language,
staff has streamlined subsection 23-141(d) to clarify the process to be used. This simplified language
is included in the Ordinance on Second Reading.
Page 4
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year
Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport
operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each
city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City
of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the
Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport
General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue
major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds are slated for
utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business development.
Ordinance No. 135, 2011, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown
Development Authority for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
Ordinance No. 137, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, sets the
Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be appropriated for fiscal year
2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt service
payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins,
Downtown Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since 2002. The approved budget
becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012.
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond
proceeds. Examples of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday
light display, facade improvements, the enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and
participation in the river district improvement projects, etc.
13. Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Water Rates and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
Ordinance No. 138, 2011, proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and
applies to all rate classes. Ordinance No. 139, 2011, will increase water plant investment fees an
average of 4.7% for 2012. Ordinance No. 140, 2011, will increase wastewater rate by 8% for 2012.
Ordinance No. 141, 2011, will decrease the wastewater plant investment fees by 3% for 2012.
Ordinance No. 144, 2011, will increase the Stormwater plant investment fees by 1.2% in 2012. These
Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011.
Page 5
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for the
Carnegie Building.
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated grant revenue of $100,000 from the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town” grant program in the Cultural Services Fund. The Cultural Services
Department and the non-profit Beet Street collaborated on the grant as required by the NEA. The
grant is funding the design and planning for a proposed art incubator to be housed in the Carnegie
Building in late 2012.
15. Items Relating to the Purchase of a Rapid Transit Bus.
A. Resolution 2011-096 Authorizing the Execution of a Contract Between the City of Fort Collins
and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the Purchase of One Bus Rapid
Transit Bus.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transit
Services Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Bus
Rapid Transit Bus.
The Colorado Department of Transportation has awarded FASTER (Funding Advancements for
Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery) funding to purchase one of the six Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) buses needed for MAX operations. The Colorado Department of Transportation
approved funds that will be applied toward the BRT bus purchase. This request appropriates funds
and executes the contract with CDOT.
The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to the west of
College Avenue. The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations with pedestrian and
bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side stops, a transit center at the southern and northern termini, and
off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance facility to provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive
BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet in order to provide MAX BRT
services. All six buses will be new bus purchases, and will replace older buses beyond their useful
life. The six BRT buses will be purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant
Agreement (PCGA) has been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will
be purchased at the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded
through CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER), while the other three are funded through the federal Small
Starts grant.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Amendment and Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course
for up to Five Additional Years.
This Ordinance will authorize the extension of the existing agreement with Collindale Golf Course
contractual Golf Professional Dale Smigelsky.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Extension of the Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to
Five Additional Years.
The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar concessionaire, the
Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. The
existing five-year Agreement was entered into on December 11, 2006. As stated in the Agreement,
“This Agreement may be extended beyond the original five (5) year term if performance is satisfactory
and subject to City Council approval and negotiation of a mutually acceptable extension Agreement.”
The performance of Mr. Dahl has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a
mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
Page 6
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New
Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services.
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to implement
some changes to the City’s internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service
areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the City Code. This Ordinance establishes
Sustainability Services as a Service Area.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement
of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter
for the Homeless.
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight
shelter at area homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The
Mission; however, delays have pushed the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This request
is to temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for an 8-week period at the Knights of Columbus
facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter people on those winter evenings when
other homeless shelters are full.
20. Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-097 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Courtney Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the
Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
This is a request to annex and zone 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East
Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court,
which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie
Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property
is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this
annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential
Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential
uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs
because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an
established residential area.
21. Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-098 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Leistikow Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the
Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
Page 7
This is a request to annex and zone the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of
Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor
Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road.
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which
is shared with the Westchase P.U.D. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate in conformance
with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Annexation
includes a condition such that if the property develops as a residential land use, the owner shall
request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to implement its Transfer
of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility
Easement on City Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s Creek known
as Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd
Filing (the Property). The Property was dedicated on the McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for
landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage
Basin and is owned and maintained by City’s Stormwater Utility. McClelland’s Creek conveys
stormwater flows to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to service the
proposed residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will extend east from
Xcel’s existing service line off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned by the City, as well as,
property owned by Poudre School District. The line will run adjacent and parallel to an existing
sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. Xcel has requested the City grant a 10-foot wide
utility easement across the City’s property for the installation and maintenance of the new gas line
improvements.
23. Resolution 2011-099 Authorizing an Agricultural Lease on Prairie Ridge Natural Area to Harry Sauer.
The Natural Areas Program partnered with the City of Loveland ( as a minority owner) to purchase
the 785 acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area in 2000 from Harry Sauer. The City entered into an IGA with
the City of Loveland, who manages the property. Loveland leased the property back to Mr. Sauer for
farming and the property has been in dryland wheat production since the time of purchase. The
renewal of the existing agricultural lease on the property for one additional growing season will allow
time for the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland and Larimer County to pursue a collective
competitive Request For Proposal process to select a farming tenant for an agriculture lease on this
property and two other contiguous properties located in the Fort Collins/Loveland community
separator.
24. Resolution 2011-100 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the Purchase
of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate from General Chemical.
The Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility is requesting to purchase liquid aluminum sulfate from
General Chemical as an Exception to the Competitive Process. Liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) is
used as the primary coagulant.
END CONSENT
25. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
Page 8
26. Staff Reports.
27. Councilmember Reports.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the
Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning
January 1, 2012, and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
(staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead; 30 minute discussion)
This Ordinance amends the adopted 2012 Budget and sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2012. Including the 2012 adopted budgets for the General Improvement
District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City
appropriations amount to $456,189,759. The Net City Budget, which excludes internal transfers
between City funds, is $361,424,510 for 2012. The Net City Budget, as amended, is allocated to:
Net City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended
2012 2012 Change
Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1
Debt Service 23.2 23.2 -
Capital * 19.1 22.6 3.5
Total City Appropriations ** $447.6 $456.2 $8.6
Less Internal Service Funds (57.0) (57.8) (0.8)
Less Transfers to Other Funds (37.1) (37.0) 0.1
Net City Budget $353.5 $361.4 $7.9
* Capital dollars reflect non-lapsing capital project budgets.
** This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
Page 9
29. Items Relating to Electric Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012. (staff: Brian Janonis, Ellen Switzer;
30 minute discussion)
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
Ordinance No. 142, 2011, will increase the electric rate by 8.3% for 2012. This Ordinance does not
contain any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers. The
changes to the RESR will be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011. Ordinance
No. 143, 2011, 2012 will increase some electric development fees slightly for some developments
(1%-3%) and decrease slightly for others. Ordinance Nos. 142 and 143, 2011, were adopted on First
Reading on October 18, 2011, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kottwitz).
City staff has worked with Platte River Power Authority staff to address comments received regarding
language found in Sections 1 and 3 of Ordinance No. 142, 2011.
30. Pulled Consent Items.
31. Other Business.
a. Motion to Adjourn Meeting to Wednesday, November 9, 2011 for the annual evaluations of
the City Manager and Municipal Judge.
32. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
SKYVIEW SOUTH
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEETING
November 1, 2011
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview
South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary
of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike
Beckstead; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, fixes the mill levy of
10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012 for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15. The
sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected and will be used to maintain and repair roads in the
Skyview subdivision.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING
November 1, 2011
(after the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General
Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to
Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year
2012 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011 sets the mill levy for
General Improvement District No. 1 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. The sum of $249,000 is
anticipated to be collected from the mill levy. Additional revenue for the General Improvement
District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and
interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is
expected to be $303,179.
4. Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan.
(staff: Clark Mapes; 20 minute discussion)
City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID).
The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian,
and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial
area.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA
November 1, 2011
The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. (staff: Clark
Mapes; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, appropriates
$500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for fabrication
and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was
done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation
will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then
fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign
shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop may prove able to fabricate and
install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those costs.
Installation will occur in 2012.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the prevalence of those living with HIV/AIDS continues to increase in
communities across our nation; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Northern Colorado AIDS Project (NCAP) is to improve the
quality of life for people living with HIV/AIDS and to help reduce the spread and stigma of the
disease; and
WHEREAS, for twenty-five years, NCAP has advocated for and served those living with
HIV/AIDS in an eight-county area of northern Colorado that encompasses nearly 16,000 square
miles, offering comprehensive assistance through HIV testing, prevention counseling, medical case
management and mental health care; and
WHEREAS, NCAP’s national recognition in presentations at the Boston School of Social
Work National Conference on HIV/AIDS 2008-2011, the Rural Centers for AIDS Prevention
National Conference 2010-2011, and the U.S. Conference on AIDS 2010 substantiates its efficacy
as a successful model of delivery, programming and management; and,
WHEREAS, NCAP has now joined forces with Western Colorado, Southern Colorado and
Denver area Colorado AIDS Projects to form a new centralized, statewide organization to achieve
greater efficiencies and benefits to those it serves.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby join
do hereby proclaim November 2, 2011 as
NORTHERN COLORADO AIDS PROJECT DAY
in Fort Collins and ask all to recognize the importance of prevention, education and testing in our
effort to reduce the number of newly diagnosed cases of HIV/AIDS and to join me in thanking
NCAP for twenty-five years of continuous service to our community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, music, the universal language of peace, is one of the great arts and an
outstanding feature of our culture; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of Music Clubs, having as a foremost objective, the
promotion of American music, will stage its annual Parade of American Music throughout the
month of November; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Federation of Music Clubs and Fort Collins join in encouraging
and stimulating interest in American music and the enjoyment and appreciation thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Parade of American Music is designed to give our own worthy United
States composers recognition, encouragement and support, and to impress upon the public of the
United States that it has creative as well as performing musical artists and a musical culture equal
to that of other countries.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of Fort Collins, in recognition of the
American Composer and in order to encourage native creative musical art, do hereby proclaim
November 2011 as
AMERICAN MUSIC MONTH
and urge all our citizens to join in the observance and share the joy of music.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2011 Regular Meeting and the October 11, 2011
Adjourned Meeting.
October 4, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, commented on Public Power Week and stated the Urban
Renewal Authority is not using best practices.
Suzanne Durkin-Schindler, 1342 Stonehenge Drive, discussed a new non-profit created as an
extension of the Restorative Justice program.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, discussed the
proposed redevelopment of the Bender Mobile Home Park on Wood Street and requested that
Council authorize adequate relocation funds for the residents.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Community Affairs, requested a formal update regarding the
removal of ASCSU/City signs.
Deborah Goodson, 912 Wood Street, expressed concern regarding the relocation of Wood Street
Mobile Home Park residents and requested that Council authorize adequate relocation funds.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
City Manager Atteberry stated Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager, met with Mr. Eckert
and stated a solution regarding the signs is in progress.
Councilmember Poppaw asked what role the City can play with regard to the displaced residents at
the Wood Street Mobile Home Park. City Manager Atteberry stated a response will be provided
within a week. Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services,
replied a meeting occurred this afternoon regarding the assembly of resources and identification of
roles and responsibilities.
61
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Horak requested additional information prior to the October 18, 2011 meeting. City
Manager Atteberry replied the information will be forthcoming as quickly as possible.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what responsibilities lay with the County, developer, and residents
and noted the importance of ensuring residents moving early are not lost in the process.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the Fort Collins Light and Power Utility has a reliability rating of over 99%.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer
Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
The current version of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail
Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) is outdated and does not operate in the latest
Windows or Internet Explorer environments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on September 20, 2011, authorizes the appropriation of funds needed for Fort
Collins Police Services to upgrade the current systems (software, hardware and project
manager costs) through Tiburon, Inc. and will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional
Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-
date.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to
Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City
Manager, and the City Attorney.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the
financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City
Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person
making disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the
purpose of resale and profit, as currently required.
9. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12
of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
City Code currently requires that all weeds and grasses (except “ornamental” grasses which
cannot exceed twenty percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in
62
October 4, 2011
height. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011,
will allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit. The Code
amendments will serve to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and
provide options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass.
The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would
have a height limit of twelve inches.
10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of
the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial
Corrections to Article V.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs
of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
Ordinance No. 126, 2011, will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with
defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s timeframe
within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond
thirty days. Ordinance No. 127, 2011, provides the option of an appeal process for weed
and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development &
Neighborhood Services or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the
appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements. Both Ordinances were unanimously
adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing
community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication
of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately
three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance
will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza
project.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
The final acquisition phase for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX) is set
to begin with Phase V. City Council has previously authorized the first five phases of
acquisition work, which included Phases I through IV, as well as a Phase III-A.
63
October 4, 2011
Phase V is comprised of 15 separate properties prepared for the acquisition stage. The City
Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City’s
acquisition process for the property interests within this phase.
As a federally-funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as
amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this Act, property owners must be
informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado
State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is
needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official
step in the acquisition process, which must occur prior to the appraisals. Given the
recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be
conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required
property interests is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent
domain for the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer
Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to
Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City
Manager, and the City Attorney.
9. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12
of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of
the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial
Corrections to Article V.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20
of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs
of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
64
October 4, 2011
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V).
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item No. 8, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123,
2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements
for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry commented on a visit by Park City, Utah representatives.
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, presented information about the Neighborhood Grant
Program.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Weitkunat acknowledged the CSU journalism majors in the audience.
Councilmember Horak discussed the Poudre Fire Authority Chief selection schedule and the PRPA
budget and wholesale rate increases over the next three years.
Councilmember Troxell stated there was a celebration of the Fort Zed demonstration project on
September 24th. He discussed the grand re-opening of the Laurel and Myrtle area alleys and a tour
of the Larimer County Detention facility.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011,
Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered
Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City
to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
65
October 4, 2011
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be
mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all
active registered electors. In addition, the Code would be amended to require that the City pay
postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter
participation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Mail ballot elections in Colorado are governed by C.R.S, Title 1, Article 7.5, known as the “Mail
Ballot Election Act”. In 2006, the City of Fort Collins codified its own mail ballot election
provisions, superceding the Mail Ballot Election Act, although the City’s provisions as written in
2006 were closely aligned with the state law. This was permissible, because under the State
Constitution, elections are a matter of local concern.
Mail Ballot Recipients
The Mail Ballot Election Act and the City Code both require ballots to be mailed to “each active
registered elector”. Council has expressed a desire to expand the types of registered electors who
automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive registered electors who voted
in the last presidential election.
Colorado uses a statewide voter registration system controlled by the Secretary of State. Each
registered voter has a designated status, which is defined in current rules promulgated by the
Secretary of State as follows:
a. “Active status” or “active record” means that there are no conditions or restrictions on the
voter’s eligibility.
b. “Cancelled status” or “cancelled record” means that the voter’s registration has been
cancelled or revoked based upon a determination that the voter is ineligible, or the applicant
has been deemed not registered in accordance with these rules and Title 1, C.R.S.; or the
voter has withdrawn their registration.
c. “Inactive – failed to vote status” means that the voter was active prior to a General
Election, but subsequently failed to vote in that General Election.
d. “Inactive – returned mail status” or “inactive – undeliverable status” means that a voter
information card or confirmation card was returned to the county clerk and recorder by the
United States Postal Service as undeliverable.
e. “Inactive – undeliverable ballot status” means that a voter was mailed a ballot that was
subsequently returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service
as undeliverable.
66
October 4, 2011
This proposal would target a segment of voters classified as “inactive - failed to vote”, specifically
those voters who are classified as such only because they failed to vote in the non-presidential
General Election (Nov 2010, Nov 2014, Nov 2018, etc.). Voters who failed to vote in both the
presidential election (Nov 2008, Nov 2012, Nov 2016, etc.) and the non-presidential election two
years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any eligible voter
(other than one who has a “cancelled” status) who did not automatically receive a ballot may
request a ballot by completing simple paperwork to document the request and update the voter’s
registration information (primarily current address). This paperwork is forwarded to the County
elections office after the City’s election and is used to not only update registration information, but
also serves to change the voter’s registration back to “active”.
Return Postage
The second portion of the Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for voters to affix postage
when returning a ballot by mail, and instead, requires the City to provide postage. This can be
accomplished through a postage permit under which the City will pay postage only on those ballots
returned, at the current first-class rate.
This change also differs from the Mail Ballot Election Act, which requires the voter to pay postage.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Mail Ballot Recipients
Approximately 9500 additional voters would have received a ballot for the April 2011 election if
ballots were mailed to inactive voters who had voted in the last presidential election. The
approximate cost to include those additional voters would have been $19,000.
Return Postage
For the April 2011 election, 16,965 ballots were returned by mail. If the City had paid return
postage on those ballots, the cost would have been $7,465. “
Rita Harris, Chief Deputy City Clerk, stated this Ordinance would expand the group of registered
electors who automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive voters who are
inactive because they did not vote in the last non-presidential County election but who did vote in
the last presidential election. The Ordinance would also establish that the City will pay the postage
for all voted ballots returned by mail.
Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive, Fort Collins Ranked Voting representative, supported the
Ordinance.
Ken Tharp, 601 Birky Place, supported the Ordinance and instant runoff elections.
67
October 4, 2011
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Ordinance and ranked voting and suggested
changing City elections from April to November .
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the Ordinance but expressed concern about the
lack of a public process and boards and commissions review regarding the issue.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, supported the Ordinance
and encouraged mailing ballots to all registered voters.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many voters exist in each classification. Chief Deputy City
Clerk Harris replied there are approximately 40,000 inactive voters versus 7,900 voters who are
inactive but did vote in the presidential election.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the postage estimate. Deputy City Clerk Harris replied the cost
estimate for approximately17,000 ballots returned by mail in the most recent election held (April
2011) is $7,500 for return postage.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the public process regarding the item. Harris replied voter
registration information comes from Larimer County and the County played a large role in
determining estimates for the item. No public outreach was conducted.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted these changes resulted from the Council formal work plan.
Councilmember Horak requested a cost estimate of sending ballots to all registered voters. Harris
replied the outgoing postage would add approximately $65,000 and noted many would likely be
returned as undeliverable as the County has already determined unreported address changes.
Councilmember Horak asked if election notices are placed in the Utility inserts. Harris replied there
is typically a great deal of media coverage regarding elections; however, the utility inserts have not
included information for quite some time.
Councilmember Manvel asked for a cost estimate of the City’s April election. Harris replied the
April election cost $96,000. Adding voters who voted in the last presidential election would add
$19,000 to that cost and adding all inactive voters would add $65,000 to that cost. Harris noted the
City would not be able to impose these on the County in a coordinated election and the changes
would not take effect until April 2013.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if all of the previous analysis and work session information could be
included in the Second Reading packet. Harris replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 130, 2011 , on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel supported the ordinance as proposed.
68
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw supported the elimination of financial barriers for electors.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would like to see the data, but supported the changes.
Councilmember Horak proposed a friendly amendment to allow the elector to provide the necessary
postage. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw accepted the amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested information regarding additional publication of elections prior
to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak suggested outreach to boards and commissions in terms of ideas for
publicizing elections.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
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 First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance makes several changes to the way in which appeals to the City Council are handled.
The changes are in response to concerns and suggestions of persons who have participated in recent
land use appeals, and to direction provided by the City Council at a Council work session. The
changes deal with the following topics: the scheduling of the appeal hearing; the ability of
Councilmembers who file an appeal to participate in hearing the appeal; the ability of opponents
of an appeal to present their views in writing in addition to presenting argument at the hearing; the
manner in which site visits are conducted; the submission of written materials to the Council; and
expanding the group of persons who can participate in appeal hearings.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code establishes a procedure whereby the final
decisions of certain boards and commissions and other decision makers can be appealed to the City
Council. Most frequently, this appeal process is used for considering appeals from the decisions
of the Planning and Zoning Board or the City’s administrative hearing officer on applications for
approval of land use proposals. Over the recent past, parties on both sides of the appeal process
have expressed concerns about the process and have suggested ways in which it could be improved.
69
October 4, 2011
On June 14, 2011, at a City Council work session, the Council considered a number of these issues,
including the possibility of establishing a “de novo” appeal process in place of the existing “on the
record” appeal process. Under a de novo process, the Council would conduct an entirely new
hearing on the matter that had been decided by the initial decision maker rather than limiting the
evidence at the appeal hearing to the record that was established at the hearing before the initial
decision maker. At the conclusion of the work session discussion, the Council indicated a
preference for retaining the current appeal process but making several revisions. The proposed
revisions to be included in this Ordinance were the following:
• eliminating the current provision that prevents Councilmembers who file an appeal from
participating in hearing the appeal;
• expanding the period of time within which the hearing on an appeal must be scheduled; and
• expanding the group of persons who are entitled to speak at an appeal hearing to include
members of the general public.
Those changes are included in the proposed Ordinance. In addition, City staff has recommended
the following additional changes:
• creating an opportunity for parties opposed to an appeal to file a statement in opposition to
the appeal;
• clarifying the extent to which new evidence may be contained in written materials presented
to the Council prior to the hearing and in presentations made at the hearing;
• clarifying the purpose and procedure for conducting inspections of the site that is the subject
of an appeal.
The primary purpose behind allowing opponents of an appeal to file a written statement in
opposition to the appeal is to give the parties on both sides of the appeal early notice of the other
party’s position. In that way, the parties canbetter prepare and focus their remarks at the appeal
hearing. This change should also shorten the time needed at the appeal hearing for the parties to
make their oral presentations, especially in the case of appeals that are complex in nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is supportive of all of the proposed changes with the exception of expanding participation in
the appeal process to allow comment at the appeal hearing by members of the general public in
addition to parties-in-interest. Staff is concerned about that proposal for several reasons.
First, the City’s decision whether to approve a land use proposal is made through a “quasi judicial”
process in which the decision maker (both the initial decision maker and the City Council),
determine the rights of particular parties who are directly and immediately affected by the proposal.
The decision must be based upon established criteria. Those who have been involved in the process
70
October 4, 2011
prior to the Council appeal hearing and who are directly affected by a development proposal are
more likely to focus their remarks on the facts in the record and the relevant criteria rather than on
general policy consideration.
Second, the City Code already defines “parties-in-interest” to include not only the applicant, the
interest holder in the property that is the subject of the application, and those who live close to the
site, but also those members of the general public who sent comments to the initial decision maker
or appeared at the hearing before the initial decision maker. Thus, the general public is already
able to participate in the process for reviewing land use applications.
Third, allowing the general public to speak at the appeal hearing would likely make it more difficult
for the Council to hear all persons who wish to speak at the hearing within the limited period of time
that is available for presentations at the hearing.
Finally, this change could be construed as expanding the group of persons who would have legal
“standing” to challenge the Council’s decision in court, in which case, then even nonresidents of
the City who have no direct stake in the approval or denial of the particular application could bring
such a challenge. Therefore, if the Council decides to make this change, staff recommends that
additional language be added on Second Reading expressly stating that the ability of members of
the public to speak at the appeal hearing should not be construed as giving those members of the
public the right to challenge the City Council’s decision in court.”
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, introduced the
history of the item.
City Attorney Roy stated staff is recommending several proposed changes, including allowing
additional time for holding an appeal hearing, adding an opportunity for a formal, written statement
in opposition to an appeal, clarification of site inspection procedures. Staff is recommending against
allowing members of the general public to comment at the appeal hearing.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, supported staff’s recommendations.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Ordinance does not address citizen concerns and
added the process is not working for a variety of reasons.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested a memo within a week regarding the appeal issues raised by
Council, neighborhoods, and staff, and asked when those changes can be expected to come forward.
Cumbo replied a summary of the changes made in the last year will be forthcoming.
Councilmember Troxell supported staff and noted City staff is upholding the Land Use Code as
approved by Council. Cumbo noted the content of the Land Use Code is reviewed annually as part
of an on-going process.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 131, 2011 , on First Reading.
71
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Horak requested a friendly amendment to remove the section referencing
participation in appeal hearings by the general public; thereby accepting staff’s recommendation.
Councilmember Manvel did not accept the amendment.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to amend Ordinance
No. 131, 2011, to remove the phrases relating to general public participation.
Councilmember Horak noted any participant in the Planning and Zoning Board hearing is
considered a party-in-interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed limiting citizen comment.
Mayor Weitkunat noted appeals are based on a record of previous events and supported limiting
citizen comment to only parties-in-interest.
Councilmember Manvel supported being inclusive in terms of citizen comments.
Councilmember Poppaw opposed limiting citizen comment.
Councilmember Horak opposed allowing participation by individuals other than parties-in-interest.
City Attorney Roy noted allowing only parties-in-interest to participate in appeal hearings could
help protect against decisions that may stray from the criteria.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the presentation time allotment is distributed for each side of
the appeal. City Attorney Roy replied the issue has not been a problem in the past; however, the
Mayor has the final say as to the scope and time of presentations. The Mayor has the ability to cut
off presentations at the end of the allotted time.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how it is certain that speakers are parties-in-interest. City Attorney
Roy replied objections could occur or the Mayor could ask each speaker how he qualifies as a party-
in-interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would be more likely to support the amendment if a plan for
additional community publicity is put into place. Cumbo replied notices of hearing are published
and each property is posted with a sign for development review. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested
the site signs be larger.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed the amendment as all members of the public should be allowed to
participate.
Councilmember Horak stated allowing the general public to participate in appeal hearings will work
against neighborhood members who have attempted to put together a cohesive argument.
72
October 4, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat noted the appeals process is a final process and is questioning the reasoning for
the inclusion at that point.
Councilmember Troxell stated the inclusion of general public in the appeal hearing could dilute the
arguments of each side.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: Ohlson and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmembers Horak and Manvel requested staff provide additional
ideas relating to informing the general public of development proposals.
Councilmember Horak asked if the phrase “opposed” could be eliminated from Section 2-53. City
Attorney Roy replied it would not present a legal issue.
Councilmember Horak requested a friendly amendment to amend Section 2-53(a) to remove the
phrases “opposed to the appeal” and “in opposition to an appeal” in Section 2-53(b).
Councilmembers Troxell and Manvel accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Horak stated this change would allow both sides of the appeal to present written
arguments prior to the appeal hearing.
The vote on the motion to adopted Ordinance No. 131, 2011, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2011-092
Further Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing
the Conduct of City Council Meetings, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution would further amend the rules of procedure with regard to comments by citizens
during the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings insofar as those comments are related
to quasi-judicial matters. The language would be refined to state that comments would not be
permitted on matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval
or disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council.
73
October 4, 2011
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its meeting on September 20, 2011, the Council approved certain changes to its rules of
procedure for conducting Council meetings. One of those changes dealt with a citizen’s ability to
comment on quasi-judicial matters under the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings.
After considerable discussion and citizen input, the Council modified the language that had been
proposed by staff so that citizens would be permitted to comment on land use proposals up to the
point in time when a formal application for approval of the proposal was filed with the City. After
that point in time, comments would not be permitted at Council meetings.
The language recommended by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council on September
20th reads as follows:
Section 3.Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be
allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(2) a pending land use proposal that, if approved by the Planning and Zoning
Board or hearing officer, would be subject to appeal to the City Council.
Upon further review, staff believes that there are two problems with this language. First, it fails to
take into consideration other kinds of quasi-judicial decisions besides those dealing with land use
proposals. Second, it is limited to situations in which a proposal is approved by the initial decision
maker and does not address proposals that are not approved.
To address these concerns, staff is recommending that the language be further revised to read as
follows:
Section 3.Citizen Comment.
a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be
allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(2) matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval or
disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council.”
City Attorney Roy stated an amended Resolution was provided to Council in the Read-Before
packet. This change was debated at the last Council meeting and is related to whether or not, and
to what extent, citizens commenting during public participation can comment on quasi-judicial
matters. Council had previously opted to prohibit public participation on quasi-judicial matters in
situations where an application for approval of a development proposal had been filed, or pending
applications.
74
October 4, 2011
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Resolution until such time as the appeals process
has been changed. He suggested this prohibition aids in staff shaping outcomes of land use
decisions.
Councilmember Horak asked what this change is based upon. City Attorney Roy replied the change
is based upon his interpretation of the requirements of due process as applied to the quasi-judicial
process and, in particular, the phenomenon of citizens using the citizen participation time to speak
to quasi-judicial matters.
Councilmember Horak asked if any neighboring jurisdictions have similar regulations. City
Attorney Roy replied in the negative.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-092 as amended.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted this change allows citizens to address Council at least until a formal
application has been filed. City Attorney Roy stated this Resolution brings forward an amendment
to the policy to establish the current practice and softens the current practice to allow citizen
participation comments related to potential quasi-judicial matters up to the point of an application
being filed.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the discussion of quasi-judicial matters was previously allowed
during citizen participation. City Attorney Roy replied the prohibition began following the increase
in frequency of citizens discussing quasi-judicial issues.
Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the Resolution and is of the opinion that citizens
should be allowed to speak to any issue during citizen participation.
Councilmember Manvel stated the input to the process needs to be more controlled and supported
the Resolution.
Councilmember Horak stated applications can be submitted and withdrawn multiple times. City
Attorney Roy noted this refers only to applications that are quasi-judicial in nature and includes only
applications which may be appealable to Council. If this is applied only to quasi-judicial
applications before the Planning and Zoning Board, it creates an inequality with other quasi-judicial
issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested tightening the language to perhaps allow citizen input before
Council until an item is placed on the Planning and Zoning Board agenda. City Attorney Roy
clarified that an item is considered quasi-judicial from the start of the process if it is possibly
appealable to Council.
A lengthy discussion was held regarding the previously adopted Resolution and City Attorney Roy’s
opinion that the language in that Resolution is flawed.
75
October 4, 2011
Councilmember Horak asked how citizens can be made aware of filed applications. Cumbo replied
there is information on the web page regarding current applications and Council can be provided
with a running list of filed applications.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays:
Ohlson and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry refuted Mr. Sutherland’s comments regarding City staff and the appearance
of corruption.
Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand
the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council,
the City Manager, and the City Attorney, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the
financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City
Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making
disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of
resale and profit, as currently required.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the financing of projects with public funds and
ethics in public service.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted this item would increase the amount of disclosure and expose
potential conflicts of interest.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 123, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on October 11, 2011, to consider various matters related to the construction of Phase III of the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station transmission line project, including a possible
executive session and subsequent formal action by the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
76
October 4, 2011
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
77
October 11, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 11,
2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weikunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Daggett.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with the
attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff to discuss possible litigation regarding the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation power line project and related legal issues.
Councilmember Horak stated he would prefer to have a staff presentation prior to the Executive
Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Manvel withdrew the motion to go into Executive
Session.
Pineridge Natural Area Transmission Line Construction Alternatives Study
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“ÉXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will be presenting a draft study which examines alternative construction methodologies. The
study examines the environmental, economic, aesthetic, reliability and schedule impacts of the
potential alternatives. Staff is seeking Council direction on what alternative, if any, it wishes to
pursue.
Key to the discussion of potential alternatives is Western Area Power Administration’s (Western)
adamant position denying consideration of undergrounding its existing and future transmission
facilities. Western has also indicated that, within a decade, it plans to upgrade the overhead
transmission line crossing Pineridge Natural Area. This position significantly limits options
available to address view shed impacts. An underground option is examined and the probable
Western line across Pineridge is illustrated, but ultimately due to Western’s position, the majority
of options examined are related to alternate overhead construction methods.
78
October 11, 2011
Options examined include:
• Relocate the proposed line to one of three alternate routes in order to lessen visual impacts.
• Change the appearance of the proposed line through the use of either galvanized (silver) or
other color treatment.
• In place of the proposed tall single poles, use shorter double pole construction similar to the
existing line.
• Decrease the number of poles in the Pineridge area by extending the distance between poles.
This will require taller poles.
• Rather than building a double circuit line, upgrade just the existing. This would require
additional substation equipment.
• Underground the new line and leave the existing Western line in place.
In addition to the transmission line alternatives, staff and SAIC have also prepared a report that
examines potentially available Distributed Generation (DG) technologies that might be available.
While City staff recognizes an immediate need to provide additional electric requirements to the
Loveland and south Fort Collins areas, integration of DG technologies are also being studied to
augment our future electrical demand. Fort Collins cannot dictate what the City of Loveland does
and does not do on its system; however the hope is that the information will be of value as the City
looks at the integration of DG on its systems.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
To address reliability issues, Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) is in the final stages of
upgrading the area transmission network by adding 230-kV transmission facilities, in particular the
Dixon Creek to Horseshoe interconnection project (Project). To date, Platte River has
accomplished two phases of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe transmission line. This report addresses
issues that have been raised related to the Phase III of the Platte River Project which extends from
Dixon Creek Substation to Horsetooth Tap Switching Station. A point of contention for Phase III
has been the section that is planned to be constructed overhead by rebuilding the existing Western
Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line through the Pineridge Natural Area in Fort
Collins as a double-circuit steel pole line. This section was planned to complete the Dixon Creek
to Horseshoe 230-kV transmission corridor conversion by a summer 2012 in-service deadline.
Construction staging for Phase III began in the spring of 2011. As activity on the project escalated,
citizens began to take notice. Although the required public process for notification was followed
from 2005 up through today, a significant number of citizens were unaware of the project. As
observed at Council meetings, and through other media, there has been concern voiced with the
impact the project will have on the Pineridge Natural Area. As noted, the required public
engagement process was done as part of the project. However, there was not a strong focused
process to build informed consent or at a minimum acceptance of the project. Projects such as the
Pineridge transmission project require a heightened level of engagement with the community and
more specifically those stakeholders that are directly affected by a project. In this case, as with any
large project that has substantial impact, the minimum process does not adequately achieve the
required level of engagement. As a result, Platte River and the City have devoted significant
79
October 11, 2011
resources exploring opportunities to address citizen concerns, which should have been done
throughout the project.
On August 16, 2011, City Council , by motion, directed staff (1) to attempt to negotiate with the
Platte River Power Authority a written agreement to postpone the commencement of construction
of Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line project
pending the completion of a rigorous, in-depth data-based analysis and review of the project and
its related impacts as presently designed, as well as the pros, cons, costs and benefits of the project
and further pending the review and consideration of that analysis by the Fort Collins City Council
and the other member cities of PRPA; (2) if such an agreement has not been negotiated and signed
between PRPA and City on or before August 26, 2011, to work with the Mayor to schedule a special
meeting of the City Council to be held no later than August 31, 2011, for the purpose of seeking
Council approval of the commencement of such litigation as may be necessary for the City to seek
adjunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction adjoining the construction of the project;
and (3) to prepare such legal documents as may be necessary to file such a court action pending
further direction from the Council.
On August 25, 2011, the Platte River Board of Directors passed a motion directing:
“Platte River Power Authority to temporarily delay further construction activities associated with
Phase III of the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe transmission upgrade until October 18, 2011, provided
an agreement, suitable to the General Manager, can be reached with the City of Fort Collins in
order to use this period of delay to study alternative means to complete the 230 kV circuit presently
under construction that will provide a redundant transmission circuit to the City of Loveland.
During the period between now and October 18, staff is directed to cooperate fully with the City of
Fort Collins to retain a mutually agreeable, nationally recognized engineering consultant to
complete the referenced study. The results of the study of alternative means to complete the 230 kV
transmission circuit will be presented to the City Council of Fort Collins on October 18 for action
by the City Council. Due to the critical importance of the new 230 kV circuit to the reliability of
service to the City of Loveland and residents of south Fort Collins, any alternatives must complete
the connection by June 1, 2012.
Fort Collins must pay the incremental costs of any alternative pursued. Platte River is willing to
pay a reasonable amount for the retention of the engineering consultant, such amount not to exceed
one half of the expenses.”
The end result of a multi stepped process has been to develop the Agreement signed on August 31,
2011 (Attachment 1). In that Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Platte River Power Authority
agreed to hire SAIC / R.W. Beck to analyze the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe project and examine
alternative ways to accomplish the purposes of the project. Staff, Platte River and SAIC have been
diligently working on the Alternatives Study. The initial schedule called for the study to be
completed by October 10, 2011 for inclusion in the Council packet for the October 18, 2011
meeting. In order to provide information for the October 11, 2011 adjourned meeting, the study
materials that are attached are a 90% draft of the final report (Attachments 2 and 3).”
80
October 11, 2011
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Director, introduced the draft report, detailing potential
alternatives to the proposed power line project.
Joni Baston, SAIC Consultants, presented a summary of the transmission planning process and
discussed the need for the project.
Chuck Williams, SAIC Consultants, detailed the Phase III portion of the project, which runs through
Pineridge Natural Area and parallels Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission
lines. He noted WAPA will not consider undergrounding its transmission lines. Other alternatives
that were examined included color-treating the tubular steel poles and using a double-circuit H-
frame structure. Mr. Williams detailed various potential routes for the power lines.
Michelle Rossi, SAIC Consultants, discussed the distributed generation portion of the study.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the history of Platte River Power Authority.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the goal of the project is to bring reliability and redundancy to the
City of Loveland. Mr. Williams replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell asked for information regarding the peak load of the City of Loveland. Ms.
Baston replied the 2011 summer peak load was 155.7 megawatts.
Councilmember Troxell discussed distributed energy generation.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with the
attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff to discuss possible litigation regarding the
Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation power line project and related legal issues. Yeas:
Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weitkunat. Nays: Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council went into Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. and resumed the meeting
at 7:35 p.m.)
Councilmember Horak stated the SAIC Study provided information on the issues involved that was
useful in deciding whether to pursue any further action concerning this project and none of the
alternatives are especially attractive, given the costs. None of the alternatives are feasible. He
added the placement of PRPA power lines warrants an improved, more extensive process and public
input procedure. PRPA needs to be willing to change procedures as community values change. A
resolution directing staff to seek these changes with PRPA should be discussed at the October 18
meeting.
81
October 11, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported a resolution that would direct staff to work with PRPA to develop
policies and procedures that would address the issues raised, including incorporating viewsheds and
wildlife habitats into PRPA values and policies. Additionally, he suggested equivalent studies to
that of SAIC be completed by PRPA; improvements should be made to the public notification
process; and PRPA, along with its member cities, should work together to adopt best practices
easement policies. He suggested the City should be involved in PRPA’s long range planning
process and both on-site and off-site mitigation policies should be examined.
Councilmember Troxell suggested PRPA needs to engage distribution utility engineering and design
to understand the requirements of its member communities. He encouraged further discussion on
all levels within the member communities.
City Manager Atteberry suggested additional public notification and outreach, including certified
mail notification to mayors and city managers of proposed projects.
Mayor Weitkunat stated community values need to be part of the process in the future.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
82
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Municipal Mail Ballot Elections.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of
Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due
for Ballots Returned by Mail.
B. Resolution 2011-095 Directing the City Manager to Provide a Written Report to the City Council Following the
April 2, 2013 Regular Municipal Election Regarding the Costs Associated With, and Turnout Achieved By,
Mailing Ballots to Certain Inactive Voters as Required by Section 7-186 of the City Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2011, amends the City Code to require that
ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to certain inactive electors in addition to all active registered electors.
In addition, the Code will be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both
amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
Ordinance No. 130, 2011 was originally considered on Second Reading on October 18, 2011. It was postponed to
this date to allow staff to amend the Ordinance to further define those inactive-failed to vote electors who will receive
a mail ballot package, and to prepare a Resolution directing the City Manager to provide an analysis of the April 2013
election.
This Ordinance was amended prior to Second Reading on October 18 to add language clarifying that ballots will be
mailed to inactive registered electors with a status designation of “inactive-failed to vote”. On October 18, Council
directed that the Ordinance be revised to provide that any inactive-failed to vote elector who voted in at least one of
the past two General Elections immediately preceding any City election conducted by mail ballot, will receive a mail
ballot package.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 4, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. June 23, 2011 Memo Analyzing Possible Changes to Mail Ballot Provisions
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Rita Harris
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered
Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pay the Postage Due for Ballots Returned
by Mail.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive
registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition,
the Code would be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both
amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Mail ballot elections in Colorado are governed by C.R.S, Title 1, Article 7.5, known as the “Mail Ballot Election Act”.
In 2006, the City of Fort Collins codified its own mail ballot election provisions, superceding the Mail Ballot Election
Act, although the City’s provisions as written in 2006 were closely aligned with the state law. This was permissible,
because under the State Constitution, elections are a matter of local concern.
Mail Ballot Recipients
The Mail Ballot Election Act and the City Code both require ballots to be mailed to “each active registered elector”.
Council has expressed a desire to expand the types of registered electors who automatically receive mail ballots in
a City election to include inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election.
Colorado uses a statewide voter registration system controlled by the Secretary of State. Each registered voter has
a designated status, which is defined in current rules promulgated by the Secretary of State as follows:
a. “Active status” or “active record” means that there are no conditions or restrictions on the voter’s
eligibility.
b. “Cancelled status” or “cancelled record” means that the voter’s registration has been cancelled
or revoked based upon a determination that the voter is ineligible, or the applicant has been
deemed not registered in accordance with these rules and Title 1, C.R.S.; or the voter has
withdrawn their registration.
c. “Inactive – failed to vote status” means that the voter was active prior to a General Election, but
subsequently failed to vote in that General Election.
d. “Inactive – returned mail status” or “inactive – undeliverable status” means that a voter information
card or confirmation card was returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States
Postal Service as undeliverable.
e. “Inactive – undeliverable ballot status” means that a voter was mailed a ballot that was
subsequently returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service as
undeliverable.
This proposal would target a segment of voters classified as “inactive - failed to vote”, specifically those voters who
are classified as such only because they failed to vote in the non-presidential General Election (Nov 2010, Nov 2014,
Nov 2018, etc.). Voters who failed to vote in both the presidential election (Nov 2008, Nov 2012, Nov 2016, etc.) and
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 4, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
the non-presidential election two years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any
eligible voter (other than one who has a “cancelled” status) who did not automatically receive a ballot may request a
ballot by completing simple paperwork to document the request and update the voter’s registration information
(primarily current address). This paperwork is forwarded to the County elections office after the City’s election and
is used to not only update registration information, but also serves to change the voter’s registration back to “active”.
Return Postage
The second portion of the Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for voters to affix postage when returning a ballot
by mail, and instead, requires the City to provide postage. This can be accomplished through a postage permit under
which the City will pay postage only on those ballots returned, at the current first-class rate.
This change also differs from the Mail Ballot Election Act, which requires the voter to pay postage.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Mail Ballot Recipients
Approximately 9500 additional voters would have received a ballot for the April 2011 election if ballots were mailed
to inactive voters who had voted in the last presidential election. The approximate cost to include those additional
voters would have been $19,000.
Return Postage
For the April 2011 election, 16,965 ballots were returned by mail. If the City had paid return postage on those ballots,
the cost would have been $7,465.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 130, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF REGISTERED ELECTORS WHO
AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE MAIL BALLOTS, AND TO REQUIRE
THE CITY TO PAY THE POSTAGE DUE FOR BALLOTS RETURNED BY MAIL
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is a Colorado home rule municipality and, as such, is
authorized under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution to exercise certain specific
powers, including the power to legislate upon, provide, regulate, coordinate and control all matters
pertaining to municipal elections;
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 165, 2006,
establishing in Chapter 7, Article VII of the City Code its own provisions for conducting local mail
ballot elections; and
WHEREAS, among the provisions contained in Chapter 7, Article VIII is Section 7-186,
which establishes the procedure for mailing ballots to the registered electors of the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 7-186 presently states that ballots are to be mailed by the City Clerk
to each active registered elector in the City, which requirement is the same as exists under the state
Mail Ballot Election Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the citizens
of the City to expand the category of electors to whom ballots are mailed and to also amend Section
7-186 of the Code to require that the postage for such ballots be paid by the City, so as to encourage
more widespread participation in City elections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 7-181 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to add a definition of “General Election” to read as follows:
General Election shall mean the election held on the Tuesday succeeding the first
Monday of November in each even-numbered year and conducted by the County
Clerk and Recorder pursuant to the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 1.
Section 12. That Section 7-186(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-186. Mailing of ballots; exception.
(a) No sooner than twenty-five (25) days before an election, and no later than
fifteen (15) days before an election, the City Clerk shall mail to each active
registered elector, and to each inactive registered elector with a status designation of
“inactive-failed to vote”, but who voted in the last presidential in at least one of the
past two General Elections, a mail ballot packet, which shall be marked "DO NOT
FORWARD," or with any other similar statement that is in accordance with United
States postal service regulations. Said packet shall be sent in accordance with all
applicable United States postal service regulations to the last mailing address
appearing in the registration records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
. . .
Section 23. That Section 7-190(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-190. Voting and return of ballots.
. . .
(b) The eligible elector may return the marked ballot to the City Clerk by
United States mail or by depositing the ballot at the office of the City Clerk or any
place designated by the City Clerk. The ballot must be returned in the return
envelope. If an eligible elector returns the ballot by mail, the elector may provide
the necessary postage or, if not so paid by the elector, the cost of return postage shall
be paid by the City. In order to be counted, the ballot must be received at the office
of the City Clerk or a designated depository prior to 7:00 p.m. on election day.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
RESOLUTION 2011-095
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE APRIL 2, 2013
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION REGARDING THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH, AND TURNOUT ACHIEVED BY, MAILING
BALLOTS TO CERTAIN INACTIVE VOTERS AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 7-186 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, this same date, City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 130,
2011, to expand the types of registered electors who automatically receive mail ballots, and to
require the City to pay the postage due for ballots returned by mail; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of adopting said Ordinance is, in part, to increase voter turnout; and
WHEREAS, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of said Ordinance, the Council wishes to
receive an analysis of the next regular municipal election on April 2, 2013, with regard to the costs
associated with, and turnout achieved by, mailing ballots to certain inactive voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Manager is hereby directed to provide a written report to the City Council,
no later than June 15, 2013, regarding the application of Ordinance No. 130, 2011 during the April
2, 2013, regular municipal election, including the costs associated with mailing ballots to certain
inactive voters, as well an analysis of participation in the election by those inactive voters, including
voted ballots returned, mailed ballots returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, and
ballots not returned at all.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the
Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter
into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The
cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,495,000. Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787
in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position
for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.8%. A competitive process was
used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best
interest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the
Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with Pinnacle Public
Finance for the lease-purchase of vehicles and equipment. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,495,000.
Payments at the 2.35% interest rate will not exceed $ 317,787 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments
is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to
raise the total City debt by 0.8%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease.
Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle
Public Finance at 2.35 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the
agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to
a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease
terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase
financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins.
All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City
realizes all cost savings.
The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in
accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community.
An "Equipment Request" justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece of fleet equipment is on file with Fleet
Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected
maintenance costs, fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been
approved in accordance with departmental procedures.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City's lease-purchase policy provides that:
The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment,
vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This
method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have
developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of
operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year.
The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds
equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation
by the Council each year.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 11
Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are:
* Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment.
* Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog.
* Conserving operating reserves.
* Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life
of the equipment.
* Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease-
purchasing.
It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the
option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment.
According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total
expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property;
and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the
agreements, including all optional renewal terms.
Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies
include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden.
The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following:
Description Quantity Cost
Traffic - Replacement Vehicle
Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736
Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151
Transportation Fund Total: $ 27,887
Parks - Replacement Vehicle
Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000
Forestry - Replacement Vehicle
Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736
Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870
Forestry Total: 93,606
Building Inspection
Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275
Operations Services - Replacement
Vehicles
Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918
Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000
Ops Services Total: 55,918
Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles &
Radios
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000
Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 36,000
Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188
Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 292,188
Investigations - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000
Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872
Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872
Police Information Services
Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000
Equipment Fund Total: $ 593,859
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 11
Police Patrol - New Officer Vehicles
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Patrol Vehicle equipment 1 lot 30,000
Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 170,000
General Fund Total: $ 170,000
MIS
Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124
Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130
Data & Communications Fund Total: $ 703,254
Lease Total: $ 1,495,000
Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new and replacement vehicles and equipment.
Information on replacement units is given below.
See Attachment 1 for a list of vehicle and equipment purchases organized by department.
The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement. These
units are included in the financing list, above.
Department Old unit: Age:
Miles /
hours: New unit:
Disposal of
old unit: Notes:
Traffic Ops 2270 14 119,497 Pickup Auction Unit beyond useful life
Parks 2452 11 101,119 1-ton flatbed Auction Unit beyond useful life
Forestry 2449 17 4888 Chipper truck Auction Unit beyond useful life
Building Insp. 26700 9 100,673 Small pickup Auction Unit beyond useful life
Ops Services 2653, 26300 13
94,870 &
90,539
HVAC &
Electrician
vans Auction Units beyond useful life
Patrol
1167, 11033,
11020, 11008,
11055 9-10 > 90,000 Patrol cars Auction Units beyond useful life
Investigations
11608, 21602,
21620 5-10 >90,000 Inv. cars Auction Units beyond useful life
Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement vehicles arrive.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Due to improvements in emissions and engine technology, new vehicles and equipment will use less fuel and produce
fewer emissions than the units being replaced.
Police vehicles are replacements except for those needed for newly-authorized positions. This represents an increase
in fleet size, with a corresponding increase in fuel usage and emissions. The new officers to be added by Police were
approved by Council and vehicles must be added to accommodate the increase in staffing levels. Those vehicles are
as fuel efficient as can be provided pursuant to the needs of patrol and investigation officers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vehicle and Equipment Purchases by Department
ORDINANCE NO. 132, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY
LEASE-PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR SUCH PURPOSE
WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to provide certain real and personal property
for City purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, the City
Charter, and Section 31-15-801, C.R.S. (the “Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in
order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or
proprietary purposes, and such agreements may include options to purchase and acquire title to such
leased or rented property; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Pinnacle Public Finance to lease
equipment to the City, consisting of the following:
Description Quantity Cost
Traffic - Replacement Vehicle
Ford F-150 half-ton pickup 1 24,736
Topper and equipment 1 lot 3,151
Transportation Fund Total: $ 27,887
Parks - Replacement Vehicle
Chevy 1-ton flatbed truck 1 23,000
Forestry - Replacement Vehicle
Chipper chassis - International 4300 Truck 1 70,736
Chipper body - Southco 1 22,870
Forestry Total: 93,606
Building Inspection
Chevy Colorado pickup 1 18,275
Operations Services - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Express Facilities technician vans 2 43,918
Equipment for Facilities vehicles 1 lot 12,000
Ops Services Total: 55,918
Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles & Radios
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Chevy Tahoe Patrol SUV 1 33,000
Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 36,000
Motorola police mobile radios 1 lot 83,188
Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 292,188
Investigations - Replacement Vehicles
Chevy Impala, Chevy pickup, Dodge Journey 3 70,000
Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 12,872
Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 82,872
Police Information Services
Ford Fusion hybrid staff car 1 28,000
Equipment Fund Total: $ 593,859
Police Patrol - New Officer Vehicles
Chevy Caprice patrol cars 5 140,000
Patrol Vehicle equipment 1 lot 30,000
Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 170,000
General Fund Total: $ 170,000
MIS
Replacement desktops, workstations, laptops 1 lot 126,124
Replacement Police laptops 148 577,130
Data & Communications Fund Total: $ 703,254
Lease Total: $ 1,495,000
and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to lease
the above-described equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also providing financing for
the Equipment acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the
leasing and financing of the Equipment; and
WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase
term of five (5) years; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments to result from the proposed
arrangement will require payments by the City in the sum of $79,447 per quarter, and that payments
in that amount are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the Equipment; and
WHEREAS, funds for the 2012 lease payments are included in the 2012 budget; and
WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct or
indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X §20(4)(b) of
the Colorado Constitution and may therefore be entered into without voter approval; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with previous appropriations for that
fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
-2-
Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-purchase
agreement for the above-described Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in accordance with the
following terms and provisions:
a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the
agreement through December 31, 2011. The agreement shall provide for
renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of five (5) years,
subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The
total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, shall not
exceed the useful life of the property.
b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such
agreement but subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for such
payments.
c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal terms,
the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the principal,
$1,495,000, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to 2.35% per year, which is a
reasonable amount.
d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on
any quarterly payment date of any term. The option to purchase shall be
exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said date and the unpaid
principal due after said date.
e. If the City renews the agreement for all the renewal terms and makes all
payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised the
option to purchase said Equipment.
f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall
not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues.
Section 2. That the amount of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED
EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($27,887) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is
hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Transportation Fund from unanticipated revenue in the
appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 3. That the amount of FIVE HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND,
EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY NINE DOLLARS ($593,859) to be provided under the lease-purchase
agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Equipment Fund from unanticipated revenue
in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment for Parks, Forestry, Building
Inspection, Operations Services, and Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
-3-
Section 4. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($170,000) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for
expenditure in the General Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the
acquisition of vehicles for Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase
agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 5. That the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND, TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR DOLLARS ($703,254) to be provided under the lease-purchase
agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from
unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof.
Section 6. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of the
Act is intended by the Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the City Charter and shall supersede, to the extent
permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and
Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, modifies the duties of the Parks and
Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation
Board’s functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as
a resource contributing to the quality of Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2011, Amending Section 2-338 of the City Code Pertaining to the Duties and
Functions of the Parks and Recreation Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will modify the duties of the Parks and Recreation Board as contained in Section 2-338 of the City Code
to broaden the scope of the Parks and Recreation Board’s functions to allow the Board to promote awareness and
appreciation of the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of Fort Collins.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Parks and Recreation Board has long wanted to promote awareness and appreciation for the value that the Park
and Recreation system has on the quality of life for the citizens and visitors of Fort Collins. The Board has discussed
ways to communicate these values to the community but there has been no formal way that they can, as a group forward
these ideas. The Board is requesting this amendment to the City Code because it is very interested in promoting the
positive aspects of parks and recreation to the citizens of Fort Collins, but the current Code language does not empower
the Board to do so.
The amendment would also clean up outdated department and entity names in Section 2-338.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This has been a Parks and Recreation Board discussion item since April 2011. At its August 24 and September 14,
2011 meetings, the Board discussed the wording of the Code modification and voted unanimously to recommend
Council adopt the Code amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, August 24, 2011 and September 14, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 133, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-338 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO THE DUTIES AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
WHEREAS, Section 2-338 of the City Code sets forth the functions of the City's Parks and
Recreation Board (the “Board); and
WHEREAS, those functions are presently limited to advising the City Council and City staff
with regard to rules, regulation, policies, and administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the
Parks and Recreation Department and assisting the City in cooperating with Poudre School District
and other organizations and individuals interested in the City’s Parks and Recreation programs; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meetings on August 24 and September 14, 2011, the Board voted
to recommend that the City Council adopt a proposed City Code amendment expanding the Board’s
functions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has recommended to the City Council that the Board’s functions be
expanded to include publicly promoting awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the
value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the quality of life in our community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
expand the functions of the Board accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 2-338 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2-338. Functions.
The duties and functions of the Board shall be as follows:
(1) To advise and make recommendations to the Culture, Parks, Recreation
and Environment Director and the City Council for their approval as to
rules, regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining
to parks and recreation but excluding matters relating to the operation and
maintenance of City-owned golf courses and cemeteries;
(2) To assist the City in cooperating with the Poudre School District and other
organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and recreation
programs;
(3) To promote community awareness and understanding of, and appreciation
for, the value of parks and recreation as a resource contributing to the
quality of life in Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Ann Turnquist
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions
Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, establishes a process for the City
Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names
are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or
corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s
authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes
staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances.
In response to a Council comment that the proposed ordinance included some confusing language, staff has
streamlined subsection 23-141(d) to clarify the process to be used. This simplified language is included in the
Ordinance on Second Reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Ann Turnquist
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions
Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties.
The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead),
or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility
naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an
Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The purpose of this policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach for the official naming of parks,
recreational facilities, cultural facilities, natural areas, trails and civic buildings, or portions thereof.
The City’s objectives for naming of facilities include:
• To name City facilities through a consistent, fair and appropriate process utilizing established criteria.
• To ensure that City-owned facilities are easily identified and located.
• To encourage the dedication of lands, facilities, or donations by individuals and organizations.
City-owned facilities include all property assets under the City’s ownership and control including parks, recreational
and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, and trails. Such facilities will not include streets which are named
according to policies established through the City Code Sec. 24-91 and as a part of the Development Review Process.
CITY COUNCIL NAMED FACILITIES:
Under the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-141 Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities), the City
Council has the authority to select or approve the naming of a facility or a portion of a facility that is to be named after
individuals, organizations (e.g., foundations) or corporations. Provisions include the following:
A. Donor Naming Policy
In circumstances where a significant financial donation has been made for the acquisition, construction or improvement
of the facility, the facility or a portion of the facility may be named either for the donor or in consideration of the wishes
of the donor. The following guidelines shall be used when such a name is proposed:
1. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to the total cost of the facility or portion of the facility
to be named. As a guideline, a donation of 75 percent (75%) or more of the value of the facility, feature or
portion of the facility to be named is a baseline in determining a naming or recognition opportunity.
2. It is the City’s intent to encourage and recognize private contributions. If a significant donation is received
from the private sector or an individual, significant consideration will be given to a donor’s naming or
recognition request while balancing the public interest.
3. If the City does not believe a donation is sufficiently large to warrant the naming of an entire facility after the
donor individual or organization, the City may offer the donor the opportunity to name a part of a facility or a
feature of the facility to recognize the donation.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 13
B. Non-Donor Honorees
A facility or portion thereof may be named for a community member or other significant contributor to the community
(living or deceased), subject to approval of City Council. If such a naming is to be considered, the City may solicit
nominations for such naming. Such nominations will be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers and
appropriate staff members. The ad hoc committee will make recommendations to the full City Council regarding the
nominations.
Names which are proposed to honor a non-donor deceased person shall be subject to a minimum 12 month waiting
period following the death of such honoree. Such honorees should have provided significant service or direct benefit
to the community which will endure over many years.
When the City Council is to select or approve the name of a facility or portion thereof, an ad hoc Council Committee
will first review the proposal in preparation for formal consideration by City Council. Names selected pursuant to this
Ordinance will be adopted by Council Resolution. The Council may solicit input from the public and City boards and
commissions as deemed appropriate and advisable.
The proposed Resolution will include the following information:
• A description of the contributions of the individual, organization, or corporation to the City.
• Written documentation of approval by next of kin of the person to be honored (if available/possible) is required
as part of the proposal if the facility is to be named after a deceased person. Exceptions to approval of a
relative or executor will be considered when no living relatives can be identified or are unable to participate
in such approval process.
• A provision allowing the City to change or modify the approved name in the future, should such a modification
be necessary for the public good (e.g., change of use for the facility; future negative associations with the
selected name, etc.), regardless of whether the naming was for a donor honoree or non-donor honoree.
ADMINISTRATIVELY NAMED FACILITIES
Other naming of facilities will occur in compliance with an Administrative Policy approved by the City Manager.
Provisions of the policy include the process for naming of facilities which are not named after individuals, organizations
(e.g., foundations) or corporations. This authority is outlined in the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-142 Naming of
properties and facilities for other than persons or entities.) The attached draft administrative policy outlines the process
to be used for administrative naming of City-owned facilities and properties. (See Attachment 1)
OTHER NAMING POLICIES
The proposed Ordinance applies to City-owned parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas,
and trails. The provisions do not apply to the naming of City streets. Arterial and collector streets are named through
provisions of the City Code Section 24-91.
Sec. 24-91. List of street names.
All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to
be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council. The list of street names shall
be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens
of the City or Growth Management Area whom the Council would like to honor posthumously, and
such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the Council may approve. With respect
to citizens of the City whom the Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have
devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former
Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a
former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall
be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which
are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of
street names, and the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services shall strike names
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 13
from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall
promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk.
Local streets are named by developers as part of the Development Review Process. During the Development Review
Process, staff reviews the proposed names of local streets to ensure that the selected names do not duplicate existing
names, create confusion with other similar names within the City or adjacent areas, or are “sound-alike” to existing
street names. When staff finds problems with a developer’s proposed names, they will reject the names under these
criteria, but otherwise do not make changes to those names.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Administrative Naming Policy
ORDINANCE NO. 134, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE V, OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS RELATED TO
THE NAMING OF CITY PROPERTIES AND FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City Code is silent as to the process for naming of City properties and
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed a concern about establishing a systematic and
consistent approach for the official naming of parks, recreational and cultural facilities, natural areas,
trails, and other civic lands, buildings and facilities, and portions thereof; and
WHEREAS, the objectives to be served through the naming of such City properties and
facilities include:
• fairness and appropriateness;
• easy identification and location of City facilities by users, public officials and
the general public; and
• encouragement of the dedication of lands and facilities and the donation of
funds by individuals and organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has proposed and recommended to the Council the procedures
and standards for naming of City properties and facilities as set forth below as new City Code
Sections 23-141 and 23-142; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that this issue should be addressed by amendments
to Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities Generally, as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities
Generally, be amended by the addition of a new Section 23-141 to read as follows:
Sec. 23-141. Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities.
(a) The requirements of this Section shall apply to the naming of City-owned
or operated properties or facilities for persons or entities, including but not limited
to individuals, families, designated groups of persons, and for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations and associations. Any property assets under the City’s
ownership and control including parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic
buildings, natural areas, trails, or any portions of such properties or facilities shall
be named in accordance with this Section, except that the naming of streets and
alleys, to the extent carried out by the City, shall be governed by § 24-91.
(b) The naming of a City property or facility, or portion thereof, for one or more
persons or entities shall be approved by the City Council by resolution, after review
by an ad hoc City Council committee formed for the purpose of selecting and
recommending a name for such property, facility or portion thereof. The formation
of an ad hoc naming committee may be initiated by request of the City Manager or
the Mayor or by majority vote of the City Council. An ad hoc naming committee
may seek such public input, and may request and consider proposals and
recommendations of City boards and commissions and the City Manager, as said
committee deems appropriate. A resolution approving a City property or facility
name pursuant to this Section shall include a description of the donation or other
significant service or benefit to the community, that is the basis for the designation
of the name approved. The resolution shall further provide that the City may modify
or remove the approved name in the future, in the event that the City Council
determines such modification or removal to be appropriate in light of changed
circumstances or other matters of public interest or convenience. Examples of such
grounds for modification of an approved name include a change of use of the facility;
a change in public perception of the name, or development of a new purpose or
priority for the property named.
(c) In the event that a significant financial donation has been made for the
acquisition, construction or improvement of a property or facility, the property or
facility or a portion thereof may be named either for the donor or in consideration of
the wishes of the donor. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to
the total cost of the property or facility or portion thereof to be named. Generally,
the donation should be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the
property, facility, feature or portion thereof to be named. If such a donation is
received from an individual, family or entity, the City Council will give significant
weight to a naming or recognition request from the donor, but will consider such a
request in light of other policy or practical priorities and concerns and the public
interest in general. In some instances, the naming of a portion of a property or facility
or a specific feature of the property or facility for a donor may be an appropriate
alternative to naming the entire property or facility.
(d) A property or facility or a portion thereof may be named for a community
member or other significant contributor to the community, as set forth in this
subsection. after solicitation of nominations from the general public for appropriate
names of honorees. Other than names for donors as described in subparagraph (c),
above, tTo be eligible for naming consideration under this subparagraph (d) a name
must be either the name of a living person or an entity, or the name of a person
deceased for no less than twelve (12) months at the time of nomination. Persons or
entities for which a property or facility or portion thereof is named hereunder shall
be determined to have provided significant service or direct benefit to the community
that has endured, or will endure, over many years.
-2-
(e) Prior to final approval of the naming of a property or facility is named for a
deceased person, the City shall make reasonable efforts to identify, locate and obtain
the consent of next of kin of such person.
Section 2. That Article V of Chapter 23 of the City Code, entitled City Facilities
Generally, be amended by the addition of a new Section 23-142 to read as follows:
Sec. 23-142. Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or
entities.
(a) The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules and
procedures for the selection and approval of names for City-owned or operated
properties or facilities, except as specified in § 23-141 and § 24-91. All
administrative naming of properties and facilities, and portions thereof, shall be in
accordance with such rules and procedures.
(b) The City Manager shall not name City owned or operated properties or
facilities, or portions thereof, for products or commodities, and shall not offer for
sale or auction the name or naming rights of any such property, facility or portion
thereof.
(c) In connection with the naming of such properties and facilities, the City
Manager shall generally give preference to the use of names associated with
geographic location, unique natural, historical or cultural features or significance,
and the specific purposes of the property or facility, and the avoidance of confusion
with existing facilities or locations.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
Jason Licon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital
Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues,
contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each City), and interest earnings. This
Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share
of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal
and state grants, contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland, and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport
capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron
rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport
business development. Ordinance No. 135, 2011, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
Jason Licon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2012 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital
Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2012 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $779,550, and will be funded from Airport operating revenues,
contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This
Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins contribution, which is a 50% share
of the 2012 Airport budget and totals $389,775.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal
and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2012 Airport
capital funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue major Airport improvements such as taxiway and apron
rehabilitation and some funds are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport
business development.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional aviation facility and
became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, located approximately 16 miles southeast
of downtown Fort Collins, just west of Interstate 25 on Earhart Road. The Airport is operated as a joint venture
between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing
equally in policy-making and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating
costs associated with the Airport.
The Airport’s mission is to provide a safe and efficient air transportation airport facility to the general public and aviation
community by providing airport facilities that meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety standards and to
implement a plan that ensures the efficient development of the Airport to meet the needs of the Fort Collins and
Loveland communities.
Airport revenues cover operating costs and capital projects. Each city contributes equal funding for Airport operating
and capital costs. Airport development and improvement funds are also received, for eligible projects, from the FAA
and the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
The annual operating costs for 2012 for the Airport are $779,550, and the City of Fort Collins contribution is $389,775.
In addition, the Airport Manager is recommending additional capital expenditures and has identified the following
funding sources:
FAA Entitlement Grant $ 1,000,000
State Grant 108,500
Airport Revenues 108,500
Total $ 1,217,000
The additional capital expenditures will be to continue runway improvements and for utility master planning and design
engineering to accommodate Airport business development, $1,217,000. Thus, the City of Fort Collins appropriation
for the capital expenditures identified above is $608,500 (50% of the total).
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM15
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance appropriates the City’s 50% share ($998,275) of the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2011 for Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport budget. The City of Loveland manages the Airport’s budget and finances; however,
since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50% portion of the
Airport budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 135, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF 2012 FISCAL YEAR
OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS FOR
THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, in 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland (the “Cities”) agreed
to establish a regional general aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-
Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Airport is operated as a joint venture between the Cities, with each city
retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-making and management, and
assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and operating costs associated with the Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated May 16, 2000,
between the Cities for the joint operation of the Airport (the “IGA”), the Airport Manager is
responsible for preparing the Airport’s annual operating budget and submitting it to the Cities for
their approval; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Manager has submitted for City Council consideration a 2012
Airport operating budget totaling $779,550 and the City’s share is $389,775; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to authorize the City of Loveland to
appropriate the City’s share of the necessary funds for operating costs of the Airport, totaling
$389,775, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Manager recommends the following capital improvements for 2012,
totaling $1,217,000, that are not included in the 2011 Airport operating budget:
Taxiway Improvements and Utility Master
Planning and Design Engineering $1,217,000
WHEREAS, funding for the 2012 capital improvements has been identified as follows:
FAA Entitlement Grants $ 1,000,000
State Grant 108,500
Airport Revenues 108,500
Total $ 1,217,000
WHEREAS, the City’s 50% share of the 2012 capital improvement costs is $608,500; and
WHEREAS, under the IGA, the City’s share of existing and unanticipated Airport revenue
will be held and disbursed by the City of Loveland as an agent on behalf of the Cities since the City
of Loveland provides finance and accounting services for the Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b), of the City Charter, any expense
or liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an
appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2012 Airport operating budget.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS
($389,775) to be expended to defray the operating costs of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of SIX HUNDRED
EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($608,500) to be used for 2012 capital
improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Matt Robenalt
Kathy Cardona
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown Development Authority
for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 137, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, sets the Downtown
Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative
operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012;
and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since
2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012.
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond proceeds. Examples
of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday light display, facade improvements, the
enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and participation in the river district improvement projects, etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Map of the Downtown Development Authority
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Matt Robenalt
Kathy Cardona
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2011, Making Annual Appropriations for the Downtown Development Authority
for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Downtown Development Authority is presented for First Reading.
Ordinance No. 137, 2011, sets the Downtown Development Authority 2012 budget amount of $814,380 to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the administrative operations budget; sets the amount of $1,652,346 for debt
service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012; and sets the 2012 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins, Downtown
Development Authority at five (5) mills, unchanged since 2002. The approved budget becomes the Downtown
Development Authority’s financial plan for 2012.
This Ordinance does not appropriate funds for projects or programs of the DDA funded with bond proceeds. Examples
of projects and programs funded with bond proceeds include annual holiday light display, facade improvements, the
enhanced alley annual maintenance costs, ice rink, and participation in the river district improvement projects, etc.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) was created in 1981 with the purpose, according to State statue,
of planning and implementing projects and programs within the boundaries of the DDA. By state statue the purpose
of the ad valorem tax levied on all real and personal property in the downtown development district, not to exceed five
(5) mills, shall be for the budgeted operations of the authority. The DDA and the City adopted a Plan of Development
that specifies the projects and programs the DDA would undertake. In order to carry out the purposes of the State
statue and the Plan of Development the City, on behalf of the DDA, has issued various tax increment bonds, which
require debt servicing.
The DDA staff and Budget Committee are very cognizant of the changed revenue environment of the organization and
economic conditions, and have made a strong effort to budget conservatively to reflect this climate.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is requesting approval of the DDA Operations and Maintenance
budget, for fiscal year 2012, in the amount of $814,380. It is also requesting approval of the DDA debt payment
commitments in the amount of $1,652,346 for 2012 obligations.
Uses:
Personnel Services: $452,768
Contractual Professional Services: 318,114
Purchased Supplies and Commodities: 23,635
Other: 19,863
Total $814,380
The DDA debt service fund is projected to have sufficient revenue to meet the required debt service payments for
2012.
Uses:
Debt Payment: 2012 $1,652,346
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 8, 2011 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted its proposed
budget for 2012 totaling $2,466,726 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment of administrative
costs incurred by the DDA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of the Downtown Development Authority.
2. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-03 Recommending to Council the
Determining and Fixing of the Mill Levy of the DDA for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012
3. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-04 Recommending to Council the
Budget of the Estimated Amounts Required to Pay the Expenses of Conducting the Business of the DDA for
the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012
4. Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Board Resolution 2011-05 Recommending to Council the
Appropriation of $1,368,973 and $283,373 from the DDA Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt Service and
the DDA’s Obligation for the Civic Center Parking Structure for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012
5. Powerpoint presentation
E VINE DR
RIVERSIDE AVE
SMITH ST
E ELIZABETH ST
S MASON ST
N COLLEGE AVE
S LEMAY AVE
MATHEWS ST
LOCUST ST
WHEDBEE ST
PETERSON ST
E LINCOLN AVE
E MYRTLE ST
LINDEN ST
STOVER ST
REMINGTON ST
S COLLEGE AVE
12TH ST
MAPLE ST
E PLUM ST
9TH ST
W OAK ST
S HOWES ST
CHERRY ST
E OLIVE ST
W OLIVE ST
CONIFER ST
E OAK ST
E MULBERRY ST
BUCKINGHAM ST
S MELDRUM ST
W LAUREL ST
W MYRTLE ST
LAPORTE AVE
HEMLOCK ST
WILLOW ST
S WHITCOMB ST
N LEMAY AVE
REDWOOD ST
1ST ST
3RD ST
2ND ST
W MAGNOLIA ST
N SHERWOOD ST
W MULBERRY ST
N WHITCOMB ST
W MOUNTAIN AVE
CA
J
E
TA
N
ST
10TH ST
COWAN ST
N MASON ST
O
S
I
A
ORDINANCE NO. 137, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”) has been duly
organized in accordance with Section 31-25-804, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, the DDA Board of Directors (the “DDA Board”), acting
under the provisions of Section 31-25-816, C.R.S., adopted a budget for the fiscal year beginning
January 1, 2012 and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for payment during fiscal year
2012 of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate the sum of TWO MLLION,
FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY SIX DOLLARS
($2,466,726) in the DDA Operation and Maintenance Fund and the Debt Service Fund for the fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012, to be used as follows:
DDA Operations & Maintenance $ 814,380
DDA Debt Service Fund 1,652,346
$2,466,726
WHEREAS, the DDA Board has recommended to the City Council a mill levy of five mills
upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the DDA District, such levy
representing the amount of taxes for DDA purposes necessary to provide for payment during the
ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the DDA; and
WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board
of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown
Development Authority Operations and Maintenance Fund the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED
FOURTEEN THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($814,380), to be
expended for the authorized purposes of the DDA.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund the sum of ONE MILLION, SIX HUNDRED FIFTY
TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX DOLLARS ($1,652,346), for payment
of debt service on previously issued and outstanding bonds, to pay the City’s investment service
charge, and to be used to cover the DDA’s one-third share of payment on the Civic Center Parking
Structure.
Section 3. That the 2012 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed
valuation of all taxable property within the DDA District as of December 31, 2011 shall be five (5)
mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for the District purposes to provide for payment
during the aforementioned fiscal year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the
DDA. Said mill levy shall be certified to the County Assessor and the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, by the City Clerk as provided by law.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates
and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant
Investment Fees.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater
Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant
Investment Fees.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater
Plant Investment Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 138, 2011, proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate
classes. Ordinance No. 139, 2011, will increase water plant investment fees an average of 4.7% for 2012. Ordinance
No. 140, 2011, will increase wastewater rate by 8% for 2012. Ordinance No. 141, 2011, will decrease the wastewater
plant investment fees by 3% for 2012. Ordinance No. 144, 2011, will increase the Stormwater plant investment fees
by 1.2% in 2012. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011.
During the discussion on First Reading, Council requested additional explanation and graphics related to the monthly
water and wastewater rate increases. These are provided in Attachments 2 and 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Water rate increase graphic and explanation
3. Wastewater rate increase graphics and explanation
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and
Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant
Investment Fees.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater
Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant
Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates,
Fees and Charges.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric
Development Fees and Charges.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant
Investment Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012.
% Increase
Water 6.0%
Wastewater 8.0%
Electric 8.3%
The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no change in the
monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to study proposed changes to the
electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as “RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15,
2011, to recommend changes to the RESR. All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced
above. The electric rate increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed
changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages.
With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single family customer’s
monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions to the RESR are approved by Council
at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see an additional increase in costs. The later change will
depend on the rate form option preferred by City Council.
Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also go into effect if
the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment fees (PIFs) and a 1.2% increase
in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater PIFs is recommended. On average, electric
development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for residential and decrease less than 1% for commercial.
Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances above.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Monthly Utility Rates
The recommended 2012 rate increases differ from the rates that were proposed in the original 2011-2012 Budget.
The changes are summarized in Attachment 1 and further explained by the staff memos included as Attachments 2
and 3. All proposed rates would be effective for meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
A. Monthly Water Rates (Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water
Rates and Charges.)
Staff proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate classes. With the
proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer’s monthly bill will increase 6% as shown in the following
table:
Single Family
Typical Use
2011 Monthly
Water Bill
Proposed 2012
Monthly Water Bill $ Increase % Increase
January
5000 gallons $24.13 $25.58 $1.45 6%
July
21,000 gallons $65.11 $69.04 $3.93 6%
Monthly Average* $35.87 $38.05 $2.18 6%
*Average based on seasonal use of 117,131 gallons per year
Although water rates were increased 3% in 2007, 2010 and in 2011, total Water Fund revenues decreased 23%
between 2006 and 2010. The reduction in use is thought to be a combination of conservation, weather and economic
factors. While water use is down, the vast majority of the costs of operating the water system are fixed and do not vary
based on customer use. The proposed 2012 rate increase is required to fund operations, capital improvements and
maintain debt service coverage. Staff has increased projections for Water Fund capital projects needs between 2013
and 2020 by $33 million. Most of this increase is for distribution system replacement ($22 million). The distribution
system project increase is a result of the preliminary data from the asset management program. The increase is not
related to Halligan Reservoir which is to be funded from the Water Rights Reserve. The Water Rights Reserve is
funded by developers’ cash-in-lieu-of water rights payments and is restricted to the purchase of water rights and water
storage only. See Attachment 2 for additional detailed explanation of the water rate increase.
In addition, staff is proposing to eliminate unmetered construction water for customers with planned water services
with meters greater than 1-inch. Staff is also recommending a monthly charge for 3/4-inch and 1-inch construction
water service. Construction water will remain unmetered for 3/4-inch and 1-inch services but instead of a flat one time
fee on the building permit (equivalent to 1.5 times the base charge for the future account), a monthly account will be
established and billed a flat charge based on estimated construction use of 7000 gallons per month. Monthly billing
will continue until the permanent meter is set. These changes are proposed to eliminate, or at least reduce, the
extended over use of the unmetered construction service and will better reflect the cost of the water provided.
Construction Water
Frequency of Billing
3/4-inch
Meter 1-inch Meter
Current 2011 One time charge $ 20.40 $ 50.93
Proposed 2012 Monthly charge $ 25.46 $ 48.55
Includes PILOTs
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 20
B. Monthly Wastewater Rates (Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Staff proposes an 8% wastewater rate increase for 2012. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate
classes. With the proposed increase, a typical residential customer’s bill will increase from $28.59 to $30.88 or $2.29
per month. The typical customer is based on 4,800 gallons of winter quarter water use.
Council previously approved a series of annual wastewater rate increases starting in 2008. The prior rate increases,
as well as the proposed 2012 increase, are necessary to fund wastewater operations and meet the increase in long
term debt service obligations for the now completed capital project which replaced the trickling filter, made odor control
improvements and prepared for future regulatory requirements at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility.
C. Monthly Electric Rates (Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Based on Council response at the September 13, 2011 Work Session, the electric rate ordinance does not contain
any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers. The changes to the RESR will
be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011 and will contain several rate form alternatives. The
ordinance for consideration at this meeting pertains only to the Residential Demand, Commercial (General Service,
General Service 25, General Service 50), Industrial (General Service 750) and Traffic rates.
Fort Collins’ wholesale and retail electric rates are among the lowest in the region and nation. This will continue to
be true following the 8.3% electric rate increase proposed for 2012. The 8.3% increase is the system average and
will not be equally applied to all customer rate classes. Based on a cost-of-service study, the proposed rates vary by
rate class as follows:
Proposed Rate Class Increases for 2012
Individual customers will vary from the class average.
Summer increases (June, July and August) will be greater than average.
RESR – Not included in Ordinance No. 142, 2011 6.0%
Residential Demand Rate 15.9%
1. General Service (small commercial less than 25 kW) 3.9%
1. General Service 25 (small commercial between 25-49 kW) 15.5%
General Service 50 (medium commercial between 50-749 kW) 8.7%
General Service 750 (large com/industrial greater than 749kW) 11.0%
Traffic Signals 11.3%
Floodlights 0.0%
Average System Increase 8.3%
1. New rate classes proposed for 2012
4.8% of the 8.3% system-wide increase is due to a 6.4% increase in Platte River Power Authority’s purchase power
rates. In addition, Platte River’s wholesale rate will be seasonal, with higher rates in June, July and August. Platte
River’s 2012 purchase power rate increase is due to several key factors:
• Reduced surplus sales
• Increased operating and maintenance costs
• Increased financing and depreciation costs as new projects are placed into service
• Reduced interest income – due to low interest rates and lower cash reserves
The remaining 3.5% of the 8.3% is required to reduce the use of Light and Power’s reserves to cover the cost of
system improvements and replacements. While the reduction of reserves has been intentional, expenditures in the
Light and Power Fund have exceeded revenues each year since 2007. Even following the proposed 3.5% increase,
expenditures are projected to exceed revenues for 2012.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 20
The larger commercial classes are experiencing a greater than average increase due to the shift of purchase power
costs from demand charges to energy charges in Platte River’s new rate form. Those customers with larger load
factors, typically larger commercial and industrial customers and also the traffic signal system, will have larger than
average increases in the purchase power components of their rates. (Load factor measures the consistency of power
use over time.)
Although the last cost-of-service study showed that the residential demand (“RD”) rate was 18% under cost-of-service,
all rate classes were limited to a 10% increase in 2011. The 2012 increase brings the RD rate class up to full cost-of-
service. The rate has traditionally been selected by high-use customers such as those who exclusively heat their
homes with electricity. The increase to this rate will make the RESR more economical for many of the existing RD
customers in 2012. Staff is also recommending that the RD rate be available only to those customers providing
documentation that their home is heated entirely with electric energy. These changes will begin a phase-out of the
RD rate.
Electric Rate Form Changes
Changes in the electric rate forms are necessary to align rates in support of the City’s Energy Policy and Climate
Action Plan goals. By adopting rate forms to incentivize customers to conserve and use energy more efficiently and
by providing energy conservation assistance and programs to our customers, the City will more likely be able to
achieve its policy goals. In addition, successful implementation of these tools will delay or defer the expense of
constructing additional generation resources. Rate form changes are also needed to pass through the seasonal cost
differentials that will be charged by Platte River Power Authority beginning in 2012. All rates will have higher costs
in the summer (June, July and August) than during the remaining nine “non-summer” months. Consistent with Platte
River, the recommended rates also shift a greater proportion of the rate from the demand charges to energy charges.
Rate form options were presented to the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and to the full Council at
work sessions on September 13, 2011 and October 11, 2011. Based on Council’s responses to the questions posed
at the work sessions, there is a delay in the ordinance making changes to the RESR until November 15, 2011. Several
options for the RESR ordinance will be presented at that time. The changes recommended for the RD and
Commercial/Industrial rates seemed to have wide-spread support at the September 13 Work Session. The following
summarizes changes to the electric rate forms that are included in the proposed electric rate ordinance.
• Residential Demand: The residential demand rate will be increased to the cost-of-service and energy
charges will reflect the seasonal differential. The rate will be available only to customers who heat their
residences exclusively with electricity.
• Small /Medium Commercial: The General Service rate is currently one rate class serving all commercial
customers with average monthly demands of less than 50 kW. Staff is proposing that it be split into two rate
classes beginning in 2012.
N General Service - energy-only seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of less than
25 kW
N General Service 25 - energy/demand seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of
between 25 and 49kW
• Large Commercial / Industrial: The recommended rate form changes for the GS50 and GS750 rate classes
are due to Platte River’s seasonal wholesale rate.
N General Service 50 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with
average demands of between 50-749 kW
N General Service 750 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with
average demands of 750 kW and greater
Additional Amendments to Electric Article and Rates
• Wholesale Transactions: Staff is recommending the addition of a Code section and definition to clarify terms
of wholesale transactions and to specify that the retail rates, requirements and electric development fees do
not apply to wholesale purchases.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -5- ITEM 20
• Clarification of Net Metering Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate schedule specify that credits for net
excess generation due to net metering will be based on the summer season retail energy charge as reflected
in the new rate structure.
• Clarification of Parallel Generation Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate tariff schedule specify that
credits for parallel generation delivered to the utility will be based on Platte River Power Authority’s avoided
cost rate.
• Clarification of Distribution Facilities Demand: The proposed change more fully defines distribution facilities
demand for the large commercial and industrial rate classes and permits the Utilities Executive Director to use
an alternative method to recover a customer’s cost-of-service share of distribution demand if the costs
associated with serving a customer are not fully recovered by the standard rate.
Monthly Rate Increase Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family residential
customer:
Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill
Current
2011
Estimated
2012
$
Increase
%
Increase
Electric
700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * *
Wastewater
4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0%
Stormwater
8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0%
Water
117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0%
Total Estimated Average Monthly
Utility Bill
$138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2%
* The 2012 electric RESR will not be considered by Council until a later Council meeting and therefore will not be
effective as of January 1, 2012. A change, averaging 6% is expected to be effective February 1, 2012.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -6- ITEM 20
The following charts compare Fort Collins Utilities’ monthly rates to others along the Front Range. The electric rate
shown for Fort Collins for 2012 is the current 2011 rate. A change to the RESR is expected to be effective in February.
The average change to the residential energy rate class is projected to be 6%.
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
January Water Use - 5,000 Gallons
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
Stormwater $7.13 $10.39 $8.89 $7.10 $14.26 $5.63 $14.26 $- $8.16
Wastewater $20.38 $18.11 $15.83 $20.32 $28.59 $20.48 $30.88 $31.27 $16.72
Water $13.96 $13.19 $18.05 $18.85 $24.13 $26.70 $25.58 $25.26 $38.41
Electric $51.65 $55.37 $76.21 $76.21 $59.94 $76.21 $59.94 $77.47 $76.21
Longmont Loveland Denver Boulder Ft. Collins Greeley Ft. Collins
'12
Co.Sprs Aurora
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
July Water Use 21,000 Gallons
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Stormwater $10.39 $7.13 $14.26 $7.10 $14.26 $8.89 $5.63 $8.16 $-
Wastewater $18.11 $20.38 $28.59 $20.32 $30.88 $15.83 $20.48 $16.72 $31.27
Water $40.71 $59.18 $65.11 $60.14 $69.04 $80.71 $80.14 $123.46 $128.10
Electric $55.37 $51.65 $59.94 $85.16 $59.94 $85.16 $85.16 $85.16 $77.47
Loveland Longmont Ft. Collins Boulder Ft. Collins
'12
Denver Greeley Aurora Co.Sprs
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -7- ITEM 20
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Development Fees
City Code requires staff to present water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees to Council for approval
no less than every other year. These fees were last changed in 2009 effective on January 1, 2010. Staff is
recommending changes to each of the wet utility PIFs. Water and Stormwater PIFs are increasing 4.7% and 1.2%
respectively. Wastewater PIFs are recommended to decrease 3%.
Electric development fees are also required to be approved by City Council no less than every second year, although
historically staff has recommended annual changes. The current electric development fees were approved by Council
in 2010 and were effective January 1, 2011.
Staff is recommending the following changes to be effective on January 1, 2012.
A. Water Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.)
The water plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current value
of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net water system equity, capacity
units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Water PIFs are calculated to increase an average of 4.7%
for 2012.
There are two major factors influencing the increase. First, projected capital improvements related to regulatory
requirements have been allocated to the PIF for that portion of the improvements that will serve new growth. Other
revisions have been made to the long range capital improvement plan which also impacted the Water PIF calculations.
Together, these capital changes have increased the PIF requirement.
The second factor offsets the increase. In 2009, detailed information was not available to classify the construction
work in progress. The decision was made to treat it all as backbone related capital additions. This overstated the 2010
PIF requirement. Since that time, additional reporting is available to clearly classify the work in progress. This resulted
in a reduction in equity of the backbone system.
Water PIF charges for a typical single family lot (8600 sq ft) would increase from $3,826 to $4,084 or $258. The
following table shows the proposed increases for water PIFs.
Water Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential:
Domestic Interior Use - Flat Charge $ 730 $ 730 0.0%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.36 $ 0.39 8.3%
Duplex and Multi Family:
Domestic Interior Use - Charge per Unit $ 490 $ 510 4.1%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.27 $ 0.27 0.0%
Non-Residential by Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,530 $ 7,880 4.6%
1" $ 21,730 $ 22,750 4.7%
1-1/2" $ 45,300 $ 47,410 4.7%
2" $ 69,070 $ 72,290 4.7%
3" $ 157,920 $ 165,290 4.7%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -8- ITEM 20
B. Wastewater/Sewer Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.)
The wastewater plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current
value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net wastewater system
equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Wastewater PIFs are calculated to decrease
3% for 2012. Like the Water PIF, this reduction is in part due to a change in the basis for calculating construction work
in progress. Other recent revisions to the long range capital improvement plan have reduced the Wastewater PIF
calculations.
Wastewater PIF charges for a single family lot would decrease from $3,550 to $3,440, a reduction of $110. The
following table shows the proposed changes.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential $ 3,550 $ 3,440 -3%
Duplex and Multi Family, per unit $ 2,490 $ 2,410 -3%
Non-Residential by Water Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,100 $ 6,880 -3%
1" $ 17,880 $ 17,300 -3%
1-1/2" $ 31,490 $ 30,480 -3%
2" $ 55,290 $ 53,520 -3%
3" $ 150,130 $ 145,310 -3%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
C. Electric Development Fees (Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.)
Electric development fees recover both actual on-site costs (building site charges) and allocated off-site costs (electric
capacity charges) to serve commercial or residential development. These fees are typically adjusted annually to reflect
changes in costs. Proposed 2012 fees will increase slightly for some developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly
for others. The table below shows the changes for a typical single family lot and a model commercial development.
Typical Single Family Lot
8600 square feet, 70 foot of street frontage, 150 amp service, 4/0 secondary service
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$3,139 $3,233 $94 3.0%
Model Commercial Development
82,000 sq ft, 1900 ft street frontage, 250 ft primary srv, 600 amps, 208Volt, 3-phase, 1-transformer
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$31,076 $30,981 -$95 -0.3%
D. Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees)
The Stormwater PIFs are recommended to increase 1.2% in 2012. The increase represents a $7.3 million increase
in capital facilities added since the last study. However, annexation has caused an increase in total developed and
developable acres which results in an increased divisor in the calculation. The two changes result in a modest
increase of 1.2%. The PIF will increase from $6,313 per acre to $6,390 per acre.
Stormwater PIF charges for a typical single family lot would increase from $1,069 to $1,082, an increase of $13.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -9- ITEM 20
PIF Change Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed PIF and development fee changes on a typical residential
lot:
PIF Changes for Typical Single Family
Current
2011
Proposed
2012
Change
%
Change
$
Water1
Raw Water2
Wastewater
Stormwater3
Electric1
Total
$3,826
$5,203
$3,550
$1,069
$3,139
787
$4,084
$5,203
$3,440
$1,082
$3,233
$17,042
6.7%
0.0%
-3.1%
1.2%
3.0%
1.5%
$258
$0
(-$110)
$13
$94
$255
1Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70-foot street frontage
2 No increase for Raw Water
3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way; .5 run off
coefficient
Next Steps:
November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting
• Second Reading of these seven Ordinances
November 15, 2011 City Council Meeting
• First Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance with seasonal and seasonal-tiered options
• First Reading of Service Charges Ordinance with increases for after-hours service charges and a monthly fee
for manual meter reading for customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project.
December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda
• Second Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -10- ITEM 20
the total increase. That amount will depend on the rate form option selected by Council at the November 15, 2011
Council meeting. Utility programs can help customers to reduce their water and electric use and to lessen the financial
impact of the rate increases.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Funding from the proposed electric rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue programs and services aimed at
meeting the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Accurate seasonal price signals may
delay/ avoid the need for additional peak electric generation. Water and wastewater rates provide funding for
conservation programs and environmental regulatory compliance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 15, 2011 meeting the Water Board recommended approval of the proposed 2012 water and
wastewater monthly rates and the plant investment fees for 2012.
At its October 6, 2011 meeting, the Electric Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed 2012 electric rates
(exclusive of the Residential Energy Services Rate) and the proposed 2012 electric development fees.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in the Coloradoan on October 2, 2011 and a mailing was
sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with PUC requirements. Electric rate forms were
discussed at the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and at a Council Work Session on September 13.
A written review of all the rates was included in the October 10, 2011, Council Finance Committee Agenda; however,
discussion of the item was postponed until October 17, 2011.
Staff plans to conduct outreach to all customers following adoption of the Ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012 Utility Rate Increases – Explanation of Change
2. Staff memo to Council related to water rate increase, September 19, 2011
3. Staff memo to Council related to electric rate increase, September 19, 2011
4. Staff memo to Council related to plant investment fees, September 19, 2011
5. Council Work Session Summary September 13, 2011
6. Council Finance Committee, August 15, 2011
7. Water Board minutes, September 15, 2011
8. Electric Board minutes, October 6, 2011
9. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT 2
Water Rate Increase
All of the 6% water rate increase is expected to be utilized to fund capital
improvements. The Fort Collins Utilities implemented an asset management program in
2009, and as a result, the Water Fund transmission and distribution capital program has
been revised to include an estimated increase of $22 million of improvements starting in
2013 through 2020. There have also been revised capital improvement increases for the
water meter replacement program and the Water Treatment Facility replacement projects
of $2.4 million and $3 million, respectively.
Water Fund - Total Expenses
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Projected
Millions
O & M Exp Debt Capital Total Revenue
Capital additions have been funded on a pay-as-you-go basis since 2007 and have
remained at $4 million with an increase to $6 million in 2010. With the implementation
of the asset management program, capital improvements are expected to increase from
2013 through 2020. Rate increases are needed to fund infrastructure replacement and
prevent negative capital reserves.
The photos on the following page are examples for need for these capital improvements:
An example of an electrolysis hole (top) due to corrosive soils and a longitudinal split
(bottom) in cast iron pipe manufactured and installed prior to approximately 1970.
An example of sedimentation in pipes manufactured without a cement mortar lining and
installed prior to approximately 1950.
ATTACHMENT 3
WASTEWATER RATE INCREASE
Wastewater Fund - Total Expenses
without 2012 Rate Increase
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Projected
Millions
O & M Exp Debt Capital Total Revenue
$30 M Bonds
Wastewater Fund - Total Expenses
with 2012 8% Rate Increase
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Budget Projected Projected
Millions
O & M Exp Debt Capital Total Revenue
$30 M Bonds
The Wastewater Fund needs the 8% rate increase in 2012 in order to cover operating and
debt service expenses and maintain required bond coverage ratios. Without the 2012 rate
increase the bond coverage ratio will decrease to 1.39 in 2013. The required coverage
ratio is 1.15, but the Fort Collins Utilities has historically maintained it at above 2.0,
achieving better bond ratings.
ORDINANCE NO. 138, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE WATER RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates,
fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay
the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-118 of the City Code requires that the City Manager analyze the
operating and financial records of the water utility during each calendar year and recommend to the
City Council the user rate fees to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed water rates, fees and charges for 2012
at its September 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval of the proposed rate changes by a
unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following
water use rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-126 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-126. Schedule A, flat rates for unmetered construction water use.
For residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned
meter size greater than 1”, no flat unmetered water service will be provided. For
residential and nonresidential premises under construction with a planned meter size
of 1-inch or less, the following flat rates will apply per month until the permanent
meter is set:
¾-inch construction service, flat charge per month $24.02
1-inch construction service, flat charge per month $45.80
Section 2. That Section 26-127 (a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-127. Schedule B, meter rates.
(a) Residential Rates.
(1) Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit.
a. Base Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit shall
pay a base monthly charge of thirteen dollars and sixty cents
($13.60).
b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with one (1) dwelling unit
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first seven thousand (7,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and ten and five-tenths cents ($2.105) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
For the next six thousand (6,000) gallons used per month, a charge of
two dollars and forty-one and nine-tenths cents ($2.419) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
seventy-eight and three-tenths cents ($2.783) per one thousand
(1,000) gallons.
(2) Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units.
a. Base Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units shall
pay a base monthly charge of fifteen dollars and ninety-seven cents
($15.97).
b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with two (2) dwelling units
shall pay a monthly quantity charge as follows:
For the first nine thousand (9,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and two and eight-tenths cents ($2.028) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For the next four thousand (4,000) gallons used per month, a charge
of two dollars and thirty-three and one-tenth cents ($2.331) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons.
For all additional gallons used per month, a charge of two dollars and
sixty-eight and two-tenths cents ($2.682) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons.
(3) Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling units.
-2-
a. Base Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2) dwelling
units shall pay a base monthly charge of thirteen dollars and forty-
nine cents ($13.49) for the first dwelling unit and four dollars and
forty-nine cents ($4.49) for the second and each additional dwelling
unit.
b. Quantity Charge. Residential customers with more than two (2)
dwelling units shall pay a monthly quantity charge of one dollar and
ninety-five and nine-tenths cents ($1.959) per one thousand (1,000)
gallons used in the winter season months of November through April.
They shall pay a monthly quantity charge of two dollars and forty-
four and nine-tenths cents ($2.449) per one thousand (1,000) gallons
used in the summer season months of May through October. The
meter reading date shall generally determine the seasonal monthly
quantity charge; however, no customer shall be billed more than six
(6) full billing cycles at the summer quantity charge.
(b) Nonresidential Rates.
(1) Base charge. Nonresidential customers shall pay a base monthly
charge based on meter size as follows:
Meter Size (inches) Monthly Base Charge
¾ $ 12.17
1 33.95
1½ 92.33
2 139.14
3 212.22
4 333.16
6 646.30
8 1,141.75
(2) Quantity charges. Nonresidential customers shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of one dollar and sixty-nine and three-tenths cents
($1.693) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the winter season
months of November through April. They shall pay a monthly
quantity charge of two dollars and eleven and six-tenths cents
($2.116) per one thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season
months of May through October. The meter reading date shall
generally determine the seasonal monthly quantity charge; however,
no customer shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the
summer quantity charge.
(3) Charges for excess use. Monthly water use in excess of the amounts
specified in the following table shall be billed at two dollars and
forty-three and three-tenths cents ($2.433) per one thousand (1,000)
-3-
gallons used in the winter season months of November through April.
Monthly water use in excess of the amounts specified below shall be
billed at three dollars and four and two-tenths cents ($3.042) per one
thousand (1,000) gallons used in the summer season months of May
through October. The meter reading date shall generally determine
the seasonal billing excess quantity charge; however, no customer
shall be billed more than six (6) full billing cycles at the summer
excess quantity charge.
Meter Size (inches) Specified Amount (gallons per month)
¾ 100,000
1 300,000
1½ 625,000
2 1,200,000
3 1,400,000
4 2,500,000
. . .
Section 3. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein
shall go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE WATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates,
fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay
the costs, expenses and other obligations of the water utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-120 of the City Code provides that the rates and parameters of the
Water Plant Investment Fees be reviewed annually by the City Manager and shall be presented to
City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 116, 2009,
which established the plant investment fees that are now in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to
contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that existing Water Plant Investment Fees be adjusted
based on the current replacement cost of the capital facilities that will be needed to serve new
development and for future growth related capital expansion; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the adjustments to the
Water Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Water Plant Investment Fees for 2012
at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees by an
unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Section 26-
128 of the City Code to revise Water Plant Investment Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-128 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-128. Schedule C, water plant investment fees.
The water plant investment fee prescribed in § 26-120 shall be payable by
users both inside and outside of the City, as follows:
(1) Single-family residential buildings: For the first three-fourths-inch
water tap or meter, a fee of seven hundred thirty dollars ($730.) for
a single-family residence, plus thirty-nine cents ($0.39) for each
square foot of lot area. For a single-family residential lot greater than
one-half (½) acre in size, the lot size shall be deemed to be one-half
(½) acre for the purpose of this fee calculation. For each additional
tap or meters larger than three-fourths (¾) inch, the nonresidential
rate shall apply.
(2) Residential buildings of two (2) or more dwelling units: For each
residential building unit, a fee of five hundred ten dollars ($510.),
plus twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each square foot of lot area. The
fee will provide for one (1) tap per residential building and an
adequate number of additional taps to serve common irrigable areas,
if any. The number and size of taps shall be determined by the
Utilities Executive Director based upon the criteria established in the
Uniform Plumbing Code as amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of the
Code.
(3) Mobile home parks: For each mobile home park, a fee of five
hundred ten dollars ($510.) for each mobile home space in the park,
plus twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each square foot of lot area. The
fee will provide for one (1) tap per mobile home park. The size of the
tap shall be determined by the Utilities Executive Director based
upon the criteria established in the Uniform Plumbing Code as
amended pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Code.
(4) Hotels, rooming houses, sororities, fraternities and similar uses: The
nonresidential rate shall apply.
(5) Nonresidential service:
a. Service to all nonresidential taps, including but not limited to
taps for commercial and industrial service, shall be charged
according to the size of the meter pursuant to the following
schedule:
Meter Size (inches) Nonresidential Plant Investment Fee
¾ $ 7,880
1 22,750
1½ 47,410
2 72,290
3 165,290
b. The fee for all meters larger than three (3) inches shall be
determined by the Executive Director and shall be based on
-2-
estimated peak day demand but shall not be less than the
charge for a three-inch meter.
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect on January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE WASTEWATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the wastewater utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 requires that the City Manager analyze the operating
and financial records of the wastewater utility during each calendar year and recommend to the City
Council the user rate fees or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-277 further requires that the user rates be revised as
necessary to assure equity of the rate system established and to assure that sufficient funds are
obtained to adequately operate and maintain the wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the Mulberry Wastewater Reclamation Plant has undergone a upgrade of the
plant's treatment processes to prepare the plant for future regulation-based improvements and to
make odor control improvements; and
WHEREAS, such improvements are not related to growth and will require increased user
rates to generate sufficient revenues to repay the debt necessary to finance these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed wastewater rates, fees and changes
for 2012 at its September 22, 2011, meeting and recommended approval of the changes by
unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that the following
wastewater rates be imposed for the billing year beginning January 1, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-280 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-280. Service charges established by category.
The schedule of rates for each category described in § 26-279 shall be as
follows:
Category Class of Customer Rate
A Single-family residential
user (flat rate)
$33.74 per month
Single-family residential
user (metered water use)
$15.07 per month plus $2.929 per 1,000 gallons of
either winter quarter water use or 3,000 gallons,
whichever is greater. For single family customers who
have not established a winter quarter water use at the
service address, a system average of 4,800 gallons per
month shall be billed.
B Duplex (two-family)
residential users (flat rate)
$52.68 per month
Duplex (two-family)
residential users (metered
water use)
$19.52 per month plus $2.929 per 1,000 gallons of
either winter quarter water use or 4,000 gallons,
whichever is greater. For duplex customers who have
not established a winter quarter water use at the
service address, a system average 7,200 gallons shall
be billed.
C Multi-family residential
user (more than two
dwelling units including
mobile home parks) and
winter quarter based
nonresidential user
$2.929 per 1,000 gallons of winter quarter water use,
plus a base charge of $2.30 per month per dwelling
unit served. For multi family customers who have not
established a winter quarter water use at the service
address, a system average of 3,400 gallons per living
unit shall be billed.
D Minor nonresidential user $2.929 per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured
sewage flow or winter quarter water use, whichever is
applicable, plus the following applicable base charge:
Size of water
meter (inches)
¾ or smaller
1
1½
2
3
4
6
8
Base
Charge
$8.46
19.52
39.28
67.21
107.38
169.59
743.42
858.38
-2-
E and F Intermediate
nonresidential user and
Significant industrial
user
$2.929 per 1,000 gallons of water use, measured
wastewater flow or winter quarter water use,
whichever is applicable; plus a surcharge of $3.029
per million gallons for each milligram per liter of
suspended solids in excess of 235 milligrams per
liter; plus a surcharge of $2.523 per million gallons
for each milligram per liter of BOD in excess of
265 milligrams per liter or a surcharge of $1.593
per million gallons for each milligram per liter of
COD in excess of 400 milligrams per liter, or a
surcharge of $4.716 per million gallons for each
milligram per liter of TOC in excess of 130
milligrams per liter, whichever is applicable. The
user shall pay this calculated amount plus the
applicable base charge set forth below:
Size of water meter
(inches)
¾ or smaller
1
1½
2
3
4
6
8
Base
charge
$8.46
19.52
39.28
67.21
107.38
169.59
743.42
858.38
G User outside City limits The rate for users outside the City limits shall be the
same as for like service inside the City limits as is
specified in Categories A—F and H in this Section
H Special with agreement The rate pursuant to a special wastewater services
agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to §
26-290 shall be set forth in said agreement.
Section 2 That Section 26-281(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(c) The amount of the wastewater strength surcharge to be billed each
user shall be calculated from one (1) of the following three (3) formulas, depending
on whether the wastewater is more amenable to testing for BOD, COD or TOC or on
the selection of the Executive Director in the absence of monitoring:
-3-
(1) Cs=Vu[Bc(B) + Sc(S)]
(2) Cs=Vu[CODc(COD) + Sc(S)]
(3) Cs=Vu[TOCc(TOC) + Sc(S)]
Where:
Cs = User's surcharge for wastewaters of excessive strength per billing
period
Vu = Volume of water used or wastewater discharged per billing period
Bc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of BOD
B = Concentration of BOD from a user in excess of two hundred sixty-
five (265) mg/l
Sc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of TSS
S = Concentration of TSS from a user in excess of two hundred thirty-
five (235) mg/l
CODc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of COD
COD = Concentration of COD from a user in excess of four hundred (400)
mg/l
TOCc = Cost of service for treatment of a unit of TOC
TOC = Concentration of TOC from a user in excess of one hundred thirty
(130) mg/l
Section 3. That Section 26-282(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-282. Wastewater strength or industrial surcharges and categories
established.
(a) The schedule of wastewater strength surcharge for customers located either
inside or outside the City limits shall be as follows:
Parameter Excess over (mg/l) Rate per 1,000 gallons
BOD 265 $0.002523
COD 400 0.001593
TOC 130 0.004716
TSS 235 0.003029
Section 4. That Section 26-289 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 26-289. Miscellaneous fees and charges.
The following is a schedule of miscellaneous fees and charges:
-4-
Description Amount
(1) Connection fees and service
charges
Fees shall be set forth as in §
26-712(b)
(2) Industrial discharge permits:
a. Administration $76.00 annually
b. Surveillance Determined for each user
annually, based on direct
cost plus 15% indirect costs,
billed monthly
(3) Laboratory support services Determined on a case-by-
case basis based on direct
cost plus 15% indirect costs
(4) Determined on a case-by-case basis
based on direct cost plus 15% indirect
costs
Cost plus 15%
(5) Charges for disposal at the Fort
Collins Regional Sanitary Waste
Transfer Station:
a. Septic tanks, vaults, privies, portable
toilets:
Generated within Larimer
County
$0.071 per gallon
Generated outside Larimer
County
b. Recreational vehicle sanitary
waste holding tanks:
$0.108 per gallon
Residential customers of the
City of Fort Collins Wastewater
Utility
No charge for individual
disposal at Transfer Station
Others $2.35 base fee plus $0.071
per gallon
(6) Miscellaneous fees Determined on a case-by-
case basis based on direct
costs plus 15% indirect costs
Section 5. That the amendments to the Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein
shall go into effect for billings based upon meter readings on or after in January 1, 2012.
-5-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-6-
ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE SEWER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the wastewater utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-277 of the City Code requires that the City Manager analyze the
operating and financial records of the wastewater utility during each calendar year and recommend
to the City Council the user rate fees or adjustments to be in effect for the following year; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-283 of the City Code provides that the City Manager review the
rates and parameters of the Sewer Plant Investment Fees annually and present them to City Council
for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2009,
which established the Sewer Plant Investment fees now in effect; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council’s intent that existing Sewer Plant Investment Fees be
adjusted based on the current replacement cost of the capital facilities that will be needed to serve
new development and for future growth related capital expansion; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the adjustments to the
Sewer Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees
by an unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-284(a) and (d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-284. Sewer plant investment fees and surcharges established.
(a) The schedule of sewer plant investment fees, subject to the exceptions and
additional requirements provided in this Section, is as follows:
Category SPIF
A $ 3,440.
B and C $2,410. for each dwelling unit or mobile home space
Category
Water meter
size (inches) Fee
D, E, F ¾ $6,880
1 17,300
1½ 30,480
2 53,520
3 145,310
4 and above Calculated on an individual basis based on peak wastewater
flow (determined in the manner set forth hereinafter) but not less
than the charge for a three-inch meter
G Same as equivalent category, plus any
special sanitation district fees.
H Determined pursuant to paragraph (d)
of this Section.
. . .
(d) The amount of the plant investment fee and surcharge for each nonresidential
surcharged user, users in Category H and any user that is expected to generate
greater than its proportionate share of peak day flow at the treatment plant for the
applicable category (including both contributed wastewater volume and volume
related to infiltration and inflow), shall be calculated utilizing the following formula:
SPIF = Site Flow x [Flow$ + (BOD x BOD$) + (TSS x TSS$)] + I&I Flow x [Flow$
+ (200 mg/l x BOD$) + (250 mg/l x TSS$)]
Where:
SPIF = Plant investment fee for Category H users and users
discharging wastewater with average concentrations of BOD
and/or TSS which exceed those average concentrations
which are set forth in § 26-282(b) under Category E-34
Site Flow = The user's proportionate share of peak day flow at the
treatment plant based on
site flow discharge from user's site
-2-
I&I Flow = That proportionate share of peak day flow due to infiltration
and inflow as
allocated to user's site flow discharge
Flow$ = $6.10 per gallon (unit cost of facilities attributable to
treating wastewater flow)
BOD = Average BOD concentration for user category or measured
BOD concentration for the user as determined in accordance
with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 200
mg/l
BOD$ = $0.0134 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to
treating BOD)
TSS = Average TSS concentration for user category or measured
TSS concentration for the user as determined in accordance
with Subsection (c) of this Section, but not less than 250
mg/l
TSS$ = $0.0107 per mg/l (unit cost of facilities attributable to
treating TSS)
. . .
Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect on January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
ORDINANCE NO. 144, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE STORMWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection
of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues
sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the storm water utility, as set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-511(a) of the City Code requires that the City Manager review the
rates and parameters of the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees annually and present them to City
Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 119, 2009,
which established the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees now in effect; and
WHEREAS, the Council has adopted stormwater basin master plans recommending
stormwater facilities that are necessary to provide for the proper drainage and control of flood and
surface waters within the City; and
WHEREAS, existing stormwater rate payers have paid for the design, right-of-way and
construction of stormwater facilities identified in the drainage basin master plans that will benefit
and be utilized by new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should pay its
proportionate share of the costs of the stormwater infrastructure as it exists at the time of
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council the revised Stormwater
Plant Investment Fees set forth herein, to be effective January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered the proposed Stormwater Plant Investment Fees
for 2012 at its September 15, 2011, meeting and recommended the approval of the proposed fees
by an unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-512(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-512. Stormwater plant investment fees established.
. . .
(2) Plant investment fee base rate. The stormwater plant investment fee base rate
is six thousand three hundred ninety dollars ($6,390.) per gross acre of area.
. . .
Section 2. That the amendment to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jill Stilwell
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and
Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for the Carnegie Building.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated grant revenue of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
“Our Town” grant program in the Cultural Services Fund. The Cultural Services Department and the non-profit Beet
Street collaborated on the grant as required by the NEA. The grant is funding the design and planning for a proposed
art incubator to be housed in the Carnegie Building in late 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the April 27, 2010, City Council Work Session, Council expressed support for the repurposing of the Carnegie
Building as a community cultural center in 2012, after the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery relocates to its new facility.
Based on recommendations in the Cultural Plan, staff did extensive outreach to gather input from the community,
including an online survey, an open house, and connecting with several potential partner organizations. The outreach
results showed that most people wanted this historic treasure to remain open and accessible and were supportive of
the community cultural center concept. The concept includes an art incubator run and managed by Beet Street as a
primary function of the building; community exhibition space and black box theater; distance learning
classroom/meeting space; workshop spaces, and the opportunity to host FCPAN as another tenant. In all, the building
would remain open to the public and serve as a resource to the community.
In pursuing the art incubator concept, the Cultural Services Department and Beet Street collaborated on and were
awarded a $100,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town” grant program, one of only
51 grants awarded nationwide. The grant required a government entity partner with a non-profit in order to pursue this
grant opportunity. The funding will support the planning and design phase of an art incubator program to be housed
in the Carnegie Building, subject to the Council’s approval of any proposed leases or other rights to use the Carnegie
Building.
“Our Town” is the NEA’s new leadership initiative focused on creative placemaking projects. In creative placemaking,
partners from both public and private sectors come together to strategically shape the physical and social character
of a neighborhood, town, city, or region around arts and cultural activities.
The art incubator will encourage the education growth and professional development of students, professionals and
the creative industry by offering:
• innovative courses on the business of art, music and entertainment
• internship programs focused on real-world career paths
• continuing education for professionals and arts organizations
• support spaces including a gallery, black-box theater, classrooms and workshop/event spaces that will serve
the community and the incubator programs.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance will appropriate $100,000 into the Cultural Services Fund. The grant requires a one-to-one match
which is being met through Cultural Services in the form of in-kind staff salaries and through Beet Street with cash and
in-kind contributions to the project.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE
CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE PLANNING AND
DESIGN OF AN ART INCUBATOR PROPOSED FOR THE CARNEGIE BUILDING
WHEREAS, City Council supports using the Carnegie Building as a community cultural
center, after the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery relocates to its new facility in 2012; and
WHEREAS, staff has done extensive outreach to gather information from the community
including an online survey, an open house, and connecting with several potential partner
organizations; and
WHEREAS, the outreach results show that most people want the historic Carnegie Building
to remain open and accessible to the public and the public was supportive of the concept of a
community-based cultural center operating in the building; and
WHEREAS, the City and the non-profit organization Beet Street were awarded a grant in
the amount of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” grant program (the
“Grant”) and
WHEREAS, the Grant funds will be paid to and managed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Grant requires a one-to-one match which will be provided by in-kind staff
salaries from Cultural Services and cash and in-kind contributions from Beet Street; and
WHEREAS, the Grant will be used to fund the planning and design phase of an art incubator
program proposed to be housed in the Carnegie Building; and
WHEREAS, the art incubator would encourage the education, growth and professional
development, of students, professionals and the creative industry; and
WHEREAS, on completion of the planning phase, the City Council would be asked to
approve any proposed leases or other rights of non-City groups to use the Carnegie Building as part
of the incubator program; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any
fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000) for the planning and design of an art incubator proposed to be housed in the Carnegie
Building.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Marlys Sittner
Kurt Ravenschlag
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Purchase of a Rapid Transit Bus.
A. Resolution 2011-096 Authorizing the Execution of a Contract Between the City of Fort Collins and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the Purchase of One Bus Rapid Transit Bus.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transit Services Fund
for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects
Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Bus Rapid Transit Bus.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Department of Transportation has awarded FASTER (Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation
and Economic Recovery) funding to purchase one of the six Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses needed for MAX
operations. The Colorado Department of Transportation approved funds that will be applied toward the BRT bus
purchase. This request appropriates funds and executes the contract with CDOT.
The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to the west of College Avenue.
The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations with pedestrian and bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side
stops, a transit center at the southern and northern termini, and off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance
facility to provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet
in order to provide MAX BRT services. All six buses will be new bus purchases, and will replace older buses beyond
their useful life. The six BRT buses will be purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant
Agreement (PCGA) has been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will be purchased at
the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded through CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER),
while the other three are funded through the federal Small Starts grant.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The implementation of the MAX BRT is an essential step to achieving the Transfort transit system vision. Removing
bus traffic from the highly congested College Avenue corridor and creating an exclusive guideway will provide the
backbone for the future transit system. The MAX BRT will provide the essential infrastructure to redesign the transit
system to improve effectiveness.
Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet in order to provide MAX BRT
services. The CDOT FASTER funding contract for the purchase of one BRT bus will be leveraged as local match
towards the federal funding of the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project. The State contribution approved for
purchase of one BRT bus is $500,000.
Project Schedule
Finalize Bus Specifications: December 2011
Order Bus: March 2012
The order and purchase of one BRT bus will be coordinated with the order and purchase of the five remaining BRT
buses needed for the operation of the MAX BRT. It is important to order the buses early as there is an eighteen month
production schedule from the time of order. Ordering the MAX BRT buses in March 2012 ensures they are ready by
mid-2013.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 15
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This funding contract between the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City of Fort Collins is for
the purchase of one BRT bus, which is a component of the Mason Corridor/MAX BRT Project. CDOT's FASTER
funding program is an 80/20 grant program with the State providing 80% of the total cost. Although the City requested
$680,000 for 80% of the cost to fund one BRT bus, CDOT awarded $500,000 of State FASTER funding, and the City
of Fort Collins will overmatch with a contribution of $350,000 from the Transfort Capital Reserve.
Capital
State of Colorado FASTER (58.8%): $500,000
Local Match (41.2%): City of Fort Collins
(Transfort Capital Reserve) $350,000
Total Capital Project Cost (One BRT bus): $850,000
The State Transportation Commission approved a total amount of $500,000 for the purchase of one BRT bus. The
approved FASTER funds are part of the City's overall local matching funds for the Federal Transit Administration
federal funding for the overall Mason Corridor BRT Project.
The BRT buses will be delivered in 2013 and will replace six older Transfort buses. The new BRT buses will be
operational in the first quarter of 2014. The new buses will reduce Transfort’s annual maintenance expenses by
$12,800 per bus, due to the lower maintenance costs for new buses. The following maintenance expenses for one
new BRT bus will be submitted as an offer in the 2013 and 2014 Budgeting for Outcomes process.
2013 Maintenance Costs for One BRT Bus
BRT Bus Maintenance per Year $ 16,000
Total Maintenance expense for one BRT Bus: $ 16,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The BRT buses were included in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment for the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. On September 9, 2008, the Federal Transit Administration declared a
Finding of No Significant Impact would result from the construction and on-going operation of the MAX BRT system.
The Environmental Assessment analyzed Impacts on the following categories:
Land Use and Zoning
Social Conditions
Economic Conditions
Environmental Justice
Right-of-way
Air Quality
Noise and Vibration
Water Resources and Water Quality
Wetlands
Flooding and Floodplain Management
Vegetation
Noxious Weeds
Wildlife/Ecological
Threatened and Endangered Species
Visual Quality
Cultural Resources
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 15
Hazardous Materials
Parks and Recreation Resources
Farmland
Public Safety and Security
Construction
Transportation
Cumulative Impacts
For more detailed information concerning the environmental impacts and mitigation measures please refer to the
Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment located at www.fcgov.com/mason/environment.php.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On September 20, 2000, the Transportation Board unanimously voted to approve the Mason Street Corridor Master
Plan, which included plans for the purchase of BRT buses. Since 2000, staff has regularly updated the Transportation
Board regarding the progress of the Mason Corridor, most recently on May 18, 2011. Minutes from the Transportation
Board can be seen in Attachment 3.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Significant public outreach has been conducted since 1998 with 48 public meetings held for the Mason Corridor
project. The most recent public outreach event was an Open House held June 2, 2010. Information and renderings
of the project and buses were included.
ATTACHMENTS
1 Photo of BRT bus
2 Intergovernmental Agreement between Colorado Department of Transportation and City of Fort Collins for the
purchase of one BRT bus
3 Transportation Board Minutes, May 18, 2011, July 21, 2010, and September 20, 2000
Attachment 1: BRT Bus with MAX Branding
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 1
STATE OF COLORADO
Colorado Department of Transportation
Division of Transit and Rail
FASTER-Transit Grant Agreement
with
City of Fort Collins
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PARTIES ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY ...................................................................................... 1
3. RECITALS ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
4. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
5. TERM ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
6. SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................................................... 3
7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE.................................................................................................................................... 4
8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................. 5
9. GRANTEE RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................. 6
10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS ...................................................................................... 6
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................................................................................. 7
12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ....................................................................................................... 7
13. INSURANCE .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
14. BREACH ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
15. REMEDIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES .................................................................................................................. 12
17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE ............................................................. 12
18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ........................................................................................................................ 12
19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................................... 12
20. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................................................... 13
21. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................... 15
22. SIGNATURE PAGE ............................................................................................................................................. 18
EXHIBIT A (Scope of Work)
EXHIBIT B (FASTER Program Requirements)
EXHIBIT C (Grantee Payment Checklist)
EXHIBIT D (49 CFR 18 Subpart C)
EXHIBIT E (General Procurement Standards)
EXHIBIT F (State and Grantee Commitments)
EXHIBIT G (Option Letter)
EXHIBIT H (Security Agreement) (this will only be used for purchase of transit vehicle(s) or equipment)
EXHIBIT I (State or Federal-Aid Project Agreements with Professional Subgrantee Services) (this will only be used if a
Transit Construction Grant)
EXHIBIT J (Grantee Contract Administration Checklist) (this will only be used if a Transit Construction Grant)
1. PARTIES
This Grant Agreement (“Grant”) is entered into by and between City of Fort Collins (“Grantee”), and the
STATE OF COLORADO acting by and through the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of
Transit and Rail (“State or “CDOT”). Grantee and the State hereby agree to the following terms and
conditions.
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY
This Grant shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State
Controller or designee (“Effective Date”). The State shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Grantee for any
ATTACHMENT 2
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 2
performance hereunder, including, but not limited to costs or expenses incurred, or be bound by any
provision hereof prior to the Effective Date.
3. RECITALS
A. Authority, Appropriation, and Approval
Authority to enter into this Grant exists in CRS §§43-1-106, 43-1-110, 43-1-117, 43-2-101(4)(c) as
amended and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available pursuant to CRS
§43-4-811(2) and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment. Required
approvals, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies.
B. Consideration
The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Grant.
C. Purpose
The purpose of this Grant is for CDOT to disperse FASTER Transit Program Funds to Grantee to
conduct work within the provisions of this Grant. The work to be completed under this Grant by the
Grantee is more specifically described in Exhibits A and B.
D. References
All references in this Grant to sections (whether spelled out or using the § symbol), subsections,
exhibits or other attachments, are references to sections, subsections, exhibits or other attachments
contained herein or incorporated as a part hereof, unless otherwise noted.
4. DEFINITIONS
The following terms as used herein shall be construed and interpreted as follows:
A. Budget
“Budget” means the budget for the Work described in Exhibit A.
B. Evaluation
“Evaluation” means the process of examining Grantee’s Work and rating it based on criteria
established in §6, §19, and all Exhibits.
C. Exhibits and other Attachments
The following are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A (Scope of Work),
Exhibit B (FASTER Program Requirements), and Exhibit C (Grantee Payment Checklist), Exhibit D
(49 CFR 18 Subpart C), Exhibit E (General Procurement Standards), Exhibit F (State and Grantee
Commitments), Exhibit G (Option Letter), Exhibit H (Security Agreement), Exhibit I (State or
Federal-Aid Project Agreements with Professional Subgrantee Services) and Exhibit J (Grantee
Contract Administration Checklist).
D. Goods
“Goods” means tangible material acquired, produced, or delivered by Grantee either separately or in
conjunction with the Services Grantee renders hereunder.
E. Grant
“Grant” means this Grant, its terms and conditions, attached exhibits, documents incorporated by
reference under the terms of this Grant, and any future modifying agreements, exhibits, attachments or
references incorporated herein pursuant to Colorado State law, Fiscal Rules, and State Controller
Policies.
F. Grant Funds
“Grant Funds” means available funds payable by the State to Grantee pursuant to this Grant.
G. Local Funds
“Local Funds” means funds provided by any city, county or entity (public or private) for performance
of the Work.
H. Manual
“Manual” refers to CDOT’s “Local Agency Manual”, if applicable.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 3
I. Party or Parties
“Party” means the State or Grantee and “Parties” means both the State and Grantee.
J. Project
“Project” means Work identified in Exhibit A.
K. Program
“Program” means the Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery
(FASTER) Senate Bill 09-108 grant program that provides the funding for this Grant.
L. Review
“Review” means examining Grantee’s Work to ensure that it is adequate, accurate, correct and in
accordance with the criteria established in §6, §19 and Exhibit A.
M. Services
“Services” means the required services to be performed by Grantee pursuant to this Grant.
N. State Funds
“State Funds” means funds provided by the State for performance of the Work.
O. Subgrantee
“Subgrantee” means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to aid in performance of its obligations.
P. Work
“Work” means the tasks and activities Grantee is required to perform to fulfill its obligations under this
Grant and Exhibit A, including the performance of the Services and delivery of the Goods.
Q. Work Product
“Work Product” means the tangible or intangible results of Grantee’s Work, including, but not limited
to, software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other finished or unfinished
documents, drawings, models, surveys, maps, materials, or work product of any type, including drafts.
5. TERM
A. Initial Term-Work Commencement
The Parties respective performances under this Grant shall commence on the August 1, 2011. This
Grant shall terminate on June 30, 2013 unless sooner terminated or further extended as specified
elsewhere herein.
B. Notice to Proceed
Grantee shall not commence performance of the Work until the date specified by a written notice to
proceed, which may be sent by email or by hardcopy pursuit to §16.
C. State’s Option to Extend Terms
The State may unilaterally require continued performance for two additional one year periods at the
same rates and same terms specified in the Grant. If the State exercises this option, it shall provide
written notice to Grantee at least 30 days prior to the end of the current Grant term in form
substantially equivalent to Exhibit G . If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become
part of and be incorporated into this Grant. The total duration of this Grant, including the exercise of
any options under this clause, shall not exceed three years.
6. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Completion
Grantee shall complete the Work and its other obligations as described herein and in Exhibits A and B
on or before June 30, 2013. The State shall not be liable to compensate Grantee for any Work
performed prior to the Effective Date or after the termination of this Grant.
B. Goods and Services
Grantee shall procure Goods and Services necessary to complete the Work. Such procurement shall be
accomplished using the Grant Funds and shall not increase the maximum amount payable hereunder by
the State.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 4
C. Employees
All persons employed by Grantee or Subgrantees shall be considered Grantee’s or Subgrantees’
employee(s) for all purposes hereunder and shall not be employees of the State for any purpose as a
result of this Grant.
D. Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations
If the Grant Funds involves federal funding, Grantee understands and agrees that federal laws, rules
and regulations will control the Work and its implementation. Unless a written waiver is granted,
Grantee agrees to comply with all required federal laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Work,
in addition to all State requirements.
E. Option for Phased Performance
The State may unilaterally require the Grantee to begin performance on the next phase of the Project as
outlined in Scope of Work in Exhibit A at the same rates and same terms specified in the Grant. If the
State exercises this option, it shall provide written notice to Grantee in a form substantially equivalent
to Exhibit G. If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become part of and be incorporated
into this Grant.
7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE
The State shall, in accordance with the provisions of this §7, pay Grantee in the following amounts and
using the methods set forth below:
A. Maximum Amount
The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $500,000, as determined by
the State from available funds. Grantee agrees to provide any additional funds required for the
successful completion of the Work. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid obligated balance of
the Grant as set forth in Exhibit A. The maximum amount payable by the State to Grantee during the
term of this Grant shall be:
Maximum amount payable by the State to the Grantee for each year of this Grant shall be as stated in
Exhibit A and any amendments thereto.
B. Payment
i. Advance, Interim and Final Payments
Any advance payment allowed under this Grant or in Exhibit A shall comply with State Fiscal
Rules and be made in accordance with the provisions of this Grant or such Exhibit. Grantee
shall initiate any payment requests by submitting invoices to the State in the form and manner
set forth and approved by the State.
ii. Interest
The State shall fully pay each invoice within 45 days of receipt thereof if the amount invoiced
represents performance by Grantee previously accepted by the State. Uncontested amounts not
paid by the State within 45 days may, if Grantee so requests, bear interest on the unpaid balance
beginning on the 46th day at a rate not to exceed one percent per month until paid in full;
provided, however, that interest shall not accrue on unpaid amounts that are subject to a good
faith dispute. Grantee shall invoice the State separately for accrued interest on delinquent
amounts. The billing shall reference the delinquent payment, the number of day’s interest to be
paid and the interest rate.
G/L Account: 4518000010 CO Area: 1000 Fund: 400 Company Code: 1000 Vendor Number: 2000023
Functional Area: 1480 Funds Center: DT510-010 Total Encumbered Grant Amount: $500,000
State Fiscal Year: FY 12 *Line Item: 10 *WBS: 18518.10.50
State Funds Amount Total: $500,000 Local Funds Amount Total: $350,000 Total: $850,000
*The Line Item and WBS numbers may be replaced at CDOT’s discretion without a contract amendment as long as such
changes do not change the total amount of the Grant or move funds between phases of the Project in excess of 10%, which
shall be subject to Section 7(C).
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 5
iii. Available Funds-Contingency-Termination
The State is prohibited by law from making fiscal commitments beyond the term of the State’s
current fiscal year. Therefore, Grantee’s compensation is contingent upon the continuing
availability of State appropriations as provided in the Colorado Special Provisions, set forth
below. If federal funds are used with this Grant in whole or in part, the State’s performance
hereunder is contingent upon the continuing availability of such funds. Payments pursuant to
this Grant shall be made only from available funds encumbered for this Grant and the State’s
liability for such payments shall be limited to the amount remaining of such encumbered funds.
If State or federal funds are not appropriated, or otherwise become unavailable to fund this
Grant, the State may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part without further
liability in accordance with the provisions herein.
iv. Erroneous Payments
At the State’s sole discretion, payments made to Grantee in error for any reason, including, but
not limited to overpayments or improper payments, and unexpended or excess funds received
by Grantee, may be recovered from Grantee by deduction from subsequent payments under this
Grant or other Grants, grants or agreements between the State and Grantee or by other
appropriate methods and collected as a debt due to the State. Such funds shall not be paid to any
person or entity other than the State.
C. Use of Funds
Grant Funds shall be used only for eligible costs identified herein and/or in the Budget. Budget line
item adjustments exceeding 10% but less than 24.99% must be submitted in advance of actual cost and
receive written State approval, which approval may be transmitted informally by email or such other
means that does not rise to the level of an amendment to this Grant. A budget revision of Exhibit A
will be issuedby State with any such adjustment. Adjustments in excess of 24.99% for any line item
shall be authorized by the State in an amendment to this Grant. The State’s total consideration shall not
exceed the maximum amount shown herein.
D. Local Funds
Grantee shall provide Local Funds as provided in Exhibit A. Payments to Grantee of Grant Funds will
be made for Project expenditures reported by Grantee and submitted to and accepted by the State for
payment based on the ratio required State Funds and Local Funds for which Grantee has submitted to
the State.
E. Payment Compliance
All Grant reimbursements shall comply with 49 CFR 18 Subpart C (Exhibit D) of the Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
Additionally, Grantee shall only be reimbursed for costs allowable under 2 CFR Part 125, Appendix A.
8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION
Reports, Evaluations, and Reviews required under this §8 shall be in accordance with the procedures of and
in such form as prescribed by the State and in accordance with §19, if applicable.
A. Performance, Progress, Personnel, and Funds
Grantee shall submit a report to the State upon expiration or sooner termination of this Grant,
containing an Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance and the final status of Grantee's
obligations hereunder. In addition, Grantee shall comply with all reporting requirements, if any, set
forth in the Local Agency Manual and/or this Grant.
B. Litigation Reporting
Within 10 days after being served with any pleading in a legal action filed with a court or
administrative agency, related to this Grant or which may affect Grantee’s ability to perform its
obligations hereunder, Grantee shall notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such
pleadings to the State’s principal representative as identified herein. If the State’s principal
representative is not then serving, such notice and copies shall be delivered to the Executive Director of
CDOT.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 6
C. Noncompliance
Grantee’s failure to provide reports and notify the State in a timely manner in accordance with this §8
may result in the delay of payment of funds and/or termination as provided under this Grant.
D. Subgrants
Copies of any and all subgrants entered into by Grantee to perform its obligations hereunder shall be
submitted to the State or its principal representative upon request by the State. Any and all subgrants
entered into by Grantee related to its performance hereunder shall comply with all applicable federal
and state laws and shall provide that such subgrants be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.
9. GRANTEE RECORDS
Grantee shall make, keep, maintain and allow inspection and monitoring of the following records:
A. Maintenance
Grantee shall make, keep, maintain, and allow inspection and monitoring by the State of a complete
file of all records, documents, communications, notes and other written materials, electronic media
files, and communications, pertaining in any manner to the Work or the delivery of Services
(including, but not limited to the operation of programs) or Goods hereunder. Grantee shall maintain
such records until the last to occur of the following: (i) a period of three years after the date this Grant
is completed or terminated, or (ii) final payment is made hereunder, whichever is later, or (iii) for such
further period as may be necessary to resolve any pending matters, or (iv) if an audit is occurring, or
Grantee has received notice that an audit is pending, then until such audit has been completed and its
findings have been resolved (the “Record Retention Period”).
B. Inspection
Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government and any other duly authorized agent of a
governmental agency to audit, inspect, examine, excerpt, copy and/or transcribe Grantee's records
related to this Grant during the Record Retention Period for a period of three years following
termination of this Grant or final payment hereunder, whichever is later, to assure compliance with the
terms hereof or to evaluate Grantee's performance hereunder. The State reserves the right to inspect the
Work at all reasonable times and places during the term of this Grant, including any extension. If the
Work fails to conform to the requirements of this Grant, the State may require Grantee promptly to
bring the Work into conformity with Grant requirements, at Grantee’s sole expense. If the Work cannot
be brought into conformance by re-performance or other corrective measures, the State may require
Grantee to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to Grant requirements and
exercise the remedies available under this Grant, at law or inequity in lieu of or in conjunction with
such corrective measures.
C. Monitoring
Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government, and other governmental agencies having
jurisdiction, in their sole discretion, to monitor all activities conducted by Grantee pursuant to the terms
of this Grant using any reasonable procedure, including, but not limited to: internal evaluation
procedures, examination of program data, special analyses, on-site checking, formal audit
examinations, or any other procedures. All monitoring controlled by the State shall be performed in a
manner that shall not unduly interfere with Grantee’s performance hereunder.
D. Final Audit Report
If an audit is performed on Grantee’s records for any fiscal year covering a portion of the term of this
Grant, Grantee shall submit a copy of the final audit report to the State or its principal representative at
the address specified herein.
10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS
Grantee shall comply with the provisions of this §10 if it becomes privy to confidential information in
connection with its performance hereunder. Confidential information, includes, but is not necessarily limited
to, any State records, personnel records, and information concerning individuals. Such information shall not
include information required to be disclosed pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS 24-72-101, et
seq.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 7
A. Confidentiality
Grantee shall keep all State records and information confidential at all times and to comply with all
laws and regulations concerning confidentiality of information. Any request or demand by a third party
for State records and information in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately forwarded to the
State’s principal representative.
B. Notification
Grantee shall notify its agent, employees, Subgrantees, and assigns who may come into contact with
State records and confidential information that each is subject to the confidentiality requirements set
forth herein, and shall provide each with a written explanation of such requirements before they are
permitted to access such records and information.
C. Use, Security, and Retention
Confidential information of any kind shall not be distributed or sold to any third party or used by
Grantee or its agents in any way, except as authorized by this Grant or approved in writing by the State.
Grantee shall provide and maintain a secure environment that ensures confidentiality of all State
records and other confidential information wherever located. Confidential information shall not be
retained in any files or otherwise by Grantee or its agents, except as permitted in this Grant or approved
in writing by the State.
D. Disclosure-Liability
Disclosure of State records or other confidential information by Grantee for any reason may be cause
for legal action by third parties against Grantee, the State or their respective agents. Grantee shall
indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and all claims,
damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs,
incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or
assignees pursuant to this §10.
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Grantee shall not engage in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships
which conflict in any way with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations hereunder. Grantee
acknowledges that with respect to this Grant, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to the
State’s interests. Absent the State’s prior written approval, Grantee shall refrain from any practices,
activities or relationships that reasonably appear to be in conflict with the full performance of Grantee’s
obligations to the State hereunder. If a conflict or appearance exists, or if Grantee is uncertain whether a
conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, Grantee shall submit to the State a disclosure
statement setting forth the relevant details for the State’s consideration. Failure to promptly submit a
disclosure statement or to follow the State’s direction in regard to the apparent conflict constitutes a breach
of this Grant.
12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Grantee makes the following specific representations and warranties, each of which was relied on by the
State in entering into this Grant.
A. Standard and Manner of Performance
Grantee shall perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the highest standards of care, skill
and diligence in the industry, trades or profession and in the sequence and manner set forth in this
Grant.
B. Legal Authority – Grantee and Grantee’s Signatory
Grantee warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this Grant and that it has taken all
actions required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable laws to exercise that authority, and to
lawfully authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this Grant, or any part thereof, and to bind
Grantee to its terms. If requested by the State, Grantee shall provide the State with proof of Grantee’s
authority to enter into this Grant within 15 days of receiving such request.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 8
C. Licenses, Permits, Etc.
Grantee represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date it has, and that at all times during the term
hereof it shall have, at its sole expense, all licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and
other authorization required by law to perform its obligations hereunder. Grantee warrants that it shall
maintain all necessary licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other authorizations
required to properly perform this Grant, without reimbursement by the State or other adjustment in
Grant Funds. Additionally, all employees and agents of Grantee performing Services under this Grant
shall hold all required licenses or certifications, if any, to perform their responsibilities. Grantee, if a
foreign corporation or other foreign entity transacting business in the State of Colorado, further
warrants that it currently has obtained and shall maintain any applicable certificate of authority to
transact business in the State of Colorado and has designated a registered agent in Colorado to accept
service of process. Any revocation, withdrawal or non-renewal of licenses, certifications, approvals,
insurance, permits or any such similar requirements necessary for Grantee to properly perform the
terms of this Grant shall be deemed to be a material breach by Grantee and constitute grounds for
termination of this Grant.
13. INSURANCE
Grantee and its Subgrantees shall obtain and maintain insurance as specified in this section at all times
during the term of this Grant. All policies evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder shall be
issued by insurance companies satisfactory to Grantee and the State.
A. Grantee
i. Public Entities
If Grantee is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,
CRS §24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the “GIA”), then Grantee shall maintain at all times
during the term of this Grant such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as
is necessary to meet its liabilities under the GIA. Grantee shall show proof of such insurance
satisfactory to the State, if requested by the State. Grantee shall require each Grant with
Subgrantees that are public entities, providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the
insurance requirements necessary to meet Subgrantee’s liabilities under the GIA.
ii. Non-Public Entities
If Grantee is not a "public entity" within the meaning of the GIA, Grantee shall obtain and
maintain during the term of this Grant insurance coverage and policies meeting the same
requirements set forth in §13(B) with respect to Subgrantees that are not "public entities".
B. Grantee and Subgrantees
Grantee shall require each Grant with Subgrantees, other than those that are public entities, providing
Goods or Services in connection with this Grant, to include insurance requirements substantially similar
to the following:
i. Worker’s Compensation
Worker’s Compensation Insurance as required by State statute, and Employer’s Liability
Insurance covering all of Grantee and Subgrantee employees acting within the course and scope
of their employment.
ii. General Liability
Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 10/93 or
equivalent, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent Subgrantees, products and
completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability
with minimum limits as follows: (a) $1,000,000 each occurrence; (b) $1,000,000 general
aggregate; (c) $1,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate; and (d) $50,000 any
one fire. If any aggregate limit is reduced below $1,000,000 because of claims made or paid,
Subgrantee shall immediately obtain additional insurance to restore the full aggregate limit and
furnish to Grantee a certificate or other document satisfactory to Grantee showing compliance
with this provision.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 9
iii. Automobile Liability
Automobile Liability Insurance covering any auto (including owned, hired and non-owned
autos) with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit.
iv. Professional Liability
Professional liability insurance with minimum limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000
each claim and $1,000,000 annual aggregate for both the Grantee or any Subgrantee when:
a) Contract items 625 (Construction Surveying), 629 (Survey Monumentation), or both are
included in the Grant
b) Plans, specifications, and submittals are required to be signed and sealed by the
Grantee’s or Subgrantee’s professional engineer, including but not limited to:
(1) Shop drawings and working drawings as described in subsection 105.02 of the CDOT
Standards Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Manual which can be found
at: www.coloradodot.info/business/designsupport/construction-specifications/2011-
Specs/2011-Specs-Bood.pdf
(2) Mix designs
(3) Contractor performed design work as required by the plans and specifications
(4) Approved value engineering change proposals
v. Additional Insured
Grantee and the State shall be named as additional insured on the Commercial General Liability
and Automobile Liability Insurance policies (leases and construction Grants require additional
insured coverage for completed operations on endorsements CG 2010 11/85, CG 2037, or
equivalent).
vi. Primacy of Coverage
Coverage required of Grantee and Subgrantees shall be primary over any insurance or self-
insurance program carried by Grantee or the State.
vii. Cancellation
The above insurance policies shall include provisions preventing cancellation or non-renewal
without at least 45 days prior notice to the Grantee and Grantee shall forward such notice to the
State in accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives) within seven days of Grantee’s
receipt of such notice.
viii. Subrogation Waiver
All insurance policies in any way related to this Grant and secured and maintained by Grantee
or its Subgrantees as required herein shall include clauses stating that each carrier shall waive
all rights of recovery, under subrogation or otherwise, against Grantee or the State, its agencies,
institutions, organizations, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
C. Certificates
Grantee and all Subgrantees shall provide certificates showing insurance coverage required hereunder to the
State within seven business days of the Effective Date of this Grant. No later than 15 days prior to the
expiration date of any such coverage, Grantee and each Subgrantee shall deliver to the State or Grantee
certificates of insurance evidencing renewals thereof. In addition, upon request by the State at any other
time during the term of this Grant or any subgrant, Grantee and each Subgrantee shall, within 10 days of
such request, supply to the State evidence satisfactory to the State of compliance with the provisions of this
§13.
14. BREACH
A. Defined
In addition to any breaches specified in other sections of this Grant, the failure of either Party to
perform any of its material obligations hereunder, in whole or in part or in a timely or satisfactory
manner, constitutes a breach. The institution of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization or similar law, by or against Grantee, or the appointment of a receiver or similar officer
for Grantee or any of its property, which is not vacated or fully stayed within 20 days after the
institution or occurrence thereof, shall also constitute a breach.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 10
B. Notice and Cure Period
In the event of a breach, notice of such shall be given in writing by the aggrieved Party to the other
Party in the manner provided in §16. If such breach is not cured within 30 days of receipt of written
notice, or if a cure cannot be completed within 30 days, or if cure of the breach has not begun within 30
days and pursued with due diligence, the State may exercise any of the remedies set forth in §15.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the State, in its sole discretion, need not provide
advance notice or a cure period and may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part if
reasonably necessary to preserve public safety or to prevent immediate public crisis.
15. REMEDIES
If Grantee is in breach under any provision of this Grant, the State shall have all of the remedies listed in
this §15 in addition to all other remedies set forth in other sections of this Grant following the notice and
cure period set forth in §14(B), provided however, that the State may terminate this Grant pursuant to
§15(B) without a breach. The State may exercise any or all of the remedies available to it, in its sole
discretion, concurrently or consecutively.
A. Termination for Cause and/or Breach
If Grantee fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder with such diligence as is required to ensure
its completion in accordance with the provisions of this Grant and in a timely manner, the State may
notify Grantee of such non-performance in accordance with the provisions herein. If Grantee thereafter
fails to promptly cure such non-performance within the cure period, the State, at its option, may
terminate this entire Grant or such part of this Grant as to which there has been delay or a failure to
properly perform. Exercise by the State of this right shall not be deemed a breach of its obligations
hereunder. Grantee shall continue performance of this Grant to the extent not terminated, if any.
i. Obligations and Rights
To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or
render further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate
outstanding orders and subgrants with third parties. However, Grantee shall complete and deliver
to the State all Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur
obligations as are necessary to do so within this Grant’s terms. At the sole discretion of the State,
Grantee shall assign to the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated
orders or subgrants. Upon termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary
action to protect and preserve property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an
interest. All materials owned by the State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately
returned to the State. All Work Product, at the option of the State, shall be delivered by Grantee
to the State and shall become the State’s property.
ii. Payments
The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination.
If, after termination by the State, it is determined that Grantee was not in breach or that
Grantee's action or inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a termination in
the public interest and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be the same as if this Grant
had been terminated in the public interest, as described herein.
iii. Damages and Withholding
Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the
State for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by
Grantee and the State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the
State’s damages, until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee
is determined. The State may withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State
deems necessary to protect the State, including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of
former lien holders, or to reimburse the State for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar
goods or services. Grantee shall be liable for excess costs incurred by the State in procuring
from third parties replacement Work, Services or substitute Goods as cover.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 11
B. Early Termination in the Public Interest
The State is entering into this Grant for the purpose of carrying out the public policy of the State of
Colorado, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, and/or courts. If this Grant ceases to
further the public policy of the State, the State, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Grant in whole
or in part. Exercise by the State of this right shall not constitute a breach of the State’s obligations
hereunder. This subsection shall not apply to a termination of this Grant by the State for cause or
breach by Grantee, which shall be governed by §15(A) or as otherwise specifically provided for herein.
i. Method and Content
The State shall notify Grantee of such termination in accordance with §16. The notice shall
specify the effective date of the termination and whether it affects all or a portion of this Grant.
ii. Obligations and Rights
Upon receipt of a termination notice, Grantee shall be subject to and comply with the same
obligations and rights set forth in §15(A)(i).
iii. Payments
If this Grant is terminated by the State pursuant to this §15(B), Grantee shall be paid an amount
which bears the same ratio to the total reimbursement under this Grant as the Services
satisfactorily performed bear to the total Services covered by this Grant, less payments
previously made. Additionally, if this Grant is less than 60% completed, the State may
reimburse Grantee for a portion of actual out-of-pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed
under this Grant) incurred by Grantee which are directly attributable to the uncompleted portion
of Grantee’s obligations hereunder; provided that the sum of any and all reimbursement shall
not exceed the maximum amount payable to Grantee hereunder.
C. Remedies Not Involving Termination
The State, in its sole discretion, may exercise one or more of the following remedies in addition to
other remedies available to it:
i. Suspend Performance
Suspend Grantee’s performance with respect to all or any portion of this Grant pending
necessary corrective action as specified by the State without entitling Grantee to an adjustment
in price/cost or performance schedule. Grantee shall promptly cease performance and incurring
costs in accordance with the State’s directive and the State shall not be liable for costs incurred
by Grantee after the suspension of performance under this provision.
ii. Withhold Payment
Withhold payment to Grantee until corrections in Grantee’s performance are satisfactorily made
and completed.
iii. Deny Payment
Deny payment for those obligations not performed, that due to Grantee’s actions or inactions,
cannot be performed or, if performed, would be of no value to the State; provided, that any
denial of payment shall be reasonably related to the value to the State of the obligations not
performed.
iv. Removal
Demand removal of any of Grantee’s employees, agents, or Subgrantees whom the State deems
incompetent, careless, insubordinate, unsuitable, or otherwise unacceptable, or whose continued
relation to this Grant is deemed to be contrary to the public interest or not in the State’s best
interest.
v. Intellectual Property
If Grantee infringes on a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property
right while performing its obligations under this Grant, Grantee shall, at the State’s option (a)
obtain for the State or Grantee the right to use such products and services; (b) replace any
Goods, Services, or other product involved with non-infringing products or modify them so that
they become non-infringing; or, (c) if neither of the foregoing alternatives are reasonably
available, remove any infringing Goods, Services, or products and refund the price paid
therefore to the State.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 12
16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES
Each individual identified below is the principal representative of the designating Party. All notices required
to be given hereunder shall be hand delivered with receipt required or sent by certified or registered mail to
such Party’s principal representative at the address set forth below. In addition to, but not in lieu of a hard-
copy notice, notice also may be sent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses, if any, set forth below. Either Party
may from time to time designate by written notice substitute addresses or persons to whom such notices
shall be sent. Unless otherwise provided herein, all notices shall be effective upon receipt.
A. State:
Andrew O'Connor, Grant Coordinator
Colorado Dept. of Transportation
4201 E. Arkansas Ave.
Shumate Building
Denver, CO 80222
andrew.oconnor@dot.state.co.us
B. Grantee:
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort Assistant
General Manager
City of Fort Collins
250 N. Mason Street
[Grantee Rep Address 2]
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
kravenschlag@fcgov.com
17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE
Any software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other documents, drawings, models,
materials, or Work Product of any type, including drafts, prepared by Grantee in the performance of its
obligations under this Grant shall be the exclusive property of the State and, all Work Product shall be
delivered to the State by Grantee upon completion or termination hereof. The State’s exclusive rights in
such Work Product shall include, but not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, and
prepare derivative works. Grantee shall not use, willingly allow, cause or permit such Work Product to be
used for any purpose other than the performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder without the prior written
consent of the State.
18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, nothing herein shall constitute a waiver, express or
implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the GIA. Liability for
claims for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the State of Colorado, its
departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials, and employees is controlled and limited by the
provisions of the GIA and the risk management statutes, CRS §24-30-1501, et seq., as amended.
19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
If the maximum amount payable to Grantee under this Grant is $100,000 or greater, either on the Effective
Date or at anytime thereafter, this §19 applies.
Grantee agrees to be governed, and to abide, by the provisions of CRS §24-102-205, §24-102-206, §24-103-
601, §24-103.5-101 and §24-105-102 concerning the monitoring of vendor performance on state Grants and
inclusion of Grant performance information in a statewide Contract Management System.
Grantee’s performance shall be subject to Evaluation and Review in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Grant, State law, including CRS §24-103.5-101, and State Fiscal Rules, Policies and
Guidance. Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance shall be part of the normal Grant administration
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 13
process and Grantee’s performance will be systematically recorded in the statewide Contract Management
System. Areas of Evaluation and Review shall include, but shall not be limited to quality, cost and
timeliness. Collection of information relevant to the performance of Grantee’s obligations under this Grant
shall be determined by the specific requirements of such obligations and shall include factors tailored to
match the requirements of Grantee’s obligations. Such performance information shall be entered into the
statewide Contract Management System at intervals established herein and a final Evaluation, Review and
Rating shall be rendered within 30 days of the end of the Grant term. Grantee shall be notified following
each performance Evaluation and Review, and shall address or correct any identified problem in a timely
manner and maintain work progress.
Should the final performance Evaluation and Review determine that Grantee demonstrated a gross failure to
meet the performance measures established hereunder, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department
of Personnel and Administration (Executive Director), upon request by CDOT and showing of good cause,
may debar Grantee and prohibit Grantee from bidding on future Grants. Grantee may contest the final
Evaluation, Review and Rating by: (a) filing rebuttal statements, which may result in either removal or
correction of the evaluation (CRS §24-105-102(6)), or (b) under CRS §24-105-102(6), exercising the
debarment protest and appeal rights provided in CRS §§24-109-106, 107, 201 or 202, which may result in
the reversal of the debarment and reinstatement of Grantee, by the Executive Director, upon a showing of
good cause.
20. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Assignment and Subgrants
Grantee’s rights and obligations hereunder are personal and may not be transferred, assigned or
subgranted without the prior, written consent of the State. Any attempt at assignment, transfer, or
subgranting without such consent shall be void. All assignments, subgrants, or Subgrantees approved
by Grantee or the State are subject to all of the provisions hereof. Grantee shall be solely responsible
for all aspects of subgranting arrangements and performance.
B. Binding Effect
Except as otherwise provided in §20(A), all provisions herein contained, including the benefits and
burdens, shall extend to and be binding upon the Parties’ respective heirs, legal representatives,
successors, and assigns.
C. Captions
The captions and headings in this Grant are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to
interpret, define, or limit its provisions.
D. Counterparts
This Grant may be executed in multiple identical original counterparts, all of which shall constitute one
agreement.
E. Entire Understanding
This Grant represents the complete integration of all understandings between the Parties and all prior
representations and understandings, oral or written, are merged herein. Prior or contemporaneous
additions, deletions, or other changes hereto shall not have any force or effect whatsoever, unless
embodied herein.
F. Indemnification-General
Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and
all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related
costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or
assignees pursuant to the terms of this Grant; however, the provisions hereof shall not be construed or
interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or
other provisions, of the GIA, or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC 2671 et seq., as applicable, as
now or hereafter amended.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 14
G. Jurisdiction and Venue
All suits, actions, or proceedings related to this Grant shall be held in the State of Colorado and
exclusive venue shall be in the City and County of Denver.
H. Modification
i. By the Parties
Except as specifically provided in this Grant, modifications of this Grant shall not be effective
unless agreed to in writing by the Parties in an amendment to this Grant, properly executed
and approved in accordance with applicable Colorado State law, State Fiscal Rules, and
Office of the State Controller Policies, including, but not limited to, the policy entitled
MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS - TOOLS AND FORMS.
ii. By Operation of Law
This Grant is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or
Colorado State law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification
automatically shall be incorporated into and be part of this Grant on the effective date of such
change, as if fully set forth herein.
I. Order of Precedence
The provisions of this Grant shall govern the relationship of the Parties. In the event of conflicts or
inconsistencies between this Grant and its exhibits and attachments including, but not limited to, those
provided by Grantee, such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents
in the following order of priority:
i. Colorado Special Provisions
ii. The Provision of the main body of this Grant
iii. Exhibit A (Scope of Work),
iv. Exhibit B (FASTER Program Requirements),
v. Any executed Option Letter, and
vi. Other Exhibits in descending order of their attachment.
J. Severability
Provided this Grant can be executed and performance of the obligations of the Parties accomplished
within its intent, the provisions hereof are severable and any provision that is declared invalid or
becomes inoperable for any reason shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof.
K. Survival of Certain Grant Terms
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, provisions of this Grant requiring continued
performance, compliance, or effect after termination hereof, shall survive such termination and shall be
enforceable by the State if Grantee fails to perform or comply as required.
L. Taxes
The State is exempt from all federal excise taxes under IRC Chapter 32 (No. 84-730123K) and from all
State and local government sales and use taxes under CRS §§39-26-101 and 201 et seq. Such
exemptions apply when materials are purchased or services rendered to benefit the State; provided
however, that certain political subdivisions (e.g., City of Denver) may require payment of sales or use
taxes even though the product or service is provided to the State. Grantee shall be solely liable for
paying such taxes as the State is prohibited from paying for or reimbursing Grantee for them.
M. Third Party Beneficiaries
Enforcement of this Grant and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely to the Parties,
and not to any third party. Any services or benefits which third parties receive as a result of this Grant
are incidental to the Grant, and do not create any rights for such third parties.
N. Waiver
Waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Grant, or any right or remedy
hereunder, whether explicitly or by lack of enforcement, shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver
of any subsequent breach of such term, provision or requirement, or of any other term, provision, or
requirement.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 15
O. CORA Disclosure
To the extent not prohibited by federal law, this Contract and the performance measures and standards
under CRS §24-103.5-101, if any, are subject to public release through the Colorado Open Records
Act, CRS §24-72-101, et seq.
21. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS
These Special Provisions apply to all Grants except where noted in italics.
A. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202 (1)
This Grant shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or
designee.
B. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5)
Financial obligations of the State payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that
purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available.
C. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
No term or condition of this Grant shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of
any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC §§1346(b) and 2671
et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended.
D. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Grantee shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an employee.
Neither Grantee nor any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of
the State. Grantee and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers
compensation benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such
coverage for Grantee or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be
available to Grantee and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Grantee
or a third party. Grantee shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and
local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Grant. Grantee shall not have authorization, express or
implied, to bind the State to any agreement, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth
herein. Grantee shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment
compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by
the State, and (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and agents.
E. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Grantee shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations in effect
or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair
employment practices.
F. CHOICE OF LAW
Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation,
execution, and enforcement of this grant. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference
which conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null and void. Any provision
incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other Special Provision in whole
or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of
complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this
provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this Grant, to the extent capable of execution.
G. BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED
The State of Colorado does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any
provision to the contrary in this Grant or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void.
H. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00
State or other public funds payable under this Grant shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or
maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing
restrictions. Grantee hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Grant and any
extensions, Grantee has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 16
improper use of public funds. If the State determines that Grantee is in violation of this provision, the
State may exercise any remedy available at law or in equity or under this Grant, including, without
limitation, immediate termination of this Grant and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws
or applicable licensing restrictions.
I. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST/CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201 and 24-50-
507
The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial
interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Grant. Grantee has no interest and shall
not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of Grantee’s services and Grantee shall not employ any person having such known
interests.
J. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4
[Not applicable to intergovernmental agreements] Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the State
Controller may withhold payment under the State’s vendor offset intercept system for debts owed to
State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or child support arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax,
accrued interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39-21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the
Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d) amounts required to be paid to the
Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing to the State as a result of final
agency determination or judicial action.
K. PUBLIC GRANTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101
[Not applicable to agreements relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment
advisory services or fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental agreements,
or information technology services or products and services] Grantee certifies, warrants, and agrees
that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this
Grant and will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for
employment in the United States to perform work under this Grant, through participation in the E-
Verify Program or the State program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c), Grantee shall not
knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant or enter into a
grant with a Subgrantee that fails to certify to Grantee that the Subgrantee shall not knowingly employ
or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant. Grantee (a) shall not use E-Verify
Program or State program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while
this Grant is being performed, (b) shall notify the Subgrantee and the granting State agency within
three days if Grantee has actual knowledge that a Subgrantee is employing or contracting with an
illegal alien for work under this Grant, (c) shall terminate the subgrant if a Subgrantee does not stop
employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice, and (d) shall
comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS
§8-17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Grantee participates in the
State program, Grantee shall deliver to the granting State agency, Institution of Higher Education or
political subdivision, a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Grantee has examined the legal
work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the State
program. If Grantee fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS §8-17.5-101 et seq.,
the granting State agency, institution of higher education or political subdivision may terminate this
Grant for breach and, if so terminated, Grantee shall be liable for damages.
L. PUBLIC GRANTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101
Grantee, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under
penalty of perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States
pursuant to federal law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has
produced one form of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this
Grant.
SPs Effective 1/1/09
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 17
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 18
22. SIGNATURE PAGE
Grant Routing Number 31824
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS GRANT
* Persons signing for Grantee hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Grantee’s behalf and acknowledge that
the State is relying on their representations to that effect.
GRANTEE
City of Fort Collins
By:
___________________________________________
Print Name of Authorized Individual
Title:
__________________________________________
Print Title of Authorized Individual
______________________________________________
*Signature
Date: _________________________
STATE OF COLORADO
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor
Colorado Department of Transportation
Donald E. Hunt – Executive Director
______________________________________________
By: Donald E. Hunt, CDOT Executive Director
Signatory avers to the State Controller or delegate that
Grantee has not begun performance or that a Statutory
Violation waiver has been requested under Fiscal Rules
Date: _________________________
2nd Grantee Signature if Needed
By:
______________________________________________
Print Name of Authorized Individual
Title:
______________________________________________
Print Title of Authorized Individual
______________________________________________
*Signature
Date: _________________________
LEGAL REVIEW
John W. Suthers, Attorney General
By:_______________________________________________
Signature - Assistant Attorney General
Date: _________________________
ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Grant is not valid until signed and dated below by
the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If Grantee begins performing
prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grantee for such performance or for any goods and/or services
provided hereunder.
STATE CONTROLLER
David J. McDermott, CPA
By: ___________________________________________
Colorado Department of Transportation
Date:_____________________
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit A-1
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK
FASTER Scope of Work Template
For Rolling Stock and Equipment Awards
Recipient Organization Information
Organization Name: The City of Fort Collins
DUNS number: 078362597
Project Contact Information
Kurt Ravenschlag
250 N. Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970)221-6386
(970)221-6285
kravenschlag@fcgov.com
Program Overview:
Transfort / Dial-A-Ride is Fort Collins’ public transportation system. Transfort averages over 2 million fixed
route trips per year on its system of 18 local routes (within the City of Fort Collins) and 1 regional route (FLEX)
to Longmont. Transfort / Dial-A-Ride operates from 6am to 7pm, Monday thru Saturday and provides night
service to its paratransit passengers until 11:00pm each night. Also, via funding from the Associated Students
of CSU organization, two of the fixed routes operate until 10pm each night. The City of Fort Collins is the
designated recipient for FTA Section 5307 urbanized formula funding for the North Front Range Transportation
Management Area. Transfort's vehicle fleet consists of 34 x heavy duty buses - 11 of which are powered by
Clean Natural Gas (CNG).
Project Overviews:
The City of Fort Collins is requesting FASTER funding for one 60’ articulated, compressed natrual gas vehicle
at the cost of $850,000. This 60’ articulated transit vehicle will be used in operations for the Mason Corridor
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). This project is scheduled to begin operations in 2013 and the vehicle acquisition
process can exceed eighteen months. This 60’ bus will be used in operations of the Mason BRT, and for
training prior to BRT opening day. We anticipate that the vehicle to be replaced is Unit # 47 - 1998 35' LF
Gillig Phantom (499,501 miles) - Vin # 15GCB2110W1088960, but the unit # may change, as vehicle
conditions warrant. The 60' bus will be stationed at Transfort's maintenance facility at Portner Road in Fort
Collins and will be retrofitted with an electronic farebox & video/audio surveillance prior to being put into
revenue service.
The City of Fort Collins has entered into an order agreement with National American Bus Industries, Inc.
(NABI) bus manufacture for the articulated CNG vehicles in preparation for the Mason Corridor BRT. This
agreement will be used to acquire the requested 60’ articulated bus.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit A-2
Project Milestones:
Grant Contract: Summer 2011
Vehicle Order Placed: Fall 2011
Delivery of bus: Fall 2012
Final Acceptance and Payment for bus Winter 2012
Bill CDOT for bus Winter 2012
Transit vehicle In Training Operations: Spring 2013
Final paperwork processed and Contract Close-Out: June 30, 2013
Project Budget and Funding
Budget for purchase is $850,000. $500,000 will come from FASTER State funds and the remaining $350,000
will be provided by Transfort's Capital Reserve fund, of which $350,000 has already been appropriated.
Procurement
The City of Fort Collins entered into a consortium bid with the City of Santa Monica, California. Each city
evaluated the bids and entered into their own purchase agreement with NABI, the selected vendor. This
purchase agreement was executed on April 15, 2010, and was completed using the City of Fort
Collins procurement procedures, adhering to all State of Colorado and Federal Transit Authority (FTA)
procurement requirements.
Ongoing Operational Funding
This vehicle is replacing a vehicle that has been in operation for 13 years. Operating expenses for the vehicles
are derived primarily from the City's General Fund and FTA Section 5307 urbanized area funding - preventive
maintenance activities. Transfort / Dial A Ride has been in operation since 1974. This vehicle will be used in
service six days per week, barring maintenance downtime.
Specific Project Elements
The Mason Corridor has a projected opening timeframe of Fall, 2013. This vehicle will initially be used as a
training vehicle before being placed in service in Fall, 2013.
Project Measurement and Certification
This vehicle is expected to travel approximately 40,000 revenue miles each year for at least 12 years in
accordance with the average standard life of this type of vehicle. Performance measurements will include
maintenance costs, ridership statistics, and safety of passengers.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-1
EXHIBIT B – FASTER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
1. PROJECT PAYMENT PROVISIONS
A. The State will reimburse the Grantee for incurred costs relative to the Project following the State's
review and approval of such charges, subject to the terms and conditions of this Grant. Provided,
however, that charges incurred by the Grantee prior to the Effective Date of this Grant will not be
charged by the Grantee to the Project, and will not be reimbursed by the State.
B. The State will reimburse the Grantee’s reasonable, allocable, allowable costs of performance of the
Work, not exceeding the maximum total of this Grant. The applicable principles described in Exhibit D
shall govern the allowability and allocability of costs under this Grant. The Grantee shall comply with
all such principles. To be eligible for reimbursement, costs by the Grantee shall be:
i. in accordance with the provisions, terms and conditions of this Grant;
ii. necessary for the accomplishment of the Work;
iii. reasonable in the amount for the Goods and Services provided;
iv. actual net cost to the Grantee (i.e. the price paid minus any refunds, rebates, or other items of
value received by the Grantee that have the effect of reducing the cost actually incurred);
v. incurred for Work performed after the Effective Date of this Grant; and
vi. satisfactorily documented.
Examples of ineligible costs include:
i. Staff or administrative overhead costs of the Grantee, unless specifically allowed for in the
Scope of Work;
ii. Fines and penalties; and
iii. Entertainment expenses.
C. The Grantee shall establish and maintain a proper accounting system in accordance with generally
accepted accounting standards and principles (a separate set of accounts, or as a separate and integral
part of its current accounting scheme) to assure that Grant Funds are expended and costs accounted for
in a manner consistent with this Grant and Project objectives:
i. All allowable costs charged to the Project, including any approved services contributed by the
Grantee or others, shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices,
grants or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature of the charges.
ii. Any check or order drawn up by the Grantee, including any item which is or will be chargeable
against the Project account shall be drawn up only in accordance with a properly signed
voucher then on file in the office of the Grantee, which will detail the purpose for which said
check or order is drawn. All checks, payrolls, invoices, grants, vouchers, orders or other
accounting documents shall be clearly identified, readily accessible, and to the extent feasible,
kept separate and apart from all other such documents.
D. The Grantee will prepare and submit to the State, no more than monthly, charges for costs incurred
relative to the Project. The Grantee’s invoices shall include a description of the amounts of Services
performed, the dates of performance and the amounts and description of reimbursable expenses. The
invoices will be prepared in accordance with the State’s standard policies, procedures and standardized
billing format to be supplied by the State.
E. To be eligible for payment, billings must be received within 60 days after the period for which payment
is being requested and final billings on this Grant must be received by the State within 60 days after
termination of this Grant.
i. Payments pursuant to this Grant shall be made in whole or in part, from available funds,
encumbered for the purchase of the described services. If this Grant is terminated, final
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-2
payment to the Grantee may be withheld at the discretion of the State until completion of final
audit.
2. STATE AND GRANTEE COMMITMENTS
CDOT and the Grantee also agree to ensure the Project is completed within the applicable design and
construction standards in accordance with Exhibit F-State and Grantee Commitments.
3. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
The Grantee agrees to carry out its procurements consistent with the general procurement standards of the
State. The Grantee agrees to follow the general procurement standards set forth in Exhibit E.
4. CONFORMANCE WITH LAW
The Grantee and its agent(s) will adhere to all applicable state and federal laws, Executive Orders and
implementing regulations as they currently exist and may hereafter be amended. Further, the Grantee agrees
to comply with the intent and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regardless of
whether or not there is federal funding involved, as is consistent with CDOT’s Environmental Stewardship
Guide.
5. NON DISCRIMINATION
The Grantee agrees to comply with and ensure any Subgrantees comply with, the requirements of:
A. The American with Disabilities Act, Title II, and its implementing regulations--28 CFR Part 35, and 49
CFR parts 27, 37 and 38; and
B. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VI and VII, and their implementing regulations.
6. STATE INTEREST This section applies if box checked
The Grantee understands and agrees that the State retains a State interest in any real property, or equipment
financed with State assistance (Project property) until, and to the extent that the State relinquishes its State
interest in that Project property, as described in Exhibit A. All State interests in real property or equipment
shall survive termination, expiration or cancellation of this Grant. With respect to any Project property
financed with State assistance under this Grant, the Grantee agrees to comply with the following:
A. Use of Project Property. The Grantee agrees to use Project property for appropriate Project purposes
for the duration of the useful life of that property, as required by the State and set forth in the scope.
Should the Grantee unreasonably delay or fail to use Project property during the useful life of that
property, the Grantee agrees that it may be required to return the entire amount of the State assistance
expended on that property. The Grantee further agrees to notify the State immediately when any Project
property is withdrawn from Project use or when any Project property is used in a manner substantially
different from the representations the Grantee has made to CDOT.
B. Maintenance. The Grantee agrees to maintain Project property in good operating order to the State’s
satisfaction.
C. Records. The Grantee agrees to keep satisfactory records pertaining to the use of Project property, and
submit to the State upon request such information as may be required to assure compliance with this
Section.
D. Encumbrance of Project Property. The Grantee agrees to maintain satisfactory continuing control of
Project property as follows:
i. Written Transactions. The Grantee agrees that it will not execute any transfer of title, lease, lien,
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-3
pledge, mortgage, encumbrance, third party grant, subgrant, grant anticipation note, alienation,
innovative finance arrangement (such as a cross border lease, leveraged lease, or otherwise), or
any other obligation pertaining to Project property, that in any way would affect the continuing
State interest in that Project property.
ii. Oral Transactions. The Grantee agrees that it will not obligate itself in any manner to any third
party with respect to Project property.
iii. Other Actions. The Grantee agrees that it will not take any action adversely affecting the State
interest in or impair the Grantee's continuing control of the use of Project property.
E. Transfer of Project Property. The Grantee understands and agrees as follows:
i. Grantee Request. The Grantee may transfer any Project property financed with State assistance
to another public body or private nonprofit entity to be used for the same purpose set forth
herein with no further obligation to the State Government, provided the transfer is approved by
the State in writing.
ii. State Government Direction. The Grantee agrees that the State may direct the disposition of,
and even require the Grantee to transfer, title to any Project property financed with State
assistance under this Grant if it is found that the Project property is not being used for the
intended purpose as stated in the Scope of Work.
iii. Leasing Project Property to Another Party. If the Grantee leases any Project property to another
party, the Grantee agrees to retain ownership of the leased Project property, and assure that the
lessee will use the Project property appropriately, either through a written lease between the
Grantee and lessee, or another similar document, consistent with the Project purpose set forth
herein. Upon request by the State, the Grantee agrees to provide a copy of any relevant
documents.
F. Disposition of Project Property. The Grantee agrees that the State may establish the useful life of
Project property, and that it will use Project property continuously and appropriately throughout the
useful life of that property.
i. Project Property Prematurely Withdrawn from Use. For Project property withdrawn from
appropriate use before its useful life has expired, the Grantee agrees as follows:
c) Notification Requirement. The Grantee agrees to notify the State immediately when any
Project property is prematurely withdrawn from appropriate use, whether by planned
withdrawal, misuse, or casualty loss.
d) Calculating the Fair Market Value of Prematurely Withdrawn Project Property. The
Grantee agrees that the State retains a State interest in the fair market value of Project
property prematurely withdrawn from appropriate use. The amount of the State interest
in the Project property shall be determined by the ratio of the State assistance awarded
for the property to the actual cost of the property. The Grantee agrees that the fair
market value of Project property prematurely withdrawn from use will be calculated as
follows:
(1) Equipment. The Grantee agrees that the fair market value of Project equipment
and supplies shall be calculated by straight-line depreciation of that property,
based on the useful life of the equipment as established or approved by the
State. The fair market value of Project equipment shall be the value
immediately before the occurrence prompting the withdrawal of the equipment
or supplies from appropriate use. In the case of Project equipment lost or
damaged by fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the fair market value shall be
calculated on the basis of the condition of that equipment or supplies
immediately before the fire, casualty, or natural disaster, irrespective of the
extent of insurance coverage.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-4
(2) Real Property. The Grantee agrees that the fair market value of real property
shall be determined either by competent appraisal based on an appropriate date
approved by the State, or by straight line depreciation, whichever is greater.
(3) Exceptional Circumstances. The Grantee agrees that the State may require the
use of another method to determine the fair market value of Project property. In
unusual circumstances, the Grantee may request that another reasonable
valuation method be used including, but not limited to, accelerated
depreciation, comparable sales, or established market values. In determining
whether to approve such a request, the State may consider any action taken,
omission made, or unfortunate occurrence suffered by the Grantee with respect
to the preservation of Project property withdrawn from appropriate use.
e) Financial Obligations to the State. The Grantee agrees to remit to the State the State
interest in the fair market value of any Project property prematurely withdrawn from
appropriate use. In the case of fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the Grantee may fulfill
its obligations to remit the State interest by either:
(1) Investing an amount equal to the remaining State interest in like-kind property
that is eligible for assistance within the scope of the Project that provided State
assistance for the Project property prematurely withdrawn from use; or
(2) Returning to the State an amount equal to the remaining State interest in the
withdrawn Project property.
G. State Interest-Project. The State shall protect its interest in the equipment being obtained with Grant
Funds.
H. Insurance Proceeds. If the Grantee receives insurance proceeds as a result of damage or destruction to
the Project property, the Grantee agrees to:
i. Apply those insurance proceeds to the cost of replacing the damaged or destroyed Project
property taken out of service, or
ii. Return to the State an amount equal to the remaining State interest, based on straight line
depreciation, in the damaged or destroyed Project property.
I. Misused or Damaged Project Property. If any damage to Project property results from abuse or
misuse occurring with the Grantee's knowledge and consent, the Grantee agrees to restore the Project
property to its original condition or refund the value of the State interest, based on straight line
depreciation, in that property, as the State may require.
J. Responsibilities After Project Closeout. The Grantee agrees that Project closeout by the State will
not change the Grantee’s Project property management responsibilities as stated in this Section of the
Grant.
7. RAILROADS This section applies if box checked
In the event the Project involves modification of a railroad company’s facilities whereby the Work is to be
accomplished by railroad company forces, the Grantee shall make timely application to the Public Utilities
Commission requesting its order providing for the installation of the proposed improvements and not proceed
with that part of the Work without compliance. The Grantee shall also establish contact with the railroad
company involved for the purpose of complying with applicable provisions of 23 CFR 646, subpart B,
concerning State or Federal-aid projects involving railroad facilities, including:
A. Executing an agreement setting out what work is to be accomplished and the location(s) thereof, and
that the costs of the improvement shall be eligible for federal participation.
B. Obtaining the railroad’s detailed estimate of the cost of the Work.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-5
C. Establishing future maintenance responsibilities for the proposed installation.
D. Proscribing future use or dispositions of the proposed improvements in the event of abandonment or
elimination of a grade crossing.
E. Establishing future repair and/or replacement responsibilities in the event of accidental destruction or
damage to the installation.
8. UTILITIES, ACCESS, RIGHT OF WAY This section applies if box checked
A. Utilities. If necessary, the Grantee will be responsible for obtaining the proper clearance or approval
from any utility company, local, State, or federal government agency, or other entity which may become
involved in this Project. CDOT will reasonably assist Grantee in this regard in all cases in which CDOT
is in a unique position to do so, provided that in no case will CDOT be required to expend State funds to
provide such assistance. Prior to this Project being advertised for bids, the Grantee will certify in writing
to the State that all such clearances have been obtained.
B. Access. The Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining an access permit from CDOT Region
offices. The Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining a use and occupancy permit from the State. Prior
to this Project being advertised for bids, the Grantee will certify in writing to the State that all such
clearances have been obtained.
C. Right of Way. The parties acknowledge that the Project is for the mutual benefit of the Grantee and
CDOT, and that it shall be constructed on State right of way. As a result of the Project being constructed
on State right of way, the Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining an approved Interchange Approval
consistent with CDOT Policy Directive 1601. The Grantee shall also be responsible for executing a
grant with CDOT that addresses how construction oversight shall be coordinated and carried out.
If the Project includes right of way, prior to this Project being advertised for bids, the Grantee will
certify in writing to the State that all right of way has been acquired in accordance with the applicable
State and federal regulations, or that no additional right of way is required.
Any acquisition/relocation activities must comply with all federal and state statutes, regulations, CDOT
policies and procedures, 49 CFR Part 24, the Uniform Act government-wide regulation-, the FHWA
“Project Development Guide” and CDOT’s “Right of Way Operations Manual”.
Allocation of responsibilities can be as follows:
• Federal participation in right of way acquisition (3111 charges), relocation (3109 charges) activities,
if any, and right of way incidentals (expenses incidental to acquisition/relocation of right of way –
3114 charges);
• Federal participation in right of way acquisition (3111 charges), relocation (3109 charges) but no
participation in incidental expenses (3114 charges); or
• No federal participation in right of way acquisition (3111 charges) and relocation activities (3109
expenses).
Regardless of the option selected above, the State retains oversight responsibilities. The Grantee’s and the
State’s responsibilities for each option is specifically set forth in CDOT’s Right of Way Operation Manual.
The manual is located at http://www.dot.state.co.us/ROW_Manual/.
9. DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (“DBE”) EFFORTS
The State encourages the Grantee to utilize small businesses owned by minorities, women and
disadvantaged individuals to the greatest extent possible without sacrificing adequate competition. The
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-6
Grantee is reminded of the illegality of discrimination and of the need to take all necessary and reasonable
steps to ensure non-discrimination in the area of contracting and procurement and to create a level playing
field where small minority, women, and disadvantaged businesses can compete fairly in CDOT assisted
contracts and procurements. This policy specifically upholds the Transportation Commission’s commitment
to fair and equitable business practices and is supported by CDOT’s small business development programs.
The CDOT Center for Equal Opportunity (EO) can provide lists of qualified DBE/MBE/WBE vendors as
well as other technical assistance. Inquiries can be directed to the Director of Center for Equal Opportunity
or Business Team Supervisor at 303-757-9234.
10. MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS This section applies if box checked
The Grantee will maintain and operate the improvements constructed under this Grant at its own cost and
expense during their useful life, in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the State. The Grantee will make
proper provisions for such maintenance obligations each year. Such maintenance and operations shall be
conducted in accordance with all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations which define the Grantee’s
obligations to maintain such improvements. The State may make periodic inspections of the Project to
verify that such improvements are being adequately maintained.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit C-1
EXHIBIT C – GRANTEE PAYMENT CHECKLIST
Grantee Payment Checklist 01/19/2011
This checklist is to assist the Grantee in preparation of its billing packets to CDOT. This checklist is
provided as guidance and is subject to change by CDOT. CDOT shall provide notice of any such changes
to Grantee. All items may not apply to your particular entity. CDOT’s goal is to reimburse Grantees as
quickly as possible and a well organized and complete billing packet helps to expedite payment.
Information to be included on the Invoice from the Grantee:
PO Number
WBS
Section/Program Number
Name
Address
Phone Number
Invoice Number
Billing Period
Total Amount of Grant, Previous Grant Balance, Total Eligible Expenses, Federal Share, Local
Fund, New Grant Balance and Total Amount to be Reimbursed to Grantee
Signature of Grantee Financial Representative
Copies of invoices from the Grantee Subgrantees (Tier I and some Tier IIs)
Include a copy of the specific document the Subgrantee used to invoice the Grantee. The Grantee is
responsible for ensuring that the backup matches the invoice and is eligible for reimbursement.
The CDOT grant manager will review and determine if the Grantee expenses are eligible for
reimbursement.
If the Grantee pays the Subgrantee a discounted amount, the full amount cannot be reimbursed to
the Grantee. The Grantee will only be reimbursed up to the actual amount paid to the Grantee’s
Subgrantee.
Please ensure that all payment vouchers include some notation of when it was paid or approved for
payment.
Invoice(s) should match the check amount. An additional explanation and documentation is required
for any variances.
Estimates, statements and emails are not acceptable in lieu of an invoice copy.
Copies of checks (All Tiers)
All of the following are acceptable - copies of checks, check registers, approved accounting system
generated expenditure ledgers showing the amount paid, the check number or electronic funds
transfer (“EFT”) and the date paid.
CDOT needs to ensure that expenditures incurred by the Grantee have been paid by the Grantee
before CDOT is invoiced by the Grantee.
Expenditure ledger (All Tiers)
An expenditure ledger needs to be submitted from the Grantee’s financial accounting system. The
report should display the accounting system information, date of the report, accounting period,
current period transactions, and the account coding for all incurred expenditures. Excel spreadsheets
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit C-2
are not approved expenditure reports. However, an additional excel spreadsheet may be required in
order to explain any variances between the expenditure and the amount eligible for reimbursement.
CFR 49 part 18 Section 18.20 Standards for Financial Management Systems, requires theGrantee to
have approved accounting systems so this should not be difficult to generate by cost center specific
to the reimbursable Project. The expenditure report is a good summary page if there is substantial
documentation.
If the Grantee has copies of the invoice(s) and check(s), you do not need the expenditure ledger
also, but the invoices must be marked as approved for payment.
Timesheets (Tier I and some Tier IIs)
Timesheets should show a breakdown of all hours and all Projects worked for the day, week, month
or time collection period. The timesheet must also be signed or approved either in ink or
electronically. If an electronic approval occurs, the supervisors’ signature will be required on the
electronic time report submitted for reimbursement.
Backup documentation for payroll expenses includes the timesheet, an hourly or salary rate and a
payroll ledger indicating total hours, wages, and benefits. If there is sensitive information such as
social security numbers or addresses, please block or delete that information prior to submitting it.
In kind match – If a Grantee wishes to use in-kind match, it must be approved by CDOT prior to any
work taking place. (All Tiers)
If an in kind match is being used for the local funds the in-kind portion of the Project must be
included in the scope of work attached to the Grant or purchase order. FTA does not require pre-
approval of inkind, but FHWA and CDOT do.
Documentation such as an invoice copy, time sheet, etc. is still required for all in-kind transactions.
The documentation varies depending on the source of the in-kind.
Expenditure ledger from the Grantee must also show the in kind match in their general ledger.
If the Grantee is using in kind match, they also need to attach a drawdown schedule indicating how
much in-kind match was received, the date they received it, how much has been applied to the
current invoice and how much has been carried forward. The carry forward balance for in-kind
expires when the Grant term expires.
Full documentation will be required on the use of in-kind match, regardless of the Tier held by the
Grantee.
Indirect costs- If a Grantee wishes to use indirect costs, the rate must be approved by CDOT prior to
applying it to the reimbursements (All Tiers)
If indirect costs are being requested, please submit an approved indirect letter provided by either CDOT or
another State of Colorado agency. The letter must state what indirect costs are allowed, the approved rate
and the time period for the approval. The indirect cost plan must be reconciled annually and an updated
letter submitted each year thereafter.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit D-1
EXHIBIT D – C-49 CFR 18 SUBPART C
This Exhibit D includes select applicable provisions as they exist or as of the Effective Date. Grantee is
responsible for compliance with all State and federal laws, rules and regulations as they currently exist
and may hereafter be amended.
Financial Administration
Sec. 18.20 Standards for financial management systems.
(a) A State must expend and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and procedures for
expending and accounting for its own funds. Fiscal control and accounting procedures of the State, as
well as its subgrantees and cost-type contractors, must be sufficient to-
(1) Permit preparation of reports required by this part and the statutes authorizing the grant, and
(2) Permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have not
been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes.
(b) The financial management systems of other grantees and subgrantees must meet the following
standards:
(1) Financial reporting. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of financially-
assisted activities must be made in accordance with the financial reporting requirements of the grant or
subgrant.
(2) Accounting records. Grantees and subgrantees must maintain records which adequately identify the
source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities. These records must contain
information pertaining to grant or subgrant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated
balances, assets, liabilities, outlays or expenditures, and income.
(3) Internal control. Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant
cash, real and personal property, and other assets. Grantees and subgrantees must adequately safeguard
all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes.
(4) Budget control. Actual expenditures or outlays must be compared with budgeted amounts for each
grant or subgrant. Financial information must be related to performance or productivity data, including
the development of unit cost information whenever appropriate or specifically required in the grant or
subgrant agreement. If unit cost data are required, estimates based on available documentation will be
accepted whenever possible.
(5) Allowable cost. Applicable OMB cost principles, agency program regulations, and the terms of grant
and subgrant agreements will be followed in determining the reasonableness, allowability, and
allocability of costs.
(6) Source documentation. Accounting records must be supported by such source documentation as
cancelled checks, paid bills, payrolls, time and attendance records, contract and subgrant award
documents, etc.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit D-2
Sec. 18.22 Allowable costs.
(a) Limitation on use of funds. Grant funds may be used only for:
(1) The allowable costs of the grantees, subgrantees and cost-type contractors, including allowable costs
in the form of payments to fixed-price contractors; and
(2) Reasonable fees or profit to cost-type contractors but not any fee or profit (or other increment above
allowable costs) to the grantee or subgrantee.
(b) Applicable cost principles. For each kind of organization, there is a set of federal principles for determining
allowable costs. Allowable costs will be determined in accordance with the cost principles applicable to the
organization incurring the costs. The following chart lists the kinds of organizations and the applicable cost
principles.
For the costs of a Use the principles in--
State, local or Indian tribal government. OMB Circular A-87.
Private nonprofit organization other than an (1) institution of
higher education, (2) hospital, or (3) organization named in
OMB Circular A122 as not subject to that circular.
OMB Circular A-122.
Educational institutions. OMB Circular A-21.
For-profit organization other than a hospital and an
organization named in OMB Circular A122 as not subject to
that circular.
48 CFR part 31. Contract Cost Principles and
Procedures, or uniform cost accounting
standards that comply with cost principles
acceptable to the federal agency.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – orignated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit E-1
EXHIBIT E – GENERAL PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
This Exhibit E includes select applicable provisions as they exist or as of the Effective Date. Grantee is
responsible for compliance with all State and federal laws, rules and regulations as they currently exist
and may hereafter be amended.
General Procurement Standards
1. Maintain a contract administration system which ensures that contractors perform in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the contract or purchase order.
2. Maintain a written code of standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees
engaged in the award and administration of contracts.
3. Maintain procedures that provide for the review of proposed procurements to avoid purchase of
unnecessary or duplicative items.
4. Use value engineering clauses in contracts for construction projects of sufficient size to offer
reasonable opportunities for cost reductions.
5. Make awards only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under
the terms and conditions of the proposed procurement. Consideration shall be given to such matters
as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and
technical resources.
6. Maintain records sufficient to detail the significant history of the procurement. Including:
a. Rationale for the method of procurement;
b. Selection of contract type;
c. Contractor selection or rejection;
d. Basis for the contract price; and
e. Other.
7. Maintain protest procedures to handle and resolve disputes relating to procurements.
8. All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition.
9. Maintain written selection procedures for procurement transactions.
10. Ensure that all pre-qualified list of persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods
and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum open and free
competition.
11. Method of procurements to be followed:
a. Small Purchase – is a relatively simple and informal procurement method for securing services,
supplies, or other property that do not cost more than $150,000.00. If small purchase procedures
are used, price or rate quotation shall be obtained from at lease three sources. Quotations will be
in writing if for goods in excess of $10,000 and if for services in excess of $25,000.00.
b. Formal Sealed Bids –are publicly solicited and a firm-fixed-prices (lump sum or unit price) is
awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and
conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. This method is preferred for
procuring construction. If this method is used, the following requirements apply:
i. Must be publicly advertised;
ii. Must give at least 14 days for bidders to respond;
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit E-2
iii. Must include any specifications and pertinent attachments to all bidders to respond
properly;
iv. All bids will be publicly opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for
bid;
v. A firm fixed-price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder; and
vi. Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason.
c. Competitive Proposals – are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of
sealed bids. If this method is used, the following requirements apply:
i. Request for proposals will be publicized;
ii. Identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance;
iii. Proposals will be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources;
iv. Have a method for conducting technical evaluation of the proposals received and for
selecting awardees;
v. Awards will be made to the responsible firm whose proposal is most advantageous to
the program, with price and other factors considered; and
vi. May be used for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering
professional services whereby competitors’ qualifications are evaluated and the most
qualified competitor is selected. Note – the method, where price is not used as a
selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot
be used to purchase other types of services through A/E firms. See also Exhibit I for
procurement of A/E professional services.
d. Noncompetitive Proposals - may be used only when the award of a contract is infeasible under
the other three methods and the following circumstances applies:
i. The item is available only from a single source;
ii. The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting
from competitive solicitation;
iii. The awarding agency authorizes noncompetitive proposals; or
iv. After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
12. Small, Minority and Women owned business enterprise and labor surplus area firms – In accordance
with Exhibit B, Section 9 take affirmative steps to assure that minority and women business
enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible.
i. Placing qualified firms on solicitation lists;
ii. Assuring that firms are solicited whenever they are potential sources;
iii. Dividing total quantities to permit maximum participation;
iv. Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage
participation by S/M/W owned firms; and
v. Using the services of the Small Business Administration, Minority Business
Development Agency of the Department of Commerce, the CDOT EO office or other
agencies that qualify S/M/W owned firms.
13. Bonding requirements – For construction or facility improvement contracts or subcontracts
exceeding $100,000.00.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – orignated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit F-1
EXHIBIT F – STATE AND GRANTEE COMMITMENTS
A. Design This section applies if box checked
1. Work including preliminary design or final design (the “Construction Plans”), design work sheets,
or special provisions and estimates (collectively referred to as the “Plans”), requires that the Grantee
comply with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. perform or provide the Plans, to the extent required by the nature of the Work;
b. prepare final design (Construction Plans) in accord with the requirements of the latest edition of
the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) manual or
other standard, such as the Uniform Building Code, as approved by CDOT;
c. prepare special provisions and estimates in accord with the State’s Roadway and Bridge Design
Manuals and Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction or Grantee
specifications if approved by CDOT;
d. include details of any required detours in the Plans, in order to prevent any interference of the
construction Work and to protect the traveling public;
e. stamp the Plans produced by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer;
f. provide final assembly of Plans and Grant documents;
g. be responsible for the Plans being accurate and complete; and
h. make no further changes in the Plans following the award of the construction contract except in
writing approved by all the Parties. The Plans shall be considered final when approved and
accepted by the Parties hereto, and when final they shall be deemed incorporated herein.
2. Grantee:
a. shall comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and
applicable federal regulations and standards as contained in the document “ADA Accessibility
Requirements in CDOT Transportation Projects”;
b. (If applicable) shall afford the State ample opportunity to review the Plans and make any
changes in the Plans that are directed by the State to comply with FHWA requirements.
c. may enter into a contract with a Subgrantee to do all or any portion of the Plans and/or of
construction administration. Provided, however, that if State funds are involved in the cost of
such work to be done by a Subgrantee, that Subgrantee subgrant (and the performance/provision
of the Plans under the subgrant) must comply with all applicable requirements of 23 CFR Part
172 and with any procedures implementing those requirements as provided by the State,
including those in this Grant. If the Grantee does enter into a subgrant with a Subgrantee for the
Work:
(1) Grantee shall submit a certification that procurement of any design Subgrantee subgrant
complied with the requirements of 23 CFR 172.5(1) prior to entering into subgrant. The
State shall either approve or deny such procurement. If denied, the Grantee may not enter
into the subgrant.
(2) Grantee shall ensure that all changes in the Subgrantee subgrant have prior approval by the
State. Such changes in the subgrant shall be by written supplement grant. As soon as the
subgrant with the Subgrantee has been awarded by the Grantee, one copy of the executed
subgrant shall be submitted to the State. Any amendments to such subgrant shall also be
submitted.
(3) it shall require that all Subgrantee billings under that subgrant shall comply with the State’s
standardized billing format. Examples of the billing formats are available from the CDOT
Agreements Office.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit F-2
(4) it (or its Subgrantee) shall use the CDOT procedures described to administer that design
Subgrantee subgrant, to comply with 23 CFR 172.5(b) and (d).
(5) it may expedite any CDOT approval of its procurement process and/or Subgrantee subgrant
by submitting a letter to CDOT from the certifying Grantee’s attorney/authorized
representative certifying compliance with 23 CFR 172.5(b) and (d).
(6) it shall ensure that its Subgrantee subgrant complies with the requirements of 49 CFR
18.36(i) and contains the following language verbatim:
(a) “The design work under this Grant shall be compatible with the requirements of the
Grant between the Grantee and the State (which is incorporated herein by this
reference) for the design/construction of the Project. The State is an intended third party
beneficiary of this subgrant for that purpose.”
(b) “Upon advertisement of the Project work for construction, the Subgrantee shall make
available services as requested by the State to assist the State in the evaluation of
construction and the resolution of construction problems that may arise during the
construction of the Project.”
(c) “The Subgrantee shall review the construction Subgrantee’s shop drawings for
conformance with the subgrant documents and compliance with the provisions of the
State’s publication, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, in
connection with this work.”
d. The State, in its discretion, will review construction plans, special provisions and estimates and
will cause the Grantee to make changes therein that the State determines are necessary to ensure
compliance with State and federal requirements.
B. Construction This section applies if box checked
1. Work including construction requires that, the Grantee perform the construction and construction
administration in accordance with the approved Plans and CDOT oversight. Such administration
shall include Project inspection and testing; approving sources of materials; performing required
plant and shop inspections; documentation of grant payments, testing and inspection activities;
preparing and approving pay estimates; preparing, approving and securing the funding for Grant
modification orders and minor subgrant revisions; processing Subgrantee claims; construction
supervision; and meeting the Quality Control requirements of CDOT which can be found in the
FHWA and CDOT Stewardship agreement located at:
http://www.coloradodot.info/business/permits/accesspermits/references/stewardship-agreement.pdf.
2. The State shall have the authority to suspend the Work, wholly or in part, by giving written notice
thereof to the Grantee, due to the failure of the Grantee or its Subgrantee to correct Project
conditions which are unsafe for workers or for such periods as the State may deem necessary due to
unsuitable weather, or for conditions considered unsuitable for the prosecution of the Work, or for
any other condition or reason deemed by the State to be in the public interest.
3. Grantee:
a. shall appoint a qualified professional engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado, as the Grantee
Project Engineer (“LAPE”), to perform that administration. The LAPE shall administer the
Project in accordance with this Grant, the requirements of the construction subgrant and
applicable State procedures.
b. if bids are to be let for the construction of the Project, it shall advertise the call for bids upon
approval by the State and award the construction subgrant(s) to the low responsible bidder(s)
upon approval by the State.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – orignated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit F-3
(1) In advertising and awarding the bid for the construction, the Grantee shall comply with
applicable requirements of 23 USC §112, 23 CFR Parts 633 and 635, and CRS §24-92-101
et seq. Those requirements include, without limitation, that the Grantee/Subgrantee shall
comply with terms and conditions as required by 23 CFR §633.102(e).
(2) The Grantee has the option to accept or reject the proposal of the apparent low bidder for
work on which competitive bids have been received. The Grantee must declare the
acceptance or rejection within 3 working days after said bids are publicly opened.
(3) By indicating its concurrence in such award, the Grantee, acting by or through its duly
authorized representatives, agrees to provide additional funds, subject to their availability
and appropriation for that purpose, if required to complete the Work under this Project if no
additional State funds will be made available for the Project. This paragraph also applies to
Projects advertised and awarded by the State.
c. If all or part of the construction Work is to be accomplished by Grantee personnel (i.e. by force
account), rather than by a competitive bidding process, the Grantee will ensure that all such
force account work is accomplished in accordance with the pertinent State specifications and
requirements with 23 CFR Part 635, Subpart B, Force Account Construction.
(1) Such Work will normally be based upon estimated quantities and firm unit prices agreed to
between the Grantee, the State and FHWA (if needed) in advance of the Work, as provided
for in 23 CFR §635.204(c). Such agreed unit prices shall constitute a commitment as to the
value of the Work to be performed.
(2) An alternative to the above is that the Grantee may agree to participate in the Work based
on actual costs of labor, equipment rental, materials supplies and supervision necessary to
complete the Work. Where actual costs are used, eligibility of cost items shall be evaluated
for compliance with 48 CFR Part 31.
(3) Rental rates for publicly owned equipment will be determined in accordance with the
State’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction §109.04.
(4) All force account work shall have prior approval of the State and/or FHWA (if needed) and
shall not be initiated until the State has issued a written notice to proceed.
C. State’s Obligations
1. The State will perform a final Project inspection prior to Project acceptance as a “Quality
Control/Assurance” activity. When all Work has been satisfactorily completed, the State will sign
the CDOT Form 1212 (for FHWA), if applicable.
2. Notwithstanding any consents or approvals given by the State for the Plans, the State will not be
liable or responsible in any manner for the structural design, details or construction of any major
structures that are designed by or are the responsibility of the Grantee within the Work of this Grant.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit G-1
EXHIBIT G – OPTION LETTER
NOTE: This option is limited to the specific scenarios listed below AND cannot be used in place of exercising a
formal amendment.
SAP PO# Origianl CMS Option Letter No. CMS #
Contractor / Grantee : _________________________________________________
A. SUBJECT: (Choose applicable options listed below AND in section B and delete the rest)
1. Option to renew (for an additional term); this renewal cannot be used to make any change to the
original scope of work; and
2. Option to initiate next phase to include Design, Construction, Environmental, Utilities, ROW ONLY
(does not apply to Acquisition/Relocation or Railroads);
B. REQUIRED PROVISIONS. All Option Letters shall contain the appropriate provisions set forth below:
(Insert the following language for use with Option #1): In accordance with Paragraph(s) __________ of grant
routing number (insert FY, Agency code, & CLIN routing #), between the State of Colorado, Department of
Transportation, and (insert Grantees name) the State hereby exercises the option for an additional term of (insert
performance period here) at a cost/price specified in Paragraph/Section/Provision ________________ of the
original grant, AND/OR an increase in the amount of goods/services at the same rate(s) as specified in
Paragraph ______________________ of the original grant.
(Insert the following language for use with Option #2): In accordance with the terms of the original grant
(insert FY, Agency code & CLIN routing #) between the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation and
(insert Grantee’s name here), the State hereby exercises the option to initiate the phase in (indicate Fiscal Year
here) that will include (describe which phase will be added and include all that apply – Design, Construction,
Environmental, Utilities, ROW incidentals or Miscellaneous). Total funds for this Grant remain the same
(indicate total dollars here) as referenced in Paragraph/Section/Provision/Exhibit ________________of the
original grant.
(The following language must be included on all options): The amount of the current Fiscal Year grant value
is (increased/decreased) by ($ amount of change) to a new Grant value of ($_____________) to satisfy
services/goods ordered under the grant for the current fiscal year (indicate Fiscal Year). The first sentence in
Paragraph/Section/Provision ____________ is hereby modified accordingly. The total grant value to include all
previous amendments, option letters, etc. is ($______________). The effective date of this Option Letter is upon
approval of the State Controller or delegate, whichever is later.
State of Colorado:
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor
By: _____________________________________________ Date: __________________
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation
ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Option Letter is not valid until signed and dated
below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If Grantee begins
performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grantee for such performance or for any goods and/or
services provided hereunder.
B. STATE CONTROLLER
David J. McDermott, CPA
By:___________________________________________
Controller-Colorado Department of Transportation
Date:_____________________
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit H-1
EXHIBIT H – SECURITY AGREEMENT
This Security Agreement is made by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of THE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF TRANSIT AND RAIL,
(“State”) and _________________________, (“Grantee”).
A. Purpose. This Security Agreement is made for the purpose of securing the State interest in transit
vehicles or other project equipment (“Project Equipment”) purchased with State grant funds awarded to
the Grantee pursuant to the Grant Agreement between the State and Grantee dated this _____day of
________________, 20____ and identified as contract # __________________(“Grant”).
The security interest granted to the State herein is to ensure that the State may access, protect and, if
necessary, dispose of the federal interest in each item of Project Equipment and to ensure the proper use
of the Project Equipment. The Grantee shall have no right in the State interest in such Project Equipment.
B. Project Equipment. Not later than three days after the purchase and acceptance of Project Equipment,
the Grantee shall complete and return to the State a “Certificate of Procurement and Acceptance” form,
which then becomes Addendum I to this Security Agreement. In the case of vehicle procurement, this
certificate must indicate the year, make, model, VIN, and any other information needed to register the
vehicle.
C. Security Interest. In consideration of the value provided to the Grantee under the Grant, the Grantee
hereby gives and grants to the State a security interest in the Project Equipment described in Addendum I
and /or described below as follows:
MAKE/MODEL/VIN or description of equipment: ____________________________________.
This security interest shall apply to the Project Equipment acquired pursuant to the Grant whether
purchased before or after the date this Security Agreement is executed. The Grantee hereby authorizes the
State to describe in the space above the Project Equipment subject to this Security Agreement.
D. Lien. The State may place a lien on the title of each Project Equipment vehicle based upon this
Security Agreement. The State shall retain physical possession of the titles of such Project Equipment
vehicles and the Grantee agrees that the State shall be considered “in possession” of such vehicles for the
purpose of any document required by State law to repossess such vehicles if necessary.
E. Disposition of Equipment. In addition to the security interest granted herein, the Grantee agrees to and
acknowledges the right of the State to remove all Project Equipment from the Grantee’s premises and to
take possession of any of the Project Equipment, if the Grantee fails to satisfactorily perform the Project
services as detailed in the Grant, or if the State determines for any other reason, including but not limited
to termination of the Grant, that the disposition of the State interest in such Project Equipment is in the
best interest of the State. The Grantee agrees that it will in no way oppose the State’s exercise of such
right and that it will assist the State to obtain possession and to remove such vehicles.
F. Assignment. The Grantee agrees not to assert against any assignee of the State any defenses or claims
the Grantee may have against the State.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit H-2
Grantee hereby executes this Security Agreement as of the date below:
ATTEST: ______________________ FOR THE GRANTEE By:_____________________
Print Name:__________________________
Date: __________________________ Title: ______________________________
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit I-1
EXHIBIT I - STATE or FEDERAL-AID PROJECT AGREEMENTS WITH PROFESSIONAL
SUBGRANTEE SERVICES
The Grantee shall use these procedures to implement State or Federal-aid project agreements with
professional Subgrantee services including, but not limited to engineering, design, or architectural
services.
23 CFR Part172 applies to a federally funded Grantee project agreement administered by CDOT that
involves professionalSubgrantee services. 23 CFR §172.1 states “The policies and procedures involve
federally funded grants for engineering and design related services for projects subject to the provisions
of 23 USC §112(a) and are issued to ensure that a qualified Subgrantee is obtained through an equitable
selection process, that prescribed work is properly accomplished in a timely manner, and at fair and
reasonable cost” and according to 23 CFR §172.5 “Price shall not be used as a factor in the analysis and
selection phase.” Therefore, local agencies must comply with these CFR requirements when obtaining
professional Subgrantee services under a federally funded Subgrantee subgrant administered by CDOT.
CDOT has formulated its procedures in Procedural Directive (P.D.) 400.1 and the related operations
guidebook titled "Obtaining Professional Subgrantee Services". This directive and guidebook incorporate
requirements from both Federal and State regulations, i.e., 23 CFR Part172 and Colorado Revised Statute
CRS §24-30-1401 et seq. Copies of the directive and the guidebook may be obtained upon request from
CDOT's Agreements and Consultant Management Unit. [Local agencies should have their own written
procedures on file for each method of procurement that addresses the items in 23 CFR Part 172].
Because the procedures and laws described in the Procedural Directive and the guidebook are quite
lengthy, the subsequent steps serve as a short-hand guide to CDOT procedures that a Grantee must follow
in obtaining professional Subgrantee services. This guidance follows the format of 23 CFR Part 172. The
steps are:
1. The contracting Grantee shall document the need for obtaining professional services.
2. Prior to solicitation for Subgrantee services, the contracting Grantee shall develop a detailed
scope of work and a list of evaluation factors and their relative importance. The evaluation factors
are those identified in CRS §24-30-1403. Also, a detailed cost estimate should be prepared for
use during negotiations.
3. The contracting agency must advertise for grants in conformity with the requirements of CRS
§24-30-1405. The public notice period, when such notice is required, is a minimum of 15 days
prior to the selection of the three most qualified firms and the advertising should be done in one
or more daily newspapers of general circulation.
4. The request for Subgrantee services should include the scope of work, the evaluation factors and
their relative importance, the method of payment, and the goal of ten percent (10%) for
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation as a minimum for the project.
5. The analysis and selection of the Subgrantee should be done in accordance with CRS §24-30-
1403. This section of the regulation identifies the criteria to be used in the evaluation of CDOT
pre-qualified prime Subgrantee and their team. It also shows which criteria are used to short-list
and to make a final selection.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit I-2
The short-list is based on the following evaluation factors:
a. Qualifications,
b. Approach to the project,
c. Ability to furnish professional services.
d. Anticipated design concepts, and
e. Alternative methods of approach for furnishing the professional services.
Evaluation factors for final selection are the Subgrantee's:
a. Abilities of their personnel,
b. Past performance,
c. Willingness to meet the time and budget requirement,
d. Location,
e. Current and projected work load,
f. Volume of previously awarded contracts, and
g. Involvement of minority Subgrantees.
6. Once a Subgrantee is selected, the Grantee enters into negotiations with the Subgrantee to obtain
a fair and reasonable price for the anticipated work. Pre-negotiation audits are prepared for grants
expected to be greater than $50,000. Federal reimbursement for costs are limited to those costs
allowable under the cost principles of 48 CFR Part 31. Fixed fees (profit) are determined with
consideration given to size, complexity, duration, and degree of risk involved in the work. Profit
is in the range of six (6) to fifteen (15) percent of the total direct and indirect costs.
7. A qualified Grantee employee shall be responsible and in charge of the project to ensure that the
work being pursued is complete, accurate, and consistent with the terms, conditions, and
specifications of the Grant. At the end of project, the Grantee prepares a performance evaluation
(a CDOT form is available) on the Subgrantee.
8. Each of the steps listed above is to be documented in accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR
§18.42, which provide for records to be kept at least three (3) years from the date that the Grantee
submits its final expenditure report. Records of projects under litigation shall be kept at least three
(3) years after the case has been settled.
The CRS §§24-30-1401 through 1408, 23 CFR Part 172, and P.D. 400.1, provide additional details for
complying with the eight (8) steps just discussed.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit J-1
EXHIBIT J – GRANTEE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CHECKLIST
The following checklist has been developed to ensure that all required aspects of a project approved for
federal funding have been addressed and a responsible party assigned for each task.
After a project has been approved for federal funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program, CDOT Project Manager, Grantee Project Manager, and CDOT Resident Engineer prepare the
checklist. It becomes a part of the contractual Grant. CDOT will not process a Grant without this
completed checklist. It will be reviewed at the “Final Office Review” meeting to ensure that all parties
remain in agreement as to who is responsible for performing individual tasks.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GRANTEE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CHECKLIST
Project No.
STIP No.
Project Code
Region
Project Location
Date
Project Description
Grantee
City of Fort Collins
Grantee Project Manager
CDOT Resident Engineer
CDOT Project Manager
INSTRUCTIONS:
This checklist shall be utilized to establish the contract administration responsibilities of the individual parties to
this Grant. The checklist becomes an attachment to the Grant. Section numbers correspond to the applicable
chapters of the CDOT Local Agency Manual.
The checklist shall be prepared by placing an "X" under the responsible party, opposite each of the tasks. The “X”
denotes the party responsible for initiating and executing the task. Only one responsible party should be selected.
When neither CDOT nor the Grantee is responsible for a task, not applicable (NA) shall be noted. In addition, a “#”
will denote that CDOT must concur or approve.
Tasks that will be performed by headquarters staff will be indicated. The regions, in accordance with established
policies and procedures, will determine who will perform all other tasks that are the responsibility of CDOT.
The checklist shall be prepared by the CDOT Resident Engineer or the CDOT Project Manager, in cooperation with
the Grantee Project Manager, and submitted to the CDOT Program Engineer. If contract administration
responsibilities change, the CDOT Resident Engineer, in cooperation with the Grantee Project Manager, will
prepare and distribute a revised checklist.
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit J-2
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF TASK
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Grantee CDOT
TIP / STIP AND LONG-RANGE PLANS
2.1 Review Project to ensure it is consist with STIP and amendments thereto X
FEDERAL FUNDING OBLIGATION AND AUTHORIZATION
4.1 Authorize funding by phases (CDOT Form 418 –State or Federal-aid Program Data.
Requires FHWA concurrence/involvement)
X
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Prepare Design Data - CDOT Form 463
5.2 Prepare Grantee/CDOT Inter-Governmental Agreement (see also Chapter 3) X
5.3 Conduct Consultant Selection/Execute Consultant Agreement
5.4 Conduct Design Scoping Review Meeting
5.5 Conduct Public Involvement
5.6 Conduct Field Inspection Review (FIR)
5.7 Conduct Environmental Processes (may require FHWA concurrence/involvement)
5.8 Acquire Right-of-Way (may require FHWA concurrence/involvement)
5.9 Obtain Utility and Railroad Agreements
5.10 Conduct Final Office Review (FOR)
5.11 Justify Force Account Work by the Grantee
5.12 Justify Proprietary, Sole Source, or Grantee Furnished Items
5.13 Document Design Exceptions - CDOT Form 464
5.14 Prepare Plans, Specifications and Construction Cost Estimates
5.15 Ensure Authorization of Funds for Construction X
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CIVIL RIGHTS AND LABOR COMPLIANCE
6.1
Set Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (UBDE) Goals for Consultant and
Construction Contracts (CDOT Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialist)
6.2 Determine Applicability of Davis-Bacon Act
This project is is not exempt from Davis-Bacon requirements as determined by the
functional classification of the project location (Projects located on local roads and rural
minor collectors may be exempt.)
CDOT Resident Engineer (Signature on File) Date
X
6.3 Set On-the-Job Training Goals. Goal is zero if total construction is less than $1 million
(CDOT Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialist)
X
6.4 Title VI Assurances
Ensure the correct Federal Wage Decision, all required Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise/On-the-Job Training special provisions and FHWA Form 1273 are included in
the Contract (CDOT Resident Engineer)
X
ADVERTISE, BID AND AWARD
7.1 Obtain Approval for Advertisement Period of Less Than Three Weeks
7.2 Advertise for Bids
7.3 Distribute “Advertisement Set” of Plans and Specifications
7.4 Review Worksite and Plan Details with Prospective Bidders While Project Is Under
Advertisement
7.5 Open Bids
7.6 Process Bids for Compliance
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit J-3
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF TASK
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Grantee CDOT
Check CDOT Form 715 - Certificate of Proposed Underutilized DBE Participation when the
low bidder meets UDBE goals
X
Evaluate CDOT Form 718 - Underutilized DBE Good Faith Effort Documentation and
determine if the Contractor has made a good faith effort when the low bidder does not meet
DBE goals
X
Submit required documentation for CDOT award concurrence
7.7 Concurrence from CDOT to Award X
7.8 Approve Rejection of Low Bidder X
7.9 Award Contract
7.10 Provide “Award” and “Record” Sets of Plans and Specifications
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
8.1 Issue Notice to Proceed to the Contractor
8.2 Project Safety X
8.3 Conduct Conferences:
Pre-Construction Conference (Appendix B)
Pre-survey
• Construction staking
• Monumentation
Partnering (Optional)
Structural Concrete Pre-Pour (Agenda is in CDOT Construction Manual)
Concrete Pavement Pre-Paving (Agenda is in CDOT Construction Manual)
HMA Pre-Paving (Agenda is in CDOT Construction Manual)
8.4 Develop and distribute Public Notice of Planned Construction to media and local residents
8.5 Supervise Construction
A Professional Engineer (PE) registered in Colorado, who will be “in responsible charge of
construction supervision.”
Grantee Professional Engineer or Phone number
CDOT Resident Engineer
Provide competent, experienced staff who will ensure the Contract work is constructed in
accordance with the plans and specifications
Construction inspection and documentation
8.6 Approve Shop Drawings
8.7 Perform Traffic Control Inspections
8.8 Perform Construction Surveying
8.9 Monument Right-of-Way
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit J-4
8.10 Prepare and Approve Interim and Final Contractor Pay Estimates
Provide the name and phone number of the person authorized for this task.
Grantee Representative Phone number
8.11 Prepare and Approve Interim and Final Utility and Railroad Billings
8.12 Prepare Grantee Reimbursement Requests X
8.13 Prepare and Authorize Change Orders
8.14 Approve All Change Orders X
8.15 Monitor Project Financial Status
8.16 Prepare and Submit Monthly Progress Reports
8.17 Resolve Contractor Claims and Disputes
8.18 Conduct Routine and Random Project Reviews
Provide the name and phone number of the person responsible for this task.
CDOT Resident Engineer Phone number
X
MATERIALS
9.1 Conduct Materials Pre-Construction Meeting
9.2 Complete CDOT Form 250 - Materials Documentation Record
• Generate form, which includes determining the minimum number of required tests and
applicable material submittals for all materials placed on the project
• Update the form as work progresses
• Complete and distribute form after work is completed
9.3 Perform Project Acceptance Samples and Tests
9.4 Perform Laboratory Verification Tests
9.5 Accept Manufactured Products
Inspection of structural components:
• Fabrication of structural steel and pre-stressed concrete structural components
• Bridge modular expansion devices (0” to 6” or greater)
• Fabrication of bearing devices
9.6 Approve Sources of Materials
9.7 Independent Assurance Testing (IAT), Grantee Procedures CDOT Procedures
• Generate IAT schedule
• Schedule and provide notification
• Conduct IAT
9.8 Approve mix designs
• Concrete
• Hot mix asphalt
9.9 Check Final Materials Documentation
9.10 Complete and Distribute Final Materials Documentation
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO # 291001033
CMS # 12-HTR-31824
FASTERGrant.01.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit J-5
CONSTRUCTION CIVIL RIGHTS AND LABOR COMPLIANCE
10.1 Fulfill Project Bulletin Board and Pre-Construction Packet Requirements
10.2 Process CDOT Form 205 - Sublet Permit Application
Review and sign completed CDOT Form 205 for each subcontractor, and submit to
EEO/Civil Rights Specialist
10.3 Conduct Equal Employment Opportunity and Labor Compliance Verification Employee
Interviews. Complete CDOT Form 280
10.4 Monitor Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation to Ensure Compliance with the
“Commercially Useful Function” Requirements
10.5 Conduct Interviews When Project Utilizes On-the-Job Trainees. Complete CDOT Form 200
- OJT Training Questionnaire
10.6 Check Certified Payrolls (Contact the Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialists for training
requirements.)
10.7 Submit FHWA Form 1391 - Highway Construction Contractor’s Annual EEO Report
FINALS
11.1 Conduct Final Project Inspection. Complete and submit CDOT Form 1212 - Final
Acceptance Report (Resident Engineer with mandatory Grantee participation.)
X
11.2 Write Final Project Acceptance Letter
11.3 Advertise for Final Settlement
11.4 Prepare and Distribute Final As-Constructed Plans
11.5 Prepare EEO Certification
11.6 Check Final Quantities, Plans, and Pay Estimate; Check Project Documentation; and submit
Final Certifications
11.7 Check Material Documentation and Accept Final Material Certification (See Chapter 9)
11.8 Obtain CDOT Form 17 from the Contractor and Submit to the Resident Engineer
11.9 Obtain FHWA Form 47 - Statement of Materials and Labor Used … from the Contractor
11.10 Complete and Submit CDOT Form 1212 – Final Acceptance Report (by CDOT) X
11.11 Process Final Payment
11.12 Complete and Submit CDOT Form 950 - Project Closure
11.13 Retain Project Records for Six Years from Date of Project Closure
11.14 Retain Final Version of Grantee Contract Administration Checklist
cc: CDOT Resident Engineer
CDOT Project Manager
CDOT Region Program Engineer
CDOT Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialist
CDOT Region Materials Engineer
CDOT Contracts and Market Analysis Branch
Grantee Project Manager
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2011-096
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE BUS RAPID TRANSIT BUS
WHEREAS, the MAX BRT project is a five mile long, primarily fixed guideway, located
approximately one block to the west of College Avenue which includes numerous park-n-ride lots,
BRT stations, curbside stops and transit centers on each end; and
WHEREAS, the MAX BRT system contemplates the acquisition by the City of six exclusive
BRT buses to be used to provide rolling stock bus services to the MAX BRT system; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has awarded FASTER
(Funding Advancements for Service Transportation and Economic Recovery) funding to purchase
one of the six BRT buses needed for MAX operations; and
WHEREAS, the funding to be made available by CDOT under the FASTER grant is in the
amount of $500,000 with City local matching funds to be provided in the amount of $350,000 for
a total capital project cost of $850,000; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Board has given its favorable recommendation to the City
Council of the MAX BRT project together with the acquisition of the BRT buses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the intergovernmental agreement between the City and CDOT for the purchase of one bus rapid
transit bus be executed by the Mayor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a contract between the City and CDOT
for the purpose of the City’s obtaining of a grant of FASTER funds for the purchase one of the six
MAX BRT buses needed for operation of the MAX BRT system which grant is in the amount of
$500,000 with City matching funds in the amount of $350,000, upon appropriation thereof.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of November, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSIT SERVICES FUND FOR
TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND APPROPRIATING
UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, MASON CORRIDOR
PROJECT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE RAPID TRANSIT BUS
WHEREAS, the MAX transit system project (“MAX”) is a five-mile, north-south byway
extending from Cherry Street to just south of Harmony Road; and
WHEREAS, MAX includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight stations with pedestrian and bicycle
access, eight curb-side stops, and two transit centers; and
WHEREAS, six new buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet to
provide the MAX service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution 2011-096 authorizing the City to enter
into an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”)
for the purchase of one of the Max buses; and
WHEREAS, CDOT’s FASTER (Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery) funding will provide $500,000, and the local match in the amount of $350,000
will be provided from prior year reserves in the Transit Services Fund; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as my be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended
remains unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Transit Services Fund the amount of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($350,000) to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project and appropriated
therein for the purchase of one rapid transit bus.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue from CDOT
grant funds in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000) for expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the purchase
of one rapid transit bus.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Amendment and
Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will authorize the extension of the existing agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf
Professional Dale Smigelsky.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The existing Agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf Professional Dale Smigelsky, PGA, expires on
December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was entered into on January 1, 2006, with Jim Greer, and was
assumed by Dale Smigelsky on January 1, 2009. From 2001 through 2008, Mr. Smigelsky was the Golf Professional
at SouthRidge Golf Course. Mr. Smigelsky assumed Jim Greer’s contract as the Head Professional at Collindale on
January 1, 2009.
As stated in the Agreement,"This Agreement may be extended beyond the original five (5) year term if performance
is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and negotiation of a mutually acceptable extension Agreement".
The performance of Mr. Smigelsky has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually
acceptable extension to the Agreement.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As payment for performance of Golf Services, the City shall pay to Contractor the sum of $46,155 for the year 2012.
The fee will be adjusted on an annual basis by the Denver Boulder Greeley CPIU published by the Colorado State
Planning and Budget Office. In addition, in January of each year, commencing in 2013, the City will pay the Contractor
a lump sum bonus amount not to exceed 3%, based on the year to year increases in Golf Course revenue, minus any
increase due to fee increases. The new base for comparison to the next year will be the prior year’s gross amount
including any fee increases. All fees and other income received through the operation of the pro shop, the sale of
merchandise, locker/storage rentals, golf lessons/instructions, tournament service fees, golf club repair, the rental of
equipment owned by the Contractor, and shall be retained by Contractor. All fees and other revenue derived annually
from the use or operation of the driving range shall be dived as follows: 15% of gross revenue to the City and 85%
to the Contractor. This payment will be made on a monthly basis to the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 21, 2011, meeting, the Golf Board discussed the renewal of the contract with Dale Smigelsky as the
Collindale Golf Professional.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
The Golf Board took public input/comments on the proposed extension at its October 19, 2011 meeting and received
no public opposition and only positive and supportive comments to extend the Agreement. The Golf Board then voted
unanimously to recommend that City Council extend the Agreement with Dale Smigelsky for up to five (5) additional
one-year renewal periods through December 31, 2016. The City Code requires contracts over five years in length to
be approved by Council.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A public meeting was held at City Park Nine Golf Course on October 19, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Golf Board minutes, September 21 and October 19, 2011.
ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT
AND EXTENSION OF THE GOLF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
COLLINDALE GOLF COURSE FOR UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL YEARS
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that Dale W. Smigelsky, PGA, the current
contractor providing golf professional services at Collindale Golf Course, has performed those
services well and to the satisfaction of the City and the general public under the existing Golf
Professional Services Agreement (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has further determined that in order to continue with the
delivery of high quality golf professional services to the public at Collindale Golf Course, the
extension of the Agreement for up to five additional one-year terms, without a new competitive
process for such services, is advisable and would maintain the continuity and provide golf
professional stability in the delivery of those services; and
WHEREAS, the original competitive process for the golf professional services at Collindale
Golf Course and the Agreement contemplated possible extension of the Agreement for up to five
additional years beyond the original one-year term plus four one-year renewals, based on the
expectation that a longer term arrangement for those services would enable proposers to offer more
desirable services to the City at a more advantageous rate than without such longer term potential;
and
WHEREAS, Section 8-186(a) of the City Code requires that any contract for services with
a potential total term over five years in length be authorized by City Council by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in addition to extending the term, the Agreement will also be amended to
include a provision that provides for a 3% bonus to the contractor based on year-over-year increases
in fee revenue generated by increases in the number of paying users of the golf facility; and
WHEREAS, the Golf Board reviewed the proposed extension described herein at its
September 21, 2011 regular meeting, and after receiving only positive and supportive public
comments, voted unanimously to recommend and encourage City Council to authorize such an
extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby authorizes, pursuant to City Code Section 8-186(a), the
extension of the Agreement between the City and Dale W. Smigelsky, PGA, for Golf Professional
Services at Collindale Golf Course for the year 2012, amended as described above, with annual
renewal options through 2016.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
JR Schnelzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Extension of the
Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar concessionaire, the Sandtrap, Inc.,
dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was
entered into on December 11, 2006. As stated in the Agreement, “This Agreement may be extended beyond the
original five (5) year term if performance is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and negotiation of a
mutually acceptable extension Agreement.” The performance of Mr. Dahl has been very satisfactory during the term,
and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. The existing five-year
Agreement was entered into on December 11, 2006. As stated in the Agreement, “This Agreement may be extended
beyond the original five (5) year term if performance is satisfactory and subject to City Council approval and negotiation
of a mutually acceptable extension Agreement.” The performance of Mr. Dahl has been very satisfactory during the
term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
For the privilege of conducting the concession operations hereunder, and the exclusive use of the Concession Space,
the Concessionaire shall pay to the City a concession fee based on 2,000 square feet of operable space and may be
tendered in cash or in-kind services as determined by the City.
2012-2013 = $10.50/sq.ft.
2014-2015 = $11.00/sq.ft.
2016 = $11.50/sq.ft.
The City shall pay all charges for water, storm water, sewer, trash collection, recycling, basic clubhouse security
system, basic bunker house security system, and electric services to the Concession Space. The Concessionaire will
be responsible for 50% of the cost of gas from April thru September. The Concessionaire will be responsible for 15%
of the clubhouse electric bill for April-September, the Cart Barn being excluded from these charges. The City will
provide the fuel for the Concessionaires beverage cart.
The City shall maintain and repair the Clubhouse building, Concession Space and City equipment and fixtures (defined
in Article 8). The Concessionaire will be responsible for 50% of the cost for repair/maintenance/ replacement of City
owned equipment (defined in Article 8), unless negligence is determined and then the concessionaire shall have total
financial responsibility. Concessionaire shall submit all requests for repairs or maintenance to the City Representative.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the City shall not in any way be liable to the Concessionaire
for failure to make repairs as herein specifically required of it unless the Concessionaire has previously notified the
City in writing of a need for such repairs, and the City has failed to commence and complete said repairs within a
reasonable period of time following receipt of the Concessionaire's written notification.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 17
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 21, 2011 meeting, the Golf Board voted unanimously to renew the contract with Rob Dahl as the
SouthRidge Restaurant/Snack Bar Concessionaire.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A public meeting was held at City Park Nine Golf Course on October 19, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Golf Board minutes, September 21 and October 19, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN EXTENSION OF THE
RESTAURANT/SNACK BAR CONCESSION AGREEMENT AT SOUTHRIDGE GOLF
COURSE FOR UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL YEARS
WHEREAS, Section 8-186(a) of the City Code requires that City Council approve by
ordinance any contract for services having a potential term that is longer than five years; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that the Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's
Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, the current contractor providing restaurant/snack bar concession services
at SouthRidge Golf Course, has performed those services well and to the satisfaction of the City and
the general public over the course of the existing Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement (the
"Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has further determined that in order to continue with the
delivery of high quality food and beverage concession services to the public at SouthRidge Golf
Course, the extension of the Agreement for up to an additional five one-year terms, without a new
competitive process for such services, is advisable and would maintain continuity and provide
concessionaire stability in the delivery of those services; and
WHEREAS, the original 2006 competitive process for the restaurant/snack bar concession
services at SouthRidge Golf Course and the Agreement contemplated possible extension of the
Agreement beyond the original one year plus four one-year renewals, based on the expectation that
a longer term arrangement for those services would enable proposers to offer more desirable services
to the City at a more advantageous quality and rate than without such a longer term potential; and
WHEREAS, the Golf Board reviewed the proposed extension described herein at its
September 21, 2011 regular meeting; and, after receiving only positive public input and comments,
the Golf Board unanimously agreed to encourage the City Council to authorize such an extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Council hereby authorizes, pursuant to City Code Section 8-186(a), the extension
for the year 2012 of the Agreement between the City and the Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie’s Pub
& Grill at SouthRidge, for restaurant/snack bar concession services at SouthRidge Golf Course,
dated December 11, 2006, with annual renewal options for the years 2013 through 2016, or a
potential total term of ten years.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New Section 2-506
Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to implement some changes to the City’s
internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related
provisions of the City Code. This Ordinance establishes Sustainability Services as a Service Area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under the City’s current organizational structure, the City Manager has eight direct reports with six Service Directors
managing major functions in the organization. These are:
1. Deputy City Manager—Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
2. Assistant City Manager—Community and Operations Services
3. Chief Financial Officer—Financial Services
4. Assistant to the City Manager—Employee and Communications Services
5. Utilities Executive Director—Utility Services
6. Chief of Police—Police Services
Additional direct reports currently include an Assistant to the City Manager (Bruce Hendee) and an Executive Assistant
to the City Manager (Tauny Gilmore).
This Ordinance establishes as a new service area, Sustainability Services, to be headed by Bruce Hendee. The
Service Area Director is to be the Chief Sustainability Officer. The purpose of the Office is to ensure that the
organization pursues the Triple-Bottom-Line concept of sustainability, addressing Economic Sustainability,
Environmental Sustainability and Social Sustainability.
The Chief Sustainability Officer will be responsible for the management of each of the three focus areas plus
developing and implementing a program and system dedicated to organizational innovation. Several existing staff
groups will be consolidated within the Service Area, including:
• Environmental Services
• Utilities Environmental Planning—one staff member;
• Economic Health and Urban Renewal Authority
Under this revised structure, the City Manager will have a total of eight direct reports - seven Service Area Directors,
and an Executive Assistant to the City Manager (Tauny Gilmore). The Service Directors and related functions that
report directly to the City Manager will be as follows:
1. Deputy City Manager, Diane Jones – Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
2. Assistant City Manager, Wendy Williams – Community and Operations Services
3. Chief Financial Officer, Mike Beckstead – Financial Services
4. Assistant to the City Manager, Kelly DiMartino – Employee and Communications Services
5. Utilities Executive Director, Brian Janonis – Utility Services
6. Chief of Police, Interim Chief Jerry Schiager, – Police Services
7. Chief Sustainability Officer, Bruce Hendee – Sustainability Services
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 18
Code Revisions
Under Article II, Section 5 of the City Charter, the City Council has the power to establish, change, consolidate or
abolish administrative offices, service areas or agencies of the City by ordinance, upon report and recommendation
of the City Manager, so long as the administrative functions and public services established by the Charter are not
abolished in any such reorganization. The proposed reorganization would not abolish any of those essential functions
and services.
The organizational structure of the City is contained in Chapter 2, Article V of the City Code. The service areas are
established in Division 3 of Article V. This Ordinance would amend Division 3 to codify the organizational changes
described above.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The financial impact for this change will total $122,000 for the addition of the sustainability department head position.
Funding for the new position will be as follows: 0.75 FTE to be funded through the General Fund and 0.25 FTE through
Utilities resources. In the 2012 Budget Exceptions Process, a line item for “Reorganization Office of Sustainability”
was included with a total cost of $122,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This change provides a positive contribution to the environment through improving City commitment by fostering inter-
departmental integration and cooperation as well as innovation in sustainable practices.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Organization Chart
Proposed Sustainability
Services
City Manager
darin atteberry
Citizens of
fort Collins
Chief sustainability
offiCer
bruce hendee
eConoMiC
enVironMental
soCial
uPDateD 10/11
City CounCil
Karen WeitKunat, mayor
Kelly ohlson, mayor Pro tem, district 5
ben manvel, district 1 Wade troxell, district 4
lisa PoPPaW, district 2 Gerry horaK, district 6
aislinn KottWitz, district 3
ATTACHMENT # 1
ORDINANCE NO. 149, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE
TO ADD A NEW SECTION 2-506 ESTABLISHING A NEW SERVICE
AREA TO BE KNOWN AS SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council and City Manager have established as a high priority for the
City organization the incorporation of the Triple-Bottom-Line concept of sustainability, addressing
economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and social sustainability, into organizational
decision-making, policies, and practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and his executive leadership team continue to examine and
consider ways to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization; and
WHEREAS, in order to better embody these priorities and objectives into the structure of
the City organization, the City Manager has proposed that a new service area, to be known as
Sustainability Services, be created; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Article V, Division 3, of the City Code sets out and specifies the
service areas within the administrative organization of the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to formalize the establishment of Sustainability Services as a new
service area of the City, the City Council desires to add a new City Code Section 2-506, as set forth
below, and to make corresponding changes to other affected City Code sections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-502 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 2-502. Community and Operations Services.
Community and Operations Services is hereby created. Community and
Operations Services shall be in the charge of a Director who shall be directly
responsible to the City Manager for the functions and duties necessary to provide
cultural, parks, natural areas, and recreation and environmental services,
management information services (information technology and network systems);
operations services; and legislative services, and who shall have control and
supervision over such agencies, service units, departments, offices or persons as may
be deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Section 2. That Chapter 2, Article V of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of a new Section 2-506 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 2-506. Sustainability Services.
Sustainability Services is hereby created. Sustainability Services shall be in the
charge of a Director, who shall be directly responsible to the City Manager for the
functions and duties necessary to provide environmental services, and economic
health and urban renewal services for the City organization, and who shall have
control and supervision over such agencies, service units, departments, offices or
persons as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Tess Heffernan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use
Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight shelter at area
homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The Mission; however, delays have pushed
the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This request is to temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for
an 8-week period at the Knights of Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter people on
those winter evenings when other homeless shelters are full.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The current economic climate has led to an increase in the number of people in our community who are homeless or
at risk of becoming homeless. The Murphy Center, Food Bank, and other agencies providing “basic needs” services
have seen a marked increase in clients and overall community need.
There are two homeless shelters in Fort Collins that shelter people overnight: The Mission at 460 Linden Center Drive
and the Open Door Mission at 316 Jefferson Street. It is estimated that last winter 5 – 30 people were turned away
on several nights due to lack of space, some of them families with children. The Mission has been working to fund
and construct an expansion at their site to meet this need and construction was originally scheduled to be complete
by this fall. However, due to delays the expanded space will not be completed until February 1, 2012.
United Way of Larimer County is proposing that temporary overflow shelters be opened, when needed, operating 10:00
p.m. – 7:00 a.m. from December 1, 2011 – February 1, 2012. Two sites would be used for this purpose:
- Sunday night through Thursday night: Knights of Columbus building, 121 North Meldrum Street.
- Friday and Saturday night: Saint Joseph School, 127 North Howes Street.
The Knights of Columbus building is located in the NCB (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) zone, wherein overnight
homeless shelters are not an allowed use. United Way is asking the City to temporarily suspend enforcement of the
Land Use Code and zoning Map in order to open an overflow shelter when needed on Sunday through Thursday
nights.
The Saint Joseph School facility does not require a zoning exemption because an Overnight Shelter is a permitted use
in the Downtown zoning district. Under the Land Use Code, a minor administrative amendment for a change of use
would be required, and staff is pursuing that amendment with the Current Planning Department.
United Way estimates between 5 and 30 individuals will access the shelter each night. The shelter will be staffed by
two Catholic Charities employees and at least one volunteer per night. No food will be served.
United Way Director Gordan Thibedeau has emphasized that this is a temporary need and only applies to the limited
hours and timeframe requested. During the day, The Mission (operated by Catholic Charities) and The Murphy Center
together provide day shelter services. Clients are served in the morning hours at The Murphy Center, with the Mission
serving clients for lunch and afternoon hours. This arrangement has worked well for the past two years, replacing the
former temporary cold weather day shelter that was operated out of a City facility on North Howes Street.
The expansion at The Mission will provide 30 additional bed spaces. For the long term, United Way and the
community at large are working with Homeward 2020 to help chronically homeless people move into supportive
housing. The City has supported these efforts by providing one-time financial support for the expansion at the Mission
and funding for the start-up and operation of the Homeward 2020 initiative.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
As noted below, property owners in the vicinity of the two facilities will be notified of this request and a neighborhood
meeting will be held, however, feedback is not yet available. Staff will attend the neighborhood meeting and report
back prior to first reading of the ordinance with comments and concerns from neighborhood residents and businesses.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial or economic impacts on City resources.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Letters were sent to 137 property owners in the area explaining the request, providing a contact at United Way who
could answer questions, and inviting recipients to attend a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, October 27. The
meeting is sponsored by United Way. Because of the short time span leading up to this request the meeting was
unable to be held before these materials were published. City staff will attend the meeting and report neighborhood
feedback to City Council prior to first reading of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 150, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING THE OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE LAND USE CODE AND ZONING MAP TO ALLOW FOR A
TEMPORARY OVERFLOW WINTERTIME NIGHT SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS
WHEREAS, in recent years the City has experienced an increase in the number of families
and individuals seeking overnight shelter at area homeless shelters; and
WHEREAS, the Mission and the Open Door Mission both provide homeless shelter for
overnight occupancy, but it is estimated that during the past winter season, between five and thirty
people were turned away on several nights due to lack of space, sometimes involving families with
children; and
WHEREAS, construction is underway to expend the shelter capacity at the Mission but
delays have caused the completion date to be delayed until approximately February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City has been requested to temporarily suspend the operation and
enforcement of the Land Use Code and zoning map in order to allow for the temporary provision
of overflow wintertime night shelters for the homeless at the Knights of Columbus building located
at 121 North Meldrum Street upon the condition that the above-described property be utilized for
shelter purposes only between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am from December 1, 2011 to
February 1, 2012 and with the further understanding that the building will be so utilized only from
Sunday night through Thursday.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the application and enforcement of the Land Use Code shall be
suspended as it relates to the Knights of Columbus building located at 121 North Meldrum Street
from December 1, 2011 through February 1, 2012 between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am; and
subject further to the condition that such suspension shall apply to the building only from Sunday
night through Thursday night.
Section 2. That the suspension of the application and enforcement of the Land Use Code
pursuant to this Ordinance shall apply only to the operation of temporary overflow wintertime night
shelters for the homeless at the aforesaid locations and only when the existing overnight homeless
shelters in the City known as “The Mission” and the “Open Door Mission” are unable to
accommodate additional persons.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-097 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Courtney Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to annex and zone 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The
property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane.
Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100%
voluntary annexation. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The
requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment
will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was
established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which
may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject
property is in an established residential area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The applicants, C. Scott and Nancy E. Courtney, being the property owners, have submitted a written petition
requesting annexation of 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road at the east end of Charlie Lane and south of East
Horsetooth Road. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation
boundary. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning
for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 – Farming in the Larimer
County to the north, east and south; and, UE – Urban Estate in the City to the west. This is a 100% voluntary
annexation.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
common boundaries with the Strobel Annexation (April, 1992) and the Wild West Annexation (August, 1994) to the
west.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1 in Larimer County; existing residential
E: FA-1 in Larimer County; undeveloped
S: FA-1 in Larimer County; existing residential
W: UE in the City of Fort Collins; existing residential, church
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
The requested zoning for this annexation is the UE – Urban Estate District. There are numerous uses permitted in this
District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The adopted City Structure
Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), identifies that Urban Estate is appropriate in this location. The
request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations and the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Findings
1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the
City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area.
2. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to
the City of Fort Collins.
3. On September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution 2011-088 that accepted the annexation petition
and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation
process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held
regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area.
4. The requested UE – Urban Estate Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation and zoning. The property is developed at the present
time, containing a single-family residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading. Staff recommends that this
property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this
property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of
regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected
by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an established
residential area.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Following the Planning and Zoning Board’s regular meeting on October 20, 2011, at which the Board held a hearing
on this annexation and zoning, it was discovered that, through no fault of the applicant, notice of the hearing was not
mailed to affected property owners as required by the Land Use Code. Therefore, a special Planning and Zoning
Board meeting has been scheduled for November 3, 2011 for the Board to rehear this item. In order to avoid delay
of this annexation, the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation addressing the issues of the annexation, the
placing of the property into the U-E, Urban Estate zone district and inclusion into the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District will be forwarded to City Council prior to the Council’s public hearing on Second Reading on November 15,
2011.
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 20
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public notification of a Planning and Zoning Board special meeting on November 3, 2011, for the purpose of holding
a hearing on the zoning request, has been given via a letter of notification of the public hearing (containing date, time,
and place for the hearing and a description of the request) mailed to all affected property owners within 800 feet of the
property 14 days prior to the hearing. A neighborhood meeting is not required for annexation of property and no
meeting was held for this annexation and zoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. City Zoning Map (partial)
3. City Structure Plan (partial)
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2011-097
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE COURTNEY ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the City Council for
property to be known as the Courtney Annexation; and
WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law, the City Council has held a hearing
on said annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that there is at least one-sixth (1/6)
contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest
exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will
be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being
integrated with the City.
Section 3. That the City Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act
have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and
conditions to be imposed upon said annexation.
Section 4. That the City Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing
was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act.
Section 5. That the City Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the
Courtney Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 151, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
COURTNEY ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2011-088, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation
proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of
the City to annex said area to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the following described property, to wit:
Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court,
situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87 as
bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is
contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot
3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the
Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3,
N89°33'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet,
and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a
distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which
bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve
concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00",
the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of
a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose
central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet;
thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N02°00'16"W 38.73 feet
to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00
foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central
angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and
again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance
of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears
N31°12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the
existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South
right-of--way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South
right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of-
way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along
the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet,
whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92
feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right-
of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a
distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107°15'00", the long chord of which
bears N36°49'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and
again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of
218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears
N55°15'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said
North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295
acres, more or less.
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Courtney Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions
contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for
recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines,
streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as
may be provided by the ordinances of the City.
Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE COURTNEY ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the
Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning
of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should
be zoned as hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section
1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including
the property known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban
Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described to wit:
Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court,
situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87 as
bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is
contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot
3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the
Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3,
N89°33'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet,
and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a
distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which
bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve
concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00",
the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of
a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose
central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet;
thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N02°00'16"W 38.73 feet
to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00
foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central
angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and
again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance
of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears
N31°12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the
existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South
right-of--way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South
right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of-
way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along
the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet,
whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92
feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right-
of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a
distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107°15'00", the long chord of which
bears N36°49'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and
again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of
218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears
N55°15'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said
North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295
acres, more or less.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above-
described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said
Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2011-098 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Leistikow Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request to annex and zone the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road
and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved
in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road.
Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which is shared with the
Westchase P.U.D. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map
and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as
a residential land use, the owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to
implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. Of the total property
perimeter, 25% is contiguous to the existing City boundary thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth
of the perimeter boundary be contiguous.
According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, the City will agree to
consider annexation of property in the Growth Management Area when the property is eligible for annexation under
state law.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: L-M-N; Westchase P.U.D.
N: U-E; Westchase P.U.D.
E: FA-1; (Larimer County) Leflar M.R.D.
S: FA-1; (Larimer County) Leistikow Amended M.R.D.
W: FA-1; (Larimer County) Paragon Estates P.U.D.
This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, City of Fort Collins Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Code and the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
There are no known controversies associated with this annexation.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 21
Leistikow Minor Residential Division was approved in 1992, consisted of 37.5 acres and allowed the creation of four
lots, all of which exceeded the required minimum of 2.29 acres per Larimer County zoning of FA-1, Farming. This
M.R.D. was amended in September of 2011 and reduced the number of lots from four to three. The subject
annexation, consisting of 18.04 acres, is equivalent to Lot Two of the Leistikow Amended M.R.D.
Urban Estate Zone District
The requested zoning is Urban Estate, Urban Estate. The Land Use Code describes this zone district as follows:
“Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density and
large-lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many
existing subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and
to provide additional locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more
intense urban development and rural or open lands.”
There are a variety of non-residential land uses allowed in the U-E including the following:
• Minor public facilities
• Parks, recreation and other open lands
• Cemeteries
• Public and private schools
• Places of worship or assembly
• Golf courses
• Wildlife rescue and education centers
• Child care centers
• Bed and breakfast establishments
• Plant nurseries and greenhouses
• Animal boarding
• Adult day/respite centers
• Small scale reception centers
• Resource extraction
• Composting facilities.
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
The parcel is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, jointly adopted by the City of Fort Collins and
Larimer County in 1998. According to the Land Use Framework Plan, the subject parcel should be placed into the
Urban Estate zone district. The proposed zoning of Urban Estate complies with the applicable sub area plan.
Place of Worship or Assembly
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued a press release indicating its desire to construct a temple
on the property described by this annexation. As noted, the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan both provide guidance that the subject 18.04 acres should be zoned Urban Estate. A Place of Worship is
a permitted use in the U-E zone, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
A development review outreach neighborhood meeting was held on September 14, 2011, to discuss the development
review process for a future potential submittal of a Project Development Plan for a temple for the Church of Jesus
Christ Latter day-Saints. At this meeting, staff responded to inquiries regarding the annexation and zoning procedure,
conformance with State Statues, the IGA. with Larimer County, the City’s Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and the
Land Use Code. Staff continues to emphasize to all interested parties that the annexation and development of land
are two distinct processes, each governed by their own set of standards and regulations. For example, concerns about
traffic on adjacent streets are a land development issue best addressed at the Project Development Plan stage, not
at the annexation and zoning stage. There will be opportunities for citizen input on land development issues at the
future neighborhood information meetings that will be scheduled prior to a submittal for a Project Development Plan.
The Larimer County Planning Department is aware that the annexation of land zoned residential within the Fossil
Creek Area Reservoir Plan, and contemplated for a non-residential land use (Place of Worship), would conform to both
existing County (FA-1) and proposed City (U-E) zoning. Larimer County supports the annexation and the proposed
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 21
Place of Worship. But, Larimer County would be concerned if, after annexation, the subject parcel were to instead
develop as a residential subdivision. If such were the case, then the County would be prevented from implementing
its Transfer of Density Units (TDU) Program, a key element of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, jointly adopted
by both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
Voluntary Condition of Annexation – Larimer County Transfer of Density Units
The applicant and the LDS Church have offered to the City a voluntary condition of annexation in the event that the
property should develop as a residential subdivision. The purpose of such a condition would be to ensure the
implementation of the County’s TDU Program.
The recommended condition of annexation would obligate the developer of a residential subdivision to request
disconnection from the City. Upon passage of a disconnection ordinance, the parcel would then revert to the County’s
jurisdiction thus enabling implementation of the TDU Program. Under this condition of annexation, the practical effect
of the overall intent of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan is met. The County’s TDU Program is calibrated such
that the residential density would not exceed the maximum allowable density prescribed in the Urban Estate zone.
After the County’s TDU Program is implemented by the approval of a County Subdivision, the Subdivision is then
annexed into the City prior to land development in accordance with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The
condition reads as follows:
This annexation into the City of Fort Collins is conditioned upon the subject property developing as
a non-residential land use. If the property is to be developed as a residential use, then the owner,
successors or assigns shall request disconnection of the subject property from the City of Fort Collins
so that Larimer County would have subdivision and zoning jurisdiction and allow for the
implementation of the Transfer of Density Units Program. This condition shall be in effect for a period
of ten (10) years following the effective date of this ordinance.
Findings
1. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to
the City of Fort Collins.
2. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the
City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area.
3. The requested U-E, Urban Estate Zoning District, is in conformance with the policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
4. The request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
5. On September 20, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-087 that accepted the annexation petition
and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiated the
annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be
held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area.
6. The recommended condition of annexation whereby the owner would request disconnection in the event of
residential development has been voluntarily offered by the applicant with the full knowledge and consent of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The ten year time frame has been reviewed and approved
by Larimer County.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As with any annexation, specific financial impacts are difficult to determine. The Compact Urban Growth Standards
exempt parcels within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area from needing to comply with requirements for being contiguous
to urban development defined as having an overall density of at least one unit per acre. Despite this exemption, the
subject parcel is, in fact, contiguous to existing urban development (Westchase P.U.D. and Trilby Road). Development
of this parcel will, therefore, be a sequential extension of utilities and services. Adequate public facilities are extended
November 1, 2011 -4- ITEM 21
to the north property line with greater than 16.66% contiguity thus ensuring compliance with the City’s adequate public
facilities management system.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The site is not within 500 feet of a known natural habitat or feature. As with any development, any significant trees
are to be preserved but if preservation is not feasible, then mitigation per Land Use Code Section 3.2.1(F) would be
invoked.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinances on First Reading.
Staff recommends that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Staff also recommends that the Annexation Ordinance include the condition that should the property owner seek a
residential development, then the owner shall request disconnection from the City of Fort Collins so that Larimer
County would have the opportunity to implement its Transfer of Density Units Program and that this condition be placed
on the Leistikow Annexation for a period of ten years.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Through no fault of the applicant, notification to affected property owners was not properly mailed prior to the regular
Planning and Zoning Board hearing of October 20, 2011. A special Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been
scheduled for November 3, 2011. Following this hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation will be
forwarded to City Council prior to the Council’s public hearing on Second Reading on November 15, 2011.
Prior to City Council Second Reading, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board will be forwarded
addressing the issues of the annexation, the placing of the property into the U-E, Urban Estate zone district, inclusion
into the residential neighborhood sign district and the condition of annexation whereby the owner would request
disconnection in the case of residential development for a period of ten years.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public notice was provided for the Planning and Zoning Board hearing of November 3, 2011. The property was posted
with a sign. A letter of notification was mailed to 650 property owners within a 1,000-foot radius 14 days prior to the
hearing. A neighborhood meeting is not required for annexation of property but a development review outreach
meeting to familiarize the attendees with the development review process was held on September 14, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Annexation Petition Supplemental Information
2. Vicinity Map
3. Structure Plan Map.
4. Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2011-098
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS
REGARDING THE LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the City Council for
property to be known as the Leistikow Annexation; and
WHEREAS, following notice given as required by law, the City Council has held a hearing
on said annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that there is at least one-sixth (1/6)
contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest
exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will
be urbanized in the near future; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being
integrated with the City.
Section 3. That the City Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act
have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and
conditions to be imposed upon said annexation.
Section 4. That the City Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing
was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act.
Section 5. That the City Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the
Leistikow Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 153, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2011-087, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation
proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of
the City to annex said area to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the following described property, to wit:
Legal description of a parcel of land being Lot 2, of the Amended Leistikow MRD
and a portion of the existing right-of-way of Timberline Road situate in Sections 17
and 18, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17, and considering the North line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17 as bearing
South 89<56’00” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence
along said North line, South 89<56’00” East 785.96 feet to the True Point of
Beginning, said point being a point on the South line of Westchase Annexation No.
2 to the City of Fort Collins according to the plat on file in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder said County; thence along said South line, South 89<56’00” East 140.27
feet; thence departing said South line, South 00<04’00” West 91.40 feet; thence
South 75<01’11” West 126.44 feet; thence South 14<58’49” East 95.52 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of
98<02’18” and a radius of 528.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said
curve 903.46 feet; thence departing said curve, South 07<22’24” East 175.33 feet;
thence South 89<54’32” West 467.79 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of
said Timberline Road; thence along said West right-of-way line the following
courses and distances, North 00<09’18” East 55.71 feet; thence South 89<54’44”
East 10.00 feet; thence North 00<09’18” East 959.03 feet to a point on the South line
of said Westchase Annexation No. 2; thence along said South line South 89<56’00”
East 273.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having
a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 512.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along
the arc of said curve 21.95 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said
curve North 87<36’45” East 95.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
to the Southeast having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 487.50 feet;
thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 20.88 feet to the end of said curve;
thence tangent from said curve, South 89<56’00” East 207.42 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 17<15’28” and
a radius of 733.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 220.78 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 18.035 acres more or less
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Leistikow Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions
contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for
recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines,
streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as
may be provided by the ordinances of the City.
Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Section 4. That this annexation into the City of Fort Collins is conditioned upon the
subject property developing as a non-residential land use. If the property is to be developed as a
residential use, then the owner, successors or assigns shall request disconnection of the subject
property from the City of Fort Collins so that Larimer County would have subdivision and zoning
jurisdiction and allow for the implementation of the Transfer of Density Units Program. This
condition shall be in effect for a period of ten (10) years following the effective date of this
ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 154, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the
Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning
of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should
be zoned as hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section
1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including
the property known as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban
Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as:
Legal description of a parcel of land being Lot 2, of the Amended Leistikow MRD
and a portion of the existing right-of-way of Timberline Road situate in Sections 17
and 18, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17, and considering the North line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17 as bearing
South 89<56’00” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence
along said North line, South 89<56’00” East 785.96 feet to the True Point of
Beginning, said point being a point on the South line of Westchase Annexation No.
2 to the City of Fort Collins according to the plat on file in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder said County; thence along said South line, South 89<56’00” East 140.27
feet; thence departing said South line, South 00<04’00” West 91.40 feet; thence
South 75<01’11” West 126.44 feet; thence South 14<58’49” East 95.52 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of
98<02’18” and a radius of 528.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said
curve 903.46 feet; thence departing said curve, South 07<22’24” East 175.33 feet;
thence South 89<54’32” West 467.79 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of
said Timberline Road; thence along said West right-of-way line the following
courses and distances, North 00<09’18” East 55.71 feet; thence South 89<54’44”
East 10.00 feet; thence North 00<09’18” East 959.03 feet to a point on the South line
of said Westchase Annexation No. 2; thence along said South line South 89<56’00”
East 273.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having
a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 512.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along
the arc of said curve 21.95 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said
curve North 87<36’45” East 95.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
to the Southeast having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 487.50 feet;
thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 20.88 feet to the end of said curve;
thence tangent from said curve, South 89<56’00” East 207.42 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 17<15’28” and
a radius of 733.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 220.78 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 18.035 acres more or less.
Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above-
described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said
Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Ken Sampley
Lindsay Kuntz
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City
Property to Public Service Company of Colorado.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s Creek known as Outlot D of
McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing (the Property). The Property
was dedicated on the McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The
Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned and maintained by City’s Stormwater Utility.
McClelland’s Creek conveys stormwater flows to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to service the proposed
residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will extend east from Xcel’s existing service line
off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned by the City, as well as, property owned by Poudre School District. The
line will run adjacent and parallel to an existing sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. Xcel has requested
the City grant a 10-foot wide utility easement across the City’s property for the installation and maintenance of the new
gas line improvements.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The residential development to the east of the City property, known as McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing was
platted in 2008, but has not yet been constructed. Xcel plans to install the new gas line to service this development
from their existing line located in the existing development to the west. The new gas line will be bored underground
from the existing line location adjacent to Rock Dove Drive. The alignment of the bored gas line will be located
approximately 30 inches below the low flow line of the creek located on the City’s Property and run parallel and
adjacent to an existing 30-foot sanitary sewer line. The boring work is not anticipated to cause any surface disturbance
within City’s property. Xcel plans to start the project in 2012. City Utilities staff has reviewed and approved the
proposed gas line alignment and proposed work on the City’s property.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Real Estate Services utilized past acquisition costs for similar stormwater properties, as well as, comparable sales data
to estimate the value of the easement area. The City property has limitations on its use as it is located almost entirely
in floodway and is also entirely dedicated as a landscape, utility, and drainage easement on the McClelland’s Creek
PD & PLD plats, which affect the value of the property. Xcel has agreed to compensate the City $1,150 for the value
of the easement and for City staff time to process the easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARDS / COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
At its October 20, 2011 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the easement
conveyance.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 22
ATTACHMENTS
1. Xcel Easement Location Maps
2. Xcel Easement Project Detail
3. Water Board Meeting Minutes – October 20, 2011
Looking east from approximate
location of Easement 2
Looking east from approximate
location of Easement 1
North
Attachment 1 – Page 3 of 3
N
North
www.bing.com
Poudre School District Property
City Property
No change anticipated in ‘after condition’
ATTACHMENT 3
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, October 20, 2011
Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to Public
Service Company of Colorado
(Attachments available upon request).
Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis gave background information on this item. He stated
these types of easements are not normally brought to the Water Board but that he requested this
item be presented to the board for consideration before presentation to Council.
Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley introduced the topic and introduced
Real Estate Specialist Lindsay Kuntz. Mr. Sampley gave background information for the Xcel
Easement on McClelland’s Creek. Xcel has requested a 10’ foot wide utility easement for the
purpose of installing a gas line to a new development east of the creek. The proposed gas line
will be bored underground and will be at least 30 inches below the creek flow line. There is no
anticipated surface disturbance. Construction will be scheduled sometime in 2012.
Mr. Sampley explained the easement alignment and detail map. Part of the easement would cross
Poudre School District property. The property and creek is owned and maintained by the City of
Fort Collins’ Stormwater Utility. Real Estate Services has determined a value for the easement
based on past acquisition costs for similar stormwater properties and the fact that the property is
in the floodway.
This item has also been presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
Board Member Gessler moved the Water Board recommend that City Council consider
approval of conveyance of a utility easement on City Property to Public Service Company,
consistent with staff’s recommendations. Board Member Brown seconded the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
How big is the gas line? The gas line, including the encasing, is approximately 6 inches.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 155, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
A NON-EXCLUSIVE UTILITY EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY
TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property located in Fort Collins, Colorado,
known as Tract D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Tract D of McClelland’s Creek PD &
PLD 2nd Filing (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned
and maintained by the City’s Stormwater Utility; and
WHEREAS, Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) is requesting a ten foot wide
utility easement across the Property for the installation and maintenance of new gas line
improvements that will serve a proposed residential development east of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement is in two sections described and shown on Exhibit
“A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and
WHEREAS, Xcel has agreed to pay the City $1,150 as compensation for the Easement
and for City staff’s time to process this request; and
WHEREAS, City Utilities staff has reviewed and approved the proposed Easement and
related work on the City’s Property; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Easement conveyance at its regular meeting on October 20, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code states that the City Council is authorized to
sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of
the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other
disposition is in the best interests of the City and, with respect to real property that is part of the
City’s utility systems, that the disposition will not materially impair the viability of the particular
utility system as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easement on the Property to Xcel as provided
herein is in the best interests of the City, will not materially impair the viability of the
Stormwater utility system, and is for the benefit of the citizens of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easement to Xcel on terms and conditions consistent with this
Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the
interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description
of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the
character of the Easement.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Daylan Figgs
Justin Scharton
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-099 Authorizing an Agricultural Lease on Prairie Ridge Natural Area to Harry Sauer.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Natural Areas Program partnered with the City of Loveland (as a minority owner) to purchase the 785 acre Prairie
Ridge Natural Area in 2000 from Harry Sauer. The City entered into an IGA with the City of Loveland, who manages
the property. Loveland leased the property back to Mr. Sauer for farming and the property has been in dryland wheat
production since the time of purchase. The renewal of the existing agricultural lease on the property for one additional
growing season will allow time for the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland and Larimer County to pursue a
collective competitive Request For Proposal process to select a farming tenant for an agriculture lease on this property
and two other contiguous properties located in the Fort Collins/Loveland community separator.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Loveland and Fort Collins purchased 785 acres from Harry Sauer in 2000 and have been leasing the property back
to Mr. Sauer for wheat farming. Loveland is the managing entity on the Prairie Ridge Natural Area property per the
terms of an IGA, administrates the lease and receive all rental income from the property. The lease expired on July
31, 2011, at the traditional end of the harvest for winter wheat production.
Mr. Sauer also leases a portion of Coyote Ridge Natural Area and Long View Farm Open Space for wheat farming;
both properties are located in the separator between Loveland and Fort Collins. Coyote Ridge is owned and managed
by the City of Fort Collins and Long View is owned in partnership between the County, Loveland and the City and is
managed per an IGA with Larimer County.
Loveland, Larimer County, and the City have agreed to collaborate on a collective competitive Request for Proposal
process to select a farming tenant for agriculture leases on all three contiguous dryland wheat properties. All three
agencies have notified Mr. Sauer that a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for farming services on these properties
will be sent out in the fall of 2011. Mr. Sauer has also been notified that the City’s current lease for Coyote Ridge and
the County’s lease for Long View Farm will be terminated on July 31, 2012.
Loveland and Fort Collins are recommending a one year, short term lease for Prairie Ridge with the same terms and
conditions as the previous lease for the property that will expire July 31, 2012. This one year extension of the lease
will allow time for the RFP process to take place. The lease rate for the one year extension is ten dollars ($10) per
acre for the approximately 250 (+/-) acres planted into dryland wheat on an annual basis. Mr. Sauer will receive 100%
of the Crop Flexibility payments from the Farm Service Agency, and will be responsible for any and all costs associated
with crop production, insect control and noxious weed control. The lease generates approximately $2,500 per year
for the City of Loveland. The future tenant will be selected through the RFP process and the three individual property
leases will be approved by the appropriate agencies prior to the one year lease expiration.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts to the City of Fort Collins with this Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no significant environmental impacts to the City of Fort Collins with this Resolution. The property’s land use
will not change and existing farming practices will continue unchanged.
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 23
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its October 12, 2011 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the lease extension.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Meeting Minutes, October 12, 2011
57TH
SHIELDS
TAFT HILL
GARFIELD
COLLEGE
64TH
65TH
71ST
SPRING GLADE
HIGHWAY 287
66TH
AVONDALE
SPRING MESA
67TH
69TH
RANGER
KIM
RAINSHADOW
COUNTY ROAD 17
COUNTY ROAD 19
TRIANGLE
TAFT
REEVES
VONA
HARRISON
FRANKLIN
NIMITZ
TRUXTUN
IDALIA
CHESTNUT
FORRESTAL
WILSON
SEDGWICK
TAHOE
MATHESON
MIDLAND
DEBRA
BERRY
APPLE
VINSON
OLATHE
TONGASS
LYFKA
GUFFEY
¹
Prairie Ridge Natural Area Location and Other Conserved Properties in Vicinity
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2011
Project Area
Larimer County
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas
City of Loveland Open Space (Prop. to be Leased)
Larimer County Dept. of Natural Resources
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Property to be Leased
(CITY PRAIRIE OF LOVELAND RIDGE NATURAL 75% OWNERSHIP AREA
CITY OF FORT COLLINS 25% OWNERSHIP)
OPEN RIMROCK SPACE
(LARIMER COUNTY)
COYOTE RIDGE NATURAL AREA
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Sauer Agriculture Lease - Excerpt
Figgs: The Natural Areas Program partnered on the purchase of the 785
acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area as a minority owner with the City of
Loveland in 2000 from Harry Sauer. The City entered into an IGA with
the City of Loveland who manages the property. Loveland leased the
property back to Mr. Sauer for farming and the property has been in
dryland wheat production since the time of purchase. The renewal of the
existing agricultural lease on the property for one additional growing
season will allow time for the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland
and Larimer County to pursue a collective competitive Request for
Proposal process to select a farming tenant for an agriculture lease on this
property and two other contiguous properties located in the Fort
Collins/Loveland community separator.
Stanley: Will Natural Areas staff restore any parts of this land?
Figgs: We are actively restoring Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The portion
of the farm, that we own, has been restored and we will continue to restore
the area as we have time and available staff. Loveland currently has not
showed interest in restoration.
Knowlton: Is there a chance that anyone other than Mr. Sauer would be
interested in this area?
Figgs: I think the chances are slim, however all three agencies have
notified Mr. Sauer that a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for farming
services on these properties will be sent out in the fall of 2011.
Cameron: It makes sense to consolidate, and have all the leases on the
same time frame. Would all three agencies put the property out for bid?
Figgs: Yes, the one year extension of the lease will allow time for the
RFP process to take place. Our intent is that it will all go out to bid.
Stanley moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend
that City Council approve a Resolution authorizing the one year extension of the
existing agriculture lease on the 785 acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area property with
the current tenant, Harry Sauer.
RESOLUTION 2011-099
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING AN AGRICULTURAL LEASE ON PRAIRIE RIDGE NATURAL AREA
TO HARRY SAUER
WHEREAS, the City of Loveland and the City of Fort Collins are joint owners of the
property known as Prairie Ridge Natural Area, which is described on Exhibit “A”, attached and
incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Loveland and Fort Collins purchased the Property from Harry Sauer in 2000,
and since that time have been leasing the Property back to Mr. Sauer for wheat farming; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Sauer’s most recent lease for the Property expired on July 31, 2011; and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that Mr. Sauer be granted an additional one-year
lease for the Property, to expire on July 31, 2012, to allow time for completion of a formal Request
for Proposals for farming services on several properties; and
WHEREAS, the new lease would be on the same terms and conditions as the previous lease
for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lease agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the new lease would generate approximately $2,500 in rent, which would go
to the City of Loveland in exchange for Loveland’s work managing the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Loveland City Council approved the proposed lease at its regular meeting
on October 4, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed lease at its regular meeting on October 12, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-114(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to lease, for a
definite term of two years or less, any and all interest in real property owned in the name of the City,
provided that the City Council first finds, by resolution, that the lease is in the best interests of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the lease of the Property pursuant to the terms of this Resolution is in
the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a joint lease agreement for
the Property in substantially the form as is attached hereto as Exhibit B, together with such
additional terms and conditions or subsequent amendments or corrections as the City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests
of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the leased
area, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the leased
area.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-100 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the Purchase of Liquid
Aluminum Sulfate from General Chemical.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility is requesting to purchase liquid aluminum sulfate from General Chemical
as an Exception to the Competitive Process. Liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) is used as the primary coagulant.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility is requesting to purchase liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) from General
Chemical for use as the primary coagulant. Delivery of alum is required within 24-hours after order placement;
therefore proximity of the supply source is a primary concern. General Chemical has been the City's vendor in the past
and is an excellent vendor. The proximity of the manufacturing facility in Denver assures continuity of supply that
cannot be attained from other sources; also, weight of the product in liquid form causes transportation cost to be a
major cost factor.
General Chemical is proposing to hold 2012 pricing at the 2011 level of $379/ton delivered for Fort Collins. The closest
alternative supplier is Thatcher Chemical out of Rowley, Utah at $384/ton; they are a distributor who buys it from
General Chemical; whereas the City is buying it direct from General Chemical out of its Denver facility, thereby giving
the City a shorter and more secure supply chain.
Spending for the last three years:
2011: year-to-date is $237,448 through October; current price is $379/ton.
2010: $288,161 at $379/ton.
2009: $300,616 at $389/ton.
Section 8-161 of the City Code states that any exemption to the use of competitive processes in excess of $200,000
must be approved by the City Council.
The Resolution will authorize the purchase of these chemicals as an exemption to the use of competitive bid or
proposal as provided in Section 8-161(d)(1)(b).
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Funds have been budgeted and are available for the purchase of liquid aluminum sulfate.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmentally the City has safeguards in place to prevent the leakage of alum into the sewer, or into a water way
of the US – secondary containment is provided. The City also has security measures for any chemical delivery to the
plant. The driver’s id is verified, as well as the chemical in the truck (through lab analysis) before they are allowed onto
the site. Alum is an irritant, but is not an extremely hazardous chemical.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-100
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE USE OF A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF LIQUID ALUMINUM
SULFATE FROM GENERAL CHEMICAL
WHEREAS, the Water Utility has historically purchased certain chemicals from particular
suppliers for use in testing the municipal water supply; and
WHEREAS, the City has for twelve years purchased liquid aluminum sulfate from General
Chemical; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that it is in the best interests of the City
to continue purchasing the liquid aluminum sulfate from General Chemical due to the consistent
quality of the product for processing, the reduction of feeder performance problems, and the
reliability and cost of delivery (due to proximity of supply); and
WHEREAS, funds have been budgeted and approved in the Water Utilities budget and are
available for the purchases; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that General Chemical is uniquely
qualified to supply liquid aluminum sulfate due to its proximity to Fort Collins and resulting
availability on short notice, and the compatibility of its product with City equipment; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-160(d)(l)b of the City Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to
negotiate the purchase of supplies and services without utilizing a competitive process where the
Purchasing Agent determines that although a particular material or service is available from more
than one responsible source, a competitive process cannot reasonably be used, or, if used, will result
in a substantially higher cost to the City, will otherwise injure the City's financial interests, or will
substantially impede the City's administrative functions or the delivery of services to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that use of another source for liquid
aluminum sulfate would result in substantially higher transportation costs to the City, and that less
reliable product quality and delivery could impede the City's delivery of services to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has submitted the justification required by the City Code
for the purchase of these products without a competitive process to the City Manager for approval;
and
WHEREAS, the purchase price for the product is over $200,000; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has concurred in the determination that it is in the best
interests of the City that the materials be acquired from General Chemical as an exception to the
competitive process; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-161(d)(3) of the City Code requires approval of this procurement by
the City Council since it involves more than $200,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-161(d)( 4) of the City Code provides that any procurement approved
by the City Manager or the City Council as an exception to competitive purchasing requirements
may be used as the basis for a negotiated purchase of additional quantities of the same materials or
services within a period of five years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby approves the purchase of liquid aluminum sulfate from
General Chemical as an exception to the City's competitive procurement requirements for the
reasons set forth herein.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2012, and
Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends the adopted 2012 Budget and sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2012. Including the 2012 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban
Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City appropriations amount to $456,189,759. The Net City Budget, which
excludes internal transfers between City funds, is $361,424,510 for 2012. The Net City Budget, as amended, is
allocated to:
Net City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended
2012 2012 Change
Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1
Debt Service 23.2 23.2 -
Capital * 19.1 22.6 3.5
Total City Appropriations ** $447.6 $456.2 $8.6
Less Internal Service Funds (57.0) (57.8) (0.8)
Less Transfers to Other Funds (37.1) (37.0) 0.1
Net City Budget $353.5 $361.4 $7.9
* Capital dollars reflect non-lapsing capital project budgets.
** This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council adopted the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget and appropriated monies for expenditure in fiscal year 2011.
State statutes and the City Charter both require an annual appropriation to cover expenses for the ensuing year (2012)
based upon the adopted budget. The Second Reading must be done before the last day of November and is currently
scheduled for November 15, 2011.
2012 Revenue Update
The revenue forecast model was updated in July of 2011 with data from the first six months of the year. Sales tax
revenue is projected to increase 1.95% in 2012 over 2011 collections based on the model, including cautious optimism
of the economy.
General Fund Revenue (2.25%):
Adopted 2012 Amended 2012
Sales Tax $50,402,000 $52,805,000
Use Tax 8,000,000 7.800,000
$58,402,000 $60,605,000
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 28
Recommended 2012 Budget Additions
After reviewing the 2012 budget revision requests and obtaining guidance from Council, the City Manager is
recommending the following adjustments to the 2012 budget which was presented to the Finance Committee on
October 10, and discussed in Council Work Sessions on October 11 and 18. The following list includes all changes
since the City Manager's recommended 2012 budget revisions first were initially presented to the Council Finance
Committee.
• Eliminated Below Market Pay Adjustment request of $812k
• Eliminated Federal Legislation Analysis and Action request of $79k
• Reduced CMO Policy & Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE to $15k
• Reduced Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal to $10k
• Reduced Downtown Holiday Lighting to $30k
• Changed funding sources to no longer request use of additional KFCG funds
• Added Regional Planning Assistance request for $50k
• Added Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) request for $75k
• Added Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance request for $50k
• Added Sidewalks, Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements request for $300k from Building on Basics (BOB)
• Added Sidewalk Improvements requests (such as gaps in sidewalk connections) for $260k from Keep Fort
Collins Great-Other Transportation funding
General Fund recommended adjustments total $1,787,016 and recommended adjustments to Other Funds total
$6,837,675.
General Fund:
Ongoing One-time
Assistant to the City Manager and CPIO (1 FTE) $176,320
Police Services Ticket Surcharge Officer (1 FTE) 118,709
Affordable Housing/Human Services 54,499
Restore Conservation Trust Funds for Trail Construction 546,571
Development Review Succession Planning (1.25 Cont. FTE) 75,341
Development Review - Customer Service Demand (1 FTE) 65,000
PFA Non-Discretionary & Total Compensation Increase 228,926
CMO Policy and Project Manager Increase from .8 to 1.0 FTE 15,000
Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services $150,000
Mason Corridor Synergies and Support Services (Parking Study) 50,000
Reorganization Office of Sustainability 91,650
Downtown Ice Rink Installation and Removal 10,000
Downtown Holiday Lighting 30,000
Regional Planning Assistance 50,000
Neighborhood Planning Outreach Specialist (Ombudsman) 75,000
Affordable Housing Relocation Assistance 50,000
Total General Fund Adjustments: $1,412,016 $375,000
Other Funds:
Ongoing One-time
Reorganization Office of Sustainability $30,550
Pedestrian Access and ADA Improvements 300,000
Sidewalk improvements 260,000
Light & Power Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase 121,969
Purchase Power Increas 1,724,505
Energy Efficiency Financing Program (.5 FTE) 300,000
Water Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Increase 88,054
Water Meter Replacement and Rehabilitation 580,000
Household Hazardous Waste Community Event 22,000
Remove Structures from Poudre River Floodway 1,000,000
Master Plan Flood Mitigation Project Property 1,600,000
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 28
MIS Email, Blackberry & Smart Phone Services 28,000 80,000
MIS Network Services Resource Support 62,400
MIS Technology Customer Software Compliance Support 59,488
MIS Technology Customer Support Restructure 30,709
Microsoft Office 2010 Software Upgrade 550,000
Total Other Fund Adjustments $2,045,787 $4,791,888
Miscellaneous
In addition to the recommended adjustments, a couple of miscellaneous adjustments must be made to correct the 2012
appropriations for recent changes. The additional revenue projected to be received from Sales & Use Tax must be
appropriated for transfer to the Natural Areas Fund and Capital Projects Fund. Also, the following "clean-up" items are
included in the Amended 2012 appropriations.
• Art in Public Places (APP) Adjustment: $2,400
N The original 2012 APP offer was based on projects known at that time. This adjustment is based on the
final 2012 budgeted parks and trails projects
• Additional Flex Service: $526,811
N This adjustment is comprised of a 2012-13 CMAQ Grant of $458,794 and partner contributions of $68,017
for the operation of the FLEX regional route from June 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. The City of Fort
Collins local match was previously included in the 2011-12 budget. As such, there is no incremental cost
to the City.
• Correct Police Debt Payment Budget: ($750,000)
N A portion of the Police Building debt ($750,000) is funded from the Capital Projects Fund, the Police Facility
- COPs Debt project. In the 2012 proposed budget the payment of $750,000 was added to this project
budget, funded by additional interest earnings. However, no additional interest earnings are projected to
be received in future years so the 2012 debt payment should be made using existing appropriations and
revenue. Therefore, the 2012 proposed budget for the Capital Projects Fund needs to be decreased by
$750,000 with the same reduction in Capital Projects Fund revenue.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance amends the City Budget for fiscal year 2012 and represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2012
in the amount of $454,382,997. The Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
Executive Offices
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6601
970.416.2081 - fax
fcgov.com/pdt
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 27, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation
FROM: Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director
Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director
Mark Jackson, PDT Budget, Policy and Communications Manager
RE: Pedestrian Improvement Actions and Opportunities
Executive Summary
Efforts continue city-wide to improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout Fort Collins. Since the
March 8, 2011 Council Work Session Transportation Update, staff scheduled, completed, or
have underway several priority projects identified in the recently updated Pedestrian Plan
(2011). This memo outlines the recent history of pedestrian funding, the current funding levels
and project schedule, and discusses opportunities for additional improvements with added
resources in 2012.
Bottom Line: $300,000 per year in Building on Basics (BOB) funding is currently earmarked
for pedestrian improvements through 2015. Recent City Council discussions resulted in a
proposal to assign additional Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) funds for pedestrian projects. If an
additional $260,000 in KFCG funds are allocated, Staff recommends using these funds to
address additional priority pedestrian project needs on collectors and arterial streets in 2012. A
portion of the BOB 2012 resources will be used to complete a thorough Prioritized Pedestrian
Facility Deficiency Analysis (specific location; current condition; needed treatment; required
design and engineering; approximate cost) of the needs identified in the 2011 inventory. This
analysis and data will form the basis of future improvements for the remainder of the BOB
Pedestrian program as well as for any additional resources that might be earmarked for sidewalk
and pedestrian facility improvements. For the remainder of 2011 and into 2012, staff will work
on updating the policy and procedures for re-establishing a 50/50 residential sidewalk
improvement program. Upon completion of the Deficiency Analysis and 50/50 Program policy
issues, additional emphasis will be placed on residential sidewalk needs as well. This
information will be presented to Council in 2012.
BUDGET.att 1.doc 2 10/27/2011
Overview - History
The City of Fort Collins has a long standing commitment to build and maintain a walkable,
pedestrian friendly community. While a great deal of infrastructure improvements are achieved
concurrent with new development and redevelopment, there remains a long list of needs to
complete missing gaps in the system and make repairs to aging sidewalks. Staff identified and
prioritized these needs in the recently updated Pedestrian Plan (2011). There are more needs
than resources available to address them. The Pedestrian Plan’s complete prioritized list of
pedestrian projects can be found at the web link below, in Appendix G:
http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/pdf/ped-plan.pdf.
Prior to 2006, the City of Fort Collins provided over $700,000 annually in funding for pedestrian
improvement projects. The program included a successful “50/50” segment in which the City
partnered with residential property owners to share the cost of repairing their old, broken
sidewalks or building missing segments of sidewalks within neighborhoods. $382,000 was
allocated from the General Fund, an additional $342,000 was dedicated from the Building
Community Choices (BCC) ¼ cent sales tax, and as much as $100,000 of these funds were
dedicated to the 50/50 program at one time (the annual funding for the 50/50 program varied by
year depending upon the level of community requests to participate in this voluntary program).
Severe budget shortfalls subsequently eliminated the General Fund contributions to the
pedestrian improvements and 50/50 program. Currently, only $300,000 per year in BOB funding
is dedicated to pedestrian improvements. These funds have been used for sidewalk repairs and
connectivity projects, as well as local match for large grant funding opportunities benefiting
pedestrians. This ¼ cent sales tax began in 2006 and expires in 2015. Grants and other funding
partnership opportunities are used when possible to augment the BOB funds.
Since the passage of Building on Basics (BOB) in 2005, over $2.3 million dollars (BOB with
other complementary resources) of sidewalk construction and improvements were completed
including connections along arterial streets (Harmony, Horsetooth, etc.) as well as linkages for
the Safe Routes to School program and transit stops. This funding also contributed as local
matching funds to leverage larger scale street improvement and corridor projects. Even with the
improvements made to date, the Pedestrian Plan (2011) identifies a $12.8 million funding
shortfall for pedestrian infrastructure improvements needed from 2012-2016 citywide. The total
funding gap for short term and long term pedestrian improvements (through 2030) is estimated at
$28.3 million.
Current Efforts and Scheduled Projects
Some of the City’s current pedestrian projects are part of larger capital or street projects, such as
Linden Street and North College improvements, or the expanded Street Maintenance Program.
There are a number of stand alone pedestrian projects currently underway as well. The primary
source of local funding for pedestrian projects is the BOB Pedestrian Plan Implementation funds,
which allocates $300,000 (minus 1% for the Art in Public Places program) per year through
2015.
In addition to the local funding sources, the City seeks federal grant funding opportunities to
leverage local dollars through applications to the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization. These federal sources include a variety of grant funding programs such as
BUDGET.att 1.doc 3 10/27/2011
Transportation Enhancement, Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality, and Energy Efficiency
Community Block Grant that specifically emphasize multimodal transportation improvements.
Table 1 shows the current pedestrian projects that are underway or scheduled, and the funding
source(s) for each project:
Table 1. Current Pedestrian Projects
Project Name Description Year Funding Project
Source
Linden Street
The reconstruction of Linden
Street between Jefferson Street
and the Poudre River Trail will
provide continuous sidewalks
and improved crosswalks at
intersections (identified as
Priority Rank #2 in the
Pedestrian Plan)
2011 BOB, DDA, and Federal
Grants
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #2
North College Avenue
As part of the North College
improvement the discontinuous
or non-existent sidewalks will
be built (identified as Priority
Rank #3, 6 and 15 in the
Pedestrian Plan)
2012 BOB and Federal Grants
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #3
Mason Trail / NRRC
Grade Separation
This project will provide an
east-west connection across the
BNSF tracks (identified as
Priority Rank # 12 in the
Pedestrian Plan)
2012-
2013
BCC, BOB and Federal
Grants
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #12
Fossil Creek Trail
South of County Road 38E
north to Spring Canyon Park,
this includes an underpass
connecting to Cathy Fromme
Prairie Natural Area
2011 Parks Parks
Project
Fossil Creek Trail Lemay Avenue to Trilby Road
to connect to the Power Trail 2011 Parks
Parks
Project
Lincoln Avenue path
BUDGET.att 1.doc 4 10/27/2011
Project Name Description Year Funding Project
Source
Lake Street RR crossing
improvements
Replaced BNSF crossing panels
and constructed a concrete
sidewalk where none had
previously existed
2011 CDOT/BNSF funds
College and Harmony
improvements
This project was completed
early in 2011. It created
improved, safer pedestrian
crossings and bike lanes
2011 BOB, Federal and CDOT Capital
Project
Harmony Road
maintenance—JFK to
Timberline
This project will overlay and
re-stripe 1.8 miles of Harmony
Road, widen the UPPR
crossing, create a safer bike
lane and construct missing
sidewalk along this stretch
2012 Harmony maintenance fund
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #32
Downtown General
Improvement District
(GID) sidewalk
rehabilitation
This project has repaired
deteriorating pedestrian
facilities and installed ADA
compliant ramps within the
defined boundary of the G.I.D.
2010-
2012
General Improvement
District GID
Remington/Mountain
Pedestrian Actuated
Warning Beacon
Upgrade
Rebuilt the pedestrian actuated
flashing beacons to replace
failed obsolete parts.
2011 Traffic Operations Signal
Maintenance Budget
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Sherwood/Laurel
Rectangular Rapid Flash
Beacons
BUDGET.att 1.doc 5 10/27/2011
Project Name Description Year Funding Project
Source
Shields/Elizabeth (citywide)
School Crossing
Installed school crosswalk on
Muskrat Creek Drive at Lake
Ranch Road
2011 Traffic Signs/Markings
Maintenance Budget
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Power Trail Crossing
Signal Upgrades
Convert pedestrian actuated
yellow flashing beacons to full
pedestrian signals at Drake and
Horsetooth Power Trail
Crossings
2011 Traffic Operations Signal
Maintenance Budget
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Table 2 shows the recommended projects utilizing the 2012 BOB pedestrian funds. The list of
proposed projects include a Prioritized Pedestrian Facility Deficiency Analysis to identify
pedestrian facility gaps, deficiencies, broken sidewalks, missing ramps, and develop accurate
cost estimates for these deficiencies in the sidewalk network. The primary 2012 projects include
improvements to assist with accessibility and street crossings as well as additional resources to
leverage pedestrian improvements to support Safe Routes to School connections, access to transit
stops, as well as other pedestrian connections as shown in the recently updated Transportation
Master Plan/Pedestrian Plan Capital Improvement Plan.
Table 2. Proposed 2012 BOB Pedestrian Projects
Project Name Cost
Minor Pedestrian Projects Citywide, such as
o ADA Ramps
o Street Crossing Improvements
o Pedestrian Countdown Heads
o Audible Signals
o Wayfinding signage
$ 50,000
Prioritized Pedestrian Facility Deficiency Analysis $100,000
The remaining funds will be used towards projects
based upon the Pedestrian CIP list and Prioritized Ped
Deficiency Analysis, including Safe Routes to School
connections, linkages to transit stops, and other
pedestrian improvements. Depending on the size of the
project these funds may be used as matching funds for
grant applications, contributed to a larger capital
project, and/or used for smaller stand alone projects.
$147,000
Art in Public Places annual 1% contribution: $ 3,000
TOTAL $300,000
Additional Funding Opportunities and Recommendations
Recent City Council conversations about 2012 budget amendments included a proposal to add
Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) to existing pedestrian project funds. Staff identified $260,000
in additional 2011-2012 KFCG “Other Transportation” revenues available for this purpose [One-
BUDGET.att 1.doc 6 10/27/2011
include gaps in sidewalk connections along arterial and collector roads, as well as key school
walk zone connections.
Reestablishing the successful 50/50 Residential Sidewalk Program will require updating the
policy and procedures that guide this type of program. For example, policy issues dealing with
equity, and enforcement of existing Code requirements need to be explored. Staff recommends
bringing an updated policy and procedures to the Council in 2012 and to implement, if Council
concurs, in 2013.
ORDINANCE NO. 156, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BEING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012; AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2012, AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2012; AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2010, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance
No. 134, 2010, approving an amended biennial budget for the years beginning on January 1, 2011,
and January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to
the 2012 budget adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 134, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 4, of the City Charter requires that, before the last day of
November of each fiscal year, the City Council shall appropriate on a fund basis and by individual
project for capital projects and federal or state grant projects, such sums of money as it deems
necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during the ensuing fiscal year based upon the budget
as approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 5, of the City Charter provides that the annual appropriation
ordinance shall also fix the tax levy upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property
within the City, such levy representing the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide
for payment during the ensuing fiscal year for all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred
by the City, including interest and principal of general obligation bonds; and
WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter permits the City Council to fix,
establish, maintain, and provide for the collection of such rates, fees, or charges for water and
electricity, and for other utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient
to pay into the General Fund in lieu of taxes on account of the City-owned utilities such amount as
may be established by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the
transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were
initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in
which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in
the appropriation ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council has reviewed the City Manager's recommended changes
to the “2012 Proposed Appropriations” section of the Fort Collins 2011 and 2012 Biennial Budget
(the “Biennial Budget”), as shown on pages 38 through 40 thereof, a copy of which Biennial Budget
is on file with the office of the City Clerk, and hereby amends the Biennial Budget so as to reflect
the following changes:
2012 Proposed Appropriations
Amount of
Existing Adjustments As Amended
GENERAL FUND $103,002,311 $1,200,445 $104,202,756
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Golf $ 3,000,567 $ 3,000,567
Light & Power Operating 109,881,317 2,146,474 112,027,791
Capital:
Electric Substations 725,000 725,000
Capital Total 725,000 725,000
Total Light & Power 110,606,317 2,146,474 112,752,791
Stormwater Operating 10,709,394 22,000 10,731,394
Capital:
Asset Management 88,333 88,333
Boxelder Stormwater Authority 370,000 370,000
Cache La Poudre Drainage 0 1,000,000 1,000,000
Drainage & Detention System 370,000 370,000
Stormwater Developer Repays 95,000 95,000
Stormwater Master Planning 95,000 95,000
West Vine Basin 0 1,600,000 1,600,000
Capital Total 1,018,333 2,600,000 3,618,333
Total Stormwater 11,727,727 2,622,000 14,349,727
Wastewater Operating 18,277,139 18,277,139
Capital:
Asset Management 88,334 88,334
Collection System Replacement 1,270,000 1,270,000
Collection System Study 50,000 50,000
Flow Monitoring Stations 75,000 75,000
Sludge Disposal Program 200,000 200,000
Water Reclamation Replacement Program 1,275,000 1,275,000
Capital Total 2,958,334 2,958,334
Total Wastewater 21,235,473 21,235,473
-2-
Water Operating 26,202,294 88,054 26,290,348
Capital:
Asset Management 88,333 88,333
Cathodic Protection 115,000 115,000
Distribution System Replacement 1,015,000 1,015,000
Engineering Distribution System Replacement 1,425,000 1,425,000
Halligan Reservoir Expansion 190,000 190,000
Water Meter Replacement & Rehabilitation 920,000 580,000 1,500,000
Water Production Replacement Program 1,340,000 1,340,000
Water Supply Development 100,000 100,000
Capital Total 5,193,333 580,000 5,773,333
Total Water 31,395,627 668,054 32,063,681
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $177,965,711 $5,436,528 $183,402,239
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Benefits $22,949,435 $22,949,435
Data & Communications 7,346,213 $810,597 8,156,810
Equipment 9,927,360 9,927,360
Self Insurance 3,259,300 3,259,300
Utility Customer Service & Administration 15,232,183 15,232,183
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $58,714,491 $810,597 $59,525,088
SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Capital Improvement Expansion $ 634,353 $ 634,353
Capital Leasing Corporation 5,299,731 5,299,731
Cemeteries 535,939 535,939
Cultural Services & Facilities 4,570,259 $2,400 4,572,659
Debt Service 355,300 355,300
General Employees' Retirement 3,076,450 3,076,450
Keeping Fort Collins Great Operating 17,738,693 17,738,693
Capital:
City Bridge Program 564,931 564,931
Laporte-Whitcomb Bridge Replacement 670,000 670,000
Pedestrian Access 0 260,000 260,000
Trail Acquisition/Development 158,000 158,000
Capital Total 1,392,931 260,000 1,652,931
Total Keeping Fort Collins Great 19,131,624 260,000 19,391,624
Natural Areas 8,682,942 213,050 8,895,992
Perpetual Care 45,407 45,407
Recreation 6,416,093 6,416,093
Sales & Use Tax 11,428,000 365,000 11,793,000
Street Oversizing 3,046,663 3,046,663
-3-
Timberline/Prospect SID 102,926 102,926
Transit Services 11,019,384 526,811 11,546,195
Transportation Services 22,711,173 182,500 22,893,673
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE & DEBT
SERVICE FUNDS $97,056,244 $ 1,549,761 $98,606,005
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
General City Capital
City Bridge Program $300,000 $300,000
Police Facility 750,000 (750,000) 0
Railroad Crossing Replacement 100,000 100,000
Total General City Capital $1,150,000 (750,000) $400,000
1/4 Cent Building on Basics
Administration $35,961 $35,961
Bicycle Program Plan Implementation 125,000 125,000
Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals 3,500,000 3,500,000
Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements 0 300,000 300,000
Senior Center Expansion 430,239 430,239
Total 1/4 Cent Building on Basics $ 4,091,200 300,000 $4,391,200
Conservation Trust Fund
Administration $ 267,905 $ 267,905
Fossil Creek Trail 50,000 546,571 596,571
Open Space Acquisition 10,000 10,000
Trail Acquisition/Development 350,000 350,000
Transfer to General Fund-Parks Maintenance 1,276,717 (546,571) 730,146
Tri-City Trails 30,000 30,000
Total Conservation Trust Fund $1,984,622 0 $1,984,622
Neighborhood Parkland Fund
Administration $ 406,087 $ 406,087
Equipment Replacement 15,000 15,000
New Park Site Acquisition 400,000 400,000
New Park Site Development 150,000 150,000
Richards Lake Park 200,000 200,000
Staley Neighborhood Park 400,000 400,000
Trailhead Park 300,000 300,000
-4-
Total Neighborhood Parkland Fund $1,871,087 $1,871,087
TOTAL CITY FUNDS $445,835,666 $8,547,331 $454,382,997
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated out of the revenues of the City, for the fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012, the sum of FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY-FOUR MILLION THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
NINETY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($454,382,997) to be raised by taxation and otherwise, which sum is
deemed by the City Council to be necessary to defray all expenditures of the City during said budget
year, to be divided and appropriated for the purposes shown in Section 1 above.
Section 3. Mill Levy.
a. That the 2012 mill levy rate for the taxation upon each dollar of the assessed valuation
of all the taxable property within the city of Fort Collins as of December 31, 2011, shall be 9.797
mills, which levy represents the amount of taxes for City purposes necessary to provide for payment
during the aforementioned budget year of all properly authorized expenditures to be incurred by the
City, including interest and principal of general obligation bonds.
b. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 9.797 mills to the County Assessor and the
Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, in accordance with the applicable provisions
of law, as required by Article V, Section 5, of the City Charter.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Electric Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates,
Fees and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric
Development Fees and Charges.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 142, 2011, will increase the electric rate by 8.3% for 2012. This Ordinance does not contain any
changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers. The changes to the RESR will be
presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011. Ordinance No. 143, 2011, 2012 will increase some electric
development fees slightly for some developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly for others. Ordinance Nos. 142 and
143, 2011, were adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kottwitz).
City staff has worked with Platte River Power Authority staff to address comments received regarding language found
in Sections 1 and 3 of Ordinance No. 142, 2011.
Council asked to be provided with additional explanation and graphics for the monthly electric rate increase on Second
Reading. This requested information is provided in Attachment 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Additional Explanation and Graphics For the Monthly Electric Rate Increase
3. Powerpoint presentation
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 4, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Ellen Switzer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Utility Rates, Fees and Charges for 2012.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Rates and
Charges.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water Plant
Investment Fees.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Wastewater
Rates, Fees and Charges.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Sewer Plant
Investment Fees.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates,
Fees and Charges.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric
Development Fees and Charges.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Stormwater Plant
Investment Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following overall monthly rate increases are recommended for 2012.
% Increase
Water 6.0%
Wastewater 8.0%
Electric 8.3%
The water and wastewater rate increases are across the board to all customer classes. There is no change in the
monthly rate for stormwater. City Council has requested additional data and time to study proposed changes to the
electric residential energy service rate (hereafter referred to as “RESR”). Staff will return to Council on November 15,
2011, to recommend changes to the RESR. All other electric rates are included in the electric rate increase referenced
above. The electric rate increases are proposed to vary by customer class from 3.9% to 15.9%. The proposed
changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than the customer class averages.
With the water and wastewater rate changes contained in the proposed ordinances, a typical single family customer’s
monthly bill will increase $4.44 from $138.66 to $143.10 or 3.2%. If revisions to the RESR are approved by Council
at a later date, the typical residential customer will likely see an additional increase in costs. The later change will
depend on the rate form option preferred by City Council.
Changes to the water and wastewater plant investment fees and electric development fees will also go into effect if
the proposed ordinances are approved. A 4.7% increase in water plant investment fees (PIFs) and a 1.2% increase
in stormwater PIFs are proposed. A 3% reduction in wastewater PIFs is recommended. On average, electric
development fees will increase from 1% - 3.5% for residential and decrease less than 1% for commercial.
Several additional Code modifications and clarifications are also contained in the ordinances above.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Monthly Utility Rates
The recommended 2012 rate increases differ from the rates that were proposed in the original 2011-2012 Budget.
The changes are summarized in Attachment 1 and further explained by the staff memos included as Attachments 2
and 3. All proposed rates would be effective for meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
A. Monthly Water Rates (Ordinance No. 138, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Water
Rates and Charges.)
Staff proposes a 6% water rate increase. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate classes. With the
proposed rate, a typical single family residential customer’s monthly bill will increase 6% as shown in the following
table:
Single Family
Typical Use
2011 Monthly
Water Bill
Proposed 2012
Monthly Water Bill $ Increase % Increase
January
5000 gallons $24.13 $25.58 $1.45 6%
July
21,000 gallons $65.11 $69.04 $3.93 6%
Monthly Average* $35.87 $38.05 $2.18 6%
*Average based on seasonal use of 117,131 gallons per year
Although water rates were increased 3% in 2007, 2010 and in 2011, total Water Fund revenues decreased 23%
between 2006 and 2010. The reduction in use is thought to be a combination of conservation, weather and economic
factors. While water use is down, the vast majority of the costs of operating the water system are fixed and do not vary
based on customer use. The proposed 2012 rate increase is required to fund operations, capital improvements and
maintain debt service coverage. Staff has increased projections for Water Fund capital projects needs between 2013
and 2020 by $33 million. Most of this increase is for distribution system replacement ($22 million). The distribution
system project increase is a result of the preliminary data from the asset management program. The increase is not
related to Halligan Reservoir which is to be funded from the Water Rights Reserve. The Water Rights Reserve is
funded by developers’ cash-in-lieu-of water rights payments and is restricted to the purchase of water rights and water
storage only. See Attachment 2 for additional detailed explanation of the water rate increase.
In addition, staff is proposing to eliminate unmetered construction water for customers with planned water services
with meters greater than 1-inch. Staff is also recommending a monthly charge for 3/4-inch and 1-inch construction
water service. Construction water will remain unmetered for 3/4-inch and 1-inch services but instead of a flat one time
fee on the building permit (equivalent to 1.5 times the base charge for the future account), a monthly account will be
established and billed a flat charge based on estimated construction use of 7000 gallons per month. Monthly billing
will continue until the permanent meter is set. These changes are proposed to eliminate, or at least reduce, the
extended over use of the unmetered construction service and will better reflect the cost of the water provided.
Construction Water
Frequency of Billing
3/4-inch
Meter 1-inch Meter
Current 2011 One time charge $ 20.40 $ 50.93
Proposed 2012 Monthly charge $ 25.46 $ 48.55
Includes PILOTs
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 20
B. Monthly Wastewater Rates (Ordinance No. 140, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Staff proposes an 8% wastewater rate increase for 2012. The increase is across the board and applies to all rate
classes. With the proposed increase, a typical residential customer’s bill will increase from $28.59 to $30.88 or $2.29
per month. The typical customer is based on 4,800 gallons of winter quarter water use.
Council previously approved a series of annual wastewater rate increases starting in 2008. The prior rate increases,
as well as the proposed 2012 increase, are necessary to fund wastewater operations and meet the increase in long
term debt service obligations for the now completed capital project which replaced the trickling filter, made odor control
improvements and prepared for future regulatory requirements at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility.
C. Monthly Electric Rates (Ordinance No. 142, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise
Electric Rates, Fees and Charges.)
Based on Council response at the September 13, 2011 Work Session, the electric rate ordinance does not contain
any changes to the RESR, the rate applicable to the majority of residential customers. The changes to the RESR will
be presented in a separate ordinance on November 15, 2011 and will contain several rate form alternatives. The
ordinance for consideration at this meeting pertains only to the Residential Demand, Commercial (General Service,
General Service 25, General Service 50), Industrial (General Service 750) and Traffic rates.
Fort Collins’ wholesale and retail electric rates are among the lowest in the region and nation. This will continue to
be true following the 8.3% electric rate increase proposed for 2012. The 8.3% increase is the system average and
will not be equally applied to all customer rate classes. Based on a cost-of-service study, the proposed rates vary by
rate class as follows:
Proposed Rate Class Increases for 2012
Individual customers will vary from the class average.
Summer increases (June, July and August) will be greater than average.
RESR – Not included in Ordinance No. 142, 2011 6.0%
Residential Demand Rate 15.9%
1. General Service (small commercial less than 25 kW) 3.9%
1. General Service 25 (small commercial between 25-49 kW) 15.5%
General Service 50 (medium commercial between 50-749 kW) 8.7%
General Service 750 (large com/industrial greater than 749kW) 11.0%
Traffic Signals 11.3%
Floodlights 0.0%
Average System Increase 8.3%
1. New rate classes proposed for 2012
4.8% of the 8.3% system-wide increase is due to a 6.4% increase in Platte River Power Authority’s purchase power
rates. In addition, Platte River’s wholesale rate will be seasonal, with higher rates in June, July and August. Platte
River’s 2012 purchase power rate increase is due to several key factors:
• Reduced surplus sales
• Increased operating and maintenance costs
• Increased financing and depreciation costs as new projects are placed into service
• Reduced interest income – due to low interest rates and lower cash reserves
The remaining 3.5% of the 8.3% is required to reduce the use of Light and Power’s reserves to cover the cost of
system improvements and replacements. While the reduction of reserves has been intentional, expenditures in the
Light and Power Fund have exceeded revenues each year since 2007. Even following the proposed 3.5% increase,
expenditures are projected to exceed revenues for 2012.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -4- ITEM 20
The larger commercial classes are experiencing a greater than average increase due to the shift of purchase power
costs from demand charges to energy charges in Platte River’s new rate form. Those customers with larger load
factors, typically larger commercial and industrial customers and also the traffic signal system, will have larger than
average increases in the purchase power components of their rates. (Load factor measures the consistency of power
use over time.)
Although the last cost-of-service study showed that the residential demand (“RD”) rate was 18% under cost-of-service,
all rate classes were limited to a 10% increase in 2011. The 2012 increase brings the RD rate class up to full cost-of-
service. The rate has traditionally been selected by high-use customers such as those who exclusively heat their
homes with electricity. The increase to this rate will make the RESR more economical for many of the existing RD
customers in 2012. Staff is also recommending that the RD rate be available only to those customers providing
documentation that their home is heated entirely with electric energy. These changes will begin a phase-out of the
RD rate.
Electric Rate Form Changes
Changes in the electric rate forms are necessary to align rates in support of the City’s Energy Policy and Climate
Action Plan goals. By adopting rate forms to incentivize customers to conserve and use energy more efficiently and
by providing energy conservation assistance and programs to our customers, the City will more likely be able to
achieve its policy goals. In addition, successful implementation of these tools will delay or defer the expense of
constructing additional generation resources. Rate form changes are also needed to pass through the seasonal cost
differentials that will be charged by Platte River Power Authority beginning in 2012. All rates will have higher costs
in the summer (June, July and August) than during the remaining nine “non-summer” months. Consistent with Platte
River, the recommended rates also shift a greater proportion of the rate from the demand charges to energy charges.
Rate form options were presented to the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and to the full Council at
work sessions on September 13, 2011 and October 11, 2011. Based on Council’s responses to the questions posed
at the work sessions, there is a delay in the ordinance making changes to the RESR until November 15, 2011. Several
options for the RESR ordinance will be presented at that time. The changes recommended for the RD and
Commercial/Industrial rates seemed to have wide-spread support at the September 13 Work Session. The following
summarizes changes to the electric rate forms that are included in the proposed electric rate ordinance.
• Residential Demand: The residential demand rate will be increased to the cost-of-service and energy
charges will reflect the seasonal differential. The rate will be available only to customers who heat their
residences exclusively with electricity.
• Small /Medium Commercial: The General Service rate is currently one rate class serving all commercial
customers with average monthly demands of less than 50 kW. Staff is proposing that it be split into two rate
classes beginning in 2012.
N General Service - energy-only seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of less than
25 kW
N General Service 25 - energy/demand seasonal rate for customers with average monthly demands of
between 25 and 49kW
• Large Commercial / Industrial: The recommended rate form changes for the GS50 and GS750 rate classes
are due to Platte River’s seasonal wholesale rate.
N General Service 50 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with
average demands of between 50-749 kW
N General Service 750 – add seasonal energy and coincident demand components for customers with
average demands of 750 kW and greater
Additional Amendments to Electric Article and Rates
• Wholesale Transactions: Staff is recommending the addition of a Code section and definition to clarify terms
of wholesale transactions and to specify that the retail rates, requirements and electric development fees do
not apply to wholesale purchases.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -5- ITEM 20
• Clarification of Net Metering Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate schedule specify that credits for net
excess generation due to net metering will be based on the summer season retail energy charge as reflected
in the new rate structure.
• Clarification of Parallel Generation Credit: Staff is recommending that the rate tariff schedule specify that
credits for parallel generation delivered to the utility will be based on Platte River Power Authority’s avoided
cost rate.
• Clarification of Distribution Facilities Demand: The proposed change more fully defines distribution facilities
demand for the large commercial and industrial rate classes and permits the Utilities Executive Director to use
an alternative method to recover a customer’s cost-of-service share of distribution demand if the costs
associated with serving a customer are not fully recovered by the standard rate.
Monthly Rate Increase Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed rate changes on a typical single family residential
customer:
Typical Residential Customer – Monthly Utility Bill
Current
2011
Estimated
2012
$
Increase
%
Increase
Electric
700 kWh/mo $59.94 $59.94 * *
Wastewater
4,800 gal/mo WQA $28.59 $30.88 $2.29 8.0%
Stormwater
8,600 sq.ft. lot, light runoff $14.26 $14.26 $0.00 0.0%
Water
117,131 gal/yr $35.87 $38.03 $2.15 6.0%
Total Estimated Average Monthly
Utility Bill
$138.66 $143.10 $4.44 3.2%
* The 2012 electric RESR will not be considered by Council until a later Council meeting and therefore will not be
effective as of January 1, 2012. A change, averaging 6% is expected to be effective February 1, 2012.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -6- ITEM 20
The following charts compare Fort Collins Utilities’ monthly rates to others along the Front Range. The electric rate
shown for Fort Collins for 2012 is the current 2011 rate. A change to the RESR is expected to be effective in February.
The average change to the residential energy rate class is projected to be 6%.
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
January Water Use - 5,000 Gallons
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
Stormwater $7.13 $10.39 $8.89 $7.10 $14.26 $5.63 $14.26 $- $8.16
Wastewater $20.38 $18.11 $15.83 $20.32 $28.59 $20.48 $30.88 $31.27 $16.72
Water $13.96 $13.19 $18.05 $18.85 $24.13 $26.70 $25.58 $25.26 $38.41
Electric $51.65 $55.37 $76.21 $76.21 $59.94 $76.21 $59.94 $77.47 $76.21
Longmont Loveland Denver Boulder Ft. Collins Greeley Ft. Collins
'12
Co.Sprs Aurora
2011 Residential Rate Comparison
July Water Use 21,000 Gallons
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Stormwater $10.39 $7.13 $14.26 $7.10 $14.26 $8.89 $5.63 $8.16 $-
Wastewater $18.11 $20.38 $28.59 $20.32 $30.88 $15.83 $20.48 $16.72 $31.27
Water $40.71 $59.18 $65.11 $60.14 $69.04 $80.71 $80.14 $123.46 $128.10
Electric $55.37 $51.65 $59.94 $85.16 $59.94 $85.16 $85.16 $85.16 $77.47
Loveland Longmont Ft. Collins Boulder Ft. Collins
'12
Denver Greeley Aurora Co.Sprs
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -7- ITEM 20
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) and Electric Development Fees
City Code requires staff to present water, wastewater and stormwater plant investment fees to Council for approval
no less than every other year. These fees were last changed in 2009 effective on January 1, 2010. Staff is
recommending changes to each of the wet utility PIFs. Water and Stormwater PIFs are increasing 4.7% and 1.2%
respectively. Wastewater PIFs are recommended to decrease 3%.
Electric development fees are also required to be approved by City Council no less than every second year, although
historically staff has recommended annual changes. The current electric development fees were approved by Council
in 2010 and were effective January 1, 2011.
Staff is recommending the following changes to be effective on January 1, 2012.
A. Water Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 139, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Water Plant Investment Fees.)
The water plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current value
of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net water system equity, capacity
units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Water PIFs are calculated to increase an average of 4.7%
for 2012.
There are two major factors influencing the increase. First, projected capital improvements related to regulatory
requirements have been allocated to the PIF for that portion of the improvements that will serve new growth. Other
revisions have been made to the long range capital improvement plan which also impacted the Water PIF calculations.
Together, these capital changes have increased the PIF requirement.
The second factor offsets the increase. In 2009, detailed information was not available to classify the construction
work in progress. The decision was made to treat it all as backbone related capital additions. This overstated the 2010
PIF requirement. Since that time, additional reporting is available to clearly classify the work in progress. This resulted
in a reduction in equity of the backbone system.
Water PIF charges for a typical single family lot (8600 sq ft) would increase from $3,826 to $4,084 or $258. The
following table shows the proposed increases for water PIFs.
Water Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential:
Domestic Interior Use - Flat Charge $ 730 $ 730 0.0%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.36 $ 0.39 8.3%
Duplex and Multi Family:
Domestic Interior Use - Charge per Unit $ 490 $ 510 4.1%
Exterior Use - $/Sq ft $ 0.27 $ 0.27 0.0%
Non-Residential by Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,530 $ 7,880 4.6%
1" $ 21,730 $ 22,750 4.7%
1-1/2" $ 45,300 $ 47,410 4.7%
2" $ 69,070 $ 72,290 4.7%
3" $ 157,920 $ 165,290 4.7%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -8- ITEM 20
B. Wastewater/Sewer Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 141, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees.)
The wastewater plant investment fees were developed to recover the current value of past investment and the current
value of future growth-related investment through 2040. This method includes calculating net wastewater system
equity, capacity units and determining the net system equity per unit. The Wastewater PIFs are calculated to decrease
3% for 2012. Like the Water PIF, this reduction is in part due to a change in the basis for calculating construction work
in progress. Other recent revisions to the long range capital improvement plan have reduced the Wastewater PIF
calculations.
Wastewater PIF charges for a single family lot would decrease from $3,550 to $3,440, a reduction of $110. The
following table shows the proposed changes.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
2011 2012
Existing Proposed % Change
Single Family Residential $ 3,550 $ 3,440 -3%
Duplex and Multi Family, per unit $ 2,490 $ 2,410 -3%
Non-Residential by Water Meter Size
3/4" $ 7,100 $ 6,880 -3%
1" $ 17,880 $ 17,300 -3%
1-1/2" $ 31,490 $ 30,480 -3%
2" $ 55,290 $ 53,520 -3%
3" $ 150,130 $ 145,310 -3%
4" and above assessed on individual basis
C. Electric Development Fees (Ordinance No. 143, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.)
Electric development fees recover both actual on-site costs (building site charges) and allocated off-site costs (electric
capacity charges) to serve commercial or residential development. These fees are typically adjusted annually to reflect
changes in costs. Proposed 2012 fees will increase slightly for some developments (1%-3%) and decrease slightly
for others. The table below shows the changes for a typical single family lot and a model commercial development.
Typical Single Family Lot
8600 square feet, 70 foot of street frontage, 150 amp service, 4/0 secondary service
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$3,139 $3,233 $94 3.0%
Model Commercial Development
82,000 sq ft, 1900 ft street frontage, 250 ft primary srv, 600 amps, 208Volt, 3-phase, 1-transformer
Current 2011 Proposed 2012 $ Change % Change
$31,076 $30,981 -$95 -0.3%
D. Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (Ordinance No. 144, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
to Revise Stormwater Plant Investment Fees)
The Stormwater PIFs are recommended to increase 1.2% in 2012. The increase represents a $7.3 million increase
in capital facilities added since the last study. However, annexation has caused an increase in total developed and
developable acres which results in an increased divisor in the calculation. The two changes result in a modest
increase of 1.2%. The PIF will increase from $6,313 per acre to $6,390 per acre.
Stormwater PIF charges for a typical single family lot would increase from $1,069 to $1,082, an increase of $13.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -9- ITEM 20
PIF Change Summary
The following chart summarizes the impact of the proposed PIF and development fee changes on a typical residential
lot:
PIF Changes for Typical Single Family
Current
2011
Proposed
2012
Change
%
Change
$
Water1
Raw Water2
Wastewater
Stormwater3
Electric1
Total
$3,826
$5,203
$3,550
$1,069
$3,139
787
$4,084
$5,203
$3,440
$1,082
$3,233
$17,042
6.7%
0.0%
-3.1%
1.2%
3.0%
1.5%
$258
$0
(-$110)
$13
$94
$255
1Typical, based on lot size of 8,600 sq. ft.; 70-foot street frontage
2 No increase for Raw Water
3 8,600 sq. ft. lot plus estimated 6,156 sq. ft common area and right-of-way; .5 run off
coefficient
Next Steps:
November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting
• Second Reading of these seven Ordinances
November 15, 2011 City Council Meeting
• First Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance with seasonal and seasonal-tiered options
• First Reading of Service Charges Ordinance with increases for after-hours service charges and a monthly fee
for manual meter reading for customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project.
December 6, 2011 City Council Agenda
• Second Reading of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -10- ITEM 20
the total increase. That amount will depend on the rate form option selected by Council at the November 15, 2011
Council meeting. Utility programs can help customers to reduce their water and electric use and to lessen the financial
impact of the rate increases.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Funding from the proposed electric rate increase will allow the Utilities to continue programs and services aimed at
meeting the goals and objectives of the Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan. Accurate seasonal price signals may
delay/ avoid the need for additional peak electric generation. Water and wastewater rates provide funding for
conservation programs and environmental regulatory compliance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 15, 2011 meeting the Water Board recommended approval of the proposed 2012 water and
wastewater monthly rates and the plant investment fees for 2012.
At its October 6, 2011 meeting, the Electric Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed 2012 electric rates
(exclusive of the Residential Energy Services Rate) and the proposed 2012 electric development fees.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in the Coloradoan on October 2, 2011 and a mailing was
sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with PUC requirements. Electric rate forms were
discussed at the Council Finance Committee on August 15, 2011 and at a Council Work Session on September 13.
A written review of all the rates was included in the October 10, 2011, Council Finance Committee Agenda; however,
discussion of the item was postponed until October 17, 2011.
Staff plans to conduct outreach to all customers following adoption of the Ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012 Utility Rate Increases – Explanation of Change
2. Staff memo to Council related to water rate increase, September 19, 2011
3. Staff memo to Council related to electric rate increase, September 19, 2011
4. Staff memo to Council related to plant investment fees, September 19, 2011
5. Council Work Session Summary September 13, 2011
6. Council Finance Committee, August 15, 2011
7. Water Board minutes, September 15, 2011
8. Electric Board minutes, October 6, 2011
9. Power Point Presentation
ATTACHMENT 2
Light and Power
Average Rate Increase 8.3%
Capital
3.5% Platte
River
Rate
Increase
4.8%
The Platte River rate increase is seasonal and increases the charges for energy by 47% and reduces the charges for
peak demand by 33%. The shift of purchase power rates from peak demand charges to energy charges results in
larger increases for large commercial and industrial customers than for residential customers. This is because the
larger customers tend to have better load factors and use more energy per kW of peak demand.
Capital additions have been funded in part by reserves since 2007, since total expenditures have exceeded total
revenues. The draw down of reserves was intentional since reserves had been greater than policy levels. This
was a temporary and unsustainable situation that was hastened by the reduction in non-operating revenue mainly
interest and development fees. The electric rates must now be ramped up over the next few years to begin to
cover more of the capital costs needed for new capital improvements and to rebuild aging infrastructure necessary
to serve customers. Even with the proposed 3.5% increase, reserves will still be utilized to fund a portion of the
capital needs for 2012 as shown below.
Light and Power - Total Expenditures
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Budget
2011
Budget
2012
Millions
Purchase Power Debt Service
PILOTs Energy Services
O&M Other/Grants
Customer Service & Admin Capital & System Add/Replace
Total Revenue
Attachment 3 – Electric Rates
1
1
2012 Electric Rates & Development Fees
Second Reading
November 1, 2011
2
Monthly Electric Rates
Effective for Meter Readings on or after 1/1/2012
• 8.3% Average system increase
• Ord. 142 excludes Residential Energy Rate
– 56,000 residential customers
– Staff will be back to Council 11/15/12 with options
• Increase varies by customer rate class & customers within class
• Increase varies seasonally
• Clarification of terms for wholesale transactions, net metering &
parallel generation credits, & facilities demand
Attachment 3 – Electric Rates
2
3
8.3% Electric Rate Increase
(including Residential Energy)
• Two factors in 8.3%
increase
+4.8% retail impact
from Platte River’s
6.4% rate
increase
+3.5% needed to
slow the use of
L&P reserves for
capital additions
Light and Power
Average Rate Increase 8.3%
Platte
River Rate
Increase
4.8%
Capital
3.5%
4
Light and Power - Total Expenditures
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Budget
2011
Budget
2012
Millions
Purchase Power Debt Service
PILOTs Energy Services
O&M Other/Grants
Customer Service & Admin Capital & System Add/Replace
Total Revenue
Attachment 3 – Electric Rates
3
5
Rate Increase Varies by Customer Class & Season
Industrial - GS 750 20.7% 7.6% 11.0%
16.8% 2.0% 6.0%
Residential Energy
(56,000 customers not inc. in Ord.142)
System Average 19.2% 4.4% 8.3%
Large Commercial - GS50 20.0% 4.7% 8.7%
Medium Commercial - GS25 27.0% 10.9% 15.5%
Small Commercial - GS 18.1% -1.6% 3.9%
19.6% 15.1% 15.9%
Residential Demand
(Optional for electric heat only)
Customer Rate Class Summer Non-Summer Average
Summer: June, July and August
Non Summer: Remaining 9 months
6
Electric Development Fees
• One-time charge
– installation of on-site electric system
– share of off-site distribution & substation facilities
• By Code, Electric Development Fees are adjusted at
least biennially but are usually revised each year
• Proposed changes for 2012 for typical developments:
– Residential +3.0%
– Commercial -0.3%
Attachment 3 – Electric Rates
4
7
Electric rates are among the lowest in the state & country.
Small Commercial
Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Small Commercial Rate Survey
January 2011 --- Cost for 2,000 kWh and 10 kW per Month
$155
$166
$178
$147
GUNNISON
FORT MORGAN
LONGMONT
LOVELAND
FC Non Summer 2012
FC Average2012
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
COLORADO SPRINGS
WRAY
FORT COLLINS 2011
FLEMING
HIGHLINE EA
LYONS
JULESBURG
FC Summer 2012
HOLY CROSS EA
XCEL ENERGY
FOUNTAIN
DELTA
ASPEN
Y-W ELECTRIC ASSN
ESTES PARK
YUMA
POUDRE VALLEY EA
WHITE RIVER EA
OAK CREEK
YAMPA VALLEY EA
HAXTUN
MOUNTAIN PARKS EI
LA PLATA
DELTA-MONTROSE EA
HIGH WEST ENERGY
MORGAN COUNTY REA
EMPIRE EA
UNITED POWER
GRAND VALLEY RPL
FREDERICK
GUNNISON COUNTY EA
TRI-COUNTY
RATON
WHEATLAND
SAN LUIS VALLEY REA
INTERMOUNTAIN REA
LAMAR
BLACK HILLS ENERGY
SAN ISABEL
HOLLY
LAS ANIMAS
LA JUNTA
ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority (“Platte River”) costs are increasing due to
reduced surplus sales, increased operating costs for aging plants and environmental mitigation,
increased financing costs, and continuing capital investment; and
WHEREAS, Platte River will increase the City’s wholesale cost of power approximately
6.4% in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the increased wholesale power costs will require a 4.8% increase in the City’s
electric rates; and
WHEREAS, the revenues in the Light and Power Fund have not been sufficient to fund
capital projects and system replacements and reserves have been utilized to make up for the short
fall; and
WHEREAS, the reduction in reserves was accelerated due to reductions in interest revenue
and development fee revenue; and
WHEREAS, without additional rate increases, reserves are projected to fall below minimum
policy levels as early as 2013; and
WHEREAS, a 3.5% rate increase will begin to fund the necessary capital improvements and
system replacements and will also begin to stem the decline in reserves; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to enact rate structures to encourage additional energy
conservation measures in order to meet Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and
WHEREAS, in order to further encourage energy conservation, the recommended
adjustments to the electric rates include an amendment to the residential demand service rate
schedule limiting participation to those customers who establish to the satisfaction of the Utility that
their residences are heated entirely by electric energy; and
WHEREAS, City Council has requested an additional work session to review and study the
rate form options for the residential energy service rate class and will defer making a decision
related to changes for the 2012 residential energy service rate until that review is completed later
in 2011 or early 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to City Council the following
adjustments to the existing residential demand, general service, general service 50, general service
750 and traffic signal electric rates for all billings issued with meter readings on or after January 1,
2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to City Council the creation of
a new rate class, general service 25; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise electric rates, fees and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition “Wholesale energy” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Wholesale energy, as used in this Article, shall mean that energy generated
within the City’s service territory and sold to Platte River Power Authority.sold to
the City or to Platte River Power Authority by negotiated contract to be sold by the
City or Platte River Power Authority to others.
Section 2. That Sections 26-446 and 26-447 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins shall
be renumbered as Sections 26-447 and 26-448 respectively.
Section 3. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition
of a new Section 26-447 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-446. Wholesale transactions.
The sale of wholesale energy, as defined in this Article, will not be governed by
the electric rate schedules or electric development fees or charges set out in this
Article, but shall be subject to requirements for interconnection to the City’s electric
system, if applicable. and requirements for sales to the City, if applicable, will not
be governed by the electric rate schedules or electric development fees and charges
set out in this Article.
Section 4. That Section 26-465(a), (c), (k) and (q) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
are hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Availability. The residential demand service rate, schedule RD, shall be
available within the corporate limits of the City and the suburban fringe. Service
under this rate class is available only to customers who establish to the satisfaction
of the utility, by providing to the utility such documentation as the utility may deem
appropriate, that the residence served is heated entirely by electric energy. Such
-2-
documentation must be submitted by April 1, 2012. At such time that the utility
implements a time-of-use rate, this rate schedule will no longer be available.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates are as follows:
(1) fixed charge, per account: seven dollars and twenty-four cents
($7.24).
(2) demand charge, per kilowatt: two dollars and forty-three cents
($2.43).
(3) distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and eighty-eight
one-hundredths cents ($0.0288).
(4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of monthly service charges billed pursuant to this
Section.
. . .
(k) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such
customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and
conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and the credit for energy delivered to
the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection.
-3-
. . .
(q) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be
measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has
produced more electricity than the customer-generator has consumed, the
customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production.
During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall
receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding
twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to
the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 5. That Section 26-466(b), (c), (m) and (r) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-466. General service, schedule GS.
. . .
(b) Applicability. This schedule applies to individual commercial and industrial
services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's distribution system;
and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in existence prior to January
1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living quarters are served
through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five (5) horsepower may
be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule applies to an individual
single or three-phase service with an energy-only meter and for demand metered
services with an average metered demand of not greater than twenty-five (25)
kilowatts.
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) fixed charge, per account:
a. single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and
sixty-eight cents ($3.68).
b. single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: ten dollars
and eighty-three cents ($10.83).
c. three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: five dollars and
fifty-nine cents ($5.59).
-4-
d. three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: thirteen
dollars and twenty-four cents ($13.24).
(2) demand charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: two and sixty-seven one-hundredths cents ($0.0267).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: one and
thirty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0139).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: one and eighty-one
one-hundredths cents ($0.0181).
(4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(m) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
-5-
Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such
customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and
conditions described in Subsection (r) below, and the credit for energy delivered to
the electric utility shall be calculated as described in that Subsection.
. . .
(r) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 6. That Section 26-466 (f) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
deleted and the remaining sections 26-466 (g) through 26-466 (r) are renumbered 26-466 (f) through
26-466 (q) respectively.
Section 7. That currently numbered Sections 26-467 through 26-473 are renumbered as
Sections 26-468 through 26-474 respectively and that an entirely new Section 26-467 General
service 25, schedule GS25, is hereby inserted to read as follows:
Sec. 26-467. General service 25, schedule GS25.
(a) Availability. The schedule GS shall be available within the corporate limits
of the City and the suburban fringe.
(b) Applicability. This schedule applies to individual commercial and industrial
services, served at the established secondary voltage of the City's distribution system;
and optionally, for apartments and multiple dwellings in existence prior to January
1, 1980, where more than one (1) dwelling or single living quarters are served
through one (1) meter. Single-phase motors from one (1) to five (5) horsepower may
be connected with the approval of the utility. This schedule applies to an individual
single or three-phase service with an average metered demand of not less than (25)
kilowatts or greater than fifty (50) kilowatts.
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
-6-
(1) fixed charge, per account:
a. single-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: three dollars and
sixty-eight cents ($3.68).
b. single-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: ten dollars
and eighty-three cents ($10.83).
c. three-phase, two-hundred-ampere service: five dollars and
fifty-nine cents ($5.59).
d. three-phase, above two-hundred-ampere service: thirteen dollars
and twenty-four cents ($13.24).
(2) demand charge, per kilowatt:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: seven dollars and seven cents ($7.07).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: four dollars
and thirty- six cents ($4.36).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: one and eighty-one
one-hundredths cents ($0.0181).
(4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
-7-
(5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
(d) Renewable resource. Renewable energy resources, including but not limited
to energy generated by the power of wind, may be offered on a voluntary basis to
customers at a premium of one and nine-tenths cents ($.019) per kilowatt hour. The
utility may establish and offer voluntary programs designed to increase and enhance
the use of energy generated by renewable energy resources in support of Council-
adopted policy applicable to the utility.
(e) Excess capacity charge. A monthly capacity charge of two dollars ($2.) per
kilowatt may be added to the above charges for service to intermittent loads in
accordance with the provisions of the electric service rules and regulations.
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) the monthly standby distribution charge shall be four dollars and
twenty-seven cents ($4.27) per kilowatt of contracted standby
service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution facilities
charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount,
the standby distribution charge shall be twelve dollars and eighty-one
cents ($12.81) per kilowatt.
(2) in the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first month of
the new contract period will become the current billing month and
such month's metered demand shall become the minimum allowable
contract demand for the standby service. Requests for standby service
may be subject to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance
charge may be added for special facilities required to provide standby
service.
(g) Service charge. Service charges and connection fees shall be as set forth in
Subsection 26-712(b).
(h) Conservation assistance, rebates and incentives. The utility may establish
programs to assist customers or provide incentives to customers in order to reduce
energy consumption or system peak demands consistent with Council-adopted policy
applicable to the utility. Such programs may include financial or technical assistance,
incentives or rebates and shall be consistent with program objectives approved by the
Utilities Executive Director.
-8-
(i) Billing demand. The billing demand shall be determined for each point of
delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest fifteen-minute integrated
demand occurring during the billing period.
(j) Power factor shall be determined by using watt and volt-ampere
measurements collected by the electric meter at the point of service. The power
factor calculated from such measurements shall be the basis of billing adjustment
until satisfactory correction has been made. Review shall be conducted on a monthly
basis by the utility. If the power factor falls below ninety-percent lagging, a power
factor adjustment may be made by increasing the billing demand by one (1) percent
for each one (1) percent or fraction thereof by which the power factor is less than
ninety-percent lagging. This adjustment shall be based on the power factor at the
time of maximum demand as recorded during the billing period.
(k) Service rights fee in certain annexed areas. A fee for defraying the cost of
acquisition of service rights from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association
(PVREA) shall be charged for each service in areas annexed into the City after April
22, 1989, if such area was previously served by PVREA. The service rights will be
collected monthly for a period of ten (10) consecutive years following the date of
acquisition by the City of electric facilities in such area from PVREA. If service was
previously provided by PVREA, the fee shall be twenty-five (25) percent of charges
for electric power service. For services that come into existence in the affected area
after date of acquisition, the fee shall be five (5) percent of charges for electric power
service. In the event that the City Council has determined that a reduction of the
service rights fee is justified in order to mitigate the economic impacts to a lot or
parcel of land at the time of annexation of said lot or parcel of land, the service rights
fee charged pursuant to this Subsection may be reduced by the City Council pursuant
to a schedule set forth in the ordinance annexing said parcel or lot. The service rights
fee charged pursuant to this Subsection shall not be subject to a charge in lieu of
taxes and franchise otherwise required in this Section.
(l) Special services. Special services or complex service arrangements that are
beyond those required for service under this rate schedule may be arranged by a
written services agreement that the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and
enter into on behalf of the utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and
conditions for any special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by
reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable. Any special services
agreement modifying the rates, fees or charges for said services from those set forth
in this Article shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with
Section 6 of Article XII of the Charter.
(m) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
-9-
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such
customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and
conditions described in Subsection (r) below, and the credit for energy delivered to
the electric utility shall be calculated as described in the Subsection.
(n) Commodity delivery. If the electric utility authorizes the delivery of electric
capacity or energy utilizing the utility's distribution system under mandatory
provisions of state or federal law, a credit will be applied to the customer's monthly
electric bill based upon the electric utility's displaced costs as credited to the utility
by its supplier of electric energy. Capacity, energy, standby capacity, backup
capacity and special services shall be delivered, metered, billed, dispatched and
controlled in accordance with a special services agreement with the electric utility.
(o) Payment of charges. The foregoing rates are net. Payment becomes
delinquent twenty-five (25) days after the billing date.
(p) Contract period. The applicant shall take electric service under this or any
other applicable schedule which is in effect during the term of the contract subject
to adjustment from time to time by the City Council. All contracts under this
schedule shall be for twelve (12) months and shall be automatically renewed
annually. The contract may be terminated at the end of the term upon the giving of
ten (10) days' advance written notice to the City or may be terminated upon the
giving of ten (10) days' advance written notice to the City in the event of vacation of
the premises or a change in ownership or tenant occupancy status.
(q) Rules and regulations. Service supplied under this schedule is subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in the electric utility rules and regulations as approved
by the City Council. Copies may be obtained from the Utility's Customer Service
Office.
(r) Net metering.
(1) Net metering service is available to a customer-generator producing
electric energy exclusively with a qualifying facility when the
generating capacity of the customer-generator's qualifying facility
meets the following two (2) criteria:
a. the qualifying facility is sized to supply no more than one
hundred twenty (120) percent of the customer-generator's
average annual electricity consumption at that site, including
all contiguous property owned or leased by the customer-
generator, without regard to interruptions in contiguity caused
by easements, public thoroughfares, transportation rights-of-
way or utility rights-of-way; and
-10-
b. the rated capacity of the qualifying facility does not exceed
the customer-generator's service entrance capacity.
(2) The energy generated by an on-site qualifying facility and delivered
to the utility's electric distribution facility shall be used to offset
energy provided by the utility to the customer-generator during the
applicable billing period.
(3) The customer-generator and electric service arrangements shall be
subject to the requirements and conditions described in the City of
Fort Collins Utility Services Interconnection Standards for
Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution
System.
(4) A customer-generator who receives approval from the electric utility
to obtain net metering service shall be subject to the monthly rates
described above in this rate schedule section.
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 8. That renumbered Sections 26-468(c), (f), (g), (k), (p) and (u) of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-468. General service 50, schedule GS50.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) fixed charge, per account: twenty-one dollars and two cents ($21.02).
An additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.) may be
assessed if telephone communication service is not provided by the
customer.
(2) coincident demand charge, per kilowatt:
-11-
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: ten dollars and thirty-six cents ($10.36).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: seven dollars
and seventy-six cents ($7.76).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) distribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt: five dollars and
fifty-two cents ($5.52).
(4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and seventy-two one-hundredths cents
($0.0372).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
fifty-five one-hundredths cents ($0.0355).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) standby distribution charge.
a. the monthly standby distribution charge shall be four dollars
and forty-eight cents ($4.48) per kilowatt of contracted
standby service. This charge shall be in lieu of the
distribution facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in
excess of the contracted amount, the standby distribution
-12-
charge shall be thirteen dollars and forty-four cents ($13.44)
per kilowatt.
b. in the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first
month of the new contract period will become the current
billing month and such month's metered demand shall
become the minimum allowable contract demand for the
standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject
to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge
may be added for special facilities required to provide
standby service.
(2) standby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by
the utility under Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs, as
may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer as
a standby generation and transmission charge.
(g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires
excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity
of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an
annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) the excess circuit charge shall be ninety-five cents ($0.95) per
contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month. For any metered
kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the excess circuit
charge shall be two dollars and eighty-five cents ($2.85) per kilowatt.
(2) in the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual
contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is
exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall
become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit
charge.
. . .
(k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facility demand charge used
by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the
electric distribution system and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand
(kW) of a customer’s monthly electric use. Under the utility’s billing system, cost
recovery is based on a twelve month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12)
of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve-month use
patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings.
-13-
(1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point
of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour
integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not
be less than seventy (70) percent of the highest distribution facilities
demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding eleven (11)
months.
(2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines the calculation
described in (1) above does not recover the customer’s share of the
actual distribution facilities costs, the customer’s distribution
facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing
calendar designed to fully recover said customer’s share of the
distribution facilities costs.
. . .
(p) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all
of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3:
Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges
incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer
is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by
the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and
the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described
in that Subsection.
(u) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
-14-
Section 9. That renumbered Sections 26-469(c), (f), (g), (k), (q) and (v) of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-469. General service 750, schedule GS750.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows:
(1) fixed charge, per account: sixty-one dollars and ninety-six cents
($61.96).
a. additional charge for each additional metering point: fifty-
four dollars and seventy-four cents ($54.74).
b. an additional charge of forty dollars and zero cents ($40.) for
each metering point may be assessed if telephone
communication service is not provided by the customer.
(2) coincident demand charge, per kilowatt:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: ten dollars and twenty cents ($10.20).
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: seven dollars
and sixty-four cents ($7.64).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(3) distribution facilities demand charge, per kilowatt:
a. first seven hundred fifty (750) kilowatts: five dollars and
forty-four cents ($5.44).
b. all additional kilowatts: three dollars and twenty-five cents
($3.25).
(4) energy charge, per kilowatt-hour:
a. during the summer season billing months of June, July and
August: three and sixty-seven one-hundredths cents
($0.0367).
-15-
b. during the non-summer season billing months of January
through May and September through December: three and
forty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0349).
c. the meter reading date shall generally determine the summer
season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed
more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate.
(5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: A charge at the rate of six and zero-
tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to
this Section.
. . .
(f) Standby service charges. Standby service, if available, will be provided on
an annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable service demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) standby distribution charge.
a. the monthly standby distribution charge shall be three dollars
and forty cents ($3.40) per kilowatt of contracted standby
service. This charge shall be in lieu of the distribution
facilities charge. For all metered kilowatts in excess of the
contracted amount, the standby distribution charge shall be
ten dollars and twenty cents ($10.20) per kilowatt.
b. in the event the contractual kilowatt amount is exceeded, the
beginning date of the contract period will be reset. The first
month of the new contract period will become the current
billing month and such month's metered demand shall
become the minimum allowable contract demand for the
standby service. Requests for standby service may be subject
to a waiting period. An operation and maintenance charge
may be added for special facilities required to provide
standby service.
(2) standby generation and transmission charge. All charges incurred by
the utility under the Platte River Power Authority's applicable tariffs,
as may be amended from time to time, will be billed to the customer
as a standby generation and transmission charge.
(g) Excess circuit charge. In the event a utility customer in this rate class desires
excess circuit capacity for the purpose of controlling the available electric capacity
of a backup circuit connection, this service, if available, will be provided on an
-16-
annual contract basis at a level at least sufficient to meet probable backup demand
(in kilowatts) as determined by the customer and approved by the utility according
to the following:
(1) the excess circuit charge shall be seventy-two cents ($0.72) per
contracted kilowatt of backup capacity per month. For any metered
kilowatts in excess of the contracted amount, the excess circuit
charge shall be two dollars and seventeen cents ($2.17) per kilowatt.
(2) in the event the contractual kilowatt limit is exceeded, a new annual
contract period will automatically begin as of the month the limit is
exceeded. The metered demand in the month of exceedance shall
become the minimum contracted demand level for the excess circuit
charge.
. . .
(k) Distribution facilities demand. The distribution facilities demand charge used
by the utility is designed to recover the costs of operating and maintaining the
electric distribution system and it is based on a per unit rate tied to the peak demand
(kW) of a customer’s monthly electric use. Under the utility’s billing system, cost
recovery is based on a twelve month model. Monthly billing is one-twelfth (1/12)
of the annual cost recovery required for given service and the twelve month use
patterns serve as the reference base for monthly billings.
(1) The distribution facilities demand shall be determined for each point
of delivery by suitable meter measurement of the highest one-hour
integrated demand occurring during the billing period and shall not
be less than seventy-five (75) percent of the highest distribution
facilities demand (in kilowatts) occurring in any of the preceding
eleven (11) months.
(2) If the Utilities Executive Director determines the calculation
described in (1) above does not recover the customer’s share of the
actual distribution facilities costs, the customer’s distribution
facilities demand charge may be determined according to a billing
calendar designed to fully recover the customer’s share of the
distribution facilities costs.
(q) Parallel generation. Customers may operate all or part of their instantaneous
energy or capacity needs by operation of a qualifying facility in parallel with the
utility system, provided that electric service is being rendered under the special
services provisions of this schedule, and provided further that such facility is
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
electric service rules and regulations. The credit for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power
Authority avoided cost rates. Parallel generation will be provided consistent with all
-17-
of the requirements contained in Platte River Power Authority's Tariff Schedule 3:
Parallel Generation Purchases, as may be amended from time to time. All charges
incurred by the utility under this tariff will be billed to the customer. If a customer
is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by
the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (q) below, and
the credit for energy delivered to the electric utility shall be calculated as described
in that Subsection.
. . .
(v) Net metering.
. . .
(5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility
shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the
qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-
generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a
monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar
quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment
for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12)
months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the
electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer
season energy charge as specified in Subsection (c).
Section 10. That renumbered Section 26-471 (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-471. Traffic signal service, schedule T.
. . .
(c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates (including a six-and-zero-tenths-percent
charge in lieu of taxes and franchise) are as follows:
(1) fixed charge, per account: seventy-three dollars and sixteen cents
($73.16).
(2) charge, per kilowatt-hour: six and eighteen one-hundredths cents
($0.0618).
(3) service extensions and signal installations made by the utility shall be
paid for by the City General Fund, subject to material and installation
costs at the time of installation.
-18-
Section 11. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-19-
ORDINANCE NO. 143, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO REVISE ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges
for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs,
expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate for new development to
contribute its proportionate share of providing capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires the City Manager and staff to annually
consider the parameters and rates related to setting electric development fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, Section 26-471 of the City Code requires that the electric development fees be
presented to the City Council for approval no less frequently than biennially; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 115, 2010,
which established the electric development fees now in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the
following adjustments to the electric development fees and charges for all invoices paid on or after
January 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise electric development fees and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-471 the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subsection (e) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(e) This Section does not apply to wholesale energy transactions, as defined in
this Article. Any applicable fees and charges will be addressed in a written services
agreement subject to approval by City Council in accordance with Section 6 of
Article XII of the Charter, if applicable.
Section 2. That Section 26-472(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-472. Residential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, dwelling charge and
systems modification charge, to be determined as follows:
(1) the site footage charge shall be the combined total of:
a. four and nine hundred fifty thousandths cents ($0.04950) per square
foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts
but excluding the area dedicated public rights-of-way; and
b. ten dollars and eight cents ($10.08) per lineal foot of the developed
site abutting a dedicated street or roadway.
(2) the dwelling unit charge shall be as follows:
a. for a single-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service
(nonelectric heat), one thousand two hundred eighty-one dollars
($1,281.) per dwelling unit;
b. for a single-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with
one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), two thousand one
hundred sixty-five dollars ($2,165.) per dwelling unit;
c. for a multi-family panel size with one-hundred-fifty-amp service
(nonelectric heat), eight hundred fifty-four dollars ($854.) per
dwelling unit;
d. for a multi-family panel size with two-hundred-amp service or with
one-hundred-fifty-amp service (electric heat), one thousand five
hundred nineteen dollars ($1,519.) per dwelling unit.
(3) a system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service
will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base
electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system
modifications will be included in the calculated ECF.
(c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for any new or modified residential service
shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the related construction or
modification. The BSC shall be based upon the current rates as of the time of
issuance of the building permit. The BSC shall be the total of the secondary service
charges, and any additional charges, determined as follows:
(1) the secondary service charge shall be as follows:
-2-
Secondary
Service Size
Charge
(up to 65 feet)
Plus Per Foot
Charge For Each
Foot Over 65
1/0 service $642.00 $4.65/Foot
4/0 service $821.00 $5.82/Foot
350 kCM Service $818.00 $6.54/Foot
1/0 Mobile Home
Service $503.00 N/A
4/0 Mobile Home
Service $646.00 N/A
(2) actual special costs to the utility of installation of secondary service resulting
from site conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such
conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete
cutting and asphalt replacement.
Section 3. That Section 26-473(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-473. Nonresidential electric development fees and charges.
. . .
(b) The ECF shall be the total of the site footage charge, kVA service charge and
systems modification charge, to be determined as follows:
(1) the site footage charge shall be the combined total of:
a. four and nine hundred fifty thousandths cents ($0.04950) per square
foot of developed site square footage, including all applicable tracts
but excluding the area of dedicated public rights-of-way; and
b. thirty-eight dollars and thirty cents ($38.30) per lineal foot of the
developed site abutting a dedicated street or roadway.
(2) the kVA service charge shall be determined as follows:
a. for customer electric loads served by the utility the kVA service
charge shall be:
i. utility owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be
fifty-nine dollars and four cents ($59.04) per kilovolt-amp
(kVA) of service load rating.
-3-
ii. customer owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall
be forty-eight dollars and fifty-nine cents ($48.59) per
kilovolt-amp (kVA) of service load rating.
b. for the utility to receive customer generation in excess of the
customer’s electric service provided by the utility, the following
KVA service charge will also apply:
i. utility owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall be
forty-eight dollars and fifty-nine cents ($48.59) per kilovolt-
amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the
service load rating as paid per subparagraph (2)a.i. above.
Such ratings shall be determined by the Utilities Executive
Director.
ii. customer owned transformers: the kVA service charge shall
be thirty-eight dollars and nine cents ($38.09) per kilovolt-
amp (kVA) of generation service rating in excess of the
service load rating paid per subparagraph (2)a.ii.above. Such
ratings shall be determined by the Utilities Executive
Director.
(3) a system modifications charge will apply when a new or modified service
will require infrastructure in addition to or different from the standard base
electrical system model. The differential costs associated with such system
modifications will be included in the calculated ECF.
(c) A Building Site Charge ("BSC") for extending primary circuitry to the
transformer for any new or modified nonresidential service shall be invoiced and
paid in the same manner and at the same time as the ECF is invoiced and paid
pursuant to Subsection (a) of this Section. The BSC shall be the total of the primary
circuit charge, transformer installation charge and any additional charges, determined
as follows:
(1) the primary circuit charge for service from the utility source to the
transformer shall be as follows:
a. for single-phase service, a charge of nine dollars and fifteen cents
($9.15) per foot of primary circuit;
b. for three-phase service, a charge of eighteen dollars and zero cents
($18.00) per foot of primary circuit.
(2) the transformer installation charge shall be as follows:
-4-
a. for single-phase service, a charge of one thousand two hundred
seventy-eight dollars ( $1,278.) per transformer;
b. for three-phase service, a charge of two thousand three hundred
eighty-five dollars ( $2,385.) per transformer.
(3) actual special costs to the utility of installation of service resulting from site
conditions shall be included in the BSC as additional charges. Such
conditions may include, but are not limited to, frozen or rocky soil, concrete
cutting and asphalt replacement.
Section 4. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall
go into effect as of January 1, 2012.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-5-
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
SKYVIEW SOUTH
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEETING
November 1, 2011
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview
South General Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary
of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County. (staff: Mike
Beckstead; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, fixes the mill levy of
10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012 for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15. The
sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected and will be used to maintain and repair roads in the
Skyview subdivision.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AGENDA
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 3
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General
Improvement District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy
to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, fixes the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal
year 2012 for the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15. The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be
collected and will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Map of Skyview South GID No. 15
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SKYVIEW SOUTH GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 3
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Skyview South General Improvement
District No. 15 for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board
of Commissioners of Larimer County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sum of $24,615 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012. The total amount
will be used to maintain and repair roads in the Skyview subdivision.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2009, the City annexed Phase 3 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The area annexed included the entire
Larimer County Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (GID No.15). A map of the GID No. 15 is
attached. The County organized GID No. 15 in 1997. Pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., since the annexation
involved the entire improvement district, GID No.15 became a City-operated district and Council acts as the ex officio
Board of Directors of the District. Under state law, the City is required to set the mill levy for the District and to certify
the amount of the levy to Larimer County. This Ordinance continues the establishment, as in years past, of a levy of
10.0 mills.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance sets the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 mill levy, which will generate about
$24,615 at 10.0 mills for fiscal year 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of GID No. 15
W TRILBY RD
S COLLEGE AVE
W SKYWAY DR
CONSTELLATION DR
MARS DR
VENUS AVE
ARAN ST
ORBIT WAY
DEBRA DR
H
OLYOKE C
T
P
O
L
A
R
I
S DR
S
T
A
R
W
A
Y
S
T
AV
O
NDALE R
D
RAMA
H
D
R
N
E
P
T
U
N
E
D
R
GALA
X
Y
W
A
Y
URANUS ST
F
LA
G
L
E
R
R
D
ORDINANCE NO. 002
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SKYVIEW
SOUTH GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15,
DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE SKYVIEW SOUTH
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 15 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY
TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 (the “GID”) was
created by Larimer County in 1997 and annexed into the City by phase three of the Southwest
Enclave Annexation in 2009; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-25-603, C.R.S., and Section 37-25-609, C.R.S., as a
result of the annexation of the entire GID into the City, the GID is now a district of the City and
the City Council is to act as the ex-officio board of directors of the GID; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on
the taxable property in the GID and recommends establishing a levy of 10.0 mills upon each
dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID for 2012; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 10.0 mills will result in $24,615 of
revenue; and
WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so
that prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the
Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins Skyview South
General Improvement District No. 15, as follows:
Section 1. That the 2012 mill levy rate for taxation upon each dollar of the assessed
valuation of all taxable property within the GID shall be 10.0 mills.
Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify this levy of 10.0 mills to the County
Assessor and the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado as provided by law.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D.
_________________________________
Mayor , Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 MEETING
November 1, 2011
(after the Skyview South General Improvement District No. 15 Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General
Improvement District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to
Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year
2012 Annual Appropriation. (staff: Mike Beckstead; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011 sets the mill levy for
General Improvement District No. 1 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. The sum of $249,000 is
anticipated to be collected from the mill levy. Additional revenue for the General Improvement
District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and
interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is
expected to be $303,179.
4. Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan.
(staff: Clark Mapes; 20 minute discussion)
City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID).
The GID is a property tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian,
and street beautification improvements to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial
area.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AGENDA
November 1, 2011
The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
to guide the use of the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Improvement District fund for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project. (staff: Clark
Mapes; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, appropriates
$500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for fabrication
and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was
done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation
will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details, and then
fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign
shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop may prove able to fabricate and
install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those costs.
Installation will occur in 2012.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 3
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No.
1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners
of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Appropriation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011 sets the mill levy for General
Improvement District No. 1 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from
the mill levy. Additional revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile
specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012
revenue for GID No. 1 is expected to be $303,179.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
2. Map of GID No. 1
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 3
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, Determining and Fixing the Mill Levy for the General Improvement District No.
1 for the Fiscal Year 2012; Directing the Secretary of the District to Certify Such Levy to the Board of Commissioners
of Larimer County and Making the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Appropriation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sum of $249,000 is anticipated to be collected from the mill levy of 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional
revenue for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 from sources like automobile specific ownership taxes, ad
valorem taxes, and interest earnings are anticipated to total $54,179. The total 2012 revenue for GID No. 1 is
expected to be $303,179.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The recommended appropriations for this amount are as follows:
Projects:
• $246,031 to be used for capital improvements in the downtown area for projects yet to be determined
Other expenses:
• $20,338 for staffing
• $11,000 for the Larimer County Treasurer’s fee for collecting the property tax
• $23,000 for the property tax rebate program
• $2,500 for estimated electrical costs for downtown lighting and water
• $310 for miscellaneous expenses
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance includes the annual appropriation for 2012 at $303,179. This item also sets the General Improvement
District No. 1 mill levy, which will generate about $249,000 at 4.924 mills for fiscal year 2012. Additional 2012 revenue
for the GID No. 1 includes auto specific ownership taxes, ad valorem taxes, and interest which are projected to be
$54,179 in 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of GID No. 1.
ORDINANCE NO. 061
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, DETERMINING AND FIXING THE MILL LEVY FOR THE GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012;
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT TO CERTIFY SUCH LEVY
TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
AND MAKING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the
statutes of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff has considered the amount of money to be raised by a levy on the
taxable property in the GID and recommends that a levy of 4.924 mills upon each dollar of the
assessed valuation of all taxable property within the limits of the GID is required during 2012 to pay
the cost of operating the GID; and
WHEREAS, the GID staff estimates a levy of 4.924 mill will result in $249,000 of revenue;
and
WHEREAS, the amount of this proposed mill levy is not an increase over prior years so that
prior voter approval of the levy is not required under Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution;
and
WHEREAS, Section 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., requires certification of any tax levy to the Board
of County Commissioners no later than December 15; and
WHEREAS, additional revenue is collected by the GID from such sources as the automobile
ownership tax, ad valorem taxes, and interest earnings and that revenue for 2012 is anticipated to
be $54,179; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting as the ex-officio Board of Directors
of the GID, to appropriate the necessary funds for operating costs and capital improvements of the
GID for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District
No. 1, as follows:
Section 1. That, for the purpose of providing the necessary funds to meet the expenses
to be incurred in the General Improvement District No. 1 in 2012, 4.924 mills is hereby levied upon
each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the General Improvement District
No.1 as of December 31, 2011.
Section 2. That the Secretary of the General Improvement District No. 1 is hereby
authorized and directed to certify such levy to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer
County as provided by law.
Section 3. That the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of City of
Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1, hereby appropriates out of the revenues of General
Improvement District No. 1 for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31,
2012 the sum of THREE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE
DOLLARS ($303,179) to be raised by taxation and additional revenue to be expended for the
authorized purposes of the General Improvement District No.1.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Clark Mapes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 4
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 022 Adopting the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council serves as the Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (the GID). The GID is a property
tax district formed by property owners in 1976 to fund parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvements to
enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area.
The City’s Advance Planning Department has developed a new Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to guide the use of
the GID’s revenues, from 2012 going forward about 15 years.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Purpose
The purpose of the new CIP is to guide ongoing work by staff, and provide a framework for Board decisions. The CIP
does not represent a specific commitment or obligation to fund any given project.
Need
A CIP for the GID was last updated in 1994. That CIP consisted of a memo to City Council that identified a list of
potential projects to be pursued over approximately a 15-year period. Most of the projects on that list have been
completed, along with several others. Bonds that financed a group of the projects were retired in 2009. Additional
background on the past project list is included later in this Agenda Item Summary.
As the previous list of projects has approached substantial completion, a number of questions and issues have
emerged over the past several years regarding the use of the GID fund. A new CIP is needed to identify the next
generation of potential projects to pursue. The new list provides clarification and information on the key questions and
issues, including:
• What new capital improvements should be listed as potential projects to pursue?
• What maintenance and renovations of existing improvements should be on the list?
• What are the top priorities?
• What is the right balance of responsibilities for various special improvements among the City’s General Fund,
the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the GID, considering recent changes in budgets and
revenues among the three funding sources?
• What is the best balance between a fixed project list and schedule that commits the GID Fund, versus a more
general list with flexibility for staff to respond to partnership opportunities or urgent needs that may arise?
• What financing and funding options should be considered?
Process to Develop the Plan
The CIP process involved property owners who self-fund the GID, the GID Board of Directors (City Council), and other
key stakeholders to determine how the GID should continue to invest in Downtown public improvements with a new
list of potential projects. The City's Advance Planning Department managed the process in collaboration with other
City departments and the DDA. One aspect of the process was the opportunity to remind property owners and other
stakeholders about the GID, and review how it works.
The Board of Directors reviewed a draft project list at the August 9 Work Session. Since that meeting, staff has
evaluated and discussed all projects considering public input and feedback from the Board, and held a second round
November 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 4
of public outreach on a refined list. All information was then assembled into the Capital Improvement Plan being
considered for adoption.
The main steps in the process were:
• May – Assembled background information, identified issues, and brainstormed potential future GID projects.
• June – Discussed the CIP with the DDA Board and Downtown Business Association (DBA) Board, the DBA
Executive Committee, and DBA Membership.
• Late June/Early July – Gathered owner and public input with a mailing, open house, and online
questionnaire, seeking thoughts and ideas on projects and priorities.
• August – Discussed preliminary material with the GID Board (City Council) at the August 9 Work Session.
Continued internal work among key City departments and DDA to flesh out project ideas with analysis of costs,
partnership opportunities, constraints, etc. Assembled draft Plan material. Continued communications with
the DBA.
• September - Reviewed draft Plan material with owners and the public at a second open house. Assembled
the CIP document. Reviewed material with the DDA and DBA.
• October – Presentation of the Plan to the GID Board (City Council) at the October 18 meeting for
consideration.
List of Potential Projects
The primary emphasis of the Plan was to develop a preliminary list of potential projects for staff to pursue using the
GID Fund. The list is derived from planning documents, staff discussion, and public outreach.
Some notable aspects of the top projects on the list are:
• Two of the top projects are DDA projects -- Old Town Square Renovations, and Additional Pedestrian-
Enhanced Alleys. These also happen to be the largest projects envisioned in the plan. They are dependent
on the DDA’s revenue stream, and possibly other funding sources as well, in addition to the GID, in order to
be feasible within a time frame of less than 15 years. They will require a high level of coordination in pursuit
of a viable funding package.
• Another top project is dependent on the outcome of another planning effort currently underway:
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway and Streetscape Improvements. This could emerge as the first project to move
forward to construction, because it may offer the opportunity to partner with committed funding by the
Colorado Department of Transportation and the DDA within 1-2 years.
Besides the list, the plan also contains background information, implementation recommendations, and conceptual
project descriptions.
Additional Context: Capital Improvements History
The GID transformed the face of downtown with streetscape installations on College Avenue and Linden Street. A
large initial package of improvements was constructed in 1977, closely related to the creation of the GID in 1976.
Attachment 5 contains key excerpts from the founding Ordinance and Resolutions that describe the original purposes
of the GID. That initial package included the corner plazas, medians, and street trees along College Avenue, the
Oak/Remington parking lot, and Oak Street Plaza. The GID provided the primary financing with a $1.1 million, 15-year
bond issue. Secondarily, a special assessment on specified properties provided additional funding.
In 1992, the bonds that financed the initial package were paid off. A public process affirmed support for continuation
of the GID, and a list of potential projects was developed. The list was last updated in 1994 (see Attachment 4), and
since then, most of the projects have been completed, along with a few other projects as well.
Some of the completed projects involving paver replacement were done as a group, with a $1.1 million bond issue
providing financing. That bond debt committed most of the GID Fund revenues for a ten-year period from 1999-2009.
Other projects were completed on a pay-as-you-go basis, using available reserves and revenues. Staff formulated
these projects in response to leverage and partnership opportunities, and urgent needs. These include some projects
November 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 4
from the list, and some additional projects that were not on the list. The intent of the new CIP is to continue to allow
flexibility for staff to pursue opportunistic projects, in addition to projects on the list.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The GID was established to fund improvements in the Downtown; and the proposed CIP is a framework and guide
for future spending of GID revenues.
While the plan does not create any direct financial obligations, the City does provide indirect financial support for the
GID and its projects, with staff work by various departments, maintenance and operation of GID improvements, and
occasional participation in projects by City departments and other capital improvement programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
GID improvements support pedestrian use and efficient parking, which help make Downtown arguably the City’s best
example of urban development that makes efficient use of resources.
City Plan emphasizes that keeping Downtown vital is a big part of sustainable solutions to land use and resource
issues; and GID capital improvements are a major factor in the vitality of Downtown. The CIP reinforces Downtown’s
efficient, livable mixeduse development, which makes it the most walkable part of the city, thus mitigating emissions
created by driving to and from destinations and activities.
The purpose of GID improvements is to enhance Downtown as a business and commercial area, which supports sales
tax revenues that are used, in part, for environmental programs and quality of life initiatives that define Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach centered around two open houses with mailings to all 900 property owners in the GID. All open house
information, including a significant questionnaire, was online, as well. The other significant outreach was with the
Downtown Business Association Board, membership, and Legislative Affairs Committee; and the Downtown
Development Authority Board. Staff found wide agreement and very little controversy regarding the Plan. A log of
public outreach is Attachment 2, and a log of public comments is Attachment 3.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital Improvements Plan
2. Log of Public Meetings and Outreach
3. Log of Public Comments
4. Previous List of Projects (1994)
5. Original Purposes of the GID
6. Work Session Summary, August 9, 2011
7. Powerpoint Presentation
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
II GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
For GID Board Hearing, November 1, 2011:
This item was postponed from the October 18, 2011 Hearing. Minor edits have been made to this
document since then, and they are shown in redline and strikeout format on pages 4,7,9, and 10.
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
October 25, 2011
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-221-6376
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
For additional copies, please visit our website, or contact us using the above information.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 III
Table of Contents
General Improvement District #1 (GID)........................................1
What Is the GID? ............................................................................................ 1
Background and Context: Capital Improvements History............................................. 2
GID Revenues ............................................................................................... 4
GID Administration ......................................................................................... 5
Capital Improvements Plan.......................................................6
Use of the Plan ............................................................................................. 6
Potential Projects List ..................................................................................... 6
Capital Improvements Plan Implementation..................................9
Needed actions ............................................................................................. 9
Financing .................................................................................................... 9
Project Descriptions............................................................. 11
Old Town Square Renovations ........................................................................... 11
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway Urban Design and Landscaping ...................................... 12
Reserve Fund to Respond to Emerging Partnership Opportunities and ............................ 13
Urgent Needs............................................................................................... 13
Additional Pedestrian-Enhanced Alleys ................................................................ 14
Enhanced Crosswalks...................................................................................... 15
Enhanced Crosswalks Continued: ....................................................................... 16
Shorten East/West Pedestrian Crossings Leading Into the Core Area.............................. 16
Old Town Square Lighting Renovation.................................................................. 17
Jefferson Streetscape..................................................................................... 18
Mulberry/Mason Gateway and Streetscape ............................................................ 19
Public Restrooms Funding ................................................................................ 20
Public Restrooms Funding, Continued.................................................................. 21
Holiday Lights and Electricity Funding ................................................................. 22
Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters Replacement .......................................................... 23
Linden Street Pedestrian Lights Augmentation ....................................................... 24
Mulberry/College Streetscape/Gateway ............................................................... 25
Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations.................................................... 26
Other Ideas ........................................................................ 27
Conclusion......................................................................... 28
IV GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 1
General Improvement District #1 (GID)
WHAT IS THE GID?
The Downtown GID is a property tax district initiated by Downtown property owners in 1976
for the purpose of funding parking, pedestrian, and street beautification improvement
projects, to enhance the Downtown as a business and commercial area.
Map of the GID boundary
City staff manages the GID, working with finances and budgets, and planning, design,
engineering, operations, and maintenance of projects. City Council serves as the Board of
Directors.
North
2 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HISTORY
The GID was formed by City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 77, 1976. It was formed
specifically to fund the 1977 package of capital improvements that included the original set
of College Avenue corner plazas, medians, and landscaping, along with the Oak/Remington
parking lot and Oak Street Plaza. The GID provided the largest share of financing for that
package, with a $1.1 million, 15-year bond issue. Secondarily, a special assessment on
specified properties provided additional funding.
In 1992, the bonds that financed the initial package were paid off. A public process affirmed
support for continuation of the GID, and the GID was reauthorized and reaffirmed by City
Council Resolution 92-37 in 1992. A new capital improvements plan -- consisting of a list of
potential projects -- was developed. That list was updated in 1994, and then it served well as
a working framework for about 15 years’ worth of projects. The projects involved
renovations and extensions of College Avenue streetscape improvements, and a customized
Downtown sign system. Most of the streetscape projects were completed by 2004, and work
is underway on a sign system.
One project not completed from the 1994 list is a streetscape enhancement project at the
northwest corner of the Mulberry Street/College Avenue intersection, to help mark the
intersection as the main south entry to Downtown. This project is being carried forward as a
potential future project, and is related to concepts for future redevelopment of the block.
Several of the completed projects, involving corner plazas, were done as a package with a
$1.1 million bond issue providing financing. That bond debt committed most of the GID Fund
revenues for a ten-year period from 1999-2009.
Also, a number of projects have been completed on a pay-as-you-go basis, using available
reserves and revenues. Staff formulated these projects in response to urgent needs, leverage
opportunities, and partnership opportunities. These include some additional projects that
were not on the 1994 list:
► Oak Street Plaza renovation, done in a funding partnership with City and DDA funds.
► A package of sidewalk, curb, and gutter replacements, largely completed over the
past two years, with another phase of replacements scheduled for later in 2011.
► On a much smaller scale, a package of bicycle dismount signs and sidewalk decals.
The intent of this capital improvement plan is to allow flexibility for staff to pursue these
kinds of opportunistic projects, in addition to projects on the list.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 3
Thanks to Downtown leaders in
the 1970s, the GID has
transformed the face of
Downtown with streetscape and
parking enhancements on
College Avenue and Linden
Street. Features include
paving, trees, planters, seating
…irrigation and drainage… bike
dismount decals…
…College Ave. medians and
crosswalk islands… Oak Street
Plaza…and the Oak/Remington
Parking Lot. Most projects have
partnered with and leveraged
other funding sources.
Linden Streetscape, done in a
partnership that saved the Linden
Hotel and reconstructed Linden
Street.
4 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
GID REVENUES
The GID receives revenues primarily from a property tax mil levy set by City Council members
acting as the Board of Directors. The mil levy has remained at 4.94 mils since 1992.
Secondarily, the GID receives other revenues from a share of vehicle registration tax, and
interest on the fund balance. The general magnitude of the GID Fund can be demonstrated,
using 2012 budget figures, as follows:
Property tax revenues: $249,000
Other revenues: $ 54,000
Total revenues: $303,000
Fixed and Administrative Costs: $ 56,000
Revenues available for projects: $247,000
15-year projected revenues: $5-6 million
15-year projected revenues
available for projects: $4.5-5.5 million
Fund balance in 2012:
(separate from 2011 revenues):
(in addition to revenues): $818,000
Annual revenues are projected to continue growing slowly, from approximately $300,000 in
2012, to approximately $500,000 over 15 years to 2026, depending on property values.
The Board approves spending in the City’s overall budget process, and in any other funding
appropriation requests that may occur between budget cycles. Approximately $36,000 is
committed annually for ongoing, routine disbursements including residential rebates, Larimer
County Treasurer's Services, and small water and electric bills for irrigation and lighting.
Starting in 2011, the budget also included funding for staff administration in the amount of
$38,000, partly to conduct the public process to develop this capital improvement plan. The
budget item for staffing drops to $20,000 in 2012, and after 2012 it will be determined in
future budgeting processes.
$500,000 of the $818,000 fund balance has been earmarked to build the Wayfinding Sign
System, which is a project from the 1994 list. The remaining fund balance remains available
for projects. Whenever any budget or appropriation item is requested, the Board will have
the opportunity to provide direction on the project involved.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 5
GID ADMINISTRATION
The GID is managed collaboratively by City staff in several departments, without any formal
organizational structure. A general outline of the informal organization of staff work is as
follows:
The City Manager’s Office provides executive leadership. The Finance and Budget offices
administer finances and prepare budget statements. Advance Planning develops and oversees
a capital improvements plan with a list of projects, formulates projects, prepares budget
offers, monitors expenditures, and serves as a primary point of contact for project-related
ideas, questions, and issues. Parks provides comprehensive, crucial maintenance of GID
improvements, and also formulates projects. Engineering assists with design and provides
construction supervision. Parking Services operates the GID-built Oak/Remington parking lot,
and collaborates on all projects and ideas that affect parking.
Besides these primary roles, staff in all departments and the Downtown Development
Authority (DDA) coordinate and collaborate in many other ways. A few examples are
identifying project ideas, vetting ideas, formulating projects, seeking opportunities to
leverage resources, and resolving technical questions and issues.
In addition to City staff, the DDA staff coordinates and collaborates with City staff in matters
of mutual overlapping interest. The DDA formulates and executes capital projects that
overlap with the purposes of the GID, and it manages property tax revenues that are
interrelated with the GID’s revenues. Three important projects on the potential projects list
are DDA projects; the top priority project, Old Town Square Renovations, involves the DDA-
owned Old Town Square.
6 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
Capital Improvements Plan
This capital improvements plan is a key aspect of the GID. City Council Resolution 92-37
requires staff to prepare and maintain a plan, in consultation with property owners, with a
list of projects to guide the use of the GID’s revenues.
Accordingly, this plan is essentially a list of potential projects to be pursued by staff using GID
funding. The list is intended to represent about a 15-year time frame.
USE OF THE PLAN
This plan is a guide and framework for staff work, and for Board decisions. It does not
represent a specific commitment or obligation to fund any given project. Staff uses the plan
to formulate projects, assemble funding packages, and move projects forward to execution.
The Board uses the plan to provide context for annual budgeting, other funding requests, and
any other governance issues.
Besides the projects on the list, the intent of this plan is to continue to allow flexibility for
staff to respond to other new opportunities or urgent needs that may arise, as has been the
practice in the past. Also, the plan should be updated as needed to remain useful as new
information emerges and conditions change.
POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST
The crux of this plan is the Potential Projects List. The list was developed in an open
planning process in 2011,which sought all thoughts and ideas for projects, starting with ideas
from other previous planning efforts. The overall pool of ideas was then refined in staff
discussion and analysis, public outreach, and review by City Council sitting as the GID Board
at a worksession.
Two primary considerations in evaluation of any project ideas are:
► The appropriateness of GID funding relative to other funding sources. The GID is for
enhancements that would not otherwise be done -- GID funds should not be used as a
substitute for City funding of items the City is normally obligated to do, and would do
if the GID did not exist.
► The importance to downtown as a business and commercial area, in terms of the
original purposes of the GID-- identity and image, pedestrian use, and parking.
Another significant consideration is the potential to leverage or partner with other funding
sources to maximize the effects of GID funding.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 7
Priorities
Table 1 (opposite) shows three levels of priority that emerged in the planning process, with
groups of projects in each level. Projects within each level are also listed in general order of
priority. Priorities are based on rankings by property owners and the public, discussion with
the GID Board, and staff evaluation of projects considering all input and other factors.
Priority refers to priority for staff work and funding commitments. The intent is to guide the
allocation of staff work to get projects formulated, funded, and executed; and to guide the
allocation of revenues to projects. Priorities do not necessarily refer to priority for timing of
execution -- some smaller projects could be completed while larger, higher-priority projects
are still being planned, designed, and financed.
Priorities are not meant to prevent efforts or actions on any projects if opportunities arise to
initiate action at any time on any project, regardless of priority shown.
Hypothetical Scenario for GID Funding, 15-year total
Table 1 shows a hypothetical funding scenario for how the GID’s projected funding capacity
could be allocated among the projects on the list. Revenues available for project funding are
projected in the range of $4.5-5.5 million. This scenario is shown only to illustrate the
general magnitude of what might be possible.
The figures are hypothetical GID funding contributions to each project over a 15-year period
starting in 2012. They reflect educated guesses of funding amounts that would be realistic
and substantial enough to make the projects financially feasible. Most of the projects are
expected to involve funding packages that include other funding sources.
Some projects may involve an initial, one-time cost for construction; others may involve an
initial cost and a subsequent annual line item commitment for maintenance; and others may
only involve an annual line item commitment for an ongoing program.
To develop actual funding scenarios, each project will require further planning, design, cost
estimating, and financing work to define a scope and funding package. All projects will be
formulated to account for long term maintenance and operations, whether that funding is to
be sourced from the GID or elsewhere.
8 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
Potential Funding Partners
Conceptual ideas for potential funding partners are shown for each project. These are
suggestions for funding sources that appear appropriate to the project, and worth pursuing
with further staff work. Some projects will only be feasible as envisioned with participation
by funding partners. Others could be feasible without partners, at least at some level, but
partnerships would still be highly advantageous for the extent and quality of execution, the
efficiency of joint efforts, and the maximum effect of GID funds.
Table 1. Potential Projects
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 9
Capital Improvements Plan
Implementation
NEEDED ACTIONS
Needed actions include the following:
► Meet to review and discuss this capital improvements plan with all affected City
departments, following adoption.
► Maintain contacts among staff to monitor and coordinate with all related non-GID
projects and efforts. Examples include Jefferson Street planning and Parking Plan
projects, Mason Corridor, private development projects, budget discussions involving
holiday lights and other projects, ongoing conversations about public restrooms,
pavement management programs, and other efforts to maintain and enhance streets,
sidewalks, and crosswalks.
► Flesh out specific project needs based on project descriptions, including timing for
actions by staff, and incorporate the needs into departmental work plans and budgets
for appropriate years.
► Develop and maintain funding and timing scenarios for the overall project list, to
determine financing options that may include debt financing.
► Explore funding scenarios with the DDA.
► Explore feasibility of including top projects the next citywide capital improvement
package for voters in 2015, with the City Manager’s Office.
► Examine suggestions for private sector participation in funding, by owner and business
interests.
► Develop scope, conceptual design, and cost estimates for projects.
FINANCING
As staff proceeds with work on the project list, financing approaches will be explored. For
some smaller projects, available revenues may be adequate to proceed on a pay-as-you-go
basis.
Some larger projects, or groups of projects, may need up-front debt financing such as bonding
or borrowing against the revenue stream, in order to allow timely completion, or timely
participation with other funding sources.
The annual revenue stream available to fund projects, after fixed and administrative costs, is
projected to grow from about $2407,000 in 2012, to about $440,000 over 15 years. This
projection depends on assumptions for increasing property values and stable administrative
costs. If this projection proves to be generally valid, then this revenue stream could support
debt financing in the general magnitude of about $3-4 $2-2.5 million over 15 years. Actual
debt financing capacity depends on numerous factors including internal (City) versus external
(private market) financing, interest rates, and structure of financing packages, in addition to
property values and administrative costs.
10 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
For up-front debt financing of projects, borrowing from City reserves may be a possibility to
consider and explore, along with private market bonds or loans. While borrowing from City
reserve funds may be possible, in 2011 the amount of reserves available for loans has declined
considerably, and prioritization for the amount remaining is becoming increasingly
competitive.
If bonding or borrowing is to be part of project financing, lead time is a major issue not to be
overlooked by staff. Debt financing can take a year or more to execute. Time requirements
include:
► The political approval process.
► Incorporation into City budgets if borrowing from City reserves.
► An election of GID electors as defined by State law.
► Technical work to structure loan or bond packages and sell any bonds.
Any of these steps can typically involve 3-6 months or more.
Packaging of debt financing is an issue, particularly if external markets, rather than the City,
are considered. External markets are not as interested in small packages, and It is a more
efficient use of the revenue stream to finance a larger package all at once, versus multiple
smaller packages, because of the fixed costs for each loan or bond issue. These factors would
also apply to borrowing from City reserves, although perhaps to a lesser degree.
Timing of financing is a current issue in 2011. Interest rates are at 50-60-year lows and are
forecasted to remain low for the near future. Staff should consider whether a funding
scenario with debt financing in the near future could be worthwhile in this regard. The
limitation on this idea is that borrowing years in advance of project construction can have tax
implications that negate the benefit of the borrowing at low rates. While advance borrowing
could be advantageous, it should only be considered if projects are well-defined and ready to
proceed to construction on a timely schedule.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 11
Project Descriptions
OLD TOWN SQUARE RENOVATIONS
This potential project would enable the GID to assist the DDA with funding of portions of Old
Town Square renovations. Specific components would be determined through additional
planning and design work.
Some example needs include: reconfiguration of the fountain, stage, and kiosk/restroom
building to make room for larger performances and enhance the connection with Linden
Street; electric infrastructure for performance sound and lighting; plaza lighting renovation;
renovation of the fountain equipment; and updating of finishes, plantings, and irrigation.
Old Town Square is now over 25 years old, and draws more, bigger crowds than ever.
Numerous needs and ideas for renovations have come up over the years. While it is highly
successful as the #1 focal point of Downtown, it has been described as “tired” and
renovations emerges as the most important project for GID funding. It is owned and
maintained by the DDA, but DDA funding is now sharply reduced to a level where it has lost
the ability to cover renovation costs in the near future.
There is a conceptual cost estimate of $2.5 million in 2010 dollars. Other recommended
funding sources include the DDA, and the next Citywide Capital Improvements Program
package (e.g., 1997 BCC, 2005 BOB), which is expected to be presented to City voters in
2015.
A hypothetical funding scenario of approximately $1 million each from the GID, DDA, and the
next citywide package should be a starting point for staff work in formulating a financing
package. Staff should continue to explore other funding sources as well.
Origin: Old Town Square Needs Assessment Study, 2009.
North end of Old Town Square at its junction with Linden Street.
12 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
JEFFERSON/MOUNTAIN GATEWAY URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING
This potential project is dependent on the outcome of a Jefferson Street Alternatives
Analysis Study currently underway by the City, DDA, and CDOT. That study is scheduled for
completion in Fall 2011. It includes funding for construction of its recommendations.
However, the funding is not expected to adequately address the community’s need and desire
to mark this Downtown gateway with pedestrian and beautification enhancements.
This project is to capture the opportunity to partner in design enhancements to fully realize
the community’s desires to enhance this intersection, if such enhancements exceed the scope
of the committed funding as expected. Any GID funding would be used to augment and
partner with, and not to replace, the committed funding.
Origin: Downtown Plan
Existing conditions at the southwest corner of this key Downtown entry.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 13
RESERVE FUND TO RESPOND TO EMERGING PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND
URGENT NEEDS
This is a general idea for the GID to be able to respond opportunistically to projects that may
arise as new priorities. A number of possible examples have been noted:
► Repairs and Renovations to Existing GID Improvements
► Enhanced linkages to Mason Corridor
► Additional Bike Parking
► Bike Parking Maintenance and Operations
► Additional Enhanced Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage
► Enhanced Linkages to New Museum, Possibly with Expansion of GID Boundary
► Pedestrian Lighting, Mountain South Side, College to Remington
► Pedestrian Lighting, Other Locations
► Canyon Art Walk
► West Oak Street Parking - Design to Close for Events
► Linden Street Paver Renovation
► Pine Street Streetscape Enhancements
► Amphitheatre Participation
► Special Events Facility Participation
► Community Marketplace Participation
► Parks Maintenance Shop Participation
► Ice Rink, Full Size, Multi-Use, All-Season Outdoor
► Redevelopment Projects - Streetscape or Parking Partnerships
► Another Parking Structure - Funding Participation
► College Avenue Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing, Civic Center Garage to Old Town Square
via Opera Galleria and Trimble Court per Downtown Strategic Plan
► Expand Planting Program for Corner Noses at Street Corners
► Annual Maintenance of Existing GID Improvements, If City Funding Becomes
Unavailable
14 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN-ENHANCED ALLEYS
This potential project is to enable the GID to assist in funding additional enhanced alleys.
A Downtown Alleys Master Plan Report by the DDA identifies a system of alley makeover
projects to enhance pedestrian connectivity and interest. A number of these projects have
been executed by the DDA, but more remain. Candidate alley projects are: Linden to
Chestnut, behind Armadillo and the Wright Life; Mountain to Olive on the west side of
College, behind Old Chicago and Ace Hardware; Laporte to Tenney Court between the Civic
Center garage and Tenney Court; and Oak to Olive at the Oak/Remington Lot, behind the
Aggie Theater and Tony’s Lounge. Long-term, specialized maintenance is a key component to
include in the formulation of any more alley enhancements project.
Origin: Downtown Plan
Existing alley on extending south from Mountain Avenue, across Oak Street to Olive Street,
on the west side of College Avenue. (Behind Old Chicago and Ace Hardware.)
A pedestrian-enhanced alley (Trimble Court).
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 15
ENHANCED CROSSWALKS
This project would enhance key street crossings to more visibly support pedestrian use. The
project would begin with identification of the key crossings that warrant enhancements.
One prime example location would be the crossing of Mulberry Street along College Avenue,
to better tie Downtown to CSU. That location, which is considered the southern entry into
Downtown, could also potentially be related to a larger gateway streetscape project, and also
be related to similar enhancements at the crossing of Mulberry Street one block to the west
where the Mason Corridor enters Downtown.
Origin: Downtown Plan, Downtown Strategic Plan
Hypothetical example of crosswalk enhancement concept with colored, textured paving.
Actual Downtown example of an enhanced crosswalk with colored, textured paving, a median
refuge, and corner plaza pavers.
16 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
ENHANCED CROSSWALKS CONTINUED:
SHORTEN EAST/WEST PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS LEADING INTO THE CORE AREA
At key street corners, crosswalk enhancements could include the extension of curb lines to
shorten the pedestrian crossing and provide additional landscaping and seating areas.
The Downtown Strategic Plan recommends orienting redevelopment in the near West Side and
East Side areas to east/west streets leading into the core area, and recommends this kind of
enhancement. For example, crossing Mason and Howes at Mountain, Oak, and Magnolia are
mentioned. Those crossings of Mason could also include exploration of smoother rail crossings
for bicycles.
Some east side locations may be similar, e.g., Olive at Remington and Mathews.
Origin: Downtown Strategic Plan
Example of Olive Street crossing Remington
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 17
OLD TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING RENOVATION
This project would be included as part of any larger Old Town Square renovation package, but
it was also suggested as a special, smaller project to highlight separately as a possible first
step. The idea is to update lighting with more historic-styled fixtures that offer today’s
better performance in terms of energy efficiency, aesthetics, and functionality in lighting the
plaza.
The predominant existing lighting type in Old Town Square.
18 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
JEFFERSON STREETSCAPE
This project idea is dependent on outcome of a Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study
currently underway by the City and CDOT. That study is scheduled for completion in Fall
2011. It includes a funding allocation for subsequent construction of its recommendations.
This project idea is to help meet a need or opportunity for additional streetscape
enhancement funding that the GID could add to committed funding, assuming that the
committed funding will not adequately cover the full streetscape recommendations that may
result from the study. Any GID funding would be used to augment and partner with, and not
to replace, the committed State funding.
Concept sketch of one early alternative being examined, with three traffic lanes, median
segments, a bike lane, and improvements to parking and sidewalks.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 19
MULBERRY/MASON GATEWAY AND STREETSCAPE
This potential project would augment the Mason Corridor bus rapid transit improvements.
This intersection will become a significant south entry to Downtown, with a role similar and
related to the role of the Mulberry/College intersection.
Conceptual graphics from discussions a few years ago suggest enhanced crosswalks and corner
ramps; improvements could also include urban design features, such as the low planters/seat
walls and corner plazas found at other downtown corners.
Existing conditions.
Conceptual illustration of street improvements and future redevelopment.
Example gateway streetscape improvements.
20 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
PUBLIC RESTROOMS FUNDING
This project is a general idea for staff to assist ongoing efforts to provide appropriate public
restroom facilities Downtown. This may involve defining specific needs, evaluating options
and technologies, seeking additional locations for public facilities, improving existing
facilities, seeking partnerships, and using GID funding if necessary to leverage other funding.
The recommendation is for any GID funding to be used for permanent physical facilities; and
to be used to leverage other funding sources.
Restroom issues are a continual, multi-faceted topic for Downtown property and business
owners, the DDA, Police District 1, City facilities managers and maintenance crews, and other
interests.
Example of a “have2p” restroom locator for smart phones from another city that has
restroom options.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 21
PUBLIC RESTROOMS FUNDING, CONTINUED
Part of the general idea to provide appropriate public restroom facilities, includes
transforming the nondescript, anonymous appearance of the facility at the Oak/Remington
parking lot with an architectural makeover or replacement.
The concept is that the character of the facility may be contributing to lack of awareness that
it exists, and also to undesirable/illicit activity, both of which are problems; and that
enhancing the appearance and identity of the facility could affect behavior and use of the
facility. Possible enhancements are a roof, fascias for signage, opaque glass block inserts,
and other architectural enhancements. Also, the current door/entry arrangement, which is
based on occupying the facility behind a closed door, could be reconsidered with different
entry arrangement. Other ideas, such as adding classical music, could be tried.
Existing public restroom in the Oak/Remington lot.
An example from another city.
22 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
HOLIDAY LIGHTS AND ELECTRICITY FUNDING
This potential project would enable the GID to assist with funding of a share of the annual
holiday lighting installation. The recommendation is for any GID funding to be limited to
capital investment in equipment or permanent infrastructure; to be used to leverage other
funding sources more appropriate for event installations; and to be considered only if
necessary to prevent the loss of the program.
This annual installation is currently funded by the DDA under a contract set to expire after
2011. The DDA, DBA, and City have been parties to a three-way partnership in the contract,
but all three have had revenue cuts that place the program in question.
This potential project is not the type of capital project envisioned in the original creation of
the GID, and has raised particular questions and mixed reviews regarding appropriate use of
GID revenues. However, it is of top importance to the public and the Downtown business
community and thus is included as a potential project to support with GID funding.
Holiday lights in trees along East Mountain Avenue.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 23
SIDEWALKS, CURBS, AND GUTTERS REPLACEMENT
This potential project is an ongoing program to repair and replace damaged sidewalks, curbs,
and gutters. A large, one-time project is currently fixing the extra-wide, core-area sidewalks
in 2011. This project would fund smaller scale replacements, throughout the GID, as an
ongoing program.
Modest funding amounts could be useful, e.g., as little as $10,000 in a given year. There is
currently no effective program for this concrete work. Municipal Code places responsibility
on property owners to maintain sidewalks, curbs, and gutters so they do not endanger the
public; but that is difficult to implement, and does not require consistent quality of finish. A
GID program could provide a more practical, organized, quality approach for Downtown.
New sidewalk, curb, and gutter fitted in among older existing
portions of sidewalk that were in good condition.
Example showing cracks and heaving in concrete sidewalk and tree grate curb.
24 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
LINDEN STREET PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS AUGMENTATION
This project would design and install additional lighting consistent with other similar areas.
Linden Street lighting between Walnut and Jefferson is not consistent with lighting levels in
other high-activity areas, due to long distances between the current pedestrian fixtures,
creating darker areas.
This project should be considered in relation to Old Town Square lighting renovation. A goal
for overall Old Town Square renovations is to strengthen the visual linkage to this block.
Replacement of lighting to continue the same matching fixtures throughout Linden Street and
Old Town Square should be considered as a way to achieve the goal.
A stretch of Linden Street sidewalk that would benefit from more street/sidewalk lighting.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 25
MULBERRY/COLLEGE STREETSCAPE/GATEWAY
This project was on the previous 1994 project list. It would upgrade the west side of College
Avenue at current Sports Authority frontage, reinforcing the theme set by landscaping on the
east side. The goal is to enhance the image at this key south entry to Downtown. Street
trees, low screen walls, plantings, irrigation, and a seating area are recommended. Also, a
median planter could reinforce the Downtown theme, and new enhanced crosswalks could aid
pedestrian crossings and highlight the link between Downtown and CSU.
Origin: Downtown Plan
Existing Conditions
Landscaping on the east side of College Avenue at Mulberry
Existing median Downtown median planter
Existing crosswalk Enhanced crosswalk
26 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
PARKING FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS
This project idea is dependent on outcome of a Parking Plan for Downtown scheduled for
completion in 2012. That plan is expected to recommend improvements to public garages
and lots to create a more positive brand, and improve the everyday experience for users.
Example features may include better-designed, coordinated signage and paint. It may also
recommend additional parking, considering shared parking and partnerships in new lots or
garages.
Successful examples of user-friendly finishes and signage
transforming garages in other cities.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011 27
Other Ideas
During the process, some ideas were suggested that fall outside the scope of this capital
improvements plan, but are recorded here for future reference and further consideration by
appropriate entities.
Expansion of the GID’s Boundary: The question of possible expansion of the GID’s
boundaries was raised, related to ideas for potential projects outside of the GID. Three areas
in particular were noted:
► The north edge -- the two blocks bounded by Maple Street, Cherry Street, College
Avenue, and Howes Street, with Mason Street separating the two blocks.
► The River District area – the area bounded by Jefferson/Riverside, the Poudre River,
Lincoln Avenue, and College Avenue.
► The south edge -- the commercial areas between Mulberry and Laurel.
Any of these ideas would involve outreach and complex discussion of issues, pros, cons, and
logistics. Boundary expansion is allowed by State law, and would require initiation by a
petition of property owners, then City Council approval, and an election by electors in the
expansion area.
Ice Rink Funding: This suggestion was for the GID to assist with funding of the annual holiday
ice rink installation and removal, if no other funding is available to continue the program
after 2011. The installation has been funded by the DDA, but major revenue reductions in
2011 have led the DDA to discontinue its funding. The cost is about $40,000 in 2011. This
was rated very highly as being important to Downtown in the 2011 planning process.
However, as a temporary attraction, it was not widely supported as being appropriate for GID
funding, in light of the needs for other, permanent capital improvements that are more
consistent with the purposes of the GID.
Other Ideas:
► Shuttles from/to hotels and other south Fort Collins locations.
► Shuttle to Lincoln Center.
► Portable security cameras.
► Downtown circulator shuttle along key routes within and around Downtown.
► Trolley expansion to the Trolley Barn.
► Surcharge on certain criminal citations to help pay for restrooms and maintenance.
► Noise abatement, especially train noise.
► Development and maintenance of an email list of property owners.
28 GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2011
Conclusion
This plan will guide discussions and efforts over years, with updates as needed. New
information and changes have been constant, and that is expected to continue. The project
information will evolve and change as progress is made and new information is available.
Still, this plan is important in determining a basis for staff work to pursue projects, funding,
and coordination efforts by various stakeholders.
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
Log of Public Meetings and Outreach
June‐September, 2011
June 8 DBA Board, introduction, thoughts and ideas
June 9 DDA Board, introduction, thoughts and ideas
June 15 DBA Legislative Affairs Committee, thoughts and ideas
June 23 DBA membership, introduce and invite to Open House
June Neighborhood News newsletter
June 27, 28 Open House #1with mailing and online information
June 27–July 15 Online Questionnaire with Facebook link
August 9 City Council Worksession
August 10 DBA Board, review public outreach
August 18 DBA membership, review public outreach
Sept. 7 DBA Legislative Affairs Committee, review draft materials
Sept. 8 DDA Board, review draft materials
Sept. 12, 13 Open House #2 with mailing and online information
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
ATTACHMENT 2
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Capital Improvements Plan
Log of Public Comments
June – September, 2011
Following are comments received in response to an online questionnaire and two public
open houses on potential projects to fund using the GID.
Online Comments:
1. Enhance lighting from College to Remington parking garage along South side of
Mountain Ave.
2. Keep up the good work with District One officers. They help to make it safer
for regular folks who want to enjoy downtown. My Mom enjoys Old Town, but
without police presence, I don't take her there.
3. Move some events more north.
4. We need a festival grounds somewhere near downtown to put all the public
events that are so popular here. Where, I don't know.
5. I think more bike parking would be a good thing. You can’t ride them
downtown so it would be great to have enough places to park them!
6. Could the 200 N. College block be improved? There are no street lights on the
sidewalk. For shoppers, it would be nice to even have a garbage can on the
northwest corner. I'm not sure if there could be benches and other
improvements made on the street as well, but it is a really neglected street
that holds the city building on it. If the city wants growth in the downtown to
continue, I would think that this block that links the downtown to the bus stop
and the discovery center would be an important street to improve to
encourage people to go downtown after being in the museum/discovery
center.
7. Consider partnerships for funding a permanent full size multi-use outdoor ice
rink downtown to accommodate all season activities.
8. The pedestrian bulbs that stick out in the streets, for example on Mountain and
Mason, are hazardous to bike riders because they push them into the traffic
lane. While I appreciate the new sharrows, the drivers don't know what they
mean and it's still dangerous to ride in the middle of the lane. I'd suggest not
adding any more bulbs. How about smoothing out the railroad crossings at Oak
and Olive. They almost knock your teeth out on a bike. How come the city is
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
ATTACHMENT 3
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
2
studying sound protections from trains only south of downtown and not in
downtown? The residents here have to listen to loud and frequent train horns
in the middle of the night.
9. Wide streets need large banners. Some of the existing banners have been too
small and do not call enough attention to themselves. Size the brackets
accordingly. I am interested in how the public art/artists is/are chosen. I think
we need to have some standards for the public art.
10. Restroom Signs, and more public transport at
night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11. Yes, please oh please....more parking for bikes! We are finally getting folks to
ride downtown, but they have no place to lock up. I hate to see people lock to
trees....
12. Large downtown roofed amphitheater two small open-air amphitheaters two
hotels--boutique and mid-level--200 rooms max round-about at
College/Laporte/Walnut
13. Instead of extending the trolley straight east on Mountain, send it up Howes to
Laporte and over on the north side of Laporte to Mason. This will allow for
Transfort and the Municipal Railway to be more seamlessly integrated. On
Jefferson/Riverside, positioning the bike lanes between moving traffic and
parking lanes is unacceptable considering the truck traffic. Bikes will either
have to choose between getting doored or going under the wheels of a semi
truck. A 2 way contra-flow cycle-track constructed on the Northeast side of
Riverside would be safer and more pleasant to ride.
14. I guess this is outside the GID area, but there is significant tourist (and local)
travel between downtown and Odell Brewing (and FCB) via West Mountain Ave
and Lincoln Ave (by bike, car, and some pedestrians). Pedestrian sidewalks and
bike lanes (and signage, landscaping, etc) along Lincoln Ave would be a benefit
and have a high-profile. A friendlier connection from Odell's to Linden and/or
NBB via Willow or 1st Street also is an idea. (and/or enhanced visibility of the
entrances to the Poudre trail there.) (b) The railroad crossings on Mason Street
at Oak and Olive are very rough for bicycles. It would be great to upgrade
them to the track crossing type used at Mountain and Laporte. (c) rather than
add downtown circulator shuttles, I’d rather see more circulator shuttles to
get to and from downtown from area hotels, etc. (d) Kudos to DDA on the
great alleyway improvements in recent years. Thanks for the downtown
planning and ongoing improvements.
15. Better public transit options for getting to downtown from other areas.
16. More regular late bus routes to downtown from other parts of Fort Collins
(Such as Harmony and Timberline). The routes right now are not viable options
for going out even for dinner on some evening, or downtown events.
17. This is a great list so far! Keep up the good work.
18. There is a street in Denver that has open grates in the sidewalk where sounds
emanate from. It leads to the art and cultural complex and is so cool! I think
that when considering art in the public places (which is always interesting)
that this "sound art" could be incorporated somehow.
19. Extend trolley line to new museum.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
3
20. Not at this time but the need for proper toilet and trash facilities is very
important in my opinion. I'm not even sure I would know where to find a
restroom if I were in Old Town at 11pm.
21. Keep the Mason Corridor project alive!!! Especially through/around campus!
22. Didn't see the year-round community market place anywhere in here. A market
place would add a lot more to Old Town than fancy cross walks.
23. Some great ideas here!
24. Downtown tries to be very pedestrian friendly but it still has 287 running right
through the center. I think the best thing for Old Town is reducing the traffic. I
wish I had suggestions on how to reroute traffic away. The other thing as far
fetched as it is would be a monorail. They can be beautiful and they are raised
so they don't affect traffic. Also, it can be used to get all around town and
even connect surrounding towns.
25. A non-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the railroad track running through
Mason Street.
26. Get folks who live in FC to volunteer to help on projects, including labor
(skilled and unskilled). People will show up and help if asked.
27. Thanks for posting on FB for more input.
28. All of these projects are nice, but if we don't get a grip on the drunks and
violence surrounding Old Town then all of the improvements are in vein.
29. Physically separated bike lanes are welcome anywhere downtown where
appropriate!
30. Watch the spending.
31. Please consider adding a fence to the Oak Street Plaza fountain. My family
loves to play in the water, but I hesitate to take them because there is no
visual barrier from the street fountain and the street. Perhaps a row of
benches, it would add additional seating and create a boundary for children. It
feels very unsafe in its current condition. Thank you for taking time to gather
opinions!
32. I strongly support projects that integrate solar and other renewable
technologies that showcase art and the City's commitment to being green. In
my opinion projects that directly relate to the Mason Street BRT investments
will be extremely valuable long-term and will make the community that much
more accessible and appealing to students, visitors and existing residents. I'm
not sure if Lincoln Street is included in the boundary but I think it is one of the
biggest priority streetscape/improvement projects that needs to be addressed
due to the significant bike traffic and impression that it leaves on tourists
(visiting the breweries).
33. THE PIAZZA~ A brilliant idea to create a 'european style' open plaza behind the
twenty-plus restaurants that currently back up to the existing parking lot near
the south east corner of mason and mountain ave. Remove the parking and
build a beautiful plaza for outdoor patios connected to each restaurant etc.
The patios could include Tasty Harmony, the Rio Grande, Ingredient, Lulu's,
Beach House, Sonnys?, Old Chicago, The Indian Buffet, Fish, Dempseys?, and
Joes Coffee, This would GREATLY enhance our town!!
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
4
34. I think the sidewalks are in extreme need of repair and should be the top
priority. It would be neat to extend the plaza at Oak westward and remove
parking to keep it completely for pedestrians. Jefferson definitely needs
streetscape improvements - I liked the rendering showing a median -that might
help mitigate the truck noise. The alley/parking lot behind 281 N
College/Washingtons needs lighting and other enhancements - it does not feel
safe there at night. Improving that same section along College is necessary as
well. The aesthetics drop in quality on that block compared to south of
Laporte. The alley improvements are wonderful and shouldn't stop until they're
all complete.
35. I'd like to see projects that help bring a closer link between old town and
attractions like: 1) the Breweries (bike tours) 2) new Museum on Cherry 3) and
even the Poudre river. Given this, I like the ideas involving enhancements of
roadways, sidewalks, signs, etc. on the East and North sides of Old Town.
Biking Jefferson can be a little scary without a bike lane. Proactively search
for and incentivize business to develop the empty block between Maple and
Cherry. Develop something that complements Fort Collins and helps attract
visitors and additional tax revenues!! A little tax incentive now will pay off in
the long run. From my experience, most people drive their own cars or bike to
Old Town. I feel addressing high dollar public transportation projects is
something that can wait until Old Town is beefed up a bit.
36. If mini electric cars grow then create parking spaces for them because you can
get 2 in one auto spot. Also more parking for bikes & under 50cc scooters.
Thank you!!
37. Keep some holiday lighting in the trees up year-round
38. Adding medians down Loomis Ave. To slow traffic down and make it safer for
bikes, pedestrians and also slow storm water
39. Use FEDERAL grants and opportunities to fix roads, traffic lights, etc.
40. Keep up the great work!
41. The trolley extension to Mason is a bad idea! The goal is to reach the old
trolley barn on Howes. That needs to have the priority.
42. Yeah, enhance the streets, they need repaving!
43. GID funds should be used primarily for new capital projects and not for
maintenance of existing or new projects. Need to do projects that increase
activity and interest in downtown which will generate more money for GID to
do more projects.
44. Maintain existing facilities ... quit spending on useless ideas.
45. There is nothing about bicycling enhancements here. Bike guideways through
Oak St. Plaza and Old Town Square would help direct and smooth out cycling in
old town. Also, roundabouts at Canyon and Magnolia, Olive and Oak would help
make this a better bike route to Old Town. (Not to mention Mulberry and
Canyon).
46. I endorse Glenn Konen's "The Piazza" project between Mountain and Oak
Street.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
5
47. Gateways at Mulberry and Whitcomb, and at Mulberry and Canyon, to invite
and lead the CSU communities toward the downtown. 2. Roundabout at
Mulberry and Canyon.
48. Improve the DDA parking lot that "fronts" and is defined by two intersecting
alleys between Mountain and Oak to become a Piazza for public events etc., in
the same way that so many open spaces occur in Europeon cities and towns.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY IT BECOME A "park" that is mostly green OR to become
another Oak Street Plaza dominated with things and trees but an open, mostly
hard surfaced space with pavers that are loose set for easy revisions and
maintenance and other infrastructure to support the "events".
49. Public transportation is key for this town going forward.... a street car or
electric car system would put Fort Collins above and beyond the future........
the bus system is simply not up to par for a town of our size.......... safety call
phones would be another great addition....to be able to call for assistance if
needed.
50. I would really like the downtown to work on getting more free parking because
I really believe that that issue is a big reason why FC has a successful
downtown.
51. The questionnaire is a bit too long and it would be helpful when setting a
priority if you could see the list of possibilities at the beginning. I live on W.
Oak and go into the downtown daily. While it is a central place for our entire
community, it is also a part of our own neighborhood and we "locals" support it
more than the rest of the community because we are there more often. The
residential neighborhood surrounding Old Town should always have
opportunities for direct impact on DDA activities.
52. Less about making it look pretty and more about functionality, first!!!!
53. If Mulberry street leading to College and Mason streets is considered the major
DT gateway, then it seems to me that a vision plan is necessary that would
guide future enhancements, future developments (Sports Authority lot, for
example), signage, streetscaping, etc... I suggest that this also ties in nicely to
the pending Mason Corridor. If some of the suggestions in this surveys had been
more connected as part of a plan, it would be easier to assessment them
relative to one another and prioritize accordingly.
54. PLEASE do not invest in the $500,000 bathroom on Oak Street. Can't believe
the City is recommending such a boondoggle!
55. A thought: with enough foot traffic downtown, a private entity could run
something like the ice rink. With that in mind, perhaps GID and public funding
should focus on advancing public works (e.g., streetscapes, gateways, shuttles
between downtown and conference hotels) which help maintain activity and
interest downtown.
56. Many parking issues could be resolved by putting parking outside the downtown
area and providing free, or inexpensive, consistent shuttle service into the
core area. This would reduce the number of cars in old town while potentially
increasing the number of pedestrians.
57. I would really like to see Old Town get away from using pavers. I'm guessing
they are as costly as quality concrete, but seem more prone to settling causing
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
6
tripping hazards and more work when it comes to snow removal. In addition, if
business owners need to use a lift to maintain their facade, much more work
goes into protecting the pavers from damage. They seem really 80s too, just a
terrible idea!
58. Thanks for taking input....our city rocks.
59. I am happy to see continued focus to make this one of the best towns ever. We
had friends in from Texas and Arizona this weekend, and LOVED the Old Town
atmosphere! Beautiful flowers, music in the square, art visible, just a great
mix!
60. A lot of the projects are ridiculous and seem totally unnecessary.
61. Thank you for getting people's opinions.
62. Spend more money just outside downtown....like Mid Town.
63. Include fiscal information in the questionnaire. Knowing approximately how
much of the GID funding will be used for each of these projects, and how much
each of the projects cost could significantly change my opinion of what is
important.
64. I would have appreciated the option to respond "DO NOT SUPPORT THIS
PROPOSAL AS DEPICTED HERE". Hi, Medium, Low priority or No Opinion do not
cover the spectrum!
****************************************************************************************
Open House #1 Comments:
Wayfinding Sign System
65. Need signage for existing restrooms.
66. Way-finding to Poudre Trail access – current signage is very poor; need to be a
local to know where to go.
67. Need way-finding on I-25 – it is very poor as it exists.
68. The way-finding in Grand Junction is very effective and impressive. The scale,
color and location are all great. In Grand Junction it is difficult to find Old
Town and the National Monument, but they did a fantastic job.
69. High priority because we need cohesive signage that leads visitors all the way
to Old Town from I-25 to parking garages, museum and river corridor.
70. Pedestrian Signs/Kiosks are another target for graffiti; at least in the form you
are showing now.
Mulberry/College South Entry to Dowtnown
71. I really like the pavers for interest. Check out Weaverville, CA. They have
thermoplastic fake bricks that look really fun. Can see on Google street view.
72. Mulberry/College needs major help. Really would be great to have pedestrian
refuges but not sure if possible. Encourage parking lot to be mini pocket park
w/ mini smoothie/coffee or other small business idea.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
7
Canyon Avenue Art Walk & Southwest Entry at Canyon/Mulberry
73. Yes, yes, yes, but NOT a roundabout.
74. Very dangerous intersection solution potential. Suggestions: create a
roundabout, close off Canyon to Mulberry, and reduce the number of options
leaving South from Canyon to Mulberry.
75. Repaint crosswalk by Mulberry pool to Mulberry. NO ONE stops for pedestrians.
76. I really like the pavers for interest. Check out Weaverville, CA. (Caltrans
Project – view a Google street view). They have thermoplastic fake brick X-
walls that look really fun.
77. Mulberry and College needs major help! Really would be great to have
pedestrian refuges not the same, if possible. Encourage parking lot at Sports
Authority to be mini pocket park with mini smoothie/coffee or other business
idea at corner.
78. Hire the designers who did Ashland Oregon’s Lithia Park. It fully utilizes a
small, narrow area for a fantastic public park. Adds value to the town.
79. Too much money to rebuild now. Put a Farmer’s Market here. Close Mulberry
connection. Two narrower lanes.
80. I am a big fan of gateways to Old Town so pedestrian traffic is comfortable,
safe and it is a pleasant stroll downtown.
81. Narrow Canyon to two narrow travel lanes and provide a public space for
Farmer’s Markets, concerts etc, and during off time, a place to travel through
or to and enjoy Fort Collins.
Linden Street Paver Sidewalk Paver Renovation
82. When is Linden going to be paved? I love paved streets. Are we going to
continue with pavers on NE Linden?
83. When is paving on Linden Street going to be done?
Jefferson Streetscape
84. No median. Jefferson should be part of DBA. Fort Collins history is very
important on corner of Jefferson and Linden. I think it should be kept quiet.
Make Willow a truck route.
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway
85. NO Roundabout. Landscaping great. Jefferson should be inclusive for Old Town.
A walkable area from Linden to College.
86. I like these because of leverage possibilities and the entrance aspect to
Downtown.
87. Enhanced gateway to Old Town great use of GID.
88. Roundabout please.
Old Town Square
89. I’m not so sure about a fire place.
90. We need more enforcement in Old Town Square for people on their bikes and
skateboards.
91. Cameras in Old Town Square will deter negative behavior.
92. Cameras would be great there for negative behavior. More cafes/restaurants
with outside seating or rooftops for people to sit and eat during concerts.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
8
93. Economic driver of Old Town. Let’s keep it current and viable. Good use of
GID.
Holiday Lights
94. Lights in picture have been reduced – it made a difference. Photography setting
at OTS drop-off completely different (worse). Museum cuts also.
95. Have private sponsors, businesses, NGO’s and foundations fund.
Ice Rink
96. NO ice rink.
97. I like the idea of a new full size rink, but where?
98. Fund new full size rink in appropriate location.
99. We need to make the plaza more family friendly than a bar district.
100. Move it to parking lot behind Lyric Cinema, or Oak and Remington parking lot.
Does not add to ambience of Old Town feel.
Sidewalks, curbs and gutters
101. GID funding should not be used for costs related to city maintenance. This is
general fund projects responsibility.
Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing, Civic Center Garage to Old Town Square via
Opera Galleria and Trimble Court
102. I like the centerline at College parallel parking idea with sidewalk in middle.
It is challenging today the way it exists.
103. Paid parking downtown like Boulder.
Enhanced Crosswalks
104. Enhancement of crosswalks period! Drivers do NOT stop.
105. Thermoplastic brick x-walks. The city standard enhanced seems to not be eye
catching enough and too pale.
East/West Pedestrian Crossings into Downtown
106. Bulb-outs whenever possible. I agree – shorten the ped crossings. Art on the
corners could be low maintenance.
Additional Pedestrian-Enhanced Alleys
107. Love the alleyway projects. Good on ya DDA !
Enhanced Linkages to new Museum
108. This would get people’s attention more once the museum is built. Yes, we
definitely need an enhanced pedestrian connection between the transit
center and Mason Ct. Mid-block crossing possible?
109. High importance once it is built.
Public Art
110. Love the utility box art.
111. The wonderful planters and flower beds are more important for me if costs
compete.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
9
112. Art on the corners like Grand Junction. Call them and ask them for details.
113. NO TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS, PERIOD! Hideous, white, marble monstrosity
and other “modern” art stinks!!!
114. I like the new location of the white statue. In the right location it shines
and is appropriate.
Additional Public Restrooms
115. Public restrooms need to be highly maintained. Example of restrooms in
Bryant Park, NYC.
116. Should be paid for by City General Fund, not GID.
Upgrade Existing Restrooms at Oak/Remington
117. Restrooms must be maintained, ex. Bryant Park, NYC.
118. Downtown needs far more restrooms to accommodate the late night crowd,
which can be 2000-3500 on any given weekend night. Would cut down on
public urination.
119. Good idea to improve this and it will reduce public urination and make it
more comfortable for Old Town pedestrians.
120. Existing restrooms are often locked by cleaning service. Ensure these are
available for residents and citizens.
Oak Street Parking Lot
121. I like this idea. Temporary sounds great.
122. West Oak St and Chestnut St. could be more utilized for events.
Enhanced Bus Stops
123. I totally agree! Also, have additional pull-outs for buses to keep traffic
moving.
124. This should be funded by City General Transportation Fund, not GID.
125. I am the only person I know who rides the bus.
Transit Circulator
126. The cost of maintaining this transit circulator negatively impacts other more
important projects.
Trolley Track Extension
127. I like anything to do with the trolley. Extend tracks to trolley barn, have
parking there, run the trolley more often, get the second car up and
running, etc.
128. Have parking at City Park with free rides for people who get validated
tickets from merchant. Don’t know how to manage, but …
129. The loss of parking for the infrequent use of the trolley is not a good idea.
Additional Ideas - Additional Parking Facility
130. Include river district into to GID and extend Old Town feel to Poudre River –
expand boundary.
131. We have two parking structures – probably should be free so people will use
them.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
10
Additional Ideas - Noise Abatement
132. Yes, noise abatement in Old Town! Especially train noise.
133. Bars on College that have outside patios, especially Tony’s. It is so annoying
since that was put in.
Other
134. Tie in North College improvements to Old Town appearance. Fill in blocks
that don’t have continuous sidewalks/bike lanes/ landscaping. Partner with
city funds for this North Gateway to Old Town.
135. Enhance Mulberry/College intersection AND Mason St. block west of
intersection to improve “gateways” to Old Town.
136. More bike racks like the NB ones in parking spaces.
137. Jefferson St. is so much a part of Old Town – on the west side with shops
and on the east side with Historic site. Please do not put a roundabout
there. I suggest moving it for traffic to Willow and Lincoln. More areas for
business and arts.
138. I coordinate responsible alcohol retreats (CRAR) and we work to get people
home from bars safely. Tow signs and ticketing are a deterrent for people
needing to leave their car in Old Town. I’d like to explore the idea of
developing some sort of system that would exempt a tow or a ticket from
someone who sought a safe walk home (rather than drive drunk). Bars would
distribute them.
139. The property north of transit facility (Maple, Cherry, College and Mason)
block 23 is under contract for several million dollars and is zoned for a 9-
story building. How about having a basement parking garage, and the first
four story exterior similar to Northern Hotel, with floors 2 and 3 affordable
rent or purchase condos, 4,5,6 and 7 hotel, floor 8 six-figure condos, and
floor 9 seven-figure penthouses.
140. Move bike parking from on-street parking places to upper level of
courthouse parking garage and make those parking places into handicapped
parking. NO METERS EVER! Reduce two-hour parking to one hour and expand
two-hour parking area.
141. We need to move bicycle parking off sidewalks and streets to parking
garages or create bicycle lots.
142. Enforcement of bikes and skateboards on sidewalks.
143. I like the idea of a horse trolley. I hope the city would partner with local
companies to make this work.
144. Hard to get things done in one hour – need to park longer than two hours.
145. People shopping in Old Town can’t get things done in one hour – need to
move car every hour. Encourage use of parking structures – there is parking!
146. How about creating gateways to downtown either at Mulberry and Howes,
or at Mulberry and Canyon? These would clearly identify the old town
boundary, but would serve as welcoming points into the downtown,
particularly to the students, faculty and employees of CSU. These
welcoming points might resemble the city gates we see in European cities
which stand as reminders of the history of the area and lend a feeling of
welcome and inclusion into something special. At either point, a large
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
11
roundabout (yes, I know…) might work. Or, perhaps landscaping and signage
would suffice. Then, configuring the streets to welcome bicycles and an
easy flow of traffic would do the rest. These would complement the newly
developed Mason Street Corridor--all of them saying "Come on down" to the
35,000 people on campus.
147. Don’t let GID substitute for City General Fund responsibilities (things the
City is normally obligated to do if there was no GID.)
148. Need a standing permanent committee with owner/stakeholder
representation like the North College CAG.
Open House #2 Comments:
Overall Project List:
149. More Alleys should be #1
150. Love the enhanced alleys, support Old Town Square Renovations, support
public restrooms, support leveraging funds.
151. Yes to Old Town Square as #1 project venue for events to promote
Downtown.
152. I like Jefferson/Mt. gateway idea. This area is seeing a lot of traffic and
gateways are important to show you are in Downtown.
153. Again, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters should be paid for by City General
Fund.
154. Where is railroad horn issue ? ? ?
155. Project list should be flexible because of additional funding and bonding
potential in addition to partnering with development.
156. Basic maintenance should be paid for by general fund, but maintenance of
enhanced alleys and pavers should be paid for by the GID fund.
157. Yes to top 5 and another parking structure.
158. Very important to maintain existing improvements.
159. Very important to take advantage of developments and tie landscaping and
sidewalks to look of downtown.
160. Integrating Mason Corridor very important.
161. What about maintenance? Cleaning paving. REQUIRE businesses to clean
their grease.
162. Spread out the improvements out from the core where most of the
attention is.
163. Pine Street needs some design improvements.
164. Chestnut Street – New Garage.
165. Like the capital projects. They can create leverage. Lead Downtown
forward. This GID could easily degenerate into a maintenance thing fixing
cracks, planting flowers, putting up lights.
Old Town Square Renovations:
166. Overdue. It’s tired. #2. (After Alleys).
168. #1.
169. Yes #1.
170. Old Town Square is a focal point of Old Town.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
12
171. #1 priority.
172. #1. Layout needs to be updated for size of events held there. Permanent
concession building would be beneficial to DBA.
173. Kids and homeless people hanging out by restrooms discourages some
people from going “back there” to use restroom.
Jefferson/Mountain Gateway and Streetscape:
174. Yep!
175. #1
Reserve Fund for Emerging Opportunities:
176. Maybe not the most exciting, but likely very important to get to smaller
projects.
Alleys:
177. Love the alley enhancements. I think it makes them safer and more
attractive to use as walkways to other parts of Downtown.
178. Consider Oak to Olive alley between Remington and Matthews. It gets used
as a connection, and for drinking and vandalism.
Mulberry/MasonGateways:
179. Making Mulberry/Mason look more like a gateway is VERY IMPORTANT.
180. Yes – may have to wait ‘til redevelopment occurs.
Crosswalks:
181. Need Pine and Jefferson Cross Walks. Tie in Rodizio.
182. Yes to enhancing Remington/Olive crosswalks leading to downtown.
Important corner.
Jefferson Streetscape:
183. Not my top priority. What does this redesign do to truck traffic?
Old Town Square Lighting Renovation:
184. #2 Priority.
185. Make this continuous down to Jefferson along Linden Street. (Overlaps with
Linden Street Lighting Renovation project idea.)
186. Only do this if it’s in context with square renovation plan that we’re sure
of.
Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations :
187. Why don’t we put bathrooms in parking garages?
Public Restrooms Funding :
188. More, smaller facilities. Consider off-the-shelf facilities that come with
complete systems like in Europe and big cities.
189. Yes! #1.
190. Better signage on existing restrooms.
Downtown GID Public Comments Continued
13
191. Improvement of bathrooms and signage needed. Also, make them safer to
use.
192. YES.
Sidewalks, curbs and gutter replacement :
193. No.
194. No.
195. Partner with City General Fund.
Parking Facilities Improvements and Renovations :
196. Why don’t we put bathrooms in parking garages?
Downtown
General Improvement District No. 1
Capital Improvements History
Previous List of Projects (1994)
In 1992, a public process affirmed support for continuation of the GID, following the final
payment on bonds that financed the original 1977 package of GID improvements. The
continuation of the GID included development of a list of potential projects. The list was last
updated in 1994 (see below), and since then, most of the projects have been completed.
List and Status of “Future GID Capital Projects” from 1994:
Project Status
1. Paver Replacement, Oak /College intersection
east side.
Completed, 1996.
2. Laporte/College intersection streetscape. Completed, 2001.
3. Paver Replacement, Mountain/College
intersection.
Completed, 2001.
4. Mulberry/College intersection streetscape
(west side of College).
Not Completed. Carried forward as a potential
future project in 2011 CIP.*
5. North College streetscape, Laporte Avenue to
the river.
Completed, 2004.
6. Paver replacement, bus shelter and fountain
improvements, west side of Oak/College
intersection.
Completed, 2006.
7. Downtown Signage. Not Completed. Design work underway;
proposed for installation in 2011.
* This project has not proceeded toward completion because it is related to concepts for redevelopment on the
adjacent “Wells Fargo” block. Ideally, this project would be done in partnership with redevelopment, and it has
not made sense to proceed while redevelopment ideas were being explored.
Several of the completed projects involving paver replacement at intersections were done as a
package, which also included paver replacement at the Olive/College intersection in addition
to projects on the list. The paver replacement projects included related renovations of
irrigation, drainage, and benches.
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
ATTACHMENT 4
Downtown
General Improvement District #1
Original Purposes, As Stated in the
Founding Ordinance and Resolutions
A few key paragraphs in the founding Ordinance and related City Council
Resolutions address the purposes of General Improvement District #1:
Resolution 76‐63, 1976
“…the City Council hereby declares its intent to form a local improvement district for the purpose of
improving the visual appearance of streets and other public ways and to make such streets and other
public ways better accommodate pedestrians and vehicular traffic within the district, such
improvements to include generally construction and reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and
streets, installation of planters and landscaping, installation of street furniture, installation of plazas,
installation of light signalization for traffic and other allied improvements and for the purpose of
acquiring property and constructing parking facilities thereon to serve the area…”
Ordinance No. 77, 1976
“…to create a general improvement district within the City, for the purpose of acquiring property and
constructing parking facilities thereon, and constructing and installing other street beautification
improvements, all as particularly set forth in…[Resolution 76‐63].”
Resolution 92‐37, 1992
“…to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the Existing Improvements and the costs of
constructing, installing and operating other improvements and works of the GID …so long as such
improvements are within the purposes for which the GID was created and organized as described in
Ordinance No. 77. 1976”
“…to fund the cost of operating and maintaining the Existing Improvements, constructing extensions
and betterments thereto, and constructing installing and operating such additional improvements as
may be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors.”
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
MEMORANDUM
DT: August 9, 2011
TO: General Improvement District #1 Board of Directors
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning and Transportation Services
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FM: Clark Mapes, City Planner
RE: August 9 City Council Work Session Summary –
Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvements Plan
Councilmembers present: Mayor Weitkunat, Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, Wade Troxell, Aislinn
Kottwitz, Gerry Horak, Ben Manvel.
Staff present: Joe Frank, Clark Mapes, Matt Robenalt.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
• Does the Board have any questions, comments, or ideas about potential projects and
priorities?
• Does the Board need any additional information for the adoption hearing on October 18?
Summary of discussion:
Council had general comments and questions about the approach to the GID, and specific
comments and questions about individual projects.
General comments and questions:
The GID should not fund projects that would otherwise be the responsibility of the City
or other funding source.
Questions about the original purpose of the GID were discussed. Projects should
continue to reflect original purposes of beautification, pedestrian, and parking
improvements.
ATTACHMENT 6
Staff answered questions about the stated purposes in founding documents. There is wide
latitude in the purposes. The purposes noted above are to “enhance the Downtown as a
business and commercial area”; and in addition to the purposes noted above, operations
and maintenance of improvements are allowed, along with “other improvements as may
subsequently be approved by the Board”.
Council will need to see staff recommendations for the project list, and not just results of
public outreach.
Council needs more explanation of costs and funding, and how listed projects relate to
revenue projections.
The question of expansion northward to Cherry Street was discussed, with the idea of
linkages to the new museum in mind.
The question of expanding south toward CSU, similar to the DDA, was raised.
Specific comments and questions:
Public restrooms need better signage or other wayfinding.
Council expressed support for keeping a reserve for unforeseen projects.
Mulberry/College intersection gateway improvements may involve so much work that
they may not be the best choice for limited funds.
Follow up items:
Council noted the need for further analysis of needs regarding public restrooms.
Crosswalks are an increasing issue. Council requested any information that may be
available to provide context for crosswalk improvements, i.e., previous lists, known
priorities, or other efforts by the City.
Next steps include development of staff recommendations and clarification of how to use
the cost magnitude shown for potential projects on the list.
1
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
1
THE THE GID GID
2
North
ATTACHMENT 7
2
33
4
3
55
66
4
77
88
5
9
Annual Revenues about $300,000
15-Year Projection $5-6 million
Annual Revenues about $300,000
15-Year Projection $5-6 million
THE THE GID: GID: MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE
10
DOWNTOWN GID
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
DOWNTOWN GID
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
10
• Guide Staff Work
• Framework for Decisions
• NOT a commitment or obligation
• Guide Staff Work
• Framework for Decisions
• NOT a commitment or obligation
6
11
PROCESS PROCESS
► Mailings to all 900 property owners
► Two Open Houses (June and September)
► Downtown Business Association (DBA) and
Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
►City Council Worksession (August)
► Mailings to all 900 property owners
► Two Open Houses (June and September)
► Downtown Business Association (DBA) and
Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
►City Council Worksession (August)
12
POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST
7
13
POTENTIAL PROJECTS LIST
14
► Budgets
► Coordination with City departments and DDA
► Funding scenarios with DDA
► Scope, conceptual design, and cost
estimates for each project.
► Funding and timing scenarios for the list
IF IF APPROVED: APPROVED:
8
15
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ACTION REQUESTED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ACTION REQUESTED
Resolution 022
Adopting the General Improvement District
#1 Capital Improvements Plan
Resolution 022
Adopting the General Improvement District
#1 Capital Improvements Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 022
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”)
has been duly formed and organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the
statutes of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, in 1994, a list of capital improvement projects was identified, most of which
are now complete or underway; and
WHEREAS, City staff has been working on a new capital improvements plan for the
GID to identify potential future projects and priorities for the GID; and
WHEREAS, the content of the plan was developed by staff with input and guidance from
City Council and after public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the General Improvement District
No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan, dated October 12, 2011, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk and available for public inspection, and which is incorporated herein by this
reference (the “GID No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan”) is in the best interests of the GID as it will
provide a guide and framework for using GID revenue to best serve the needs of the district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement
District No. 1, that the General Improvement District No. 1 Capital Improvements Plan is hereby
approved and adopted.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fort Collins
General Improvement District No. 1, this 1st day of November A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2011
STAFF: Clark Mapes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 5
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District Fund
for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, appropriates $500,000 from the General
Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign
System. Schematic design of a sign system was done in 2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward
implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and construction details,
and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop.
Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs,
with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those costs. Installation will occur in 2012.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: October 18, 2011
STAFF: Clark Mapes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 5
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Improvement District fund for
the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $500,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 (GID No. 1) Fund Balance for
fabrication and installation of a Downtown Wayfinding Sign System. Schematic design of a sign system was done in
2009, and this appropriation is the next step toward implementation. The appropriation will be used to hire a sign
company to develop final design and construction details, and then fabricate and install signs, in collaboration and
coordination with the City’s Traffic Operations sign shop. Depending on final design decisions, the City’s sign shop
may prove able to fabricate and install some of the signs, with some of the appropriated funds used to cover those
costs. Installation will occur in 2012.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A memorandum to City Council dated September 20, 2011, introduced this item (Attachment 1).
A customized Downtown Wayfinding Sign System has been listed as a potential project for GID No. 1 funding since
the early 1990’s. It is the last project to be executed under a list of GID capital improvement projects approved by City
Council in 1994. A sign system is also recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan and the 2004 Downtown Strategic
Plan; and is part of recommendations in a 2008 report by UniverCity Connections.
The appropriation will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual,
which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009. The manual spells out parameters for a new sign system
and a new staff team to administer the system. It may be found online at
http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/downtown-sign-system-doc.pdf.
Objectives of the sign system are to:
• Build awareness of downtown by announcing its presence along main thoroughfares.
• Lead visitors to main entries and clarify the entrance and arrival sequence.
• Help visitors locate public parking garages and lots, and make the garages more user-friendly, to reduce
common anxieties about public garages.
• Help visitors navigate the area and find destinations easily, in cars or on bikes, and then on foot once parked.
• Build awareness of attractions in and around downtown by highlighting key destinations that may not be
immediately obvious.
• Add a sense of welcome in support of the overall image.
• Enhance the perception of downtown as an interesting and desirable place with distinctive, helpful graphics.
• As much as possible, allow for flexibility and updating of signs.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The appropriation of $500,000 for this project is from the GID No. 1 Fund reserve balance, which is projected to be
$818,000 at the end of 2011.
Installation of the sign system will create the need for ongoing annual maintenance and administration by a staff team.
The cost of this will be determined as part of final design, but a conceptual estimate in approximately $5,000 per year
for materials. The division of responsibility for ongoing funding between the City General Fund and GID No. 1 will be
determined in annual budget processes.
The system is intended to enhance the Downtown area as a business and commercial area.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The parking signage included in the system is partly intended to reduce trolling for parking in the Downtown -- that is,
the tendency for drivers to drive around looking for parking. The system as a whole is intended to support objectives
for getting vehicles parked efficiently, and encouraging pedestrian use in the Downtown.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A sign system has consistently been a prominent, highly supported project in extensive public participation in the
following planning efforts:
The 1989 Downtown Plan.
The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan.
The 2008 UniverCity Connections Transit and Mobility Task Group Report.
The 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign System Schematic Design Manual.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Memorandum, September 20, 2011
2. Powerpoint Presentation
ORDINANCE NO. 062
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1, APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND FOR THE
DOWNTOWN WAYFINDING SIGN SYSTEM PROJECT
WHEREAS, City of Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 (the “GID”) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, has been duly organized in accordance with the ordinances of the City and the
statutes of the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council, acting ex-officio as the Board of Directors
of the GID, to appropriate $500,000 for the Downtown Wayfinding Sign System Project (“the
Project”); and
WHEREAS, a wayfinding sign system has been included on the GID project lists since the
early 1990's and was recommended in the 1989 Downtown Plan, the 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan,
and in the 2008 UniverCity Connections report; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the sign system is to help visitors better navigate the area, easily
locate public parking facilities, increase awareness of Downtown attractions, and to enhance public
perception of the Downtown as a distinct place; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to hire a sign company to develop final design and
construction details, and to fund fabrication and installation of the signs; and
WHEREAS, the GID will collaborate with the City’s Traffic Operations’ Sign Shop, the
Downtown Business Association, and the Downtown Development Authority on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project will implement the 2009 Downtown Fort Collins Wayfinding Sign
System Schematic Design Manual, which was developed in a public process in 2008 and 2009; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, Ex-Officio the Board of Directors of City of Fort Collins General Improvement District
No. 1, that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General
Improvement District No. 1 Fund the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000) for expenditure on the Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
October, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
Passed and adopted on final reading on the1st day of November, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor, Ex Officio President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ex Officio Secretary
IDALIA DR
Y
U
M
A CT
I
D
A
L
I
A CT
RICK DR
SOLAR CT
M
E
R
C
U
R
Y
D
R
W SATURN DR
F
O
S
S
IL CREST DR
E TRILBY RD
E SATURN DR
G
A
L
A
X
Y
CT
E SKYWAY DR
PLATEAU CT
AURORA WAY
LEO CT
OR
I
O
N CT
PLUTO CT
SUNDOWN CT
FL
A
G
L
E
R
RD
General Improvement Skyview South District No. 15
Legend
General Improvement District #15
Parcels 1 inch = 600 feet
ATTACHMENT 2
SAN MIGUEL PA
TRINIDAD
SE COLORADO PA
SPRINGFIELD
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
FORT COLLINS
REA/CO-OP
INVESTOR OWNED
MUNICIPAL
8
Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities Industrial Rate Survey
January 2011 --- Cost for 1,900,000 kWh and 3000 KW per month
$90,827
$101,138
$104,260
$113,626
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
FORT COLLINS 2011
TRI-COUNTY
LONGMONT
LOVELAND
COLORADO SPRINGS
FC Non-Summer 2012
FC Average 2012
FC Summer 2012
XCEL ENERGY
SAN ISABEL
EMPIRE EA
DELTA-MONTROSE EA
LA PLATA
GRAND VALLEY RPL
FOUNTAIN
Y-W ELECTRIC ASSN
SAN LUIS VALLEY REA
MOUNTAIN PARKS EI
GUNNISON COUNTY EA
HIGHLINE EA
HIGH WEST ENERGY
WHITE RIVER EA
UNITED POWER
INTERMOUNTAIN REA
MORGAN COUNTY REA
FREDERICK
FORT MORGAN
BLACK HILLS ENERGY
POUDRE VALLEY EA
YAMPA VALLEY EA
RATON
Cost per Month
FORT COLLINS
MUNICIPAL
REA/CO-OP
INVESTOR OWNED
Industrial
• Second Reading of Service Charges Ordinance
January 1, 2012
• Effective date of the seven Ordinances included in this agenda item summary and for changes in service
charges. (Monthly rate ordinances are effective for billings with meter readings on or after this date.)
February 1, 2012
• Proposed effective date of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance. (Effective for billings with meter
readings on or after this date.)
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rates are projected to increase 2012 annual operating revenues of the Water Fund by 6%, the Wastewater Fund
by 8% and the Light and Power Fund by 8.3%. (The short delay in adopting the RESR increase will slightly reduce the
increase for Light and Power.) The projected revenue from the rate increases is included in the revised 2012 budget
projections. The increases are necessary to fund purchase power, operations and system additions and replacements
and to meet debt service requirements.
The proposed water and wastewater rate ordinances will increase costs for a typical residential customer by $4.47 per
month if such customer’s water use remains unchanged. An additional change to the RESR at a later date will change
time or ongoing?]. This additional funding would allow for more priority pedestrian
improvements to be made in 2012. Examples of the additional projects that could be addressed
Installed pedestrian actuated
rectangular rapid flash beacons
at crosswalk on Laurel at
Sherwood as part of ongoing
efforts to improve pedestrian
safety on Laurel.
2011 Traffic Operations Signal
Maintenance Budget
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Mason Trail pedestrian
signal enhancement at
Redwing/Drake
Installing new signal pole/mast
arm and changing the signal
operation to reduce conflicts
between trail users and
motorists.
Fall
2011 KFCG—Small Projects
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Pedestrian Countdown
Signals at JFK/Harmony
Installed Pedestrian Countdown
Signals and adjusted the
pedestrian signal timing in
response to needs from local
disabled community
2011 Traffic Operations Signal
Maintenance Budget
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Reduced Speed Limit
School Zones
Installed reduced speed limit
school zones with dynamic
speed displays and radar speed
monitors/displays on E.
Elizabeth, Avondale, and
Corbett (Corbett to be done this
fall)
2011 Neighborhood Traffic
Mitigation Program
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
Raised Crosswalk Installed raised crosswalk on
Timber Creek at Sawhill Drive. 2011
Neighborhood Traffic
Mitigation Program
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
(citywide)
ADA Compliant
Accessible Pushbuttons
at Shields/Elizabeth
Installed vibrotactile
pushbuttons for visually
impaired pedestrians at
2011 Traffic Operations Signal
Maintenance Budget
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #4
Off street pedestrian path along
north side of Lincoln from 1st
Street to Odell’s
2011 Federal Grant New Project
Troutman
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Underpass
This project will provide an
east-west connection under the
BNSF tracks
2012-
2013
BOB, KFCG and Federal
Grants
Ped. Plan -
Priority
Rank #8
I 25 SH392 Interchange
construction
This new interchange will add
bike lanes as well as ADA
compliant pedestrian facilities
where none had existed
previously
2011-
2012
Windsor/Fort Collins/State
and Federal
Capital
Project
MAX BRT
The MAX project will construct
significant multi-modal
improvements including a
portion of the Mason bike/ped
trail from Prospect to Laurel;
ADA compliant pedestrian
accessible transit stops and
enhanced bicycle parking
2011-
2014 FTA/CDOT/DDA/City
Capital
Project
LONG (LARIMER VIEW COUNTY OPEN SPACE OS)
MARIPOSA COLINA
NATURAL AREA
• Second Reading of Service Charges Ordinance
January 1, 2012
• Effective date of the seven Ordinances included in this agenda item summary and for changes in service
charges. (Monthly rate ordinances are effective for billings with meter readings on or after this date.)
February 1, 2012
• Proposed effective date of Residential Energy Service Rate Ordinance. (Effective for billings with meter
readings on or after this date.)
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rates are projected to increase 2012 annual operating revenues of the Water Fund by 6%, the Wastewater Fund
by 8% and the Light and Power Fund by 8.3%. (The short delay in adopting the RESR increase will slightly reduce the
increase for Light and Power.) The projected revenue from the rate increases is included in the revised 2012 budget
projections. The increases are necessary to fund purchase power, operations and system additions and replacements
and to meet debt service requirements.
The proposed water and wastewater rate ordinances will increase costs for a typical residential customer by $4.47 per
month if such customer’s water use remains unchanged. An additional change to the RESR at a later date will change
N
DE
R
ST
N HOWES ST
JEFFERSON ST
J
E
R
O
M
E
S
T
MAIN ST
COLORADO ST
HO
F
FM
A
N MI
L
L RD
P
A
S
C
A
L
S
T
WALNUT ST
O
V
A
L
D
R
S SHERWOOD ST
E MOUNTAIN AVE
ENDICOTT ST
11TH ST
SYCAMORE ST
MU
L
L
E
I
N
DR
EAST DR
E LAUREL
S
T
FRONTAGE RD
PINE ST
WOO
D
L
AW
N
DR
LESSER DR
BEL
L
F
L
OWE
R
D
R
WEST DR
OLD MAIN DR
E MAGNOLIA ST
LILAC LN
MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY
PENNOCK PL
MARTINEZ ST
ELM
S
T
TENNEY CT
LINCOLN AVE
LOPEZ CT
EASTDALE DR
TRUJILLO ST
LINDE
N
C
ENTER DR
BAUM ST
S SHERWOOD ST
E LAUREL ST
FRONTAGE RD
N
LEMAY A
V
E
N MASON ST
Downtown Development Authority Boundary Map
Legend
Parcels
Downtown Development Authority Boundary 1 inch = 1,320 feet
.
Amended: April 1, 2008 Printed: 1/20/2011
ATTACHMENT 2